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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (9151)	12/17/2010 11:25:50 AM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

The key word in that question is 'legal'. Society can recognize lots of things without establishing their legitimacy on a foundation of law, friendship for instance. The question at hand is whether or not the traditional marriage laws are applicable in modern society. What do they legitimize, how are those laws a service or a protection to individuals? How are they applicable and why or why not? If it were only a moral issue the moral sub communities could reign the issue in accordingly.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (9151)	12/17/2010 11:47:22 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 10087

Where does privacy enter in when we're now talking about having society recognize legal marriages? Privacy is a libertarian argument, basically that some things should be below the government's radar. Privacy is not a current gay-rights argument because the gay sex question has been settled. The privacy argument for gays has been overtaken by events, as you suggest. I have not followed the gay marriage issue closely but I think that the argument there is equal justice under the law. That privacy was once a key argument but is no longer, however, doesn't mean it can't be used as illustration just as a Nazi ban on animal traps can be used for illustration even though that occurred nearly a century ago. The purpose of an illustration is to demonstrate something broader. We pick those illustrations based on their aptness and their broad familiarity so people can readily see the analogous relationship, can extrapolate from the illustration to the principle, not based on their currency. As I posted up thread, when using illustrations, there's always great risk of wandering off point. What is intended to shed light often produces heat.