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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (29944)	2/16/2004 2:29:03 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793671

Marriage was to protect mother and child and to assign responsibility. And to inculcate the same values into children, who will one day be parents, too. These values are grounded in sociobiology and economics, not natural law nor a sense of right and wrong. Not many people understand this. Mq, the whole thing relates to the time that humans have to nurture children, 18 years or more, a serious economic burden on parents. If children do not see the example of faithful parents diligently discharging their parental reponsibilities, they won't discharge them like they should when their time to do so comes because broken homes, promiscuity, and neglect is all they know, all they've experienced. Children raised in broken homes have a statistically-proven record of increased criminality, pathology, etc., for which we taxpayers eventually pay. The reason we expect our public figures to act in a certain "moral" manner is because they are role models. If they, as leaders, suggest that it is OK to act like a chimp in heat, they are in effect endorsing the notion that broken homes, etc., are the norm and that as a consequence the Nanny State, i.e., you and me as taxpayers, should foot the increased social cost. Ever wonder why the upper-middle and upper classes are populated with persons who have had stable marriages and the lower classes are not? I'm not interested in paying the social and financial costs inherent in someone else's promiscuity. This is one of the pillars of conservatism--pay for your own foolishness. That's why leaders should strive to be "morally" pristine. I put the word "morally" in inverted commas because morals are relative. Sociobiology is not.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (29944)	2/16/2004 2:39:08 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793671

60%?!! I don't believe it. I do. Having once been a young, attractive woman, it's my observation that the majority of men will pursue any hint of an opportunity, real or imagined. Perhaps in some communities that isn't the case, but in the wide, wide world it is. Sixty percent sounds reasonable to me.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (29944)	2/16/2004 5:23:07 PM
From: Neeka	Respond to of 793671

I'm not convinced the statistics of the Kinsey report are realistic either. 15 year old boys are randy...that doesn't make them ready for marriage. I think people get married because they are ready to procreate. Many of them are not mature enough to understand the responsibility that comes with parenthood, and I agree with you that people have a limited concept of why morals work. Here in the US we've gradually come to a place where morals aren't up for discussion much. It's been a "do your own thing" or "if it feels good, do it" type of society for quite a while now, and imo that is a big mistake. Regretfully we have not replaced the discussion of morals with something else that illustrates the rules or laws by which we conduct ourselves . The word "moral" itself is treated like it's something dirty. I believe in rules. I believe my life, and everyone elses' life is full of chaos and confusion without these rules. Everything else seems to be up for discussion......why not the issue of morals. M