ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th March 2020, 07:27 AM   #41
TruthJonsen
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 31
Back in the 60's and 70's pre-marital living together increased dramatically as a means of trying out a relationship. The Christians at the time were extremely opposed to this idea. I "tried it out" back then for 8 years, still married to same person today.
TruthJonsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 07:29 AM   #42
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,893
Not to throw my hat into the ring with disreputable company but I'm also of the "Marriage (in anything resembling it's current usage) should not really even be a thing." mindset.

Marriage, from the government's POV, shouldn't be a thing beyond a sort of purely voluntary interpersonal business contract, something vaguely equivalent to a power of attorney.

That's not to say that's all marriage "should" be, just that's the only part the government should care about.

One specific type of monogamous, one-on-one, and up until very recently hetereosexual relationship with the ostensible caveat of being "forever" doesn't deserve special recognition or protection.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 25th March 2020 at 07:31 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 07:30 AM   #43
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 43,029
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
If only The State had complete and utter control over every aspect of our lives. What could go wrong.
Nothing. Marriages will be saved. Taxes will be paid. Elders will be taken care of by their families. The homeless will spend their money on food, not drugs*. Children will stay in school, get good educations, go to college, get STEM degrees, get good jobs, and pay off their student loans. CEOs will work for $1/year, and profits will be shared equitably with all their employees and contractors. Sexual harassment in the workplace will cease. War crimes in the military will cease. Fraud will be eliminated. Corruption will be eliminated. Everyone will be assigned the gender and the pronouns of their choice, and everyone else will respect that assignment.

---
*Prescription drugs to treat their condition excepted, of course.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 07:31 AM   #44
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 43,029
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Not to throw my hat into the ring with disreputable company but I'm also of the "Marriage (in anything resembling it's current usage) should not really even be a thing." mindset.

Marriage, from the government's POV, shouldn't be a thing beyond a sort of purely voluntary interpersonal business contract, something vaguely equivalent to a power of attorney.

That's not to say that's all marriage "should" be, just that's the only part the government should care about.

One specific type of monogamous, one-on-one, and up until very recently hetereosexual relationship with the ostensible caveat of being "forever" doesn't deserve special recognition or protection.
This is pretty much my view as well.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 07:34 AM   #45
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,482
Okay, I want the government to legislate against everything that ****** me up as a child, too. My parents have been together for 45 years, so they get a gold star under OP's program. But they traumatized me with fire-and-brimstone religion stuff during my formative years, and now I suffer from anxiety and OCD as an adult. I'm super fragile and I doubt I'd ever be able to handle having my own children. I submit that the government should have stopped them.

I also feel that being an only child is very, very bad for a person's emotional development, especially if the child is fairly isolated and doesn't have friends or neighbor children to play with (like yours truly). My parents were educated and unquestionably had the means to produce another child. I think the government should have made them. That way, my life wouldn't be so ****** now.

I can keep going. The government should have made my mom breastfeed me.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 07:35 AM   #46
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,482
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This is pretty much my view as well.
And mine.

I feel okay saying it since a few married people said it first.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 07:47 AM   #47
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,893
Here's my ideal setup.

A number of people want to enter into an inter-personal relationship of some kind.

For our purposes, these are all fully consenting, mentally sound adults.

1. It should not matter how many of them there are. Ted and Carol, Ted and Bill or Ted, Bill, and Carol.
2. It shouldn't be based on love. Sure if these people are in love and want to start lives together that's a perfectly valid reason, but so is business arrangements and being roommates or starting a fan club for Gordie Howe.
3. It shouldn't predicated on "forever." Again to be 100% clear if you have found the person that you honestly want to spend the rest of your life with, that's wonderful and you are not in the wrong, but you special kind of relationship recognized by the government for it.
4. It shouldn't be predicated on having children. Childless marriages already outnumber childed (that needs to be a word) marriages. Again "marriage" is not an official state approved breeding program. And 48% of parents have never been married so we don't need marriage as it currently stands to protect children.
5. It should have absolutely no religious connotations.
6. What it should be is a simple, tailored, voluntary business contract. Purely from the Government's point of view a marriage should look something like: "As of this date, Carol and Ted agree to share ownership of the home on 1345 Buttercup Lane, to receive the assets in the event of one of the party's deaths, and to be allowed to make medical and end of life decisions for each other." It should not matter if Carol and Ted are in love forever, in love with just each other, in love for a little while, just good friends, or business partners.

