Hey, you’re welcome! But the thing is, my brothers and sisters were born from 1958 to 1972, every two years, and we didn’t have a farm. Perhaps you are simply gullible, and when your parents made a joke about being bred to feed someone else, you believed them. I know my mother used to say she needed so many kids so she’d be supported in her old age, even though she had no memory of a time before the SSA, and when she said it my father was already fully vested in a teacher’s pension.
I’m a hardcore city kid at least four generations removed from tilling the soil, and even I know how fucking retarded you’re being.
Wait, so here’s the sequence of events: You state that the era of large farm families more or less ended in the Civil War era. SnakesCatLady and I provide evidence to refute that point, and you come back and call us idiots, while stating that your family is also evidence against your point.
Did I miss something that makes you not a gibbering moron?
I see. You can’t read. I didn’t say that “the era of large families ended in the Civil War era” at all. Try reading the post again.
You’re a bloody genius. I love this idea!
Whoever said my mother joked about being bred to feed someone else? She may have said that to you, I suppose, but she never said it to me. It was just how things were; if you lived on a farm you worked. I’m reasonably sure my grandmother never thought “Billy needs more help in the fields; I guess I’ll get pregnant again”.
It has a significant flaw, though, (well, probably several, but I’m just going to pick one). Picture an elderly couple, perhaps they were married 59 years, cheerfully sending off their ten-year renewals. Now they’re both sliding into Alzheimer’s. They’ve been supported, in large part, by the one spouse’s military veteran’s benefits. A ten-year deadline approaches and neither spouse is competent to prepare legal documents, even simple ones, and there’s no indication in Anaamika’s proposal that anyone, like the couple’s adult children if they have any, can send off the letter on their behalf. If you could temporarily restore the veteran spouse to competency, he or she would definitely say “I don’t care what condition I’m in, I want my benefits to cover my spouse, too”, but this carries no legal weight.
And thus, the marriage is automatically dissolved when it hits 60 and a renewal letter is not sent. The nonveteran spouse no longer gets his or her medical care covered by their spouse’s veterans benefits, is put on medicaid, which likely is not as comprehensive (is it?). If the couple were staying at a moderately expensive nursing home, made possible by veterans benefits, the nonveteran spouse might end up having to leave, to the agitation of both now-ex-spouses.
I can understand why a marriage contract with an expiry date could be useful. I don’t agree that it should be made the only option.
Exactly. My dad is one of 8, born a sharecropper in 1931. They absolutely did need all hands (although I suppose they didn’t specifically breed for labor, but there was no pressure NOT to have kids because the hands did come in handy.)
The problem here is how benifits are managed. If someone stays married to someone else as a partner long enough to have “earned” them, then they should still get those benefits whether they stay married to the other person or don’t at some point in the future.
Well, what if the veteran spouse stays married to someone for 30 years (long enough for that spouse to “earn” benefits), then that marriage is dissolved and the veteran remarries? Can both the veteran’s spouses, past and present, claim benefits?
A good start would be the system covers one person and ONE spouse (or now ex spouse) at any one time. And I would expect that if the verteran has been married 30 years the new spouse of the verteran has had a chance to “earn” some benefits of their own somewhere else during their lifetime (that they should also get to keep).
Oh and David42 is jerk. Don’t wanna get off track here.
I don’t understand why the state has any business with what my beliefs are. As far as the state is concerned, marriage relates to property rights (e.g. who inherits what) and a handful of secular concerns.
If I marry into the batshit church and later on want to dissolve the marriage, it’s no business of the state that I need to get her Grand High Batshit Hat-Wearer’s permission. If I don’t want her to, say, inherit by default, then the state should recognize that choice. If the GHBHW refuses and consistently believes that I’m going to burn in the bat-cave for eternity, so be it; that too is none of the state’s business (wasn’t there a recent thread about forcing a ghet (get?) on someone via civil courts?).
That OP didn’t remotely approach libel/slander under US law.
ETA: And your ideas on civil courts enforcing church law are just plain moronic. It would require civil courts to either a) be expert in the “law” of every religious group, no matter how small, and make decisions that the people might not accept, the judge being an infidel, and all, or b) enforce the decisions of whomever the group decides is an acceptable judge, with no effective way of reviewing those decisions. What are they going to do, ask God?
That’s true. You said “150 years ago”. Since this is 2012, that would have been 1862, which was in the middle of the Civil War (1861-1865), which would be the Civil War era."
But this thread is about how David42 is a creepy dumbass, not you.
Yeah, but do you want to run the risk of being reported to the Cyber Police?! That’s some serious shit right there.
And in retrospect, I don’t think David42 is serious, other than being a troll. Too inconsistent (and yet not inconsistent enough), a bit over the top and lots of hallmarks of a standard troll. Took it just a bit too far for believability.
DNFTT.
I dunno, he strikes me more as the kind of pathetic narcissist who feels compelled to constantly try to demonstrate he’s the smartest guy in the room. This is not inconsistent with trolling, I admit.
It’s true of my mother. It’s why she only got to the third grade - her father pulled everyone out to work in the fields after that. She’d be 92 if she were still alive, and had younger siblings raised the same way.
DNFTN?
o
Funny how those people invariably demonstrate just the opposite, ain’t it?
Having your ignorance exposed is no excuse for behaving like an asshole.
You said something stupid, you were called on it, people laughed at you.
Move on.
We all occasionally say dumb things.
There’s no reason to double down.