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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (17505)	2/6/1998 7:34:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 108807

I think the text goes something like this. "The state of Washington defines marriage as between a man and a woman." I believe marriage (as defined by the union of a man and a woman) is so important to the foundation of our society that it shouldn't be watered down to now include men married to men, and woman married to woman. I have a feeling this is going to be one hotly debated subject in the next year. Of course if Bill ever gets off the front pages. Michael

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (17505)	2/6/1998 11:57:00 PM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Mike and Alex, It would seem to me that in the meantime, to achieve these stated goals and objectives and to stay within legal boundaries, such couples could incorporate, form a legally binding partnership, and/or have other types of legally binding contracts. Who knows, such actions might even be simpler and less complicated in the beginning and over time than a traditional marriage. Holly

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (17505)	2/7/1998 12:02:00 PM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 108807

Thanks, Alex, for pointing out that gay men and women ARE wired differently, that this happens due to a complicated constellation of genetic, pre-natal, and developmental factors, and that they are not INMMORAL just because they are attracted to their own sex in love relationships. I would agree that gay couples in committed relationships should enjoy the tax and insurance benefits that other married couples enjoy, and be able to enjoy the ritual of bonding, ceremonial proclamations of their union, and be able to live openly before the entire world. Whether we want to do this with the same kind of marriage that we have now for heterosexuals is still open to debate in America, but creating incentives for maintaining stable, long-term relationships is of enormous benefit to society as a whole. Historically, many societies have created roles of respect, honor and magic for their gay members. This is nothing new, and a certain percentage of people are gay, period. This is not something they can change. Why force them to live tortured lives, hidden and guilt-ridden, under the circumstances? It seems so unfair, and extends even to schools, where gay children feel ridiculed, pressured, have almost no one to talk to who understands, and commit suicide at a much higher rate than heterosexual children. Of course, it is the religious far right who does this to them in America, making sure that there is no sex education for them, no counseling, and ensuring that they are the outcasts of our society. Even the Pope has come out recently, counselling the parents of gay children to love and accept them as they are. Surely we can all do the same.