Why does society encourage people to have so many children?

[medusae]

Of course, if you're talking about homosexual couples getting married... Well, how many times can this argument be rehashed? Let's see... I think my favorite argument was, "No one is keeping homosexuals from getting married. Even two homosexuals can get married, so long as one is a man and the other a woman."

Personally, I have no problems with having a legal union defined for homosexual couples (after all, if a gay man wants to include his life partner in his work's insurance package, the way a straight man includes his wife, I think it should be done), but the legal arrangements built into it need to be designed for gay and lesbien couples, not heterosexual couples.

Yeah, sorry, I was going a little bit off-topic and looking at the gay marriage issue as a rights issue. I didn't even want to go into the parenting issue.

The biggest problem with the current US government's mentality toward gay marriage isn't just that they don't have the rights to tax benefits, insurance, etc., but that partners in a homosexual couple don't even, singularly, have the same legal rights as a partner in a heterosexual in most states.

Example: If a man had a wife that suddenly fell seriously ill and had to be cared for in a hospital, he would be able to visit his wife, consult with her doctors, and (this is the big one) be able to make serious medical conditions, were she without a will/legal documentation or ability to communicate her wishes.

In many states, partners in a homosexual couple, especially those not considered under commonlaw, wouldn't have these same rights. IMO, this is pretty messed up.

(Sorry for getting so off-topic.. and also, since it's four in the morning and I've been packing for uni all day, sorry if this is barely understandable.

[Solstis]

Those statistics might be skewed. As far as homosexuals, statisticians assume (correctly) that the majority of homosexuals (males) in the US will be white (being the majority). Statistically, white males have the highest median income. However, that does not actually take into account homosexuals that are actualy out of the closet, in which case the numbers probably would change.

Also, professional living =/= domestic living, and civil unions would be a domestic issue. Not every homosexual is a white, male, professional.

I do understand the tax benefits given to those with children, but not why people want to have a lot of children (and why systems seem to support that), like the OP was saying.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solstis on 2007-01-07 07:23 ]</font>

[etlitch]

Move to china. Problem solved(at least almost.)

Your post makes it sound as if you're living in a "social"(read: kommunist)place.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: etlitch on 2007-01-07 10:17 ]</font>

[xxTrystanxx]

It seems like some of the replies may have lost the point the OP was making. Or, maybe I'm not fully understanding the issue at hand. Are we specifically discussing having LOTS of children... if so, let's define "lots"... merely more than one? more than three?

It sure seems like most of the folks replying wish to merely criminalize anyone who MIGHT want to have a child. You blindly assume that most people just wake up one day, turn to their partner and say "Let's get ourselves a baby!" I can't exactly explain to you what DOES drive people to have children... but I'll be the first to tell you, it's definitely not for the tax deduction. But at the same time, I don't regret it.

The other assumption that seems to be made often in this discussion is that the only people who SHOULD be having kids are people who are making lots and lots of money. Some people seem to think that the only burden having a child brings is a financial one. But it's a lot more than that. Sure, maybe some of you (speaking only to those who don't have children) have had pets, maybe have cared for/selected care for sick relatives and friends.... but there is a great emotional toll in having a child... Just the thought that you are completely and solely responsible for the health and welfare of a human being is daunting enough, for even those of ample means.

Ironically enough, it seems to be the ones who have more than enough income who choose to have either no kids, or maybe just one child, and then lavish that child with objects rather than love. I'm not saying that the opposite can't happen, or that having just one child is bad, because it certainly isn't. My point is, I guess, that it takes more than just having money to decide whether to have children or not.

Now I know what you're thinking... "What? Your fiance only make a bit over minimum wage and you only work part-time! You guys shouldn't be having a kid!" I'm not currently on welfare, but during the period where I had to be out of work right before my son was born, I did have to apply for food stamps. I'm not ashamed to admit it, but I am an american citizen, and I pay taxes into these social programs so that they are there if/when worse comes to worst. I do wish that perhaps the programs, especially welfare (which provides cash benefits, at least in my state food stamps and cash benefits are two separate programs.) were redesigned a little bit to help people who help themselves. I do not wish to see programs that help people abolished however, because sometimes things do happen to people who otherwise are capable of supporting themselves.

[Kent]

My grandparents on my father's side, had... Two kids. And lived on a farm.

My grandparents on my mother's side, well... There are way too many people in that freaking house, come the holidays. Irish Catholics, by the stereotype.

