Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

[Tree]

And here's the thing, you can in theory choose to simply not get married and just stay together your whole life. That would be sort of an unofficial marriage.

Taking the official step just indicates some likelihood of commitment and makes you a bit more trustworthy that you won't leave. Because it's much easier to leave a long-term relationship than a marriage.

I would not recommend having any biological children with a person who did not want to make that commitment. If it happens by accident okay, I'll take full responsibility, but I'd never willingly impregnate someone who did not want to get married officially.


The marriage bashing left constantly prove how much wisdom they lack.

 

[Sparhafoc]

And here's the thing, you can in theory choose to simply not get married and just stay together your whole life. That would be sort of an unofficial marriage.

Taking the official step just indicates some likelihood of commitment and makes you a bit more trustworthy that you won't leave. Because it's much easier to leave a long-term relationship than a marriage.

No logical reasoning is offered: you've made an assertion.

The only additional hurdle to leaving a marriage over leaving a long-term relationship is bureaucratic/legal - you've had your union recognized by the state on legal grounds, and you have to get the state to recognize the dissolution of that union on legal grounds.

I would not recommend having any biological children with a person who did not want to make that commitment.

More importantly, no one gives two hoots about your recommendations.

If it happens by accident okay, I'll take full responsibility, but I'd never willingly impregnate someone who did not want to get married officially.

Well done for having a value you aspire to. Just don't confuse that with what other people can or can't, should or shouldn't do.

The marriage bashing left constantly prove how much wisdom they lack.

The vacuous alt-right never fail to see boogeymen under every bed.

 

[Sparhafoc]

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?

Yes, that's what I said.

You can tell I said it because first I said it, then you repeated it with a question mark.

Ignoring that the government is constantly trying to pretend to fill that role.

Which government would that be? Last time I checked, there wasn't only one government, there were many - and all those different governments do different things.

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.

Abject pap as usual because instead of attempting to find out about the subject, you instead simply emote reality in lieu of being informed.

My girlfriend has never had so much as a single cent in help from taxes. Instead, she's actually contributed more in taxes on account of having 3 jobs which she needed to do in order to financially support her child.

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.

Typical idiocy.

You don't have the first idea what you're talking about.

You should try asking about facts, rather than emoting them.

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?

And how much did you contribute to the raising of my girlfriend's son?

Zero. That's right, not a penny.

So your argument is...? Irrelevant, wrong, invalid, and absurd.

It's not even fair to the child.

What's 'not fair' to the child? Successfully rearing the child is not 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.

It's not remotely about probabilities, nor were any cases made for 'societal scale' - you're just trying to be argumentative and contrary and not doing a very good job of filling in the gaping chasms in your logical leap.

They cost the taxpayer more.

Which taxpayer?

You don't know what you're talking about. No taxpayer incurred any cost whatsoever in the case of my girlfriend's son's life.

They produce worse results.

Not the case, your assertion notwithstanding.

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.

All wild speculation asserted as fact.

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.

Divorce. I take it you didn't read what you cited very well.

Divorce necessitates marriage, does it not? So how have you not concluded that this is a strike against marriage?

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.

Where was this research conducted?

Source, please?

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.

Hardly surprising, is it? Two parents with incomes are more likely to have more disposable income than one parent.

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

Well, of course they do. Similarly, single fathers, even from wealthier families, have less time. If there are 10 things to do and 2 people to do them, each has 5 tasks. If there's only one person, they have to do all 10.

Not exactly rocket science, is it?

And that's a leftist source admitting it.

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

Leftist source? Tree, your vacuous political prejudice is showing again.

Admitting it? Tree, your vacuous political prejudice is showing again.

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.

Not really, he says, then goes on to provide an argument in support of that which he is supposedly disagreeing with.

Plus there would be lower taxes if as a society we frowned upon having kids before you're married.

Rubbish: you don't know what you're talking about.

Like we used to do before.

Who's 'we' and what have they got to do with it?

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.

Dr Black and White wants you to think in black and white.

As for 'welfare' - who are you talking about Tree? This isn't your country, Tree - it's the internet - you'd have thought this wouldn't need to be said, but it clearly does. Unsurprising, of course, but still utterly inane.

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.

Why do you regret that?

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

Child support? You don't know what you're talking about, Tree.

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.

What society are you talking about Tree? And you've failed to draw a line between these alleged failings in society and the alleged leftist propaganda you always posit as the root of all evils.

 

[Tree]

I see you haven't changed and aren't honestly addressing my points, so I will cease to respond to you.

Feel free to try again with a better reply.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I see you haven't changed and aren't honestly addressing my points, so I will cease to respond to you.

Feel free to try again with a better reply.

Stimuli response - see shit, reject shit. Simple.

Want to engender a different response? Then up your game considerably.

Your entire post was an ignorant provincial rant. You continually labour under a partisan paradigm, which even at best possible reading would be restricted to your nation, that obtusely fails to comprehend that the people on this site aren't living under your political system.

This is not a minor issue, but rather essential for you to comprehend. The ramifications of your error just in this thread are numerous. There is no single parent child support where I live. No government mandate whatsoever, not for alimony, not for tax credits: nada. Similarly, there is no 'leftist agenda' here which has 'destroyed society' here, so all of your remarks were at very best ignorant, irrelevant and inapplicable.

