Conquer Club

Kid_A wrote:

btownmeggy wrote: Churches could choose to marry whom they please.

So your religion gets to decide who can marry? That has to be one of the most ignorant comments I've read here in a while.

Why?

Then how do you encourage the creation of families? Propaganda only works so well, actual monetary incentives work better. Many governments give tax benefits to married couples, especially those with children. The idea is that when two people settle down the next progressive step (more often than not) is to start a family - that means children. With falling birth rates in most of the developed world this is very important.

You could contend that tax benefits would just be given out to people with children, but that is removing the family aspect of the laws. Once that is gone the government is just supporting child birth and children being born outside proper families (gay or straight) is not something our society is, or should be, ready for.

Obviously didn't read the first post throughly. The point is that the government will give benefits to couples who decide to bind themselves together legally, however this union will not be called "marriage".
It's that simple.

The state would no longer give tax breaks and benefits to two people just because they've had their love approved by a preacher or justice of the peace. The single, divorced, and cohabitating would no longer be financially penalized.

Am I misinterpreting this paragraph?

chewyman wrote:

The state would no longer give tax breaks and benefits to two people just because they've had their love approved by a preacher or justice of the peace. The single, divorced, and cohabitating would no longer be financially penalized.

Yep after re-reading the original post, I tend to disagree with it.
Encouragement of the family cell is necessary. Otherwise this means that only the wealthy could give birth to the future generation (Which couldn't be SUCH a bad idea after all, this world is overpopulated anyway - but it belongs to a different thread).

Stopper wrote:I say that some legal obligation ought to be attached to that other 50%. Some form of marriage of two is easily the best answer.

So you think that the fathers of children born out of wedlock do and should have no responsibility to their children? Absolutely not. In the United States today, 1/3 of all children are born to non-married parents. Both parents are still legally and financially (and in the best and the most cases, emotionally) responsible for their children.

Stopper wrote:A free-for-all in the sexual realm would leave those people and their children vulnerable and undefended. In practice, anarchism in personal relationships (and, indeed, anarchy in just about every other sphere) is very definitely un-feminist, to say the least.

I'm totally confounded as to why you think that making marriage an institition outside of the realm of the state why lead to a sexual "free-for-all". People would still get married. People would still fall in love. Monogamy would still be the dominate sexual paradigm.

You're saying that it's the influence and the power of the state that keeps people from "anarchy in personal relationships". If you want to back that up, you're going to need to give a more compelling argument as to why that's the case.

unriggable wrote:But there are some rights that let husbands and wives be in more contact, for example the whole money issue, and how they can visit each other in hospitals.

Money issue? My partner and I have joint bank accounts. We file our taxes jointly. We have joint investment portfolios, the same rent, the same property insurance.

In all of these cases, systems have already been formed and continue to function quite well that provide for the financial cooporation of two or more people regardless of marital status.

Other cases are more problematic, strictured by unfair moral impositions. Where my partner used to work, I got health, dental, vision insurance as his domestic partner. A nice setup, overall, except that domestic partner benefits cost more than spousal benefits! Hospitals are another place with problems. It's still the case in some hospitals that only a parent, a spouse, or a child can be with a patient at certain times. Where does that leave us? Should he (or I) suffer and perhaps die alone in a hospital, simply because the state hasn't placed its stamp of approval on our relationship? That something like that should happen is much more likely than an assassin breaking into a hospital room, no?

chewyman wrote:You could contend that tax benefits would just be given out to people with children, but that is removing the family aspect of the laws. Once that is gone the government is just supporting child birth and children being born outside proper families (gay or straight) is not something our society is, or should be, ready for.

Why, yes, I would contend for tax benefits for people with children, as the US, all of Latin America, and I'd imagine much of the world, have. While I certainly don't think that people would stop having children if the government wasn't encouraging it with tax breaks (LOLZ, who has a child for the point of getting a tax break??), I'm for them because I guess I believe the supposition that having more money makes it easier in many respects to raise a child well, and of course, I want all children to be raised well.

But you're falling into the same trap as Stopper: Why do you think that the family is based upon the state's mandates?? Only in rather recent history has the state (when and if it could be seperated from a national religion) had any say about marriage. There were still families before then! And in places where and in times when there is no government? Ooh, look, families! Everywhere!

freezie wrote:So you would give homosexuals absolutly no chances? Since church is too homophobe to let them live their lifes.


No. Just no.

The Church has a set of morals and values that they just didn't make up! The Church attempts to (or at least should) teach the things of God, right and wrong and what is moral and immoral. If the church is "homophobe" then so is God. God says it is an abomination and therefore the Church will also see it that way. If a person wants to live in a sinful lifestyle, that's his/her choice.... but stop condemning the church for pointing it out!

btownmeggy wrote:

chewyman wrote:You could contend that tax benefits would just be given out to people with children, but that is removing the family aspect of the laws. Once that is gone the government is just supporting child birth and children being born outside proper families (gay or straight) is not something our society is, or should be, ready for.

Why, yes, I would contend for tax benefits for people with children, as the US, all of Latin America, and I'd imagine much of the world, have. While I certainly don't think that people would stop having children if the government wasn't encouraging it with tax breaks (LOLZ, who has a child for the point of getting a tax break??), I'm for them because I guess I believe the supposition that having more money makes it easier in many respects to raise a child well, and of course, I want all children to be raised well.

But you're falling into the same trap as Stopper: Why do you think that the family is based upon the state's mandates?? Only in rather recent history has the state (when and if it could be seperated from a national religion) had any say about marriage. There were still families before then! And in places where and in times when there is no government? Ooh, look, families! Everywhere!

I'm not suggesting that people have children solely for tax rebates (although it's probably happened anyway). I don't think you'd deny that benefits do encourage higher birthrates, although obviously they aren't the sole contributing factor.

Incidentally, if you are arguing that marriage should be entirely outside of the state's mandates than you're putting yourself in a very difficult position. You aren't just advocating support for the usual suspects (issues) such as gay marriage, but opening a Pandora's box of all sorts of problems. Marriage to your favourite household cat? Marrying that toaster that always cooked bread to perfection? Marrying a newborn infant? These are extreme examples but they WOULD happen. Call me a bigot but I think the state should be able to play a role in saying that you can't marry a two year old.

my marriage isn't civil. sometimes we don't speak for hours.
and if we divorced my 2 year old son would want to go and live with anyone who owned finding nemo or cars.

I just wrote all this out, and I'm not editing it now, but just to be clear that by "marriage" I meant a state-enforced legal contract between two people, not anything religious.

btownmeggy wrote:So you think that the fathers of children born out of wedlock do and should have no responsibility to their children? Absolutely not. In the United States today, 1/3 of all children are born to non-married parents. Both parents are still legally and financially (and in the best and the most cases, emotionally) responsible for their children.

I focused on children (probably over-much) because they probably have the biggest single effect on people's lives. While it's true that in most countries, some form of child support is a legal obligation (regardless of how well that obligation is actually enforced), that's not that I was talking about.

Child support tends to be an obligation to support a child until it reaches whatever age it is deemed to be responsible for itself, and it would presumably continue in your marriage-free dystopia. By common understanding, it covers nothing else.

What I was thinking of was alimony. Child support would not compensate a parent for what they have had to give up to raise the child.

To give an example of a man and woman who live together and raise a child, and divorce 10 years after the child's birth. Without any state enforcement of alimony, women who have taken 10-year career breaks to raise a child would get no compensation on splitting up with their (not-)husband. The man, who has effectively been supported for the 10 years by his not-wife, reaps all the financial benefit of his career, which he could only further because of her hard work supporting the family.

To suggest that people can be left to their own devices and sort out their own problems is overidealistic.

btownmeggy wrote:You're saying that it's the influence and the power of the state that keeps people from "anarchy in personal relationships". If you want to back that up, you're going to need to give a more compelling argument as to why that's the case.

I'm not saying that in your marriage-free hell-on-earth that personal relationships wouldn't carry on much the way they do now. Nothing the state can do, short of intolerable limits on personal freedom, will make people any better than they are at choosing their partners, and breaking up etc etc

What I'm saying is that life in your marriage-free whacko-world would be grossly unfair (or less fair than it is now) for a lot of people - mainly those people who have given something up to be with their partners. And most of those people would be women, not men.

That proposal of yours is just as anti-feminist as anything the churches have done to try to prevent the legalisation of divorce and abortion etc etc

Stopper wrote:What I'm saying is that life in your marriage-free whacko-world would be grossly unfair (or less fair than it is now) for a lot of people - mainly those people who have given something up to be with their partners. And most of those people would be women, not men.

That proposal of yours is just as anti-feminist as anything the churches have done to try to prevent the legalisation of divorce and abortion etc etc

Alimony:

I'll admit this isn't something I considered in my original formulation. I first wrote out this long, philosophical treatise, then I thought to google alimony and domestic partners. Apparently, in the United States, alimony is not granted with divorces, but may be requested in a court of law afterwards.

Many courts in the US (probably elsewhere, as well), have granted alimony in cases of seperation of domestic partners.

Alimony is always decided by a judge in a case-by-case basis based on factors like length of the marriage, age and health of parties, relative income, etc...

On a side note, I resent your repeated use of the phrase "anti-feminist" in describing myself and my ideas. You use it as a weapon, an insult, and a means of demeaning me, in a way that heightens gender discord, and is truly "anti-feminist."

And alimony would be unenforceable without some form of legal contract.

btownmeggy wrote:On a side note, I resent your repeated use of the phrase "anti-feminist" in describing myself and my ideas. You use it as a weapon, an insult, and a means of demeaning me, in a way that heightens gender discord, and is truly "anti-feminist."

You're right - it has been a bit much. I'll be the first to admit I often let my mouth run away with itself, and pick the most inflammatory and sometimes hurtful way of expressing an opinion. If it's at all in my favour, I do it to everyone, and it's nothing personal.

Stopper wrote:And alimony would be unenforceable without some form of legal contract.

Sure. I'm not an anarchist. I'm all about the state intervening in peoples lives--when necessary, fair, and helpful.

Stopper wrote: I'll be the first to admit I often let my mouth run away with itself. (...) If it's at all in my favour, I do it to everyone, and it's nothing personal.

Thanks. I'd never hold a grudge against you, Stopper. So, how was your birthday? The big 4-0, eh?

btownmeggy wrote: The big 4-0, eh?

I'm not 40, I'm... - oh, I see.... I did have an nice time having a meal and going to the pub afterwards last night. Imagine my surprise when I woke up and logged on to Conquer Club, to discover I'd made a post the night before about marriage. And spelt correctly. Wonders never cease.















And just in case anyone isn't clear, I'm 30, NOT 40.