The future of marriage

Oh, Ralph. Maybe you should go back to stealing my jokes. You're not very good at coming up with your own. Then stop trying to prevent the formation of families, Ralph. And since the married gays couples of Massachussets somehow planted drugs and guns in the students' backpacks, this story is extremely relevant. If, at any point, you want to show us how being brought up by gay parents would be unhealthy for them, or for society, feel free. But you'll have a bitch of a time showing that it would be worse than, say, growing up in an orphanage, without any parents at all. Great.And these criteria would be...? So, presumably, you wish to forcibly annul the marriages of any infertile straight couples, or straight couples that simlpy chose not to have children? (Or could not afford to do so.)Well, lord knows, if there's one thing this planet needs, it's many many many many many many more babies. But I'm curious as to how it will be easier to do an end-run around the fourteenth amendment in this scenario than it is with gay marraige.Of course, you still haven't addressed the fourteenth amdendment as it relates to gay marriage. I seriously doubt you'll do so here, either.Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.Edited by Dan Carroll, : Edited out something subbie already covered

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

So then if my ex, perra that she may be, would not be allowed to re-marry because it is impossible for her to have any children. As seniors way past their child-bearing years would need to be barred from marrying.I do agree that a stable marriage is very important in the raising of children, but child-rearing is not the only purpose of marriage, nor is it the primary reason why couples marry.

Yeah. I was responding with a counterargument to the assertion that people get divorced "on a whim" because they're angry and aren't in control of their faculties - which was completely on-topic. I do get to advance on-topic arguments "with impunity", whatever that's supposed to mean.What, exactly, is the issue here?

What's your evidence for that, exactly? Rap music and low-rider jeans?Where the fuck did you grow up? With the Amish? What, you didn't wear a leather jacket and listen to the Big Bopper while your parents and their peers clucked in disapproval?Do you really think you're the first old-timer to be convinced that there's "something wrong with these kids, these days"? Christ.

quote:

---

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF MARRIAGE.

---

Well, then you should probably be concerned about modern industrial capitalism. The reason most societies were based on families and why people in most societies find families important is that families were traditionally the basic unit of economic production. Agricultural activity was engaged in by the entire family, and even in the towns the shops were tended to by members of the whole family. Even the older children had certain chores that were directly related to productive output of the family, and education (usually limited to training to be a worker in the parents' occupation, usually agriculture) was conducted within the family, usually by "on-the-job-training". Under these conditions, organization along family lines and marriages make sense.These conditions no longer hold. Most people these days work outside the family, and "production" occurs within businesses owned by other people than the workers themselves. Parents will have two different jobs in different locations. Children no longer are a productive member of the family, and are even an economic liability, and are educated in education factories outside the home. Organization along families no longer makes any sense at all, except to traditionalists (in so far as anyone can make sense of the ramblings of traditionalists).In fact, a portion of our social problems is that we are trying force a traditional but no longer viable institution in an environment that where it no longer makes sense.What needs to be done is to either let go of an antiquated organizational scheme that no longer is valid in modern society, or change the typical industrial capitalist model into something else in which the family plays an important part.

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

Except for the fact that it is still the most popular form of relationship in this country, the one that more people choose to be in than any other.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Heh. So there are more traditionalists than I had thought. I still don't understand their ramblings.

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with many complaints that "traditionalists" have about the family and society. There are far too many people that aren't taking their parental responsibilities seriously enough. I don't fool myself by thinking we can return to the golden days of yesteryear, one because you can't go backwards, and two, because things weren't really all that golden then anyway. But I do tend to think there's been a degradation in society in many important ways.Where I part company is in the idea that there's anything government can do about it. I have no reason to believe government can run a family better than anyone else. Moreover, I value individual freedom much too highly to allow government control over people's private lives, even if I thought government could do a better job.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

What is amusing* about the conservatives' attempts to legislate their views of morality and family in opposition to prevailing social trends is that they are engaging in "social engineering", which is suppose to be something they don't like. Unless, I guess, it is their social utopias that are being engineered. (And let's face it: conservatives are as much, if not more, utopian as anyone else.) *Okay, I have a warped sense of humor.

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

I never saw a couple of sadder grouches in all my life. First, Pud Pounder wrote: What do you want, Pud, a special award or something?And then crashfrog chimes in: Where’s the troll patrol when you really need them?But there is still hope in this thread for relevancy, i.e., “the future of marruage.” Dwise1 wrote intelligently: As to the first sentence: Why not adopt? To the second: They can be grandfathered and grandmothered in, can’t they? And to the third sentence: Do we have a family crisis or not? Something has to change.And then Chiroptera wrote thoughtfully: “The typical industrial capitalistic model” is exactly why I keep a red, white, and black poster of Che Geuvara on my wall (no joke!). Better we change the model for the good of the family, and let the future of marriage embrace that. If gays have some value-added principle to contribute to the future marriage and the family, then give them a license and let them adopt unwanted children.So, come on your geniuses, put your own proposals on the table to save both the future of marriage and the family. Mine was lousy, I’ll admit that, but it was fair a stab at it. Any better ideas?”Hoot Mon

The "value added", as you said yourself, is unwanted children being adopted into loving families.Another "value added" side effect would be equality.What more do you want?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

That assertion begs for substantiation, subbie.On the one hand, we need statistics showing what proportion of the U.S. population is married.On the other hand, how many people of marrying age are choosing to marry?It seems to me, just based on anecdotal observations of those around me, that while older folks may make the first set a majority, large numbers of younger folks are choosing not to marry. And how long do new U.S. marriages last? I've seen a quoted median for new marriages of 3-5 years which does not sound as though marriage is a state "more people choose to be in than any other."Could you let me know on what data you based your statement?

---

Free Dr. Adequate! Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Let's take a sample of Hoot Mon's rejoinders:

quote:

---

I never saw a couple of sadder grouches in all my life. First, Pud Pounder wrote:
...
But there is still hope in this thread for relevancy, i.e., “the future of marruage.”
...
So, come on your geniuses, put your own proposals on the table to save both the future of marriage and the family. Mine was lousy, I’ll admit that, but it was fair a stab at it.

---

Lessee: masturbatory ad hominem, "Marruage," "your geniuses"...I hope you're drinking. Otherwise, it's just embarrassing.

---

Free Dr. Adequate! Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

An answer to the question. How do you plan to get around the fourteenth amendment, either when preventing gay marriage, or when enforcing your view of marriage on straight couples?Oh, and an explanation on how one can be so desparate to get around the fourteenth amendment, but still say he's not a bigot with a straight face would be great.Failing that, jokes that embarass your opponents more than they do you will work. Give us something, Ralph.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Alas, I can no longer access the original article that n.j. linked to to start this thread, but from what I recall, the figures in the article showed that more than 50% of women are married. The 51% "living without a spouse" includes some who are married but separated, including some whose husbands are in the military. It seems safe to assume that at least some of those living apart because of military service are separated not by their own choice.If we add in those persons who would choose to marry and live together but cannot, gays, it seems a virtual certainty that most people in this country wish to live in a cohabitational marital relationship. This is even stronger than the point that I was making, that more people choose that than any other relationship.Certainly "large numbers of younger folk are choosing not to marry," that was the point of the article. And I suspect that the trend will continue and in the not too distant future, the number of people choosing to be married will fall below the majority, and may even fall below the plurality.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat