4 ms·

This is a crock, the social purpose of marriage is raising children that are properly socialized to inherit society the financial benefits are there to help par

by ms4720 14y ago

This is a crock, the social purpose of marriage is raising children that are properly socialized to inherit society the financial benefits are there to help partially defray the cost of raising children. And as was stated below throw some kids in and see how the numbers work out.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
So are you suggesting the credit only be given to couples that have kids? Your observation doesn't change the imbalance argued in the article.
- ms4720 14y ago
  No I am saying that under the social system in which marriage was formalized it was expected that people would have kids because there was no birth control and people like to have sex, kids were pretty much assumed as a general byproduct of marriage. And for the vast majority of the couples it was true so the barren were rounding error and were not considered as a separate case.
dfc 14y ago
I know you did not mean to offend me, but whenever I see this "married families raise better kids" line I take offense. I was raised by a single mother and a tight knit extended family (grandmother+grandfather+uncle). I was showered with love and parental affection/guidance. Moreover the house I grew up in was dramatically more peaceful and nurturing than it would have been had my parents stayed married.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- darkarmani 14y ago
  > I was raised by a single mother and a tight knit extended family (grandmother+grandfather+uncle). I don't think he implied that it is true in every single case. If you had to bet a lot of money on a random family with happily married parents vs. a single-mom, where would you place your money? A better statement would be "families raise better kids." You had a family because you had a close extended family. That isn't a normal occurrence.
- ms4720 14y ago
  I was an orphan from age 11, dad had a bad heart. But if you look at the conditions that existed up until say the 1950s work was mostly muscle powered, ie being able to lift 50-100 lbs all day was expected at work and there was much less office work to be had. That meant that men being bigger and stronger had a big edge so they worked and women took care of the house/children, this was also a full time job that just took less strength to do. Doing laundry, cooking and cleaning by hand is a lot of time. So since this guy now had to feed 2-7+ mouths on one check he was cut some slack. and up until very recently the atomic family was odd, why would you abandon all your relatives(ie the people who will help you) with out a very very good reason.
- csense 14y ago
  Think about a hypothetical person who didn't graduate from high school, but taught herself to program, started a company, went through YC, went public, and made a ton of cool products, money, fame, prestige. Should she be offended when people say that a high school diploma is important to be successful in modern life? If she takes offense whenever someone suggests that we should be helping more kids graduate from high school or go to college, would you feel she is justified?

by ms4720 14y ago

drivebyacct2 14y ago

So are you suggesting the credit only be given to couples that have kids? Your observation doesn't change the imbalance argued in the article.

ms4720 14y ago
No I am saying that under the social system in which marriage was formalized it was expected that people would have kids because there was no birth control and people like to have sex, kids were pretty much assumed as a general byproduct of marriage. And for the vast majority of the couples it was true so the barren were rounding error and were not considered as a separate case.

dfc 14y ago

I know you did not mean to offend me, but whenever I see this "married families raise better kids" line I take offense. I was raised by a single mother and a tight knit extended family (grandmother+grandfather+uncle). I was showered with love and parental affection/guidance. Moreover the house I grew up in was dramatically more peaceful and nurturing than it would have been had my parents stayed married.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
darkarmani 14y ago
> I was raised by a single mother and a tight knit extended family (grandmother+grandfather+uncle). I don't think he implied that it is true in every single case. If you had to bet a lot of money on a random family with happily married parents vs. a single-mom, where would you place your money? A better statement would be "families raise better kids." You had a family because you had a close extended family. That isn't a normal occurrence.
ms4720 14y ago
I was an orphan from age 11, dad had a bad heart. But if you look at the conditions that existed up until say the 1950s work was mostly muscle powered, ie being able to lift 50-100 lbs all day was expected at work and there was much less office work to be had. That meant that men being bigger and stronger had a big edge so they worked and women took care of the house/children, this was also a full time job that just took less strength to do. Doing laundry, cooking and cleaning by hand is a lot of time. So since this guy now had to feed 2-7+ mouths on one check he was cut some slack. and up until very recently the atomic family was odd, why would you abandon all your relatives(ie the people who will help you) with out a very very good reason.
csense 14y ago
Think about a hypothetical person who didn't graduate from high school, but taught herself to program, started a company, went through YC, went public, and made a ton of cool products, money, fame, prestige. Should she be offended when people say that a high school diploma is important to be successful in modern life? If she takes offense whenever someone suggests that we should be helping more kids graduate from high school or go to college, would you feel she is justified?