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 : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (8902)	12/13/2010 2:42:01 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Same is true of homosexuality. Abortion. I tried to differentiate it from homosexuality. I think the class vs individual distinction does so. "pretty soon we'll be teaching kids in school that its just another type of family. And people who disapprove will be labeled hateful bigots and sued, denied jobs, etc." I don't see that the path of abortion is an apt comparison. Your slippery slope was about opposition to discrimination against a minority. Abortion isn't anything like that. Besides, abortion is not "just another type of family" nor are pro-lifers "labeled hateful bigots and sued, etc." Who is saying its desirable to be gay? Doesn't have to be desirable, only acceptable or tolerated. I expect NAMBLA would endorse father-child sexual relations. I don't know NAMBLA's position on incest but it's irrelevant. At issue are adult fathers and daughters getting married. You'd think so, but I don't anymore. How many have you heard of? I read a mystery story not too long ago where a set of twins were a couple. The protagonist realized this when she discovered that the male partner had had a vasectomy and wondered why. In real life, the piece that introduced this topic was the first instance that I recall hearing about. Why don't you "think so anymore"? Parent-child marriage would mean there'd be all kinds of changes. I don't know. We have all sorts of odd family structures already. Family and estate law have adjusted since marriage went out of style. This would be just another small wrinkle, one they're probably already seen, only the parties weren't married. The tax benefit to a spouse in an estate is the only thing I can think of and that will apply only to estates over five million. Chances are not good that the three married incestuous couples will be among the rich. Because a sale would raise more money. Why would a sale raise more money? No one would pay more to buy someone than he is worth in rent.