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: greenspirit who wrote (17522)	2/9/1998 1:53:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I had a reply all typed out last week, but fumbled it in this new posting protocol. I guess gays want in on marriage because no other word so strongly suggests a centered, committed household. No other word I can think of conveys the same sense of "legally binding and of the same meaning"... along with the key quality of "entitled to the same privileges and respect". There is a stubborn class of citizens who want to keep gays out of the first rank of society. The only reasons I find when I peel back the onion... all come from the Bible. If you want to keep the church from ordaining gays, fine. That's a privilege. Not one I agree with, but one I can respect. Now the state, the legislative secular structure - another thing. We do not live in a country which has a state religion, and I hope we never do. Why limit the legal entitlements of "those from the other side of the street" relative to oldstyle hetero liaisons? Anything which suggests that gays are an underclass should be exposed and decried as bigotry. Imho.