Strictly economically it makes sense. Marriages used to have an income-earning component and a domestic component, but labor-saving devices and other advances have pretty much obliterated the need for the domestic component. It is actually more advantageous to have both out in the market. So the definition of marriage is changed, and gay marriages and straight marriages both make sense in the new economic model.

Not very romantic, but...

[www.washingtonpost.com]

Bishop William E. Lori, or future Archbishop William E. Lori maybe I should say, was on Maryland Morning today. I heard him talking about how it's so important for children to have parental role models that include both sexes. Which made me laugh, because the fifties are gone buddy, and the parental role models may not be what you think they are. I know if I had had children, they would think that Mommies go to work and Daddies stay home and buy groceries and cook and clean and build scale models. Which would be fine with me but I imagine ol' Bishop William might be taken aback.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

>>Marriages used to have an income-earning component and a domestic component, but labor-saving devices and other advances have pretty much obliterated the need for the domestic component.

Well, except for child-rearing, which I still think is best done mostly by at least one of the parents. The linked article just barely mentions parenting, and they make it sound more like a hobby or something. kj.

Quote
$tevie
Bishop William E. Lori, or future Archbishop William E. Lori maybe I should say, was on Maryland Morning today. I heard him talking about how it's so important for children to have parental role models that include both sexes. Which made me laugh, because the fifties are gone buddy, and the parental role models may not be what you think they are. I know if I had had children, they would think that Mommies go to work and Daddies stay home and buy groceries and cook and clean and build scale models. Which would be fine with me but I imagine ol' Bishop William might be taken aback.

nothing to ad - just wanna say that this is a wonderful post

Quote
$tevie
Which made me laugh, because the fifties are gone buddy, and the parental role models may not be what you think they are.

But the bishops are just doing their level best to drag us all BACK to the fifties! Points for perseverance and nothing else - i ain't going!

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

What's wrong with the 50's? Back then, at least one of the parents could afford to stay home and be there with the kid. Gee, I wonder where that buying power went.

not to take anything away from same-sex marriage and child rearing, but there's something to be said for experiencing the yin-yang of male-female parents.

obviously, there are exceptions, single parents who did a fantastic job, yada yada.

i am thankful for the DINK couples, gay or straight, who help bolster our economy with their ability to spend unlike those of us with children to raise.

it takes all kinds, really.

---

[www.giyf.com]

Quote
$tevie
I know if I had had children, they would think that Mommies go to work and Daddies stay home and buy groceries and cook and clean and build scale models.

Any more like you at around?

Quote
Wags

Quote
$tevie
I know if I had had children, they would think that Mommies go to work and Daddies stay home and buy groceries and cook and clean and build scale models.

Any more like you at around?

Women who hate cooking and cleaning? I think there's a lot of us out there but it was something that couldn't be admitted until recently.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

Quote
$tevie

Quote
Wags

Quote
$tevie
I know if I had had children, they would think that Mommies go to work and Daddies stay home and buy groceries and cook and clean and build scale models.

Any more like you at around?

Women who hate cooking and cleaning? I think there's a lot of us out there but it was something that couldn't be admitted until recently.

You could admit it, you just had to keep doing it or society would ridicule for not doing your traditional chores.

---

in tha 510.

My wife can neither cook nor clean so just gave up trying and we all applauded that decision.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2012 12:05AM by RgrF.

Quote
$tevie
Bishop William E. Lori, or future Archbishop William E. Lori maybe I should say, was on Maryland Morning today. I heard him talking about how it's so important for children to have parental role models that include both sexes. Which made me laugh, because the fifties are gone buddy, and the parental role models may not be what you think they are. I know if I had had children, they would think that Mommies go to work and Daddies stay home and buy groceries and cook and clean and build scale models. Which would be fine with me but I imagine ol' Bishop William might be taken aback.

Say, post some pix of Daddy's scale models!

---

[www.flickr.com] [picasaweb.google.com]

Quote
Dennis S
What's wrong with the 50's? Back then, at least one of the parents could afford to stay home and be there with the kid. Gee, I wonder where that buying power went.

