Didn't I tell you about this? Once Again I am correct.

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Didn't I tell you about this? Once Again I am correct.

Post by Diogenes »

What I said:
Social change from promiscuity couldn't have been stopped either. Anti-biotics coupled with the birth control pill eliminated two of the biggest reasons for unmarried couples to not engage in premarital sex. As a result, it broke the Marriage Minded women's monopoly on the supply of sex, much to the detriment of all women everywhere.
viewtopic.php?p=90646&highlight=antibiotics#90646


What they said:


The Wages of Sin: How the Discovery of Penicillin Reshaped Modern Sexuality.



It was not until 1943, amid world war, that penicillin was found to be an effective treatment for syphilis. This study investigated the hypothesis that a decrease in the cost of syphilis due to penicillin spurred an increase in risky non-traditional sex. Using nationally comprehensive vital statistics, this study found evidence that the era of modern sexuality originated in the mid to late 1950s. Measures of risky non-traditional sexual behavior began to rise during this period. These trends appeared to coincide with the collapse of the syphilis epidemic. Syphilis incidence reached an all-time low in 1957 and syphilis deaths fell rapidly during the 1940s and early 1950s. Regression analysis demonstrated that most measures of sexual behavior significantly increased immediately following the collapse of syphilis and most measures were significantly associated with the syphilis death rate. Together, the findings supported the notion that the discovery of penicillin decreased the cost of syphilis and thereby played an important role in shaping modern sexuality.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23054260


Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin

Image
Last edited by Diogenes on Tue Oct 16, 2012 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

MSimon
Posts: 14333
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

I have thoroughly enjoyed the new environment. It tickles me to see so many in pain about it. I'm a big fan of living in the present and adapting to current circumstances. The very thing those living in the past can't handle.

A little Jethro Tull for aficionados.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsCyC1dZiN8
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Stubby
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:05 pm

Post by Stubby »

Why is premarital sex such a big bugaboo for you?
You have posted many times and lately it is written very large

It is really none of your damned business when people decide to have sex and they certainly don't need your permission. Are you a time traveler from the Dark Ages?
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

MSimon wrote:I have thoroughly enjoyed the new environment. It tickles me to see so many in pain about it. I'm a big fan of living in the present and adapting to current circumstances. The very thing those living in the past can't handle.

A little Jethro Tull for aficionados.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsCyC1dZiN8

One thing I can count on, if there is a way to misinterpret the salient point, you will find it, jump in front, and wave your banner.


Unless Science can keep ahead of the bugs, the conditions you celebrate will be transitory.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Stubby wrote:Why is premarital sex such a big bugaboo for you?
You have posted many times and lately it is written very large

It is really none of your damned business when people decide to have sex and they certainly don't need your permission. Are you a time traveler from the Dark Ages?

So much idiocy expressed in such a short statement. You miss my point completely (That Anti-Biotics and Birth control pills triggered the "Sexual Revolution." ) but I will address your point none the less.

Tell me, who's business is it to pay for abortions, Child Support, and disease control? Who's business is it to pay for the crime caused by unwanted fatherless children?

Image

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... use-crisis

When people are paying their own bills exclusively, then It will be nobody's else's business.

Don't like my apples? Stop shaking my tree!
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Stubby
Posts: 877
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:05 pm

Post by Stubby »

man you are are one angry little pimple aren't you!
Everything is bullshit unless proven otherwise. -A.C. Beddoe

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Stubby, that's three or four times you've written a post with no intention other than to anger someone. We've yet to see if you can make an actual contribution to the board.

How about you put the troll suit aside and act like an adult?

I don't want to be placed in the position of defending D, but we all know he hasn't made the points you're claiming and misrepresenting him makes you look like a very bad little boy.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Stubby wrote:man you are are one angry little pimple aren't you!

Not at all. You are just too simple to see it any other way.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

clonan
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:16 pm

Post by clonan »

Diogenes,

I normally don't bother with the General forum but you put up an interesting graph and I find the need to demonstrate exactly how incredibly biased it is.

First the title.

Why are are children born out of wedlock or to future divorced parents rejected?

My own nephew was born out of wedlock and is absolutely adored by his parents and his extended family. More and more people are deciding to forego a paper marriage certificate. But I ask you if it looks like a duck and quacks like one isn't it still a duck? There are many relationships that ARE marriages except without a piece of paper in a courthouse somewhere. Do children of these relationships belong in the 'Out of Wedlock' group?

I also know many people whose parents are divorced and they are far from rejected. Plus MOST divorces happen after the children leave. In fact most divorces are triggered by the departure of the youngest child.

Are adult children rejected if their parent divorce?

Now how about the abortion group. I absolutely agree that Aborted children ARE rejected but I wonder if this chart accurate?


This chart suggests that abortions only started around 1970. I can only assume this means "Official" abortions after states started re-leagalising it culminating with Roe V Wade in '73. But what I find missing is the 'unofficial' abortion numbers. There is a fair amount of evidence that the relative number of women seeking abortions has NOT increased since the anti-abortion laws were passed. For instance in the years immediatly before Rove v Wade there were an estimated 1.2 million abortions in the US. Considering the total number of live births was about 3.5 million we find a ratio of ~0.34 which almost exactly matches the number we have today. (Tietze C, Henshaw SK. Induced Abortion: A World Review, 1986. New York: The Guttmacher Institute, 1986)


This is actually a primary reason Roe v Wade ended up going to the supreme court. The number of abortions hasn't changed, just the number of people surviving abortions has changed.


