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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (543533)	2/21/2004 1:23:50 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Respond to of 769670

I did read it, although I had to rinse and spit a few times. Here's one of the author's grand statements: Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reaching technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children. Obviously, the author is not long on brainpower, and not at all familiar with the Constitution. You can't apply such a 'law' to a subset of the population, because enforcing it on everyone would be "so darn hard". Hmm, how would you like it if the tax breaks of religious organizations were revoked? What if someone said: "hey, why are they getting a free ride? After all, this is not a theocracy." Boy, you'd hear lots of screaming from the religious right. Falwell might have to sell one of his ten limos...