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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6795)	7/16/2003 6:29:50 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

You know, a direct approach might make parents think a lot more carefully about having kids in the first place, which, imo, would be a Good Thing. It's always a bit of a cold shower when you have to consider what is going to happen to your rosy little plan if things go south- and your direct approach would make people consider that. ". A marriage contract is an indirect and not all that effective way of protecting kids. I'd prefer the direct approach." Good thinking

To: Lane3 who wrote (6795)	7/16/2003 8:21:44 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

If you stop and think about what purpose they serve and whether that matches your objectives or whether there's a better way of reaching your objectives, I do think about societal objectives from time to time. Marriage is a societal construct, and should therefore be viewed in that light. Societies exist for several reasons. Among them are the drive for self-perpetuation, for the safest and best environment for continuing the biological imperative of all living creatures, for enhancing the values which members of hte society find of greatest value to them, perhaps measured best by considering Maslow-type principles for society. Group security and stability are of great value. Basically, I do believe that society benefits most when the maximum number of children are part of stable, long-term relationships involving a male and a female, preferably the mother and father of the child who have the greatest biological imperative to function for the benefit of the child. Numerous studies have shown that this provides the best environment for raising heathy children who will contribute to the society in their turn. It is startling clear in the emerging research that men and women bring quite different qualities and attributes to the raising of children, and that children raised with both a father and a mother do better than those raised in a single-parent family even where the paent has the economic resources to hire in a nanny, pay day care, or whatever. The child's physical needs can be met by money. The child's developmental needs cannot. There are, of course, and always will be exceptions. But as a rule, if we consider that the goals of society are a) self-perpetuation of the society and b) creating the best environment for meeting the Maslow hierarchy of goals, marriage has proved to be an astonishingly effective mechanism for achieving those societal goals.

To: Lane3 who wrote (6795)	7/16/2003 8:48:27 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

A marriage contract is an indirect and not all that effective way of protecting kids. I'd prefer the direct approach. Can you be more specific, please? In reality, a marriage contract is as effective as society is willing to make it be. In what ways would an alternative be any better? And how would society enforce the alternative? We don't, for example, punish parents who get divorced (other than making one of them pay child support to the other for many years, sometimes for life). Would your contract approach have a stronger provision for assuring that parents who procreate together stay together?