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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tsigprofit who wrote (18507)	6/18/2003 12:01:31 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

Hopefully, we are evolving over time On a slightly related note (and completely OT, of course), I dare say that the whole concept of monogamous & 'till-death-do-us-part marriage will change in time, even among heterosexual couples, as life expectancy stretches beyond 100 years or so. Back when human life expectancy was around 40 years, monogamous & lifetime marriages were feasible, but even at the current longevity of about 75 years, we see the model is cracking for the most part. Quite a few sci-fi writers envision a near future where marriage is just another contract, with a definite time period, and among any number of people. Food for thought...

To: tsigprofit who wrote (18507)	6/18/2003 1:20:31 PM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21614

The fact you seem to miss is that marriage is not just another contract, it's a religious contract. Since all the religions I know of don't approve of homosexuality it makes it impossible for same sex couple to marry. Furthermore, it would create an economic nightmare to force companies to offer benefits to same sex couples. I own my own little business and I can say without hesitation that I would not offer such coverage regardless of how PC the laws get. I would find a way around it as would many or most small businesses which would mean (in many cases) not hiring gays. I don't care what (or who - provided the who is of legal age) people do in their bedrooms but I'll be damned before I offer special treatment. Should we off people who share needles the special family plan as well? They do inadvertently share DNA so does that qualify them too? Where does it end?

To: tsigprofit who wrote (18507)	6/19/2003 12:03:37 AM
From: SirVinny	Respond to of 21614

Your argument can also then be applied to a son or daughter who chooses to live at home with a parent. Shouldn't this person also be entitled to the parent's pension or other benefits which spouses are entitled to?

To: tsigprofit who wrote (18507)	6/19/2003 12:16:35 AM
From: SirVinny	Respond to of 21614

You also say that homosexuality extends to the animal kingdom. I've seen my puppy try to hump a tennis ball. Should humans stock up on tennis balls? Does my puppy know something we don't? Some heteros like to get shat on, should we promote this behavior as an alternative sexual experience? I'm of the opinion that what people do in the comforts of their home is their business. However, I do not feel we as a society should encourage deviancy.