Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

[he_who_is_nobody]

If marriage is a contract which grants privileges to couples... and special privileges usually are granted because of a compelling interest to the government... what is the governments compelling interest to grant special privileges to married people?

Privileges from the government a side; my wife's family are Jehovah Witnesses and we are both Secular Humanists. Now, if anything were to happen to my wife and she needed medical attention and was unable to give consent, the hospital will defer to me instead of her family. The same works with my Catholic family, and how I want nothing to do with that religion, including my funeral. Those alone seems like a good enough reason why a secular government should recognize marriage. Beyond that, the US government is supposed to treat people equally under the law.

 

[MatthewLee]

If marriage is a contract which grants privileges to couples... and special privileges usually are granted because of a compelling interest to the government... what is the governments compelling interest to grant special privileges to married people?

Privileges from the government a side; my wife's family are Jehovah Witnesses and we are both Secular Humanists. Now, if anything were to happen to my wife and she needed medical attention and was unable to give consent, the hospital will defer to me instead of her family. The same works with my Catholic family, and how I want nothing to do with that religion, including my funeral. Those alone seems like a good enough reason why a secular government should recognize marriage. Beyond that, the US government is supposed to treat people equally under the law.

A healthcare advance directive, power of attorney, or living will can more than adequately solve these problems without the need for special priveleges like huge tax benefits. Marriage is far too elegant a solution to simply be a way to efficiently deal with healthcare rights and property dispensation... in fact marriage greatly complicated these things before the law so what is the governments compelling interest to maintain marriage as a legal institution with special privileges?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Privileges from the government a side; my wife's family are Jehovah Witnesses and we are both Secular Humanists. Now, if anything were to happen to my wife and she needed medical attention and was unable to give consent, the hospital will defer to me instead of her family. The same works with my Catholic family, and how I want nothing to do with that religion, including my funeral. Those alone seems like a good enough reason why a secular government should recognize marriage. Beyond that, the US government is supposed to treat people equally under the law.

A healthcare advance directive, power of attorney, or living will can more than adequately solve these problems without the need for special priveleges like huge tax benefits.

Have you not answered your own question though? Why should anyone have to get X amount of documents when they can just get one that covers all of that? Remember, people need to be treated equal under the law. In addition, as I have said several times before, I am married and no government benefit ever factored into why I wed. In fact, I would not mind if the tax benefits were done away with completely.

Marriage is far too elegant a solution to simply be a way to efficiently deal with healthcare rights and property dispensation... in fact marriage greatly complicated these things before the law so what is the governments compelling interest to maintain marriage as a legal institution with special privileges?

You tell me. However, as long as government is going to recognize it, they have to treat everyone equal under the law.

 

[MatthewLee]

Children. Children have traditionally been the governments compelling interest in marriage. Children require a stable family unit and are unbelievably expensive to raise therefore the government gives special breaks and privileges to married people because it’s assumed the bulk of them are breeding.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Children. Children have traditionally been the governments compelling interest in marriage. Children require a stable family unit and are unbelievably expensive to raise therefore the government gives special breaks and privileges to married people because it’s assumed the bulk of them are breeding.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but people can have children without marriage. It happens all the time. Beyond that, you do realize that adoption is also a thing.

 

[MatthewLee]

Yes, thank you, I am very aware that marriage is not prerequisite for reproduction.

Adoption usually happens because two people who can’t afford to raise a child got pregnant. It can also happen because two people who weren’t married to one another and were not in a committed relationship got pregnant and neither wanted to raise the child alone. Hence the original Norm of no sex before marriage so that children could be raised in a stable home by two people in a committed relationship because raising children takes money, commitment, and an astounding amount of patience.

It is common sense that it is always better for a child to be raised by its own blood parents if this is at all feasible. As someone who spent the better part of his life looking for his father I can tell you this from experience. I have known many people who were raised by single parents, adopted, or the children of divorce and I can’t inagine anyone trying to defend that idea that somehow marriage doesn’t help child rearing. It’s an indefensible position. Marriage isn’t just about property rights, it’s about children.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Yes, thank you, I am very aware that marriage is not prerequisite for reproduction.

You say that, yet you are still going to argue that for some reason marriage = child raising.

Adoption usually happens because two people who can’t afford to raise a child got pregnant. It can also happen because two people who weren’t married to one another and were not in a committed relationship got pregnant and neither wanted to raise the child alone. Hence the original Norm of no sex before marriage so that children could be raised in a stable home by two people in a committed relationship because raising children takes money, commitment, and an astounding amount of patience.

And? Beyond that, it is a good thing that we now have contraception. Now we can have sex without fear of babies.

It is common sense that it is always better for a child to be raised by its own blood parents if this is at all feasible. As someone who spent the better part of his life looking for his father I can tell you this from experience. I have known many people who were raised by single parents, adopted, or the children of divorce and I can’t inagine anyone trying to defend that idea that somehow marriage doesn’t help child rearing. It’s an indefensible position. Marriage isn’t just about property rights, it’s about children.