But do feel free to blame me for your failings - it's your typical martyrdom narrative where your inability to convey a serious argument is blamed on your interlocutor. If you want honest debate, then you're going to need to engender it.

As for not responding to me - do as you please - it's not like you were really responding to what I wrote anyway: you were shadow-boxing with your manufactured demons as always.

 

[Tree]

This is not a minor issue, but rather essential for you to comprehend. The ramifications of your error just in this thread are numerous. There is no single parent child support where I live.

Incorrect. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/children-and-young-people/child-maintenance/child-maintenance-where-to-start/

"If you split up, and you’re the parent who doesn’t have the main day-to-day care of the children, you may have to pay money to the person looking after the children. This is called child maintenance. Sometimes it's also called child support."

No government mandate whatsoever, not for alimony, not for tax credits: nada.

Also incorrect. http://www.recentlyseparated.co.uk/alimony-and-child-support.html

"After divorce it's not uncommon for one party to have to pay alimony or spousal support and child support."

But it should be noted that I haven't mentioned "alimony" anywhere or spoken unfavorably about child support.

I'm talking about the forcible transfer of resources from the tax payer to the single parent, NOT from one parent to another.

https://www.netmums.com/life/single-parent-benefits

Feel free to read this list of benefits that a single parent may be eligible for in the UK.


MatthewLee made a very good point about marriage being about a safe place for children. If you want to deride it as some outdated concept, okay, enjoy paying those taxes I guess and yet having more social dysfunction later down the line. I don't know about you but for me it is infinitely preferable to have a society where:

1. people don't breed before marriage
2. people take their marriage seriously

As opposed to one where people don't and the tax payer has to sacrifice part of their income to contain the mess.

Liberty without responsibility is just hedonistic narcissism.

 

[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?

 

[Tree]

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?

If marriage can easily end in divorce, imagine how well a non-married relationship does. Those break even faster and are generally unsuitable for raising children. Those take lifetime commitment.

Being wiling to marry shows at least some intent of commitment and some optimism about the viability of the relationship going forward many decades.

 

[Sparhafoc]

This is not a minor issue, but rather essential for you to comprehend. The ramifications of your error just in this thread are numerous. There is no single parent child support where I live.

Incorrect. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/children-and-young-people/child-maintenance/child-maintenance-where-to-start/

I don't live in the UK, you functional moron.

 

[Sparhafoc]

If marriage can easily end in divorce, imagine how well a non-married relationship does. Those break even faster and are generally unsuitable for raising children. Those take lifetime commitment.

Being wiling to marry shows at least some intent of commitment and some optimism about the viability of the relationship going forward many decades.

Assertion, assertion, assertion, therefore conclusion.

The first assertion has already been shown wrong - it's no easier to end a long-term relationship than a marriage aside from bureaucracy.

The second assertion repeats the erroneous first assertion.

The third assertion is bollocks, what's suitable for children is having loving parents, regardless of whether those parents have married.

The fourth is an irrelevance. One can enter into a lifelong commitment without it being marriage.

Being willing to marry shows no more intent of commitment than committing via action, in fact, many people simply sleepwalk into marriage, then quickly find it's not for them and end up divorced - divorce rate have ballooned over the decades.

Optimism of the viability of the relationship going forward has no logical connection to getting married.

Wholly unsurprisingly, you've offered nothing of logical coherence to your position, because your position isn't actually based on logic.

 

[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?
[...]

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?

You have asked this twice so I will answer. I do not wish to give offense but... According to the Bible you are married. The arrangement you describe is marriage. (Gen 2:24). You left your parent's house, cleaved to one woman and apparently wish to stay with her until death do you part... and you multiplied... am in error in any of these points? The simple act of choosing a mate is some kind of commitment , isn't it? Truthfully, if you already have agreed to stay with this woman and love her only for the purpose of raising a family then why NOT get married? What part of the ceremony or the simple act (which means a lot to women) of declaring to family and the world that this is my mate and I will have no other for my whole life offends you? What greater act of love is there?

Marriage can easily end in divorce, you say? Are you saying that it would be easy for you to leave the person to whom you have committed a decade and decided to raise children with? How sure is your footing? Is it sure enough to build a marriage on or are you just more comfortable "going steady" while you raise kids? If you weren't planning on leaving your partner anyway why NOT solemnize the union and enjoy the legal and tax benefits? Are you keeping an escape option open just in case or do you really believe in your commitment? What does your relationship mean to you? Is your relationship a convenient arrangement in which you reserve the right to leave in the future if decide you want to or have you made a sincere and binding commitment to your partner which you intend to honor? Anyway, also...

