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: Steve Dietrich who wrote (149612)	12/9/2008 5:35:37 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

I am not sure what about that statement you were not able to get but perhaps I need to back it up a bit for you. ""Cohabitation between a man and a woman of different races was restricted by law but it was shown that miscegenation was not harmful to society or individuals, so relevant laws that would place restrictions on this type of relationship were likewise abandoned." Marriage between people of different races had been restricted by law because people argued that it would do harm to society or to the individuals involved. That argument was shown to be baseless, and the Supreme Court ruled that such marriages were to be legalized. But the 'period' you inserted was a construction of your own. There was/is no inference that this extended beyond the race context under question (between a man and a woman who are otherwise legally entitled to marry). So any restrictions which had been codified into law were abandoned. "All men are created equal with certain unalienable rights. Absolutely. I don't know why you think you need to insert that as I have never suggested otherwise. There is no "harmful to society" standard in the constitution. I disagree. There are many such references although not using that particular verbiage. Further, it is an underlying premise of our laws and culture that society will care for the well being of each individual and visa versa. "That's just a made up construction for someone like you to try and deprive fellow Americans of their unalienable rights." Government sanctioned marriage to whom ever or what ever you want is not an inalienable right.

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (149612)	12/9/2008 5:46:18 PM
From: Bill	Respond to of 173976

But they didn't rule that all marriage was a basic civil right, did they? They didn't rule that a sibling marriage, or a polygamous marriage, or a beastial marriage was a civil right. And in reading that decision, it is clear they didn't rule that gay marriage was a civil right.

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (149612)	12/9/2008 6:08:24 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

One of the first and most basic principles of our government is to provide a system of protection from harm. The constitution is drenched in language to support this principle. Have you never been taught to be aware of harm that could be done and to oppose it? Do you intentionally harm others for your own gain, or do harm for your own pleasure and enjoyment? Has it gotten to the place where you see no harm in doing harm? Do you laugh about it and brag when you succeed at it? Have you suggested teaching children this is a sound moral principle to live by? Consider this: We could be treating each other, and the earth with greater respect and compassion. We can increase kindness and decrease suffering if that is our guiding principle. But it is only when individuals band together on such a foundation that societies move in a particular direction.