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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (11759)	12/31/2010 7:44:31 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

That seems to me to be begging the question. In my experience, there are plenty of relationships that aren't and shouldn't be marriages. Many of them don't work out in the long term. In re "playing house", that would only apply to the subset where the couple lives together. Examining that subset, why would you denigrate it by saying that they are merely playing house? In doing so you discount the certainty that most of them are in relationships that are genuine, intense and total, even if not assuredly permanent. I cannot see any basis for restricting or disallowing their sex lives ... outside of religious doctrine. If anything, I cheer them on for placing pressure on doctrine to evolve, for removing the priest class' instrument of sexual terror. One of my biggest beefs with Christianity (and Islam and...) is this medieval doctrine of sexual continence. That said, I do not think that treating pregnancy andor abortion casually is in anyone's interest. But I get ornery when I see those valid concerns being used to promote or justify the harmful doctrine of Don't.