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: Cogito who wrote (108174)	4/10/2009 10:12:21 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541370

Allen - I enjoy your thoughtful responses, and appreciate you putting them together, even though I rarely agree with them and at times don't respond. The one you penned in response to who wrote Obama's book was particularly well argued. Sometimes, I lack the energy or motivation to respond. Just wanted to say I read them all... Unless the thread has moved on significantly to another topic, I plan on writing a rather long winded post regarding the "gay gene" and how it plays a part in this debate. In the meantime, have a great weekend.... Mike

To: Cogito who wrote (108174)	4/13/2009 8:25:09 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541370

Asserting that homosexuals should have the same civil rights as everyone else is, therefore, simply expressing a deep moral value. The people who argue against recognition of and benefits for homosexual marriages are often expressing a moral belief, but that hardly means you have to agree or the law has to follow their belief. Also saying its expressing a moral belief doesn't mean that it isn't also expressing a political agenda. When your fighting for having the political system follow one moral belief or another than you are expressing a political agenda. The racial civil rights fight was also a political agenda. There is nothing inherently wrong with having or expressing a political agenda. Technically homosexuals do have that same civil rights in this area. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are both free to marry someone of the opposite sex but not of the same sex. This technical equality might not be useful to homosexuals or produce equal or fair or arguably even reasonable results, but it is a case of the same civil rights. OTOH a good counter argument could be made based on the fact that if the law said that only marriage between people who are the same sex would be recognized and supported by the government; that would also be the law treating homosexuals and heterosexuals in an identical fashion. Identical treatment isn't enough by itself to conclude that you have a good legal setup in the area in question. I don't think their are reasonable constitutional issues (at least not federal constitutional issues) that would mandate or preclude recognition of same sex marriages, so I think it should be up to the political process, both within the states (for most purposes), and on the federal level (treatment under federal programs and taxes). Probably on the state level first, If the issue gets settled the same way for a solid majority of states I could see the federal system eventually going along with that determination.