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: Srexley who wrote (134997)	4/3/2001 12:32:08 AM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I'm really trying. I do not believe that marriage is just about creating kids. That would invalidate the marriages of those who chose not to have kids, or can't and don't wish to adopt. A marriage of a childless couple is as sacred as one that has children. So, the definition of marriage cannot be built on the assumption of procreation. If not, what makes it different than the other relationships you describe? I have (three times, I believe) outlined that: commitment, intimacy, and desire to live out the rest of your lives together. The special bond between an intimate, loving couple is what is protected. The physical mechanics of that sort of relationship are, and should be, secondary. Did I get it across this time?