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 : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (35223)	8/6/2010 5:33:46 PM
From: John	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

I agree, Wayne. Plus, I do not care what modern political correctness suggests. I subscribe to the conventional wisdom that clearly indicates that if a man prefers to have sexual relations with another man rather than a woman, he is mentally ill. Maybe they are born that way, and maybe they cannot help it. I do not know. Regardless, homosexuality is a serious abnormality that has no place open society. I do not think that gays should be beaten up for being gay, but I do think their mental illness should be treated like the abnormality that it is and the corresponding deviant behavior should be confined to their private homes, away from society. I do not want to see "Adam and Steve" kissing in public and I do not want "Adam and Steve" recognized by the government as "husband and husband". They are deviants and they should not be afforded "normal status" recognition, such as marriage, by the government using our tax dollars.

To: Wayners who wrote (35223)	8/6/2010 5:57:52 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 103300

Re: "the definition has not changed in thousands of years." I think that the testimony put before the court established pretty conclusively that the definition of marriage HAS changed a lot through the course of history --- and even during just the relatively short history of American jurisprudence there has been a lot of legal change. 1) Until recent decades interracial marriage was illegal. (So an interracial couple could not be seen as legally married in the eyes of the law or society.) Now it is both legal and fairly common. 2) Just a bit earlier in America the legal concept of marriage was that a woman was "merged" into the man's legal identity. The woman lost all contract rights that she might have had as a single and became legally part of the man's 'estate'. Basically, a form of chattel. Now we have 'no-fault' divorce states, joint custody, equal division of marital assets and like such --- all very different from the legal rules surrounding marriage just a few decades back. 3) Just a bit further back then that, (and throughout most of recorded history all round the world), marriages were not at all about the modern 'Western' concept of love, but were more about power and politics --- they were ways to align clans, merge the interests (and property ownerships) of nations'. Whether patrimonial or matrimonial rules applied it was still mostly about inheritance rights. Numerous times multiple wives (or the other way around: husbands) were a common part of 'marriage'. This is all just off the top of my head, (and I hear that in the judge's 128 page decision the evidence that was presented about the history of marriage is very long and detailed), but regardless... as far as legal rules and social norms go there has been a fairly remarkable lot of change that has impacted 'marriage' over just the last few centuries....