Okay, what is it that you feel she stands for?  And what is the situation that "all the kids across the country" are in?  I don't think having too many kids is really all that common these days, so I'm not entirely sure what you're meaning here.



Which is sort of my point.


A kid outside of parental supervision for hours?! The horror! ;)  I thought it was liberals who were supposed to be the overprotective ones, and conservatives who wished for the days when we felt comfortable to let the kids run in the streets for 10 hours a day. ;)


True, they'd probably be better off if she was rich.  But so would most kids that don't have rich parents.  And yes, 13 kids seems like way too many, but to me, 4 seems like too many.  I don't feel it's my business to tell octomom how many kids to have than it is my business to tell you or katisara how many kids to have.  While I can agree that I don't think she's making good choices, again, it's less my business than other bad choices being made, and I think the problems that will result from them will be less than other bad choices.


That reasoning is a bit tenuous.  I should be more angry at octomom because she's making up a minute fraction of the social welfare costs, and social wellfare costs are large?  Even though you tell me she's costing $100k a month, I should be upset at her for wellfare costing $125B?  That doesn't work for me.  I'm actually in favor of much of the social welfare spending.  Medicare/Medicaid?  I actually think those are pretty good things.  Not perfect, not by a long shot, but I'm in favor of spending money on them.  Health insurance for children?  Again, I'm for it, even if it's not perfect.  Octomom isn't the reason the bills are so large.  She's a rather unique case, I would argue.  I'm not worried that there's going to be a new fad of having 8 babies at a time all of a sudden.



Again, you stated octomom was costing us $100k month.  Compared to those other numbers, I still think that's not very big.  And that money is going to aid those kids, which I think is a decent thing to spend money on.  Did the mom do something stupid?  Yes, I would say so, but I don't want to punish those kids to spite her for it.

I think the most important thing for children is a stable and loving household.

Whether that consists of a single parent or a couple (hetero- or homo-sexual) is all what matters.

I don't think marriage is necessarily an ideal.  Some will argue that kids need two parents, but there are millions of examples of children who turn out just fine from being raised by a single [loving] parent.

The first heading of this article discusses the benefits of heterosexual marriage:

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fd...sexual_Marriages.htm

For those interested in the homosexual marriage issue, the headings down the page address that issue.  I like this because it is more fact based than preachy.

That says it all then, doesn't it?  So non-members of the church have to be held to the same standard?

I don't think I can disagree any more with the logic of this piece.  First of all, homosexuals in relationships are being labeled as being promiscuous in comparison to married heterosexuals.  First of all, heterosexual marriages are not being compared to homosexual marriages.  Second, why is there no condemnation of promiscuous unmarried heterosexuals, e.g. college students?  Well, this point being raised there would be by anyone who debates me.  OTOH, the promiscuity bomb is dropped in the article which is simply prejudicial and loaded.

No one REALLY knows what gay marriage is like because it hasn't been allowed to happen.  All of these examples that are "cited" are false comparisons.

I don't think anyone disagrees that a stable home is better for kids.  But I think it's hubris that Christians have a lock on happiness.

In reply to Heath (msg #20):

I have to agree with badpenny on this one.  The article makes it explicit that it is opposed to homosexuality for religious reasons.

Also, as badpenny points out, it compares straight married couples to unmarried gay couples, and blames the entire difference on homosexuality, even though the first half the article points out the differences that marriage makes.  Further, though, it shouldn't matter if gay couples are statistically different.  Black couples are statistically different from white couples in the US, but it would be unethical to bar them from marriage.  Rich couples are statistically different from poor couples, but it would be unethical to ban poor from getting married.  Educated couples are statistically different to uneducated couples, but it would be unethical to ban uneducated people from getting married.  All this shows that the "homosexuals have a different rate of X, therefor they shouldn't be allowed to marry" is a fallacious argument, which we reject in many other cases.

Lastly, after listing the benefits of marriage in the first half of the article, doesn't it make it all the more important to give homosexuals the right to marry?  If married people are happier, live longer, etc., it's not just an issue of what society "prefers" as Heath often tells us.  It's about denying very real, tangible benefits.  If marriage really does extend your lifespan, denying homosexuals the right to marry is effectively removing years from their lives.  If married couples really suffer less long-term illness, then denying homosexuals the right to marry is condemning them to illnesses they could otherwise avoid.

