Marriage

[Del Arroyo]

Marriages are supposed to produce children. Sensible people don't want marriage to include homosexuals for the same reason that professors will not allow the word "ain't" to be used in term papers.

[Lemur]

Marriages are supposed to produce children. Sensible people don't want marriage to include homosexuals for the same reason that professors will not allow the word "ain't" to be used in term papers.

There's a couple that lives less than a block from casa de lemur. For whatever reason, they have produced no children. Instead, they have adopted twin girls from an irresponsible crack mama. By your overly narrow definition, they should not be married, and they should not be raising children.

Obviously I disagree. The girls are really cute, and they play nicely with my little lemurs.

-edit-

Just to be crystal clear, this is a male-female couple. I realized after I posted that I left myself open to misunderstanding ...

[Papewaio]

Surely this thread proves that the 'efficacy of torture' has been tested until death do us part...

[InsaneApache]

Surely this thread proves that the 'efficacy of torture' has been tested until death do us part...

Amen to that Pape, amen to that.

[Blodrast]

So, Lemur, what do YOU think about the article, and some of the ideas it raises ? I mean, you posted it, so you must have an opinion about the trends it shows and the correlations it points out ?

[Lemur]

So, Lemur, what do YOU think about the article, and some of the ideas it raises ? I mean, you posted it, so you must have an opinion about the trends it shows and the correlations it points out ?

I think it's darn interesting, is what I think. I try not to advertise being an Economist subscriber, 'cause I don't want the other kids to take my milk money and rough me up on the playground, but it really is a hell of a magazine.

I think a stable marriage is an economic boon. I think single parenthood sucks monkey legs, and should be avoided when possible. I think the family is the smallest and most fundamental unit of civilization, and should be treated rather more seriously than it is. I think marriage and stability should be encouraged, but never forced (that way madness lies). I think the right wing's long-standing focus on gay marriage is hypocritical and hilarious.

I mean, Blodrast, that article covers a lot of ground. It's long for a reason. I'm not even sure what you want me to respond to -- can you help a brother out?

[Blodrast]

I mean, Blodrast, that article covers a lot of ground. It's long for a reason. I'm not even sure what you want me to respond to -- can you help a brother out?

Well, don't take it THAT way - I don't "want" you to respond to anything, I was just curious about your opinion. For instance, let's leave aside the unfortunately cliched scenario of poor-uneducated-young-girl becomes pregnant and then a single mother. We're all aware of that.

But the article, and some of the graphs, seem to imply that by being more educated, single parenthood is likely to be avoided.

It's true, they don't come out and say that precisely, but I'd prefer them to be a bit more exact in what they DO imply. How should we interpret those graphs ?
Does it mean that girls who are more educated are smarter and do not become single mothers ? Does it mean that by being more educated they become a better "catch", so there'll be more suitors and therefore they're more likely to get married ? Does it mean that by being more educated they shift their focus on their career, and do not become mothers at all (and that's why the graph shows fewer single moms with higher education) ?

Also, on a different note, about the left-hand side graph. It shows that over years, the rate of divorces among "educated" couples has been decreasing.
Well, here we go again, them leaving us with saliva drooling down our chins, wondering if there's any causality between those two facts.
How about the OVERALL rate of divorces in the late nineties, compared with the late seventies ? If *that* increased, then sure enough, we'll probably see a increase in *most* (not all) of the individual rates based on the education of the spouses.
But is it clear that the education is THE factor that contributed to the decrease of divorce rates ?
How about relaxation of social norms, at all levels of society ?
How about shifting the values, where a single woman (with a career) is no longer considered an outcast, but on the contrary, she may be looked up to as an independent, determined, go-getter, etc ?
How about unfairness of divorces in the "western" society (i.e., their bias towards favouring the woman), thus making it a more attractive option ?
(Yes, I remember reading some stuff, maybe here, that claimed that men are still better off than women after divorces, but the details are vague, and I wasn't convinced, honestly. I am biased, of course, I have my preconceived ideas, but still.).

There, a bit more material for you to work with.

[Kommodus]

This is one of those funny issues for me. The more time I spend married, the more I realize that civil unions and gay marriage poses much less a threat to traditional marriage than I ever thought. Frankly, I think soap operas and strip clubs are much more dangerous.

