To all of those who think...

[Madcoil]

Actually, this is easily proven false. Rather, pretty much any law involving economic benefits for children have no ties to marriage whatsoever. All the child benefits (and actually it could be argued more) are available to a single woman as to a married couple. A child born to a married woman is not automatically assigned to her husband but rather the father is recognized by the birth certificate. Marriage laws are all designed around the husband and wife. And children in divorce are only taken into account only if both husband and wife are the child's parent.

Economic benefits from marriage is not about the children, but a child-production incentive.
Child welfare is about the children.

 

[Madcoil]

By "people production," you mean "having children," correct? If so, then what about infertile couples, elderly couples, and couples that want to remain child-free? Are you saying that those couples should be denied marriage rights, too?

A marriage wherein one or both parties are unable to have children due to damage, disease, genetic defects etc. or do not want to have children is the exception rather than the rule.

Elderly couples receive benefits for services that have in theory been rendered.

 

[Madcoil]

Unless he means for 'having children' to include those who adopt. The no problem for homosexual men. Also, homosexual women can have children anyways.

As noted earlier, adoption of children is not child-production. Raising children is supplemented with child welfare services.

 

[Maren]

Economic benefits from marriage is not about the children, but a child-production incentive.
Child welfare is about the children.

Then please tell me exactly what those "child-production incentives" are?

 

[Madcoil]

Then please tell me exactly what those "child-production incentives" are?

First and foremost the economical benefits given to married couples, from which the society does not immediately benefit. I have a compiled listing of laws in which marital status is a factor, and you can purvey them at your leisure: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

 

[Maren]

First and foremost the economical benefits given to married couples, from which the society does not immediately benefit. I have a compiled listing of laws in which marital status is a factor, and you can purvey them at your leisure: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

So in other words, you have no evidence. As was previously pointed out, those benefits have nothing to do with children but rather are granted by simply being married. You are merely Begging the Question (circular reasoning). You have provided no evidence to support your claims -- even your own evidence shows that marriage is to encourage coupling and does not encourage having children.

 

[Madcoil]

So in other words, you have no evidence. As was previously pointed out, those benefits have nothing to do with children but rather are granted by simply being married. You are merely Begging the Question (circular reasoning). You have provided no evidence to support your claims -- even your own evidence shows that marriage is to encourage coupling and does not encourage having children.

'I have no evidence', yet 'my own evidence shows' ? Well done.

Indeed those benefits have nothing to do with children, but with child-production. Child-production and children are separate subjects.
Society has no reason to encourage coupling, but it HAS reason to encourage child production. Of course, increased coupling will increase chance of producing children, but I do not see where I have produced evidence showing that marriage encourages coupling.

You asked me for a specification of what benefits I consider incentives to child production, and since this is an international message board, I answered generally what sort of benefits I consider to fall under that category. You didn't ask for proof, but chose to tout some logical fallacy without implying how it applies in this situation.

If you want me to prove my opinion, then just ask, but I consider this discussion to be based in philosphy rather than physics, so any hard-evidence discussion with me concerning this topic I fear will devolve into handwaving rather than an exchange of ideas.

Would you like to start a separate thread on specific marriage benefits, or the role of marriage in society?

 

[cantata]

Why do we need more babies?

 

[Madcoil]

Why do we need more babies?

Who knows, they're probably some kind of economic safety net.

 

[cantata]

Who knows, they're probably some kind of economic safety net.

Do we really have that much of a shortage of babies that we need to deny benefits to couples who don't intend to have them?

 

[Madcoil]

Do we really have that much of a shortage of babies that we need to deny benefits to couples who don't intend to have them?

If you're not eligible for a benefit, you're not supposed to receive it.

 

[cantata]

If you're not eligible for a benefit, you're not supposed to receive it.

But given that same-sex couples can and do not only adopt, but also produce children, I don't see why they should fail to qualify outright.

 

[Madcoil]

But given that same-sex couples can and do not only adopt, but also produce children, I don't see why they should fail to qualify outright.

Adoption comes under the child welfare program, and that should be enough for the raising of children, and completely separate from marriage and child production.

Same-sex couples cannot produce children without outside influence, such as surrogate mothers or fertilization. This is why they would mostly fail to qualify. We can't consider benefits to be rights. There is some doubt in my mind that a system could be put in place to handle these exceptions cost-effectively, knowing government inefficiency, as well as handle such exceptions as couples who do not intend to have children and barren couples. That is why I maintain the position I have on this subject. ( Although my personal wish is that we should do away with economic marriage benefits all together.)

Perhaps a desirable system would be a child-production contract, signed and renewed perhaps every 5 years, which would dictate what benefits you are eligible for.

 

[cantata]

Perhaps a desirable system would be a child-production contract, signed and renewed perhaps every 5 years, which would dictate what benefits you are eligible for.

It would certainly be fairer.

When two women are able to "really" have a baby together, would you consider extending marriage benefits to lesbian couples?

 

[God-fearing Queer]

( Although my personal wish is that we should do away with economic marriage benefits all together.)

Like the tax breaks? If so, I agree... it could save the government some money.

