Some are in sex work voluntarily, some are forced, some are in it due to desperation. The latter two should be protected from such situations, the former should have their rights protected.inu-kun said:I wonder if the majority of women in prostitution agrees with you on it "not like it hurts anyone".
That's very debatable. First, marriage as we know it is a product of the last century, things were different in the past, for example when it was considered a luxury of the very rich, or when it was primarily meant for the political and economic gains of noble families. There is also no reason to think that monogamous pairing provides an evolutionary advantage; if we did truly evolve that way then we wouldn't even be having this conversation, nor would we need a government institution to enforce monogamous pairing.I did not say pick what, your probably trying to put words in my mouth, a man can be the housekeeper and the women works, ditto for gay couples. Why is it the one thing that can do it? Easy, evolution, your not the first one saying "marriage does not seem to work" and probably tried different sorts of relationships, none got continued in the last millenia, in the end humans want to have an offspring and emotional connection, necessating having pairs rather than lots of wives/husbands or outright no marriage.
And, again, why do I need the traditional idea of marriage for emotional connection, do I love someone any less if I haven't asked a priest to sign a paper saying our relationship is for realz? And I know quite a few people, myself included, who lack this supposed biological need for children.
There is a point of diminishing returns though, namely when the population becomes too large to employ or otherwise sustain everyone. The economy is currently structured so that an increasing population is good for it, but no amount of economic fiddling can permanently stave off the consequences of an economy that's not big enough to support the population that participates in it.First, kids are better for the economy, so not the whole structure falls down.
You have no guarantee of this. Your kids could end up just as poor. Or they could end up hating you.Second there's plenty of ways for old folks to lose their life's savings (banks collapsing, inflation), so they might cost a lot, but will actually get a paycheck to help their parents if they get in trouble.
It means quite a bit. If you're an American, those are your odds of having a divorce, a risk I don't want to take.The 50% divorce rate is again, america, so it means nothing.
Sacrifice and hard work for a cause is the pinnacle of nobility. Sacrifice and hard work for their own sake is the definition of stupidity. You're asking people to abandon what matters to them and give up everything for something they don't care about and that really isn't necessary while at the same time wondering why they're all passing up that option. And note how I also said "greater good for society". You know how much better of a place the world would be if more people sacrificed and worked hard towards ending poverty and disease instead of performing a basic biological function that there was no call for them to? Sacrifice for the people who have nothing compared to what you have and who spend every day afraid that they might not live to see the end of it, not to fulfill some obligation you think you have to some hypothetical children.And finally spending money on personal fulfillment is the pinnacle of everything that's wrong with western society.
Not at all, quite the opposite in fact. All I pointed out was that borrowing against the future isn't a sustainable solution when that borrowing is based on economic growth that isn't likely or even possible, and that the government and society need to find new ways to care for those who can no longer work. The point was that we need to do something, not that we should arse around continuing as we are until we've screwed up everything so badly that we can't recover. This was in response to your claim that population must be driven to increase perpetually less society risk instability (Japan being given by you as the example). All I'm saying is that other solutions need to be investigated and implemented.I have no idea what you tried to say about Japan, nor do I think there's actual connection to the topic at hand (but basically boils to we're fucked so we should try to be happy instead doing something).
The point being that some cultures that have moved past the concept of the traditional nuclear marriage appear to be doing better than us in the US, and it stands to reason to think about why.Don't get next paragraph either, you don't respond to what I said, just try to dismiss it.
But what's the point of marriage then? Suffering for its own sake? What kind of ideal is that? Why do you want to create a society where the highest ideal is that you should toil and suffer while expecting nothing in return until you die? And where in the hell do you get off saying that anyone with a different plan for his or her life lacks "basic human responsibility"?Final paragraph, really, really think you try to warp the idea to your worldview, "people (by that you mean americans) are expected to get married and stay married when they ultimately don't want to", but that's not it, the culture worships shallow love and self fullfilment (like I said above) over basic human responsibility resulting in couples cheating and divorcing in incredibly high rate after they got wed.
Also, isn't the whole reason people get married and have kids in the first place personal fulfillment? Don't pretend that's any less selfish than I am.