Major... I mean MAJOR Myth. While 'stay at home mom' implies she's producing no income, many moms either ran cottage industry or worked part time.

Exactly why do you think Tupperware and Avon experienced such a resurgence ? It's not the 'bored housewife' meme.. it's the need for more money.

My mother worked as a substitute teacher while we were in school. Sure, she was home most of the time when we were, but she was busting her butt out there.

Quote
cbelt3

Quote
Dennis S
What's wrong with the 50's? Back then, at least one of the parents could afford to stay home and be there with the kid. Gee, I wonder where that buying power went.

Major... I mean MAJOR Myth. While 'stay at home mom' implies she's producing no income, many moms either ran cottage industry or worked part time.

Exactly why do you think Tupperware and Avon experienced such a resurgence ? It's not the 'bored housewife' meme.. it's the need for more money.

My mother worked as a substitute teacher while we were in school. Sure, she was home most of the time when we were, but she was busting her butt out there.

You paint yourself as an old-timey when it fits your story-- but by some of your accounts you weren't even born yet in the 50s?

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

I was born in the late 1950's.

Quote
cbelt3

Quote
Dennis S
What's wrong with the 50's? Back then, at least one of the parents could afford to stay home and be there with the kid. Gee, I wonder where that buying power went.

Major... I mean MAJOR Myth. While 'stay at home mom' implies she's producing no income, many moms either ran cottage industry or worked part time.

Exactly why do you think Tupperware and Avon experienced such a resurgence ? It's not the 'bored housewife' meme.. it's the need for more money.

My mother worked as a substitute teacher while we were in school. Sure, she was home most of the time when we were, but she was busting her butt out there.

Horsefeathers! Just because you say something doesn't make it true.

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland

Quote
cbelt3
I was born in the late 1950's.

Not gonna tear the forum apart looking for it but I was suprised sometime in the last year by your noting that you graduated high school in 1981. Thanks for the clarification.

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

Quote
davester

Quote
cbelt3

Quote
Dennis S
What's wrong with the 50's? Back then, at least one of the parents could afford to stay home and be there with the kid. Gee, I wonder where that buying power went.

Major... I mean MAJOR Myth. While 'stay at home mom' implies she's producing no income, many moms either ran cottage industry or worked part time.

Exactly why do you think Tupperware and Avon experienced such a resurgence ? It's not the 'bored housewife' meme.. it's the need for more money.

My mother worked as a substitute teacher while we were in school. Sure, she was home most of the time when we were, but she was busting her butt out there.

Horsefeathers! Just because you say something doesn't make it true.

Wow, no love for cbelt today.

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

Quote
Black

Quote
davester

Quote
cbelt3

Quote
Dennis S
What's wrong with the 50's? Back then, at least one of the parents could afford to stay home and be there with the kid. Gee, I wonder where that buying power went.

Major... I mean MAJOR Myth. While 'stay at home mom' implies she's producing no income, many moms either ran cottage industry or worked part time.

Exactly why do you think Tupperware and Avon experienced such a resurgence ? It's not the 'bored housewife' meme.. it's the need for more money.

My mother worked as a substitute teacher while we were in school. Sure, she was home most of the time when we were, but she was busting her butt out there.

Horsefeathers! Just because you say something doesn't make it true.

Wow, no love for cbelt today.

Actually it's no love for fact-free posting.

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland

I'm sorry for the threadjack. We might want to consider discussing the OP now.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

Fine. Reality.

[www.bls.gov]

"Although the economy was in a
mild recession between mid-1960 and
early 1961, female workforce participation
rates continued their steady climb,
from 33.9 percent in 1950 to 37.7 percent
in 1960. In contrast, male participation
rates, after peaking in 1950 at
86.4 percent, declined to 83.3 percent
in 1960. Women made up 32.3 percent
of the U.S. workforce."

MYTH.

Quote
$tevie
I'm sorry for the threadjack. We might want to consider discussing the OP now.

