Then why isn't my mother called a father?

Post #388,356 by mmoffitt 4/9/14 11:33:53 AM Reply	Then why isn't my mother called a father? There's a legal definition of father ( http://definitions.u...m/l/legal-father/ ). Isn't she being a victim of discrimination, too?
Post #388,358 by drook 4/9/14 11:48:01 AM Reply	Because she is the birth mother This is a great example. Women can carry babies, men can not. The biological difference is inherent to the activity being legally defined. The act of getting married has no biologically distinguishing characteristics. Yes, the frequent follow-on activity to marriage is procreation, but the marriage act itself does not require it. Does your wife know that you don't want to be married? -- Drew
Post #388,362 by Another Scott 4/9/14 12:10:18 PM Reply	rofl.
Post #388,365 by mmoffitt 4/9/14 12:43:57 PM 4/9/14 12:53:06 PM Reply	Bzzzt. Two daughters. HTH. But if 30+ years ago the love we shared (and share) did not rise to the level where we wanted to have children together, it would never have occured to me to propose. OTOH, if I knew I was sterile and still loved her enough to want to have kids together, I still would not have proposed. I would not have wanted to cheat her out of the single greatest joy anyone can ever have - becoming a parent. Edit: Revise and Extend. Edited by mmoffitt April 9, 2014, 12:53:06 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #388,370 by crazy 4/9/14 1:26:25 PM Reply	Maybe you sell yourself short. Maybe not. Challenge: Ask your wife: If you had the choice between marrying me and having no kids VS marrying someone else and having kids, which would you choose? I will do the same tonight and post results.
Post #388,374 by crazy 4/9/14 3:39:31 PM Reply	ok If I was sterile she would have married me anyway.
Post #388,378 by mmoffitt 4/9/14 4:36:38 PM Reply	Interesting question. I flipped this on myself. "If I knew she were sterile, ..." and I honestly can't answer. Having spent the majority of my life with a woman I was fortunate enough to meet purely by chance, having had two beautiful daughters with her and for about a million other reasons, I find myself completely unable to imagine a life spent without her. I cannot put my mind in the condition it was in at age 22, before almost 31 truly remarkable years, before 2 perfect children, before the hundreds of shared life experiences. In short, I cannot fathom living without her and I cannot recall with any clarity what my life meant before meeting her. It would be easy for me to answer, "Of course I'd still marry her" but the truth is, 31 years ago, I just don't know. We've been cleaning the basement and unearthed a lot of old papers that I'd written back in college. Going from some of what I'd written back then, I considered marriage in the absence of the possibility of biological children frivolous (I still have, in large measure, that view). So while I'm pretty clear that if I were sterile, I wouldn't have asked. I cannot say with any certainty that if I knew she were sterile (31 years ago) I would ask anyway.
Post #388,382 by crazy 4/9/14 4:53:32 PM Reply	not what I asked Your previous point was that if YOU were sterile you would not ask her to marry you because that would deny HER children. So my point was what would SHE have preferred? Would she rather have a life with you with no kids, or a life with someone else with kids? My wife was very clear. She wanted ME. Kids were a side benefit. On the other hand, your questioning whether you would have married her if she was sterile makes you seeking a brood mare. And now you think maybe not. Or maybe. So then that questions is: do you love her for herself or her ability to give you kids? Is she merely a means to an end, or your true desire? Be careful, she might read this someday.
Post #388,385 by drook 4/9/14 4:59:00 PM Reply	What's wrong with adoption? -- Drew
Post #388,387 by crazy 4/9/14 5:03:13 PM Reply	game over If he says no to adoption and he'd not have married his wife, he makes her a worthless pawn in his life, merely a means to reproducing his genes. If he says yes to adoption, then he has to allow for gay marriage since they can adopt. He will not answer directly, but he'll give some equivocating blather.
Post #388,424 by crazy 4/10/14 6:43:16 PM Reply	told ya At least he accepts his world view makes no sense in the world he actually lives in.
Post #388,423 by crazy 4/10/14 6:43:12 PM 4/10/14 6:45:24 PM Reply	double post - slow iwethey At least he accepts his world view makes no sense in the world he actually lives in. Edited by crazy April 10, 2014, 06:45:24 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #388,390 by hnick 4/9/14 6:55:26 PM Reply	Hmmm... My first wife bagged me after 10 years marriage after my first year at Case. I didn't want to have kids until I had an education and a career going. She figured her clock was ticking and bugged out; dropped a frog 15 months later. My current wife and I got married after I graduated and got a real job. We'll be married 30 years in November. We were both pushing 34 when we got married. After a year we bought a 4 bedroom house assuming 2 kids. Kids never happened. I'm not heart broken, but the alternative would have been ok. I'm fine with both situations. My primary relationship is with my wife. In both cases I wanted them to be happy. They both are (I think. I haven't seen #1 in about 28 years.) I consider that everyone deserves a sustaining relationship with somebody they love. That relationship should be equally supported by society, by which I mean that automatic next of kin status applies as well as tax benefits and all the other bells and whistles. I have gay friends and extended family. I would not wish them to be second class citizens because of the way they are wired. That's about all I got... YMMV (and obviously does...) "Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable." ~ AMBROSE BIERCE (1842-1914)
Post #388,409 by mmoffitt 4/10/14 2:35:10 PM Reply	Mine doesn't really vary much. Actually, your stated experience is completely in line with my thoughts: It is rational to get married with the expectation of children. My wife and I were married 7 years before our first was born for precisely the same reason you "didn't want to have kids." That is, I was still in school. I concur with you that everyone should have a sustaining relationship. Where we differ (perhaps) is that our shared value that everyone deserves such a relationship necessarily means that everyone should have the right to marry. I see "marriage" and "committed relationship" as two distinct things (Aside: I am supported by the evidence in this as roughly 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce. It immediately follows that 1/2 of all marriages have nothing at all to do with sustaining relationships). At least until this new type of marriage was defined, I think I can say without objection that going into a marriage you know, intellectually, that you've only got a 1 in 2 shot at having it last. Given the enormous personal toll, financial toll and legal toll a divorce entails, that's quite a risk. So, for the couple with no expectation of children, I cannot see why they would assume it. The tax advantages are negligble. The end-of-life, inheritance and similar concerns can be achieved with relatively painless boiler plate Durable POA documents and wills. Sure, there's outlier benefits like pension plans that only pay a spouse survivor benefits, but those are few and far between and the last of a dying breed. Further, for at least 1/2 of those entering such a relationship, the inevitable termination of the relationship would be greatly simplified and far less painful financially and otherwise. Which is easier? Tearing up a couple of POA documents and editing a couple of wills? Or a divorce? So, marry in the absence of intent or desire for children? Why bother? When I said I wasn't sure if I'd have asked my wife to marry me if I knew she were sterile, some took that to the fantastically inaccurate conclusion that I was saying I wasn't sure if I'd have wanted to spend my life with her. Of course I would have. But that does not mean (or require!) that we wed. That Marriage != committed relationship in the presence of marriage's failure rate is obvious to all but the most myopic of minds.
Post #388,430 by hnick 4/10/14 8:02:46 PM Reply	Call it a flapjack for all of mine... Where we differ (perhaps) is that our shared value that everyone deserves such a relationship necessarily means that everyone should have the right to marry. I see "marriage" and "committed relationship" as two distinct things My point is that two people in love who publicly and ostensibly permanently define their relationship, should have exactly equal rights and liabilities with respect to family identity, property, and tax laws. If you want to make the claim that marriage is a religious function, then remove all legal power from it; it's the same as going to church with your whatever. Put the family breaks in a civil relationship. Which the clergy already have the power to do. They require marriage licenses and such. They are doing a civil ceremony anyway. Treat them equally and I'm happy. Everybody should be able to pick who they are happy with and not be penalized if Mrs. Grundy doesn't like it. "Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable." ~ AMBROSE BIERCE (1842-1914)
Post #388,434 by Another Scott 4/10/14 8:45:26 PM Reply	Well said.
Post #388,445 by mmoffitt 4/11/14 9:30:51 AM Reply	Then we agree, I think. Me: If this whole "marriage equality" question had instead been posed as, "Should homosexual civil commitments (or whatever phrase) receive all benefits under the law and be recognized as being the equal of marriage?" you'd have heard nary a peep from me. You: Put the family breaks in a civil relationship. ... Treat them equally and I'm happy. I may be thick (and I don't understand the meaning of your subject), but I don't see a material difference in those sentiments.
Post #388,436 by pwhysall 4/11/14 3:55:09 AM Reply	You keep asking this question. People keep answering it. Are you going to just keep asking it until the rest of the world breaks down and goes "Oh, OK, Mike. Fuck it. You're completely right. Marriage without children is pointless."?
Post #388,448 by mmoffitt 4/11/14 9:46:54 AM Reply	Hmmm... I still don't understand why anyone would want to marry in the absence of a desire or ability to have children. 30 years ago, I would have thought that no one would marry today. The prime reason (back then) I thought marriage before children was a good choice was because, back then, children born out of wedlock were stigmatized and that never seemed fair to me. Cohabitation in the absence of marriage was another violation of social mores back then. But I could see that changing. In 30 years, I thought it would be gone completely and there would be no reason for anyone to get married. A couple is either committed to one another or it is not. Being "married" speaks fuck-all to the level of committment. At best, marriage encumbers the dissolution of a relationship. And it doesn't even do a very good job of that since a 50% failure rate is nothing to brag about. But it clearly does nothing to strengthen nor define a level of committment.
Post #388,453 by Another Scott 4/11/14 10:17:48 AM Reply	A few things... 1) The US divorce rate has never been 50% and has been falling since ~ 1980 - http://www.nytimes.c.../19divo.html?_r=0 Interestingly, divorce rates fall dramatically with increased education. Since education levels continue to increase over time, divorce rates are likely to keep falling. 2) You're posting a whole bunch of binary choices. People get married and divorced for lots of reasons - not simply lack of "commitment". My dad knew a couple that lived together for 15 years (and had kids IIRC) and then got married. Why? Health insurance. Similarly, sometimes there are sensible financial or reasons other than "commitment" why people get divorced. E.g. People often change after a few decades and want to do other things with their lives. People who make those choices aren't somehow, (probably the wrong words here) morally defective. 3) Just because you don't understand why people would make other choices doesn't mean that their choices aren't legitimate. People are different and have the right to make choices that are sensible for them. If someone wants to be married, and they don't want kids, and they end up getting divorced 20 years later, they aren't somehow worse people than people who don't marry, do have kids, and stay together for the rest of their lives. You can't determine anything about commitment from the two cases - you can have a cowed spouse and a wife-beater in either case. You don't know. They've simply made different choices about marriage. 4) Having some paper that says you've got Durable Power of Attorney and so forth for your family member is supposed to be legally sufficient in many cases, but in practice it isn't always. And even in cases when it is, it's a hassle in terms of time and money. (Personal experience here with J's parents.) If "marriage" means something different for hetero couples than for gay couples, then "civil commitment" isn't good enough. Separate but equal isn't. We've got lots of history showing that to be a fact. Society should let people make their own choices and not say they can't. Treating people equally is just and more efficient. What I agreed with most about Hugh's post was: My point is that two people in love who publicly and ostensibly permanently define their relationship, should have exactly equal rights and liabilities with respect to family identity, property, and tax laws. When are you going to finally accept the brilliance of my arguments?!?! ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #388,470 by mmoffitt 4/11/14 12:55:23 PM Reply	How can we agree? We aren't even arguing the same issue. ;0) To your quoted point, I'm not arguing that such should not be the case. I'm arguing with you (if at all) about whether or not "marriage" should be the sole method of achieving that equality. I don't think it should, but as Ashton pointed out, it might have to be given the current "real world" situation. I don't think people who divorce are defective, bad or morally inferior in the least. I do think it's pretty clear their choice to marry was ill advised assuming the traditional until death do you part. If marriage is evolving (or has evolved) to mean "a temporary living arrangement carrying some legal benefits" then IMO marriage has outlived its usefulness, not withstanding the fact that it never really lived up to its stated ideal for everyone who entered into it. I don't think it is fair to the legions of single mothers out there (or cohabitating gay couples for that matter) to define "family" solely through wedlock, so I reject the notion that only through wedlock can a family truely be said to exist or be accepted as such by society. I concede I might be outside the "real world" again in that sentiment. Cheers, Mikem Oh, and thanks for the nitpick about 50 percent. 41 percent then, or whatever it is. ;0)
Post #388,474 by folkert 4/11/14 1:03:37 PM Reply	That nitpick is 34,200,00 HTH. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #388,479 by Another Scott 4/11/14 2:57:10 PM Reply	The nits, they must be picked!
Post #388,512 by mmoffitt 4/12/14 8:43:09 PM Reply	Math is not your strong suit is it? But, no matter. ;0)
Post #388,399 by Ashton 4/10/14 6:08:10 AM Reply	Your objection to, 'taking sex-orientation as any big deal' would be laudable and appropriate within a genuinely Open Society (Karl Popper's or any variant.) Your attitude, as several times stated: pre-supposes a level of maturity (aka real-Adulthood) which--I believe many of us might agree --does Not describe the dis-USA at any time within its tenuous and oft-solipsistic history. IMO thus, you are attached to an Unrealistic assessment of your actual environment 'here', and this, I believe, is the main source of the rebuttals you have received in our (rarefied!) IWE mini-environment. I submit that the 'dis-USA' is an environment of daily duplicity [think: the mandatory lying of bizness and all other examples of hypocrisy, duplicity and outright premeditated Lying] which are so common that, like the Goldfish: we hardly ever Notice. That being the case: [see all the cogent arguments already made well-enough, as to Why] I Agree with Your Point! ... but only within a Sane Society. Not THIS one. You Lose--not because your sentiments are Wrong, but because they are appropriate only to a zeitgeist quite Foreign to the deteriorating 'society', extant as-we-speak. ie This Had-to-be a Big DealÂ Rest case. Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
Post #388,407 by mmoffitt 4/10/14 2:11:01 PM 4/10/14 2:11:53 PM Reply	I hate to admit it, but you're right. For all of the reasons you listed. I yield to the better argument. Edit: I'm slipping, I can't spell "but" or type "yield" Edited by mmoffitt April 10, 2014, 02:11:53 PM EDT Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!