And again to stress I'm downing falling in love, finding the love of your life, monogamy, or anything of that nature. I am married to one single wonderful woman who, fate be kind, I will be with for the rest of my life. I just don't think my particular type of relationship deserves special recognition and benefits.

And nothing in this prevents someone from having a big ceremony and standing in front of the friends, their family, their God or whatever and making whatever promise to them that they want. It just shouldn't change how the government looks at you.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 25th March 2020 at 07:51 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 07:55 AM   #48
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 21,527
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
I wonder what a graph of "average duration of marriage" over the past few centuries would look like. Long term, I'd predict either a steady or a generally increasing trend. In recent times there are more divorces, but there are also fewer marriages ending with early death from war, disease, childbirth, etc.
A potential data outlier would be the temporary Islamic marriages used for prostitution in that part of the world.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 07:59 AM   #49
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,482
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Here's my ideal setup.

A number of people want to enter into an inter-personal relationship of some kind.

For our purposes, these are all fully consenting, mentally sound adults.

1. It should not matter how many of them there are. Ted and Carol, Ted and Bill or Ted, Bill, and Carol.
2. It shouldn't be based on love. Sure if these people are in love and want to start lives together that's a perfectly valid reason, but so is business arrangements and being roommates or starting a fan club for Gordie Howe.
3. It shouldn't predicated on "forever." Again to be 100% clear if you have found the person that you honestly want to spend the rest of your life with, that's wonderful and you are not in the wrong, but you special kind of relationship recognized by the government for it.
4. It shouldn't be predicated on having children. Childless marriages already outnumber childed (that needs to be a word) marriages. Again "marriage" is not an official state approved breeding program. And 48% of parents have never been married so we don't need marriage as it currently stands to protect children.
5. It should have absolutely no religious connotations.
6. What it should be is a simple, tailored, voluntary business contract. Purely from the Government's point of view a marriage should look something like: "As of this date, Carol and Ted agree to share ownership of the home on 1345 Buttercup Lane, to receive the assets in the event of one of the party's deaths, and to be allowed to make medical and end of life decisions for each other." It should not matter if Carol and Ted are in love forever, in love with just each other, in love for a little while, just good friends, or business partners.

And again to stress I'm downing falling in love, finding the love of your life, monogamy, or anything of that nature. I am married to one single wonderful woman who, fate be kind, I will be with for the rest of my life. I just don't think my particular type of relationship deserves special recognition and benefits.

And nothing in this prevents someone from having a big ceremony and standing in front of the friends, their family, their God or whatever and making whatever promise to them that they want. It just shouldn't change how the government looks at you.
Joe for President!
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 08:10 AM   #50
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,893
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
Joe for President!
Trust me, nobody wants that.

"Mr. President. Your approval numbers are way down. The public is... let's say concerned that you use all the Federal Budget... for the next 4 years... to send SEAL Team 6 around to the house of every Moon Landing Denier, kidnap them, and then use a dozen Saturn V rockets to launch them to the moon and leave them there with nothing but a spacesuit and note that said 'LOL Losers landing on the moon is impossible so I guess this isn't really happening...' followed by several swear words and crudely drawn male genitalia."

*Kicks my feet up on the Oval Office desk, lights a cigar* "Worth it."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 25th March 2020 at 08:17 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 08:24 AM   #51
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 43,029
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Here's my ideal setup.

A number of people want to enter into an inter-personal relationship of some kind.

For our purposes, these are all fully consenting, mentally sound adults.

1. It should not matter how many of them there are. Ted and Carol, Ted and Bill or Ted, Bill, and Carol.
2. It shouldn't be based on love. Sure if these people are in love and want to start lives together that's a perfectly valid reason, but so is business arrangements and being roommates or starting a fan club for Gordie Howe.
3. It shouldn't predicated on "forever." Again to be 100% clear if you have found the person that you honestly want to spend the rest of your life with, that's wonderful and you are not in the wrong, but you special kind of relationship recognized by the government for it.
4. It shouldn't be predicated on having children. Childless marriages already outnumber childed (that needs to be a word) marriages. Again "marriage" is not an official state approved breeding program. And 48% of parents have never been married so we don't need marriage as it currently stands to protect children.
5. It should have absolutely no religious connotations.
6. What it should be is a simple, tailored, voluntary business contract. Purely from the Government's point of view a marriage should look something like: "As of this date, Carol and Ted agree to share ownership of the home on 1345 Buttercup Lane, to receive the assets in the event of one of the party's deaths, and to be allowed to make medical and end of life decisions for each other." It should not matter if Carol and Ted are in love forever, in love with just each other, in love for a little while, just good friends, or business partners.

