Well, you addressed part of my issue, but left part conspicuously absent. Your view is that “it leads to illegitimate children” who are “born into poverty” and that this is what we teach in every health class across the nation. This isn’t simply not true. When one says that something leads to another, it’s an argument in the form a therefore b, which isn’t the case. You have, in reality, a and sometimes b. And then further, just not that you’re asserting a therefore b, but also a therefore b is taught in schools. That’s what I take issue with as neither is the case.
Sometimes children born out of wedlock are born into poverty. I would even go so far as to it happens often. But the insinuation that b is because of a in some limited circumstances, I think, is a false cause. People aren’t born into poverty because of their parents being married or slutty. They’re born into poverty simply because their parents are poor, regardless of marital status. If you want to discuss the solution, I would suggest it doesn’t lie in telling when and whom to screw, it’s educating the people who need it the most on how to avoid these permanent consequences.
We don’t do nearly a good enough job at that. But merely the marital status of the people involved isn’t necessarily determinative of a.) whether they’ll poor, or b.) they’ll have kids out of wedlock.
I feel truly blessed/lucky that I never got anyone pregnant before my wife. I am the kind of person that would tenaciously take care of my kids and I am happy that I don’t have any that I don’t live with and can’t be there for day in and day out.
And marriage is the solution to that how? People in marriages give each other STIs everyday of the week. It doesn’t cure casual sex, or STIs or pregnancies; it only changes the title of the people involved. Instead of John and Prettygirlforyoutobang@aol.com, you have Mr. and Mrs. Marriedwithadisease.
Yes, I agree that the total number of people infected or knocked up is a big number standing alone, but it’s not that big when compared against the population in which it’s found.
No one, I think, is arguing that casual sex is risk-free. Nothing humans do is as much. But the risk of some damage to you or me, or whatever isn’t enough to make it the topic of interest to everyone else. But even if those cases were, why should people like me (never had a disease, or been pregnant or anything at all dealing with sex) be penalized because some people make poor decisions? How is it anyone’s business whom I shag, and how often?
ETA: I had an error in my next earlier post. Obviously, marriage is determinative of whether kids are born out of wedlock; it’s kind of the definition.
You are combining separate statements. So to clarify.
It leads to illegitimate children who are born into poverty. full stop
and then in a later post
We teach in health class that sex leads to disease and children. full stop
A child born to a poor married couple is better off in general than a child born to an unwed Mother who doesn’t know who the Father is wouldn’t you agree? I mean just from a logistical standpoint two parents working for low wages can provide for a child better than one working for low wages no? Of course I realize that not all marriages are perfect and alcoholic Fathers often beat children while the disinterested Mother watches soap operas.
It definitely is a contributing factor, as I pointed out, two parents working for a low wage bring home more money than one parent working for a low wage. Yes there are all sorts of poor conditions for people living in poverty regardless of the marital status of their parents, but the bottom line is that sex in general is not costless, this is true whether they are married or not. As I pointed out, of the thousands of times I have had sex out of wedlock, it has resulted in a cost to society at large. Hell my sex IN wedlock resulted in a cost to society at large as I have one child and another on the way, both of whom will be net consumers of resources for the first decade and a half of their lives.
Actually no, married people who do not have diseases and remain monogamous do not pass diseases to one another. The rate of disease transmission among non-married folk is much much much higher than the rate of disease transmission among monogamous married folk.
I don’t know, if something like 40% of families are now single-Mother households that’s a pretty fucking huge percentage.
Obviously the topic is of interest to most people as this is one of the most hotly debated topics in our society. As for whether or not you should be penalized, that’s a question for someone else, I do not think you should be penalized. I think sex should be governed by personal ethics.
The number of households with only one parent isn’t the number of households which is a concern for society because there’s nothing which implies having only one parent makes the family dependent on society’s resources. The argument is a non-starter. You need to argue the number of a.) single-parent households and b.) the number of those who rely on government programs. Well, if you want to make the argument that it’s to society’s detriment.
Then we’re in agreement. When, how, with whom, and under what title people decide to screw is exclusively their own business, provided they aren’t breaking some law that is.
