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 (149844)	12/12/2008 3:42:17 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"And you're questioning my logic? You think a basic right of man applies to a chimp? A chimp is a man? Will you also argue that if "all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights" applies to gays, it may as well apply to chimps as well? Your interpretation of my comment is flawed. I did not say a basic right of man applies to a chimp. I said, if you are going to claim it applies to all men without restriction as a civil right, then you have a problem keeping it from zoophiliacs (which are not chimps, but men). Did you spin that on purpose or did you make a mistake? I questioned your logic on this but more importantly, I challenged you to prove your allegation of persecution, which I doubt you can.

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (149844)	12/12/2008 3:50:54 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 173976

The argument is getting messy so lets try to clarify and focus some points you are logging. 1) Marriage is a basic civil right of man. 2) You've alleged denial of this right to gays is discrimination. 3) Also allegations that denial of this right is persecution. 4) This marriage right should be extended to same sexes as a basic right. 5) Marriage has historically been defined as a heterosexual union. You have used the Surpreme Court to establish the context of marriage as a basic civil right. There is a religious tangent that you and Brumar are traveling. You have tried unsuccessfully to show discrimination and persecution as a justification for changing the definition. You continue to argue the extended definition but you have no way to explain why or how such a definition is rightfully extended to gays when there are other human beings living some alternative life style, or desiring to do so that would not be included in this basic right.