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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (132798)	3/22/2001 11:56:03 PM
From: Little Joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Karen: I just wanted to acknowledge your thoughtful quote. I am not feeling well at the moment,(nothing to do with your post :)) so if you don't mind I will try to reply over the weekend. thanks, Little joe

To: Lane3 who wrote (132798)	3/23/2001 12:29:24 AM
From: RON BL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

"There can be no doubt that marriage has historically existed, not for the protection of the parties involved in the marriage but for the protection of children. " Not entirely !!! Marriage has also existed for the protection of society at large. Marriage was considered a taming influence on the male to help curb the lecherous beast. <ggg> The other choice is complete promiscuity and the problems it brings. Liberals are very fond of ignoring the intense forces that sex brings into play. These are not always positive. We see this today with the intense amount of deadly disease in the gay community where surrender to the sexual impulse is most prominent. We also see the disastrous effects on raising children without a father very prominently in the black community. As the role of the father has diminished in this community, we have seen a proportionate escalation of violence from its youth. Saying that sex between a husband and wife is rape and exploring wife swapping and all sorts of liberal ideas are very prominent today. The liberal dogma is that sex will set you free. However we have not seen anything positive from it unless you consider broken families and disease wonderful. The next step which has already begun is the exploitation of children. We have begun to project our own sexual images and fantasies with younger and younger children attempting to portray them as naturally sexual. The ultimate goal of this is the attempt to sanction sex between adults and children. The next sexual frontier. Of course we just heard about the PETA member who against eating animals stated that sex with animals was good. I'm sure that he is against marriage though.

To: Lane3 who wrote (132798)	3/23/2001 10:36:23 PM
From: Little Joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Karen: Thanks for you good wishes. I am feeling better now. I think it was one of those stomach viruses. "When I was married in 1964, I entertained the idea of skipping the ceremony. " You mean you WANTED to live in sin? :) "I was noodling around on another thread and suggested maybe we could insert a contract for the care of children into their birth certificate. It would identify the parents and what responsibilities each had to the child. That's more on point than a marriage certificate. " Yes but something like that needs to happen before birth. Also suppose the child's interests are not protected by the Contract. I would want the state to intervene in that case as it can now. "Of course, it would become problematic when the two people becomming automatically married by having produced a child together each has offspring with others. We'd end up with a group marriage." Yes, but if marriage were defined as different than it is now, that might work. e.g. Suppose marriage had nothing to do with couples living together. Suppose we just defined their respective duties to their children. Who would have the primary responsibility for what. Who would inherit from who, etc. I am not sure where that would take us, and it is just brainstorming idea. "I think it's about time we analyzed what we're doing with marriage and came up with some new ideas. There was an earlier discussion about having a religious marriage with or without the civil marriage. That makes some sense to me as a way to better tailor the contract between the two parties and on behalf of their offspring." What if people could choose to define the relatioship or choose among different arrangements, perhaps based in part on what marriage ceremony is utilized. Perhaps the contract does not become binding until children are born or adopted. Well the law does change slowly and that is probably a good thing. I do think we need to think about all of this. As society evolves, it is becoming clear that it ain't the way it used to be. I think change will come but it should be slow and very carefully thought out. Little joe