|
CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Freedom spreads to Connecticut (10/11/2008 9:49:59 AM)
|
My question is "Why are we even allowing the government to decide who can and can't marry?" Since when should the government (any government) get to decide which versions of human relationships are sanctioned, and which ones are not?
I've heard the bullshit about "It's for the -children-!"... Bunk. We have generations of history throughout the world that children who are raised in communal households, extended families, and loving cooperative village settings, with free access to multiple parental-types, grandparental types, sibling types, auntie and uncle types fare better and are at least as socially capable and make -at least- as good of citizens as children raised in nuclear families, -and- are less subject to poverty, isolation, and economic traumas, because they have a larger pool of caregivers on which to lean. Children of these types of situations have been shown to have -better- survival and social skills than "only children" raised in nuclear families, and children of those 'only child' households have a greater tendency to neurosis and depression than their communally-raised counterparts.
The only people that government-regulated marriage benefit are the people who insist on co-mingling religion and politics. Give marriage back to the individuals. Then, if they want it to be a religious ceremony with concrete religious meaning, they can go to their church and get what they want -- and keep their noses out of other peoples' marriage contracts.
1. Insurance: Allow individuals to select either 'individual' insurance or "small group" plans. Charge X number of dollars for an additional person added to a policy, then Y number of dollars for each additional person, regardless of relationship.
2. Inheritance: Require declaration of inheritance by will for all individuals. Abolish 'automatic' inheritance. Require individuals to accept that they are mortal, and make plans for their eventual demise.
3. Child support: Being listed as a 'parent' on a child's birth certificate is already sufficient grounds to petition for child support, regardless of marital status, therefore, there is no reason that marriage should be perceived as any greater fiscal protection for a child than acknowledged parental status is. Paternity/maternity testing can be an excellent tool for dealing with adults who choose not to accept responsibility for their offspring. Open up adoption to any household willing and able to care for a child, regardless of marital status, which will alleviate at least some of the strain on our overwhelmed foster-care and adoption systems.
Just a few thoughts, for now.
Calla Firestorm
|
|
|
|
