Cohabitation and marriage...thoughts?

[All-American]

You've lost me. Maybe you have confused me with someone else?

No, I have not.

Compare:

no, family law cannot be a mere civil agreement.

with:

it makes perfect sense for the government to recognize the typical family structure and allow people to register as married in order to clarify the law regarding that family structure.

First, you say that it simply cannot be any other way. Then you say it makes perfect sense to do it one way-- which is a much different statement than the one with which you led off.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You've lost me. Maybe you have confused me with someone else?

Lots of that going on in this thread.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Like I said there is really no debate. So, yes, in a way it was directed to you.

Polygamists can cohabit and the government can no longer regulate who people can "marry" just like a gay couple can do. The incentives to actually have the government recognize that marriage are being reduced all the time. Really the debate is: "Are there really strong compelling reasons to get legally married that are not religious?"

I had no idea that is what we were debating. Thanks.

[Jacob]

No, I have not.

Compare:



with:

First, you say that it simply cannot be any other way. Then you say it makes perfect sense to do it one way-- which is a much different statement than the one with which you led off.

You are confused. There is no contradiction between those statements. The first states the fact that children don't have capacity to enter into a contract (read the whole post, it wasn't very long), thus "family law cannot be a mere civil agreement." The second says refers to recognizing marriage.

I'm happy to discuss any of this further, but I'm not sure what you are getting at. I'll respond to any question or disagreement you may have, if you'd like to discuss.

[All-American]

You are confused. There is no contradiction between those statements. The first states the fact that children don't have capacity to enter into a contract (read the whole post, it wasn't very long), thus "family law cannot be a mere civil agreement." The second says refers to recognizing marriage.

I'm happy to discuss any of this further, but I'm not sure what you are getting at. I'll respond to any question or disagreement you may have, if you'd like to discuss.

I didn't say they were contradictory. I said they were different. And as imaninhonjin notes above, given the increase in the out-of-wedlock birthrate, it's a very important difference.

[Uncle Ted]

I had no idea that is what we were debating. Thanks.

No problem... I am just trying to keep people from wondering off from the assigned topic.

[falafel]

An interesting/funny recent decision from the VA supreme court involving spousal support. A woman who had divorced her husband was receiving spousal support from him while she co-habituated with her new lesbian girlfriend. Then the two women got engaged and the husband filed a motion to modify his support order since she was cohabitating. The lesbian argued that her engagement and pending same-sex marriage were not the same as "traditional" marriage, and therefore she wasn't "co-habituating" as contemplated by the statute. The intermediate court agreed, but the VA S.Ct. reversed. There's a downside to equal rights, I guess.

Same Sex Spousal Support.jpg

[Moliere]

Married People Are Living Their Best Lives | Institute for Family Studies (ifstudies.org)

Married people are happier and living a better life than those that are not married, no matter what type of relationship the not-married people are currently in. Provo-Orem ranks first in % of married people and highest well-being %.

chart1-well-being-by-metropolitan-areas-w640.png

[Jeff Lebowski]

Married People Are Living Their Best Lives | Institute for Family Studies (ifstudies.org)

Married people are happier and living a better life than those that are not married, no matter what type of relationship the not-married people are currently in. Provo-Orem ranks first in % of married people and highest well-being %.

chart1-well-being-by-metropolitan-areas-w640.png

Very interesting. Lots of data to support this.

You know what else correlates strongly to health and happiness? Religion/activity in a church.

[Northwestcoug]

Hold your horses, you Provo/Orem boosters. Conveniently left out of that 'top 10 metropolitan areas well being and despair' graph:

One could also rank metropolitan areas by the share thriving and observe marriage rates.
Doing so, I find that, after Provo, Urban Honolulu has the second highest well-being (62.2%
are thriving), among metropolitan areas with at least 500,000 people, followed by
Washington DC (61.9%), Austin (60.7%), San Jose (59.2) and San Francisco (58.8%). As
they attract many young workers, these places do not have especially high percentages of
households who are married, but they score very high on the percentage of children raised
in married households (72% to 78%).

Those hotbeds of single young workers DC and San Fran are just behind Provo in their wellness...

As a married person who is much happier than not with their current spouse, yes marriage offers benefits. But it's not the most important factor in emotional well-being that this study seems to imply.

It's no secret that happily married people do better emotionally. Same goes for people who are happy in their religion. Those two institutions are not going away any time soon.

[Non Sequitur]

Very interesting. Lots of data to support this.

You know what else correlates strongly to health and happiness? Religion/activity in a church.

You know what else correlates strongly to health and happiness? Believing in Santa Claus.

[Omaha 680]

You know what else correlates strongly to health and happiness? Believing in Santa Claus.

No, it doesn't.

[Non Sequitur]

No, it doesn't.

My kids were never happier than when they were sitting on the laps of fake mall Santas, pleading for favors.

[Omaha 680]

My kids were never happier than when they were sitting on the laps of fake mall Santas, pleading for favors.

Do you have data showing the general health/happiness of the cohort of adults who go their whole life believing in Santa, much less orienting their personal guiding principles around said belief in Santa? If so please provide. If not please stop with the straw man BS.

Kids are generally happier than adults for a variety of reasons, mostly because they aren't self-aware, developed, or intelligent enough to have the existential struggles that adults grapple with. The key to being a happy adult at peace with the world is finding those guiding principles and belief system that can ground you. Doing the ridiculous Santa or spaghetti monster in the sky comparison routine is not only insulting, it's a really simplistic and stupid argument because it conveniently ignores the kind of data about adults that was posted above. But knowing your challenges as the head cynic of the board, I forgive you.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Do you have data showing the general health/happiness of the cohort of adults who go their whole life believing in Santa, much less orienting their personal guiding principles around said belief in Santa? If so please provide. If not please stop with the straw man BS.

Kids are generally happier than adults for a variety of reasons, mostly because they aren't self-aware, developed, or intelligent enough to have the existential struggles that adults grapple with. The key to being a happy adult at peace with the world is finding those guiding principles and belief system that can ground you. Doing the ridiculous Santa or spaghetti monster in the sky comparison routine is not only insulting, it's a really simplistic and stupid argument because it conveniently ignores the kind of data about adults that was posted above. But knowing your challenges as the head cynic of the board, I forgive you.

Ignore him.