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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (87688)	4/27/2012 5:01:55 PM
From: Hawkmoon	3 Recommendations Respond to of 89467

My view of this is that marriage is a religious institution. But it's also a civil union between man and woman for the purpose of supporting/subsidizing the pro-creation of the species. I can fully understand the desire of homosexual couples to validate their commitment towards a monogamist relationship, and that is admirable. But they also want the financial subsidies normally reserved to promote procreation and nuclear families within our society. That makes me hesitate. I can sympathize with the desire of homosexuals to share their lives with someone they love, and currently there is nothing preventing that. What they want is the "label" to validate their relationship and put it on par with heterosexual couples. My question is where do we draw the line? Are we next going to legalize polygamy? More than one wife? More than one (gay) husband? Marriage to children? Marry one's favorite bestial love pet? I'm comfortable with leaving the establishment of marriage as it stands.. a joining between man and woman under the presumption that the intent is to create a family. And while I encourage homosexual couples to be monogamous, I don't see justifiable reason to grant them the same privileges as pro-creating heterosexuals. I think we just need to default back to natural law under these circumstances. Hawk