Should anyone be allowed to marry?

M

Mystech

Adult Supervision Required
Registered Senior Member
In the interest of making sure that CounslerCoffee's "I can't say Gay!" thread doesn't get derailed any further than it already has been, I thought it would be nice to start this new thread on a topic that Wesmorris bought up in that thread.

The point he made is that he does not believe that marriage should be allowed for anyone who does not already have a child. He says that he feels marriage is just a tax shelter, and apparently that marriage's sole purpose is to create a better environment for a child.

Personally, I'd like to know if Wesmorris believes that this is true of a religious marriage(that being when two people take it upon themselves to stick together for the rest of their lives), or if these sentiments apply only to legal marriage status, which, at least in the United States, does provide certain tax benefits, as well as a number of other minor benefits, including legal considerations (for purposes of divorce, or any other situation where it should be established that two people were living together, and intended to be an exclusive pair-bond), to healthcare benefits, and insurance coverage.

Anyway, this issue brings up an even larger point. Should anyone at all even be allowed to marry? Should any person or group of people have to recognize and respect the fact that two people have chosen to be an exclusive pair, or is the idea just pure silliness.

What is the purpose of marriage? Is it purely for the benefit of a child, or are the married couple involved supposed to get anything out of it?

What do you think about marriage?
 
Didn't marriage start out as a holy union?

I have a cousin that has been married about 9 times, one of them lasted less than 24 hours, my Aunt on my moms side was the same way but she finally(hopefully) found someone she is staying married to.
On the other hand my parents have been married for 45 years, my sister for 23 years.
Personally I will never marry since aside from my parents and sister I think marriage no longer carries any meaning if it ever had a meaning.
I was best man at a wedding and I listened to the vows my best friend was taking and you know what, he divorced her after a year, of course he was cheating on her with a married woman.
So as far as I'm concerned people that are getting married these days for the most part have no clue what they are doing.
 
Marriage is perfectly fine, and any two people who want to get maried should legally be allowed to. However, I do not believe that just people should get a tax break just because they are married.

This tax break is one of those things that the government has done to try and get people to see things their way. The basic message: 'marriage is good'. To do this they gave married couples certain benefits. Now the problem is, that 2 people have no reason to get these benefits unless they have a family. It is understandable that 2 people with a family, or having a family (pregnant), or possibly even a long term illness may cause one of the spouses to be unable to work a full time job.

Two people without these causes who happen to be married have no reason to get a tax break. This should applies to straight married couples without kids and gay married couples without kids. It may not seem fair that a gay couple could never get this break (neglecting external help), but that's life... and is no more a problem then an infertile couple.

Ok, summary:)
1) No tax benefits specifically for married couples
2) Tax breaks for dependants and illness (already exist in US)
3) Any two people can get married
 
Originally posted by Persol
Two people without these causes who happen to be married have no reason to get a tax break. This should applies to straight married couples without kids and gay married couples without kids. It may not seem fair that a gay couple could never get this break (neglecting external help), but that's life... and is no more a problem then an infertile couple.
Click to expand...

I just thought it was a little funny the way you phrased "external help". This isn't so uncommon, I imagine that you are thinking of some sort of artificial insemination or a volunteer womb or something like that, but then there is also adoption (but then you could have had adoption in mind from the get go, and I'm just imagining that you phrased it funny :p).

You bring up a good point, what exactly is the purpose of government endorsed marriage? The tax break, as well as third party benefits from healthcare providers which would offer to cover one's spouse, and the like, all seem to work on the idea that one member of the relationship is the breadwinner, and the other will, require free benefits. This, makes sense, being that the traditional family structure has a man bringing in the money, and an unemployed woman raising the children. By providing a tax break to a married couple, is the government trying to give working men a break so that they can more easily support their dependent spouses? It's a very interesting situation.
 
Originally posted by man_of_jade
I have no problem with a gay marriage as long as im not the groom.
Click to expand...

Jade, you've broken my heart!

This thread wasn't necessarily about gay marriages, though if you have anything on that topic to bring to the table go right ahead, I for one am tired of shouting about it for once :p
 
Since the subject has been coming up I will add that it is too bad that anyone has to fear others over matters of sexuality, I have many friends and I have never based that friendship on color, race or sexual orientation, who a person loves is their own business and if the love exists then should it matter who it is towards. other than that I still stand by my opinion on marriage.. :p
 
Alright, here goes...