[snarky "my --- don't stink" hall monitor graphic]

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

FWIW, I'm pretty sure I've pointed out many of those points in the article on discussions here. From a government perspective, Gay Marriage makes excellent economic sense. It's rather simple:

Upsides:
1- Children are very rare. Children make you sick and tired (at least my Dad always said he was "Sick and Tired" of me... ) So lower medical costs.
2- Higher income potential due to point #1. Bigger income tax. Bigger spending and sales/use tax. Bigger residential taxes.
3- No heirs due to point #1. Bigger death tax.
4- Population growth slows due to point #1. Lower infrastructure costs.

From a government's perspective, Marriage should ONLY be between a Man and a Man or a Woman and a Woman.

Quote
cbelt3
FWIW, I'm pretty sure I've pointed out many of those points in the article on discussions here. From a government perspective, Gay Marriage makes excellent economic sense. It's rather simple:

Upsides:
1- Children are very rare. Children make you sick and tired (at least my Dad always said he was "Sick and Tired" of me... ) So lower medical costs.
2- Higher income potential due to point #1. Bigger income tax. Bigger spending and sales/use tax. Bigger residential taxes.
3- No heirs due to point #1. Bigger death tax.
4- Population growth slows due to point #1. Lower infrastructure costs.

From a government's perspective, Marriage should ONLY be between a Man and a Man or a Woman and a Woman.

Almost all the people I know who are in same-sex marriages have children. I think its too early in the same sex marriage game to make any generalizations about what fraction of those couples will have children compared to those in heterosexual marriages. If I had to guess I'd say the proportion would be about the same as the general populace.

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2012 11:46AM by davester.

Quote
cbelt3
Fine. Reality.

[www.bls.gov]

"Although the economy was in a
mild recession between mid-1960 and
early 1961, female workforce participation
rates continued their steady climb,
from 33.9 percent in 1950 to 37.7 percent
in 1960. In contrast, male participation
rates, after peaking in 1950 at
86.4 percent, declined to 83.3 percent
in 1960. Women made up 32.3 percent
of the U.S. workforce."

MYTH.

That has no bearing on your statement that stay a home moms ran cottage industries or worked part time.

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland

davester...

Good points. The same sex couples I know don't have children. My opinions are of course developed from my own observations.

Out of curiosity, and of course not statistically relevant... how did they have the children ? One assumes some sort of medical (insemination, surrogacy) or legal (adoption) intervention was required.

A heterosexual couple doesn't need any help to make a baby. And most healthcare plans (and Medicaid / WIC/ etc. help with the process for low income situations). But for same-gender couples, there's a lot of expensive help needed, and none of it (as far as I know) is paid by insurance or the government. This implies a level of wealth that makes the 'Mommy stays home with the kiddies' an irrelevant argument when comparing household economies.

Quote
cbelt3
davester...

Out of curiosity, and of course not statistically relevant... how did they have the children ? One assumes some sort of medical (insemination, surrogacy) or legal (adoption) intervention was required.
.

Previous marriage works sometimes, too.

My understanding is that it is very difficult for same sex couples to adopt. The only people I know who've adopted have been heterosexual couples, and they paid through the nose. The same sex couples I know with children bore them through pregnancy. I have never asked abut the gory details of insemination. However, in the absence of fertility problems, artificial insemination is very cheap, about $300 to $500 per session [www.ehow.com] (and much cheaper for DIYers), an irrelevant amount compared to the cost of pre-natal care, delivery, post-natal care, and raising a child. Perhaps you are confusing the cost of insemination of healthy people with the cost of an infertile couple going to a fertility clinic. It requires no excess of wealth for same sex couples to have children.

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland

Quote
cbelt3
davester...

Good points. The same sex couples I know don't have children. My opinions are of course developed from my own observations.

Out of curiosity, and of course not statistically relevant... how did they have the children ? One assumes some sort of medical (insemination, surrogacy) or legal (adoption) intervention was required.

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

Black.. yup. I think the key tool is a turkey baster.

