SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (149875)12/12/2008 11:14:31 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
You just contradicted yourself, and I've no idea why. You graciously recognized my position as one in which I have no problem with gay couples uniting and having equal rights, which btw is the current status quo.

Then you made an off the wall and unfounded allegation.

"Will the building blocks of society come crumbling down because of semantics?

Not alone but certainly the semantics of common understandings for a conceptual frame work which defines a society is important for societal stickyness.

Aren't you afraid that if gays are granted civil unions, soon a man and a monkey will be granted a civil union?

No, and that should be obvious from the context of this lengthy discussion. It's just a weird out of the blue dart for you to throw. Perhaps you were throwing darts in the Friday afternoon spirit of the tavern and just felt you had to fling one my way, who knows. It was, however, way off target.

why is the institution of marriage important to a society at all?

Let's rephrase that question.


You rephrased it and made a ridiculous assertion to go along with your rephrasing. The only problem is in attributing that ridiculousness to others.

The question I posed is the right question to be asking and I justified the question in the post from which it sprang. It is a more important issue than who gets hooked up legally. Why are you avoiding it?