SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (71660)8/5/2003 1:30:27 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
If we met socially, it is doubtful you would ever know that I had a rule about childbearing, or would be made to feel uncomfortable. I do not know your situation, and it is none of my business. But I do think that society would be better off if more families were formed, having children, but limiting family size. But I am not forcing a rule on anyone, it is not a matter of law, nor am I preaching it. It happened to come up. How, then, is it suffocating?

I concede exceptions to the rule, but I still cannot understand why on earth someone who was conscious of having done wrong would not apologize. It is elementary. But heck, I am certainly not going to propose legislation on the matter, though I may be offended on some occasions. If I think it is appropriate, and little to ask, I do not see how that is avoidable.......



To: Lane3 who wrote (71660)8/5/2003 3:06:49 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
If the situation changes and necessity arises, then we can make a rule but we don't need one now. If we don't need a rule, then free choice and respect for the choices of others should reign. To do otherwise is suffocating.

If marriage is to have legal recognition and benefits as well as broad based societal acceptance then we need to define what marriage is. That definition would be the rule.

Tim