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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (470376)	4/10/2009 4:14:36 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577829

"Just as it once identified same race couples. The definition isn't fixed. In fact, its fluid. " I understand that. Even Z came to admit that it was a drive to expand the definition, rather than provide any freedoms or opportunities. Then Z is wrong. It is to provide better opportunities and to tear down one more wall that keeps gays from being equal. "No it isn't. You are setting up a definition that excludes certain people. That's discrimination in a democracy. No it isn't. Words have meanings and the meanings of all words set the parameters for what is included and what is excluded by the definition. As I pointed out to Z shooting a gun isn't finger painting. Although you could change the definition of shooting to include that. We shoot paint balls we could work something out for the finger paint inclusion. You analogy is pure babble. You are saying nothing of consequence in terms of the issue at hand. Otherwise, words do have meaning and that meaning can change over time. However its not discrimination to apply word definitions. We have definitions. Especially when no freedoms are restricted no opportunities are denied, equal access exists and no one is being segregated. That would be true if civil unions were the equal of marriage but they are not. Consequently, gays are secondary citizens when their marriages are defined as civil unions. "No, you took it one step further and added specificity to that meaning. You got into societal and cultural issues. The term marriage has always involved society and culture in a specific way. If there were no community that needed to recognize and respect the type of bond being made the term itself would be pointless. That you admit you were wrong when you criticized my inclusion of societal and cultural issues. "United as in a legally sanctioned marriage. Yes of course. That is only fair, just as in legally sanctioned marriage. But a legally sanctioned marriage is between a man and a woman, and that is not what we are talking about. A legally sanctioned marriage currently is defined by most but not all states as a union between a man and woman. Gays are working to change that definition. So it is fair to provide some term that is applicable in the alternative case. I see nothing wrong with civil union but if you think that an odd term, there are unlimited number of others that would be applicable. Marriage isn't though. Only because you say so. And that's the crux of our disagreement. Please let me know asap if you spot any spelling errors. I will. You do misspell words from time to time. Your mispelling of faux pas was too major to ignore.