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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (43849)	11/7/2008 9:11:37 PM
From: TARADO96	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

I am a bit more conservative than you when it comes to gay issues. I believe that if a partner pay taxes, then they should be entitled to all benefits derived as if they were legally married, including the very important right to inheritance. However, I have mix feeling regarding ceremonial marriage between homosexuals. I am working on it. <g>

To: koan who wrote (43849)	11/7/2008 10:23:26 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

< I hope so. When it comes to gay marriage, the only ones who should have a say, is the gay community, and I think they want full fledge marriage rights. We do not have a right to tell women waht to do with their boides i.e. pro choice and we have no right to tell the gay community they cannot marry..> These are two different things entirely... why? Because all they are doing is fighting over the definition of a word. Those propositions define a word. The abortion issue if taken from inception decidedly takes rights away from a woman and gives them to (even a) two celled blastomere. This is MUCH different. The "marriage issue" does no such thing... it is a fight over the definition of the word "marriage". That is my whole point... if gay couples (or heterosexual couples who don't want to get "married" for that matter) want the same "rights" in the eyes of the goverment (taxes, insurance, property rights, survivor rights, etc) it would be a lot easier to make sure there are "domestic partnership laws" in place... no one would argue and it would get done much quicker. I'm not saying Gays shouldn't get "married", it's fine with me... I voted against that silly prop here in AZ... what a waste of time...... BUT it's just my observation that apparently the word "marriage" has ancient and emotional connotations and was either invented or usurped at some point by religious groups... like the word "Transubstantiation" was invented by the catholic church. So make a new word to describe what you want instead of changing the one that's out there if it's going to cause a brooo ha ha. I mean really, so a gay couple or person communicates to another human being that he has a "domestic partner" (or some new word) or is "in partnership" versus he communicates that he's "married"... what's the difference????? The difference is actually in THAT PERSONS head... how they feel is their own feelings about the word that is used. JM observation DAK