From: lhughes@b11.b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes)
Subject: Re: Presidential talk
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:32:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.192709.23690@b15.ingr.com>, dvr@doofus.b15.ingr.com (Mr. Wonderful) writes:
> Larry, I'm very curious as to what similarities you see between DINK's
> and homosexual marriages.  My wife and I have been DINK's (God, I hate
> being labelled!) for nearly 14 years and have decided to forgo having
> children for reasons that make sense for us (not that I feel any need
> to rationalize our marriage to you).  I have always had a knee-jerk
> reaction to people who believe that the sole (or at least the most
> important) reason for (conventional) marriages is to procreate.  My wife
> is my very best friend and as far as I'm concerned that's reason enough.
> 
> But please, do share with us your thoughts on the similarities between
> DINK's and homosexual marriages.
> -- 
> *******************************************************************************
> 
> Doug Roberts                             E-mail: dvr@doofus.b15.ingr.com
> Senior System Engineer
> Federal Systems Division                 Phone: 205-730-1760
> Intergraph Corporation
> Mail Stop IW1510                         FAX: 205-730-6956
> Huntsville, AL  35894-0001
> 
> *******************************************************************************

Obviously I did not make myself completely clear. I do not think that DINKs
and homosexual couples have ANYTHING in common, other than not having children.
I was merely admiting that if someone advanced the argument that DINKs get
tax advantages, therefore homosexual couples should also, I couldn't come back
with a convinving argument why they shouldn't, as my claim for married couples
getting special priviledges was based on their existing or intended children
which in theory perpetuate the race. I tried to make it plain that I do not
disapprove (and you obviously could care less either way, so who cares) of
DINK's - if they really want to just enjoy each other and live as childless
lovers and/or friends, fine. I just can't think of good reasons to give them
tax breaks intended to help couples raising children.

It is entirely possible that some couples feel that it is unfair to bring 
children into a world that could vote Clinton into office, or some other such 
fundamental affront to god/nature/Ayn Rand/good taste/etc (as I used to feel).

Maybe they have some inhertied disease they don't want to pass on. I once
almost married a delightful blind girl that would never have children for
exactly that reason - at the time I was willing to forego children for the
chance to live my life with her... she refused to marry anyone that could
have healthy children...

Perhaps they can't afford (or aren't willing to afford) the admittedly high 
expense (I'm assuming you are not depending on the taxpayer to support your 
offsprings). 

Perhaps they don't LIKE children. 

There are any number of reasons that a couple may not want children. Fine. 
I now want some, and am taking steps to proceed in that direction.

This is a fundamental change in my attitude that has at least one friend of
mine worried (jeeze, if it happened to HIM... :-) Hi Dave!). Perhaps someone
might try to argue that "we" (fill in the ethnic group of the speaker) should
be trying to "win the next generation" by outbreeding "them" (fill in some
other ethnic group). Seems pretty specious. I want to have some for much the
same reason I want to take another breath. Also I look forward to helping mold
and watching develop, that most curious and wonderful of artifacts on the 
planet, the human mind. (Children as art form?)

Larry "feel free to DINK away, with my superfluous blessing" Hughes
Newsgroups: hsv.general