|
|
|
|
|
| Why the need for marriage?
Posted: 5/25/2008 12:59:13 PM |
I do agree that if you are married and choose to have kids, do so. Just don't get married because you want to have kids.
Children outside of marriage has been one of largest, if not the largest, social problems in this country, and has led to so many other social pathologies (crime, drug abuse, depression, you name it), I have to wonder why anyone would think marriage is not the only environment in which you want to raise kids.
Marriage is certainly not a panacea, and many marry who are not ready or did not sufficiently screen their spouse, but to think the alternative (cohabitation, or whatever) is on par or even a superior way to raise kids is extremely naive. | |
|
| Why the need for marriage?
Posted: 5/25/2008 1:07:46 PM | Children outside of marriage has been one of largest, if not the largest, social problems in this country, nd has led to so many other social pathologies (crime, drug abuse, depression, you name it), I have to wonder why anyone would think marriage is not the only environment in which you want to raise kids.
I think you may be confusing correlation with causation. It may be true that children born to parents that are not married are more prone to difficulties as adults. I would, however, surmise that has a lot more to do with the fact that the type of people who are too irresponsible to be proper parents are also too irresponsible to enter into healthy, long-term relationships that include marriage.
So I question what you are extrapolating, which is that a mature, responsible couple who decide to cohabitate without formalizing it via marriage are more likely to have children with social problems. A common law arrangement can be just as stable and loving as a marriage. | |
|
| Why the need for marriage?
Posted: 5/25/2008 1:29:00 PM |
I think you may be confusing correlation with causation.
Clearly there is self-selection at work. But your post suggests that, controlling for the individuals involved, there is no difference between how a couple behaves living under a marriage contract, than that of a simple cohabitation.
People respond to incentives. In marriage, separation and abandonment is costly. In cohabitation, it is not. All things equal, it should be no surprise that the latter types of relationships would dissolve much sooner and expose each partner to higher degees of exploitation and opportunism.
A common law arrangement can be just as stable and loving as a marriage.
 | |
|
| Why the need for marriage?
Posted: 5/25/2008 1:47:24 PM |
But your post suggests that, controlling for the individuals involved, there is no difference between how a couple behaves living under a marriage contract, than that of a simple cohabitation.
Barring evidence to the contrary, I'd say it's very possible. I've known several couples who had been in long-term, committed common-law arrangements. I'd say they behaved just like married couples -- good, bad, and indifferent.
People respond to incentives. In marriage, separation and abandonment is costly. In cohabitation, it is not.
If I'm in a relationship with someone I love, then the idea of separation/divorce/breakup doesn't even cross my mind. People who stay in unhappy relationships for years and years because they don't want the hassle of a divorce are ultimately doing themselves -- and their kids -- more harm than good, anyway.
Besides, just because you're not married doesn't mean a breakup can't be costly. If you've been living together, have joint assets, have kids, etc., etc., then a breakup can be just as much of a pain as a divorce.
All things equal, it should be no surprise that the latter types of relationships would dissolve much sooner and expose each partner to higher degees of exploitation and opportunism.
Sorry, but unless I see some evidence to back that statement up, I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you. | |
|
| Why the need for marriage?
Posted: 5/25/2008 2:28:35 PM |
Barring evidence to the contrary, I'd say it's very possible. I've known several couples who had been in long-term, committed common-law arrangements. I'd say they behaved just like married couples -- good, bad, and indifferent.
I'm not sure what angle you are taking on this. One the one hand, you note that correlation does not imply causation, and suggest you're familiar with other statistical issues, yet it seems you use anecdotal evidence repeatedly as the foundation for your beliefs.
It seems to me that a well reasoned opinion is based on a theory together with empirical evidence. Thus far, I don't know that you've offered either.
If I'm in a relationship with someone I love, then the idea of separation/divorce/breakup doesn't even cross my mind. People who stay in unhappy relationships for years and years because they don't want the hassle of a divorce are ultimately doing themselves -- and their kids -- more harm than good, anyway.
So a marriage is bi-modal? Good marriages (100% committed) and Bad marriages (0% committed)? Clearly, there must be marginal marriages between these extremes. As such, when the cost of ending such a relationship falls, it should seem natural that divorce would occur among some of them.
Besides, just because you're not married doesn't mean a breakup can't be costly. If you've been living together, have joint assets, have kids, etc., etc., then a breakup can be just as much of a pain as a divorce.
My contention was not that ending a cohabitational relationship is costless, but only that marriage was, all things equal, far more costly.
Sorry, but unless I see some evidence to back that statement up, I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you.
Here and elsewhere I've provided a theory for why marriages provide incentives to keep partners together when they otherwise would not (punishment for abandonment/opportunism, transactional costs of rescinding a contract, societal costs of not living up to your vows), along with the far higher separation rates among cohabitation, as well as the lower welfare of children growing up in those environments.
Social science cannot "prove" anything, but my claims are consistent with the facts and common intuition. | |
|
| Why the need for marriage?
Posted: 5/25/2008 4:44:59 PM |
I'm not sure what angle you are taking on this. One the one hand, you note that correlation does not imply causation, and suggest you're familiar with other statistical issues, yet it seems you use anecdotal evidence repeatedly as the foundation for your beliefs.
You're the one making the claim that a common-law arrangement is bad for children. It's perfectly acceptable to use counterexamples as evidence against.
