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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,358,694 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by boneyard1962
Waiting for the hard left to say that we need more sex education. As if kids today don't know how babies are made and what condoms are for, by 10 years old.
Also waiting for the hard right to complain about state funded abortions which cost very little compared to welfare for the child for 18 years.
I'm waiting for those opposed to the 'nanny-state' to explain why people need the state's blessing(marriage certificate) to have a child and how it magically changes anything?
I'm waiting for those opposed to the 'nanny-state' to explain why people need the state's blessing(marriage certificate) to have a child and how it magically changes anything?
Real simple. The way the laws are written the partners in a marriage have different and more substantial protections than those in a live in relationship. An example would be property distribution upon divorce which is statutorily defined in marriages, not so much when Bobby and Marge who've been living together break up.
I'm waiting for those opposed to the 'nanny-state' to explain why people need the state's blessing(marriage certificate) to have a child and how it magically changes anything?
Another poster answered, but will expand.
Because most laws in USA on both state and federal level are based upon English common law. Simply put the issue of a man breed of his legal wife have standing above bastards. If a man dies without a will his "next of kin" in order of preference are legal wife then children first without question. By-blow children *can* get something, but requires action by the courts and they must *PROVE* they are related to the deceased. A man's legal issue need make no such arguments, as things are accepted de facto by virtue of their birth.
This was one of the many "benefits" of marriage gays were screaming up and down about when fighting for same sex marriage. Because two men or women couldn't legally marry various contracts and documents had to be drawn up in order to ensure any children of that relationship could inherit. Worse however was that tax laws treated such children little more as strangers because they were *NOT* legal issue between a man and wife. So their inheritances were tax at a different (higher) rates.
Long story short legal marriage through out much of history has been about assets/wealth and who gets what at death. For a good part of history the only persons who got legally married were royalty, nobility and anyone else with money/assets. The poor with little to nothing happily "lived in sin" until a friar, priest or whoever happened to wander into their area or whatever.
When states took marriage away from the church and made it a civil matter, part of the rationale was to promote stability. In essence elevating one group of women and children (legal wife and heirs) above mistresses and bastards.
France is an exception. Under the Napoleonic code *all* children sired by a man are his heirs and entitled by law to a portion of the estate at his demise. A Frenchman's children cannot be disinherited no matter which side of the blanket they are born. This applies anywhere that is governed by Napoleonic code and or if the man in question is a French citizen.
Quite honestly this whole debate around "out of wedlock" births is just silly.
Today any single man with ten or twenty thousand lying about spare (less if he goes outside of USA) can hire a surrogate to give birth to *HIS* kid. Gays are doing this in droves, but so are straight men as well.
A single woman (gay or straight) can roll into any number of clinics and shop through a vast and bewildering array of sperm donors. One or more treatments later she will become a mother.
Thus the whole construct of "single parenthood" or "out of wedlock" births has far less sting than it did historically or even just forty/fifty years ago.
In a world where kids are going to school with other children who have "two daddies" or "two mommies" or a "mommy that used to be a daddy", and so forth, coming from a single parent home seems hardly worth raising an eyebrow over.
Quite honestly this whole debate around "out of wedlock" births is just silly.
Today any single man with ten or twenty thousand lying about spare (less if he goes outside of USA) can hire a surrogate to give birth to *HIS* kid. Gays are doing this in droves, but so are straight men as well.
A single woman (gay or straight) can roll into any number of clinics and shop through a vast and bewildering array of sperm donors. One or more treatments later she will become a mother.
Thus the whole construct of "single parenthood" or "out of wedlock" births has far less sting than it did historically or even just forty/fifty years ago.
In a world where kids are going to school with other children who have "two daddies" or "two mommies" or a "mommy that used to be a daddy", and so forth, coming from a single parent home seems hardly worth raising an eyebrow over.
Except, and I think this is the thread I mentioned it in and provided links, children in single parent households, even adjusting for socioeconomics, have worse outcomes across the board. From school achievement, to teen pregnancy, to crime involvement to likelihood of spending part or all of their childhood in poverty.
The rate for African-Americans is actually higher than it looks on paper because immigrants from Africa have much lower out of wedlock birth rates of about 34%.
Hispanic immigrants also have much lower out of wedlock birthrates than latinas who were born in America.
Well, one obvious observation is: this is year, 2018, we use single-parent instead of single-mother, because Dads don't get a pass. Anyway, it's not relevant if parents are immigrants from certain countries or have minority status in this one, whether divorced or having their children out of wedlock, because in this country, about half the households are single-parent households, anyway, due to a 50 percent divorce rate.
(Btw, Latino and Latina are from the Latin countries and Hispanic is from Spain - common issue with census as it is, because the later identifies as white.)
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.
That means women can go to the clinic and get pills if they don't have insurance.