So what exactly are you trying to argue with the attached chart?

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

Marriage is not "just a piece of paper". It is a social contract and those who refuse to make the contract provide their children with far less security than those who do. Pretending there are no significant differences between "legitimate" an "illegitimate" children is simply to ignore all the important parts of society and childhood security. Just because someone can survive a broken home situation with little damage to show for it does not mean broken homes are not a problem.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

clonan
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:16 pm

Post by clonan »

No Marriage is NOT a piece of paper.

Just having a marriage certificate does NOT make you married... Just ask Brittany Spears and her 3 day marriage.

But, like through most of history, a couple who have committed to each other ARE married, even if there is no paperwork filed anywhere.

Say a couple married, remained faithful and committed for their entire lives had 3 kids and retired together. But say they discovered after 50 years that the marriage certificate was misfiled and not valid... were the kids born out of wedlock? Legally yes, spiritually and culturally absolutely not.

Marriage has nothing to do with paperwork. It has everything to do with a promise between two people and god.

I do not claim that there is no difference between legitimate and illegitimate children. But the definitions can not rest on a tradition of state sponsored marriage that really only dates back about 150 years for everyone but nobility.

It MUST rest on the historical definition of marriage which this chart does not discuss. Children of uncommitted parent have a hard time. Children of committed parent, regardless of a marriage certificate, tend to do better.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

clonan wrote: But, like through most of history, a couple who have committed to each other ARE married, even if there is no paperwork filed anywhere.
No they're not. If you want people to take you seriously, you have to stop making such childish and inane statements.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

clonan
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:16 pm

Post by clonan »

Tell me, where is the Marriage certificate of George Washington?

Abraham Lincoln? How about anyone of note before 1850? These are public documents and could be found if they exist... They don't

Common Law Marriages (marriages without a license) were the common form of marriage in the US until about the 1920's. At that point 38 states passed marriage license laws primarily to prevent inter-racial marriage since the only restrictions were typically based on race.

While the concept of a marriage license was developed in the 14th century they were not mandatory and were typically issued by the church NOT the state. The earliest mandatory marriage license in the western world was the "Marriage Act" of 1836 in England. This didn't start in the US until around 1880.

It is true that state approval of marriage has a VERY long history but ONLY for the nobility who sought permission from the monarch. Until the late 19th century in the U.S. most marriages were private contracts between two families. Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

This is exactly where marriage is moving to now... sadly without the church requirement.

GIThruster
Posts: 4686
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:17 pm

Post by GIThruster »

I'm sure someone finds these useless bits of trivia interesting but they do not come to the issue. Commitment does not equal marriage. For someone to believe the asinine statements you're making, nearly every kiddy couple needs to be considered married at age 15 and divorced by 16.

Commitment is NOT the measure of marriage. Marriage is a social contract performed before witnesses and is a pillar of civilization.

If you are not married, you are not married. Pretty simple.
Last edited by GIThruster on Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis

clonan
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:16 pm

Post by clonan »

Please re-read my comments.

I said:
Marriage has nothing to do with paperwork. It has everything to do with a promise between two people and god.
While I didn't define what I meant by 'commitment' I did provide an example:
Say a couple married, remained faithful and committed for their entire lives had 3 kids and retired together. But say they discovered after 50 years that the marriage certificate was misfiled and not valid... were the kids born out of wedlock? Legally yes, spiritually and culturally absolutely not.
I will specify... when I said commitment I intended to say "lifelong commitment"


My point is VERY simple. By law you are only married when you have a "marriage license." Regardless of the nature of your relationship you are married.

You may have met 10 minutes earlier and split the next day (ala Brittany Spears). But you can be together for 50 years and appear married to anyone else but unless you have a piece of paper you aren't "married" and your kids fall into the "out of wedlock" group.

I completely agree that
Marriage is a social contract ... and is a pillar of civilization
However the requirement of witnesses is relatively new and the idea that a piece of paper is the deciding factor is even younger (only 150 years or so).


Now back to my original point. Why are out of wedlock children automatically "rejected?"

They aren't necessarily. While generally those parents that are "married" tend to be more committed to both each other and their children this is FAR from universal. It is almost common for kids to be ignored by their parents, raised by TV, schools and their friends.

THESE are rejected children. They are rejected if their parents have a marriage license or not. But there are MANY kids born out of wedlock that have two excellent parents and never in their lives felt rejected by their family.

For example... My parents are still married after ~40 years. I take it as a matter of faith that they are legally married however I have NEVER seen the certificate. While I would be surprised if I discovered that they were not legally married it would have no bearing on my 34+ years knowing them. They would still be my parents and I would STILL hope to emulate their relationship in my own marriage.

For example... About 2 weeks before my wife and I were to marry she became very nervous. She tends to get nervous shortly before any major change. As we discussed it I told her that I would be happy to cancel the wedding or the paperwork. After all, marriage is a promise between you, your spouse and god. And as such should be respected and celebrated by society as a whole. We did have the wedding and we did complete the paperwork. But even if society crumbles or we find ourselves stranded on a deserted island with just the two of us we will still be married.

Our relationship with each other and with out children has nothing to do with a marriage license.

Post Reply