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: greenspirit who wrote (108115)	4/10/2009 7:11:52 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 541347

<<<It seems to me no one one really knows with any degree of certainly whether homosexual marriage is a good or a bad thing for society. It's not as if a long term study has been conducted that meets the rigors of sociological research. We have some anecdotal evidence on both sides. We have history as a guide, and we have conjecture based on emotion with a lot of demeaning labels tossed around. >>> You seem to me to have gotten most of that, if not all of that right. However, history has taught us that there are a lot of things we do we not have a lot of answers for and yet we do the best we can going forward. In such instances, there is a tried and proven way to go forward: Nonmaleficence, which derives from the maxim, is one of the principal precepts that all medical students are taught in medical school and is a fundamental principle for emergency medical services around the world. Another way to state it is that "given an existing problem, it may be better to do nothing than to do something that risks causing more harm than good." It reminds the physician and other health care providers that they must consider the possible harm that any intervention might do. It is invoked when debating the use of an intervention that carries an obvious risk of harm but a less certain chance of benefit. Since at least 1860, the phrase has been for physicians a hallowed expression of hope, intention, humility, and recognition that human acts with good intentions may have unwanted consequences. A closely related phrase is "Sometimes the cure is worse than the ill." If the only people that are complaining about gay marriage are people minding other people's business, they should just shut up and get out of the way.

To: greenspirit who wrote (108115)	4/10/2009 10:47:07 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 541347

And the acceptance of homosexual marriage will, in time, worsen the quality of life. You argue against yourself later when you say "It seems to me no one one really knows with any degree of certainly whether homosexual marriage is a good or a bad thing for society". So this first objection is only opinion. We know AIDS is a real danger, especially to men. Aids is a danger to all, but it has nothing to do with allowing gays to marry. In fact, by that logic, allowing gays to marry should decrease the spread of the disease. I don't see why this statement has anything to do with marriage. We know gay couples cannot reproduce. Of course they can. The same way creative infertile couples have-- insemination, surrogates. And even if they can't, so what? We know many childless couples who either can't or have chosen not to reproduce. We don't deny them marriage. And we have a sense that not experiencing the wonders of intimate contact with the opposite sex, can lesson (sic) someones life experience. Opinion. Are you and I missing the wonders of intimate contact with the same sex because we are hetero? I am sure the life experience of gays is filled with love and wonder, especially if we don't shut them off from society by making them feel somehow ashamed, and that they enjoy fullfilling friendships with heteros, just as we can with gays. THe expression and experience of real love isn't dependent on some technical method, but on caring and love for each other as human beings who were created in a wondrous variety of ways.

To: greenspirit who wrote (108115)	4/10/2009 11:32:41 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541347

>>Civil rights was not a political agenda anymore than protecting the traditional family is a political agenda. They are both deep moral values.<< Michael - Asserting that homosexuals should have the same civil rights as everyone else is, therefore, simply expressing a deep moral value. Asserting that people who would deny civil rights to others are "entitled to their beliefs," is like saying that people who didn't think black and white people should be allowed to intermarry were entitled to theirs. It's true, in a way, but it isn't a valid political argument. People are entitled to believe what they want to believe, but they aren't entitled to enshrine their beliefs in laws that deny civil rights to others. - Allen