Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (133167)	3/24/2001 12:26:59 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

And you live in which country? Surely not the US. The US says all citizens are equal. Married people count as two people, not one, just like everyone else. Well the manner in which you apply the term "equality" here obviously has little to do with what we are talking about. To see this we merely need observe how children, though American citizens, are not treated the same as adults or even the same as each other. The law even trains its attention to a child's upbringing and experiences as it renders determinations for or against him. Wealthy citizens are treated differently by tax law than impoverished citizens, etc., etc. So clearly there is no cookie cutter treatment toward humans in America. All humans are indeed equal in the sense that they all have the same fundamental rights under the law. But they perform differing roles and endure differing experiences depending upon a multitude of conditions. The law accounts for this and aims to treat people impartially depending upon their circumstances. It should certainly do this in cases of families versus individuals -- and it does. When two people marry, they enter a contract that binds them to such an extent that even the liabilities and assets of one are at once assigned to the other. Because of the existence of the marriage contract, the law should extend married couples particular honor and protection. Because of the relationship of marriage to human society, human society should promote marriage above other contracts. And unmarried people aren't drones to service the superior married class. No, I don't think so. Me either. But when unmarried people marry, they take on a role radically different from that of an individual. Society should (and does) recognize this fact, this, for its own health. Should society continue to increasingly treat members of married couples expressly as individuals, then the stability of marriage will continue to decrease. No binding contract exists between people who are strictly independent individuals. The married may bask in the joy of their perceived honored status and they certainly shouldn't be dishonored by anyone else because they are married, but in the US we have a single class of citizens. And we should not muddle the issues of citizenship and social function. All Americans are citizens, but they do not all perform socially in the same way. Society must (and does) recognize the differences. I might accept some degree of deprivation for the children of "individuals" if their parents were so callous as to not provide adequately for them, although I think most people would consider me callous for entertaining such a thought. Well that is just it, and the law should have no more obligation to assist an individual parent with children over and above any other individual because no contract exists between anyone unless marriage exists. Callousness has not a thing to do with it. We may individually sense moral obligations to such children and as a result assist them via churches and other such organizations. But legally, since no contract exists between the mother and father, what we have in such cases are three individuals. We may claim birth is a contract, but that obviously is not apparent to a great many individuals. What I could never accept is sending a message to little children that they were second class citizens, somehow less worthy, less human, than the children of married parents. Never. Our "sending a message" has nothing to do with it, my friend. I am describing what happens when parents fail to properly contract with one another on the basis of their own biology. When fathers fail to contract properly, they possibly send the message of second class citizenship to their own children. I can see where fear for the future of their children might motivate fewer women to "shack up." How many, it's hard to say. Women now allow their children to be deprived, abandoned, abused, and ignored. I don't know that the stigma of being bastards would make much difference. It would make even less difference to men. Even if the re-bastardization of children were acceptable in a civilized society, I don't think it would be very effective. It needs to be done with consistency and earnestness. I have long said that any man who cheats on his wife should be crushed simply because he broke his contract to his wife. But in a society where Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson are highly honored though they are both known adulterers, those who have true respect for marriage appear anomalous. This is perhaps why you argue for a change in marriage, rather than a change toward greater personal integrity. I think you aim to reduce marriage to something that does not demand anything of our higher selves. It really is no marriage at all, in my opinion. I think you have to be pretty bored with this discussion. I know I am. So I'll give you the last word on it. I want to hack around on guns or something else now. It was really a pleasure and I think you are a fine person from what I have seen of you personally.