why have marriage laws at all?

[Athena]

I want to move the debate about homosexual marriages to a question of why have any marraige laws? May be if we begin with a reason for having marriage laws, it will be easier to determine if the law should or should not include homosexual relationships?
Implied in this question is also female and child rights. When a male burdens a female with a baby, should she and the child have any right to any form of protection from the male?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Athena should she and the child have any right to any form of protection from the male?

You mean child support? If so, the answer is "Yes!" Men who like sex with women of childbearing age should be cautious to safeguard their own financial future if they don't want children. This means a condom(and knowing how to use it) or sterilization or other MALE contraceptive. Relying on the woman to prevent pregnancy is not fulfilling the man's PERSONAL responsibility.

Bottom line: paternity testing is now a science, and if you are the father of a child... count on supporting that person until adulthood. It will be REQUIRED.

[Athena]

But raising a child involves so much more than money. I think it would be great if every woman dumped the children on the fathers and walked away. Then may be men would have something to say about the responsibility, other than consideration of the money for child support.

Once upon a time, it was assumed the men did keep the children, because they were the only ones who could afford them.

[PatrickHenry]

I freely admit that fathers should have a moral ethic that also takes personal and physical responsibility for their offspring. Somehow it seems that the prevailing psychological factors in each gender cause motherhood to be a bit more bonding. "Dumping" a child on someone who won't assume responsibility is a prescription for despair for the kid. Maybe society can make a person pay, but it can't make them care.

Re: marriage laws, I don't think they are realistic. I wish government would remove all reference to marriage from law. Tax everyone evenly regardless of marital status. Don't referee marriage, or grant divorces. Let other institutions do that, or not have it occur. Marriage is (to me) a sacrament, and a formal contractual commitment.

[Athena]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I freely admit that fathers should have a moral ethic that also takes personal and physical responsibility for their offspring. Somehow it seems that the prevailing psychological factors in each gender cause motherhood to be a bit more bonding. "Dumping" a child on someone who won't assume responsibility is a prescription for despair for the kid. Maybe society can make a person pay, but it can't make them care. Re: marriage laws, I don't think they are realistic. I wish government would remove all reference to marriage from law. Tax everyone evenly regardless of marital status. Don't referee marriage, or grant divorces. Let other institutions do that, or not have it occur. Marriage is (to me) a sacrament, and a formal contractual commitment.

No, no, no that doesn't work for me. If something is formal that means it is law, and only government has that power of formality. A bunch of hippies do not have the power of law and can not make their chosen organization of people formal law.

I think we need to chew on this subject a little more, and I wish others were giving an opinion. I am pragmatic and think there should be marriage laws, but frankly that is a thought I haven't thought about, so it could be wrong. I also think every parent should be assured of providing a reasonable standard of living for all his/her children before being taxed. However, to decrease the number of children people have, I am in favor of increasing taxes for people who have more than two children. But then we could completely rethink our economy and totally change the issue. Money aside, is there any other reason for marriage law, like how a child feelings and what kind of person this child grows up to be?

More important to who do we want to give power of authority? Should power of authority rest with parents or the state? No parents, means state authority.

[kingjust]

Quote by: PatrickHenry You mean child support? If so, the answer is "Yes!" Men who like sex with women of childbearing age should be cautious to safeguard their own financial future if they don't want children. This means a condom(and knowing how to use it) or sterilization or other MALE contraceptive. Relying on the woman to prevent pregnancy is not fulfilling the man's PERSONAL responsibility. Bottom line: paternity testing is now a science, and if you are the father of a child... count on supporting that person until adulthood. It will be REQUIRED.

But shouldn't women be held to the same standard as you are stating men should have. Women do also have sex for pleasure and not to procreate, so shouldn't they practice preventative measures and not just men?

[kingjust]

Quote by: Athena But raising a child involves so much more than money. I think it would be great if every woman dumped the children on the fathers and walked away. Then may be men would have something to say about the responsibility, other than consideration of the money for child support. Once upon a time, it was assumed the men did keep the children, because they were the only ones who could afford them.

But what of those men that support and take care of not only his children but the wife? Questioning ones resposibility in this instance would be ignorantly premeditated, don't you think?

[kingjust]

Quote by: Athena I want to move the debate about homosexual marriages to a question of why have any marraige laws? May be if we begin with a reason for having marriage laws, it will be easier to determine if the law should or should not include homosexual relationships? Implied in this question is also female and child rights. When a male burdens a female with a baby, should she and the child have any right to any form of protection from the male?