Well, here you have a more difficult question than you’d care to frame it as. 2 parents earning low wages has more earning potential, to be sure. But you have also have more people consuming the resources. Also, we have to figure out whether one person foolishly spends the income. When you have 2 people who have access to that, then there’s one fewer degree of freedom in how resources are managed. The answer isn’t so black and white as “two parents are superior to one”. We have tens of thousands of children who grew up in 2 parent homes, from all walks of life I might add, who had really, really shitty childhoods. The same is true of those in single-parent homes, to be sure. In short, sometimes 2 parents are preferable to one, and sometimes not.
Essentially, your argument can be reduced that sometimes sex leads to children who drain resources. Yes, that’s true. But marriage doesn’t alter that reality, as you’ve pointed out. Sometimes sex comes with little to almost no cost. Sometimes not. For what it’s worth, there are a lot more cases in which people fuck and don’t have negative consequences than the reverse.
Would you think it helpful to read the Canterbury Tales before opining on it with passion? Or The Odyssey, or The Taming of the Shrew, or The Declaration of Independence? You try to come off as oh-so-objective, as someone who wouldn’t be swayed by something as non-rational as faith. Yet, you are religion’s rag doll. If it comes up, even tangentially, you just start sputtering your ignorant hate. In case you don’t know it, this is both funny and frustrating to most of us. Frustrating because we cannot fathom how someone can be so knee-jerk rabid hateful about something they know so little about. Funny because, well, I’m not really sure. Maybe I just find marionettes funny.
So, let’s see you dance again: God loves you, Der Trihs.
But I am stating my position that regardless of whatever impact it may have on society, both direct and indirect, “society” does not have the right to dictate to people what they can or cannot do in the bedroom. It can, however, ensure that they accept the consequences of their actions so people will take that into account when making their decisions.
The notion of forgoing education on safe sex in favor of an “abstinance only” policy is ridiculous, naive, ineffective and based solely on outdated religeous dogma. In a free society, people should be made aware of the consequences and risks for a particular action, told the necessary methods of mitigating those risks and then allowed to make their own decisions.
I am not making an argument of detriment but one of cost. It costs society something, but if society is willing to organize around that cost then it can’t rightly be said to be detrimental.
Well in the eyes of the law that is. If you fuck the wrong bruiser’s sister, you might find yourself up in someone else’s business.
Ok, lets say that the wage of a poor person is 5. We have one parent and one child, so then we have one wage of five split in two, that means it is 2.5 per person. Now lets say we have two parents and one child, so their wages come out to 10 split by 3 so that’s 3.333 per person. Of course the number of kids varies. As for whether or not some kids growing up with single parents are better off than some with two parents, the answer is obviously that yes, sometimes they are better off with one than with both. The single Mother who dumped her boyfriend with the gambling addiction is better off without him.
Well we’ve been focusing on poor and maladjusted people. Lets change the focus and look at things structurally. Lets compare a well-adjusted single-Mother of two kids making 50k per year. Then lets focus on a married well-adjusted couple with a combined earnings of 100k per year with two kids. Which kids are better provided for?
I’m not going to argue against single parent households, many do a magnificent and heroic job of raising their children, but to argue that traditional marriage does not provide structural benefits is something I am not going to agree with.
msmith I don’t disagree with anything you said there. So I am not sure where the argument is either anymore.
Well, that is how society influences decisions: law. Surely we’re not going to discuss all the illegal options that could happen.
And this a fair point. I think it’s more realistic though to start with 5, and then realize that the next parent will make less than that. And of course, this doesn’t factor in the sheer different eating requirements of adults, and children, the number of children, the amount of cost it takes to make the original 5 and so on.
For one, we have the amount made, 5 in this case. But the pay brought home is 5-x, where x is transportation. Now we have (5-x)+(5-y) where y is the second adult’s expenses to make 5. I’m not sure how that would all work itself through in a general situation as I haven’t the data to model anything. I just know that the real solution will be extremely more complex than this napkin maths we’re doing!
Well, to be sure monetarily it’s likelier these kids are doing better. But what’s the time cost to make that income? I don’t know.
