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.
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?
Unless he means for 'having children' to include those who adopt. The no problem for homosexual men. Also, homosexual women can have children anyways.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
( Although my personal wish is that we should do away with economic marriage benefits all together.)
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.
'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?
Prefferably 3-4 children per couple."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?
Yes, I do.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.
It could save US some money.Like the tax breaks? If so, I agree... it could save the government some money.
this should be worked out with your insurance company, I think.If you mean getting a share of your spouse's health insurance,
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 pension 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 collecting the social security beneifts of your late spouse,
This one I'm split on.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?