If you are going to marry someone, you obviously must love them. Love is a value I hold great importance to. Thats why nationality and skin color dont matter to me... However, if I was to fall in love with a male, I would most likely lose most of my friendships, trust from my family, and whatever job I had. Losing all of that would be pretty harsh, and it would be difficult to love the other person under such circumstances.

If you love someone, then go for it, true love isnt stopped by outside influences.:)
 
Originally posted by Mystech
I just thought it was a little funny the way you phrased "external help".
Lol... yeah, I wanted an all inclusive term... as it's self evident that they can't do it on their own. Well they can 'do it'... but... umm.... nevermind. They just can't produce their own kids by themselves. done.

By providing a tax break to a married couple, is the government trying to give working men a break so that they can more easily support their dependent spouses?
I think this was part of the original thinking, along with trying to get people to marry. Perhaps the working spouse could just claim the other as a dependant (assuming the dependant makes less then $X a year).
 
Originally posted by man_of_jade
If you love someone, then go for it, true love isnt stopped by outside influences.:)
I think the point is what makes your strait love deserve benefits that gay love doesn't get. People 'looking funny' at you is one issue... being institutionalized by government is another.
 
It's quite simple. Anyone should be able to marry anything and the government shouldn't give any special consideration to any one of them for anything to do with their marriages. In other words, the government should not recognize marriage on any level..

Okay MAYBE or PROBABLY we should let only people who are married and have children get some kind of tax break such that we promote the healthy upbringing of the children. Hm.. I guess the flip side is that it could become a "welfare" tax if people started having gets to get the tax break (which would probably depend on how much it is).

*shrug*

(ps, thanks for starting the thread, my apologies to coffee for straying from topic)
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Mystech
Personally, I'd like to know if Wesmorris believes that this is true of a religious marriage(that being when two people take it upon themselves to stick together for the rest of their lives), or if these sentiments apply only to legal marriage status, which, at least in the United States, does provide certain tax benefits, as well as a number of other minor benefits, including legal considerations (for purposes of divorce, or any other situation where it should be established that two people were living together, and intended to be an exclusive pair-bond), to healthcare benefits, and insurance coverage.
Click to expand...

Okay, that's the longest sentence I've ever read. Try a period once in a while! :)

Again, I think anyone should be able to marry anyone for any reason. Institutions (except the government) should be able to give them any status or treatment they want and people shouldn't deal with that institution if they make up crappy policies regarding the marriage status thing. The government should either:

- get out of the marriage business all together or
- give a break to people who are raising the next generations of taxpayer (regardless of their marital status) and get out of the marriage business all together.

Ya think?
 
Originally posted by man_of_jade
I have no problem with a gay marriage as long as im not the groom.
Click to expand...

So you're drawn to bridal wear? Hehe, you want to be the bride at a gay wedding? How does that work?
 
wesmorris,
Aren't you married?:bugeye:

I personally don't agree with the marriage tax break.
Then again, I am undecided whether I agree with ANY tax break.
Ross Perot may be a twit, but he had a brilliant flat tax plan.

What you have to consider, however, is that not all couples are two working people.

In order to cover your partner for medical/dental/etc you must be married.
Which is completely understandable.
Otherwise, people would just be offering their medical coverage to anyone that wants to give them 50 bucks a week, and the already sky-high cost of insurance would skyrocket.

Granted, I am a believer and supporter of government-paid health-care, but intil that is a reality, that is not really a valid argument.

This is not the ONLY argument for government recognized unions, just one.

You can also talk about the difficulties of responsibility of common property, distribution of assets upon dissolution of the unuion (if the government does not recognize the union they would have no right to have any say in how the common property is distributed upon dissolution. Who would mediate and rule upon teh arguments?
 
Originally posted by one_raven
wesmorris,
Aren't you married?:bugeye:
Click to expand...
Yup. (also two sweet girls 3 and 1)
Originally posted by one_raven

What you have to consider, however, is that not all couples are two working people.
Click to expand...
Why does that matter? I Persol's term 'dependents'. It's a much better way to think of the entire scenario. Tax credits for dependents only. No government sanctioned marriage period.
Originally posted by one_raven

In order to cover your partner for medical/dental/etc you must be married.
Click to expand...
Why?
Originally posted by one_raven

Which is completely understandable.
Click to expand...
Not to me.
Originally posted by one_raven

