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: Lane3 who wrote (21550)	8/12/2001 11:34:28 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Since the kind of union proposed takes care of those various instances of household formation, and marriage is understood to involve erotic relations, I don't quite understand your point......

To: Lane3 who wrote (21550)	8/12/2001 2:30:35 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If pairs of people in society, such as heterosexual and homosexual couples, elderly sisters, father and son, old friends, are committed to mutual support and want to be considered an economic unit, I don't see why society would object. That's just the problem, I think. Think for example, of insurance programs which cover the spouse and children of a worker. If a single person with a mother needing major hospitalization were able to marry her mother and get insurance coverage, or a friend with a friend with aids were to marry that person to get them coverage, that would change the entire dynamic of employer paid insurance and probably would eliminate the benefits for spouses, or else raise the premiums for them considerably. Society has recognized that the biological imperative of every living species is the continuation of the species, and that in our case that is best done by a one father-one mother marital unit. There may be other reasons for people to get married, and there may be other units of people (two or more persons) who want to confirm the importance of their relationship, but the basic method of assuring the continuity of the race in society after society after society has been the married-couple-with-children unit. For that reason, I think it merits special status distinct from any groupings of people who have no biological ability to carry out the biological imperative. Yes, that grouping pulls in other couples who can't or don't plan to have children. Every societal solution is messy to some degree. That's a minor mess to worry about, as opposed to the major mess of making every social grouping which wanted to call itself a married unit equal to all others.