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: J.B.C. who wrote (111986)	5/26/2009 6:58:59 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541558

>>Actually equality exists now. Any consenting adult male can marry a consenting adult female.<< JBC - Sure. That works for you. If the law said that only consenting people of the same sex could marry, that would be the same kind of equality. Would that be OK with you? You could also argue that laws restricting marriage between people of different races did not constitute unequal treatment under the law, because they applied equally to people of all races. Any white male could marry any white female, any black man could marry any black woman, etc. True equal treatment requires that any consenting adult should be able to marry any other consenting adult, as long as they are both otherwise unencumbered and meet whatever the other basic requirements are. - Allen

To: J.B.C. who wrote (111986)	5/26/2009 11:20:15 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541558

That would be like giving you the freedom, in a homosexual universe, to marry any adult male you wanted to. My guess is you wouldn't find such freedom all that liberating. I recognize that some people find it absolutely impossible to imagine themselves in other people's shoes, when the shoes are really different, but that lack of imagination doesn't make the situation here any more equitable. Giving someone an option they cannot take advantage of because it is alien to their nature is basically giving them no option. It's even worse to pretend it's an option. The honest thing to say would be "Screw them- they're different and they shouldn't have the same rights." Doesn't make honest pretty, or fair, or legal, but it's better than the alternative dishonesty.

To: J.B.C. who wrote (111986)	5/27/2009 8:28:24 AM
From: Travis_Bickle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541558

I think most people would agree that one of the purposes in getting married is that it makes the spouses happier than if they had not married (often turns out not to be the case but that's life). There is no way in hell that a homosexual and a heterosexual are going to be happier if they marry (assuming the marriage is not a sham). By denying the homosexual of the right to marry you are denying him or her the happiness that is associated with it. The only possible reason for this denial is pure spite. If the American people want to go down that road then imo I should have the opportunity to pick random strangers and beat them with a stick, it's only fair.