Humanities desk
< January 10	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 11

Name or term for philosophical line of thought - morals

Hello, wikipedians!

I am trying to find out if a sentence or philosophical thought can be attributed to any one particular established line of thought. Ie, if it stems from/has been organized by Kant, Aristotle or anyone else. The basic rule is that if an action does not cause injury (perceived mentally and physically) to another being, then the action will be morally sound. An example (but not important to my question) is that inferred from this, is that to injure oneself is to cause stress in an acquaintance who would care for you. Therefore, self-injury is in turn morally not accepted. I would be much obliged if you have any knowledge about this particular thought, and whether it is established in a philosophy. :) Thank you in advance! 77.18.70.217 (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of topics in philosophy may be of use to you. I hope this helps. JW..[ T..C ] 01:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Rule (ethics) is not quite it, but is related. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Commandment and an homily might also be similar.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 15:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hazlitt made this idea the foundation of his philosophy in the appropriately titled Foundations of Morality. He called it the inverse Golden Rule -- do not do unto others what you would not have other done onto you. Which seems great in theory, but in practice it fails utterly because so many of us lack the empathy to actually give half a care about other people's experience of the world. Step outside and let the evidence pour in! Vranak (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Utilitarianism to me.

International Dutch Judicary

Are international court proceedings conducted in dutch in the hague?174.3.101.61 (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly what you asked for yet, but this ICJ link says (in Spanish) that the two official languages of the International Court of Justice, which is in the Hague, are English and French, and all documents are issued in those two languages. You may also be referring to the International Criminal Court; that link says that English and French are its working languages, and the accused has the right to an attorney who's fluent in at least one of those two. Comet Tuttle (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the clips from the hearings I saw were always conducted in English, with simultaneous translations in headphones for those who needed them. Must have been a tough day at the translation booth when one of the indicted (can't remember for the life of me who, maybe Vojislav Šešelj?) decided to tell everyone in court to go fuck themselves, in much more graphic and creative ways. TomorrowTime (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Letters to the Editor section in the Economist

What exactly is this section? Can anyone send a letter to the editor and does everyone who sends it have the opportunity to have their letter published?

Also, why does every letter start with "SIR"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysk1 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Letter to the editor. Anyone can send a letter to the editor; not all of them are published; it is a convention in many British periodicals that letters to the Editor start with "Sir" rather than "Dear Sir" or whatever. Marnanel (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Letters can also be edited for publication, so if yours doesn't start with SIR it will probably be edited so it does. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We just had this question a month ago, actually. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They publish a lot more of the letters on their webpage, by the way. Jørgen (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The London Daily Telegraph has recently produced a book of unintentionally amusing letters that escaped publication[1]. Alansplodge (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's miscasting the book. An awful lot of those letters are absolutely intentionally amusing. They just weren't published. --Dweller (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes OK, I got the book as a Christmas present. I thought the funniest ones were unintentional though. Alansplodge (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that the letters tend to either be 1) from people of high standing (heads of state, academics or leaders of organizations that are relevant to a past article) or 2) merely extremely clever. Rarely both.NByz (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that a magazine like The Economist receives a large number of letters, maybe 20 or 100 times the number you see published. So they can pick and choose the best ones. You probably have a better chance of your letter being published if you're writing to a daily newspaper, or a magazine relating to some special interest. You also need to keep it short and keep to your point; as examples, study the letters they do publish. Somewhere near the letters there will be an address to write to; if it gives instructions like "provide your daytime phone number", you'd better do that. If your letter does get published, they may edit it for style, for example using British or American spelling. They may even edit your words if they think they can make them clearer. And they may run your letter under a headline of their own choosing, which should summarize what you're saying but maybe they get it wrong. --Anonymous, 22:56 UTC, January 13, 2010.

