Failures in Our System: Marriage

[Joe]

Here is the problem from my point of view. The only real reason for marriage is to provide a stable environment for preparing children to develop into successful adults. There have been several experiments - both real and imagined - in raising parent-free children. They inevitably fail. We evolved as family oriented creatures.
Programs to "Help Children" disturb me in two ways. First, whenever I get a letter telling me how I can join a program to feed, etc., a child for ten cents or twenty five cents a day, my first instinct is to ask "Why not help the whole family?"
I think about parents struggling with unimaginable poverty and all anybody wants to do is help their children. Don't the adults need some help?
I don't donate to the St. Labore (Catholic) school for Native American Children. I donate to Running Strong because that is a self-help program designed to develop Native American farms that will provide food and employment and create a self-supporting population.
The second thing is that programs - government programs especially - are always ripped off. Whether it is welfare or ADC (Aid to Dependent Children) or child support. My girlfriend in the 60's taught special needs children (she had a Master Degree in the area). She taught in the SE Bronx because she didn't like the way middle class parents handled the situation. Many of her students came from divided families - the father lived in an apartment away from the family so the could qualify for ADC which paid better than any job he could get. My son paid child support for nearly 20 years after the mother grabbed the child and skipped town. The court mandated the payments to make sure the child was taken care of. But much of that money went to support the mother - the rent she paid and the groceries she bought were for her as well as the child. When the boy need braces and a college education - that was extra money out of my son's pocket because the mother never put herself in a position to help with those expenses. (In case you are wondering, the mother was able to manipulate the justice system and the child to make sure that my son never spoke directly to his son for over 20 years. Last year, after the boy had graduated from college and started working he finally decided to come to DC for a visit.)
That situation may not be the rule but it is not uncommon. Most of the single parents that I know personally need a lot of help from family members to make a go of it. I cannot tell you all of the struggles that my daughter went through or how many thousands of dollars that I shelled out to keep her family afloat until she could graduate from college and get a good job.
Years ago, before my daughter finally worked out her situation, I looked into all of the programs available. I actually had friends who ran some of those programs. There were not enough resources to provide for all the young women who needed help. My daughter never quite made the cut because I was making enough money to take care of her and her children. It wouldn't have mattered, I will guarantee you that there will never be enough money to help everybody who has needs. People are going to have to depend on their own resources, family and friends and struggle, struggle, struggle.

[Joe]

Bunny wrote: "I suppose my point is that all our circumstances are different, and only each of us alone can truly know what they are, and what they compel us to do."
You are correct. I never thought that you were being critical. I wanted to broaden the scope of the discussion. I only became aware of single dads after my wife died. I discovered very quickly during conversations at work that my situation was far from unique. My wife had been raising two children on her own and scraping by for eight years when we were introduced on a blind date. (Actually, the blind date never happened. The other couple was always too busy. I made the date. When I came to pick her up, her son met me at the door and let me know what would happen if his mother did not return safe and sound.)
Your situation is extremely difficult. I understand that. But I believe that you can and will find a way to make it. If you get some help from the government or one of the local colleges or universities - take it. But the only person you can really depend on is the one you see when you look in a mirror.
Oh yeah - remember this name - JK Rowlings.

[Nik]

I think our discussion here reflects to a degree a different perspective and mentality between the US and some socialist European and other countries: where in US it's largely believed in 'every man for himself', while part of Europe attributes value to 'communities' and 'societies' and well being of all of its members and support of each other..

[Bunny]

Joe wrote: "Bunny wrote: "I suppose my point is that all our circumstances are different, and only each of us alone can truly know what they are, and what they compel us to do."
You are correct. I never though..."

Ok. Sometimes i misinterpret things, which is probably how the mix-up occurred.

I agree with you in trying to take responsibility for your own life. One of the principles I live my life by is the idea that one should:

Rely on yourself and no on others
No one is as reliable as your own well-disciplined self.

This is something I remind myself of every day and do my best to adhere to and, if I've interpreted your aboe post correctly, you believe in too. I think we also both acknowledge that sometimes we're unable to do everything for ourselves, even though we wish to, and that is when we have to turn to others for assistance (and when, quite often, further problems can arise). Asking others for help is always something of a leap of faith, so the best thing we can do is try to equip ourselves for a soft landing by acknowledging that we need to relinquish what control we need to relinquish to allow others to assist us, whilst remembering that we are still ultimately responsible for our own lives. The problem is always trying to distinguish where the ever-changing boundary between the two should be.

