Looks like someone enjoyed her time in jail

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Nor do I, but sometimes you just have to do the expedient thing. I live in a townhouse complex and Saturdays were becoming unbearable, because we were such a "target rich environment." What I really wanted to do was greet them at the door while wearing a red bathrobe and holding a dead chicken, and a knife, then ask them if they wanted to join my church but, unfortunately, I figured that I would go broke just paying for the number of chickens I'd need.

My uncle used to get a lot of Jehovah Witnesses knocking on his door. He would open the door and talk to them... for a long time. Unfortunately for them, he has a PhD in philosophy1. They avoid his house now. Fortunately I haven't had a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness come to my door in a while. One time I had a couple of Baptist show up at my door. I was surprised, as I didn't think that Baptists were into that kind of stuff.





[sblock=1]Pretty useless unless you want to annoy Jehovah Witnesses it seems[/sblock]

 

[Ryujin]

My uncle used to get a lot of Jehovah Witnesses knocking on his door. He would open the door and talk to them... for a long time. Unfortunately for them, he has a PhD in philosophy1. They avoid his house now. Fortunately I haven't had a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness come to my door in a while. One time I had a couple of Baptist show up at my door. I was surprised, as I didn't think that Baptists were into that kind of stuff.

[sblock=1]Pretty useless unless you want to annoy Jehovah Witnesses it seems[/sblock]

A video of your uncle doing that would have first class entertainment value.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

A video of your uncle doing that would have first class entertainment value.

I passed by his house one day, and he had a young couple with a baby in a stroller standing outside his house. He was talking to them, and it wasn't until I got to the front door that I realized they were Jehovah Witnesses. Apparently he had them out there for almost an hour before I got there. Mind you, this was in the middle of summer, in Miami. I was sweating by the time I walked the 20 feet from the driveway to the front door. The heat and humidity is torture out here in the summer. I stayed at his house for another 30 minutes. The couple and the kid were still out there. By that time, the guy was sweating through his shirt. The girl looked like a wreck. Her hair was all messed up, and she was sweating almost as bad as the guy, who made the mistake of walking around in a suit. I took pity on the kid in the troller, and distracted my uncle long enough that they were able to take their kid and run off. He'd actually taken out several philosophy books, a Bible, and some other books that he was using to explain to them how they were wrong about everything.
My uncle is also the guy who didn't want to go to a Christmas party until he found out that the person hosting, a long-time family friend, was going to have her preacher over at the party. His only intention of going was to go discuss religion with the preacher. After about an hour, the preacher looked like he was shaking and about to denounce God for having punished him with my uncle.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Down to a semantic debate? Not a good day for you.

That you think this is telling.

My original point was that unmarried couples were discriminated upon. And you agree with it: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-jail/page25&p=6759947&viewfull=1#post6759947

People have answered that. They are discriminated against, it for the benefit of the child, and it's lawful discrimination. You don't like that, and that's fine, but you've been so consistently wrong on the details (the only one left to you is that unmarried couples are discriminated against -- you lost your own province's marriage laws, singles, and same-sex/miscegenation) that you should probably take some time to reconsider the basis for your arguments.

 

[Kramodlog]

They are discriminated against, it for the benefit of the child,

And that is false. Going through that ritual, like gender and ethnicity, doesn't give people better or worse parenting skills. This is why it is unfair discrimination. Going through the ritual is a meaningless criteria when trying to determine if couples are fit to be foster parents.

Unless you think the ritual gives special magical parenting powers to those who go through with it. That is totally different. If you think so you can tell me. I won't judge.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And that is false. Going through that ritual, like gender and ethnicity, doesn't give people better or worse parenting skills. This is why it is unfair discrimination. Going through the ritual is a meaningless criteria when trying to determine if couples are fit to be foster parents.

Unless you think the ritual gives special magical parenting powers to those who go through with it. That is totally different. If you think so you can tell me. I won't judge.

It provides a layer of legal protection to the child that the dissolution of the couple will entail an equitable division of the assets of that couple, which will benefit the child. It also provides a protection to the child in that the dissolution of the couple isn't a trivial matter of whim, but must be an intended legal action.

It has nothing to do with appropriate parenting skills.

 

[Kramodlog]

It provides a layer of legal protection to the child that the dissolution of the couple will entail an equitable division of the assets of that couple, which will benefit the child.

