|
Sander Rossel wrote: You're right, you said "the best way" and not "the only way".
I still don't think it matters whether you're married or not though, but that's another matter 
This is much too complex a subject to be covered in a short post, but I'll try...
The problem is that, as the Chinese ideogram for "mother" hints, everyone has a mother. Who the father is, is less certain.
Shorn of the religious part, traditional (m-f) marriage is an attempt to balance between the obligation of the man to support his children and his fear (in the days before genetic testing) that his wife's children are not his, and that therefore he is supporting some freeloader's children. In marriage, a man agrees to support all children born in the marriage, and the woman agrees that her children will only be sired by the man. OTOH, there was no obligation on the man to support children born out of wedlock.
This is one of the reasons why unfaithfulness by the woman was treated much more seriously than unfaithfulness by the man - it consisted possible fraud.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
He didn't say you can't raise children while unmarried, he said doing so while married is the best way.
And he's right - when controlled for all other variables, a child being raised by two parents instead of one tends to do better.
|
|
|
|
|
You are making the implicit assumption that the marriage is a happy and long-lasting one.
If the marriage keeps the parents quarreling and fighting all the time, leading to a brutal breakup with lawyers, lying from both sides and lots of hate, then lots of kids would prefer less close, but more friendly relationship between their parents.
Furthermore, you are making the implicit assumption that kids are brought up Western style: In a small core family, with the parents taking 90% of the responsibility for the upbringing. In lots of non-Western societies, kids are the responsibility of the entire village, with neighbours and grandparents and uncles and aunts and their friends having roles as extra parents. The kids eat with the others where they happen to be at meal time. Maybe they sleep where they happen to be at night. Lots of adults tell the kids what to do, and what not to do, teach them what it takes to solve tasks of various kinds, teach them history and traditions and their local culture.
To a large degree, it was that way on farms, even in Western Europe (maybe not in the US): A large farm could have dozens of people, maybe a hundred, if you count everyone associated with the farm, spanning three generations or more.
I am not sure that a tiny core family with two lone parents being fully responsible for the entire upbringing of the kids is so much better than the way it is done in other cultures. Maybe it is not too bad in the idealistic, happy, life long, resource rich and well educated family. But "the village model" is certainly more robust against all sorts of problems.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: You are making the implicit assumption that the marriage is a happy and long-lasting one.
Where did I do that?
Quote: In lots of non-Western societies, kids are the responsibility of the entire village, with neighbours and grandparents and uncles and aunts and their friends having roles as extra parents.
And those primitive lifestyles, while nice, have produced very little of value to the world.
Quote: . Lots of adults tell the kids what to do, and what not to do, teach them what it takes to solve tasks of various kinds, teach them history and traditions and their local culture.
And that's why they remain primitive and useless to the world. The next breakthrough isn't coming from the non-western village where the children run around being "educated" about the sun god of whatever the local culture is ...
Quote: with two lone parents
You keep saying this, I never said anything about "two lone parents", I said "two parents instead of one", not "two parents instead of five". I mean, there were only two sentences in my post and you managed to misread both of them? If I had written a third sentence you may have gotten a hat-trick
And what I said is still true, two parents tend to produce more successful children than one parent, and married couples tend to produce more successful children than non-married couples.
The simplest way to halve a child's lifetime earnings is to have the parents divorce/never live together. There's a lot of factors in that, but they mostly boil down to "less time, money and effort goes into the child after a divorce".
It is not unusual, for example, for a divorce to cost a man more than the complete educational cost of a child to age 18. That is money that would have gone towards the child, going to the lawyers instead.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 13301679 wrote: a child being raised by two parents instead of one tends to do better
I'm not arguing about that.
I'm just saying you don't have to be married to be together 
|
|
|
|
|
Except file a joint return, walk into the hospital and see your partner, ( depends ), sign some legal things, inherit with fewer hoops to jump thru, get your partners health insurance. ( varies )
So, while the "union" is in your minds, the legal messes are something else.
So if you _are_ married, you are likely better of doing it "formal".
|
|
|
|
|
I would consider a difference between being Married (legal, religious, whatever) and being COMMITTED.
