Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (53137)	11/7/2006 1:00:16 PM
From: Ichy Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Hi Brumar In order of foolishness...... 3) I think gay marriage proponents intend down the line to use gays as a club against traditional religious teachings - denoucing the Bible as hate literature, attacking churches tax exemptions, charitable deductions, use of public property (banning for example the use of parks for church picnics) etc. Just as the Boy Scouts are being targeted for not allowing an unmarried young gay guy to be a scoutmaster. Why should Churches or other religious organizations be income or property tax exempt, or donations be considered for charitable deductions. How, except from personal ideology, is a church any different that the golf club? I can certainly see churches using any public park for picnics as long as they pay the same fee everyone else does, why not? If a Gay young man grows up in the Boy Scouts, and becomes a leader just like all his friends, why should he not be accorded the same rights? 2) Changing the traditional definition of marriage opens a door wide to polygamy, group marriage, and down the slippery slope, trans-species and child marriage. Most supporters of gay marriage acknowledge this and display hostility to the institution of marraige (that's one of the reasons they like the idea - they know its a mockery of the institution), though hypocritically they don't act on their beliefs and renounce their own marriages So let us do away with any legal rights for marriage and make it a totally religious institution. Other than while there are young children in the home, there really is no reason that married couples cannot pay for any costs as it they were both single. Why should some people's lives be supported on the backs of everyone else? Certainly when people are bringing up children they need societies help, but once the children are in school all day, there is no reason that wives cannot financially contribute. So a family rate for things like health care should be 2 singles and a discount for the kids.... As for down that slippery slope, I think most of those people will be heterosexuals, and well it really is their business, but by dropping any financial benefits from marriage, it won't be quite as appealing now will it? and lastly It's bogus because most gay people don't have any desire to marry - I base that on public expressions I've heard. Most gay people who "want" to marry have no intention of observing marriage the same way the majority does - that is by being faithful to a partner. Gay marriage would lead to large numbers of sham marriages for the sake of insurance/retirement benefits - in fact most gay marriages would be sham marriages. More sham than the institution that brings us women's shelters and children's aid societies and courts chasing people to fulfill their obligations to their families, and skyrocketting divorce rates and child porn and married men sneaking around to prostitutes of both genders and priests molesting children and, well you get my drift. Frankly marriage is an expensive hobby and is costing us millions to finance because of the shady character of the people involved. Far better to get rid of it. Our society is only now learning to deal with spousal abuse, it is costing us a fortune to deal with the present fruits of marriage, can adding to the base actually do that much harm. The statistics for marriage will improve, gay partners don't beat each other at least in a rage they don't, so no increase in women's shelters, and if they stay together it may reduce the divorce stats. And at least in some places children will see rational examples of human life and not the wretched parodies played out in many homes.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (53137)	11/7/2006 6:23:25 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

>>1) It's a primarily bogus issue affecting a tiny sliver of society, most of whom really just want to game the system and extend spousal insurance/retirement benefits to a good friend/lover. It's bogus because most gay people don't have any desire to marry - I base that on public expressions I've heard. Most gay people who "want" to marry have no intention of observing marriage the same way the majority does - that is by being faithful to a partner. Gay marriage would lead to large numbers of sham marriages for the sake of insurance/retirement benefits - in fact most gay marriages would be sham marriages. 2) Changing the traditional definition of marriage opens a door wide to polygamy, group marriage, and down the slippery slope, trans-species and child marriage. Most supporters of gay marriage acknowledge this and display hostility to the institution of marraige (that's one of the reasons they like the idea - they know its a mockery of the institution), though hypocritically they don't act on their beliefs and renounce their own marriages. 3) I think gay marriage proponents intend down the line to use gays as a club against traditional religious teachings - denoucing the Bible as hate literature, attacking churches tax exemptions, charitable deductions, use of public property (banning for example the use of parks for church picnics) etc. Just as the Boy Scouts are being targeted for not allowing an unmarried young gay guy to be a scoutmaster.<< Brumar - 1) I have heard many public and private expressions from gay and lesbian couples who are deeply committed to one another and who are and intend to remain monogamous. Yes, they would like to have the same civil privileges as straight couples have, including insurance, the ability to visit one another in the hospital if one should be gravely ill, etc. But that doesn't mean their marriages would be a sham. 2) That is a real red herring. Nobody is proposing anything of the kind. Your statement about how "most supporters of gay marriage" think about the institution of marriage is based on what? I refer you to my first point. 3) I submit that you have no way of knowing what the intentions of proponents of gay marriage may be. Most people I know who support it have a "live and let live" philosophy. I don't object to people believing in whatever God or Gods they want to believe in, nor to them worshiping however they see fit to worship. I just object to people claiming that their specific religious views should be the basis for laws. - Allen