Here's an idea: Since there's apparently some sort of problem with keeping people in prisons in the US, how about we use them to supply food to starving countries - at least, the ones on Death Row. Might not be enough for them, but it's a start. Since crime rates are so high, and our government is, like, totally not strict enough already, we'll just adjust what death penalties can be issued for (I'd say any sort of discrimination based on race, sex, or sexual orientation, regardless of organization, would be a good start), and things will fill out quickly.

Then convince our buddies across the world that we're right or we get to nuke you.

Bam. Four problems solved: Overpopulation, starvation in third-world countries, discrimination, and prison space issues.

[Blitzkommando]

There was a book about getting rid of all discrimination. It ended up that everyone was of the same race, the same colored hair, and all looked the same except for one thing: eye color. Thus eye color became the discriminating factor with the blue eyed people battling over supremacy with the brown eyed people. People, humans, without meaning to find the thing that is different between themselves and others as a way of telling them appart. It doesn't matter how small the difference is, it will be noticed.

The best way to combat racism, sexism, and any other kind of ism that is deemed socially, morally, ethically, or otherwise wrong is through stamping out what causes all of those nasty isms in the first place: ignorance. Be it through school education, home education, or any other form of education it can be done and it has proven to work. The problem is that it becomes a tangled political mess in the end because everyone has their foils about education in itself in the first place. The other problem is that it becomes socially mandated and controlled. (Every Soviet citizen will learn Russian as the primary language and learn about Russia first and foremost to bring allegience to the country rather than the religion, family, or other traditional values, essentially to create a monotonous, robotic society with a form of nationalism that is yet unmatched except by other similarly constructed dictatorships of the past.)

In the end though, when you have people perverting religions (Islam, Christianity both Protestant and Catholic, Hinduism, Shintoism, and just about any other religion) where nobody except the practitioners of the said religion must be allowed to live unless they adopt the said religion you won't solve anything. And, seeing that even after you do that, if you are somehow able to eliminate those people, you will just have new things to pervert, such as unwavering nationalism, ethnocentrism, racial supremacy, fanatical devotion to something as stupid as a corporate entity, and infinitely more things to become a devoted fanatic to you simply can't elimiate conflict from the human race. That's because, as thousand's of years of history has already proven, conflict is an integral part of humanity. We fight over anything, just look at sports fanatics shooting each other and murdering each other at games, people being shot for Playstations in parkinglots, being shot for money, booze, food! Humans are not much different from animals in this respect, we just have developed intelligence to fight on an infinitely larger subject matters (rather than food, mates, and territory we fight on those and everything else).

There's a saying, "You can take the dog out of the fight but you can't take the fight out of the dog." That is a single sentence that can describe the past, present, and future of mankind. So long as there are two people standing on this earth it will be wrecked with fighting, even if they loved one another more than life itself.

As for taxes, considering the average persons in the industrialized world pays over 20% of their wages to taxes (It's closer to 40% in the United States today and nearing 80% in Sweden and 25% in Japan just for a few examples) there is really nobody that has benefit of low taxes and even fewer that get full benefit of the taxes they pay in the first place. Even with the so-called 'tax benefits' of married couples and couples (married or not) with custody of children are low enough that the increased taxes they pay for purchasing all of the necessary goods and services (food, clothes, larger cars, more gasoline, more aspirin, etc.) they end up paying more than a single person just through the amount paid for sales tax, and likely property tax to allow for the larger home to meet the family's needs.

[Cav]

On 2007-01-07 18:52, Kent wrote:
My grandparents on my father's side, had... Two kids. And lived on a farm.

My grandparents on my mother's side, well... There are way too many people in that freaking house, come the holidays. Irish Catholics, by the stereotype.

Here's an idea: Since there's apparently some sort of problem with keeping people in prisons in the US, how about we use them to supply food to starving countries - at least, the ones on Death Row. Might not be enough for them, but it's a start. Since crime rates are so high, and our government is, like, totally not strict enough already, we'll just adjust what death penalties can be issued for (I'd say any sort of discrimination based on race, sex, or sexual orientation, regardless of organization, would be a good start), and things will fill out quickly.

Then convince our buddies across the world that we're right or we get to nuke you.

Bam. Four problems solved: Overpopulation, starvation in third-world countries, discrimination, and prison space issues.

I would be for this, but the republicans would die before this ever passed >.> maybe if we ate them too...