And I do often think of JK Rowling and her perseverance and self-sacrifice. She truly is an inspiration.

[Joe]

Bunny wrote: "Joe wrote: "Bunny wrote: "I suppose my point is that all our circumstances are different, and only each of us alone can truly know what they are, and what they compel us to do."
You are correct. I ..."
I love you and truly hope things work out well for you. I wish I could do more.

[GR]

Joe is right about the family is the backbone of moral and ethical values in raising children. That of course is if the family has a moral bases, and that comes from the church. During the soviet days, many children were raised by the state. Many grew up having no moral value other than the state. Which was the intension of the state. There they could manipulate the individual to its needs.

But no matter how you look at it, the family, if it has a religious base, is the best. In my opinion, the church's importance is to give the child a sense of moral and ethical value in life.

[Bunny]

Joe wrote: "Bunny wrote: "Joe wrote: "Bunny wrote: "I suppose my point is that all our circumstances are different, and only each of us alone can truly know what they are, and what they compel us to do."
You a..."

Thanks Joe. Things aren't too bad and, fortunately, I have my extreme stubbornness to get me through. Hope you're doing ok too.

[Joe]

Krazykiwi wrote: "I'd respond further , but I don't think you could (or want to) even understand a wildly different perspective. ."
That's too bad. The point of this discussion is to share world views. You should have more faith in us.
I don't agree with everything GR said but I can't imagine that it is all that "offensive and judgemental".

[Krazykiwi]

I removed my post because I didn't want to have an argument. But GR as much as said that people who are not churchgoers and/or are not raising children within a religious nuclear family setting, are raising children with no moral or ethical values.

I disagree, and i find that judgemental, even if you don't. But there's no changing minds of religious zealots, so it's pointless trying.

[Nik]

Krazykiwi wrote: "I removed my post because I didn't want to have an argument. ..."

No problem with friendly arguments, guys, even if another participant won't change his/her mind/conviction -:)
As an atheist I attribute little importance to religious institutions, but if GR or anyone believes differently - for me it's fine -:)

[Joe]

Bunny wrote: "Joe wrote: "Bunny wrote: "Joe wrote: "Bunny wrote: "I suppose my point is that all our circumstances are different, and only each of us alone can truly know what they are, and what they compel us t..."
Are you Irish too?

[Joe]

Krazykiwi wrote: "I disagree, and i find that judgemental, even if you don't. But there's no changing minds of religious zealots, so it's pointless trying."
First of all, you are being judgemental. GR is not a religious zealot. I have had lengthy discussions with him and our views do not always align but we are friends.
Second, it is often necessary to make your case without engaging in direct conflict. Several years ago, I had to make a presentation on marriage to a group of Catholics at a time when gay marriage was a hot topic. I went first to Ruth, the Moabite widow, and her mother-in-law, a Jew who had lost a husband and two sons. They are clearly a family after Ruth insists on going back to Jerusalem with her mother-in-law. Then I pointed out that biblical patriarchs like Abraham, Jacob and David were not monogamous. Family, in my view, is not about one man and one woman joining together in "sacred matrimony". It is about people committing to each through thick and thin, in good times and bad, in sickness and health. A lot of committed monogamists changed their minds that day.
The religious point of view has a distinct advantage because when somebody like God tells you this is what you better or you're going to hell, you are inclined to listen. Until you start doubting that "God" is anything more than a figment of somebody's imagination and hell is an empty threat. My problem for atheists is: We know what is need to make society work. How do we get people to follow the rules?

[Nik]

I'll play the atheist's part for a bit, if I may..-:)
Paradise and hell is carrot and stick. You have many variations, not necessarily religious or post-mortem. A stick in this world, be it in the form of electric chair or life imprisonment, is scary enough. Most follow the rules, some - don't, whether secular or religious, despite the stick..
Conviction and education play not less important part.
The main problem with religion, in my opinion, it has zero empirical credentials in this world and who knows whether the next one even exists?
Is there any difference between cancer rates among the most despicable villains and most virtuous dudes? I doubt that very much. If anything, unfortunately most virtuous are often taken advantage of by less particular...

[Joe]

Nik wrote: "I'll play the atheist's part for a bit, if I may..-:)
Paradise and hell is carrot and stick. You have many variations, not necessarily religious or post-mortem. A stick in this world, be it in the ..."

