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: Johannes Pilch who wrote (133282)	3/24/2001 8:49:30 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 769667

I think you have to be pretty bored with this discussion. I know I am. So I'll give you the last word on it. OK, I'll take it. This is perhaps why you argue for a change in marriage, rather than a change toward greater personal integrity. I think you aim to reduce marriage to something that does not demand anything of our higher selves. It really is no marriage at all, in my opinion. We've seriously mis-communicated somewhere along the line. I agree with your notion of real marriage. When I said I had been serially monogamous, I didn't mean that I had had multiple marriages. I don't think people should get married unless they have the wherewithal for a lifelong commitment to each other and their offspring. I completely agree with you regarding personal integrity and the honoring of commitments. . I would like to make civil marriage less corrupted and more like real marriage. I would like to legally hold men and women to their marriage contracts and give logical incentives toward the maintenance of stable marriages. Where we differ, I think, is that you want everyone to be shoe-horned into real marriage. I, on the other hand, want those for whom marriage is not well suited to be able to have other arrangements, other kinds of formal or informal contracts, that provide love, companionship, mutual support, etc. If people want children, they should enter into a real marriage. Forcing people to choose between a real marriage and a life with no sex, love, family support, etc. is just not viable. If forced to choose, people will choose marriage and then then donor that marriage, which is how we got this corruption of the institution that we now have. That destroys both the institution of marriage and it destroys integrity. If you want marriage to be real marriage, you have to give people other choices. My current working hypothesis is that perhaps we should scrap civil marriage altogether and have those who want to marry to do so in a religious-type environment. We can do this as long as you do not continue to "rethink" matters that I think are just fine. I am not trying to be stubborn. Do you understand the point here? The rub occurs when people who hold views like yours make policies that disrespect tradition and human nature. It underscores and activates our differences. I do, indeed, see your point and I would like to see real marriage survive as an institution. I don't think that will happen if we just continue to drift. I don't see you and me at cross purposes. I'm trying to make the point that inertia is not your friend. Wishing that others see it your way doesn't make it happen. Karen