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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (10457)	4/4/2001 8:38:19 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I'll give a proper answer when I'm more awake (it's getting late here...) - but good riposte. why should that change eternal truths? Well, the pat answer is that they're no longer true. It is - or shortly will be - possible for a child to have no 'parents' as such, to 'abhor' no 'virgin's womb' (to quote a peculiarly repellent hymn). I don't say that this is better... just true. I agree, a stable family is best for a child. No argument. Do both parents need to be the biological birth parents? I'd say - now, probably... I wouldn't claim this as eternal. And a dual marriage? I'd like to hear from the child of an Islamic marriage on this - up to four wives, stable arrangement... there's a valid (biological) argument that this is more in line with human nature: it should certainly guarantee the constant presence of a 'mother'... More anon. Perhaps the US Constitution did get the inalienable truths right... I won't argue otherwise... but I won't argue that any religion need be eternal :) And I certainly assert that the beliefs of earlier generations, however right they seemed then, do need to be revisited and perhaps revised, as we change. Change isn't always progress - but never?. Cheers, ts