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: JeffA who wrote (108084)	4/9/2009 1:05:59 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541312

Society would not be produced without marriage So why not let gays get married so they can be a part of society? steve

To: JeffA who wrote (108084)	4/9/2009 1:23:28 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541312

Of course there would be a society produced. It would just be different than the kind of society that has marriage- or one on one marriage.

To: JeffA who wrote (108084)	4/9/2009 1:34:25 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541312

I just finished an interesting, although way too academic, book, A History of Private Life-REvelations of the Medieval World- that details marriage and family life in that time (along with every other possible topic). We have come a very long way since then in the way we define marriage and the role of the family. The goal of every estate, headed by the paterfamilias, was to expand, by his own marriage to another estate (woman as property), and by the bringing in and supporting of other men under him, who in their turn increased the population and power of the estate. It was all very businesslike and practical and had nothing to do with "love", not that conjugal love didn't exist at times. We no longer force women into marriages, or treat them as property, or believe that everyone should have a zillion children to increase the power of their family. There is no compelling reason not to go farther in our reassessment of what defines marriage, while allowing that a family unit is still a basic societal building block. The religious right should focus more on keeping families with children intact, rather than worrying about a very small percentage of the population being granted the same rights they already have and have so often abused.