Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 10 of 10
 [ 190 posts ] 
Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion
Author Message
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3386Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

MatthewLee wrote:If marriage is a contract which grants privileges to couples... and special privileges usually are granted because of a compelling interest to the government... what is the governments compelling interest to grant special privileges to married people?


Privileges from the government a side; my wife's family are Jehovah Witnesses and we are both Secular Humanists. Now, if anything were to happen to my wife and she needed medical attention and was unable to give consent, the hospital will defer to me instead of her family. The same works with my Catholic family, and how I want nothing to do with that religion, including my funeral. Those alone seems like a good enough reason why a secular government should recognize marriage. Beyond that, the US government is supposed to treat people equally under the law.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:13 pm
YIM WWW
MatthewLeePosts: 82Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
MatthewLee wrote:If marriage is a contract which grants privileges to couples... and special privileges usually are granted because of a compelling interest to the government... what is the governments compelling interest to grant special privileges to married people?


Privileges from the government a side; my wife's family are Jehovah Witnesses and we are both Secular Humanists. Now, if anything were to happen to my wife and she needed medical attention and was unable to give consent, the hospital will defer to me instead of her family. The same works with my Catholic family, and how I want nothing to do with that religion, including my funeral. Those alone seems like a good enough reason why a secular government should recognize marriage. Beyond that, the US government is supposed to treat people equally under the law.


A healthcare advance directive, power of attorney, or living will can more than adequately solve these problems without the need for special priveleges like huge tax benefits. Marriage is far too elegant a solution to simply be a way to efficiently deal with healthcare rights and property dispensation... in fact marriage greatly complicated these things before the law so what is the governments compelling interest to maintain marriage as a legal institution with special privileges?
Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:14 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3386Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

MatthewLee wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Privileges from the government a side; my wife's family are Jehovah Witnesses and we are both Secular Humanists. Now, if anything were to happen to my wife and she needed medical attention and was unable to give consent, the hospital will defer to me instead of her family. The same works with my Catholic family, and how I want nothing to do with that religion, including my funeral. Those alone seems like a good enough reason why a secular government should recognize marriage. Beyond that, the US government is supposed to treat people equally under the law.


A healthcare advance directive, power of attorney, or living will can more than adequately solve these problems without the need for special priveleges like huge tax benefits.


Have you not answered your own question though? Why should anyone have to get X amount of documents when they can just get one that covers all of that? Remember, people need to be treated equal under the law. In addition, as I have said several times before, I am married and no government benefit ever factored into why I wed. In fact, I would not mind if the tax benefits were done away with completely.

MatthewLee wrote:Marriage is far too elegant a solution to simply be a way to efficiently deal with healthcare rights and property dispensation... in fact marriage greatly complicated these things before the law so what is the governments compelling interest to maintain marriage as a legal institution with special privileges?


You tell me. However, as long as government is going to recognize it, they have to treat everyone equal under the law.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:26 pm
YIM WWW
MatthewLeePosts: 82Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Children. Children have traditionally been the governments compelling interest in marriage. Children require a stable family unit and are unbelievably expensive to raise therefore the government gives special breaks and privileges to married people because it’s assumed the bulk of them are breeding.
Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:08 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3386Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

MatthewLee wrote:Children. Children have traditionally been the governments compelling interest in marriage. Children require a stable family unit and are unbelievably expensive to raise therefore the government gives special breaks and privileges to married people because it’s assumed the bulk of them are breeding.


I hate to be the one to break this to you, but people can have children without marriage. It happens all the time. Beyond that, you do realize that adoption is also a thing.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:46 am
YIM WWW
MatthewLeePosts: 82Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Yes, thank you, I am very aware that marriage is not prerequisite for reproduction. :)

Adoption usually happens because two people who can’t afford to raise a child got pregnant. It can also happen because two people who weren’t married to one another and were not in a committed relationship got pregnant and neither wanted to raise the child alone. Hence the original Norm of no sex before marriage so that children could be raised in a stable home by two people in a committed relationship because raising children takes money, commitment, and an astounding amount of patience.

It is common sense that it is always better for a child to be raised by its own blood parents if this is at all feasible. As someone who spent the better part of his life looking for his father I can tell you this from experience. I have known many people who were raised by single parents, adopted, or the children of divorce and I can’t inagine anyone trying to defend that idea that somehow marriage doesn’t help child rearing. It’s an indefensible position. Marriage isn’t just about property rights, it’s about children.
Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:54 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3386Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

MatthewLee wrote:Yes, thank you, I am very aware that marriage is not prerequisite for reproduction. :)


You say that, yet you are still going to argue that for some reason marriage = child raising.

MatthewLee wrote:Adoption usually happens because two people who can’t afford to raise a child got pregnant. It can also happen because two people who weren’t married to one another and were not in a committed relationship got pregnant and neither wanted to raise the child alone. Hence the original Norm of no sex before marriage so that children could be raised in a stable home by two people in a committed relationship because raising children takes money, commitment, and an astounding amount of patience.


