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: Katelew who wrote (94804)	11/8/2008 1:28:21 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541414

think all the shareholders and employees of Enron and Lehman would disagree. As would anyone who was conned and had legal recourse available to them. As would someone dying of AIDS from a blood transfusion. But they are not considered victims until actions are taken that violate the intentions of the agreement and redefine the terms. It isn't the contract that created the victim. Corruption, malfeasance, carelessness that leads to death, these create victims from actions beyond the accepted terms of the agreement, which often includes the violation of trust. Marriage has no victim until someone violates the terms of it. Even Dr Laura says divorce is ok if you are abused, or your spouse violates the trust.

To: Katelew who wrote (94804)	11/8/2008 3:22:21 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541414

The discussion started with gay marriage and a lament by Rambi that religion was an issue in the voting. So sexual sins seemed the only thing appropriate to bring up in this context. Funny. When I think of gay marriage, I think of trips to Crate and Barrel and a golden retriever and/or a couple of ankle biters around a kitchen table, not sex. As with heterosexuals, sex happens in gay relationships just fine independent of marriage. What differentiates unmarried gay couples from married gay couples is the family commitment, not sex. Yet when you hear marriage, you think sex, something they had been doing all along. That seems odd to me. As would someone dying of AIDS from a blood transfusion. No one enters into an agreement to receive an infected transfusion. But if one did, he would have gotten what he agreed to and would not be a victim. It's not a matter of wrong or right. I knew I should have edited that word! I almost never use it and I started to change it but there were too many subtle differences among the other choices. Let me rephrase belatedly. What do you find deficient in the frames I offered?