Thinking about it, there are no marraige laws per say. Thinking about me a my wife getting married the only things we could see is that it is some form or acknowledgement of a legal bond <---but what is that really? And that there are more benefits than there are laws pertaining to marraige.

I have to say something about your last paragraph. How can a man burden a women with a child, when she knows well that "she" could get pregnant, and with that thought in her head, "she" should take it upon herself to protect "herself" don't you think. And to answer the distastefully proposed question, married or not the man is only responsible for the child, as shitty as that sounds. A mans love for his wife and child will determine how much he will do to take care and provide for the family he is willing to create and support. And with that being said, you see alot of familys being create not out of love, but lust or something worse, which results in broken homes.

[kingjust]

Quote by: Athena No, no, no that doesn't work for me. If something is formal that means it is law, and only government has that power of formality. A bunch of hippies do not have the power of law and can not make their chosen organization of people formal law.

How do you figure? People can have formal verbal agreements and is respected in courts when it is in disputes.

[quote=Athena]I think we need to chew on this subject a little more, and I wish others were giving an opinion. I am pragmatic and think there should be marriage laws, but frankly that is a thought I haven't thought about, so it could be wrong. I also think every parent should be assured of providing a reasonable standard of living for all his/her children before being taxed. However, to decrease the number of children people have, I am in favor of increasing taxes for people who have more than two children. But then we could completely rethink our economy and totally change the issue. Money aside, is there any other reason for marriage law, like how a child feelings and what kind of person this child grows up to be?[/athena]

I kind of agree on increasing the taxes on families who want more than 2 children. But honestly in my heart is that right? Kinda like a form of population control, if that is where your getting at. Maybe that should be inforced for the illegal immigrant community? But as you stated, I think, what is marraige laws and how can you regulate 2 persons bond by law. Wouldn't that border invasion of privacy?

Quote by: athena More important to who do we want to give power of authority? Should power of authority rest with parents or the state? No parents, means state authority.

Good question, damn good question. But your second sentence doesn't make sense. During what situation is this power of authority going to be discussed? Power of authority I think applies to when something happens to both parents and the children are left with no parents. Because by default the biological parents have that initial right.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: kingjust But shouldn't women be held to the same standard as you are stating men should have. Women do also have sex for pleasure and not to procreate, so shouldn't they practice preventative measures and not just men?

Women generally have a close bond with their own children. There is a plague of fatherlessness in America.

But my response was to Athena's query about women, their children and men. I was actually trying to determine her question and to reply to what I thought she was asking in the same post.

If women do not wish to become mothers, I hope they also use birth control. It is much more logical, caring and inexpensive than abortion. Less threat of psychological repercussion, too.

Way off topic from marriage laws...

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

Quote by: Athena When a male burdens a female with a baby, should she and the child have any right to any form of protection from the male?

This is an absurd assertion. More often than not it is the women that burdens the male with a child by refusing to consider his wishes when deciding whether to keep it and then expecting full financial support for her decision. If a woman wishes to keep a child against the wishes of the father, she should accept full financial responsibility for that decision. Otherwise a father should be able to force a woman to carry a child through to term so that he can raise it if she has decided to abort it.

[Lilith]

SeekerofSins, very interesting point you made. Interesting indeed. I've never thought of it that way.

[SteveA]

I don't think laws should regard marriage specifically - it's not an issue directly in need of being addressed by government. If government merely enforced a private marriage contract, as any other contract, couples could still agree to be legally bound to whatever terms they felt appropriate and this way it couldn't create legal obligations to third parties, as it currently does. Marriage is a social institituion that doesn't need politicians defining what it is for others or how they should treat differently, married versus unmarried people.

But raising a child involves so much more than money. I think it would be great if every woman dumped the children on the fathers and walked away. Then may be men would have something to say about the responsibility, other than consideration of the money for child support. Once upon a time, it was assumed the men did keep the children, because they were the only ones who could afford them.

I think naturally, without some prior arrangement, women effectively "own" their own children. Motherhood is rarely ever in doubt, whereas, fatherhood can be questionable.

In most cultures, women are more often encouraged to be selective of who they choose to have sex with because they have more at stake than men in the matter. I'm not making that up, it's just a fact of nature. I'd prefer to see men more responsible in their actions but there are always guys that just want to have some fun and not take part in the responsibility. That's what marriage is about - it's a way men can feel more confident their children are truly their own, and a way mothers can have a commitment to help raise the children.

But without some, at least implicit, agreement before a woman becomes pregnant, you can't just assume the man automatically has some shared ownership of the children, nor can you truly do this with current laws anyway, because women are still free to choose whether or not they have the child, or whether the father has shared custody of them etc. You can't have freedom without the responsibility for those actions, so giving full choice to a woman, in regard to how their children are raised, a man can't be held accountable to pay for something he has no control over. So either the children, including decisions made regarding whether or not to have them and how to raise them, are shared with the father, in which case the father shares the expenses too, or the mother retains most all this control, and is expected to assure she can afford to do so.

That's why marriage is a valuable private institution, so as to provide a convient and recognized arrangement in which a mother and father can address these issues satisfactorily for both of them - without marriage, or some other agreement, the "ownership" and responsibility should naturally remain with the mother. Anything else, and we have to effectively take custody of children away from their mothers, which is a bad idea and likely to make having children less desirable for women (we already have issues with a declining population ... maybe it's a mixed blessing, but I don't think we need to add more discouragements).

[Logjam]

Quote by: PatrickHenry You mean child support? If so, the answer is "Yes!" Men who like sex with women of childbearing age should be cautious to safeguard their own financial future if they don't want children. This means a condom(and knowing how to use it) or sterilization or other MALE contraceptive. Relying on the woman to prevent pregnancy is not fulfilling the man's PERSONAL responsibility. Bottom line: paternity testing is now a science, and if you are the father of a child... count on supporting that person until adulthood. It will be REQUIRED.

By golly, Patrick; here I almost agree with you! If you mean that the government should insure that unwed fathers should pay for the upbringing of the child, then I sort of disagree. I'd rather that men understand that they have a responsiblity to support their children because of cultural morays. It should be understood. Our society should demand it.

And, I guess if that's not enough the government should step in, but I'd prefer not.

Gosh, PH, you aren't sounding like a liberal here. You are rather, sounding judgemental; something that liberals usualy eschew.

Anyway, I agree with you, mostly.

[Logjam]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I freely admit that fathers should have a moral ethic that also takes personal and physical responsibility for their offspring. Somehow it seems that the prevailing psychological factors in each gender cause motherhood to be a bit more bonding. "Dumping" a child on someone who won't assume responsibility is a prescription for despair for the kid. Maybe society can make a person pay, but it can't make them care. Re: marriage laws, I don't think they are realistic. I wish government would remove all reference to marriage from law. Tax everyone evenly regardless of marital status. Don't referee marriage, or grant divorces. Let other institutions do that, or not have it occur. Marriage is (to me) a sacrament, and a formal contractual commitment.

We could avoid this hole mess f women and men would abstain from having sex outside of marriage.

It should be: meet, date, fall in love, get married, have sex and children. What's wrong with that?

[ihaQ]

It should be: meet, date, fall in love, get married, have sex and children. What's wrong with that?

Because if you have sexual compatability issues with your spouse and you spend your marriage sexually frustrated, there is a great chance your relationship will be weakened or even broken and that you will develope unhealthy behavioural patterns.

Also, the notion that one in a non-commital situation should deny themselves the biological need to sample a certain amount of sexual partners (withoin a safe environment ofc) is positively medival and unfair to one's situation.

[Athena]

Quote by: kingjust Thinking about it, there are no marraige laws per say. Thinking about me a my wife getting married the only things we could see is that it is some form or acknowledgement of a legal bond <---but what is that really? And that there are more benefits than there are laws pertaining to marraige. I have to say something about your last paragraph. How can a man burden a women with a child, when she knows well that "she" could get pregnant, and with that thought in her head, "she" should take it upon herself to protect "herself" don't you think. And to answer the distastefully proposed question, married or not the man is only responsible for the child, as shitty as that sounds. A mans love for his wife and child will determine how much he will do to take care and provide for the family he is willing to create and support. And with that being said, you see alot of familys being create not out of love, but lust or something worse, which results in broken homes.

My emotional reaction to your first question is too strong for me to answer rationally. A woman does not have to want sex for sex to happen.

[Athena]

Quote by: kingjust How do you figure? People can have formal verbal agreements and is respected in courts when it is in disputes. Good question, damn good question. But your second sentence doesn't make sense. During what situation is this power of authority going to be discussed? Power of authority I think applies to when something happens to both parents and the children are left with no parents. Because by default the biological parents have that initial right.

No, personal agreements are not formal agreements, even if they may be taken to court for a judge's decision. It is almost the difference between rules of a cult verses the rule of land. It must be the laws of the land, not a personal agreement or a cult practice, to be formal.

