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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (146492)	11/8/2008 2:18:59 PM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 173976

Mark Steyn The Corner I must say I thought this guy's sign was pretty funny: <<< Daniel Ginnes carried a banner declaring: "No More Mr Nice Gay." >>> But some of these other post-Prop 8 ructions are surreal: <<< Unfortunately the "blame the blacks" meme is being commonly accepted by some so-called "progressive" gay activists. A number of Rod 2.0 and Jasmyne Cannick readers report being subjected to taunts, threats and racist abuse... Geoffrey was called the n-word at least twice. It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NGGER, one man shouted at me. If your people want to call me a FGGOT, I will call you a ngger... A young WeHo clone said after last night the nggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them. >>> The media were warning that if the election went the wrong way there'd be riots, but I didn't realize they meant Klansmen in Abercrombie polos roaming West Hollywood itching for a rumble. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (146492)	11/8/2008 2:32:42 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 173976

it is a bond between consenting adults Of course, both parties consented when they were married and both made a lifetime pact. So why if its a right, can it be terminated w/o the approval of both? Such would violate the right of one of the parties. incest is outlawed for reasons of health (mental, as most incest relations are abusive). Poly marriages should be allowed, imo, though we need to be careful that they are not abusive like some of the recent polygamist cases. Most polygamous marriages are abusive too. Look at the underage girls being married off in the polygamous cult in the news recently. Women usually aren't even allowed to drive cars in such cults ... just like in SA where polygamy is practiced too. Getting back to incest ... would you ban same-sex incestuous marriages? Or incestuous marraiges where one or both parties are beyond child-bearing years? No health problem there is there? And why shouldn't such marriages be made and recognized? You say next marriage is all about the benefits to be gotten, Marriage incurs a legal benefit that is currently unavailable to homosexuals in committed relationships. That's the whole point of the controversy. So much for gay marraige being so people could be happy and fulfilled as couples. Many of the benefits can be handled via alternate arrangements. So, I guess you're for the rights of bigots to keep people of color out of their establishments. The case you cited was not a case of a doctor being forced to perform a procedure that he or she didn't want to; it was that the doctor cannot discriminate against performing it on someone based on their race, creed, or sexual orientation. It would be akin to a doctor refusing to perform surgery on a homosexual patient - such discrimination is against the law Civil rights laws cover discrimination over race, color, national origin. Sexual orientation isn't covered as far as I know. The case you cited was not a case of a doctor being forced to perform a procedure that he or she didn't want to; it was that the doctor cannot discriminate In the case I cited, no procedure was withheld. Just a matter of who did it. Do you think all surgeons s/b required to perform abortions, sex change operations on demand? Doesn't that defacto amount to religious people not being allowed to be doctors unless they agree to violate their religious beliefs? Maybe observant Jews and Muslims shouldn't be allowed to not practice medicine (or for that matter do any business) unless they agree to perform on their sabbaths and holy days? After all, if a patient can say 'I want THIS doctor and no other to do this procedure', why couldn't they say 'I want the procedure or service on THIS day and no other'?