|
| Thread: Legal and Financial Benefits of Marriage Should be Removed |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted September 20, 2009 04:29 AM |
|
|
Marriage in the US has a particular meaning from a traditional persptective. One man-one woman. Utah and other states had to accept this definition in order to become a state (the territories had allowed pologamy.) And the founding fathers clearly opposed gay marriage since they outlawed gay sex. So there is no constitutional right to gay "marriage."
I don't have a problem with gays having civil unions that grant them identical legal rights to marriage but the government has no right to redefine marriage.
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted September 20, 2009 09:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Legal and Financial Benefits of Marriage Should be Removed
It is irrelevant whether or not the government chooses to reward, define, or even acknowledge marriage;
Marriage is DEAD.
Look at the numbers.
Marriage rate (per 1000 per year):
2004: 7.8
2008: 7.1
Divorce rate (per 1000 per year):
2004: 3.7
2008: 3.5
You'll notice that the marriage rate is dropping much faster than the divorce rate is. We are at the point where 50% of marriages end in divorce. It only gets worse from here.
Children born out of wedlock:
2004: 36%
2007: 40%
Studies have shown that children born out of wedlock are no longer the result of casual sex (only about 5%). Rather, women are increasingly choosing to stay unmarried even when they decide to settle down.
My parents divorced when I was 10. It was my father's second marriage and my mother's third (she married again after that, and divorced again). I was deeply affected, and I never want to put my children through anything that horrible. If I were to marry in the American court system, it is all but inevitable (the numbers have made this clear), so I simply won't do it. My half-sister is of a similar mindset. She just gave birth out of wedlock, and shows no signs of intent to marry the father.
All over the country, similar stories are becoming more and more common. This new generation wants nothing to do with that ancient institution. It doesn't matter how many laws you do or don't pass about marriage; we won't be needing them.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 20, 2009 10:05 AM |
|
|
Just because many marriages end in divorce doesn't mean any particular one will. Think of it this way: whatever chance there is of dying while going skydiving, the chance is 0 if you don't go skydiving. Similar with marriage. If you eliminate (as many as possible of) the potential causes of divorce (or, better yet, never have them in the first place) - then your marriage is off to a good start, isn't it?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 20, 2009 10:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Marriage in the US has a particular meaning from a traditional persptective. One man-one woman. Utah and other states had to accept this definition in order to become a state (the territories had allowed pologamy.) And the founding fathers clearly opposed gay marriage since they outlawed gay sex. So there is no constitutional right to gay "marriage."
I don't have a problem with gays having civil unions that grant them identical legal rights to marriage but the government has no right to redefine marriage.
It's a semantic irrelevancy.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted September 20, 2009 10:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Just because many marriages end in divorce doesn't mean any particular one will. Think of it this way: whatever chance there is of dying while going skydiving, the chance is 0 if you don't go skydiving. Similar with marriage. If you eliminate (as many as possible of) the potential causes of divorce (or, better yet, never have them in the first place) - then your marriage is off to a good start, isn't it?
The #1 way to predict a healthy marriage is to look at the parents. My parents never had a healthy marriage. I'm screwed.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted September 20, 2009 10:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't have a problem with gays having civil unions that grant them identical legal rights to marriage but the government has no right to redefine marriage.
It's a semantic irrelevancy.
You don't seem to understand Elodin's point. Marriage was religious for thousands of years before it was government. When the government declares "marriage is blah" that's the same as walking into a church and telling them that you've decided to amend their religion.
The government has the right to decide that certain people get treated certain ways for tax purposes, but that is not marriage. That's tax law.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 20, 2009 10:54 AM |
|
|
I don't see marriage as being religious, I see it as being natural. Monogamous mating is common in nature. The church merely formalized it.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 20, 2009 11:02 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 11:05, 20 Sep 2009.
|
@Rarensu
50% of marriages do not end in divorce. The younger you are the more likely you are to have a divorce. Once you have had one divorce you are more likely to divorce again. There is a statistical breakdown at the following site.
Clicky
According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%
Age Women Men
Under 20 years old 27.6% 11.7%
20 to 24 years old 36.6% 38.8%
25 to 29 years old 16.4% 22.3%
30 to 34 years old 8.5% 11.6%
35 to 39 years old 5.1% 6.5%
Quote:
Studies have shown that children born out of wedlock are no longer the result of casual sex (only about 5%). Rather, women are increasingly choosing to stay unmarried even when they decide to settle down.
A big reason for that is financial benefits that the government gives to unwed mothers. And if the father is named he has to provide child support, which she is free to spend any way that she wants to.