Heil Churchill

In World War Two, especially from reading The Eagle has Landed, I am aware there was a group known as the Britisches Freikorps, who were captured British soldiers that defected to join the SS, and serve for Germany. Was there an allied equivalent. I am aware that captured German spies were given the option of turning sides, rather than face a firing squad, and that Japanese Americans served the US in the war, but was there ever a unit of German POWs turned to the allied side, to fight against the Reich ?The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher1968 (talk • contribs)

Some details of the British SS corps are here[2]. Peak membership seems to have been 27. Alansplodge (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help[3][4]? Alansplodge (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, you may also be interested in the Free India Legion - Indian POWs originally from the Allies who then fought on the German side. --KageTora - (影虎) (Talk?) 20:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some Germans who left the country prior to the war faught in Allied military units. They were of particular value in intelligence units and special combat units such as the British No. 10 Commando. I've read widely on the War and haven't seen any mention of the Allies forming combat units from German POWs though - they were never as short of manpower as Germany and didn't need whatever propaganda could have been gained from this, particularly given the likelihood of it backfiring and the significant resources which would have needed to be used to raise what would have probably been a very small unit. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Excellent. The trouble with some of that was that Nazis were kept in power to run Germany post war, and some who had done filthy experiments got away with it, while some of their ( to borrow a legal term ) " fruit of the poisoned tree " research was used, as if it didn't matter how it had been obtained. I realised the number of the Britischer Freikorps was small, but not that small. I know they did sod all to help Germany anyway, but I understand one of them later settled in Australia, and was tracked down. I see there also some originally from Australia and New Zealand fought for the Nazis. I was also aware of groups like the White Rose, namely Sophie Scholl, who was executed after appearing before the same People's Court that later tried the bomb plotters. Speaking of white, there was the White Mouse, real name Nancy Wake, an Australian, born in New Zealand, who married a French man and joined their resistance. It appears that, as in any war, the lines were not clearly drawn, so you never knew whose side anyone was on. This is what makes it interesting. The Russian Christopher Lilly 12:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Denazification with regard to "keeping Nazis in power". DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paying for other people's children

Seeing the article Tax on childlessness has made me wonder how much chiildless people in the UK have to pay in tax to support other people's children - their free education, free health care, and cash benefits? In addition to childless people having to pay tax for other people's children, people with children also get given money by the state. How much is this? Thanks 92.24.99.15 (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. A contrary question is, how much do these childless people benefit from the availability of able bodied people to assist them in their dotage (and, indeed, before). To think that you receive no benefits merely because you are childless is at best ill considered. The general view is that young people are a societal asset (not merely an individual family asset), and that society should invest in them and not leave the family as the sole source of investment. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) In thinking about this issue, you should bear in mind that general taxation in the UK (e.g. income tax and council tax) is not hypothecated, which is a fancy way of saying ring-fenced. In other words, it's not possible to identify how much anyone's taxes go into paying for education and so on. Nor is it possible to do that for taxes paid by people who don't have children. I sense a subtext to this question along the lines of "why should I, who have chosen not to have children, be forced into subsidising those who do? Shouldn't it only be parents who have to pay for children's health and education?" But that's not the way the taxation system works. It all just goes into the general pot. Similar arguments have been tried by people who are opposed to war and who try and identify how much of their taxes goes on supporting wars, and then refuse to pay that amount. In my opinion that argument is also without merit.

