Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is "legitimate" really? People can produce and raise children together, whether they are legally married or not... does that still bother you, just because they are "illegitimate?" Sheesh, how antiquated.
It's important because a male must have a legitimate heir to inherit his lands, his serfs and his titles. Without a legitimate heir, a man's goods and honors escheat to the state upon his death.
/feudal
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980
Wait, what??!! Didn't you know that if you lack a contract from the government, your relationship is nonexistent and your children will be losers? Apparently, that's what some people here seem to believe! Funny thing is, I'm pretty sure most of them (with this mindset) are politically conservative - and I thought liberals were the ones who liked "big daddy gubment" telling them what to do or not do? You'd think the conservatives would be applauding this, but clearly they also can't distinguish between SINGLE and unmarried vs PARTNERED and unmarried. Tough concept, I know.
Actually, the dad (college friend of mine) is somewhat conservative, but would probably best be described as a libertarian of the Sarcastic school of thought. The kids are college-age now.
And how many of those mothers have stopped to ask themselves how they're going to feed those unfortunate kids?
Marriage alone does not create a stable relationship. Nor does it create a superior condition for child rearing.
Love, mutual respect and shared responsibility don't need a marriage certificate to create a long-lasting marriage; we all know couples who have lived lifelong as a couple and raised a bunch of well adjusted children who never bothered with a trip to the court house and/or the church, and they live lives that are identical to their married neighbors.
The only thing that's disgusting is your presumption the poor are automatically unfit for parentage.
In my experience, poor single parents often give their children even more love than the wealthy, especially when love is the only thing in their lives that they have in abundance. Wealth has caused as much unhappiness and dysfunction as poverty, that's for sure.
In other words, reduce the number of children dependent on the state, by increasing the number of women dependent on the state?
Here's another suggestion: Reduce both, by making it a disgrace to have children out of wedlock. Emphasize to women (and men) that making whoopee is a BAD thing if you're not married.
The benefits of this, is that:
(a) more children have whole families to raise them,
(b) fewer women are condemned to poverty by the need to raise a child without the help of a father,
(c) government coercion is removed. Society "enforces" this condition instead, by social condemnation of bearing children out of wedlock.
(d) It also has a downside: Women who have babies out of wedlock, have it rough, being regarded as pariahs or outcasts. Since they no longer depend on the state, they must depend on their own efforts, or charity, to nmake ends meet. The good news is, with DNA testing they can identify the father and impose the same pariah status on him. Men can no longer run away from their (equal) responsibility for the child.
Not a perfect solution. But I suggest it's less bad than the situation we have now.
This is the Scarlett Letter solution; somebody here already floated it.
And nobody has yet refuted it. People who find they can't usually call it names instead, as you did, hoping that will suffice. (Hint: It doesn't.)
Quote:
Rather than humiliation as a means to an end, why not try education like I suggested?
We have been trying that since the 1960s. And since then, out of wedlock births have SOARED.
Next suggestion, please....
As I said, the solution I proposed above, isn't perfect. But it's better than the situation we have now.
It's important because a male must have a legitimate heir to inherit his lands, his serfs and his titles. Without a legitimate heir, a man's goods and honors escheat to the state upon his death.
/feudal
Nope, not antiquated at all!
Quote:
Actually, the dad (college friend of mine) is somewhat conservative, but would probably best be described as a libertarian of the Sarcastic school of thought. The kids are college-age now.
I'm basically a libertarian myself, and have mixed feelings about the whole marriage issue... I get the legal protections part (and absolutely think they should be extended to ALL gender/orientation combinations), but much of that can be solidified without a marriage contract. To each their own, I suppose - just trying to make the point that unmarried doesn't always = SINGLE.
So, you post a thread titled Most children in U.S. born out of wedlock.
But the actual link in your thread tells us this:
Quote:
Compared to the 1990s when a third of Americans were born out of wedlock, now 41 per cent of babies do not have married parents.
Is there any particular reason that you think '41%' constitutes 'most'?
Did you even read the article you linked?
Or was the reality just not dire enough to satisfy you, so you decided to jazz things up with false information?
Not that an out-of-wedlock birthrate isn't problematic - it certainly is - but can't you make that point without giving your thread a title that is not true?
Easiest time in US history? Well I guess those young people struggling to put food on the table for their family should be thankful for all their government riches.
Yes, they should.
Keeps them programed by the government for life.
You know, don't bite the hand that feeds you, so do what I say.
Uh...yes it is. It's pretty well understood that the key to success in educational and economic attainment is a strong familial unit, including 2 parent homes.
Not sure what would compel you to think otherwise in the face of so many studies that contradict your viewpoint??
Bull....There is NO guarantee a two parent household is always the key to success or education. The same as there is NO guarantee that a one parent household in every case is a key to failure, governement dependence and criminal behavior. I am a single parent, raised all three of my children in a urban area of NJ. My son just graduated for College, My daughter will graduate next year and my youngest is a Senior. All three earned acedemic scholarships to help pay for college along with the Students loans that I am helping them out with.
Being raised by a single parent does not make one any more accomplished than someone raised in a two family household.
Being in a two 2 household does not ensure what you listed. A child could witness domestic violence, which could take a toll on his mental health. What about divorce?
Keep in mind that out of wedlock births do not essentially mean absent fathers. A father doesn't have to be married to a kid's mother in order to be involved in his kid's life.
What makes you assume "out of wedlock" always = single-parent home? That's where your logic falters.
Hint: People can have children together, stay together, and STILL not be married. Thus, two parent home. These days it isn't all that uncommon to do so, and I dare you to produce a study saying that piece of paper makes any difference in the child's well-being (assuming the parents don't split up).
Heh. I WAS married and when the marriage fell apart, he didn't help support his son, at ALL. I didn't get as much as a wooden nickel from him. It's hard to go after a deadbeat legally when they quit their legitimate jobs and go underground. It's damn hard to raise an autistic child with no help from anyone.
That magic peice of paper called a marriage license was pretty useless in the long run.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