My wife's parents were married and highly abusive (mentally). I will say that a good rule of thumb is that children should be with their biological parents, but that is not always true. Beyond that, my best friend in high school was adopted and is now a lawyer. He has never looked for his biological parents. Acting as if a rule of thumb should be generalized to all cases is asinine. Things happen as you pointed out above. Sometimes it is better for a child to be raised by a single parent or given up for adoption.

Now, beyond all of this, we have established that marriage is not synonymous with producing children. So, what exactly does any of this have to do with that topic? Again remember, people need to be treated equal under the law.

 

[MatthewLee]

The act of making a child requires no commitment. Raising a child requires the supreme commitment. I am passionate about this so let me express this as it feels with respect for you and your opinion... Of course in the spirit of debate with no malice intended.

Marriage is about a safe place for children. Marriage has always been about providing a stable relationship between two committed adults from which children can be spawned. Children want their biological parents and biology is important or Maury Povitch wouldn't have a show. Marriage isn't just about tax breaks it's also about establishing who is responsible for the care and welfare of the children produced by the people under law after the relationship ends beyond just the DNA test.

Same sex couples are getting married and adopting children because same sex couples also acknowledge that a lifetime commitment to raising a child is necessary. Marriage is a great example of such commitment. Children are not easy to raise. Children are your responsibility for the entirety of their lives. Children can be emotionally damaged (and largely are) by divorce, emotionally distant or absent parents, and being given up for adoption. Have you seen the foster system in America? American orphanages are hell holes.

How can you argue that a married couple is not the preferred route for child raising? Do you have children?

Do you suggest that children pop out fully emotionally formed with the ability to just be ok as long someone gives them dirt and water like a ficus plant?

First off: Do you realize how important children are to the health of a nation? If each person only had one child that would make a static population with no growth. Population growth is not an option. If your population remains static for too long your economy tanks because the number of working adults compared to non-working children and elderly eventually becomes unsustainable... especially as life spans grow. The state has a vested interest in population growth. Who will take care of you when you are old and cannot work? My children will be expected to care for all the people who can't care for themselves but decided not to have kids. The society has to care for these people... the society of the future made by the children we have.

http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-fertility-crisis-2017-4

You should read this. It's about why when birthrates get to a critical mass your economy tanks. The state has a vested interest in population growth.

Non-married, non-procreating people are not entirely equal before the law to married people because the latter have taken on an unequal burden, the burden of producing and raising humans for the next generation of the nation. This is why married people get special privileges (and legal risks). They agree to feed, clothe, provide for the emotional needs of, and provide for the educational needs of other humans from the time that they are completely helpless until hopefully they can take care of themselves which can be 18 years, or 40 or never. Daycare isn't free but conversely... you still have to work even before you have a place for the kids to go and as a single parent with one income it's a neat trick to support a family while still providing for their emotional needs. Being a parent with a committed partner, as I am, is really, really hard. I can't imagine trying to do it by myself. It would be a nightmare... oh wait... I don't have to imagine it because I was the child of a single mother. It sucked for her and I never saw her until she got married again... which was a whole lot of fun in it's own regard...

You have also completely stepped over the emotional bonding issue like it isn't even a thing. Like kids and adults have a sterile, congenial attachment which is purely convenient. Parental love and attachment is one of the essential formative influences of a child's self-esteem, self-worth and sense of security... not to mention the fact that parental attachment to their own children is orders of magnitude more powerful than the attachment of a non-related care giver could ever be.

If you have children with someone you are not willing to make a lifetime commitment to be with... it is not a good sign that you will stick around when the going gets tough with the kids. If you leave you not only damage the other partner you damage the children and that is a proven fact... divorce hurts and creates emotionally toxic and economically painful situations.

Reproduction is one of the highest order instinctual needs in the entirety of nature... if you don't reproduce you go extinct and higher order mammals share childcare duties. Higher order mammals sometimes mate for life because of this need to rear children with a committed partner. Even nature seems to echo the need for monogamy. Humans go one step further and formalize this union in an oath because they acknowledge on some level that marriage isn't just about our own needs... If marriage was just about love... then why would the state involve itself in marriage at all? The state doesn't involve itself in boyfriend and girlfriend (or any other configuration) relationships.

If we didn't need special protections for children and child raising... marriage would be a personal thing which the law would never have been able to try and regulate because the government has absolutely no compelling interest to regulate love. Only to assist in the successful and productive maintenance of population. The government doesn't care who controls your healthcare when you're unconscious or where your estate goes. That's what wills are for and healthcare directives. Marriage is about child raising.

The government cares about kids not starving and has a compelling interest in parents making babies that can be workers, soldiers, and all other kinds of bees necessary to make a hive function. Marriage has been a function of society and of childbearing in almost every civilized society ever to exist.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Marriage is about a safe place for children. Marriage has always been about providing a stable relationship between two committed adults from which children can be spawned. Children want their biological parents and biology is important or Maury Povitch wouldn't have a show. Marriage isn't just about tax breaks it's also about establishing who is responsible for the care and welfare of the children produced by the people under law after the relationship ends beyond just the DNA test.