So a marriage is bi-modal? Good marriages (100% committed) and Bad marriages (0% committed)?
I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.
My contention was not that ending a cohabitational relationship is costless, but only that marriage was, all things equal, far more costly.
And that is what I am calling into question. I simply don't see how ending a common-law arrangement would cost less than a comparable divorce, as there are just as many issues to address in either. You still need to get lawyers involved, etc.
Here and elsewhere I've provided a theory for why marriages provide incentives to keep partners together when they otherwise would not (punishment for abandonment/opportunism, transactional costs of rescinding a contract, societal costs of not living up to your vows),
Theories are nothing without facts to back them up.
along with the far higher separation rates among cohabitation, as well as the lower welfare of children growing up in those environments.
Which brings me back to my original statement about confusing correlation with causation.
Social science cannot "prove" anything, but my claims are consistent with the facts and common intuition.
Facts that, thus far, you have not provided. And common intuition has a nasty habit of being completely wrong. | |
|
| Why the need for marriage?
Posted: 5/25/2008 6:08:52 PM | | Why can't you be in a committed relationship without being married? Is it really necessary to have a legal contract to enforce such a union? I'm not against marriage but I think if you want to be with someone for the rest of your life you can choose to do that without religious and legal agreement. | |
|
| Why the need for marriage?
Posted: 5/25/2008 10:20:02 PM | You're the one making the claim that a common-law arrangement is bad for children. It's perfectly acceptable to use counterexamples as evidence against.
I suppose, but I've never claimed that all such arrangements lead to worse outcomes, only that there is a far greater tendency for this to occur. To say some can cohabite responsibly doesn't do anything to undermine my claim.. in fact, it is entirely consistent with it.
"So a marriage is bi-modal? Good marriages (100% committed) and Bad marriages (0% committed)?"
I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.
If you must be this way, I'll use your own words!
To my claim: People respond to incentives. In marriage, separation and abandonment is costly. In cohabitation, it is not.
You responded: If I'm in a relationship with someone I love, then the idea of separation/divorce/breakup doesn't even cross my mind. People who stay in unhappy relationships for years and years because they don't want the hassle of a divorce are ultimately doing themselves -- and their kids -- more harm than good, anyway.
Your response to my claim can either a) be construed as their being two types of marriages, and thus they are not responsive to incentives or b) you are using anecdotal evidence (that it doesn't apply in your case), but again this doesn't undermine anything I've claimed... in fact it is consistent with it.
And that is what I am calling into question. I simply don't see how ending a common-law arrangement would cost less than a comparable divorce, as there are just as many issues to address in either. You still need to get lawyers involved, etc.
Sure, but:
1. When you have a kid out of wedlock, and then choose to leave the mother you are not ordinary obliged by law to pay either alimony or child support.
2. While common-law couples can fight over property, custody of children, usually the property rights to these are well established, and that years of litigation serve no purpose.
3. Having divorced as a legal status is treated differently in social circles than someone who lived with someone for a year or two and left.
You can try to argue common-law relationships have costs when it's ended, but there is simply more costs in marriage.
Clearly, the protections that is given by marriage surrounds the raising of children (ie. the person who acts opportunistically bears greater costs). If you take children out of the equation than marriage serves little purpose other than on religious grounds and some differences in transactional costs. But my point has always been that the potential problems surrounding the raising of kids is THE reason for why marriage is efficient and why it has existed all these years.
Theories are nothing without facts to back them up.
Which brings me back to my original statement about confusing correlation with causation.
Facts that, thus far, you have not provided. And common intuition has a nasty habit of being completely wrong.
I've given you a theory for why people would and do act differently in a marriage. We know intuitively that as the price of an activity rises, less of that activity is pursued. Thus, as the cost of acting opportunistically rises, less of it will occur, and relationships will hold together when they otherwise would not.
I've then laid out how we observe the differences in outcomes between marriages and cohabitations. If breaking up a relationship in marriage is more costly, then we should observe them to be more stable, which in fact we do.
Now while self-selection remains an issue, it seems unlikely to explain all the differences in behavior that we see, and that we'd expect to see. | |
|
| Why the need for marriage?
Posted: 5/26/2008 9:14:17 AM |
I suppose, but I've never claimed that all such arrangements lead to worse outcomes, only that there is a far greater tendency for this to occur.
I do understand that you are saying that marriageless cohabitation leads to a greater likelihood of a poor outcome, but again my counterargument stands -- it's a correlation/causation issue.
1. When you have a kid out of wedlock, and then choose to leave the mother you are not ordinary obliged by law to pay either alimony or child support.
I'd have to look into that, but it doesn't sound right to me. Perhaps a few single parents of the board know a little more about it than I do, but I'm pretty sure you still have to pay child support even if you were never married.
2. While common-law couples can fight over property, custody of children, usually the property rights to these are well established, and that years of litigation serve no purpose.
I admit I'm not sure what you mean by this. I don't see how property in a common-law arrangement is different from property in a marriage.
3. Having divorced as a legal status is treated differently in social circles than someone who lived with someone for a year or two and left.
What about someone who lived with someone else for five years? Ten? Twenty? Frankly, I think this question alone would make for a fascinating discussion and probably deserves its own thread.
Personally, I'd argue that being a single parent, custodial or non-custodial, bears a far greater stigma among social circles than being a divorcee. | |
|
| |
|
| Page 6 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