Marriage can end in divorce but not easily. Divorce is the farthest thing from easy anyone will ever know. I have a family practice lawyer in my family and she tells me plenty about how "easy" divorce is. Divorce destroys lives and creates severe emotional trauma for children which is why breaking up a marriage, even an undeclared one, is treated with some caution. Even without being married formally, in many states in the US you are already married by common law which is marriage by simply acting married long enough. This law is mean to acknowledge that at this point you two have accrued considerable property interests and have vested emotional interest in the children... conversely the children also depend on you as sole providers. These details mean that, in some jurisdictions, the dissolution of even your undeclared bond is overseen by law for the good of the children and both parties because when relationships fail it gets ugly deciding who gets what and who has to pay what. Especially if there's children in the middle of the break up.

Divorce is just breaking up at the heart of it though... which you don't need to be married to do. The whole point of a marriage vow, however, is agreeing to never break up under solemn oath. The law part not respective, the vow itself is the promise upon which the future of the relationship is built and it's not supposed to be about selfishness after that vow. You may marry for love but that love will cool, wax, and wane all throughout your life. You will change, your mind will change, your goals and your worldview may change dramatically... the only thing you agree is that during all of that change you won't change partners every time you change to suit you. That kind of behavior makes you an emotional human wrecking ball constantly falling in and out of love and exercising selfishness without the personal growth required to enjoy and maintain a committed adult relationship. It's about staying... not leaving... it's about the simple act of just continuing to try and keep this relationship no matter what personal feelings intrude. Is such a promise impossible or do we just give up too easy and blame marriage for being imperfect because we can't stand up to the weight of a real promise and keeping it? Is marriage flawed or is it an institution made to try and help balance out human weakness with ramifications for the violation of a sacred vow meant to bond the heart of the family life strong nuclear force?

I am curious... which one of you doesn't want to be married? Have you discussed it before?

 

[MatthewLee]

“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.”

I had step dads. Boy, what fun they were. They all talked like you. My mother had no respect for marriage either. And it was a fresh hurt every time one left. What is the point of marriage? Marriage is great if you practice it and believe in it… it’s like any other promise, however… only as good as the person making it.

I cannot say if you have biological children of your own but it would seem that you don’t like absentee fathers so I’ll assume you don’t. I must assume from the fact that your girlfriend is miffed that you missed all the fun of infancy that you two don’t have any kids together. If all that is true then facially it would seem that you speak from a place of ignorance about what feelings I can imagine. When you hold your bawling, warm and terrified little son in your hands when they are only a few minutes old and you look into their face you suddenly realize you are now not the center of your own life anymore. It is bond that I doubt a year with someone else’s child could create. It is beyond any other feeling I can imagine, it is a terrible and beautiful responsibility that easily and immediately short circuits the instinct for self-preservation. I would die twice for my sons… one for each. It is flesh and blood, somehow flesh and blood does engender a special and unique bond of inexpressible power and I think you underestimate it greatly to say that you are closer to this child than I can possibly imagine. But let’s run that up the flag pole and see if it flies.

I would say that you can tell me you’re his “step-dad in name alone” in thirteen years when you are ready to put him through college and when you have supported, loved and stayed faithful to his mother the entire time. If you don’t think that you’ll still be with her in that amount of time you are cruel for forming a relationship with a child that you know may end… If you are not then why not create a sense of emotional security in the child by marrying his mother and letting him take your name (if that is the custom where you are)? Sure, you expect him to believe your promise you will stay when his own flesh and blood father didn’t. What do you think his impression of men will be when you leave? If you won’t leave… why not commit formally instead of just expecting this family to take your word?

See, there is a reason that when adopting a child you can’t just walk into an orphanage like it’s a puppy mill and say
“I’d like that one! I love him just like my own flesh and blood and I’ll take care of him always! Can I have him!?”

This statement might be enough for you because perhaps you know you are a good enough person to take care of a child and love them forever. For the state, however, it may require a little more assurance before signing over the title to the little tyke… they may need a bit more evidence of your conviction. Raising kids is hard, expensive, and heartbreaking. It’s not all candy cane breath at Christmastime. What will you do when the little one turns fifteen and says,
“You’re not my real father! I don’t have to listen to you!” Mark my words, it’s a prophecy not a speculation. It will happen.

Therefore, in the eyes of the state, making a lifetime conviction to a mate can be one indication you’re ready to handle this kind of responsibility. This kind of commitment speaks to you being able to make and keep lifelong promises inside a healthy loving relationship and therefore to be able to create a stable and loving environment in which a child can grow. Try and get custody of this child, for example, in the terrible and unthinkable event something happens to your significant other as just boyfriend and girlfriend. You’ll quickly find in most jurisdictions that without that ring you have little or no say in what happens to the child and that they will be taken from you and given to blood relations who have legal rights. In the eyes of the law, you are no relation to this child until you make a formal commitment for this reason. Your assurance you love the child is not enough proof for them to give you someone else’s child. You're formal declaration of contractual obligation to be held legally accountable for the child's welfare, on the other hand, is.

You don’t get to proclaim parental understanding from a year with a lovely young lad, who I bless and wish wonderful things for out of respect for you. You get to proclaim you know what you’re talking about after you make a commitment to a woman, make a child with her, take care of her and her exhausting needs and emotional napalm for nine months…. Then help her through the six months of no sleep, constant diaper changes, feedings and terrifying rides to the doctor when the fever just won’t go away. The word “Dad” is an earned title and you have to put in the work. Also…

You used the word “step-dad”. Step-dad means you married his mother. Either you are married and arguing against marriage (??????) or you are neither the child’s dad or step-dad, you’re just a male figure in his life. This is not semantics, it's the language. If you aren’t willing to commit and to tie yourself to him in the eyes of the state and the law, which is what would be required for you to take custody in most jurisdictions if something happened to his mother, then you aren’t his dad or his stepdad.