[Uncle_bob]

On 2007-01-07 21:17, Cav wrote:
I would be for this, but the republicans would die before this ever passed >.> maybe if we ate them too...

That's why you're not a politician

[hollowtip]

On 2007-01-07 13:44, xxTrystanxx wrote:
It seems like some of the replies may have lost the point the OP was making. Or, maybe I'm not fully understanding the issue at hand. Are we specifically discussing having LOTS of children... if so, let's define "lots"... merely more than one? more than three?

Lot’s of children. Lots of children to me is >=3. This is just my opinion of course, but I don’t think that’s an unreasonable definition of what could be considered having a large nuclear family.

[b]It sure seems like most of the folks replying wish to merely criminalize anyone who MIGHT want to have a child. You blindly assume that most people just wake up one day, turn to their partner and say "Let's get ourselves a baby!" I can't exactly explain to you what DOES drive people to have children... but I'll be the first to tell you, it's definitely not for the tax deduction. But at the same time, I don't regret it.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to have children. The problem is that society deemphasizes overall child welfare while glorifying the self-fulfillment that a baby can provide for a couple.

I also don’t blindly assume that people choose to have children in such a sporadic manner, but I will assume that the average individual (from late teenage years on) that wants to have children will not be deterred from that decision in any way shape or form. It’s this selfish mindset that I am detesting, and it’s frustratingly compounded when multiple births occur that feature irresponsibility under this mindset.

[b]The other assumption that seems to be made often in this discussion is that the only people who SHOULD be having kids are people who are making lots and lots of money. Some people seem to think that the only burden having a child brings is a financial one. But it's a lot more than that. Sure, maybe some of you (speaking only to those who don't have children) have had pets, maybe have cared for/selected care for sick relatives and friends.... but there is a great emotional toll in having a child... Just the thought that you are completely and solely responsible for the health and welfare of a human being is daunting enough, for even those of ample means.

I understand the immense amount of resources that are required to rear a child, but securing the financial demands for providing shelter, food, a stable house, social activities and educational opportunities (elementary school to college) are the most important and should be satisfied before a couple should even consider having a baby. Also, it’s a lot easier to measure the needs of a child from a money perspective then it is from an emotional or intangible one considering each person is born with unique personality traits and vulnerabilities.

Ironically enough, it seems to be the ones who have more than enough income who choose to have either no kids, or maybe just one child, and then lavish that child with objects rather than love. I'm not saying that the opposite can't happen, or that having just one child is bad, because it certainly isn't. My point is, I guess, that it takes more than just having money to decide whether to have children or not.

Believe me, I think the worst thing a couple can do is spoil their children. Not only are they depriving them of defense mechanisms for dealing with certain disappointments and learning experiences, they are also stunting their development in being self-sustaining. I’ve lived in some poor and better off situations, and it’s helped me see a lot of this first hand from acquaintances and friends.

[b]Now I know what you're thinking... "What? Your fiance only make a bit over minimum wage and you only work part-time! You guys shouldn't be having a kid!" I'm not currently on welfare, but during the period where I had to be out of work right before my son was born, I did have to apply for food stamps. I'm not ashamed to admit it, but I am an american citizen, and I pay taxes into these social programs so that they are there if/when worse comes to worst. I do wish that perhaps the programs, especially welfare (which provides cash benefits, at least in my state food stamps and cash benefits are two separate programs.) were redesigned a little bit to help people who help themselves. I do not wish to see programs that help people abolished however, because sometimes things do happen to people who otherwise are capable of supporting themselves.

The welfare system is a great system for those who use it properly, and not as a permanent crutch. I don’t have any problem with people who are progressive and don’t rely on the system as a solution to their lifelong irresponsibility.

I’m not going to judge you or anything, but I do have one question for you. Why didn’t you and your partner just take a wait and see approach to having children?

[Cav]

On 2007-01-07 21:37, Uncle_bob wrote:

On 2007-01-07 21:17, Cav wrote:
I would be for this, but the republicans would die before this ever passed >.> maybe if we ate them too...

That's why you're not a politician

And here I was thinking I wasn't a politician because I wouldn't feed into corporate campaign sponser's bs in order to get them to vouch money for me or that most of the American public doesn't do much if any research into elections of anything into government position.

Thank you for helping me see the light that I'm not a politician because I support cannibalism of soon to be wasted meat to help world hunger!