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: Lane3 who wrote (8921)	12/14/2010 12:23:19 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

You are either captured into slavery or born into slavery. That's often been the case, but debt slavery was common in the ancient world. Its mentioned in the Bible where holding Israelite slaves is limited to a period of 7 years. People selling themselves into slavery to extinguish their debts. First of all, the amount of the debt would be the selling price. Second, with debt bondage, the party did not sell himself but rented himself for the specified period of time. Not always. There wouldn't have needed to be a biblical limit if that were the case. Thats not true, there are lots of liberals and even libertarians arguing that incest really isn't that big a deal. Not "that big a deal" doesn't mean it's moral, only that it has relatively minor consequence to society. Just because someone isn't as exercised over it as you are doesn't not signify approval. Do you have a link to any support or advocacy? 1) I'm only exercised that people are arguing on behalf of legalization of incest and legal recognition of incestuous marriage. 2) A lot of people don't seem to have much of a moral sense it seems to me. Arguing its not important so let's make incestuous marriage legal constitutes a limited moral approval to me. I think thats how we got to gay marriage. I can think of at least one common word. Not very informative... I'd have to be crude to be more informative. Gays are a class based on sexual orientation. It is part of their essence. They don't have to engage in any behavior to be part of the class. I think this is hair splitting. Pretty much all those with that sexual orientation act it out in behavior. And if they didn't, what would their orientation consist of as far as anyone else were concerned? Nothing really. Thoughts in their mind that no one would ever know about? Pretty nebulous basis for defining a "class". What "essence" do gay people have if they never engage in gay sexual behavior? Men wearing clothes that match and are stylish? Women wearing short hair and boy clothes? you proved it in an earlier post by advocating marriage laws recognize incestuous unions. You can't argue there's no slippery slope when you have yourself advocated pouring grease on the slope. I keep trying to make distinctions and you keep blurring them. Me, I think one is either for recognizing incestuous marriages or against such recognition. Where is the blur? I never advocated incestuous marriages. I merely questioned why, if we have to have civil marriages at all, they would have ANY criteria other than that the person be legally competent and free to enter into the contract. Of course that's greasy. You're already at the bottom of the slope ..... or very close to it. You just advocate allowing incestuous marriages. I understand your distinction - I just don't think its important. But lots of people are sympathetic to the people who engage in those things. Lack of avid opposition does not denote sympathy, only lack of avid opposition. If you think there's sympathy, show me where. Let's change the law so as to not punish the guy screwing his daughter, and oh yeah, let's give them a marriage license too, is sympathetic enough. . New Jersey, for one, has decriminalized it. Many likely don't enforce it. I see its illegal but with no penalty in NJ. I suspect most states would enforce it in those rare instances when it comes to attention. Thankfully, its still rare. en.wikipedia.org But you have advocated it by posting your preference of legalizing it as well as extending legal recognition of parent-child marriage. You may be under that impression but that is not the case. It is your inference. I understand how anything less that full condemnation might feel to you like advocacy but it isn't advocacy. In my case it's simple libertarian discomfort with government overreach. It's a simple assertion that sex in private between informed, consenting, and mentally competent adults is nobody else's business, not mine, not yours, not the government's. None of the government's business is not the same as sympathy let alone advocacy. I think you're just dancing around the issue. And as far as advocacy, again I think extending legal recognition of parent-child marriage amounts to practical approval. Besides, we're seeing in real life that extending legal recognition of marriage to morally disapproved unions amounts to branding the moral disapprovers as bigots, teaching kids in school its just another sort of family, extending adoption and all other rights to those unions, giving the morally disapproved the right to sue the moral disapprovers. At some point, your own expressions of moral disapproval could become hate speech.