How? Is not child support based on whos genetic material created the kid, rather than marriage?
I'm not sure what this implies.
Also, how does marriage keep parents off welfare? Is this based on the premise that two incomes are more likely to be able to provide enough for the child? Makes sense, but thats covered by child support, isnt it?
Married parents, no matter who earns the bread, usually keep one household, spend less money on lawyers, don't waste as much money trying to buy their kids' affection, don't waste time shuttling children from house to house, and don't have both parents supporting a second or third family in a second or third marriage. And that's just the beginning. Our current system is foolishly biased towards mothers in matters of custody. The foolishness lies in that divorce would be less common if divorce meant that men had to take care of the children (which they should, as they generally earn more money) and women would be seperated from their children. Regarding welfare, by which I mean government aid generally, it seems reasonable to assume that single mothers are more likely than marrieds to need govt. assistance. Especially as child support requires that the father actually pay. Then we must consider how the children behave later in life. Patterns of divorce and out-of-wedlock births pass down from generation to generation, just as other behaviors do. Also, the negative effects of the fatherless home are not a secret.
Marriage as a way to keep a family stable? Ever heard of people screwin around outside of marriage?
Uh, yeah and yeah. Ever thought how much more third-party sex goes on without marriage in the picture? Marriage applies social and legal pressure on men to be faithful to wife and kids, and on women to avoid having illegitimi.* Please don't tell me that these items do not matter. I will not know what to do with you.
I dont have to look hard at all to find...marriages falling apart, or causing exponentially more friction because two badly mismatched people feel an obligation to stay with one another to the detriment of all involved.
So a contentious marriage is worse than the ridiculous, court-ordered custody-sharing, legal wrangles, unpaid child support, and everything else mentioned above? This is outdated thinking, popular when divorce was the latest trend in women's liberation, but long-ago debunked by the ubiquitous complications of divorce.
As for protecting society from these ills, well, end welfare. Those kids with parents on said wont benefit from being around parents who cant (or more likely, wont) provide for them. Put them in a family that wants them AND can care for them, so that the only ones being harmed by their own poverty is the parents.
Speaking of socialism, this smacks of B.F. Skinner! I add another ! for emphasis! My goodness, man, like I said earlier:
"Our choice is a leviathan state with layer upon layer of safety nets for fatherless children and single mothers, and a huge law enforcement and prison system to deal with the crime that results, or a society that supports itself with strong families."
I would love to see federal welfare entirely replaced by charity groups or local govt, of course. Marriage and moral standards, in a culture that values them much more highly than our own, are the best way to keep families solvent. As it is, we can't possibly eliminate welfare; too many Americans are too corrupt to take care of themselves. And the Democrats have buses to take them to the poles!
In the end, I agree with you that a pair of upstanding parents is the best environment for raising a child. However, that environment comes from two well-matched, loving people with good, consistent morals. The legal contract of marriage doesnt cause those things, nor are those properties a pre-requisite for nuptials.
I didn't say marriage could do everything, but it can encourage morality and commitment. However, it is not as if heredity means nothing to children; abandonment by a parent can scar a person for life. And something else I said earlier.
"Now if people are raising children together and can't or won't marry, then perhaps there should be some sort of civil union arranged on the basis of child custody, but as this is inferior to marriage, it should not be put on the same legal footing."
*Yeah, I know that ain't proper Latin, or at least Wiki said so. I'm gonna go look up "ain't."