Now, if you're just interested in knowing how much is spent each year on health care and education, you could probably get those figures from any number of official government sources. But there's no way to relate those amounts to the taxes people pay. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 14:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If all the tax revenue goes into one place and then is split out among the various services, it seems reasonable to say that if 10 percent of it is going towards road-building, then 10 percent of whatever I'm being taxed goes toward road-building. And that's just the way it is, whether I drive a car or not. However, there's another way to look at it. I could pretend that all my taxes are going to public health while all of a warhawk's taxes are going toward advanced weaponry. I wonder if a survey has ever been done on what people would like their taxes to go toward (not being taxed would not be an option in that survey), and see how well the overall matches up with the actual percentages of the tax revenues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK Child Benefit is GBP20.00 per week for the eldest child and GBP13.20 for subsequent ones[5]. Alansplodge (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional considerations: Did the childless benefit from such taxes when they were children? If someone did hypothetically get taxed less because of their lack of children, do they have to pay it back if they end up having children? In the U.S., anyway, this isn't how one thinks about calculating taxes—you start from an assumption based on your income solely, and then start removing tax liability based on other "good expenses" you have. (You can pay less if you have a child, and you can pay less if you donate to charity, etc.) It's hard to think up a compelling reason for labeling childlessness a social good, and thus a tax deductible. (And I say this as someone who is happily childfree by choice.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a lot of the complaints about taxation are from people who have concluded that they don't benefit from those taxes. In effect, they're putting their interests ahead of society's interests. Some call that libertarian. But I think Tagishsimon has it right - that you often benefit one way or another, even if it's not perceived as a direct benefit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mean it seems self-evident to me that society needs to ensure that its children are well fed, healthy and educated. Otherwise they won't ever grow up and be able to do and make things in the future that society as a whole will benefit from. I'd like to hear the countervailing argument to that, I could do with a laugh. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am misreading some of the responses (User:Alansplodge and User:Richardrj being notable exceptions), but there appears to be a lot of lecturing in them. The OP asked two factual questions about the amount of such payments, with nothing I can find in them about whether or not such transfers ought to be made. What have I missed that has occasioned the amount of "justification" in the responses? Bielle (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You possibly missed the "have to pay in tax to support other people's children" element & tone, which gives rise to the supposition that the OP believes that the childless are merely forcibly subsidising someone else's hobby, rather than investing in societal renewal. A simple literal parsing of the question probably does call for a pounds, shilling & pence answer, but you'll just have to indulge the phenomenon that humans are not computers and will tend to read between the lines. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However much childless people pay towards financing the contribution that other people's children make towards the continued functioning of society, as a parent I can assure the OP and others that (in general) it's a damn sight less than the amount those children's parents pay, directly, towards maintaining the wellbeing of those children - [6]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why indeed should you as a healthy person pay for the NHS? It makes no sense, unless of course there is such a thing as society. Marnanel (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and the fact that in the case of things like healthcare, you are also paying out on the possibility that you yourself might get sick, even if you are not currently sick. (And of course, averaged over ones life, you will get sick, at some point.) --Mr.98 (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some merit in means testing Child Benefit[7]; should someone earning GBP40,000pa still receive it? I have a feeling that you wouldn't get elected if you suggested such a thing. It has been suggested that it be included in personal allowances from income tax (as Baseball Bugs says happens in the US), but by popular demand it has continued to be paid direct to the principle carer - I suppose so that the old man doesn't spend it in the pub. Some of the issues are discussed here[8]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the arguments for/against paying for children here's some figures from the 2009 budget report...Total managed expenditure £671bn. Social protection comes in at £189bn, Education at £88bn and health at £119bn (source: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/news/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/22_04_09bud09_completereport_2591.pdf page 18). These are not child-specific so that's the whole budget on each area - but it shows you an idea of areas of expenditure that you mentioned. I suspect (with the exception of education) that the amount going to 'children' is nothing in comparison to the amount going to 'adults'. In terms of money to the people here's the BBC outlook on the pre-budget report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8011882.stm) though there's little on childcare. There's the HMRC Tax Credits site here (http://taxcredits.hmrc.gov.uk/Qualify/WhatAreTaxCredits.aspx). Then...Argument wise - it is nigh on impossible to separate out the spending to say 'this is spent for people with children' - there are too many things that are spent for 'everybody' that happen to include 'for children' too...Free entry to national museums are probably more used by families than non-families. Public Libraries are probably more heavily used by children (education) than by others, Public parks are probably more family-used than non-family. Where do you draw the line? If you're purely talking about child-tax-credits the info is available (links above) and education wise we could probably see the numbers, but how do you separate out the money coming in from families (and again about the income return to government when the child goes on to pay taxes)? It's all very difficult to 'price' because it's 2 very specific segmennts to separate out of quite high-level financial budgets (child-less people and money-spent-on-children). 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paying for health care and education out of general taxes is a socialist policy (in the modern European sense, not the Marxist sense). The idea behind socialism is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If you are vehemently anti-socialist then you won't like such policies, but you are in the minority in the UK - even the Conservative party has some strongly socialist policies (support for the NHS, for example). You should probably move to the US - they are far less socialist than anywhere in Europe. --Tango (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to find a pure libertarian even in the more-capitalistic USA. Bill O'Reilly is regarded as right-wing, but he has said there has to be some social safety net. And Teddy Roosevelt, the champion of many a Republican, had some ideas that are socialistic, some of which his distant cousin FDR implemented. It seems to be a matter of degree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That's why I said "far less socialist", not "not socialist". People with extreme political ideas (regardless of what extreme) rarely get elected in free and fair elections - this is related to Duverger's law. (Obviously, a few of them can get elected under PR, but not to the extent of actually having significant power.) It is difficult to put politicians on a spectrum in a meaningful way, but to the extent it can be done I think an average Democrat in the US (considered left-of-centre by US standards) would be further right than an average Conservative in the UK (considered right-of-centre by UK standards) and both would be far to the right of the Union for a Popular Movement in France (their centre-right party). --Tango (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet tax the OP linked to does seem extreme and unfair. As for you subsidizing other people's children in the UK and elsewhere, however, I don't see it as being particularly different than any tax disparity. Rural people pay less and require more spending per capita to sustain roads and emergency services. I read recently that some homeless people run up staggering emergency health care bills that the public pays for, even in the US. And individuals will require different things throughout their lives, you may not have or want children now, but in 10 years it could be a very different story. When you get old, it's likely the state will spend much more on your healthcare than you provide through your taxes. For practical purposes, I think it is necessary for governments to tax and provide services holistically, as someone mentioned above; there's no way to separate out all the costs and tax each person appropriately. The government is a system, it's meant to all work together to the benefit of its citizens. It provides different things to different people, and many of the things it does we can say "oh I don't need that". But without the system as a whole, chances are we'd be uneducated, unhealthy, isolated and unproductive.
For child tax benefits in particular, there's a bit more to it. The government believes a stable or slightly growing population is important to maintaining a prosperous society (Japan is looking at a troubling demographic/economic future because its population is aging so rapidly). The tax benefits are a way of encouraging reproduction, and increasing the chances of children growing up to be productive members of society. That is thought to be of benefit to society as a whole, and so to you as a member of society, and is no different to other policies the government pays for but you may not benefit proportionately from (which runs the gamut of all sorts of things - NASA, the wars, research funding and so on). TastyCakes (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of my tax dollars going to the National Helium Reserve! I've never once ridden in an airship! APL (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but don't you feel warm and fuzzy inside knowing your children and maybe even your children's children will be able to make their voices sound funny whenever they want? TastyCakes (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