No, power of authority over children, no longer rest in the hands of parents. It is now the state that holds power of authority over children. This is nasty can or worms, and for emotional reasons, I feel both compelled to bring this to public attention, and for the same emotional reason, I do not want to think about it. We can't verbalize that of which we were are not willing to think. However, I know for a fact, it is easier for the state to take children from you that is for the state to convict you of a crime.

Beyond this, grandparents hold a natural responsibility for children, but have no legal responsibility/right, and can easily be prevented from having any contact with grandchildren. Sometimes the protection of grandchildren, depends on grandparents, and they can be easily prevented from protecting them. We have a horrible legal mess and because we are human, I don't think there are good solutions, except return to liberal education and start preventing these terrible problems before they develop.

[Athena]

Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins This is an absurd assertion. More often than not it is the women that burdens the male with a child by refusing to consider his wishes when deciding whether to keep it and then expecting full financial support for her decision. If a woman wishes to keep a child against the wishes of the father, she should accept full financial responsibility for that decision. Otherwise a father should be able to force a woman to carry a child through to term so that he can raise it if she has decided to abort it.

How does a question become an assertion? I ask questions so people will think, and the question didn't assert anything.

Are you assuming abortion is acceptable to all people, and that when a man fails to prevent a pregnancy he should not be held responsible but should have a legal right to force the woman to have an abortion?

Yes, I do think if the father wants a child and there is no legal reason for him to not be a child's father, he should have the right to prevent an abortion.

Gosh this is messy! How about no sex without marriage? Seriously, the more I deal with these human problems, the more I am opposed to sex outside of marriage, unless people get sterilized. We need to chew some more on why we should have marriage laws. When people fail to be responsible they create problems for the whole of society.
Accepting abortion or making it illegal will not solve the human problems that come with sex. The well being of a child requires good parenting, and that means a lot more than money. How about a fine for having children and not being responsible for them, that includes everything the child may need, including counseling, and even jail and prison time when the child turns out bad? Should these badly raised humans be left the burden on all of us? But even then with plenty of money for the child, who is responsible for the child? Back to what marriage and marriage law is all about.

[Athena]

Quote by: SteveA I don't think laws should regard marriage specifically - it's not an issue directly in need of being addressed by government. If government merely enforced a private marriage contract, as any other contract, couples could still agree to be legally bound to whatever terms they felt appropriate and this way it couldn't create legal obligations to third parties, as it currently does. Marriage is a social institituion that doesn't need politicians defining what it is for others or how they should treat differently, married versus unmarried people. I think naturally, without some prior arrangement, women effectively "own" their own children. Motherhood is rarely ever in doubt, whereas, fatherhood can be questionable. In most cultures, women are more often encouraged to be selective of who they choose to have sex with because they have more at stake than men in the matter. I'm not making that up, it's just a fact of nature. I'd prefer to see men more responsible in their actions but there are always guys that just want to have some fun and not take part in the responsibility. That's what marriage is about - it's a way men can feel more confident their children are truly their own, and a way mothers can have a commitment to help raise the children. But without some, at least implicit, agreement before a woman becomes pregnant, you can't just assume the man automatically has some shared ownership of the children, nor can you truly do this with current laws anyway, because women are still free to choose whether or not they have the child, or whether the father has shared custody of them etc. You can't have freedom without the responsibility for those actions, so giving full choice to a woman, in regard to how their children are raised, a man can't be held accountable to pay for something he has no control over. So either the children, including decisions made regarding whether or not to have them and how to raise them, are shared with the father, in which case the father shares the expenses too, or the mother retains most all this control, and is expected to assure she can afford to do so. That's why marriage is a valuable private institution, so as to provide a convient and recognized arrangement in which a mother and father can address these issues satisfactorily for both of them - without marriage, or some other agreement, the "ownership" and responsibility should naturally remain with the mother. Anything else, and we have to effectively take custody of children away from their mothers, which is a bad idea and likely to make having children less desirable for women (we already have issues with a declining population ... maybe it's a mixed blessing, but I don't think we need to add more discouragements).

Listen up fellows, a man can be held legally responsible for any children that possibly carries his genes. The reality is, if a woman says he is the father, the state, at least in Oregon, holds the man financially responsible, unless he can prove he is not the father. The support payments will be determined by the state based on what he earns and the money will be automatically taken from his pay check. The mother has the same child support obiligations, and this is so even parents share custody of the child and have personally agreed they will not pay support when the other has the child. I tried to talk about this in thread about the wife getting 50% of everything. The state now holds the power of tyranny over all of us. If you don't want to be a parent and deal with everything involved, sterilization is a good choice. Male or female, sterilization is good choice. We have created for ourselves a very ugly reality. May I say, there is not liberty without duty.