The key is to be committed. I think, that is when everything works and is the best way to raise children. I think that is how the ancient communities survived. I think I read something like this the the "Naked Ape" book (by Desmond Morris???)
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: marriage is the best way to raise children
agreed. that's a pro.
|
|
|
|
|
Evolution would be on your side in this: both parties have a genetic interest in the offspring and survival as a group allows more options (varying as the young mature) for survival of all members of the group.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: the best way to raise children
Don't we have a few billion monkeys too many on this planet already?
ZurdoDev wrote: stabilize society.
I'm not sure that I want to s(t)abilize it.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
modified 1-Jun-20 15:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
OK Dwight Schrute. 
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
ZurdoDev wrote: When done right, marriage is the best way to raise children.
Provided that the marriage does not end up in dogfight and a divorce.
Not very many couples divorce as friends. Most end up as enemies.
Lots of people who have been living together, and after they break up, they are still friends. Most kids want their parents to be friends.
A happy, life long marriage could be a good framework for raising children. Statistics tell that this ideal is not the norm. It is just an ideal. Even if marriages are life long, lots of them are not happy.
There is this story from the old days when people were riding horses. One old couple who had been married for fifty years, it was said that there had never been any argument or quarrel. The journalist from the local newspaper asked the couple if that was true, and how they had managed to live in harmony for that long. The husband explained: When we were on our way from church after our marriage, something made the horse pulling our wagon stall. I let it calm down, and commented "That was the first time!" We rode on, and then it stalled again. It calmed down, and I commented "That was the second time!" Well, when it stalled for the third time, I didn't say a word but picked up my handgun and gave that horse a bullet in one ear an out the other. That caused my wife of half an hour gave me a really harsh scolding. I didn't reply with a single word until she ran out of breath. Then I commented "That was the first time".
|
|
|
|
|
Unless you have been married that is hardly a valid opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: but there are more cons than pros
Mileage may wary.
|
|
|
|
|
There's a biological aspect as well. If there wasn't we wouldn't see animals mating for life.
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly being capable of traveling to any nation, including the fundamentalist hellholes, without risking death penalty for sleeping with my significant other is quite the asdvantage.
Adding the economical (lower taxes) and logistical benefits (possibility of taking care of each other business, from booking medical visits to managing household contracts) it really becomes useful.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
It feels like more of a social notion since most human cultures/societies have marriage institutions.
|
|
|
|
|
You'd be surprised how varied they are across the world. Both in their structure and the rights/obligations of the parties.
|
|
|
|
|
No I realize that, and I'd sometime I'd love to study some of those differences and similarities someday. I just object to the notion that marriage is merely a religious institution. A bit pedantic perhaps, but if it's something common across humanity, those similarities and differences should reveal something about humanity.
Anthropology is one topic I wish I knew more about
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't planning on getting married, ever 
It's a weird social construct that adds nothing when you're happy in love, but adds a lot of trouble when that love has gone
On a side note, I think raising or burning a flag, or a politician apologizing for slavery or WWII or whatever (anything they didn't personally do or had any influence on), a minute of silence and that sort of symbolic statements are all weird social constructs that I really don't get.
They're symbolic and change absolutely nothing to what has already passed.
Marriage, in that sense, is purely symbolic and does nothing except give you some tax benefits and arrange for your heritage that you could also get from a cohabitation contract.
|
|
|
|
|
We need a good symbolic debugger for people that are married !
|
|
|
|
|
I think those debuggers are called "relationship therapists" and "divorce lawyers".
Their invoices are far from symbolic though
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: It's a weird social construct that adds nothing
Oh yes it does, at least in the country I live.
Basically, it is a contract (between m/f, f/f, m/m) that regulates one and the other. E.g. something important like pension fund or inheritance matters.
Ok, you are young but the older you get, things like this becomes more important
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a contract whose terms are subject to political whim. If the times comes to break it, the rules may have changed since it was originally entered into. Pass.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, and since it's ONLY a contract (to me at least), it's absurd so many people are against same sex marriage.
That's because to those people it's more, it's some holy ritual that ultimately changes nothing to your current reality.
I get the contract, but beyond that I'm at a loss.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
