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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (30061)	2/17/2004 10:00:38 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793883

If a liberal posted something comparable on this thread I think you would call him on it.

To: LindyBill who wrote (30061)	2/17/2004 1:21:08 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 793883

Lindy, marriage has been perverted with the idea of "love". While love is of course part of the deal, the real purpose is a clear-eyed view of property rights and protection of children. Love, or more accurately lust, is merely the driving force to be tamed and rendered into a civilized form to reduce social carnage [such as the life of chimpanzees which don't bother with property rights and child development and protection - the mother just has to battle her way through]. Being married is a property rights burden which people only take on if they driving forces are strong enough. Women wisely require it because their value goes down as used goods and the offspring resulting from sex are going to be her problem. So, if the bloke wants sex, he better sign up on the property rights and payments bottom line. That was the old style. Homosexuals presumably have shared property and they want to ensure that there is legal acknowledgement of their share in any property produced during the marriage. It makes sense to me. Protection of children is obviously irrelevant if the homosexuals are males. Mqurice