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: The Philosopher who wrote (6810)	7/17/2003 2:09:44 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

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. I couldn't agree more. I will go further to say that, in our current environment, you should get married if you're going to have kids. I think it is almost always a suboptimal if not downright wrong decision to produce children without benefit of marriage. 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. Effective, yes, when compared with the alternatives of the time, such as fleeting liaisons or harems or rape or slavery. But you have not made the case that it is necessarily still the best way, let alone the only way.