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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (21461)	7/31/2012 4:35:23 PM
From: Sdgla	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Those of us who fear the consequences of redefining marriage -- asking children if they hope to marry a boy or a girl when they get older, banning religious adoption agencies from placing children first with a married man and woman, denying the importance of both sexes in making families, choosing boys to be high school prom queens, and girls to be high school prom kings, and much more -- must make it clear that we regard homosexuals as fellow human beings created in God's image just as heterosexuals are. Those are not paranoid delusions imo. All a distraction from the important issues in front of us today. The laws re marriage are clear and have been reinforced by special elections in approx 40 plus states.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (21461)	7/31/2012 4:42:24 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	1 Recommendation Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 85487

we agree in all points (so far). An easy test for any heterosexual on the issue of homosexuality is this" "is there anything that anybody could say or do that would make you sexually attracted to a member of the same sex?" I didn't choose to be heterosexual. I just am. The issue with marriage is simply a religious relic that evolved with our legal system. It's not wrong or bad that it evolved this way. It simply is the way things happened. At this point, it should be obvious that the term "marriage" has religious connotations and is part of the problem in our legal code. It should also be obvious that, whether or not you like the gay lifestyle or culture, they are entitled to the same legal protections as anybody else.

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (21461)	7/31/2012 4:45:15 PM
From: Little Joe	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

"PS I am a social libertarian, so consensual polygamy is just fine by me, as is consensual anything between informed, free willing adults." Do you believe the same if an employer and employee agree to a wage less than require the minimum wage law? Or if a bank and a borrower agree to a rate of interest in excess of of that permiited by law? Or if a farmer sells raw milk to a citizen who wants raw milk? Or if a doctor injects a willing and informed patient with an illegal drug? I could go on but you get the idea. lj

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (21461)	7/31/2012 4:45:47 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

government should get out of marriage business and stick to family unions It does that by recognizing marriage. Without governmental recognition of marriage, no child would have a legal father and no biological father would have any parental rights or duties, unless there were a paternity suit. Why do we need to have paternity suits for every child? Without governmental recognition of marriage, there would be no inheritance by spouses without a will. This would be great for lawyers ... terrible for children. But children are the state's responsibility, of course.