I think this is where we disagree. I believe marriage is between people that love each other and want to share a life together. That life can include children, but does not have to. Beyond that, I already said that I am all for getting rid of the tax breaks for marriage, I do not see a need for them, but I am normally against taxes anyways.

Have you seen the foster system in America? American orphanages are hell holes.

Yep. Something that would help is increasing the pool of prospective people that want to adopt. I feel that a single person who is financially stable should also be able to adopt, not just couples.

How can you argue that a married couple is not the preferred route for child raising? Do you have children?

I have no children and do not care to have them. However, as I pointed out, I think a single person who is financially stable can raise a child just as well as most couples. Beyond that, the preferred rout is not always open, so I do not understand why you would bring it up as if it always is.

Do you suggest that children pop out fully emotionally formed with the ability to just be ok as long someone gives them dirt and water like a ficus plant?

No, but having to parents (biological or otherwise) is not a guaranty that they will be emotionally stable as adults either.

First off: Do you realize how important children are to the health of a nation? If each person only had one child that would make a static population with no growth. Population growth is not an option. If your population remains static for too long your economy tanks because the number of working adults compared to non-working children and elderly eventually becomes unsustainable... especially as life spans grow. The state has a vested interest in population growth. Who will take care of you when you are old and cannot work? My children will be expected to care for all the people who can't care for themselves but decided not to have kids. The society has to care for these people... the society of the future made by the children we have.

As we already agreed, marriage is not synonymous with popping out children. Thus, this point is irrelevant.

You should read this. It's about why when birthrates get to a critical mass your economy tanks. The state has a vested interest in population growth.

As you have already agreed, marriage is not needed for producing children. Thus, what this has to do with what we are discussing is beyond me.

Non-married, non-procreating people are not entirely equal before the law to married people because the latter have taken on an unequal burden, the burden of producing and raising humans for the next generation of the nation.

Where is it law that marriage means I have to start producing children?

You have also completely stepped over the emotional bonding issue like it isn't even a thing. Like kids and adults have a sterile, congenial attachment which is purely convenient. Parental love and attachment is one of the essential formative influences of a child's self-esteem, self-worth and sense of security... not to mention the fact that parental attachment to their own children is orders of magnitude more powerful than the attachment of a non-related care giver could ever be.

I do not disagree with any of this. I just do not see the point of it when you already agreed that marriage is not synonymous with popping out children.

If you have children with someone you are not willing to make a lifetime commitment to be with... it is not a good sign that you will stick around when the going gets tough with the kids. If you leave you not only damage the other partner you damage the children and that is a proven fact... divorce hurts and creates emotionally toxic and economically painful situations.

I would disagree with this. I think in some cases it might be better to co-parent. Shotgun marriages never seemed like a good idea to me. Both parents wanting the child, but are unable to stand each other means the option of co-parenting instead of being forced into a marriage just might be a better option.

Reproduction is one of the highest order instinctual needs in the entirety of nature... if you don't reproduce you go extinct and higher order mammals share childcare duties. Higher order mammals sometimes mate for life because of this need to rear children with a committed partner. Even nature seems to echo the need for monogamy. Humans go one step further and formalize this union in an oath because they acknowledge on some level that marriage isn't just about our own needs... If marriage was just about love... then why would the state involve itself in marriage at all? The state doesn't involve itself in boyfriend and girlfriend (or any other configuration) relationships.

As I said before, I am fine with the state not involving itself in this issue at all. However, if it does, it has to treat everyone equally. You keep side stepping that issue.

If we didn't need special protections for children and child raising... marriage would be a personal thing which the law would never have been able to try and regulate because the government has absolutely no compelling interest to regulate love. Only to assist in the successful and productive maintenance of population. The government doesn't care who controls your healthcare when you're unconscious or where your estate goes. That's what wills are for and healthcare directives. Marriage is about child raising.

Again, I completely disagree with you on that. Marriage is about love and you already agreed that marriage is not synonymous with popping out children.

The government cares about kids not starving and has a compelling interest in parents making babies that can be workers, soldiers, and all other kinds of bees necessary to make a hive function. Marriage has been a function of society and of childbearing in almost every civilized society ever to exist.

If it were the case that the government cared about children, than they should just give people money for popping out children. Again, marriage is not synonymous with popping out children and our government needs to treat everyone equal under the law.

 

[Visaki]

I know couples that have children that are married, and are not. I see no real diffenrence between them when it comes to the wellbeing of the children. This might just be because in Finland we mostly don't think that having children out of wedlock is a stigma of some sorts. For example my sister isn't married to her companion and no one seems to care, least their two children.

One thing I'd also like to argue that marriage has never really been about having children, people have had children out of wedlock forever, but rather about ensuring that the father of the children are the ones designated. There are exeptions of course, but it pretty much boils down to the property like attitude people societies have had about women for centuries in the Abrahamic regions until the last 250 years.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Touche that we have a victim complex but the religion was started by a martyr who was crucified and then carried on by people who got burned at the stake, tortured and crucified for their faith... soooo.... if anyone can legitimize a victim complex it has to be us.

