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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (76773)	7/27/2008 11:24:56 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 543108

Perhaps you really can't see this, but your desire not to cover people who insurance would not otherwise cover, is your desire to deny people the rights you enjoy because they are different than you are. Extending the right of marriage to a gay man to marry a woman is to effectively deny him the right of marriage- just as to extend the right of marriage to you, if marriage was only defined as marrying a man, would essentially deny you the right of marriage- unless you wanted some asexual union that was a sham. That is what is at issue in gay rights. No one wants to give gay people more rights (no one that I know of, anyway.) All the other side wants is to let gay people have the same opportunities that straight people have- the opportunity to marry someone they love; the opportunity to work free of harassment; the opportunity to be who they are without victimization. Everyone always brings up the pedophile thing. There are more children molested by heterosexuals, and heterosexuals can marry (witness the weird splinter group LDS scandal with the minors.) It is our laws protecting MINORS that protect minor children. Allowing gay men and women to marry is a completely different issue. Conflating the issues is just an example of prejudice, and not even very fact based, considering the huge number of men who pray on little girls- and even little girls in their own heterosexual families.

To: ManyMoose who wrote (76773)	7/27/2008 11:36:00 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543108

See, where does this stop? It stops where we decide it stops. And where you could have stopped is: Personally, I have no objection to people of the same sex marrying each other if that is what they want to do. That was the question. And if that is true, then not allowing them to marry is a form of discrimination. The rest was an extremist extrapolation that has nothing to do with the question. Pedophilia and bigamy are illegal. There is no reason to think that will change, especially with regard to pedophilia. Making pedophilia some kind of natural progressive result of allowing adults to marry is completely illogical. I know no liberal who would consider that a desirable or even possible outcome. If you believe that consenting adults should be allowed equal rights, then you work for that right, and work against anything that goes in a different direction. The rest is just fearmongering.

To: ManyMoose who wrote (76773)	7/27/2008 3:14:57 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543108

MM, I'm going to take that insurance response as a complete contradiction to your statement that you have no problem with homosexual marriage. The insurance illustration is beyond silly since it could equally well apply to heterosexual relations. Moreover, the boundary illustrations, where to put them, makes clear that you have a serious problem with gays and lesbians periods. To make those comparisons is simply ludicruous. I had hoped we would have a serious conversation. And other conversations you have had on this thread have been so. But this one is definitely not so.