funny, I disagree almost completely about most of these things. Drivers license, sure. I see that as an ok thing because there is a definite and direct link to people's safety and driving. It is measurable, it is easy to tell who is a safety hazard/risk based on their driving performance. For the other things? Well, I think it's all too gray.
As for a license/test for procreation, while I have at times thought, "Gee that would be great! All these people having babies and living on welfare / abusing their kids / doing drugs / fill in the blank" I really don't want that level of government intervention... from the beginning, at least. I know it is something that was talked about and studied in the history of the US (namely, making some people sterile who were deemed 'unfit' to be parents) but I want to know, who is good enough to decide that this person or that person is good enough to be a parent? Who decides what the criterion is? And if you don't make enough money now, how do you force someone to be on birth control that isn't permanent, just in case their financial situation changes? And what if they were financially sound when they were approved, and now they're pregnant and lost their job? Does that mean they are required to get an abortion?
Since marriage is supposed to be forever, it seems silly to have an expiration/renewal date for a marriage license. Though I know it's really NOT forever in this country, what the heck is the point of marriage if in 5 years you know it'll expire anyway, so you can just give up then? Not to mention the fact that it's hard enough for some people to get married (I'm thinking gay people for now... though it used to be interracial couples.) So what if the person making the decision has a bias but can make up a good enough reason to not let the people continue their marriage? And also, from my (counseling) standpoint, forced intervention to keep a marriage healthy never works. Both parties have to want it. And what if they think it's healthy but the person doing the evaluation doesn't? Who gets to be the judge of that? No... too many problems in most of these scenarios if you ask me.
Who decides the criteria for the procreation license test; and Marriage being difficult for some couples to obtain.
I've heard of doctors "slipping" and sterilizing someone during their 4-5 c-section because they thought they needed to stop having kids. It's a nasty can of worms to open - I guess the friendliest way to present it is as "parent education," and maybe there could be a discount on healthcare or free carseats and baby formula for complying?
My proposal about marriage, besides its flaws related to bias and oversight, is related to making it more of a legal instituion, like becoming incorporated, with an expiration date.
You decide that you and "Suzie" love each other and want to have children, share a home and/or have health insurance benefits/final arrangements together. Because one of you may/may not work or needs insurance or want the tax break, the "marriage" partnership is available in five year increments. You file with this other person and they are treated (for all intents and purposes) as your spouse.
You're right though, who decides if you're compliant, what are the criteria? What falls within the scope of the agreement, what about polyamory?
As for a license/test for procreation, while I have at times thought, "Gee that would be great! All these people having babies and living on welfare / abusing their kids / doing drugs / fill in the blank" I really don't want that level of government intervention... from the beginning, at least. I know it is something that was talked about and studied in the history of the US (namely, making some people sterile who were deemed 'unfit' to be parents) but I want to know, who is good enough to decide that this person or that person is good enough to be a parent? Who decides what the criterion is? And if you don't make enough money now, how do you force someone to be on birth control that isn't permanent, just in case their financial situation changes? And what if they were financially sound when they were approved, and now they're pregnant and lost their job? Does that mean they are required to get an abortion?
Since marriage is supposed to be forever, it seems silly to have an expiration/renewal date for a marriage license. Though I know it's really NOT forever in this country, what the heck is the point of marriage if in 5 years you know it'll expire anyway, so you can just give up then? Not to mention the fact that it's hard enough for some people to get married (I'm thinking gay people for now... though it used to be interracial couples.) So what if the person making the decision has a bias but can make up a good enough reason to not let the people continue their marriage? And also, from my (counseling) standpoint, forced intervention to keep a marriage healthy never works. Both parties have to want it. And what if they think it's healthy but the person doing the evaluation doesn't? Who gets to be the judge of that? No... too many problems in most of these scenarios if you ask me.
Reply
Who decides the criteria for the procreation license test;
and
Marriage being difficult for some couples to obtain.
I've heard of doctors "slipping" and sterilizing someone during their 4-5 c-section because they thought they needed to stop having kids. It's a nasty can of worms to open - I guess the friendliest way to present it is as "parent education," and maybe there could be a discount on healthcare or free carseats and baby formula for complying?
My proposal about marriage, besides its flaws related to bias and oversight, is related to making it more of a legal instituion, like becoming incorporated, with an expiration date.
You decide that you and "Suzie" love each other and want to have children, share a home and/or have health insurance benefits/final arrangements together. Because one of you may/may not work or needs insurance or want the tax break, the "marriage" partnership is available in five year increments. You file with this other person and they are treated (for all intents and purposes) as your spouse.
You're right though, who decides if you're compliant, what are the criteria? What falls within the scope of the agreement, what about polyamory?
Reply
Leave a comment