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: d[-_-]b who wrote (108036)	4/9/2009 1:49:58 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541342

That religious folks believe marriage is between a man and a woman should have nothing to do with the secular laws of a state- even if the majority really really wants to be prejudiced- we wouldn't allow miscegenation laws, and we shouldn't permit discrimination against gay people, just because it is a time honored tradition. Either we are a religious country with religious laws, or we are a country with a separation of church and state. If we are the latter, then bigots in their churches can withhold all the goodies they want to from gay people, but when it comes to state conferred benefits, those should be open to all. There is no other logical way to see it- there are "religious" ways to see it, but those aren't really germane in a secular country. We could, of course, bend to the time honored prejudices of the religious majority, but that's not really what this country should be about, imo. One of the great things about America, and about our constitution, is its protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. I kind of like that about America. Some times it takes a while before we, as Americans, realize our tyranny (or until the courts do, and hold up a beacon for Americans to follow)- but it happens, and in this case, the sooner the better.

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (108036)	4/9/2009 11:10:31 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541342

marriage is primarily a religious institution and that god does not condone gay marriage. Exactly. And no church should be forced to marry a couple when it goes against their doctrine. However, when a church extends beyond its own fences to impose its religious belief on others- as in the case of Mormons and Prop 8- they are going to incur reaction, which sadly may be violent. It isn't as if this is anything new in religions which have regularly decided who gets to do what. PLymouth CHurch of the Brethren won't allow strangers to take Communion, unless they are vouched for by a member, and Catholics can't marry someone who was married in the Church previously and divorced, although they get around that with their liberal use of annulment. (In fact, Newt recently converted to Catholicism by having his second marriage annulled. I am sure his second wife was thrilled to find out she wasn't married all those years.) But the issue isn't about religious doctrine or your side issue of whether a child grows up believing it's perfectly fine for Sally to have two daddies (which it is, and no child will be damaged by hearing this in age-appropriate literature). Do you remember how shocking the first mixed couple shows or commercials were to the prejudiced? Now it's accepted and normal, and no child is being scarred by reading a story that has a black daddy and a white mommy, but boy, it was sure considered the end of civilization when it started. I grew up Catholic in a small Southern town where Catholicism was considered a non-CHristian cult, a secondary, lower class religion, so I experienced some of that sort of 'not good enough' attitude. Some of the fears surrounding JFK's election now seem obviously absurd. (In the Pope we hope). For the most part, this sort of battle is fueled by ignorance and the omnipresent hatred of "the Other", and sometimes the state has to assist in the battle when it is based on that concept and ultimately unconstitutional. Let the churches choose whom they marry, but don't let them dictate outside their membership.

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (108036)	4/9/2009 11:32:45 AM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541342

Other conservatives such as myself who have little use for god, do not care so much that gays do or don't get married - I do however fear the textbooks that will be foisted upon parents of 1st graders that have to acknowledge the various family structures and explain them to their young children. You're kidding right? This is in your heart why you want gays to be treated different? Because you're afraid what might end up in first grade reading books? Keep them in the closet huh? Put the word queer back in those first grade books where it belongs huh? I have an old grade school book that uses the word nig*er - is that the world you want to go back to?