EasyHeart Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 Oh, and as to Social Security, that was originally sold as "old age insurance" and it was worth paying into because everyone gets old. I suppose we could have something like "divorce insurance", but it would be really hard to get people to pay into it because not everyone gets divorced (and no one thinks they're going to get divorced!!!). Plus, younger people were willing to pay into SS because the other option was to have your parents live with you in your old age (which was really common). There's no incentive for these other ideas that are being tossed around.
zengirl Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 I used "social" function to mean the interest that society has in the institution of marriage. It's not a great choice of words, but I couldn't think of a better one (and still can't!) Ah, okay. Right. Yes, to me, marriage is more about the personal than the social. The only "social benefit" feelings I have about marriage is that everyone is entitled to the right to marry another person, as they choose (or, hell, if everyone's in on it -- i.e. not someone with two families that are secret from each other -- I'm fine with polygamous marriages, too, though it'd take more complex marriage and divorce law), and as such am strongly for homosexuals and transgendered people getting all the rights that straight people, like me, have in regards to marriage. I don't really think marriage is about society at all these days. It's not required to have a family or live together or anything else. It's just for people who want the commitment it entails and benefits it brings, to them. Kids with no one to take care of them, OTH, are my business and the business of everyone else in the community because we're going to end up taking care of them if their parents don't. That's why I think the primary social function of marriage is to create an assumption that these two people are going to take care of any kids that come out of the union. Ah, gotcha. I don't think people need to be married to have kids, but I do think it's important that parents have rights and responsibilities, legally. I think, too, that different states have different ways of dividing marital assets. I'm certainly not an expert on it, I just know it's really, really complicated. They do. I think perhaps making those laws more uniform throughout the country would be helpful. At any rate, I have a prenup, but I wouldn't want a cookie cutter prenup that someone else has decided was important, personally. Hubby and I wrote our prenup for us and what we thought we needed. It also expires in 10 years because we figured after 10 years, there's no more "yours" and "mine" anymore, and contains a myriad of contingencies unique to who we are and what we plan. I think prenups are good, but one size fits all doesn't work. I think one of the big reasons that divorce seem really expensive to people is that they're not used to how expensive it is to live as a single person. The old saying that "Two can live as cheaply as one" is pretty accurate, so once people get divorced they find out how hard us single people have it all the time!!! This is what I think. I cannot believe how much more cheaply it is to live with hubby than it was before -- and I had roommates, even! Even meals are far cheaper. Everything is less expensive.
EasyHeart Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 Ah, okay. Right. Yes, to me, marriage is more about the personal than the social. The only "social benefit" feelings I have about marriage is that everyone is entitled to the right to marry another person, as they choose (or, hell, if everyone's in on it -- i.e. not someone with two families that are secret from each other -- I'm fine with polygamous marriages, too, though it'd take more complex marriage and divorce law), and as such am strongly for homosexuals and transgendered people getting all the rights that straight people, like me, have in regards to marriage. To me, marriage is more about the social/legal. Maybe that's why I'm single? I actually agree with you on all the other stuff. It's none of my business who you marry or what you do in your personal life. BUT we have used marriage to bestow lots of benefits on married people, like lower tax rates or free health insurance/benefits through employment. I think government should be marriage-neutral and treat people the same whether they're married or single. One of the good things about the gay marriage debate is that people are starting to talk about all the legal benefits married people get. 1
zengirl Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 To me, marriage is more about the social/legal. Maybe that's why I'm single? I actually agree with you on all the other stuff. It's none of my business who you marry or what you do in your personal life. BUT we have used marriage to bestow lots of benefits on married people, like lower tax rates or free health insurance/benefits through employment. I think government should be marriage-neutral and treat people the same whether they're married or single. One of the good things about the gay marriage debate is that people are starting to talk about all the legal benefits married people get. Well, a lot of that is for becoming a family. I do think having family insurance makes sense, including spouses, but I don't think a family needs kids to be a family. Hubby is my family. I think perhaps we should extend them to live-in couples as well, but I can see how that would get murky. If everyone could just buy insurance cheaply that wasn't tied to their employment, that'd be better, of course. Whole 'nother issue, though. Ultimately, becoming family is what marriage is about to me. As to tax rates, I don't really agree with tax breaks for getting married. Tax breaks for kids? Sure. Marriage? It's like a double-bonus. I don't need it, and it feels like cheating.
threebyfate Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 Not me. I don't do any of that stuff. I ate a raw squirrel for breakfast.Science needs to study the feeding habits of the unique specimens like yourself, who manage to access the Internet without using a computer. Hold it. Genus - Cylon, Species - Erratica.
johan Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 Science needs to study the feeding habits of the unique specimens like yourself, who manage to access the Internet without using a computer. iPad. Silly girl.
threebyfate Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 iPad. Silly girl.An iPad is a limited computer, silly cylon.