Quote
davester
Almost all the people I know who are in same-sex marriages have children. I think its too early in the same sex marriage game to make any generalizations about what fraction of those couples will have children compared to those in heterosexual marriages. If I had to guess I'd say the proportion would be about the same as the general populace.

According to the Census Bureau, in 2008 13.9 percent of male-male unmarried couple and 26.5 percent of female-female unmarried couple households contain children, compared to 43 percent for female-male couple households (numbers are similar for married and unmarried).

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Quote

All these developments have increased the opportunity cost of having a spouse stay home, because that spouse now has greater value in the marketplace. As a result, our grandparents’ marriages, in which husband and wife have separate roles and spheres, are no longer so popular. Two-earner couples have become the norm, and families spend less time on housework.
...
Viewed through an economic frame, modern partnerships are based upon “consumption complementarities” -- the joy of sharing things and experiences -- rather than the production-based gains that motivated traditional marriage. Consistent with this, co-parenting has replaced the separate roles of nurturer and disciplinarian.

I think that people bemoaning same sex couples do believe that men are men and women are women and that gender roles aren't interchangeable. Whereas eventually I think that it will be quite normal for a person to follow the role(s) that they are drawn to/adept in, so it won't seem odd for two women or two men to raise a child, because the heterosexual couples won't be any more tied to the old gender roles than the homosexual couples are.

I have also seen studies that indicate that it is not really financially advantageous for both members of a couple to work outside the home, because the cost of child care and commuting and lunches and everything will add up to less than the second person is earning. I imagine this applies to middle- and lower- income homes, as opposed to a household where both people are highly paid professionals.

This is probably one of those situations where once we are all dead, the generations following us won't even be able to imagine why marriage equality was an issue in the first place. It will be like slavery or prohibition, a bizarre period in the past that makes no sense to them.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

Quote
Black

Quote
$tevie
I'm sorry for the threadjack. We might want to consider discussing the OP now.

[snarky "my --- don't stink" hall monitor graphic]

Since I'm the one who pulled the thread off-topic, and was posting a mea culpa, I'm not sure your post makes any sense.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

Quote
$tevie
I have also seen studies that indicate that it is not really financially advantageous for both members of a couple to work outside the home, because the cost of child care and commuting and lunches and everything will add up to less than the second person is earning. I imagine this applies to middle- and lower- income homes, as opposed to a household where both people are highly paid professionals.

From personal experience, the monetary benefits of having a second well paid professional in a two parent household working are minimal when you take those costs into account. It would certainly be true of having the second earner in a low paying job.

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2012 01:44PM by davester.

"eventually I think that it will be quite normal for a person to follow the role(s) that they are drawn to/adept in, so it won't seem odd for two women or two men to raise a child, because the heterosexual couples won't be any more tied to the old gender roles than the homosexual couples are." - $tevie

To show how fast attitudes can change, my brother-in-law's mother, in the 20's, actually changed her age because she was older than her husband. No one knew until it was time for her 100th birthday and someone looked it up on the internet. "Oh, no, I'm only 98." Her sister stepped in and told the truth.

$tevie.. one hopes. Possibly the happiest year I have ever spent was the year I spent as a stay at home Dad. It was amazingly fulfilling. Of course we were broke and living with the inlaws, but it was still amazing.

Quote
cbelt3
davester...

Good points. The same sex couples I know don't have children. My opinions are of course developed from my own observations.

Out of curiosity, and of course not statistically relevant... how did they have the children ? One assumes some sort of medical (insemination, surrogacy) or legal (adoption) intervention was required.

A heterosexual couple doesn't need any help to make a baby. And most healthcare plans (and Medicaid / WIC/ etc. help with the process for low income situations). But for same-gender couples, there's a lot of expensive help needed, and none of it (as far as I know) is paid by insurance or the government. This implies a level of wealth that makes the 'Mommy stays home with the kiddies' an irrelevant argument when comparing household economies.

My experience with same sex couple here in SoCal is that almost all have taken in and are rearing children, that might be because I mostly meet such couples at various school functions.