Bit of a problem when 'you' went on to pogrom, force convert, murder 'witches', burn at the stake, crusade and generally cause centuries of suffering under the guise of supposedly following in the footsteps of that original martyr.

 

[Sparhafoc]

The act of making a child requires no commitment. Raising a child requires the supreme commitment. I am passionate about this so let me express this as it feels with respect for you and your opinion... Of course in the spirit of debate with no malice intended.

Marriage is about a safe place for children.

Problem. You are linking marriage and child-raising.

These clearly don't go hand in hand.

Case in point, my girlfriend raised her son wholly in the absence of any father for 5 years. The kid turned out sweet, gentle, clever and kind. No marriage required.

Rather, your argument is actually an economic argument, and it ultimately tails back to a traditional and out-dated notion of a provider and a nurturer.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I may have missed a relevant thread in this conversation topic, but I would say that it is absolutely unarguable that marriage was until very recently exclusively economic in concern, mostly about inheritance rights.

It's only in the last century or so that some countries have linked it to other factors like love or child-rearing, but this is a speck in comparison to the weight of historical marriage.

 

[Gnug215]

The act of making a child requires no commitment. Raising a child requires the supreme commitment. I am passionate about this so let me express this as it feels with respect for you and your opinion... Of course in the spirit of debate with no malice intended.

Marriage is about a safe place for children. Marriage has always been about providing a stable relationship between two committed adults from which children can be spawned. Children want their biological parents and biology is important or Maury Povitch wouldn't have a show. Marriage isn't just about tax breaks it's also about establishing who is responsible for the care and welfare of the children produced by the people under law after the relationship ends beyond just the DNA test.

Same sex couples are getting married and adopting children because same sex couples also acknowledge that a lifetime commitment to raising a child is necessary. Marriage is a great example of such commitment. Children are not easy to raise. Children are your responsibility for the entirety of their lives. Children can be emotionally damaged (and largely are) by divorce, emotionally distant or absent parents, and being given up for adoption. Have you seen the foster system in America? American orphanages are hell holes.

How can you argue that a married couple is not the preferred route for child raising? Do you have children?
[...]

I do, and I'm not married. I and the mother of my two children live together, as we have for over 10 years.

Why is marriage (that can easily end in divorce, btw) essential to this arrangement?

 

[MatthewLee]

I know couples that have children that are married, and are not. I see no real diffenrence between them when it comes to the wellbeing of the children. This might just be because in Finland we mostly don't think that having children out of wedlock is a stigma of some sorts. For example my sister isn't married to her companion and no one seems to care, least their two children.

One thing I'd also like to argue that marriage has never really been about having children, people have had children out of wedlock forever, but rather about ensuring that the father of the children are the ones designated. There are exeptions of course, but it pretty much boils down to the property like attitude people societies have had about women for centuries in the Abrahamic regions until the last 250 years.

Marriage is about children but not because you need it to fornicate and impregnate. You need it for the kids.

First lets define a term here. What do we mean by marriage? Now as a Christian I take the Bible definition of marriage. There are two passages that seem to reference this very effectively...

Matthew 19:4-6 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus never says anything about a ceremony and neither does Genesis which represents where Jesus got this quote from Gen 2:24.

People joined in love with one another as one flesh for the purpose of going forth, being fruitful and multiplying. That's what you do when you meet a woman you love, you have babies with her. Back then it was assumed a woman you had babies with was one you stayed with. You owed her that, it was a debt of honor. Then, just as now, it was easier to raise a baby with two people. One to care for the child and one to go get food and supplies and defend the home. The one that makes milk seemed the logical choice for child care and the one who was muscled, hairy and aggressive seemed the natural choice to hunt and protect. Perhaps this was about property or perhaps this started about mutual respect and working together for the good of children.

Now, the times are different and women can earn money just like men and fend for themselves equally well, perhaps better. Even now, however, babies still like stability, it makes them grow up happier and healthier. Can children thrive in single parent homes? Yes they can... mostly it hurts them, however and I challenge you to come up with any valid and far reaching scientific data which says that one parent homes are happier overall and produce more emotionally well-off kids. Children are biologically related to you and that means you are most likely to understand them best... and they you. They also may need to know you for complex issues of identity. Boys long to know their fathers and women their mothers. There is an inborn desire for such a thing and that is why we mate for life, because stability and a relationship between birth parents which is committed and permanent has a higher chance, statistically, of producing happy and healthy children. Happy and healthy children can come from many places... I'm talking about the raw numbers.

It is not the ceremony or the benefits that make marriage important but rather the commitment it entails which is necessary for the raising of happy kids in the majority of cases. You can cite anecdotal and exceptional cases all day but in the end the numbers will tell the tale that the largest number of good child rearing outcomes are from two parent, committed parents who stay together... married with or without a ceremony if they just agree to mate for life.
Marriage works, even if we aren't talking about the ceremony, or the tax breaks.