Heath will often tell us "all the legal benefits of marriage are available to homosexuals through other channels, so they don't need marriage to get these benefits."  This article tells us, though, that there are very real benefits beyond just the legal ones.  And banning gay marriage keeps homosexuals from getting them.  In light of this, Heath's position that marriage is just an issue of "a license granted to promote an ideal" rings hollow.  If we accept what this article tells us, it's not just a license.  It comes with many life-changing benefits.  Denying gays the right to marry in this case isn't just society telling them "sorry, that's not what we want to promote," it's actually knocking years off their life, reducing their happiness, and inflicting long-term illness on them.

I know this is a little off on a tangent, but the RCC requires all couples go through about six months waiting period plus some education 'classes' and interviews before they got married. My wife and I had to actually pass a standardized test :) (I just copied all her answers). So indeed, they do require you be educated.

I'm of the opinion that, indeed, it could be ethical to ban people who are uneducated about marriage from getting married. Marriage is NOT a protected right, and it comes with some nice benefits, plus as a contract it is oftentimes abused. We require proof before offering tax breaks for running a small business or for claiming a child credit - why don't we ask for proof before allowing people to file jointly?

Two points:  one, the catholic church is free to make you jump through whatever hoops it likes before it marries you.  It can make you walk across hot coals if it likes.  The government, on the other hand, can't.

Two, I'm not talking about "Educated about marriage," just plain educated.  I hope we all agree it would be wrong for the government to ban people without a master degree or higher from marrying, even though people with higher education levels are statistically different in many categories.

I understand both points (2 I should have clarified - I realized what you were talking about, but it brought up another point for me). But that doesn't change the question - should they?

Should they require a test on what marriage means before granting a marriage license?  I guess I wouldn't be particularly bothered by it (though, depending on who gets to write the test, it could be abused).

Presumably it would be a test on what marriage means as an institution, whether there are any outside forces which might be pushing you to marriage without actual consent (under the influence, trying to get a green card, etc.) Failure on these would mean no license. There would also be a compatibility test, which wouldn't keep you from getting married, but would make sure you know how much you know or don't know about your SO.

What it legally means, or what it ideally means?  There's the danger, I think.  As people have differing views on the later, and depending on who gets to write the test (or grade it), it could be used to discriminate against those with opposing view points.

The legal intent (and ramifications) of marriage - that they do in fact live together, monogamously. How children are dealt with, how personal finances are dealt with, the sort of things people should try before seeking a divorce (the things a judge would probably tell them to do anyway), etc.

But some of those are a bit subjective.  How to deal with personal finances?  How to deal with children?  I imagine if you asked the different married people here, even, you'd get at least slightly different descriptions of those.  If one person gets to write/grade the quiz the passing answers might be "the woman stays at home, raises the kids, and makes dinner for the man," but if another person gets to write the quiz, the passing answer might be "both parties should be treated as completely equal in all decisions, and both should share the work and child-raising equally," and those surely aren't the only two answers either.  As for living together, there's a fairly long tradition of people getting married just before one of them is sent off to war for months or years.

The legal specifics of marriage I could see being fairly objectively testing (ie, do you know what the legal agreement you're about to enter actually says), but intents and such seem more subjective, and that gives a lot of potential for abuse.

These issues are currently addressed by many programs, and can be kept pretty basic. Even as (I think) a good parent, I'm not going to agree with most other parents on at least something, but there are some things no one can disagree with; kids need good nutrition. It is against the law to do X. Kids need to get regular medical care. If you are seriously concerned for your mental health, you can call X. In the case of a medical emergency, call X.

I'm talking about the basic stuff people get arrested for not doing.

Going back to Octomom's kids:
A quick use of the calculator, the assumption that 115000 a month is accurate, and that it was for the bundle of 8 (instead of each), means that if you are a taxpayer in the U.S. for all of your life you will help pay the debt of 24.84 million during their first 18. They can be considered minors for certain civil benefits up to the age of 23, I think, but those won't go to Octomom.

I don't think we should expect to pay $100k for these kids every month for their entire lives.  That's more than $10k each, every month.  I haven't seen see any reason to expect them to be getting that much from the government for 18 years.

And what would be the purpose, Katisara? Yeah, I get the informing perspective couples of the terms of marriage part, but what happens to those who fail the test? Are they not married?