“Optimism of the viability of the relationship going forward has no logical connection to getting married.“

Actually,

Marriage is the ultimate expression of the optimism of the viability of a relationship going forward. It is a legal solemnization of the relationship between two people in front of the state, family, and world. It is a promise made in front of people whose opinion you respect, which means if you break it, all those people know you can’t keep a promise. It is how you demonstrate to the society and families you live in you are ready to raise children and therefore can be trusted with the resources to do so. Children are human beings and they deserve, at the minimum, a stable mother and father of their own line to raise them, support them, love them and raise them. The reason that people used to have to be married before they could have sex wax precisely this. Sex makes babies, and babies require money and care. Who will provide this money and care and how does the state enforce this? It's called marriage.

You can only dissemble society so much before machinery that didn't work too well in the first place breaks down. You can think that deconstructing things to make them seem more comfortable for personal freedom will improve life for everyone but it's an experiment which risks children's health and safety on the same kind of hopeful yet misguided logic the hippies employed. You know what their philosophy of free love, polyamory, and deconstruction got for us? Step dads, single moms and the Manson family.

 

[Gnug215]

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?

If marriage can easily end in divorce, imagine how well a non-married relationship does. Those break even faster and are generally unsuitable for raising children. Those take lifetime commitment.

Being wiling to marry shows at least some intent of commitment and some optimism about the viability of the relationship going forward many decades.

You're making absolutely baseless assertions here.

I'm sure you know full well that marriage is no guarantee for anything when it comes to committment, suitable environment for raising children, or for having a deadbeat dad.

Just because a non-marriage relationship looks easier getting out of on paper doesn't mean people just enter into it lightly. The focus here is, and always should be, on the children.

You cannot expect an (essentially pointless) institution like marriage to rectify and reign in the behavior of people, especially if you force people into it. People are going to fuck, and sometimes babies will come out of it. Education seems to me to be the only thing that may help a little for the time being, and in the future, better prevention technology.

I'm really not sure how you think marriage would solve any of this. It sure hasn't before. History has shown us that much.

And yes, the state should totally spend money on supporting single parents and give support where needed, because that can only be a positive investment in the future.

Really, what is it with you conservatives thinking that, first of all, you can fully control people's behaviors with some kind of old-timey tradition? And second, why do you bash the state for trying to help out unfortunate kids (and single parents), claiming tyrrany, socialism or the like, but when it comes to basically forcing something like marriage on people, it's A-OK?

 

[Gnug215]

You have asked this twice so I will answer. I do not wish to give offense but... According to the Bible you are married. The arrangement you describe is marriage. (Gen 2:24). You left your parent's house, cleaved to one woman and apparently wish to stay with her until death do you part... and you multiplied... am in error in any of these points? The simple act of choosing a mate is some kind of commitment , isn't it? Truthfully, if you already have agreed to stay with this woman and love her only for the purpose of raising a family then why NOT get married? What part of the ceremony or the simple act (which means a lot to women) of declaring to family and the world that this is my mate and I will have no other for my whole life offends you? What greater act of love is there?

No offense. And yeah, we are pretty much as close to married as it gets.

I'm just not into ceremony and tradition. I honestly feel those would belittle and insult our bond and committment.

Marriage can easily end in divorce, you say? Are you saying that it would be easy for you to leave the person to whom you have committed a decade and decided to raise children with? How sure is your footing? Is it sure enough to build a marriage on or are you just more comfortable "going steady" while you raise kids? If you weren't planning on leaving your partner anyway why NOT solemnize the union and enjoy the legal and tax benefits? Are you keeping an escape option open just in case or do you really believe in your commitment? What does your relationship mean to you? Is your relationship a convenient arrangement in which you reserve the right to leave in the future if decide you want to or have you made a sincere and binding commitment to your partner which you intend to honor? Anyway, also...

No, I wouldn't easily leave this person. Both for my love and committment of her, but also for the children. Only an idiot would take these things lightly.

Now, in our particular case, we would not get many legal and tax benefits. In fact, we might suffer negative consequences, but we pretty much only discovered that in hindsight.
No, I'm not keeping an escape open. That would suggest a very calculated approach to all this, which simply is not the case.

Marriage can end in divorce but not easily. Divorce is the farthest thing from easy anyone will ever know. I have a family practice lawyer in my family and she tells me plenty about how "easy" divorce is. Divorce destroys lives and creates severe emotional trauma for children which is why breaking up a marriage, even an undeclared one, is treated with some caution. Even without being married formally, in many states in the US you are already married by common law which is marriage by simply acting married long enough. This law is mean to acknowledge that at this point you two have accrued considerable property interests and have vested emotional interest in the children... conversely the children also depend on you as sole providers. These details mean that, in some jurisdictions, the dissolution of even your undeclared bond is overseen by law for the good of the children and both parties because when relationships fail it gets ugly deciding who gets what and who has to pay what. Especially if there's children in the middle of the break up.

