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: Ilaine who wrote (52440)	8/21/1999 3:15:00 PM
From: Michael M	Respond to of 108807

Hi Blue -- Deep seated moral abhorrence of incest -- The last twosome not committing incest. Maybe one child simply allows the species a extra few decades to locate another possible "survivor." Adultery -- sex between the two survivors may be called many things but adultery not one of them. You can look it up. Not joined in matrimony -- matrimony a relatively recent invention and since these two humans are back at square one, I think most theologians, of whatever stripe, would say OK to skip the ceremony - hell -- blow off the invitations, rehearsal dinner, reception, the whole works! I am on the edge when it comes to calling myself a Christian. I am in a particular religion because it's familiarity gives me comfort. I have a lot of problems with dogma. I AM willing to accept that I can't know everything and couldn't understand it if I did. I accept the mysteries -- some glorious, some scary as hell! You don't know I think incest is abhorrent (OK, so you made one lucky guess). I have a feeling, BTW, that incest was a lot more common in human history than we might care to believe. As noted before, the woman's role in procreation would not be incestuous. She would most certainly not be damned by any religious tenet I hold dear -- nor would any of her offspring that might mate. You ARE reaching when you say I think all should follow anything I believe. I've made no such statement. I think things function more smoothly when there is common belief -- not my place to say what that belief has to be. Refusal to procreate due to a particular belief in God's will and the possible consequences is exactly the condition I established for the man in my hypothetical. It could just as easily apply to the woman. It is a legitimate reason for refusing -- the question revolves around whether it could ever be OK to override the refuser's objections. In another post of yours, I think you said "Enslavement" necessary to procreate more than one child for future mating. I'm not a whiz at math but I think one child of appropriate gender might be enough to get the ball rolling. At this point the unwilling partner becomes a less critical part of the equation. I am glad for your contributions to the discussion regardless of any disagreement between us.