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: SirWalterRalegh who wrote (78745)	10/18/2004 7:35:44 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793899

<You, Mq, choose to criticize the parent's reaction rather than your Democratic comrades. Pitiful indeed.> Democratic comrades? You obviously don't understand my position Rick. I'm a paid up extreme right wing act.org.nz and libertarianz.org supporter. John Kerry made a perfectly reasonable comment in response to a perfectly reasonable question. I don't switch off my brain because it's a Democrat making a comment. Nor do I agree with a Rabid Republican Right position because I generally agree with the philosophical basis of freedom versus statism, salivating like Pavlov's dog when the dinner bell rings. When do "children" in the USA grow up and cope with their public positions? Obviously not by age 34. Maybe when they are 45 they are more or less independent and can make their own comments in response to their public positions. Extended adolescence is increasingly common these days. Republicans specialize in making mountains out of molehills. These days, the whole purpose of marriage has been recast into a weird romantic concept rather than the original purpose, which was to manage lust, the production of children and the economic position of women and their offspring. Marriage provided protection to women and children when the inevitable sexual desires resulted in somebody having to be responsible for their care and protection. Society said "Okay mate, this father is allowing you and his daughter to indulge normal human passion. You are going to be liable for the woman and her children. So make no mistake about it and get your money ready and be prepared to work for the rest of your life to provide the necessaries. We're all here and bearing witness to your obligation." Now it's some weird property arrangement between homosexual blokes and blokesses who can't produce children anyway, unless they get into some sort of adopting or out of wedlock insemination by a third party. If homosexuals want a property contract, they can write one up. Google probably has such a thing. Heterosexuals could do so too and the prenuptial contracts are part of that. Marriage was a convenient government-backed standard form so everyone knew what the deal was, without a bunch of lawyers getting into the act. Sign on the dotted line and you are married. Simple. It was a necessary state function to enforce such contracts and a simple way of keeping human lust and reproduction on the rails with women and children protected and given sustenance. Now we have dopey situations like Britney Spears being married/not married/married again and all irrelevant to her and a child's protection because she can afford to do what she likes and doesn't really need marriage. She and any children are probably better of not having standard state laws applying to them. Though in the interests of being "normal" she might be married so the children aren't teased at school. I don't really care if homosexuals want to marry and have the same property rights and tax situations as heterosexual married people, as long as the taxpayer doesn't end up funding the deal. Mqurice