I found a neat section of the The Maine State Statutes on marriage makes a brilliant statement to this effect.

"§650. Findings and purposes
All municipal clerks and courts of this State shall have a duty and shall be legally required to construe the provisions of Maine's marriage laws in accordance with the following findings and purposes: [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]

1. Findings. The people of the State of Maine find that:
A. The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage. [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
[ 1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW) .]
2. Purposes. The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To encourage the traditional monogamous family unit as the basic building block of our society, the foundation of harmonious and enriching family life; [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
B. To nurture, sustain and protect the traditional monogamous family unit in Maine society, its moral imperatives, its economic function and its unique contribution to the rearing of healthy children; and [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]
C. To support and strengthen traditional monogamous Maine families against improper interference from out-of-state influences or edicts."

The basic building block of society. If a society is people, and little people come from sex between males and females, and children are most successfully raised by a male and female who agree to be monogamous...
Doesn't it benefit the state to support the definition of marriage which is the solemnization of an oath to one another before law? Maybe marriage doesn't work all the time but in the larger number of cases when applied scrupulously marriage, the monogamous union of two people for life for the purpose of creating and raising a family, is the clear winner in relationship dynamics for successful and positive outcomes. The states compelling interest can't just be for some outdated property claim system.

 

[MatthewLee]

The act of making a child requires no commitment. Raising a child requires the supreme commitment. I am passionate about this so let me express this as it feels with respect for you and your opinion... Of course in the spirit of debate with no malice intended.

Marriage is about a safe place for children.

Problem. You are linking marriage and child-raising.

These clearly don't go hand in hand.

Case in point, my girlfriend raised her son wholly in the absence of any father for 5 years. The kid turned out sweet, gentle, clever and kind. No marriage required.

Rather, your argument is actually an economic argument, and it ultimately tails back to a traditional and out-dated notion of a provider and a nurturer.

I may have missed a relevant thread in this conversation topic, but I would say that it is absolutely unarguable that marriage was until very recently exclusively economic in concern, mostly about inheritance rights.

It's only in the last century or so that some countries have linked it to other factors like love or child-rearing, but this is a speck in comparison to the weight of historical marriage.

I cannot imagine such a statement as that marriage and child raising do not go hand in hand. Perhaps it is my upbringing, maybe my culture, but the idea of raising a child outside of a committed, lifetime, monogamous relationship is quite foreign to me. Is the question which is objectively better? From my perspective in a home where my mother left my father early, tried to raise me as a single mother, and met and married several men... Marriage is better. I'm in my forties and I just got to meet my real dad. I craved meeting my real father for my whole life. There was an emotional hole where he should have been. I think all children have a parent shaped hole in their hearts where only their biological parents fit. Step parents aren't the same. There is something about blood that means a lot.

Stability is always the thing a child craves when they are being raised. Children scare easy. They don't like change. Not to mention it hurts them on a fundamental level if the parent who is supposed to love them and stay doesn't love them and leaves. It leads to self-esteem issues in many cases. Perhaps you have a positive outcome in a situation which is very common, single motherhood.

The normal outcome is predictable. How many people can afford to pay for full time daycare, health benefits, food and clothing, services, and other misc. expenses for themselves and another person? Not many. How many of those people have time to also care for the emotional needs of another growing human being who requires constant attention, love and guidance? Again, not many...

It's a minority of single parents here, because most in this country are just trying to keep food in the fridge and gas in the car... the niceties are lost on that. Even the two parent families struggle for the most part because life is expensive and kids even more so. Two incomes are required for all but a very small percentage of Americans for raising children and giving them a fighting chance at life. This is one of the sadder reasons for legally defined marriage here... sometimes you have to make sure one of the parents lives up to their financial responsibility when they leave.

But if marriage was just about property and inheritance than why do poor people do it in droves? The poor have been getting married for love as long as there has been poverty. They got married in Ancient Greece, they got married in Ancient Rome, they got married in Ancient Israel and they get married in those places today, too. The reason poor people get married isn't about inheritance rights... what do they leave behind? Perhaps it is more than that.

It's about someone having your back for life that you can trust like no one else... you have to trust them because you depend on them to help you keep your children alive. It is also about growing a family of your own flesh and blood and the unique and special emotional ties engendered by blood relation. If you can't trust them to help with that... why did you breed with them in the first place? That's one of the reasons premarital sex used to be taboo. If you got a woman pregnant and didn't agree to help with the baby then she and the child might not make it alone. There hasn't always been a social safety net and in America it's painfully thin.

If it is only in the last century that marriage has been linked to love then why did Romeo and Juliet want to be married? Marriage and love are rife in traditional narrative. What about Jacob and Rachel? People did marry for love in the past. Some married for inheritance and others to preserve bloodlines and even some further had traditions of arranged marriage...

Still, the idea of marriage for love between two people who want to raise a family is hardly an invention of the last two centuries, or the last two millennia. It's human nature.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I cannot imagine such a statement as that marriage and child raising do not go hand in hand.

That as may be, it is still factually the case.

Perhaps it is my upbringing, maybe my culture, but the idea of raising a child outside of a committed, lifetime, monogamous relationship is quite foreign to me.

No, its your religious tradition, which is about 2 millimeters down in terms of historical depth. Christianity is absolutely clear scripturally that marriage is about inheritance rights. It didn't even become a sacrament until the 12th century.

This is not surprising as it's the same case across the world and across all cultures; marriage is economic. It's a very recent, modern phenomenon to link marriage and child-raising.

Is the question which is objectively better?

I very much doubt that's the question as it's a bad one. How can it be objectively better? You can't try out multiple lives to test that!

What matters to kids is that they have a loving, nurturing, safe, and healthy environment. Mummy is still mummy, and daddy is still daddy, regardless of whether they've signed a bit of paper or not.

From my perspective in a home where my mother left my father early, tried to raise me as a single mother, and met and married several men... Marriage is better. I'm in my forties and I just got to meet my real dad. I craved meeting my real father for my whole life. There was an emotional hole where he should have been. I think all children have a parent shaped hole in their hearts where only their biological parents fit. Step parents aren't the same. There is something about blood that means a lot.

But that's a different case. That's not 'not married'; that's 'absent father'.

Also, I very much disagree with your contention, and it shows how the notion is wholly subjective rather than having a whiff of objectivity.

My son never had a father - his sperm packet came from a man who, once he found his girlfriend was pregnant, immediately dropped the relationship and showed no further interest in the well-being of his son.

My son and I didn't even meet until last year (he's 5 now)... but we're as close as you can possibly imagine. In fact, his mum complains at how close we are (team boys) when she raised him, changed his diapers, fed and clothed him, and I just waltzed in once all the dirty work was done.

I'm his step-dad in name alone. Perhaps you should consider what you're saying a little more. Ask my son who his daddy is, and I can assure you he'll point straight to me with a big grin on his face. No 'biological parent shaped hole' there.

Stability is always the thing a child craves when they are being raised. Children scare easy. They don't like change.

Possibly true in general, but also not relevant. A child can have a stable life with two parents who aren't married but who remain committed to each other.

Not to mention it hurts them on a fundamental level if the parent who is supposed to love them and stay doesn't love them and leaves. It leads to self-esteem issues in many cases. Perhaps you have a positive outcome in a situation which is very common, single motherhood.

Let's toss out another anecdote. One of my best friends in the UK was with her guy for nearly 20 years - they met while at university, had 3 lovely sons, and finally tied the knot after their third was born (the sons were page boys at their wedding)... 6 months after getting married, they were queuing up for a divorce instead.

Of course, I am not saying it's marriage that caused this, but their relationship prior to marriage was stable, the kids had a secure environment, but marriage didn't heighten that stability and security.

What actually changed was that the parents were no longer committed to each other. Fortunately, despite many problems between the ex husband and wife, both remain committed to their kids, so despite the emotional disruption, they're fine. You couldn't imagine a set of brighter, more engaged, and more loving kids.

The normal outcome is predictable. How many people can afford to pay for full time daycare, health benefits, food and clothing, services, and other misc. expenses for themselves and another person? Not many. How many of those people have time to also care for the emotional needs of another growing human being who requires constant attention, love and guidance? Again, not many...

Ok, but you've changed your argument to be economic, and you're also maintaining a notion that isn't consistent. You can do all the above without being married. Not being married doesn't mean being a single parent. Two adults can live and love together all their lives without signing a piece of paper, they can mutually offer their shared resources for the benefit of their children without being married.

None of your examples is yet contingent on being married. Each case you've presented is about having two parents.

It's a minority of single parents here, because most in this country are just trying to keep food in the fridge and gas in the car... the niceties are lost on that. Even the two parent families struggle for the most part because life is expensive and kids even more so. Two incomes are required for all but a very small percentage of Americans for raising children and giving them a fighting chance at life. This is one of the sadder reasons for legally defined marriage here... sometimes you have to make sure one of the parents lives up to their financial responsibility when they leave.

I might be wrong, but I expect that alimony actually covers that in the US, and regardless of a piece of paper saying 'married', that financial obligation will still remain in force if the parents of a child separate post-marriage or never having been married.

But if marriage was just about property and inheritance than why do poor people do it in droves?

For the same reason the rich do. I might not have as much property as Bill Gates, but I still want it automatically to go to my immediate family when I die.

The poor have been getting married for love as long as there has been poverty. They got married in Ancient Greece, they got married in Ancient Rome, they got married in Ancient Israel and they get married in those places today, too. The reason poor people get married isn't about inheritance rights... what do they leave behind? Perhaps it is more than that.

No, it's the fundamental reason: marriage is a contract with the state. On death, the state promises to respect the property of the deceased in terms of passing on ownership to the immediate family. It doesn't matter if you've got a one floor mud hut or a palace; when you die, you want your family to still have the best opportunity possible.

It's about someone having your back for life that you can trust like no one else... you have to trust them because you depend on them to help you keep your children alive.

Again, the word is 'parent' or 'committed partner' but neither point there above requires marriage.

