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.
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.
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
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.
__________________ The people I respect most behave as if they were immortal and as if society was eternal. ~ E. M. Forster
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?
Linear Mode
