Its time to get past the incidentals and talk about what marriage should mean instead.
This week a study came out that shows how unilateral divorce laws make divorce more frequent. The empirical research shows what any sensible person would already guess — easy divorce laws make for more divorces. This is only magnified by the fact the divorcing party usually has great incentives to divorce and few incentives to stay (independent of whatever marital problems may exist). The fact that this is even a debate in academia shows how politicized and irrational the academy has become. Sure, there are plenty of other reasons to divorce that also drive the high rate of marriage failures, but government incentivizes failure, not success. That certainly doesn't help.…
Article comments
76 - Les Slater
Doug,
"Also, if some are 'predisposed' to be gay it could as well argued that some are not genetically cut out to fit well in a marriage type relationship."
Wow!
"yet aren't concerned in the least for open and admitted discrimination for other equally arbitrary attributes?"
That's why I pointed to your military example.
"My point is that some employers openly and honestly say, yes, we discriminate against single people by paying them less and providing less benefits despite the fact that they perform exactly the same job. That's wrong."
I presume you know the historical precedant here. Remember the 'family man'? Remember the role of the family? It was the role of the man to provide for his family. It was a matter of necessity for an employer to grant the 'family man' a higher wage. It was not just a question of the wife either. There were the kids.
The employing class has got the wife to work also. They have destroyed the family.
In the military example you provided, the government's policies as pertains to dependants is not only not unconstitutional and not 'wrong', but is in fact progressive.
Les
77 - Andy Marsh
It was my military example and it's no where near as bad as it used to be when I was in...a lot more folks in the navy get housing allowances now, even single ones...but there is still disparity in how much you get...and it's based on whether or not your married and not whether or not you have kids...the money goes up when you get married, it doesn't go up when you have kids.
But...to comment #67, there's another way to look at it too...married troops are more stable...most of the time mom, or dad, depending on the situation take care of the kiddies, but I know speaking for myself, I became a much more responsible sailor when I got married and had kids than I ever was when I was single. I'm not saying that I'm all that responsible...just that I became MORE responsible when my wife had kids.
78 - Jimmy Verner
Gonzo, where'd you get this idea? "Remember, the entire child support regime was designed specifically as a countermeasure for the philandering husband (not divorce)." I've never heard this before.
79 - moonraven
zing,
Not only do I have NO experience in it, but I do not know any women who beat off to Playboy magazines in the bathroom.
Duh.
80 - gonzo marx
@ Jimmy - can't explain it, cuz i didn't type it...look again
@ #79 - don't know many bull dykes, do you?
Excelsior?
81 - moonraven
Another homophobe.
Homophobes are always deeply ambivalent about their own sexual orientation.
You are giving me more information than I care to have, gonzo.
82 - gonzo marx
lol..me? ...a homophobe?
you truly are Ignorant about some things, aren't you moonraven?
you make a false statement about no women pleasuring themselves to Playboy in the bathroom...purely anecdotal on your part...and i toss in that there are indeed a segment of the female population who exhibit the behavior you claim as non-existent
nice try at the dodge, but you've been proven incorrect.....again
i realize you aren't getting tired of being wrong so much, but then again, i'm not tired of pointing it out
Excelsior?
83 - moonraven
Don't lay coy with me.
Your term, bull dyke, is offensive. Right up there with faggot.
Yu have never proved me wrong about anything.
And you never will, either.
84 - Jess
Jesse,
No apology needed for your response.
Now...
If your argument is that married people receive better benefits than single people, I might agree with you. I'm not sure if there is a tax break for being married. However parents get tax breaks, whether married or single.
Is your concern that the government invests in the next generation? Perhaps we should get rid of public education? That is another cost to non parents. However i would look at these items as investments into our future. Just as we give tax breaks to businesses and the wealthy don't pay as much as the rest of us do (proportion wise) because of incentives to encourage wealth in the nation (I suppose). Protest that vehemently...
If gay individuals want tax breaks for having kids they can have them if their reproductive function is in tact. THEY don't WANT to.
You see there is no discrimination if you CHOOSE not to participate in a program that is available to all who are able to participate.
Now put on your thinking cap. That is where the nature vs nurture thing comes in. IF it is not nature which determines homosexuality, than it is a choice. The choice is not to participate in a program which benefits those who want to unite AND procreate (create the next generation of Americans). Its not unconstitutional because no one is preventing them from attempting to participating in the way to get these government benefits per say. Even infertile couples who want kids TRY to have them and if they are blessed with a bundle, they will participate. No one is discriminated against.
As for a civil union, it would cure any discrimination that may exist. Those who enter a union by contract may attain benefits from each other be they gay or just single buds or strangers who want benefits or lonely people.... However there is no NEED to change what marriage means in order to accommodate anyone. Marriage is an important institution that molds the next generation. Its always been difficult but so is everything else (job, sports, etc)
85 - gonzo marx
@ #83 - offensive to who? the term was taught to me by those of said persuasion...never had any problems using it with said folks, and if it offends someone, then context will dictate whether i Apologize to said individual
either way, it wouldn't be you
as for proving you wrong...the Record can stand for itself on each and every instance
i'll gladly leave it for the Readers to decide, since i find you not only factually challenged, but delusional or deliberately obtuse as well as intentionally misleading on many counts
Excelsior?
86 - zingzing
moonraven: "Not only do I have NO experience in it, but I do not know any women who beat off to Playboy magazines in the bathroom."
playboy? get out of the sixties. who masturbates in the bathroom anyway? maybe in the shower, but on the toilet? that's gross. and bringing playboy into the shower is just a waste.
heh. you're digging your hole ever deeper, you perv. (moonraven masturbates on the shitter!)
"Y[o]u [gonzo] have never proved me wrong about anything. And you never will, either."
sure he has. he just did. no women masturbate to playboy? are you on crack? not only do lesbians enjoy playboy, plenty of heterosexual females also do.
87 - moonraven
Again, more information than I am interested in having about you.
You guys sure raise a fuss when caught with your pants down....
88 - moonraven
I think you should re-read my post--I said I DO NOT KNOW any women who beat off to playboy in the bathroom.
Literacy course needed here; too bad you can't afford mine....
89 - zingzing
ahh, moonie... when you shouldn't read into something, you do. when you should read into something, you don't. your world is a very strange place.
90 - Zedd
Sorry folks
I posted as JESS. I was preoccupied and typed his name in the Name form line.
Sorry Jess.
Zedd
91 - Jesse
Zedd,
Thanks for the response. No worries about posting under the pseudonym. We are all one in the throes of debate.
As we're now talking in arguable, policy-oriented terms, I'll consider your argument and get back to it, if I don't get distracted along the way.
Jess
92 - moonraven
We are most definitely NOT all one in the throes of debate.
One or two of us have something called CRITICAL DISTANCE.
93 - Richard Neva
I cannot agree more! Only fools get married. The fact that the Catholic church deems it a Sacrament in fact condones it as an institution! As a Catholic I choose celibacy!