It is also about growing a family of your own flesh and blood and the unique and special emotional ties engendered by blood relation.

Thrusting one's penis into a vagina until ejaculation requires no paper certificate. Continuing to provide material and emotional support for one's issue for the rest of your natural life requires no paper certificate.

Supposing a man lacks the character to provide emotional and material support for his offspring, then the piece of paper saying 'married' is irrelevant. He will leave and not provide that support. Supposing instead the man is highly motivated to provide emotional and material support for his offspring, then the piece of paper saying 'married' is still irrelevant because he's going to offer that support regardless of his status.

If you can't trust them to help with that... why did you breed with them in the first place?

Well, aside from the answers already given, people often have sex without thinking of breeding.

That's one of the reasons premarital sex used to be taboo. If you got a woman pregnant and didn't agree to help with the baby then she and the child might not make it alone. There hasn't always been a social safety net and in America it's painfully thin.

Alimony. You can trace the concept of alimony all the way back to the code of Hammurabi, i.e. the oldest written resource in human history.

If it is only in the last century that marriage has been linked to love then why did Romeo and Juliet want to be married?

Because that's the only way their society would have approved of their relationship.

Marriage and love are rife in traditional narrative. What about Jacob and Rachel? People did marry for love in the past. Some married for inheritance and others to preserve bloodlines and even some further had traditions of arranged marriage...

No, the only reason they married is because that was a necessary part of their societies approval of their relationship, and the state had strict laws governing fraternizations between men and women. What is particularly telling is that, for much of history, when a man and woman slept together outside of marriage, the state's laws made it a criminal act on the man's part as if he was stealing from the father of the woman, and diminishing her economic worth to her father. Again, you only need look in the Bible to see this - women were treated legally as chattel.

Royal weddings are a little different, but the fundamental concept is still not about children, but about their own status.

Still, the idea of marriage for love between two people who want to raise a family is hardly an invention of the last two centuries, or the last two millennia. It's human nature.

You're mistaken Matthew, it really is the case. There's no such 'human nature' as to 'get married'. The vast majority of humans who have ever existed did not 'get married' in any sense that we would recognize it. Further, many cultures practiced polygamy where one man could be married to multiple women.

Sadly, time's up to respond but I will try and remember to come back later to show you the abundance of historical cases which will shine a light on how your concept of marriage is really just a case of you unduly extrapolating your 'normality' onto the rest of the world.

 

[MatthewLee]

A lot of my post was made with reference to the idea that marriage is not just a piece of paper but an institution that preceded the legal and cultural hullabaloo. It was developed in the post preceding the one I responded to you in.

For example:

Matthew 19:4-6 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus never says anything about a ceremony and neither does Genesis which represents where Jesus got this quote from Gen 2:24.

But if marriage is simply in my religion... why does it exist in cultures which don't share my religion like China and India? Surely Christianity didn't inform the ideas of marriage held by the 3 or so billion people who live there?

I am off to bed but I am interested to respond to many of your assertions. Good evening and be well!

 

[Sparhafoc]

But if marriage is simply in my religion... why does it exist in cultures which don't share my religion like China and India? Surely Christianity didn't inform the ideas of marriage held by the 3 or so billion people who live there?

For clarity, I did not suggest that marriage exists only in your religion, or originated in Christianity or Judaism, although your conception of marriage is very much defined by your religious narrative. Instead, marriage is a human institution devised by proto-states for dealing with property, inheritance, and the transmission of wealth. Prior to that, people still lived together in monogamous relationships, had ceremonies celebrating that, and probably had a suite of local norms that governed the relationships between the united families and the distribution of wealth, but the advent of the institution of marriage codified that dependent on local state laws.

Religion, as religion is wont to do, merely took the man-made and projected it onto the sky, making a human-devised rule a fundamental component of the created universe.

We have amassed plenty of evidence of peoples living in an ancient lifestyle of family tribes without the presence of a unified state, and they still undergo many of the forms and functions of a marriage without it actually being a marriage in any identifiable or coherent way, and always connected is an economic component, i.e. brideprice & brideservice.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0019066

What we can see from ancient archaeological and genetic records from species predating modern humans is the universality of reciprocal female exogamy, where the females of the family group are sent out of the group to form sexual partnerships with neighboring groups, thereby a) arranging familial bond alliances complete with economic exchanges of wealth and b) minimizing genetic homozygosity (incest avoidance). It's transactional and biological.

But therein lies the problem for the notions you hold. We see this in plenty of other non-human animals too, for example, among chimpanzees. Chimps live in extended family tribes and face the same issues early humans would - you can't keep breeding with your own family or you end up genetically impoverishing your group to the point that offspring are no longer viable and the group goes extinct. As such, when a female chimpanzee is sexually mature, she will either leave or be driven away by the group, she will insinuate herself into a neighboring group, and they will accept her where they wouldn't with a 'foreign' male. This biological system provides the foundation for human marriage. There's a motive, there's a price, and finally it's all codified so no one gets stiffed on the transaction.