Those who don't want marriage but want kids can have others support the kids. That is just plain wrong. But it creates a voting class that is locked into supporting the socialists in Congress.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 20, 2009 11:33 AM |
|
|
<<<A big reason for that is financial benefits that the government gives to unwed mothers.>>>
Unbiased source? OK, so "big reason" is vague and can mean just about anything, but how significant is it?
Since the 60s and 70s people just don't place as much importance on marriage as they used to. I had a GF for 18 years and lived with her for most of that. That's longer than most marriages last. I never felt that we were "married", but I felt committed to her. I think it's that commitment of the heart that's important, not some piece of paper that formalizes it.
____________
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 20, 2009 11:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You don't seem to understand Elodin's point. Marriage was religious for thousands of years before it was government. When the government declares "marriage is blah" that's the same as walking into a church and telling them that you've decided to amend their religion.
The government has the right to decide that certain people get treated certain ways for tax purposes, but that is not marriage. That's tax law.
I'm not going to push the matter much since civil equality is my only concern (after all, I myself said it was a semantic irrelevancy). But marriage is a very broad term that entails different things for different people. Conventionally it has been between a man and a woman in every major religion, but there are variations with each of them on other matters. So even among hetero couples the perceptions of marriage are not identical. And if so, does this mean Islamic, secular, and other marriages should be termed 'civil unions' as well?
Marriage has been around for a long time before the U.S. government or any any other currently existing regime, which is why the U.S. doesn't have the power to change a certain people's definition of marriage even if it wanted to. If it declared tomorrow that marriage is strictly the union between a mountain goat and a tape dispenser, it wouldn't alter the Christian structure of marriage or any other structure. Likewise, if the U.S. said that all Catholic marriages are annulled, would they become fornicators in their own eyes? No, because the authority of their marriage is in their scripture, not in an institution that's only been around for the past 230 years. Point being that marriage is a lot more vast than 9 people in black robes in Washington.
edit: Since the choice of words matters for a lot of people, I think it would be better to erase the word 'marriage' in government entirely (I realize this isn't going to happen though). Let the government have civil unions, and then people if they wish can also become married with whatever custom they see fit.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 20, 2009 12:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Marriage in the US has a particular meaning from a traditional persptective.
Who cares about tradition? Tradition has no saying, it's like saying "let's do this, because we've always done it, no matter the results we get".
Quote:
And the founding fathers clearly opposed gay marriage since they outlawed gay sex.
Who care about the founding fathers? People giving advice are much like emotions, they're there, but you've to reflect upon them yourself before you decide what you're going to do, because some guys had some good ideas doesn't mean all their ideas were good.
Quote:
I don't have a problem with gays having civil unions that grant them identical legal rights to marriage but the government has no right to redefine marriage.
Agreed, marriage is a religous thing, and the state have nothing to do with that, so in stead of letting people get advantages through marriage, seperate the state from the church and let the advantages come through civil unions that the state is in charge of. Then the people who wants to get marriaged can do so, but there should be nothing else in it, than what the church can offer.
Quote:
Why is that? Why could he claim custody simply because he is taxed for the child?
I can only talk from experience in these matters, and experience shows that parents who've paid to the child have a much higher chance of getting custody of the child later on, no matter if the child forgives the parent or not, and not matter what they parent actually have done.
Quote:
And sorry, the parent's choice was ALREADY made when they conceived the child. The kid is not a toy you can just "buy" and then scrap later. You don't want responsibilities or to be forced to support it, then you don't have children. Simple as that.
Quote:
Yeah a child is not something you can choose to support or not. If you set a precedent that when you have a baby it's optional as to whether or not you have to support it, then there are going to be ALOT of struggling single mothers out there.
Too simplistic, and for the last one, make it probable, or I don't believe it.
No the thing is that first there's the sexual part, where there may or may not be an agreement of what should happen given an accident.
Secondly given the accident, there'll be a lot of confusion.
And what really sets the case is that it's the woman who have superior control.
If the father wants the child, tough luck, if he doesn't want it, he has to pay, given the mother wants the reverse.
And that is what I'm opposing, certainly you can claim if the father goes from "for the child" to "not for the child" at a period where it's to late for an abortion, then I agree he should pay custody, but in reality you can't force him to do so, if he really doesn't care about the child he can always dissapear.
So what then? Well I believe it's our obligation to her, as she's a part of our society, to make sure she and her child are well and well supported, therefore no matter if the father pays or not, the state should always make certain the child and mother are well supported.
However there should be no difference in that matter, so in reality it shouldn't matter if the father pays at all, because as stated to begin with, in the long run they are better off without his unwillingly support.