Nonetheless, a lot of marriages end in divorce. And I wouldn't say that the divorce itself is what destroys lives, but the fact that the two parties involved apparently suffered in the relationship to such a degree as to desire to get a - very hard - divorce.

I do feel that the government should indeed consider an unmarried couple with children on the same "level" as a married couple. There's little reason not to, since the consideration should always be towards the children, anyway.

But I think I can even imagine a (perhaps common) scenario where marriage could become a negative factor in society and people's lives. I can easily imagine how many couples rush into marriage, out of some misguided notion about it's romantic implications, only to find themselves absolutely stuck in a bad situation. They might even get children, figuring that it's the next logical step, because "society expects it" or something along those lines. Then, a couple of years down the line, their massive mistake becomes clear to them, and now want out, but that becomes hard, and it's complicated by children, so things turn hostile.
Granted, this could happen with an unmarried couple as well, but the main take-away here, in my opinion, is that people should think less about tradition, and "what is done" and what society expects them to do, but actually get to know themselves and what they really want.

Divorce is just breaking up at the heart of it though... which you don't need to be married to do. The whole point of a marriage vow, however, is agreeing to never break up under solemn oath. The law part not respective, the vow itself is the promise upon which the future of the relationship is built and it's not supposed to be about selfishness after that vow. You may marry for love but that love will cool, wax, and wane all throughout your life. You will change, your mind will change, your goals and your worldview may change dramatically... the only thing you agree is that during all of that change you won't change partners every time you change to suit you. That kind of behavior makes you an emotional human wrecking ball constantly falling in and out of love and exercising selfishness without the personal growth required to enjoy and maintain a committed adult relationship. It's about staying... not leaving... it's about the simple act of just continuing to try and keep this relationship no matter what personal feelings intrude. Is such a promise impossible or do we just give up too easy and blame marriage for being imperfect because we can't stand up to the weight of a real promise and keeping it? Is marriage flawed or is it an institution made to try and help balance out human weakness with ramifications for the violation of a sacred vow meant to bond the heart of the family life strong nuclear force?

Marriage is flawed because humans are flawed. I have no faith in it beyond the faith I have in humans. As an institution, I think it's clearly failed - to the extent that it's been considered somehow "holy" or even magiacal, or just anything other than what it actually is: a simple tradition that arose from society (not the other way around.)

Of course marriage can work, but that's because some people work well together. I think other means of "behavioral control" would be more effective, such as better education.

I am curious... which one of you doesn't want to be married? Have you discussed it before?

We discussed it fairly early. Neither of particularly wanted it. We've since become downright adverse to it.

I've always been fairly anti-traditionalist, and this might have seeped out slightly, without me making any definitive statements about it. Her notion was that it was just something that was always done, but she quickly found that there was no reason for it, and upon reflection, found it a grandiose, superficial gesture, one that society has basically perverted, with exorbitant prices on pointless knick-knack like a dress you only use once, and cake. We both find it tasteless now. And anytime we see a person, usually a woman, on TV talking about having their dream wedding, in a princess dress, and a huge party, with costs sometimes soaring past $100,000, we shudder at their screwed up priorities and lack of insight.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

This is not a minor issue, but rather essential for you to comprehend. The ramifications of your error just in this thread are numerous. There is no single parent child support where I live.

Incorrect. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/children-and-young-people/child-maintenance/child-maintenance-where-to-start/

I don't live in the UK, you functional moron.

:lol:

If only someone did not emote reality...

Really, what is it with you conservatives thinking that, first of all, you can fully control people's behaviors with some kind of old-timey tradition? And second, why do you bash the state for trying to help out unfortunate kids (and single parents), claiming tyrrany, socialism or the like, but when it comes to basically forcing something like marriage on people, it's A-OK?

I think the funnier thing is how they will screech about taxes going to single mothers, while at the same time arguing that spending on the military is a good thing. One of those things (in the US at least) is several orders of magnitude more costly for a tax payer then the other.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You have asked this twice so I will answer. I do not wish to give offense but... According to the Bible you are married. The arrangement you describe is marriage. (Gen 2:24). You left your parent's house, cleaved to one woman and apparently wish to stay with her until death do you part... and you multiplied... am in error in any of these points? The simple act of choosing a mate is some kind of commitment , isn't it? Truthfully, if you already have agreed to stay with this woman and love her only for the purpose of raising a family then why NOT get married? What part of the ceremony or the simple act (which means a lot to women) of declaring to family and the world that this is my mate and I will have no other for my whole life offends you? What greater act of love is there?

Yet, it is clearly not what you mean by marriage, nor what most Christians mean.

In fact, most ardent Christians would consider it living in sin.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I had step dads. Boy, what fun they were. They all talked like you. My mother had no respect for marriage either. And it was a fresh hurt every time one left. What is the point of marriage? Marriage is great if you practice it and believe in it… it’s like any other promise, however… only as good as the person making it.