More even than the benefit of children who grow up to be productive members of society, imagine the loss that comes from children who grow up in deprivation (physical or emotional) and become unproductive members of society. It is better and cheaper (even just from an economics point of view) to provide better conditions and help when they are children, than to deal with the adults they will become. This is on top of the benefit to society of most children, and the moral element. 86.178.229.168 (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the ranting, what about the facts requested please? 89.242.107.166 (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've already answered that. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading my question again perhaps I was at fault in not precisely specifying that I meant the amount paid per single childless adult, not collectively. The former has not been answered. The later has been answered vaguely but I appreciate it may be difficult to estimate. 89.242.107.166 (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's bl@@dy difficult to understand the cost 'collectively' don't you think it might be even more difficult to say it down to an individual person level? Nobody knows how much tax you (or the individual you have in mind pays) and costs will vary hugely between person to person. A 'normal' person can expect to pay around 45% tax on their money (including VAT on purchases etc. etc.) but as noted it's difficult to estimate how much of that is directly for 'children' and how much is indirectly. . 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing an order of magnitude estimate from the education bill of £88billion (assuming that is American billion rather than British billion) and assuming that the amount of education spent on adults will be less than the cost of child health-care, then with about 30 million income tax taxpayers the figure is at least £2933 per year or over £56.41 per week. "UK Child Benefit is GBP20.00 per week for the eldest child and GBP13.20 for subsequent ones" but it requires knowing how many people get it to calculate the extra ciost of that. 78.147.233.120 (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no British billions, only French and American ones. Britain changed to the American ones over the course of the last half century. Sussexonian (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest answer is "all of it". Every penny of tax goes to pay for things people want, and all people who aren't your own children are "other people's children". Including you. So every penny of a childless person's tax pays for "other people's children". 86.178.229.168 (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Place in California with the most populate multiracial groups

Since I live below a Metro in orange county, I only been able to see few black people and over 60% of the black people I know is born father being black and mother being white. If I want to go tho a place to see all kinds of mix, then where should I go to see the truth. yes, I know my sample size is 1/100, will San Francisco and Downtown Los Angeles make me see all kinds.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the data i want the map shown in blue or dark turquoise is the most populate in the USA. Once largest multiracial group is Glendale, CA, about the place the NBC is. Also KCAL is in Hollywood, CA If I contact Lisa Sigell by e-mail, she might have all the informations about multiracial peoples.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of all of the places and unincorporated communities in California with a column for % "two or more races." The highest percentage of multiracial people among communities of at least 1,000 people is in Hilmar-Irwin, California and the lowest is in Belvedere, California. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I live below a Metro"

The above poster wrote: "Since I live below a Metro in orange county, I only been able to see few black people"...

