cheetah

I am posting this thread as a spinoff to the Abortion-practical solutions thread.

I want to talk about what the American Family should be. I am particularly directing this thread at yguy, but of course, everyone is more than welcome to participate.

If it is your opinion that the Man should be the head of the household, why? In the aforementioned thread, the aforementioned poster assetred that the man should overcome his passions and thereby earn respect to be the head of the household. But, why? That is the method a person may become a head of household, but what purpose does that serve and as Loren Pechtel pointed out, how is that superior to a method in which the two partners share head-of-household duties depending on their particular expertise?

Second question: why is sex and pregnancy better in wedlock? What is special about marriage that makes sex and childbearing better in it than for a couple that does not choose to participate in that kind of governmental regulation? I am fully aware that a two-parent home often produces benefits for the children. I am fully aware that poor, sinlge mothers struggle. However, those are not the only alternatives in the family spectrum. How would a family with two parents and one child with the same income and everything else differ from a family with the exact same stats that have a marriage certificate? I ask because you (yguy) say that a lot: out of wedlock, in wedlock, etc., when talking about abortion, pregnancy, etc. I just don't know if you really see something inherently better about the marriage certificate or if you are perhaps unaware of the growing number of families that may superficially fit that stereotype, that do not have the marriage cert.

I'd like to stick to those two questions. But, I think the question of "What constitutes a family" is a good one if not addressed before. That questions may not belong in MF&P, but my previous two are meant to address the moral principles behind the statements yguy has made and if they are valid or not.

*** please excuse my typing errors and in all cases, Head of Household is not meant to refer to tax status!!!

njhartsh

My philosophical positions make me a generally poor yguy imitator, but I think there is at least one substantial answer to at least one of your questions.

Nope, sorry. I'm all for giving household tasks and responsibilities to whomever is individually best situated for them, the person's sex held quite irrelevant. I'm befuddled by certain conservatives' terror at "gender confusion"; I find the connection between limp-wristed men, butch women and the decline of western civilization to be a wee bit undemonstrated.

One clear response to this question is that a marriage establishes substantial material advantages upon the two individuals as well as placing transaction costs on dissolution (i.e., divorce is often materially very costly). This provides serious incentives for stable, long-term relationships. In contrast, either half of a non-married couple can usually just walk out the door, with minimal material consequences.

The substantive benefits (e.g., "family" health coverage and other forms of insurance, inheritance, taxation and other governmental benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc.) gained by a married couple are, in turn, passed on to their children. And while you're correct that it's chiefly poverty that causes problems for children of single parents, impermanence of housing situations and/or members of the family can be troublesome as well. (Meanwhile, the heinous consequences of a child failing to have a parent of each sex are, to put it politely, somewhat more theoretical.) When society offers carrots to get couples into the institution of marriage and threatens (mild) sticks for leaving it, children generally win.


Now, it seems to me that all of this argues strongly in favor of legalizing gay marriage. Gay couples exist, and society has an interest in promoting the emotional and physical health of the people who make up such couples (as any citizen imposes fewer costs upon society when she's healthy and happy). Moreover, somewhere between 6 million and 14 million American children have one or more gay parent, and those children stand to gain vastly from any social policy that will solidify their parents' relationships.

One prominent alternative "solution" makes gays damned if they do and damned if they don't:

Does it really make sense to criticize gay couples for failing to make legally binding vows when one opposes allowing them to make legally binding vows?

- Nathan

keyser_soze

Personally, I find the happiest homes are the ones where there are TWO heads of households. Both partners(be they straight, gay, or three eyed aliens has little practical effect on the matter imo) work together to plan and guide the path of the family. I am not the head of my household, myself AND my wife are. All decisions of any import are thought out by both of us, and the best decision is reached in this manner. People who are still stuck in the 1950's "leave it to beaver" fantasy land, where Mr. Cleaver comes home from work to his immaculately clean home, with dinner on the table, and his 2.whatever kids happily replaying the daily events over potroast...well, these people need to wake the hell up. Common practice is for both working parents to pick up carry out on the way home, and the family to eat a slice of pizza pie while standing around talking about their days...and discussing REAL life. I never wanted the leave it to beaver life, too mundane, too ridiculous to be real. What did june do all day? Went shopping and cleaned the house...and then what? That's 3 hours out of your day. What did she do to improve herself? What did she do to entertain herself? Did she really just sit around like a robot after her chores(read unpaid servant) pondering how to make her husband happy? Too many people raised on television that was unimaginative out there...People need to get a life, and figure out that families have been the same since the dawn of time..trying to survive, and get a little enjoyment out of it in the meantime.

fatherphil

most women prefer to be with a better man than themselves, right?

head of household? when partners disagree who makes the final decision and takes resposibility for the outcome of that decision?

marriage offers (in its ideal state) a sense of commitment and stability proven to be benificial to the raising of human children.

Ab_Normal

I don't get this. Can you clarify it for me?

The only marriage I can talk about with any authority is my own. When we disagree, we try to find a healthy compromise. If it's something that only needs the attention of one person, one of us decides to take care of it. In recent years, that's been Mr. Ab, because he was staying home with our daughter and had more time free.

I can agree with that statement.

edited to add: and since I agree with that statement, I can't get behind limiting marriage to heterosexual couples only.

scigirl

Excuse me? what the **** do you mean by that? Or were you just trying to get that annoying pearl jam song stuck in all our heads?

I don't think that my partner is better, or worse, than me. I prescribe to this really strange belief that men and women (humans) are created equal.

Um, in my family, my parents - even when divorced - were nearly always on the same page when it came to making decisions about their children. However, when they disagreed, my dad just pointed to the Bible and said "YOU WOMAN, ME MAN, I MAKE FINAL CALL."

I agree, which is why I'm excited about the recent canada decision. It's pro-family, no matter how you slice it! It will be fun to see the fundies tripping over their own argument now, with the recent legalization of gay marriage in Canada. "marriage is good for kids, but no it's not, but wait it is, but ahhhhhh!" Let em trip.

scigirl

RevDahlia

That depends on what your definition of "a man" is. Mine happens to be "person with a penis". Therefore, I certainly do prefer a partner who is "a better [whatever that means] man than I am".

Women do prefer a partner who can take care of business. That is simply because running a household involves a lot of business which needs to be taken care of. And whoever is able to do so, should.

njhartsh

Maybe he meant this:

But probably not.

- Nathan

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by fatherphil
head of household? when partners disagree who makes the final decision and takes resposibility for the outcome of that decision?

Does the possession of a penis automatically qualify anyone to make the final decision?

marriage offers (in its ideal state) a sense of commitment and stability proven to be benificial to the raising of human children.

Indeed, which is why I'm all for allowing both gay and straight people to get married.

njhartsh

So pre-op and non-op female-to-male ("FTM") transsexuals need not apply? Betcha can't tell them from the XY variety with their clothes on...

- Nathan, tangentially