But that's in contradiction to your own point. Marriage is only as good as the person married. And it's not functionally different than a commitment to one another.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with these sentiments, but it doesn't seem to gel well with your previous writing.

I cannot say if you have biological children of your own but it would seem that you don’t like absentee fathers so I’ll assume you don’t. I must assume from the fact that your girlfriend is miffed that you missed all the fun of infancy that you two don’t have any kids together. If all that is true then facially it would seem that you speak from a place of ignorance about what feelings I can imagine. When you hold your bawling, warm and terrified little son in your hands when they are only a few minutes old and you look into their face you suddenly realize you are now not the center of your own life anymore. It is bond that I doubt a year with someone else’s child could create. It is beyond any other feeling I can imagine, it is a terrible and beautiful responsibility that easily and immediately short circuits the instinct for self-preservation. I would die twice for my sons… one for each. It is flesh and blood, somehow flesh and blood does engender a special and unique bond of inexpressible power and I think you underestimate it greatly to say that you are closer to this child than I can possibly imagine. But let’s run that up the flag pole and see if it flies.

I am not going to challenge how you feel about your kids, consequently it would probably be best if you didn't seek to declare to me how I feel about my son just because I don't share fathership in the same manner as you.

What you would want to do is phrase your skepticism as a question rather than a statement. Your doubt, your inability to imagine my feelings is irrelevant.

The fact is, no bawling is necessary, no terror is necessary, neither flesh nor blood is necessary... if you have not experienced this, you shouldn't comment or at least you should take your own admonition to heart.

I would say that you can tell me you’re his “step-dad in name alone” in thirteen years when you are ready to put him through college and when you have supported, loved and stayed faithful to his mother the entire time.

And I would say that you are still mistaking the role of a parent with the role of a partner.

Most married couples have at least one affair in their lives, and this doesn't magically mean they are no longer valid parents. You are either smuggling back in your proposition here because it can't stand up to scrutiny independently, or because you are not clear in your reasoning.

As for college. I'll go one step further. I've already opened an account for his university costs that I alone am paying into.

And back to the mistaken addition of partnership: I've already loved and supported his mother for 15 years, so it looks like I check even that irrelevant box too!

If you don’t think that you’ll still be with her in that amount of time you are cruel for forming a relationship with a child that you know may end…

Even were that the case, you are still employing your own faulty premise in your argument. Even if his mother and I don't stay together, I will still be his daddy - that's never going to change.

If you are not then why not create a sense of emotional security in the child by marrying his mother and letting him take your name (if that is the custom where you are)? Sure, you expect him to believe your promise you will stay when his own flesh and blood father didn’t. What do you think his impression of men will be when you leave?

I am not sure I can answer to charges about your fiction.

How is this any different at all to marriage? The exact same questions could be pointed at someone getting married/divorced - the act of marriage doesn't preclude any of the above.

If you won’t leave… why not commit formally instead of just expecting this family to take your word?

Well, firstly, because I don't believe there's even so much as a fragment of logic to your proposition.

What is marriage but 'my word'? I can get married and then get divorced in exactly the same way, with all the consequent creation of a false sense of emotional security and letting the children down!

So it's very hard to respond when you are so unclear in your arguments, and those arguments are predicated wholly on that which I am denying the validity of.

Secondly, this family is my family. How am I not also taking his mother's word? There's absolute parity here, not some scenario in which only the male has a duty.

See, there is a reason that when adopting a child you can’t just walk into an orphanage like it’s a puppy mill and say
“I’d like that one! I love him just like my own flesh and blood and I’ll take care of him always! Can I have him!?”

Because that's analogous to my situation?

This statement might be enough for you because perhaps you know you are a good enough person to take care of a child and love them forever. For the state, however, it may require a little more assurance before signing over the title to the little tyke… they may need a bit more evidence of your conviction. Raising kids is hard, expensive, and heartbreaking. It’s not all candy cane breath at Christmastime.

:lol:

Your arguments are funny, Matthew. You're trying to make my argument for me, but then formulate it in a way that has no bearing on me or the way I think.

As for the state, it's a bureaucratic hurdle, not a divine sign of glowing morality.

What will you do when the little one turns fifteen and says,
“You’re not my real father! I don’t have to listen to you!” Mark my words, it’s a prophecy not a speculation. It will happen.

Can I have a toke on your crystal ball? :lol:

What will I say? I'll say 'Duhhh' in response to 'you're not my real father' - as it's not like we've ever pretended otherwise, so it'll hardly be some kind of powerful revelation.

And as for the rest of the sentiment, I will respond the same way as a biological father with a 15 year old who says "I don't have to listen to you" - I'll shout angrily, threaten to throw him out of my house, then sulk for a few days! :lol: :lol:

You're just not grasping this at all, are you Matthew? How does being a biological parent preclude the actions of a 15 year old? How does being a biological father genetically grant you the ability to deal with difficulties in a child's development?

I had a biological father, Matthew, I know what they're capable and incapable of. The fact of being a biological father is of literally no consequence comparative to the brain, sensitivity, and understanding of the person behind the role. At 15, I told him he wasn't my dad, just my father and that that was hardly something to be pleased with, that he'd chosen to have kids but I assuredly didn't choose to have him... and so on and so on.