What does "Metro" mean here? I can think of several meanings, and the Metro disambiguation page lists a bunch more, but I don't see one that seems to obviously relate to a place a person would live below, and still less to the number of black people they might see there. --Anonymous, 23:02 UTC, January 13, 2010.

That poster is pretty vague, but since it's in Orange County, CA, I'd guess he's referring to a station of Metrolink, a commuter rail system, implying that he's in the mostly White suburbs. —D. Monack ^talk 03:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I guess that must be it. --Anon, 00:12 UTC, January 16, 2010.

Prisoners of war and civilian police

Does international law allow civilian police forces to take prisoners of war? Neon Merlin 19:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking with the recent airline bombing attempt in mind? I haven't heard anyone bringing that issue up, I assume it's not a problem and I don't really see why it should be - the circumstances of the "crime" or act should determine if it's dealt with in a civilian court or a military one, not who makes the arrest. TastyCakes (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two requirements: 1) the prisoner in question was a combatant; and 2) was captured in an armed conflict. An attempted bombing of an aircraft is not likely to be an armed conflict except by a very strained interpretation of the term. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorists aside, the answer seems to be yes. I have read a number of accounts of WWII Luftwaffe airmen being arrested by the local policeman after being shot down over Britain. The film Hope and Glory depicts this scenario. This account [9] tells of two Home Guardsmen detaining German airmen pending the arrival of a police inspector. Alansplodge (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that's the end of it. The actual Geneva conventions treat civilian police forces quite differently depending on whether or not the country's at war. I don't know much more beyond that, but I think that civilian police in a war scenario might change legal status under the conventions. I cannot be sure about that, but using wartime examples to prove a general point I know is probably not completely accurate. Shadowjams (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there has to be a war before you can have Prisoners of War? Alansplodge (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is much debate in the US as to whether the ridiculously nicknamed "underwear bomber" should be tried in a civilian or a military court, under the claim that he is an enemy combatant. That certainly raises questions as to whether or not civilian police had the jurisdiction to arrest him. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article 4 of the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War simply defines prisoners of war as any of various categories that have "fallen into the power of the enemy." It would seem, therefore, that there would be no impediment to the capture of a POW by police officers, or even by civilian employees of the government. Whether those police officers or civilians would themselves be entitled to POW treatment, if captured, is a different issue. John M Baker (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

diffs between cohabiting (unmarried) couples and married couples

What is the diffs between unmarry couples (cohabiting without beign marry) and fully marry couple. isteve.com intro when black/white/asian coupld be marry or unmoarry partners. It is the first time I've hear about cohabiting unmarry. What is that?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cohabitating means "living together". So, you have people who live together because they are married, and then people who live together without ever being officially married. In some jursidictions, this may qualify them as being common-law married; that is sometimes people who live together as though they are married may be considered legally so even if they never went through the ceremony. --Jayron32 21:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between a married cohabiting couple and an unmarried cohabiting couple is that the married couple has gone through a wedding ceremony. Marnanel (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is blue link said 82% of black-white couples cohabiting is males, it is probably meant unmarry couples. When I earlier try to make conclusion, people thought I misunderstood by thought this meant to marry couples.--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, the correct phrase is "married couple", not "marry couple" (and, likely, "unmarried couple"). --Tango (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what the link says is: "In fact, 82% of blacks cohabiting with whites are male." It is a confusing sentence, but the author is talking about male-female couples that are unmarried but live together and are in a sexual relationship, so she means to say that out of the interracial black-white couples in the study, 82% were "a black man with a white woman", and 18% were "a white man with a black woman". Caution: The paper she links to is not a peer-reviewed study; it is an unpublished conference paper. On Wikipedia, we prefer better sources. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage confers certain legal benefits that cohabitation does not. That's part of the reason some have pushed for same-sex marriages to be legalized. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the jurisdiction. In some places a cohabiting couple, after a certain time, are considered exactly the same as married. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, that is true only for heterosexual couples. I haven't yet heard of common-law same-sex marriage. Marco polo (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should read M. v. H., which is very interesting and relevant. Marnanel (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]