Yeah, cause no child of a married couple was left with a parent in financial difficulty and no child of an unmarried couple was left with a parent with a good financial situation. *wink wink*

Thing is, if that actually did offer something the child, which it doesn't, couples who didn't go through the ritual can have that same protection just by going to a lawyer. The government discriminates unmarried couples by not even giving them the chance to be evaluated and show that they have the worthless documents and what really counts: parenting skills. Here those documents aren't even a necessacity to become a foster parent and surprise, foster kids are ok. Amazing. As if marriage doesn't mean anything when it comes to providing a good environment to kids.

It also provides a protection to the child in that the dissolution of the couple isn't a trivial matter of whim, but must be an intended legal action.

Right. No married couple left each other on a whim. *wink wink*

Your arguments rest on an idealized vision of marriage that has nothing to do with reality. The ritual and the legal stuff that comes with it doesn't garanty anything for adopted foster kids. Unmarried couples are penalized because of this vision that marriage means something better and ultimately it is kids who are deprived of potential nurturing environments to grow in.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, cause no child of a married couple was left with a parent in financial difficulty and no child of an unmarried couple was left with a parent with a good financial situation. *wink wink*

No one ever has said that.

Thing is, if that actually did offer something the child, which it doesn't, couples who didn't go through the ritual can have that same protection just by going to a lawyer. The government discriminates unmarried couples by not even giving them the chance to be evaluated and show that they have the worthless documents and what really counts: parenting skills. Here those documents aren't even a necessacity to become a foster parent and surprise, foster kids are ok. Amazing. As if marriage doesn't mean anything when it comes to providing a good environment to kids.

The US doesn't recognize legal contracts as equivalent to marriage. That may be a failing, it may not (as civil marriage is really just a legal contract, so why look for a different one?). But your argument that marriage doesn't provide a benefit is false. It's been repeatably proven that a stable, two parent household is superior to single parent households. Marriage is the only way the state has to legally proscribe a two parent household (see above for the lack of recognition of contracted homes). So it is clearly in the child's interest for the state to place them into such a two parent household, hence the preference for married couples, because non-married couples have no legal existence.

Right. No married couple left each other on a whim. *wink wink*

No one's made that argument either. Regardless of the reason, there is legal protection in a marriage if one or both partners decide to whim out of the relationship.

Your arguments rest on an idealized vision of marriage that has nothing to do with reality. The ritual and the legal stuff that comes with it doesn't garanty anything for adopted foster kids. Unmarried couples are penalized because of this vision that marriage means something better and ultimately it is kids who are deprived of potential nurturing environments to grow in.

No, it absolutely doesn't rest on an idealized vision of marriage. I've ascribed no qualities to marriage outside of the legal definitions and protections present in the marriage. I've made no case that married couples are superior in parental ability or love to un-married couples. I've only ever pointed out that there are legal protections around marriage that benefit the child that are not present in unmarried couples. Hence the discrimination against unmarried couples.

I get that inventing my arguments means that you can safely and easily dismiss them (and me), but, in reality, you aren't winning any points by doing so.

 

[Janx]

And that is false. Going through that ritual, like gender and ethnicity, doesn't give people better or worse parenting skills. This is why it is unfair discrimination. Going through the ritual is a meaningless criteria when trying to determine if couples are fit to be foster parents.

To inject a bit of info here:

We've gone through the process to become adoptive parents. It cost money and we had to have our home inspected by a social worker, interviews, recommendations from friends and a minimum of 10 hours of training.

We're probably better qualified than 2 people who meet and screw and end up pregnant.

The process we went through was identical for married/unmarried/gay couples. It didn't seem discriminating to couple types, so much as unfair to couples who couldn't have a kid versus the scores of unqualified people breeding without regulation.

 

[Kramodlog]

To inject a bit of info here:

We've gone through the process to become adoptive parents. It cost money and we had to have our home inspected by a social worker, interviews, recommendations from friends and a minimum of 10 hours of training.

We're probably better qualified than 2 people who meet and screw and end up pregnant.

The process we went through was identical for married/unmarried/gay couples. It didn't seem discriminating to couple types, so much as unfair to couples who couldn't have a kid versus the scores of unqualified people breeding without regulation.

Its very cool that you adopted. One of my sisters and one of my brothers each adopted in China. It is a heck of a process and an expensive one at that.

I'm not sure where you live, but I'm guessing it isn't Utah. The law that forbids unmarried couples to adopt foster kids at the center of the conversation is in Utah.