Go here. Then ask yourselves the question above. My question: whose bloody business it this sort of thing anyway? Is this China, where people are told how many children they can have, where they can live and where they will work? Seems like it's heading in that direction. Since when do people need "occupancy permits" to give government a say over which house they live in with thier families? Amerika, here we come.
Categories: Politics
11 comments:
My guess is that it will be a really long time, sensing these are old rules, not new ones.
If you think about it, that law is a protection for neighboring property owners who don't want communes, brothels, boarding houses, and other similar nuisances in their neighborhoods. Such things do serious damage to property values. The couple in question wouldn't have a problem if they had recognized that society at large still does expect people trying to provide a stable environment for children to establish their own stable relationship first--i.e. get married. An unmarried couple can live together under the law in question--but raising children is another matter.
I understand where the law is coming from as it prevents me from living next to 5 undergraduates cohabitating... that is the purpose of the law. It is fairly standard in most places. Jay's crew house in New Haven had 6 unrelated boys living together and given the chaos that insued from that, I can't say that I am completely disagreeing with the underlying assumptions of the law. However, giving a family an option of marrying or breaking up the family isn't helpful to anyone, and is certainly not family or child friendly. Having a happy mom and dad living together even if they aren't married is far better than not having dad living in the house at all. Who cares if a couple is married? Whose business is that outside of their own?
Hey anon,
Can you come down off your soapbox for a second to talk?
But before we begin, can you look up the divorce rate? Maybe specify it for Missouri, just for fun.
I know you can't be suggesting that unmarried couples with children shouldn't be allowed to buy property, so, correct me if I'm wrong, it seems you suggest unmarried couples should not have children. How about single parents? I bet we could get them a-marryin' real fast if we didn't let them get occupancy permits while single. That would really promote stable relationships.
Oh, I have a better idea, since the government can obviously determine better than parents what environment is best for children, why not have some sort of test to give people before they are allowed to raise a family? I'll work on it, a few math problems, a few science problems, maybe some questions about income, you know, the usual.
Also, thank goodness this law isn't enforced in Pittsburgh, cause then me and the boys might have to close down our brothel. I'm sorry if the *gasp* idea of a group of people getting together to pay for rent they cannot afford alone means a slightly lower property value for you. Wait, no, I'm not sorry. I lied.
Love,
Steve
Dear Steve,
Yes, I am suggesting that unmarried couples shouldn't have children. Single parents should be the exception, not the rule. If you don't have a stable enough relationship with your boyfriend/girlfriend to marry him/her, then you shouldn't be trying to raise kids. If I'm not mistaken, the law doesn't apply to people who are related by blood, so single parents aren't affected in any case.
And it isn't the government--it's community standards. The more local the ordinance, the more likely it expresses the actual will of the local community.
Hugs,
Anon
Cher Anon,
I was not aware that local goverment was not government, but you do have an interesting point. I will assume that you are correct in that the law expresses the will of the local community. This, by the way, is a very large assumption, seeing as many communities have these laws, they are just not enforced. In addition, just because the law was enforced doesn't necessarily mean it expresses the will of the community. But, we'll assume that your argument has some merit, or else what fun would that be?
You are right, we're talking about local government. This is not a homeowners association, whose purpose is to protect property values and to enforce the rules and regulations of the community homeowners. This is the government (local government is still government) legislating morality with a law that, in the mayor's own words, was meant to prevent overcrowding.
I also question you defining a stable relationship as two married people. The "couple in question" has been together for 13 years. My point before was that divorce is so prevalent, that the marriage contract does not ensure anything. Although, in situations where an unmarried couple might seperate, a married couple might be tempted to stay together for moral or financial reason. Well, I guess that having two married parents that hate each other is still a little better than having two loving parents that aren't married...
My point is, you can't create laws to form good families or craft loving parents. It's not too slippery a slope to extrapolate a little here and say, since you shouldn't have children if you can't afford it, why don't we have laws that set a minimum income limit for families to have children. Why not create another law so single parents have to remarry within 6 months or face eviction, in order to create traditional, stable families?
I think the problem lies in how we look at unmarried couples. I get the feeling that you have the impression that all unmarried couples are just "dating", will be together for a matter of months/years, break up, and move on. I have an underlying faith in people that they will make good decisions. I don't think unmarried couples as a group will decide to raise a family with any fewer standards than married couples. And, before you ask, I'm not talking about teenage pregnancy here, I'm talking about two responsible adults who are capable of making good decisions.
Muah,
Steve
P.S. Have you seen a picture of the couple in question here? It is very suspicious that this is the case where all of a sudden these laws are enforces, expecially in a state such as Missouri. Not that I am suggesting anything. Cough*interracial couple*cough. Sorry, got something caught in my throat.
"you shouldn't have children if you can't afford it"
I couldn't agree more.
The rule is bogus though, I agree.
Damn straight you shouldn't have children if you can't afford it, but to legislate it is ridiculous, and unconstitutional. (Read Amendment 14, section 1, the Equal Protection Clause.)
As much as I feel that if your educational level isn't sufficient enough to understand the voting process, let alone the positions of the candidates, you probably shouldn't vote, I would strongly disagree with disenfranchising these voters by law.
If you waited to have children until you could afford it, no one would procreate. No one in Bush's middle class can afford to have children these days. I guess parenthood is reserved for the upper-middle and upper class families now. That will definitely promote positive child outcomes. I'm confused by how this works into the argument.
Dear Drew,
No, I don't think love and care is limited by a person's marital status--but I think permanency is. Yes, marriages end in divorce more often than should be the case, but if a couple cohabits instead of marrying so that the breakup will be less of a hassle, they aren't entering into a relationship they intend to be permanent in the first place. And children are best raised in an environment where their family's stability is something they can count on--forever. That doesn't mean that single parents can't do a good job or that cohabiting couples don't sometimes end up staying with each other for life, but to assume that either of those cases occurs as often or is as beneficial for children as the loving, stable home provided by a mother and father married to each other is to take a really skewed view of the world. If half of all marriages end in divorce--and the consequences for children of a bitter divorce are seriously detrimental--it is still true that the other half of married couples stay together.
Anon
Post a Comment