noguru
Well-known member
That's a very broad answer. And although I do agree, the specifics regarding the exact dynamics of this need to be hashed out and legislated. And that is where the challenge lies.
Toxicity
- Thread starter Jewels-PiXie
- Start date
That's a very broad answer. And although I do agree, the specifics regarding the exact dynamics of this need to be hashed out and legislated. And that is where the challenge lies.
it is real easy
what is good for society?
protecting the child?
or
protecting two guys living together?
noguru
Well-known member
Protecting 2 same gender people does not stop us from protecting children. If you are talking about adoption that is another subject.
there is always a cost associated with benefits
and
the effects of those benefits are reduced
if
no effort is made to get them to the right recipients
noguru
Well-known member
I agree. Good point. Will get back to this when I have more time. We could take it to PM of you like.
noguru
Well-known member
OK give a concrete example of what you mean in that regard and I will get back with you on this thread.
my favorite example is a real example
the mother stays home to take care of the kids
the father goes off to work at making lots of money
and
the mother would get his social security when he dies
but
in this case the father divorces the mother of his kids and marries a guy
so
who now gets his social security when he dies?
and
why?
noguru
Well-known member
You mean the republicans are going to let him get social security?
:chuckle:
What about if he married another woman who could not have kids?
You are going to have to do a lit better than that, my friend. There are so many holes and/or solutions to that contrived scenario (I am not debating that it could happen). But you do realize that there will always be holes in any legislation, right?
noguru
Well-known member
You are missing my point.
you are avoiding a real question
noguru
Well-known member
If you understood my point you would realize your question did not apply.
answer the question
noguru
Well-known member
That depends on the specific scenario. Both can remarry. The female and kids could trade up and find someone with a superfluous retirement plain. Then they would not have to rely on a meager social security stipend or worry about the possibility that it would not be there upon retirement.
What if the woman was already independently wealthy from inheritance and social security was the least of her worries? Perhaps she would like to find a man who actually enjoyed her.
The possibilities are vast and not limited to your myopic view.
so the fact that the mother stayed home to take care of the kids means nothing to you?
The fact that being a SAHM is not always an option means nothing to you.
do you think it is a good thing for the mother to stay at home with the kids?
A better question is whether or not the kids should be in a safe and stable environment.
Do you think that every husband/father is Ward Cleaver?
noguru
Well-known member
Of course it means something. A woman staying home for the kids should be entitled to child support from the father if he leaves her no matter what gender that new partner is. I am not sure I see your distinction here. If a man leaves his wife for another woman or man the situation remains the same for the kids. That was my original point which you glossed right over. Are you saying the state should not allow divorce?