And? Beyond that, it is a good thing that we now have contraception. Now we can have sex without fear of babies.

MatthewLee wrote:It is common sense that it is always better for a child to be raised by its own blood parents if this is at all feasible. As someone who spent the better part of his life looking for his father I can tell you this from experience. I have known many people who were raised by single parents, adopted, or the children of divorce and I can’t inagine anyone trying to defend that idea that somehow marriage doesn’t help child rearing. It’s an indefensible position. Marriage isn’t just about property rights, it’s about children.


My wife's parents were married and highly abusive (mentally). I will say that a good rule of thumb is that children should be with their biological parents, but that is not always true. Beyond that, my best friend in high school was adopted and is now a lawyer. He has never looked for his biological parents. Acting as if a rule of thumb should be generalized to all cases is asinine. Things happen as you pointed out above. Sometimes it is better for a child to be raised by a single parent or given up for adoption.

Now, beyond all of this, we have established that marriage is not synonymous with producing children. So, what exactly does any of this have to do with that topic? Again remember, people need to be treated equal under the law.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:15 pm
YIM WWW
MatthewLeePosts: 82Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:04 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

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?

Do you suggest that children pop out fully emotionally formed with the ability to just be ok as long someone gives them dirt and water like a ficus plant?

First off: Do you realize how important children are to the health of a nation? If each person only had one child that would make a static population with no growth. Population growth is not an option. If your population remains static for too long your economy tanks because the number of working adults compared to non-working children and elderly eventually becomes unsustainable... especially as life spans grow. The state has a vested interest in population growth. Who will take care of you when you are old and cannot work? My children will be expected to care for all the people who can't care for themselves but decided not to have kids. The society has to care for these people... the society of the future made by the children we have.

http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-fe ... sis-2017-4

You should read this. It's about why when birthrates get to a critical mass your economy tanks. The state has a vested interest in population growth.

Non-married, non-procreating people are not entirely equal before the law to married people because the latter have taken on an unequal burden, the burden of producing and raising humans for the next generation of the nation. This is why married people get special privileges (and legal risks). They agree to feed, clothe, provide for the emotional needs of, and provide for the educational needs of other humans from the time that they are completely helpless until hopefully they can take care of themselves which can be 18 years, or 40 or never. Daycare isn't free but conversely... you still have to work even before you have a place for the kids to go and as a single parent with one income it's a neat trick to support a family while still providing for their emotional needs. Being a parent with a committed partner, as I am, is really, really hard. I can't imagine trying to do it by myself. It would be a nightmare... oh wait... I don't have to imagine it because I was the child of a single mother. It sucked for her and I never saw her until she got married again... which was a whole lot of fun in it's own regard...

You have also completely stepped over the emotional bonding issue like it isn't even a thing. Like kids and adults have a sterile, congenial attachment which is purely convenient. Parental love and attachment is one of the essential formative influences of a child's self-esteem, self-worth and sense of security... not to mention the fact that parental attachment to their own children is orders of magnitude more powerful than the attachment of a non-related care giver could ever be.

If you have children with someone you are not willing to make a lifetime commitment to be with... it is not a good sign that you will stick around when the going gets tough with the kids. If you leave you not only damage the other partner you damage the children and that is a proven fact... divorce hurts and creates emotionally toxic and economically painful situations.

Reproduction is one of the highest order instinctual needs in the entirety of nature... if you don't reproduce you go extinct and higher order mammals share childcare duties. Higher order mammals sometimes mate for life because of this need to rear children with a committed partner. Even nature seems to echo the need for monogamy. Humans go one step further and formalize this union in an oath because they acknowledge on some level that marriage isn't just about our own needs... If marriage was just about love... then why would the state involve itself in marriage at all? The state doesn't involve itself in boyfriend and girlfriend (or any other configuration) relationships.

If we didn't need special protections for children and child raising... marriage would be a personal thing which the law would never have been able to try and regulate because the government has absolutely no compelling interest to regulate love. Only to assist in the successful and productive maintenance of population. The government doesn't care who controls your healthcare when you're unconscious or where your estate goes. That's what wills are for and healthcare directives. Marriage is about child raising.

The government cares about kids not starving and has a compelling interest in parents making babies that can be workers, soldiers, and all other kinds of bees necessary to make a hive function. Marriage has been a function of society and of childbearing in almost every civilized society ever to exist.
Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:56 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3386Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

MatthewLee wrote: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.


I think this is where we disagree. I believe marriage is between people that love each other and want to share a life together. That life can include children, but does not have to. Beyond that, I already said that I am all for getting rid of the tax breaks for marriage, I do not see a need for them, but I am normally against taxes anyways.

MatthewLee wrote:Have you seen the foster system in America? American orphanages are hell holes.


Yep. Something that would help is increasing the pool of prospective people that want to adopt. I feel that a single person who is financially stable should also be able to adopt, not just couples.