Here's an example from my life. My uncle and aunt are divorced, they decided they didn't want to have anything to do with him or his money, and by doing that he couldn't use the advantage of knowing where they lived, whereby they could dissapear completely out of his life. That doesn't mean my aunt forced my cousin away from his father, I know because I talked with him, no my cousin couldn't forgive my uncle, until many years later, where they now have partly bonded again.
You see in the long run, it's not about the money, to make certain any individual in our society can do well, it's important that we all contribute, but that's the role of the state, not of the father/mother.
No in the long run it's about what the child wants, if the child can't forgive one of the parents, then that parent have nothing to do in the childs live until said forgiveness has occured.
Likewise if the child wants to be with both parents, then they'll find something out between them for the sake of the child, because that's what love is about, it's not about you, but about the best you can do for those you love, so they're fine and well.
Paris here I come  
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 20, 2009 01:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Agreed, marriage is a religous thing, and the state have nothing to do with that, so in stead of letting people get advantages through marriage, seperate the state from the church and let the advantages come through civil unions that the state is in charge of. Then the people who wants to get marriaged can do so, but there should be nothing else in it, than what the church can offer.
Nah, marriage already has a well established meaning in the US. There is no reason to say the US is not going to recognize marriage anymore.
Just add civil unions with identical legal rights for gays. Problem solved.
Quote:
Who cares about tradition?.....Who care about the founding fathers?
You don't care about the US traditional meaning of marriage or what the founders of the country said. So what? Many of us do care about the traditional meaning of marriage in the US and the religious meaning.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 20, 2009 05:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Who cares about tradition? Tradition has no saying
I think you have no saying actually, because you are USING a traditional term (i.e "marriage") yourself.
It is like breaching tradition's trademark & copyrights, in modern terms.
If you don't care about tradition make up your own. Oh wait, not many people will use it -- it's understandable. After all people disagree a lot.
If you don't care about tradition leave it alone for those that do, alright?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 20, 2009 07:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The #1 way to predict a healthy marriage is to look at the parents. My parents never had a healthy marriage. I'm screwed.
While it is true that dysfunctional families tend to perpetuate themselves - the key word there is "tend". If your lifestyle is not like that of your parents, then things might very well turn out differently.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted September 20, 2009 08:03 PM |
|
|
The problem is: everyone thinks that they are in that small fraction that can get away with it. But only a few of them actually are. Love blinds them. I can't trust myself - the act of trusting myself is the very thing that would make me untrustworthy.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 21, 2009 07:19 PM |
|
|
Talk about being an unrealistically Pessimistic Peter. Marriage, among other things, is disproportionately screwed up in southern Cali and you're obviously taking your personal experiences and applying them to everywhere. And a ~50% divorce rate hardly makes marriage "dead". If it's 100%, then you can call it dead.
There are plenty of objective criteria you can follow to make yourself more likely to end up in a stable relationship that lasts, and that doesn't include "my parents are divorced, therefore I stand no chance".
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 22, 2009 09:20 PM |
|
|
@TheDeath & Elodin
I'm not going to go into any off topic debate here, but when you try to convince someone that they've gone to the wrong conclusions, attack their arguments and not their conclusions, otherwise you gain nothing than stating an arbitrary opinion.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 22, 2009 09:25 PM |
|
|
I don't believe I was attacking your conclusion at all.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 22, 2009 10:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@TheDeath & Elodin
I'm not going to go into any off topic debate here, but when you try to convince someone that they've gone to the wrong conclusions, attack their arguments and not their conclusions, otherwise you gain nothing than stating an arbitrary opinion.
I did attack your arguments. Your argument was basicly "who cares about the founding fathers, or the US traditions?"
You may not care about those things but others do. Marriage has a very specific meaning in the US. Thre is no reason for the government to stop recognizing marriage.
I already said gays should have civil unions that have identical legal rights to marriage. That seems to be the solution to me.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 22, 2009 10:35 PM |
|
|
I did attack your arguments. Your argument was basicly "who cares about the founding fathers, or the US traditions?"
No that's the conclusion again.
Here are the arguments:
Quote:
t's like saying "let's do this, because we've always done it, no matter the results we get"
Which shows why the whole "it's tradtion" is no argument in itself. Argument for why this specific tradition is okay, and you've done properly in my opinion.
Quote:
People giving advice are much like emotions, they're there, but you've to reflect upon them yourself before you decide what you're going to do, because some guys had some good ideas doesn't mean all their ideas were good.
Again I urge an argument that requires reflection and not authority, nor tradition. Authority and tradition are no arguments in themselves and need valid reasons to be there in the first place. Use lateral thinking, ask yourself why is this here, can I logically argument for following this line of actions? If not, then you've something to consider.
|
| |
|
|
