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: Cogito who wrote (77296)	7/31/2008 9:28:29 AM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543150

My value system puts a lot of worth on marriage, the commitment thereof, the necessity for properly raising children, and so forth. I see it as an institution between a man and a woman, and support society's system for maintaining it as such. Gay marriage sort of gives me the creeps, but I do withdraw my objection in that it's between consenting adults and that it's none of my business. I do hope that a relaxed policy toward gay marriage will not encourage active promotion of it as a lifestyle choice that should be encouraged by society in general. I think it should be tolerated and left in peace, not promoted, especially where children are involved. I do think the generalized opposition to gay marriage does have a rational basis, in that marriage is an ancient cultural, religious, and moral institution patterned after biological necessity, designed to promote human social stability, child-rearing, and so forth. Yes, gays can do this too, provided that they adopt similar principles of commitment. The weird culture that we sometimes see in pictures of gay rights parades in San Francisco does NOT cut it. In places where gay marriage is permitted, it should come with the same legal privileges AND RESPONSIBILITIES as heterosexual marriage. When AIDS first broke out there was talk that it was proof of God's prohibition of gay behavior. I do not believe that. It's just a disease, and I saw news yesterday that scientists have found an Achilles Heel for the virus that may end it forever. I hope that is the case. I do, however, resent that AIDS was introduced to this country by gays, spread by gays, and inflicted on the entire population by gays who refused to modify their behavior after the means to prevent it became well-known. I resent that untold fortunes are being spent to defeat this preventable disease, more than is being spent to defeat diseases in which the victims are blameless. I don't wish to debate my feelings about this. They are what they are. I'm not taking any action about them, and I don't expect to be criticized for them.

To: Cogito who wrote (77296)	7/31/2008 7:23:07 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 543150

I believe in equal treatment by the government. But equal treatment isn't such a simple concept. The classic example of a law banning begging on the streets, treating the rich and poor equally, is a real one, they are treated equally by the law. In a strict technical sense the law does provide equal treatment here since a gay or straight man can marry a woman, and a gay or straight woman can marry a man. But it can be argued in both the begging case, and perhaps more so on the gay marriage case, that strict identical treatment doesn't necessarily effectively treat people equally. I think in the gay marriage case there is a pretty solid argument to be made along those lines, OTOH I'm wary of that whole type of argument because once you get beyond identical treatment being equal treatment under the law, and require treatment that is somehow effectively equal, then how you frame the debate decides what is equal treatment, there isn't any objective standard any more. As a matter of politics and legislation, there doesn't have to be some form of objective standard. If the people support the idea to a sufficent extent they will pass it, and I can't see any constitutional issue with it, it would become law. Traditionally our culture has not considered such a relationship to be a marriage, but cultures, and peoples opinions about, and laws based off of, cultural concerns change over time. And that change is often (although not always) for the better. Perhaps one thing that will (and to an extent has) changed is people's understanding about what a marriage is. But as a matter of judicial declaration that such marriages/"marriages" (quotes or not depending on you think the relationships are properly defined as marriages) are an absolute constitutional right, well if your going to do that than I think you should need a more objective standard, and one clearly backed up by the constitution. If the constitution and/or existing law doesn't clearly and unequivocally demand such a change than it should be an issue where culture and politics can evolve over time and settle out at some point, rather than one where a court should impose its solution. (Its complicated a bit by the fact that much of the action is on the state level and the states have different constitutions of their own in addition to the federal one, but I'm making a general analysis, not one for any particular state or group of states)