Great but you haven't presented your alternative. We are in reasonably close agreement on everything you said. My concerns are with what you didn't say.
I will point out that there is scientific evidence for altruistic behavior being genetic. There is evidence that "lower" animals (smaller brains - more specialized) animals exhibit altruism and even ethical behavior. So maybe we don't need a carrot and stick. On the other hand, the dynamics of very large groups may be different from those of a pack.

[Nik]

Conviction and education is better than carrot and stick. The volition to do something out of inner conviction because someone believes in rules and sees their benefit is better than someone lured into them (carrot) or coerced (stick). However, realistically speaking I'm not sure it'll suffice. I have no statistical data and probably I'm a bit cynical, but my common sense tells me that maybe half of the people don't steal anything from the store because they really think it's bad, while maybe another half - because there are cameras and they are afraid to get caught. So a combo of conviction, education, sanctions is probably still required.
And we might still need that small percent that just don't follow the rules, so we can have breakthroughs -:)
Re altruism - it's surely something noble and a rare commodity. However egoism seems more natural. I believe in balance of caring for yourself and caring for others...

[Ian]

At the risk of getting offside with everyone, I take the view that I don't know what is going on. However, you can show the presence of altruism proves nothing - it is predicted by mathematics as an optimal survival trick, therefore adopting it shows nothing about external influence compared with evolution, and evolution includes genetics. Similarly, if you accept that we are driven by chemistry, then we must accept chemistry's rules, irrespective of the presence of a deity, in which case whether you are good or bad should have nothing to do with cancer, other than bad guys probably smoke more. Unfortunately if you are looking for empirical evidence, you are merely demonstrating failures of logic in most cases. In my opinion, there is no evidence one way or the other.

[Nik]

Ian wrote: "In my opinion, there is no evidence one way or the other...."

So it seems.. I usually believe in something with evidence and desirably corroborated by personal experience, so I just don't .. -:)

[Joe]

Ian wrote: "At the risk of getting offside with everyone, I take the view that I don't know what is going on. However, you can show the presence of altruism proves nothing - it is predicted by mathematics as a..."
I am not sure that I followed all of that. Everything we do requires chemistry. But the chemistry is neither fixed nor simple. We can change the chemical state of our body (at least sometimes) by simply visualizing a situation. Or we can train our dog to attach a chemical response such as salivating to a cue that has nothing to do with reason for salivating - say a bell.
Going a little deeper, our genetic make up is somewhat variable - genes can be turned on or off. That may require some chemical magic but it might also be a response to a situation or situations.
On a larger scale. certain behaviors are necessary for group survival. Altruism is one of those behaviors. I suspect that the mathematics not only predict the random occurrence of altruistic behavior but also the eventual preference for altruism over greed because the long run benefit of cooperation (usually) outweighs the short run benefit of selfish behavior. But these are all probabilities so the overall pattern of behavior is a patchwork that is not necessarily logical.

[Ian]

Joe, the argument about chemistry related to the presence of cancer - it is not a deity punishment, but a failure of the stability of nucleic acids and the repair system. Similarly, smoking introduces low levels of about 300 carcinogens, so people who smoke eventually overload their defence mechanism and cancers turn up.

I am to too sure about genes being turned on and off due to external influences -sounds like what Lamarck proposed, and that is generally rejected, but I suppose there may be exceptions.

[GR]

Krazykiwi wrote: "I removed my post because I didn't want to have an argument. But GR as much as said that people who are not churchgoers and/or are not raising children within a religious nuclear family setting, ar..."

Krazykiwi, I'm sorry I gave the impression that only church families have an moral and ethical bases. That's not true. I said it is better, and that should be the purpose of the church. I grew with kids who did not go to any church, and they grew up fine. The norm of any society or people in general is central, neither to any extreme. Once in a while you get a deviant, but that's not normal. Look at the populist movement going around the world. I call that deviant.

[Lizzie]

Daniel J. wrote: "Economic marriages are likely common throughout the world. Here in the United States we have the "Common Law" marriage, where if two single people live at the same address for enough years the gove..."

For clarification purposes, only some states recognize common law marriages. Many don't. And when someone dies and there is an inheritance, it is often challenged with varying results.

[Lizzie]

J.J. wrote: "Daniel J. wrote: "Economic marriages are likely common throughout the world. Here in the United States we have the "Common Law" marriage, where if two single people live at the same address for eno..."

No. Common law marriage requires a little more than just living t the same address. Also, only some states recognize common law marriage and it includes things like co-mingling funds and assets, living as if you were legally married, introducing the other as your spouse, and other criteria, which varies from state to state but all of which prevents two roommates ending up married as an operation of law.