This then shows you that 'marriage' sans words, ceremony, and accoutrements predates humans by tens of millions of years, and the motivation therein is wholly biological and selected for naturally. The one and only core difference with humans is there's always an exchange of goods, a value is placed on the transaction. With the agricultural revolution, humans had more stuff; they were sedentary, they had houses, they needed various items to perform their tasks in life, and these represented wealth. It's no surprise, consequently, that the oral traditions recorded eventually in your own religious tradition actually originate around the time of the agricultural revolution, because this is when writing was developed, when records could be kept, and laws codified.

You could also consider how and why human groups have historically discluded or banned specific sectors of society from intermarrying, for example between different caste/classes - did God contrive this system, or did people? If you accept the latter, then why can't you see marriage itself as human-made? If its human made, and if the vast majority of human history had females as chattel, and if the vast majority of human history had wholly arranged marriages, then it's quite clear that the components of marriage you're appealing to are modern inventions, tacked on later. Don't get me wrong, I approve of those ideas - people should marry for love, for parental stability, for mutual support - but we shouldn't fool ourselves into believing that this is what motivated the origin of marriage, or that the institution of marriage has anything fundamental to do with them.

 

[Tree]

Problem. You are linking marriage and child-raising.

These clearly don't go hand in hand.

Case in point, my girlfriend raised her son wholly in the absence of any father for 5 years.

Wholly in the absence of any father you say?

Ignoring that the government is constantly trying to pretend to fill that role. Yes, let's pretend to be strong and independent while being dependent on not just one man but on literally the entire part of the country that pays taxes. Basically on most people and especially those evil rich people.

The kid turned out sweet, gentle, clever and kind. No marriage required.

Yup, no marriage required, likely just thousands if not tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars in welfare payments to single moms. Unless maybe the single mom is rich or something.

Far be it from me to force people to get married, but why should other people who are total strangers to you and owe you nothing have to pay to fund lifestyles that cannot be sustained on a voluntary interaction basis? My wallet my choice?

It's not even fair to the child. On average single mother homes also produce worse outcomes than married couple homes. So while your anecdote may be true, it does not constitute a good defense of single mom homes on a societal scale. Nobody is saying a single mom can never raise a kid right or that a married couple will always raise a kid right. It's about probabilities here.

They cost the taxpayer more. They produce worse results. We would literally have less crime, less drug addiction, less unemployment or underemployment and less need for taxation if single parenthood was discouraged on a social level. Like it used to be the case.

But Hetherington, who like Roiphe embraces changing family structures, also was honest enough to admit that divorce tends to double a child’s risk of a serious negative outcome. Specifically, she found that “twenty-five percent of youths from divorced families in comparison to 10 percent from non-divorced families did have serious social, emotional, or psychological problems.” Other research suggests that the children of never-married single parents tend to do somewhat worse than children of divorced single parents.

Take two contemporary social problems: teenage pregnancy and the incarceration of young males. Research by Sara McLanahan at Princeton University suggests that boys are significantly more likely to end up in jail or prison by the time they turn 30 if they are raised by a single mother. Specifically, McLanahan and a colleague found that boys raised in a single-parent household were more than twice as likely to be incarcerated, compared with boys raised in an intact, married home, even after controlling for differences in parental income, education, race, and ethnicity. Research on young men suggests they are less likely to engage in delinquent or illegal behavior when they have the affection, attention, and monitoring of their own mother and father.

Research by the Economic Mobility Project at Pew suggests that children from intact families are also more likely to rise up the income ladder if they were raised in a low-income family, and less likely to fall into poverty if they were raised in a wealthy family. For instance, according to Pew’s analysis, 54 percent of today’s young adults who grew up in an intact two-parent home in the top-third of household income have remained in the top-third as adults, compared with just 37 percent of today’s young adults who grew up in a wealthy (top-third) but divorced family.

Why is this? Single mothers, even from wealthier families, have less time.

And that's a leftist source admitting it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/07/single_motherhood_worse_for_children_.html

Rather, your argument is actually an economic argument, and it ultimately tails back to a traditional and out-dated notion of a provider and a nurturer.

Not really, having both parents is simply better. Even if they have an equal role in providing and nurturing. There just aren't enough hours in the day to do both adequately. 8 hours at work is 8 hours they're not getting your attention and with travel that might be 9 or 10 hours.

Plus there would be lower taxes if as a society we frowned upon having kids before you're married. Like we used to do before. I'm not talking about bringing back prudish sexual norms that's stupid, I'm talking about being responsible for the consequences of your actions. You want a kid? Get married first. And if you don't, don't expect a cent in welfare. You are on your own, if you can't do the job, maybe some other people can.

My son never had a father - his sperm packet came from a man who, once he found his girlfriend was pregnant, immediately dropped the relationship and showed no further interest in the well-being of his son.

That is regrettable.

There is child support for that and we should shame them more.

Being a deadbeat dad should carry almost as much stigma as being a sex offender in my opinion. But people have forgotten just how important marriage is. We have completely lost our way as a society due to leftist propaganda on social issues.