MatthewLee wrote:How can you argue that a married couple is not the preferred route for child raising? Do you have children?


I have no children and do not care to have them. However, as I pointed out, I think a single person who is financially stable can raise a child just as well as most couples. Beyond that, the preferred rout is not always open, so I do not understand why you would bring it up as if it always is.

MatthewLee wrote:Do you suggest that children pop out fully emotionally formed with the ability to just be ok as long someone gives them dirt and water like a ficus plant?


No, but having to parents (biological or otherwise) is not a guaranty that they will be emotionally stable as adults either.

MatthewLee wrote:First off: Do you realize how important children are to the health of a nation? If each person only had one child that would make a static population with no growth. Population growth is not an option. If your population remains static for too long your economy tanks because the number of working adults compared to non-working children and elderly eventually becomes unsustainable... especially as life spans grow. The state has a vested interest in population growth. Who will take care of you when you are old and cannot work? My children will be expected to care for all the people who can't care for themselves but decided not to have kids. The society has to care for these people... the society of the future made by the children we have.


As we already agreed, marriage is not synonymous with popping out children. Thus, this point is irrelevant.

MatthewLee wrote:You should read this. It's about why when birthrates get to a critical mass your economy tanks. The state has a vested interest in population growth.


As you have already agreed, marriage is not needed for producing children. Thus, what this has to do with what we are discussing is beyond me.

MatthewLee wrote:Non-married, non-procreating people are not entirely equal before the law to married people because the latter have taken on an unequal burden, the burden of producing and raising humans for the next generation of the nation.


Where is it law that marriage means I have to start producing children?

MatthewLee wrote:You have also completely stepped over the emotional bonding issue like it isn't even a thing. Like kids and adults have a sterile, congenial attachment which is purely convenient. Parental love and attachment is one of the essential formative influences of a child's self-esteem, self-worth and sense of security... not to mention the fact that parental attachment to their own children is orders of magnitude more powerful than the attachment of a non-related care giver could ever be.


I do not disagree with any of this. I just do not see the point of it when you already agreed that marriage is not synonymous with popping out children.

MatthewLee wrote:If you have children with someone you are not willing to make a lifetime commitment to be with... it is not a good sign that you will stick around when the going gets tough with the kids. If you leave you not only damage the other partner you damage the children and that is a proven fact... divorce hurts and creates emotionally toxic and economically painful situations.


I would disagree with this. I think in some cases it might be better to co-parent. Shotgun marriages never seemed like a good idea to me. Both parents wanting the child, but are unable to stand each other means the option of co-parenting instead of being forced into a marriage just might be a better option.

MatthewLee wrote:Reproduction is one of the highest order instinctual needs in the entirety of nature... if you don't reproduce you go extinct and higher order mammals share childcare duties. Higher order mammals sometimes mate for life because of this need to rear children with a committed partner. Even nature seems to echo the need for monogamy. Humans go one step further and formalize this union in an oath because they acknowledge on some level that marriage isn't just about our own needs... If marriage was just about love... then why would the state involve itself in marriage at all? The state doesn't involve itself in boyfriend and girlfriend (or any other configuration) relationships.


As I said before, I am fine with the state not involving itself in this issue at all. However, if it does, it has to treat everyone equally. You keep side stepping that issue.

MatthewLee wrote:If we didn't need special protections for children and child raising... marriage would be a personal thing which the law would never have been able to try and regulate because the government has absolutely no compelling interest to regulate love. Only to assist in the successful and productive maintenance of population. The government doesn't care who controls your healthcare when you're unconscious or where your estate goes. That's what wills are for and healthcare directives. Marriage is about child raising.


Again, I completely disagree with you on that. Marriage is about love and you already agreed that marriage is not synonymous with popping out children.

MatthewLee wrote:The government cares about kids not starving and has a compelling interest in parents making babies that can be workers, soldiers, and all other kinds of bees necessary to make a hive function. Marriage has been a function of society and of childbearing in almost every civilized society ever to exist.


If it were the case that the government cared about children, than they should just give people money for popping out children. Again, marriage is not synonymous with popping out children and our government needs to treat everyone equal under the law.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Feb 08, 2018 6:21 pm
YIM WWW
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 792Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

I know couples that have children that are married, and are not. I see no real diffenrence between them when it comes to the wellbeing of the children. This might just be because in Finland we mostly don't think that having children out of wedlock is a stigma of some sorts. For example my sister isn't married to her companion and no one seems to care, least their two children.

One thing I'd also like to argue that marriage has never really been about having children, people have had children out of wedlock forever, but rather about ensuring that the father of the children are the ones designated. There are exeptions of course, but it pretty much boils down to the property like attitude people societies have had about women for centuries in the Abrahamic regions until the last 250 years.
Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:55 am
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 10 of 10
 [ 190 posts ] 
Return to Politics & Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest