Philosophy Now Forum

Melchior wrote:The idea is that marriage should be encouraged,

Why?

I thought you said its job is to encourage social integration or was it cohesion? Either way marriage does both.
ps
Why are you still channeling Bill? Is it that you are the same person and have decided to drop one of your sock-puppets? That would explain why he appears absent.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Melchior wrote:The idea is that marriage should be encouraged,

Why?

So that babies can have a family, a father and mother, you dumb mother fucker.

Clearly biology is not your long suit, Melchior, and neither is common human courtesy. I asked a perfectly reasonable question and you gave a ludicrous answer because babies can have a mother and father just as easily without marriage as they can with it.

Melchior wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

Melchior wrote:The idea is that marriage should be encouraged,

Why?

So that babies can have a family, a father and mother, you dumb mother fucker.

That's idiotic, even by your standards.

Arising_uk wrote:I thought you said its job is to encourage social integration or was it cohesion? Either way marriage does both.

It is not the proper function of government to encourage anything. Its function is that of a social referee to keep people from strangling each other.

Obvious Leo wrote:Clearly biology is not your long suit, Melchior, and neither is common human courtesy. I asked a perfectly reasonable question and you gave a ludicrous answer because babies can have a mother and father just as easily without marriage as they can with it.

LOL

Not legally, you piece of crap. That's why adoption is so hard, dumbass.

Melchior wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Clearly biology is not your long suit, Melchior, and neither is common human courtesy. I asked a perfectly reasonable question and you gave a ludicrous answer because babies can have a mother and father just as easily without marriage as they can with it.

LOL

Not legally, you piece of crap. That's why adoption is so hard, dumbass.

Now you've really got me confused, which is unsurprising since you decline to support your insults with any sort of supportive argument. Are you suggesting that it is illegal for babies to have a mother and father who are not married, which strikes me as a little unfair since choosing one's parents is never easy, or is it illegal for a mother and father who are not married to have a baby, in which case I'd be interested to hear what measures are taken to prevent this from occurring. By the way, do you actually know how babies are made? I suspect not because you're surely talking about a legal system I've never heard of in my life. What backward country do you live in?

Obvious Leo wrote:

Melchior wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Clearly biology is not your long suit, Melchior, and neither is common human courtesy. I asked a perfectly reasonable question and you gave a ludicrous answer because babies can have a mother and father just as easily without marriage as they can with it.

LOL

Not legally, you piece of crap. That's why adoption is so hard, dumbass.

Now you've really got me confused, which is unsurprising since you decline to support your insults with any sort of supportive argument. Are you suggesting that it is illegal for babies to have a mother and father who are not married, which strikes me as a little unfair since choosing one's parents is never easy, or is it illegal for a mother and father who are not married to have a baby, in which case I'd be interested to hear what measures are taken to prevent this from occurring. By the way, do you actually know how babies are made? I suspect not because you're surely talking about a legal system I've never heard of in my life. What backward country do you live in?

Are you familiar with the concept of family?

Melchior wrote:Are you familiar with the concept of family?

Indeed I am. My father is still alive as are two of my siblings and I was raised in a traditional nuclear family environment. All of my siblings also married, had children and raised them in a traditional nuclear family environment. I have myself been married for 35 years and my wife and I raised two children in a traditional nuclear family environment. I also have grandchildren who are being raised in a traditional nuclear family environment although in this case my son and his partner chose not to bother with marriage, which they regard as an outdated and irrelevant institution. Are you suggesting that my grandchildren are being denied the benefit of a family, because if you are you are even stupider than you seem to be?

In the U.S., government was involved in mandating legal/illegal marriages as early as 1691 -- at which time the law (and the status of "legal marriage") created was to prevent persons of colour and whites from intermarrying. The law then mandated a punishment of banishment to the hinterlands, almost certain to be a death-sentence.

Clearly government involvement at the first was neither moral nor justified, and had nothing to do with people's best interests. So what's different today? Are we really sure the government has our best intentions at heart? Are they somehow specially qualified to tell us what a "real marriage" is, and what it cannot be? Are we really sure we WANT them involved in that aspect of human life?

Just asking.

Immanuel Can wrote:In the U.S., government was involved in mandating legal/illegal marriages as early as 1691.

I think you've got a slight typo on the date.

No: it was actually the colony of Virginia at the time. It was indeed that early -- even before there was a real US. Amazing, huh?

Immanuel Can wrote:No: it was actually the colony of Virginia at the time. It was indeed that early -- even before there was a real US.

Then don't use the term U.S.