And again to stress I'm downing falling in love, finding the love of your life, monogamy, or anything of that nature. I am married to one single wonderful woman who, fate be kind, I will be with for the rest of my life. I just don't think my particular type of relationship deserves special recognition and benefits.

And nothing in this prevents someone from having a big ceremony and standing in front of the friends, their family, their God or whatever and making whatever promise to them that they want. It just shouldn't change how the government looks at you.
Childful.

I pretty much agree with all of this. The only thing I would tweak is, I wouldn't mind if there were as standard boilerplate "marriage" contract. Doesn't have to be called a marriage contract per se. But I probably don't have a problem if the state were to roll up all the customary legal privileges of marriage into a single standard template. I don't think it's necessary for the contracting parties to hire lawyers and carefully enumerate all the joint ownerships, powers of attorney, etc.

Just recognize that the state institution of marriage already covers all of that pretty well, and keep the existing forms even if the overall nature of the thing is shifted in the direction Joe and I would prefer.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 08:43 AM   #52
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,575
I will never understand people. Why on earth would people want to share finances? It's unthinkable. An abomination. Sickening. Money shouldn't touch. Individual financial purity is far more important--economically, socially, and spiritually-- than all the ridiculous notions of sexual purity humanity has ever come up with. Good God, let someone else into your accounts? That's dirty. No wonder so many people are miserable and poor: they commit the insanity of marriage and the madness of sharing finances. Ugh. Sometimes people bring doom upon themselves.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 08:52 AM   #53
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,500
Marriage is probably the most successful government program of all time, the NHS of ancient Mesopotamia. Without the legal status, you've just got a fancy word for your boyfriend/girlfriend/other. There's a bit of a "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" vibe when people want government out of the marriage business. But, like most Americans, I'd prefer minimal intrusion in these matters. So much so that I probably won't ever become an American. Thanks, but you can keep your damn government hands off my nationality.

That said, abolition is worth considering. It's a bit strange that two people can, through this instrument, place (or relieve) legal obligations on uninvolved third parties. I suppose that would make it very difficult to get married.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 08:54 AM   #54
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,893
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Without the legal status, you've just got a fancy word for your boyfriend/girlfriend/other.
*Confused* Well... yeah. That's what it is.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 09:00 AM   #55
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,500
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
*Confused* Well... yeah. That's what it is.
With the legal status, it isn't. There's a material difference. Most obviously, you don't have to divorce your boyfriend. "Married" is a legal status above and beyond "going steady".
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 09:03 AM   #56
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,893
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
With the legal status, it isn't. There's a material difference. Most obviously, you don't have to divorce your boyfriend. "Married" is a legal status above and beyond "going steady".
Well yes, but that's circular. "Marriage is more complicated because it's a legal contract but the difference between marriage and just having a partner is the legal contract."

Yeah we all know that. We're trying to figure out the ways and shoulds.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 09:11 AM   #57
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,500
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Well yes, but that's circular.
No, it's simply an observation about one of the characteristics of marriage--it's a legal status, not simply a contract or tradition.

Quote:
"Marriage is more complicated because it's a legal contract but the difference between marriage and just having a partner is the legal contract."
It's not merely a legal contract. I can't, through a contract with you, place obligations on a third party. I can do that via marriage.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 09:12 AM   #58
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,893
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
It's not merely a legal contract. I can't, through a contract with you, place obligations on a third party. I can do that via marriage.
Examples please? (Serious, not snark)
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 09:16 AM   #59
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 43,029
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
It's not merely a legal contract. I can't, through a contract with you, place obligations on a third party. I can do that via marriage.
Can you give an example of what you mean?

The third-party legal obligations I can think of are along the lines of obligating third parties to recognize the contract and deal accordingly with the contracted parties.

E.g., a marriage contract legally obligates medical facilities to treat the spouse as next of kin. This doesn't strike me as onerous, unreasonable, or a rational justification for objecting to marriage contracts.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 09:40 AM   #60
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,500
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
E.g., a marriage contract legally obligates medical facilities to treat the spouse as next of kin.
That's good example, sure. In general I'd say the whole of family law is implicated, because that's what marriage does--it makes two people kin in the eyes of the state, with all the attendant obligations. Which is exactly the function it served in the ancient world.