Here, here!

I think marriage and stability should be encouraged, but never forced (that way madness lies). I think the right wing's long-standing focus on gay marriage is hypocritical and hilarious.

It's interesting that you refer to the focus as "long-standing." By some measures it is, perhaps, yet I remember hearing many Focus on the Family radio broadcasts as a child that never mentioned the issue even once. IIRC they focused on more mundane, every-day family issues.

Basically, I think everyone knows (deep down) what the real threats to marriage and the family are (see DC's post above). The right wing's focus on homosexual marriage appears to me to be a relatively recent, knee-jerk reaction to the liberal campaign to have it legally recognized. It's a diversion (like most political hot-button issues) intended to keep us from addressing the real issues. I also think that many on the right are beginning to realize this.

[Lemur]

I'm not saying that gay couples are bad or that they will cause the downfall of family values. I do object to the inclusion of homosexuals in the institution of marriage.

Fair enough, but the reason you gave for objecting was that marriages should produce children. By which logic, infertile people should not marry. I don't think marriage can be so narrowly defined. What about couples who chose not to have any kids? Is their marriage invalid?

If two people want to take a shot at having the rest of their lives together, I say let 'em. I'm gonna get rich by being first to market with Gay Divorce Court TV.

This focus on marriage still irks me. Surely what people actually mean is that it's better for children to have two parents? I whole-heartedly agree with that, but it doesn't follow that the parents have to be married.

Yup, it's demonstrably better for kids to have two parents. More parents = division of labor = efficiencies = better odds for the kindelein. Certainly the parents don't have to be married, but marriage helps people stay together. There are more real consequences to walking out on your wife than there are on leaving your roommate with benefits. People generally think harder and more carefully about committing to marriage than they do when asking a sex buddy to move in.

When it comes to providing the most stable foundation possible for kids, marriage gives the best odds. Which is not to say that the individual can't give lie to the statistic.

It's interesting that you refer to the focus as "long-standing." By some measures it is, perhaps, yet I remember hearing many Focus on the Family radio broadcasts as a child that never mentioned the issue even once. IIRC they focused on more mundane, every-day family issues.

You're quite right, Focus on the Family used to be a very different organization, and it was built up by offering practical help with family issues. How it got changed into the political creature that it is now, I really don't know.

And you're also right that the reaction to the gay marriage movement was just that, a reaction. But it really has taken on a life of its own in the last ten years or so. By "longstanding," I meant a decade, which is not long in geological terms, but an eternity in politics and insect lives.

Which reminds me, I used an age calculator and found out I am the equivalent of a five-year-old dog. Woof.

[Del Arroyo]

What about couples who chose not to have any kids? Is their marriage invalid?

In many traditional cultures, yes. But I would not go so far. As I said before, if a couple would be biologically capable of producing children under ideal conditions, then their partnership in marriage is a reasonable proposition. For in a reasonable society, there is much which must be left to personal choice and to the will of God. We cannot make black and white out of a grey world.

[Del Arroyo]

There's a couple that lives less than a block from casa de lemur. For whatever reason, they have produced no children. Instead, they have adopted twin girls from an irresponsible crack mama. By your overly narrow definition, they should not be married, and they should not be raising children.

Obviously I disagree. The girls are really cute, and they play nicely with my little lemurs.

-edit-

Just to be crystal clear, this is a male-female couple. I realized after I posted that I left myself open to misunderstanding ...

Well, because they are a couple made up of one male and one female, assuming they are both fertile, they could produce children. The fact that they have not deviates from the ideal, but not to a large extent.

One of my older female cousins lives in a house with her female life partner and two adopted asian girls, who are a joy.

I'm not saying that gay couples are bad or that they will cause the downfall of family values. I do object to the inclusion of homosexuals in the institution of marriage. It is a minor sin, much like use of the word "ain't" in formal written communication.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

This focus on marriage still irks me. Surely what people actually mean is that it's better for children to have two parents? I whole-heartedly agree with that, but it doesn't follow that the parents have to be married.

[Don Corleone]

Focus on the Family cynically plays up on people's fears in an effort to line their coffers? Shocked, shocked I tell you....

So if that's really the case, why'd they need to send that pastor from Colorado last Fall into 'deep therapy'?

Edit: Erh, Ted Haggard