And, if they're not allowed to marry, do you really believe that will stop them from cohabitation and creating families? In the end, I don't feel it will change anything, only the effects on marriage statistics. I mean, I really do want to take you at your word that this is an altruistic effort, and it may be, but a certain skeptical part of me feels like this is an effort to change the statistics on marriage to a more favorable light, rather than actually solving relationship problems. In essence, a way to distinguish the "real marriages" from the next.

People are still going to be in said relationship, even if they're not allowed to marry, and they will still have children. And, if you really believe in the goodness and benefits of marriage that many have posted on these forums, all it seems one is doing to denying said benefits to families that arguably need them the most.

We'd probably have to seize their genitals, just to be sure.

Seriously, their not getting married isn't a big loss. They had no idea what they were doing beforehand. If you say "here's our pamphlet on 'how not to get arrested for child abuse'. Come in again tomorrow and take the test again," then you're at least encouraging awareness. People who show signs of not only being incompetent parents, but downright dangerous parents, probably should not get the tax benefits meant for encouraging stable family units, so there's a financial encouragement there too.

I mean sure, even though we put "slow, tight turn ahead" signs up, some people still drive too fast at dangerous spots and drive off the road, some people may slow down and think a bit harder first.

I think you find it an acceptable loss if they can't get married. I'm not sure they or their churches would. There's a hefty deal of anti-intellectualism in certain sects of this country that won't take very kindly to the notion that only people who can pass a technical heavy exam can marry. There are people who would see this is a human rights issue, or even a religious issue, who see the government regulating marriage as an act of unholy tyranny by the state.

It's not that I disagree with the concept. I too wish people would take marriage more seriously. But I'm not entirely sure it can be implemented in a way without either unfairness or without heavy political opposition.

Not to mention, I'm not sure it'll work even if it could be implemented in a fair way. It may be different where you live, but around here, people hardly pay attention to following the rules they were taught to pass the driving exams, to attain a license. The way one drives in those tests seems to be a very poor indicator of how they will drive from that point on. In essence, it seems that all it will force people to do is to, at large, teach to the test, instead of giving them real life lessons.

Actually, the amount was in the neighborhood of $113k per month according the news article.  That included food, rent, clothes, nanny care (which will be required for that many kids), meeting their special needs, health care costs (such as neonatal care and ongoing care), etc.  And I think the number was based on her 14 kids, not just the 8 newborns.  I thought the number seemed high too, but the article broke it down, and it made sense.

I don't know if it said for 18 years worth of their lives.  Probably depends on their ongoing health care needs.

Like I said, I don't see any reason to expect $10k per kid per month to last 18 years.  For things like neonatal care, sure, I could see that (and wouldn't object to that money being spent--again, I don't want to punish those kids for their mother's bad decision).  But I wouldn't expect those expenses to stay that high for their 18 years.

I agree with you.  Don't punish the kids...

The point is that she made what I consider to be an awfully bad decision and now is like "whatever" (shrugging) and taking our tax money.  And if you watched the interviews, she's very hostile about her "right" to the money.  Her mother told her that people used to have to work to earn money to raise their kids.  She pretty much completely attacked her mother with comments indicating it's not like that anymore, and those standards don't apply now.

Shows the generation of entitlement.  Unfortunately, when those who work to earn the money for those who think their "entitled" take their money elsewhere, retire, or just plain give up, where's their "entitlement" money going to come from?

This isn't the article I initially read, but it's the same point (and mistakenly, I said $113,000 per month, but this article correctly states $135k per month).  Also, this article states that that is EXCLUSIVE of neonatal care:


http://www.monstersandcritics....gels%5C_may_be_broke

Still sounds to me like it's a short term thing (or, at least I haven't seen anything indicating otherwise).  Even if it's for 14 kids, that still nearly $10k per month each, which seems well over what many people manage to spend on their kids.

And I don't disagree that octomom's feelings of entitlement are bad, but again, I'm more worried about the financial sector's feeling of entitlement at the moment.  If we sort out the economy, and stop giving away billions to banks, wrap up the wars we're spending billions on, etc., then maybe I'll have some left over rage to point in octomom's direction.

That's the point, though.  Because she has 14 kids and no husband, she requires much more costly care than the average person who works and has someone to take care of a reasonable brood.  She's going to require around the clock nanny care from several nannies, which wouldn't happen if she had made an intelligent decision instead of relying on the state to support after making a terrible decision.

My point is that she should adopt out the children.  (I think her own mother said the same thing.)