Quote:
This doesn't strike me as onerous, unreasonable, or a rational justification for objecting to marriage contracts.
I'm not objecting in those terms, just pointing out that it's true. I do think it's a little strange, but it could be stranger. I could still be obligated to marry my brother's wife if he dies. She's ok, but not my type.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 09:44 AM   #61
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,893
It's not particularly a hill I'm itching to die defending and even within the context of just this discussion it's not high on things that need to be fixed, but yes in the abstract I will agree that "Ted marries Carol, now Ted's job is obligated to provide health insurance to Carol" is... imperfect and wouldn't be there in an ideal system.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 10:02 AM   #62
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 20,129
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
It's not particularly a hill I'm itching to die defending and even within the context of just this discussion it's not high on things that need to be fixed, but yes in the abstract I will agree that "Ted marries Carol, now Ted's job is obligated to provide health insurance to Carol" is... imperfect and wouldn't be there in an ideal system.
Of course not. In an ideal system Carol would be adequately covered by the NHS.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 10:03 AM   #63
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,942
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
bourgeois.....socialist....orwellian...... sickening
Even a one-track mind can go off the rails
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 10:09 AM   #64
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 16,614
I would argue that it is too easy to have children! I see families at the malls and in other businesses and I observe parents who are just ignoring their kids or verbally abusing them at some level. I’ve been very lucky in my marriage and with my kids. My wife and I discussed the decision to have kids at length and it’s worked out wonderfully. Yet there are so many parents who appear to not have thought it out and now just resent their children. Awful.

I don’t know how this can be changed given we believe having kids is an inalienable, “god given” right. But I think potential parents should at least be required to take a test...
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 10:14 AM   #65
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,893
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I would argue that it is too easy to have children!
On a purely moral level I would argue that if I'm not comfortable letting you adopt a child, I can't be comfortable with letting you have one. And most people can onboard, somewhat at least, with the conceptual idea that "Person X isn't fit to adopt." So, again speaking purely in the realm of pure theory, I could argue that we could put the same limitations on breeding that we do

We don't let anyone just walk into a (metaphorical) orphanage and walk out with a kid without so much as a questionnaire and a health and safety check on their house, so those standards for breeding can't be evil or unreasonable.

Now a massive crap ton of practical considerations come into that in the real world though.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 10:33 AM   #66
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,893
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Of course not. In an ideal system Carol would be adequately covered by the NHS.
Even beyond that though I find it less then perfect. Even within a system where people get their health insurance through their employer I think Ted's employer is only responsible for paying Ted's health insurance and shouldn't be more legally (or socially) obligated to pay for his wife's health insurance then it should be obligated to pay for Ted's best friend's health insurance.

Again not a big deal, not worth trying to fix within the current system but of much broader and pressing concerns, but taken off itself in a vacuum it's "wrong" for certain values of wrong.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 10:39 AM   #67
rockysmith76
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 1,043
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I would argue that it is too easy to have children! I see families at the malls and in other businesses and I observe parents who are just ignoring their kids or verbally abusing them at some level. I’ve been very lucky in my marriage and with my kids. My wife and I discussed the decision to have kids at length and it’s worked out wonderfully. Yet there are so many parents who appear to not have thought it out and now just resent their children. Awful.

I don’t know how this can be changed given we believe having kids is an inalienable, “god given” right. But I think potential parents should at least be required to take a test...
Like I said up the thread a ways back, a Breeder's license makes more since, if you want to be together whatever, whether you are fit to be a parent is another matter.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 11:04 AM   #68
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 18,727
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Even beyond that though I find it less then perfect. Even within a system where people get their health insurance through their employer I think Ted's employer is only responsible for paying Ted's health insurance and shouldn't be more legally (or socially) obligated to pay for his wife's health insurance then it should be obligated to pay for Ted's best friend's health insurance.
I don't think they are obligated, are they?

Here's the thing to remember: benefits are an alternative to salary. Even if the employer is not obligated to provide family coverage, it still can choose to, because the alternative is to pay the employee a higher salary.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 11:07 AM   #69
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,931
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
"Married you may be, if you solve my riddles three!"
What is your name?

What is your quest?

What is your favorite color?
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 11:17 AM   #70
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 26,181
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Until quite recently, the 13th century (I’m British and “quite” is very flexible) marriage for most was really no more than shacking up with each other.
Common-law marriage is still a thing in parts of the USA. Legally, at least.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 11:17 AM   #71
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,893
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
I don't think they are obligated, are they?
Legally no, socially yes.