Negative Nancy Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 This is where Internet sociologists fall flat on their faces. Regardless of our archaeological roots, why is it that the human race can evolve over time with everything else and yet, according to these armchair evo-psychsters sex remains at primitive levels? It's not natural for us to crap in toilets, use computers, wear clothing or cook our meat but we do these things daily. good point. i guess "going back to nature" only applies when it's convenient.... where all these internet polyamorists fall flat on their face as well is when they all use the biology excuse for having "sex with many women" and it's so "natural to spread the seed" and cheating "cannot be helped" and "monogamy is not natural" and blah , but watch their enthusiasm about the whole thing shrink when they are asked to imagine their women doing the same thing... men are just a bunch of hypocrites who want to have their cake and eat it too, another thread has proven this once again
Negative Nancy Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 Because we've learned through experience that it's important for the elderly to be taken care of in their old age. We've had an actual economic collapse where the elderly were dying on the streets, and SS was created to fix that. exactly. i'm glad that i'm living in a country where the social security system still has high standards. in my opinion, taking care of the elderly and the weak is society's DUTY. many people seem to enjoy the current convenient lifestyle - a way of life that was also paved by their ancestors' work, but then they do not want to give anything back by taking care of them or at least help them get the help they need through a financial solidarity system. Instead they expect these people to die off quietly and quickly in the streets when they are old and sick and not useful anymore. 2
aj22one Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 exactly. i'm glad that i'm living in a country where the social security system still has high standards. in my opinion, taking care of the elderly and the weak is society's DUTY. many people seem to enjoy the current convenient lifestyle - a way of life that was also paved by their ancestors' work, but then they do not want to give anything back by taking care of them or at least help them get the help they need through a financial solidarity system. Instead they expect these people to die off quietly and quickly in the streets when they are old and sick and not useful anymore. That's what I plan on doing. Why burden everyone else with my care?
johan Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 That's what I plan on doing. Why burden everyone else with my care? You're right. That's your right to choose. When the checks start coming, send them all back. Don't impose your miserable end on everyone else though.
Woggle Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 Evo psych is just a bunch of crap used to defend the indefensible. We are all in charge of our own behavior
aj22one Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 You're right. That's your right to choose. When the checks start coming, send them all back. Don't impose your miserable end on everyone else though. I'd never think of imposing my will on anyone. But it's really not that miserable, the Lakota and Cheyenne used to do a very similar thing in their culture. I think it's rather beautiful sort of like Yoda fading away in Return of the Jedi.
El Brujo Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 Reading this thread, I get the urge to ditch my rat-race suburban lifestyle and live in the jungle, where I'll wear a grass skirt and a wooden mask and carry a spear...
Author wwwjd Posted April 20, 2012 Author Posted April 20, 2012 Reading this thread, I get the urge to ditch my rat-race suburban lifestyle and live in the jungle, where I'll wear a grass skirt and a wooden mask and carry a spear... Don't forget you can plant that spear and bang the neighbors wife whenever you want to also! Perk!
Ruby Slippers Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 good point. i guess "going back to nature" only applies when it's convenient.... where all these internet polyamorists fall flat on their face as well is when they all use the biology excuse for having "sex with many women" and it's so "natural to spread the seed" and cheating "cannot be helped" and "monogamy is not natural" and blah , but watch their enthusiasm about the whole thing shrink when they are asked to imagine their women doing the same thing... men are just a bunch of hypocrites who want to have their cake and eat it too, another thread has proven this once again I love how you always live up to your username. The argument from the female side is that it's in her genetic best interest to cohabit with a good provider, and sneak around and mate with the hot stud with the good genes. I must admit that the sexy badass guys are generally more effective at stirring up sexual excitement than the stable provider guys. I wish it weren't true, but it is.
Recommended Posts