America is practically founded on capitalism. How can you understand specialization & its benefits, and not see how marriage (well, used to) makes use of it?
Yes, if marriage was just about pretending "True Love is real, and the world is full of roses and daisies!" it would be a ridiculous sham. But as I have come to see it, it is more about facing the world as a "team". In larger groups (that is to say, extended family, all composed of marriage links), perhaps even as a "tribe"... think about that.
(Not to mention, kids are a thing we kind of need as a species, and I think most everyone is familiar with the plight of single parents)
When it comes for child support, it's even worse. If in a family the husband begins to get a lower salary due to the state of the economy, then everybody should/will spend less. But if a divorced father gets a lower salary, "the child's standard of living must not change". Did you earn $200,000 per year pre-divorce, and now you barely can find work for $50,000? Too bad for you, you'll have to get an extra job to be able to pay the same amount of child support. If you fail to pay, you get to jail, but the support payments accumulate, so when you get out you'll be in even more debt, which will land you back in jail, and so on. And of course, this whole time, you will be considered a "deadbeat dad".
BTW, I was shocked to find out that, in some states, men* have to pay lifetime alimony. With all due respect, guys who get married on these terms are insane.
And of course after the divorce the situation only becomes more dire.
It is of course anecdotal, but as best I can tell, it is anecdotal evidence that is shared by every person in America- aka, 'public knowledge'.
It should be stated that:
* 'Common sense' is not necessarily common.
* 'Public knowledge' doesn't always match up to reality and can often be influenced by social biases (i.e. you may only remember the cases of a man getting the shaft in a divorce, but easily forget the ones where he makes out like a bandit).
^60% of divorce settlements favorable to women, 40% even, 10% favorable to men. UK, 2004.
http://www.attorneys.com/legal_center/articles/child_custody...
^10-15% of men have sole custody of children
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120700651883978623.html
^3.6% of alimony recipients are male, 2006
I am not a fountain of sources, so I hope this will do for now.
A fun story illustrating how weird things are getting: http://mensnewsdaily.com/2011/02/27/man-receives-oral-sex-or...
2. As a friend of an attorney who tells me that most of his male clients never seek custody and don't even petition for visitation rights until the CS payments start coming due this is completely inline with our society. I'm sorry, but once the divorce is finished most guys just want to move on with their life, the family they had becomes an encumberment. Most would prefer to be free to start over than continue being reminded of a failed relationship. That's just the way it is.
3. The primary purpose of the act of having sex is reproduction. The courts have already decided that every time you have sex you implicitly agree that a baby might result. It doesn't matter if it's oral, anal, or vaginal if someone gets pregnant out of it you can't back out you've already given consent. Even before reading the article I already knew the outcome, skimming to the bottom confirmed 30-40 years of court cases on the same matter.
This implies that I may not even need to have sex to be forced into child support payments. For example, what if someone sneaks into my bedroom at night (or maybe we're sharing a hotel room while travelling) and is able to make off with some semen while I sleep? By the legal argument that we must advocate for the child, I would be forced into child support. Sure, I could attempt to seek some sort of relief from the mother for what she did, but that would be completely separate from whether or not I am legally obligated to pay child support for the next 18 years.
Maybe all men should be forced to wear locks on their genitalia lest some crazy woman somewhere decide that they want to force the man to create a child?
The third verse of every other rap song is about this very topic.
1) Due to social values, we build momentum. If marriage ceases to happen and children cease to be born, 50 years from now we won't have 50 million fewer people- we'll have 1 billion fewer people, and it will take decades to reverse the trend. (made-up numbers, but I hope you take my point)
2) It's not just about protecting the species. We have a tiny bit of a Ponzi scheme going. The young support the old, and as a result graphs like this: http://japanfocus.org/data/fig3.jpg (Japan's population) As a taxpayer, make your blood run cold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
It only took a decade to go from 6 to 7 billion. We can build up a population in the blink of an eye.
2) Do parents have children to bring more tax payers into the world? :) Ponzi scheme or not, people taking the time to establish themselves first means fewer children, but also fewer neglected children.
You say it like it's a silly idea, but not long ago people in America had children expressly for the purpose of helping around the farm, and in Asian cultures there is still an explicit overtone that parents have children so that they have someone to depend upon in old age.
And by 'explicit overtone', I mean your parents say it to your face and you become a social pariah if you abandon your family- at least as best I understand it from my Asian friends.
I agree! Why do those links have to be marital? I'm not sure they have to be. Which is why the we need to be more open.
It's not about being able to talk about it on the Internet or with friends. Imagine the hacker who has a business and unusual lifestyle. Can she be open with it without fear of judgment from investors and the community? I like to think she can, but I'm not so sure. Even if so, does that hold on a more general level?
The union isn't just for same-sex couples, but also for non-standard families like say siblings w.o parents and such... it would be perfect as it eschews traditional mores and keeps the good part of marriages.
"Although originally intended for same-sex couples, currently in France the majority of couples taking advantage of its law are now heterosexual couples who for one reason or another choose civil union rather than marriage, and that more heterosexual couples are opting for civil union rather than marriage. In fact, this trend was already in place in 2000, with 75% of unions between heterosexual couples (42% the previous years) and 95% in 2009."
If these folks didn't have the stability of an enforceable social contract (and tax benefits), most probably wouldn't marry either.
Little Johnny doesn't know or care if the government sanctions his parental figures' relationship. In fact, the only case in which Little Johnny might become aware of the governments involvement is when the resulting legal/social/economic pressure causes a dramatic deterioration of this "loving and positive environment".
If you and your partner can swing it, more power to you, but social pressure on others to place themselves into legally binding situations revolving around this notion is something that need to die.
In the west (at least the states) these are legally binding arrangements that are heavily biased against males, but if women are rejecting that in Asia then all the better.