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: tejek who wrote (470440)	4/10/2009 4:33:56 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 1578294

"Otherwise, words do have meaning and that meaning can change over time." Ok even though you said Z was wrong about the issue being an expanded definition, you make that point now. 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. That is the only point presented so far that has any merit. But you have not substantiated it you merely claimed it. With no supporting evidence it doesn't carry water with me. "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." Not s'fast skeeter. If you can show me where I was wrong about this ok, but otherwise I am comfortable with what I have said. Marriage is a term, changing it does not give gays what heteros have other than the identical label. That changes nothing for gays but robs the traditional heteros of their identity (as tied to that term). "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." Precisely but not because another term wouldn't suffice. It is because this term belongs to the traditional heteros and gays don't like that. "Only because you say so. And that's the crux of our disagreement." A rose by any other rose is still a rose. There is more to demanding the term marriage than you admit. It is to provide better opportunities and to tear down one more wall that keeps gays from being equal. You have not made the case that gays do not have opportunity. The evidence is overwhelming that this is a false claim.