Supreme Court Is Colliding With a Less-Religious America

   Tell you what?  What still isn't clear?

   It's your topic.  As far as I can tell you think religious people are stupid and privileged because you want to marry a man.  My only point was that it doesn't matter what you call it, it's not the same as a traditional marriage, that is before no fault divorce laws and rampant divorces destroyed the meaning of marriage.

      Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh said:  [full text here]

1. Whose?
2. I'm certain I never asked you to follow any behavior other than speaking clearly.
3. Who told you I'm Christian? Speak of minding your own business.
4. What again?  Not I.
   
5. I believe I have shown that traditional marriage is one of the best ways for people to mind their own business.  Private property is another.  Your plans aren't really minding your own business so well.  Please review.

   If you want less government oversight you're going about it entirely the wrong way.  You're just increasing government control.  To get government out of the picture you can write your own contracts designed to your own preferences.  Some heterosexuals write "prenuptial" contracts for example.  Why haven't you thought of that?  The definition of a business partnership is mostly their own contracts as well.  The truth is that good government (and religion by the way) doesn't really want to mind your business or the business of anyone else.  It's just that you fail that makes it necessary for them to get involved.

   Perhaps you missed the part where I explained I don't want to know about anyone's private parts or what they're doing with them.

   That being the case for most people certain exceptions were allowed.

   What has happened is that the "exceptions became the rule."  You heard that expression before?

   Now no one remembers what the rule was or what it was for.  Notice you have no idea.

   Let me paint a picture.

   I'm on a boat on a lake full of trout.  I'm happy.  I'm singing quietly enough so the trout don't hear me.  I don't need to catch any trout today.  I just like feeding them and watching them.

   Then the radiophone rings and some dumb people find themselves in an argument and need me to come resolve it for them.  I am not happy.  When I arrive to help them settle their affairs they accuse me of not having enough sense to mind my own business.

   I'm less happy.  That's all.

Well I certainly can. Get off the bench.

"Please notice having children without marriage leads to all sorts of complications and government interventions."

You're misconflating correlation with causation again. Single parent households (which is what you're obstensibly refering to) is a result of socioeconomc conditions (poorer people are more likely to have unprotected sex, don't have a stable career/income so they're less likey to get married, and as a result tend to have more single child households which rely on welfare). No valid sociologist would say marriage is the "remedy" to what you're pointing out.

"The marriage is just in case there are children"

Then by your reasoning infertile women shouldn't get married, right?


"Being married avoids those, and is correctly described as the purpose of marriage."

According to who? Cite an actual valid sociologist.

"You first."

The causation between poverty and single parent households is so well known that I shouldn't even have to bother, but here you go:

www.investors.com/politics/columnists/single-parenthood-and-poverty-the-undeniable-connection/

prospect.org/power/marriage-poverty/

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/05/why-are-poor-women-so-much-likelier-to-have-unintended-pregnancies/


"Failing to marry leads to complications and government intervention regardless how poor people are."

Again, find me a valid research paper/article that demonstrates direct causation 

"I never promised it would."

You keep harping in on marriage as the solution and do not want to ackowledge socioeconomics might be the real factor, at least in terms of optics that is the message you're conveying.


"It does however solve the problems of child custody, spousal responsibility for support, and every other need for government direction of childcare.
"

You haven't cited a single valid article/study that shows this. Again all the data seems to point to poverty, not just simply not getting married. Tell me do you think a rich couple that never bothered getting married that have a child are going to have the same level of problems compared to a poor couple that never got married that also have a child? Do you really marriage is the be all end all here? Do you think there might be other factors your not looking at?

So as I predicted you didn't respond to anything I posted, you didn't cite any data/studies,  and are resorting to petty insults again. At least you're reliably stupid, I'll give you that.


"The fact that poor people marry less has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of marriage"

You specifically said marriage helps people become less dependent on welfare, you're backpeddling


"At one time, despite your ignorance of it, marriage vows ensured a couple would meet their responsibilities to each other and their own children without any need for government oversight."

When was that? Can you give an actual rough date? Do you have any historical data to back this up? Or are you just making shit up as usual?


"That failed so often that government management became the norm."

You haven't provided any studies/data to show this


"Government, especially where you're involved, doesn't have the best answers nor the on-site knowledge of the problems."

Another one of your idiotic libertarian tangents that has nothing to do with anything


"You don't notice how bad things have become because you are too stupid to notice.
"

Oh I have noticed, I'm just not stupid enough to blame it on people not getting married. Particularly since that's not what the data is pointing to.

   You have already proved yourself to be incapable of understanding data or applying it to any solutions.  Remember when you said the demand for health care is "inelastic"?  Remember How I showed its only as inelastic as various people decide they are going to make it?  Remember how this proves the demand is indeed too high and the reason the United States differs from other countries?

   You have not provided any studies or data that show what the purpose of marriage even might be.  You only think you have because you cannot read and see whatever you want in studies.  Do people in poverty have lower marriage rates?  Even if they did, correlation is not necessarily causation.  Marriage concerns who pays, poverty concerns how much.  Those are two very different things.

   Even long ago when people depended on themselves for the most part there would be rare examples of parents so bad that even the unqualified government had better ideas than they had.  Because things have become so much worse today quite many more people actually need government help.  Oddly enough things only get worse because government is not doing a good job either.  As is often the case, aid to the poor just creates more poor people.  The way out is religion and people understanding they need to be responsible as part of any financial help.  Government cannot help and god wants people taking more personal responsibility