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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (745994)	10/11/2013 7:30:19 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	5 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 Jorj X Mckie MichaelSkyy TideGlider TimF Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1570103

Koan, Any society is going to be a compromise between societies rights and individual rights. I really hope you misspoke, because society does not have "rights." Individuals have rights. Government is formed to help safeguard those rights of individuals. Tenchusatsu

To: koan who wrote (745994)	10/11/2013 11:52:31 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	2 Recommendations Recommended By Bob TideGlider Respond to of 1570103

You are coward for not answer the question. But I know why you didn't. I am here as a conservative, tea party, libertarian saying that one's sexuality is as much a natural right as the freedom of speech. I believe that gays inherently deserve equal protection under the law. I believe that as such, if there are any federal laws that respects one form of sexuality over another, that the law is unconstitutional. Of course, the answer isn't to make more laws. The answer is to get the Government out of the business of marriage. For the legal partnership aspect of the relationship, all the government should care about is if both or all parties have the capacity to enter into contracts. But you took the weasel way out because you know that I have just proven that democracies are not the path to a fair and just society. There are a number of people on this thread who are against gay marriage. But I would bet you a dollar that each and every one of them would support equal protection under the law for gay partnerships by simply taking away the government endorsement of "marriages". I bet they would gladly support the separation of church and state and let the churches marry (or not marry) gay couples and let the state define the parameters of domestic partnerships between hetero, homo and poly couples/groups. You intellectual dishonest has officially started to bore me.