Of course I can. Why would you think I don't know that?
oly:That's a shame...I guess you'll just have to poll yourself then.
lain:
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
oly:lain:
Of course I can. Why would you think I don't know that?
That's a shame...I guess you'll just have to poll yourself then.
are you able to work while taking care of your child?
or
do you just do TOL
Also from your link, "The Census Bureau doesn't ask whether couples are childless by choice, but the bureau projects that the percentage of families with children under 18 will decline from 47.7 percent in 1995 to 41.3 percent by 2010."
This seems to imply that there are many married women who are childless not by choice, for any number of reasons. If so, then a minority of marriages are actually raising children.
It's your made-up number. You put it at 95%, which was supposed to include all situations of childlessness. Note also that the 6.6% is only for childless-by-choice, and doesn't cover any of the other reasons that a couple could be childless, including factors such as infertility and financial reasons.
That still can't make up the difference.
I don't put much stock in anecdotal evidence, but very few of the couples I know in my own generation, including the married couples, have children. Those that do are mostly in the next older generation which suggests a trend against you if anything. But as I said, I don't put much stock in it.
I think we get into demographic differences between us too quickly. I really don't think those comparisons will work. Lets stick to statistics.
I'm 80% sure that Chrys is fudging the numbers. I polled myself, so the margin of error is less than 5%.
I'm 195% sure you're right. But then, I took the survey twice and just added the numbers together to make it sound bigger. Because I'm pretty sure he did that too.
have you ever taken care of a child?
Yes. Though, not for long.
Why? You putting together some sort of competition? :think:
The great thing about writing is you can do it anywhere. Well, anywhere you can take a laptop, if you like writing on one...or using one, which is better.
Do you ever have server interference issues with all that metal overhead or does the water have some sort of bouncing benefit? I'm not a technical person, but I've always been curious...
lain:Ah, well you have a larger sample that way. :thumb:
Not sure what your point is here. My contention hasn't been that marriage shares something that no other institution, contract has.
I don't think that affects my point.
If you don't like the word liability, don't use it. Perhaps it was an error on my part. If "financial stake" is better that sounds good.
:chuckle:That's okay, neither do the proponents of that notion.
Who said I do? :noid:
But yes, of course that is presumably the why.
I'm not sure how you can say it doesn't matter considering what you just directly above this.
And my potential suggestion is that the government is taking a financial stake unnecessarily.
No. I meant the 1st thing.If by that you mean make certain my part was clearly understood by anyone actually interested in more than waiting for their turn to speak, sure.
No argument.
It's an easy answer for why I want them to.
It appears that way.
And committed relationships would remain regardless.
:e4e:
Do you mean state sponsored marriage or married in the eyes of God?
was it long enough to realize what a responsibility it is?
state
Then why are you going into the point?
Supra.
What was that again? :think:
Not a matter of liking, just trying to get at the point you're advancing with this examination...or, supra.
I hear things. Chrys does too, but in my case it's mostly from external sources.
Mostly...:noid:
Like saying contracts aren't necessary because people will still need to exchange things anyway. :chuckle:
Why? You putting together some sort of competition? :think:
The great thing about writing is you can do it anywhere. Well, anywhere you can take a laptop, if you like writing on one...or using one, which is better.
Do you ever have server interference issues with all that metal overhead or does the water have some sort of bouncing benefit? I'm not a technical person, but I've always been curious...
Ah, well you have a larger sample that way. :thumb:
do you have your own health care?
or
are you covered by the mother who works?
I don't think that's why I recognize the responsibility. It was very brief.
should someone who takes care of a child get special benefits?
When did you go to work for the census? :think: And isn't that over with yet?
:idunno:
Then my answer is yes. I would have children without getting married as you have defined it. Why do I need state recognition to have children?
Children need a stable, loving relationship. I call that marriage, whether or not the government calls it the same thing.
Sure. I could point to a number of the benefits. But exclusive access to marriage is not among them.
you would be giving up the benefits the state allows a married couple
are you aware of that?
should these benefits be exclusive to those raising children?
- Status