Quote:
Here's the thing to remember: benefits are an alternative to salary. Even if the employer is not obligated to provide family coverage, it still can choose to, because the alternative is to pay the employee a higher salary.
Without broadening the discussion overly, that's my issue with benefits instead of money, it's not neutral and is always going to leave someone with something they don't need.

We don't think of it that way but if Bill and Ted are both working the same jobs for the same salary but Ted gets a bunch of benefits he doesn't need or can use they aren't really working for the same pay.

To me the push for "low pay but high benefits" jobs is... I dunno a little to close to the old "Company Town" days where got paid in money you could only spend at the company store.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 25th March 2020 at 11:19 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 12:02 PM   #72
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 20,129
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Even beyond that though I find it less then perfect. Even within a system where people get their health insurance through their employer I think Ted's employer is only responsible for paying Ted's health insurance and shouldn't be more legally (or socially) obligated to pay for his wife's health insurance then it should be obligated to pay for Ted's best friend's health insurance.

Again not a big deal, not worth trying to fix within the current system but of much broader and pressing concerns, but taken off itself in a vacuum it's "wrong" for certain values of wrong.
Without that "requirement" (actually just a benefit) we would not have a health care system so dependent on employer based health insurance.

The only way you get so deep into an employer based system is that the employer based system covers the employee's family, typically at a nominal extra fee. As HC has become more expensive employers have increased that fee sharply, but we are so deep into this system already that it doesn't matter.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.

Last edited by Dr. Keith; 25th March 2020 at 12:04 PM.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 12:41 PM   #73
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 43,029
Dang. This is fun and all, but I was kinda looking forward to a social policy conversation with CP that didn't lead with a partisan political slapfight/conspiracy theory. ChristianProgressive, will you be rejoining this thread soon?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 01:34 PM   #74
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,314
Just to let you know that When Magrat and I decided we wanted to live together, I had to get the Fiance visa.

The terms on the visa, to allow me to stay in the USA permanently were that we got married within 90 days, We did!

We'd have been happy without the 'scrap of paper', but had no choice.

Oh, and if Magrat had moved to the UK we'd also have needed to get married.

But - there again, I am a "dam' furriner"!
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...
Rincewind is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 02:17 PM   #75
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 20,129
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
Just to let you know that When Magrat and I decided we wanted to live together, I had to get the Fiance visa.

The terms on the visa, to allow me to stay in the USA permanently were that we got married within 90 days, We did!

We'd have been happy without the 'scrap of paper', but had no choice.

Oh, and if Magrat had moved to the UK we'd also have needed to get married.

But - there again, I am a "dam' furriner"!
Add one more married person pointing out the problems with marriage.

__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 07:24 PM   #76
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,403
As an actual family law attorney for two decades, I have grave reservations about a whole lot posted in this thread. However, I'm mostly posting just to show off my TLA banner or whatever I won. Still, if you have a question about family law (and the ancient concepts underpinning the entire operation), fire away.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 07:27 PM   #77
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,575
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
As an actual family law attorney for two decades, I have grave reservations about a whole lot posted in this thread. However, I'm mostly posting just to show off my TLA banner or whatever I won. Still, if you have a question about family law (and the ancient concepts underpinning the entire operation), fire away.
I have a question about family law! How many families are we allowed to eat before it's considered a crime? Asking for a friend.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 08:35 PM   #78
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,931
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I have a question about family law! How many families are we allowed to eat before it's considered a crime? Asking for a friend.
Normal conditions, or a crisis like now?
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 08:42 PM   #79
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,575
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Normal conditions, or a crisis like now?
Well, "normal" is pretty subjective, don't you think? So is "crisis". Some people's normal might be someone else's crisis. I remember a bit in Jerry Springer's book about his show where he points out that one episode had transvestite gay swingers with dwarfism...but that wasn't even what the episode was about. They were on there because of a paternity question unrelated to being transvestite gay swinging dwarfs. Back to the topic: I don't see why anyone would bothering with boring old marriage when there are transvestite gay swinging dwarfs out there. The world is a sexual buffet of enormous variety! and so many people are filling up on plain bread and butter! That's a tragedy, that is.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2020, 10:02 PM   #80
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,403
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I have a question about family law! How many families are we allowed to eat before it's considered a crime? Asking for a friend.

When you say "we," do you mean people in general or your family? Asking for a friend.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.