If you mean getting a share of your spouse's health insurance, or collecting the pension of your late spouse, or collecting the social security beneifts of your late spouse, or being paid whilst you stay at home to care for your sick spouse, then I don't agree. It all depends on which economic benfits we're looking at.

 

[Madcoil]

It would certainly be fairer.

When two women are able to "really" have a baby together, would you consider extending marriage benefits to lesbian couples?

A costly production not too dissimilar from insemination, which I consider incompatible with efficient child-production. The only reason to extend economic benefits in this case would be for it to 'feel fair' which is not a good precedent to set when it comes to giving out benefits.
However, if/when there is a notable trend among lesbian couples to opt for this kind of procedure, a reconsideration would certainly be prudent.

 

[cantata]

A costly production not too dissimilar from insemination, which I consider incompatible with efficient child-production. The only reason to extend economic benefits in this case would be for it to 'feel fair' which is not a good precedent to set when it comes to giving out benefits.

"Incompatible with efficient child-production"? For goodness' sake, how many babies do you want people to have?

Also, I wonder, do you think perhaps the state would be better advised to give couples free sex toys than tax breaks in an effort to encourage shagging?

Do you really think that things like being able to share one's medical insurance with one's spouse encourages one to have babies? What about being paid to care for a sick spouse?

However, if/when there is a notable trend among lesbian couples to opt for this kind of procedure, a reconsideration would certainly be prudent.

I'm glad you feel that way.

 

[Maren]

'I have no evidence', yet 'my own evidence shows' ? Well done.

Reread my quote please, the statement was that you, "have provided no evidence to support your claims". The evidence you did post, in the form of the marriage benefits you posted, did not list any benefits for "child-production", rather they treat all married couples equally.

Indeed those benefits have nothing to do with children, but with child-production.

Except you seem unable to present any evidence where marriage benefits encourage "child-production". Again, there are no benefits that a married couple trying to have a baby receive that an infertile married couple or even a couple who do not want children are not eligible for.

Child-production and children are separate subjects.
Society has no reason to encourage coupling, but it HAS reason to encourage child production.

False, society does encourage coupling even when it cannot result in child production. Otherwise we would not allow women who have had hysterectomies or beyond the age of childbearing to marry, and we would not allow men who have had vasectomies or are otherwise sterile to marry.

In fact, there is evidence in terms of married couples benefiting society because they are typically more stable and dependable than single people. This is the reason insurance rates in many areas offer discounts for married individuals, such as auto insurance.

Of course, increased coupling will increase chance of producing children, but I do not see where I have produced evidence showing that marriage encourages coupling.

So which is it, have you produced evidence or not? (Sorry, couldn't resist).

You asked me for a specification of what benefits I consider incentives to child production, and since this is an international message board, I answered generally what sort of benefits I consider to fall under that category. You didn't ask for proof, but chose to tout some logical fallacy without implying how it applies in this situation.

And that is just it, the examples you have given do nothing to promote procreation. Rather, all the examples provide a married couple benefits, not just couples who are seeking to have children or only those that are fertile. As such, the evidence shows that marriage is designed for the couple and not for child-production.

Now, since you mentioned International, we could point to China as proof that marriage is not for child-production; otherwise married couples would not be limited to having a single child. Conversely, we could point to some countries with low birth rates, Germany is a good example, where child-production is being encouraged in the form of monetary bonuses for having children (Almost $9,500 over a two year period). Of course, Germany actually only reinforces my claim as the child bonus is paid to the parents who are not required to be married.

If you want me to prove my opinion, then just ask, but I consider this discussion to be based in philosphy rather than physics, so any hard-evidence discussion with me concerning this topic I fear will devolve into handwaving rather than an exchange of ideas.

Would you like to start a separate thread on specific marriage benefits, or the role of marriage in society?

I'm merely asking that you support the idea that marriage is for procreation, how you do it is up to you. To this point you've not supported any real reasoning as to why marriage is for procreation -- especially since we live in a society where procreation is not seen as requiring marriage.

 

[Madcoil]

"Incompatible with efficient child-production"? For goodness' sake, how many babies do you want people to have?
Also, I wonder, do you think perhaps the state would be better advised to give couples free sex toys than tax breaks in an effort to encourage shagging?

Prefferably 3-4 children per couple.
It might very well be cheaper, though it would encourage sexual activeness (is that even a word?) rather than child-production.

Do you really think that things like being able to share one's medical insurance with one's spouse encourages one to have babies? What about being paid to care for a sick spouse?
I'm glad you feel that way.

Yes, I do.

 

[Madcoil]

Like the tax breaks? If so, I agree... it could save the government some money.

It could save US some money.

If you mean getting a share of your spouse's health insurance,

this should be worked out with your insurance company, I think.

or collecting the pension of your late spouse,

Here I'd rather see a change in the pension system, which would allow you to choose someone to inherit what remains of your pension payments in your will.

or collecting the social security beneifts of your late spouse,

With the exception of pensions, I don't agree with other social security benefits to be paid to anyone, since it was a benefit specifically paid to the late spouse BY the society. (Whereas you've already paid to receive a pension)

or being paid whilst you stay at home to care for your sick spouse, then I don't agree. It all depends on which economic benfits we're looking at.

This one I'm split on.