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 Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (34252)	6/30/2011 8:15:53 PM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 36917

<I see it a little bit differently. I think that the government shoulda stayed out of religion. Marriage is a religious institution. > Right... but churches (well, mainly parishioners I suppose) got "marriage" into government with special status, etc. I agree that really it's all so culturally intertwined that they certainly didn't know what they were doing. But if "Marriage" remained strictly a churchly ceremony with no "legal" standing, the government couldn't interfere. <the government should be concerned with the contractual partnerships between adults.> I agree... and told Koan I thought the gay movement was spinning it's wheels as I thought "marriage" was historically a religious word and religions would have the last say. That governments somehow were ended up giving "married people" special rights, marriage licences, and all that... which opened the door IMO. As it turned out I was wrong, people don't view "marriage" as a church rite any more... apparently. <But I do feel that churches have every right to define the marriages that they endorse.> Agree. Of course, it works both ways... there are jabillions of churches nowadays that would happily marry gay people if the government would get the hell out of the way. :) DAK