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: TimF who wrote (112162)	5/29/2009 1:16:13 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541648

Tim, it's not about "equal rights," it's about fundamental rights. As an example, if the legislature decided that there were too many unmarried older women and enacted a law that allowed men and women to marry only when the woman was 5 years or more older than the man, would that be, according to your thesis, equal? Maybe, but one things for certain, it would not be viewed as constitutionally defensible. The courts have made it very clear that the legislature cannot interfere in matters that are considered critical to our pursuit of happiness unless there is a compelling state interest, and with something as fundamental as the decision to love, enter into a state sanctioned binding legal relationship and live with the woman or man of our choice the age issue would clearly not rise to the level of a compelling state interest. So when the same question is asked with respect to a woman/woman or man/man who wish to love, enter into a state sanctioned binding legal relationship and live with the person of their choice, what's the compelling state interest that would allow the state to afford them less of a shot at the pursuit of happiness? There's a lot of hysterical babbeling about protecting the sanctity of marriage but the fact is that no one has a credible answer to that question. It's too bad judges now get elected and recalled, if not they might have had the guts to accord homosexuals the right to marry. In the end it won't matter, there are too many gays out of the closet, they have too many families and friends and the young people of America see the right and wrong of it and soon their legislators will see the need for a "change of heart." Ed

To: TimF who wrote (112162)	5/29/2009 1:26:33 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541648

<<<The law isn't different for the homosexual. Its equal because its identical. X=X. It might not be fair, some would also consider it unreasonable, but its not just vaguely equal its exactly equal. >>> That is right. X=X. But X=X only when X is identical to X. What is wrong with your logic throughout all your logic (what you post on SI) is that you are trying to prove that X=Y. In mathematics X=Y when you can prove the the numerical value of X is equal to the numerical value of Y. Throughout your thought process on SI is that you are trying to prove X=Y when X, say, is equal to several pages of opinion and you, with absolute certainty declare that it is equal in value to Y representing, say, fair treatment to, let just say, a disadvantaged population. Your logic is flawed.

To: TimF who wrote (112162)	5/29/2009 2:39:42 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541648

That doesn't mean that marijuana users are denied equal treatment under the law. Marijuana users aren't a class of citizens, an identity group. Marijuana use is an activity like watching football, reading, or playing chess. There's no equal protection for playing chess. I don't see how your analogy is relevant. The law doesn't concern itself with love, or with sexual orientation. The law concerns itself with a contract, specifically the marriage partnership between consenting adults. On what basis do people choose marriage partners? Love, money, family arrangement, sexual attraction, complimentary services, companionship, etc. You're right. The law doesn't get into that. The law doesn't care if you're marrying an heiress to get control of the family fortune, a beauty queen to get into her pants, or a homeless mother because you feel sorry for her children. The choice is up to the consenting adult partners. They can choose anyone that meets their needs, whatever they may be. Except for homosexuals. All options that meet their needs are denied them. The law isn't different for the homosexual. Its equal because its identical. You seem to be trying to avoid the essential difference between homosexual and a heterosexual. Homosexuals have no interest in partnering with someone of the opposite sex. Duh! The "equal" ability to do so is of no value to them. If one group gets to choose among all those potential partners who may be of interest and the other group gets to choose only among those potential partners who are of no interest, how is that equal? I appreciate your response but I don't see an effective counter in there anywhere.