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 (78844)	11/9/2003 4:05:57 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

So much for every nun and every priest in the world. Sorry that I took some shortcuts with my language. I thought you would know what I meant. I meant that it was inhuman and stupid for the government to expect people to be abstinent for life. If people want to choose it, that's another matter. Like Rambi, I think it is unrealistic to expect people to be abstinent until marriage but I can at least see your point. OTOH, expecting them to be abstinent for life is ridiculous. Human beings are sexual creatures. You might as well make it illegal to eat meat. On top of the sheer perversity of the notion, it can be argued that requiring sexual abstinence throughout the reproductive years would destroy that institution that you so revere, marriage. How many men would get married if they thought it would bring them only a year or so of sex in their lives? Think about it. Say the typical couple wants two children. That means they get to have sex for the couple of months it takes to get pregnant and for most of the pregnancy. And they get to do that twice for a total of maybe a year and a half. Surely you can see how ridiculous that is. OTOH, maybe it would be a good deal for old women, who would be in great demand as sex partners. LOL. Wouldn't that set society on its ear? Not to mention the newfound interest in men as sexual partners...