My biological father was utterly useless at dealing with this, so why would it make any difference me not being biologically my son's father?

You haven't drawn any logical line between your ideas, just left the blank is if it were pregnant with meaning.

Therefore, in the eyes of the state, making a lifetime conviction to a mate can be one indication you’re ready to handle this kind of responsibility.

You misunderstand entirely. The state has precisely zero fucking business in ascertaining whether I am ready to handle fatherhood any more than you're obliged to check in with the government each time you decide to copulate with your wife.

This kind of commitment speaks to you being able to make and keep lifelong promises inside a healthy loving relationship and therefore to be able to create a stable and loving environment in which a child can grow.

Not 'this kind of commitment' - just 'a commitment'.

Try and get custody of this child, for example, in the terrible and unthinkable event something happens to your significant other as just boyfriend and girlfriend.

Why are we engaging in all these fantasies, Matthew? Are you seriously asking me now to imagine my girlfriend dying just to respond to your argument about the necessity of marriage on a discussion forum? :|

You’ll quickly find in most jurisdictions that without that ring you have little or no say in what happens to the child and that they will be taken from you and given to blood relations who have legal rights.

Even in the not-so-civilized world, they have various forms of civil unions too, Matthew. These confer all the state recognition of a partnership without marriage. Also, there is common law scenarios in most countries. Finally, you are used to living under the power of the Leviathan, but other countries do not have such strong centralized states.

In the eyes of the law, you are no relation to this child until you make a formal commitment for this reason.

I expect that's not even true in the U.S. but I am not about to go looking through U.S. common law at 9 a.m.

Your assurance you love the child is not enough proof for them to give you someone else’s child. You're formal declaration of contractual obligation to be held legally accountable for the child's welfare, on the other hand, is.

All of your statements here are contesting with one another as to which could be more wrong, and which could be more certain. You are mistaken Matthew. Mistaken on the premises, mistaken on the conclusions. I doubt you are even correct for the U.S. where, if a child was raised by a parent under common law, the state would presumably see fit to continue that affair rather than separate the child from his or her family. If not, then that's a fault in YOUR state, not a universal.

You don’t get to proclaim parental understanding from a year with a lovely young lad...

Says who? You? Fuck off Matthew, there's a good chap.

who I bless and wish wonderful things for out of respect for you.

Don't mouth words you don't mean. You don't 'respect' me as is apparent from the first half of your sentence.

You get to proclaim you know what you’re talking about after you make a commitment to a woman, make a child with her, take care of her and her exhausting needs and emotional napalm for nine months….

Fuck off Matthew; I do not need to jump your manufactured hoops to get your approval. Your acceptance of facts has literally nothing to do with this situation. However, your condescension does show you to be in Christian automaton mode.

Then help her through the six months of no sleep, constant diaper changes, feedings and terrifying rides to the doctor when the fever just won’t go away. The word “Dad” is an earned title and you have to put in the work. Also…

Ok, great. So I will just go and invent a time machine in order to do all this...?

No?

Ok, well how about the fact that I've helped her through the last year where she was under a lot of financial, medical, and vocational restraints which resulted in me juggling my jobs around so I could take the kid to school in the morning, pick him up in the afternoon, shop and cook his dinner, read him bed-time stories as I tucked him in?

No? That doesn't count because Matthew says the first 6 months counts, but no following set of 6 months does?

What about biological fathers who fail to do all this? Recall, your argument is meant to be an argument for marriage, but as usual you have forgotten the fact that being married or not married in all your scenarios is wholly interchangeable.

So daddy puts sperm in mummy, then she does all the rearing for the first 6 months, therefore he's not actually a real daddy?

Oh wait, that's entirely contradictory to your own argument, meaning that none of the above really has anything to do with it, and ultimately you're just building a stack of bullshit on a foundation of bollocks.

You used the word “step-dad”. Step-dad means you married his mother.

No it doesn't. If you look again, I was drawing distinction to the point that this is the term used: step-dad, but there's no 'step' about it. Kindly at least acknowledge what I say before ranting at me about irrelevancies.

Either you are married and arguing against marriage (??????)...

Even were that the case.... so?

.... or you are neither the child’s dad or step-dad, you’re just a male figure in his life.

Sorry... who are you again? Oh yes, that's right - a nobody. I am not sure quite why a nobody thinks they get to declare aspects of my life as if from authority, but that nobody is sorely mistaken. Perhaps that nobody should turn off his Christian automaton unit and start employing a little humanity 1.0 instead?

This is not semantics, it's the language.

It's neither semantics nor language - it's your fiction you are seeking to impose on me.

If you aren’t willing to commit and to tie yourself to him in the eyes of the state and the law, which is what would be required for you to take custody in most jurisdictions if something happened to his mother, then you aren’t his dad or his stepdad.

I don't conceive of the state as being the provider of legitimacy as to whether I am his dad or not. The person I concede to, in that regard, is him. So long as he thinks of me as his daddy, I am his daddy, and ain't no internet moron vacuously propounding their provincial and religious strictures or modern nation state going to convince me otherwise.

