Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 14 of 14
 [ 262 posts ] 
Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion
Author Message
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2995Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion

Sparhafoc wrote:
That's just it. I don't think the evidence supports the idea. I don't have actual numerical data to hand across all cultures (and it would be hard to come by given the nature of the point), but I do have many years of studying various cultures around the world and throughout history so I am drawing on my experience in that regard. There's still a social cost to abandoning your role and leaving your family and responsibility to them. In many cultures, this social cost would be so significant it would have a far greater impact on your well-being than the breaking of a state-ordained contract or any financial quantity. Ostracization ain't something most humans would have survived until relatively recently.

That is, of course, if you survived the spear thrust of your partner's enraged family! :)

Good point, yeah I didn't think of the social cost that would still be present without marriage. I guess I was operating on the modern Western mindset, which is now quite liberal about single parents. There is a lot less of a stigma attached to being a single mother, for a child born out of wedlock and all that stuff that would have been frowned upon even 40 years ago. What do you think the social cost of leaving a family in modern Western society would be?

I'm not sure I see a great deal of stigma, aside from prejudice against young working class mothers who often have children a lot younger than sneering posh people think is appropriate.

But the argument so far stated is not an incentive: it's a punishment, a financial one that actually negatively impacts that family regardless of the outcome.

Yes, I concede that incentive is the wrong word. I wouldn't even go with disincentive, I'll stick with your terms. So suppose there is a couple who enter a relationship and have a child together. At some point things go south and the guy thinks 'fuck this, I'm leaving. I don't love you and I don't wanna know my kid'. He goes and the mother has to rely on the state for support because she can't work full time and look after her child, her other family members might have to step in to help with childcare, and financial support. What would you propose happens to the guy who walks away?

I say punishment is a fine word for what I'd propose, and I'll stick with that. Outside of my idealistic society that hopefully one day I will preside over as king, I think there needs to be some kind of system that prevents fathers from walking away scot-free. I'm guessing you're not advocating for no legal recognition of a relationship, but instead that marriage is a hindrance to the family hit by the father leaving. With them not getting the support that they could have had if the assets didn't go to paying lawyers [which you lead on to below]?

Common law is difficult to navigate, not least because of its lack of universality, but it and other forms of recognized unions also frequently entails having to sacrifice a lot of your stuff on termination, only that stuff has somewhat more chance of ending up with the spouse you're leaving (and therefore your kids too) rather than with lawyers.

So it disincentivizes them to leave an unhappy marriage, but this then means they are all forced to endure this state of affairs. My parents remained together - although not due to this punishment - and have been wildly unhappy all their lives. Even as a kid when the specter of divorce came up and I realized what an impact it would have on me, my brother, and my parents... I still thought it was basically a good idea rather than living as we did.

As you say, it's hard not to idealize here... but I would generalize that a family based on an unhappy union is not going to be of benefit to anyone, from the individual, to the family, to the society.

Its difficult. Basically we struggle to balance our urge to fuck things with having a civilization that works efficiently and I have no idea what the solution to that might be. I don't think what we have is perfect, but if we can create a system that protects single parents from the impact of a partner leaving then we ought to have something in place. Its wasteful to have the state do it with welfare, but if the father doesn't have a job either then I'm not sure what else can be done.

Back to idealism mode, everyone truly, deeply, and on every possible level needs to know the implications of fucking without contraception, whether in a committed relationship or not. I don't know how deeply many people understand this. You're creating a person, your creating a situation in which somehow someone is going to have to look after it until its old enough to not die so easily. That either impacts you, your partner, their family, your family, and/or the state. You're not just popping out a cute thing to cuddle and post on facebook. It's a fucking life that's a BIG responsibility. If you don't think you could stick with someone through thick and thin to give the best possible chance for your child then you should stick a cap on it... Sorry got a bit ranty there...

For me, I'd want to look at how the kids would actually be disadvantaged, and if there's a genuinely universal quality to this, then it may be something society should seek to resolve. I think this is actually often the case in some countries, such as through tax breaks for single parents.

Can the state fill the emotional? Surely not, but then nor can the state making it so disincentivizing partners from leaving each other if they make each other's lives miserable.

Again I guess its just fucked. Someone gets fucked over somehow. A man might leave a woman who doesn't want him to leave. She now has to live a life that she didn't foresee. The same thing could happen the other way around. So again I'm drawn to the notion that we probably don't do a very good job at sex education.

I agree in principle, but in practice it has always happened. In the past (and sadly still in many places) this actually results in something little different to forced marriage. I can't see how that benefits anyone. It can't even under an idealized notion produce a stable home for kids.

Again, we can't do sex and society without someone getting impacted by it somehow. It's a shame we can't have the idealistic society where everyone knows in the depths of their being what the implications are for having kids, I guess the state has no option but to pick up the pieces. Although its not idealistic to say that we could totally raise the standards of sex education across the board.

My sense is that it still just comes down to commitment. If people aren't genuinely committed to each other, then no paperwork or threat of financial penalty is going to change that. Whereas, regardless of marriage, civil union, or just trust - if commitment is genuine, then even the worst outcomes can be mitigated.

I think we are on the same page really. An understanding of commitment and the implications of not using contraception would mitigate a lot of damage.

As a tangent I think that a lot of people have psychologically unhealthy attitudes towards sex and relationships which probably also causes a great deal of bad marriages and awful relationships that result in children. But I won't go too far down that rabbit hole now.
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:42 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2667Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Sexuality and gender ID - a discussion


Heterosexual couple win civil partnership case

A heterosexual couple have won their legal bid for the right to have a civil partnership instead of a marriage.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favour of Rebecca Steinfeld, 37, and Charles Keidan, 41, from London.

The court said the Civil Partnership Act 2004 - which only applies to same-sex couples - is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ms Steinfeld said she hoped the government does the "right thing" and extends civil partnerships to all.


In a civil partnership, a couple is entitled to the same legal treatment in terms of inheritance, tax, pensions and next-of-kin arrangements as marriage.

The couple, who met in 2010 and have two children, said the "legacy of marriage" which "treated women as property for centuries" was not an option for them.

"We want to raise our children as equal partners and feel that a civil partnership - a modern, symmetrical institution - sets the best example for them," they explained.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:42 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 14 of 14
 [ 262 posts ] 
Return to Politics & Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests