You do understand that something like 50% of the children in this country are born to unmarried parents? Your notions are antiquated. I wish that wasnt true, but it is. Time to make laws to reflect reality, not the ideal.

As for the SAHM scenario, you might hate me for saying this, but a woman is more than capable of earning a living herself(or a man, if a SAHD). Once the children are grown and on their own, then the parents no longer each other anything.

There are plenty of households where both parents work. Its not impossible, and its not even that difficult. Alimony is also an antiquated notion.

In a more practical argument, you are again discriminating against an unmarried couple living together. Lets say one partner works at the Olive Garden to pay the bills while the other goes to the university, graduates, and then dumps his/her partner. Why is marriage specificly required to be compensated?

Savarel, my point was less about the children and more about the stay at home spouse. If a couple decides jointly that they want a spouse staying home, the SAHS loses earning potential. That is raises not obtained, 401k matched benefits lost. That is hundreds of thousands of dollars that the SAHS have up on to support the family. If there isn't the guarantee that the SaHS will not be left in the cold, there would be no SAHS. In many cases, this could hurt the family finances because infant daycare is expensive. In my area at our incomes, it would be a wash because daycare would be very nearly equal to one of our incomes.

Personally, in our family, it is far more likely my husband will be SAH. I'm less antiquated and more ruthlessly practical. I would love if we could both work and have quality daycare, but we can't afford it here.

Eagle, anyone who ever says anything like "women are" and "women think" doesn't respect women. I would never say "my husband thinks x, so eagle thinks x." I'm pretty sure the only thing your wife and I have in common is a vagina. Last time I took biology, that's not where our brain is located.

Well, in the interest of keeping this on topic, you totally ignored the argument that you are requiring marriage in order to get a benefit, in this case support from a former spouse.

We can agree to disgaree on alimony, because Ive found nearly every intelligent person I know to disagree with me on this(thankfully I have the... uhh... self-confidence... to avoid changing my mind and continuing my lonely crusade).

However, even given that support should be given to a spouse who allegedly foregoes potentially lucrative raises to benefit the family, there is no reason whatsoever why you would need to be married to receive that benefit. A couple who is unmarried and has children in the exact same scenario(minus marriaged) should still receive the same benefits, or detriments in the opinion of one man, right?

Marriage registration is unneccessary and antiquated.

But in your scenerio, there is a whole lot of he said she said. The legal framework required to prove anything is so huge as to be insurmountable. It's much simpler to have registered proof. I personally think unmarried couples are taking a huge risk when kids enter the equation. It's one of the reasons H and I got married after 9 years of living together. The legal protection of a binding contract is reassuring.

Plus, to play more devil's advocate, a role of government is benevolent social engineering. Stable, bound families are of a greater benefit to society as a whole, so they want to provide incentives to do so.

That is your opinion and your perogative to think that way.

First, please quote the specific comment I made so I can understand what you are reffering too. From my perspective you are looking at this in a purely emotional sense. So women are not generally more nurturing than men? You clearly didn't read that I believe both men and women are equally important to society.

I said:

Second, you do not know me or my wife. Do not pretend to know me. And if you plan on openly insulting my wife (she's not even on the GRS forum) then I think this will be my last reply to you. Surely there is a mod out there reading this? This is an insult and does not follow with "keeping it civil."

Personally, from my perspective I just think you are upset that you were wrong about the civil rights comment and i was the closest person to take your anger out on.

To be fair, I am using this as a chance to call you out on a direct insult from the obamacare thread. It was closed before I could respond to the highly sexist comment you made.

How is it insulting your wife to say we are nothing alike? A woman who thinks like me could never marry a guy like you. So I can easily infer your we are not alike.

Err... Registered proof of what? Being married? That doesnt show proof of forgoing income in order to suppor the family, which is still required to get spousal support post-divorce. In the Savarel world, marriage wouldnt be required to receive such support, only the proof that one party sacrificed for the other. Unmarried couples are only taking "huge risks when kids enter the equation" because of biased and unfair marriage laws. If these laws were updated to reflect modern society, then there would be no risk and you and your husband would not have been pressured into marriage by obsolete laws.



*facepalm*

No, no, no. The role of government is most certainly NOT to attempt to social engineer its populace, since one man's benevolence is another man's nightmare.

Oh so this anger and frustration has nothing to do with this thread. The Obamacare thread was closed. Whatever discussion was there stays there. If you have a problem with a comment I made report it to the mods. I don't believe comments I made were sexist. I may not have the same views as you on homosexuality and/or same-sex marriage but that doesn't mean we can't discuss things in a civil manner. Not personal attacks on me or my spouse. Can we agree on that? If not then like I said I will no longer engage you in conversation.

Edit: To add the section in italics.

And here I was, thinking that the topic was freedom of speech, a CEO's right to speak about his beliefs, and whether the reaction to that speech was appropriate. Silly me. But than again, Eagle's threads have a way of drifting. I notice that when new, focused threads are created based on topics he originally brought up, he's strangely silent.

I didn't actually create the marriage tangent for a change. That was Savarel, DoingHomework, and kaitlyn142's doing I believe. Nice jab though VinTek

Well after all, you did accuse me of seeming to be more interested in your English than actually discussing your points. But when there are new threads that actually refute your points, you don't make much of an appearance. Yes, you did show up to in the thread about the National Debt. I acknowledge that. But you've been strangely silent about the ACA, both in relation to the National Debt and the FUD that was dispelled. Come on in. The water's fine.

Well, not really on topic in regards to the thread's original topic, but more so to avoid two potentially volatile personalities engaging in... debate... over a potentially volatile topic(gender roles in the household). Seemed like a good idea to steer things back toward the new topic that emerged.

Religion and sexual orientation. Americans. You are fu***ng nuts.

Eagle, since you brought it up, the conservative christian movement bears far more resemblance to fascism than anything the left advocates. The salient characteristic of fascism is the advocacy of a strong national identity of one culture, one ideology, one ancestry. Using code words such as "traditional family," "shared anglo-saxon heritage,"christian nation" and so forth are exactly what fascists do initially. Fascists also attack immigrants, gays, and any other group that they can villify. A few fringe individuals often employ violent acts to further the cause, and the mainstream of the fascist movement, while publicly denouncing the acts, often turn these individuals into heros or martyrs in private. (Let's see...Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolf, gay-bashing, protesting at abortion clinics, protesting at military funerals...hmm, that sounds like fear and terror to me.)

Sound familiar?