“Optimism of the viability of the relationship going forward has no logical connection to getting married.“

Actually,

Marriage is the ultimate expression of the optimism of the viability of a relationship going forward.

Hogwash. People get married for all manner of things, and viability has bugger all to do with it.

However, even were it the case, people getting married are clearly delusional with respect to the actual viability when nigh on half of marriages in your nation end in divorce. Marriage simply doesn't seem to be any better predictor of viability than, say, tossing a coin.

It is a legal solemnization of the relationship between two people in front of the state, family, and world. It is a promise made in front of people whose opinion you respect, which means if you break it, all those people know you can’t keep a promise.

Because that's what folks care about 10 years later when their marriage is failing, their spouse cheating, and their life falling apart... what will the neighbours think!!??

No, this isn't the pre-1960's.

It is how you demonstrate to the society and families you live in you are ready to raise children and therefore can be trusted with the resources to do so.

Firstly, you're living in the past. This tribal/community/family unit is a premodern notion which I wasn't even raised under myself, so I am assuredly not restrained by it. Secondly, I don't give two hoots about demonstrating anything to anyone aside from those I love. Thirdly, I reject the stupid pseudo-magical notion that signing a bit of paper ensures you are ready to raise children, or that doing so evokes a trust in me. Anyone who thinks these things clearly doesn't think very much at all, and consequently I feel no need to persuade them. They can stew in their own myopic prejudices for all I care.

Children are human beings and they deserve, at the minimum, a stable mother and father of their own line to raise them, support them, love them and raise them.

Honestly, you're getting just as bad as Tree.

Ok, so in my son's case, he didn't get what he deserved, according to you, amirite? His father was an ass who abandoned his mother. It's not his mother's fault that she did everything she could to raise him without a father, working multiple jobs, and giving endless love to her son.

So now, I have stepped up to raise, support, and love her son, but even though you're telling me that this is what every child deserves, you're also trying to tell me that I haven't done enough.

Make up your mind, Matthew. Which is the preferable scenario here? My son dadless, or my son with a dad who's not married to his mother?

The reason that people used to have to be married before they could have sex wax precisely this.

That has literally never been the case. No one has ever had to be married before having sex. That's not how biology works, Matthew!

What you mean is that society kept women as chattel, and consequently they were wholly controlled by their father who treated them like a commodity to be sold. That transaction was tied into laws that required the girl to be a virgin because men have strange emotional behaviors about possessing and owning women.

Bet you're not keen on that rendition, either? But it's a damn sight more accurate than yours.

Sex makes babies, and babies require money and care. Who will provide this money and care and how does the state enforce this? It's called marriage.

Utter bollocks. States are not in the business of legally gating the production of babies via means testing. Do you have to go and fill in a form every time you desire to copulate bare-back with your wife?

No, then your argument is bollocks.

Only totalitarian dictatorships and theocracies get this involved with where their citizens put their whangers,

You've got completely the wrong idea about marriage and the role of the state. Marriage is not for the benefit of the state, it's not because the state needs reassurance about the intentions of the would-be parents. It's for the parents to oblige the state to recognize that their shared goods are inheritable by the other party. It's a contract where the state agrees to recognize the ramifications of their choice, not about condoning their choice. The state has nothing to say in that regard, which is actually the argument for same-sex marriage incidentally.

You can only dissemble society so much before machinery that didn't work too well in the first place breaks down.

And yet it is still better than what you're doing because in your fictitious contrivance, the Leviathan would grow ever larger, and we'd have to ask the state permission to form a relationship, sign a request form before having sex, and the state would be so involved in everyone's lives that they would be able to refuse to allow a match because one of the partners' intentions doesn't seem to match their desire, or perhaps declare that poor people can't have children.

It's not the factual world I am disassembling, Matthew - it's the wholly false one that exists only in your imagination.

You can think that deconstructing things to make them seem more comfortable for personal freedom will improve life for everyone but it's an experiment which risks children's health and safety on the same kind of hopeful yet misguided logic the hippies employed.

Leaving aside your errors, you're nigh on a 100 years out of date, Matthew. Individualism is already here, it's already spread around the world: community & family have been overtaken by market forces. You might as well be using the internet to argue against those new fangled steam machines. That mechanical horse has bolted.

You know what their philosophy of free love, polyamory, and deconstruction got for us? Step dads, single moms and the Manson family.

Whereas, when close-minded religiously bigoted conservatism was in control, it brought us stonings, torture, slavery, and child labour.

 

[Sparhafoc]

One last point I want to ram home before work: there's a world of difference between wiggling your willy in someone and making a child, and being there every day to shower, dress, feed, teach, read, play and help that child sleep.

The former may be fatherhood from a biological perspective, but it's the latter that makes the social role.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Once a child calls you "Dad", you've passed the test from the child's perspective.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

Greetings,

Once a child calls you "Dad", you've passed the test from the child's perspective.

Kindest regards,

James

/thumbs up

Pretty much my take on it James.

Do I believe Matthew, who's suddenly grown snarky after Tree dragged the tone down to his usual level, or do I believe my 5 year old son's honest, grinning declaration.

I know which one holds more value for me. Infinitely so.