It isn’t traditional marriage which does it: it’s the number of helper people in raising the children. 2 gay folks raising a kid statistically turn out equally well-adjusted adults as do 2 married folks. The only difference is that of the several different models, those raised in gay homes are substantially less likely to be bigoted.
People who study law in my opinion tend to give it more weight in the running of society than it realistically warrants. Societal impact is not governed solely through the mediator of the state.
Well the different eating needs are balanced against the cost of diapers and day care. Outside of the amenities I have for myself such as computers, cable television and all that I am pretty certain my daughter’s expenses based on basic necessities are higher than my own and I outweigh her by almost 200 lbs.
Yes, obviously it’s more complex than all that. In a family you have synergies. Electric bills are not more than twice as expensive for a family of four than they are for a family of two given the same domicile.
Yes, there is a time cost, but it’s much easier to get a kid to soccer practice when you have two parents than one, even if in both equations all the parents work.
Ok sure, I am talking about the number of people in the home. A single-Mom with a boyfriend who takes responsibility for her kids when he moves in works the same way, or a single-Mom with a girlfriend, or whatever. Just as grandparents who are intimately involved help significantly. My sister’s kid is partially raised by my parents.
But not in the same way. Society really has but two ways to force people to do something: the law, or violence. In this case, we’re left with the law as I don’t think relying on spontaneous ass-whippings to crop up. =P
It’s hard for me weight as I have three children.
Well, sure. But it would follow that there is some overlap: the fridge is on the same amount of time despite how many use. Indeed, a family unit would get a better rate deal out of that because it’s 1+x amount of food/liquid stored per the same unit time. Same with a lot of things in the house. Slightly offset by hot water consumption. Some of it’s a wash, some of it isn’t. The variables are just too great to look at in the abstract though. This is where statistics would come in handy, but I’m entirely unwilling to do the work on that. =P
Yup, lots of shit goes into it. But what is, I think, quite clear is, that it’s kind of irrelevant whether people are married or not. There’s just no data out there that marriage is inherently any better or worse than other family arrangements.
Yes of course premarital sex leads to rates of disease transmission and out-of-wedlock births–on a macro level. But on a macro level, eliminating premarital sex is all the more out of the question.
On a micro level, any given act of intercourse or any given sexual relationship does not necessarily cause any problems whatsoever. And yet moral objections to sex are on a micro level. When parents object to sex education is school, it’s not because they think they can eliminate sex and therefore disease and pregnancy in society. It’s because they think they can stop their own children from having sex, and they don’t want anything to undermine that, no matter how quote-unquote “safe” it’s likely to be.
There’s also people who believe that we can both have casual uncommitted sex AND believe that marriage is a serious thing and that it should ideally be a lifetime contract. These two things are not mutually exclusive.
Totally in agreement. I believe in choices. Having casual sex should be as much of a choice as being celibate your whole life, if that’s how you like it. But only one group seem to be aiming to make their choice policy and/or law.
Well, duh! But what makes “illegitimate” a bad thing? It seems to be the norm in some countries that produce happy, well adjusted kids. Our nieces seem to be happy kids, blissfully unaware that there is something wrong with their family and not hurt at all by their “illegitimacy”.
Poor people having sex, married or not, could produce children bred into poverty. Should poor people never have sex?
I’m really tired of this anecdotal crap. I never made any sweeping statement about all people. I am sorry if you feel the need to attack marriage to legitimize alternative choices. shrugs Not my problem.
I’m glad you recognize that. Now did you have a point to make?
What are you talking about? Seriously. It’s like you are replying to an entirely different post(er).
No, I am just trying to understand your point. If non-marital sex produces kids born into poverty, but so does marital sex, then why is one better than the other? Please expand your point so I can understand what the blue-green hell you are talking about.
This entire thread someone has thrown up a post, “But this anecdote.”, as if I have some responsibility to validate the lifestyles of every single person who lives slightly differently from what I mentioned.
It really has been addressed. You should read the exchange between ashman and I. Non-marital kids are MORE LIKELY to be in poverty than marital kids.
