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 (17595)	2/9/1998 2:20:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

> I have read that the Mormon religion is some circles believe in marrying more than one spouse. The state does not allow this. Wouldn't the same sort of arguments apply. As well as with marrying ones own offspring?< I'm not sure it's fair to equate gay pair bonding with polygamy or inbreeding. Now, if three gay folk wanted to declare a marriage, I'd get a lot quieter! For most gays, men or women, the one-on-one relationship is what they want. I'm restricting myself to that aspect of the issue. >The foundation of a good and successful society I believe is the union of man and woman. Children being raised by both sexes on the aggregate has been the healthiest of environments.< I think we haven't had a chance to prove this, since so far society hasn't tolerated the experiment. Gay families are a near-unknown phenomenon and still have an underground flavor to them. If gay family life has been given a fair shake in an unprejudiced environment for a good long time, and if serious problems crop up which are not like those of mixed couples, then maybe this statement can be endorsed. but until then, I caution that it sounds more like a presupposition than a bona-fide conclusion. >Is it not part of the states role to encourage and legitimize those unions which they see as providing the best hope for future successful rearing of children?< Nnnnnnoooo, I don't think so. The state should protect those children which are already there, but it should not be so paternalistic as to dictate what pattern of family (absent any real abuse) is Approved or Discouraged. Waay too invasive imho. The state isn't about managing the lives of who aren't born yet. It's about making things ok for those who are already here. And gays have most decidedly arrived. They're here to stay. Let's make them feel welcome, and let's not exclude them from the fold of the "norm".