Otherwise, people would just be offering their medical coverage to anyone that wants to give them 50 bucks a week, and the already sky-high cost of insurance would skyrocket.
Click to expand...
That's why you don't sanction marriage period.
Originally posted by one_raven

Granted, I am a believer and supporter of government-paid health-care, but intil that is a reality, that is not really a valid argument.
Click to expand...
Oh man, you're sadly mislead if you believe government paid healthcare is a good idea. Ack. That would sapp the country dry. You know sadly it's not really even because of the real cost of health care. It's the bloated cost of health care due to a bunch of hypochodriac panty-wastes in our society sucking our resources into oblivian and driving up costs tremendously. Hell the industry caters to it, of course. It's their economic responsibility to do so. We have to construct rules such that it is NOT in their interest to entice customers. That's tough and exactly contrary to basic economic principles.. so that's a huge challenge. Shit, off topic again.
Originally posted by one_raven

This is not the ONLY argument for government recognized unions, just one.
Click to expand...
Actually you just said it wasn't one didn't you? I mean at least not yet right?
Originally posted by one_raven

You can also talk about the difficulties of responsibility of common property, distribution of assets upon dissolution of the unuion (if the government does not recognize the union they would have no right to have any say in how the common property is distributed upon dissolution. Who would mediate and rule upon teh arguments?
Click to expand...

That part is pretty easy, try to figure it out for every case given what's fair considering all the conditions of the relationship (the lawyers need to be deterred from profits as well somehow... not sure how you do that one) with the assumption that if all else fails 50/50 is the golden rule. Basically all conflicts of interest should be recognized and plotted against.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by one_raven
In order to cover your partner for medical/dental/etc you must be married.
I currently cover my fiance... it just costs a couple extra bucks a month. The only thing I couldn't get her covered for was dental.

Otherwise, people would just be offering their medical coverage to anyone that wants to give them 50 bucks a week, and the already sky-high cost of insurance would skyrocket.
It's not the insurance company that's against this, but your employer. The insurance company expects to make more off each person then they spend. More people signing up does not raise their cost. However, if you are only paying $50 then your employer is matching (although I don't know how much it costs them). They probably just don't want to help cover another party.

Granted, I am a believer and supporter of government-paid health-care, but intil that is a reality, that is not really a valid argument.
It's great for medication, but for existing examples, seems to suck for hospital visits.

This is not the ONLY argument for government recognized unions, just one.
Residence could just be used. There ar much better reasons for marriage to be government recognized (not regulated). Most of these hinge on liability, death benefits, sharing of knowledge, etc...

You can also talk about the difficulties of responsibility of common property...
Agreed... but I actually think this would be easier without government watching. Whoever's name it is in keeps it:) However, this isn't quite fair... which is a good reason for government watching.
 
Wesmorris,
It's the bloated cost of health care due to a bunch of hypochodriac panty-wastes in our society sucking our resources into oblivian and driving up costs tremendously. Hell the industry caters to it, of course. It's their economic responsibility to do so. We have to construct rules such that it is NOT in their interest to entice customers. That's tough and exactly contrary to basic economic principles.I agree with you completely on this.... but alas... it's verging off topic.

As for government sanctioned marriages, I 'kinda' agree. There is no reason for the government to approve marriages, but only to track them.
 
Wesmorris...

lol... A bride is female. A groom is male. Taking a quick check downstairs Im a guy, so I think that since a guy is a groom... Take the reasoning from there:p
 
Re: Wesmorris...

Originally posted by man_of_jade
lol... A bride is female. A groom is male. Taking a quick check downstairs Im a guy, so I think that since a guy is a groom... Take the reasoning from there:p
Click to expand...

I didn't think you weren't a guy, but I saw an opportunity to give you hell and I jumped. Pardon.. :)
 
There are indeed valid reasons for government to recognize marriages.

First off marriage tends to be a fairly communistic sort of relationship, you tend not to think of everything as being yours or your spouses, but eventually end up just claiming it as joint property, this is crucial in the event of a divorce. If this happens, and there isn't any legal precedent for marriage, the task of determining who actually owns what when the couple splits could get ugly (um ok, uglier than it is already). Aside from that, if medical insurance companies offer to cover the spouse of a client, fraud is extremely simple when no legal institution of marriage is recognized. Also, when trying to prove that one can provide a good family environment (for child custody or adoption purposes) being able to legally prove marriage is handy, as it'll gain you a few points.

Legal recognition of marriage is a useful thing, though the tax break may be nothing but a monetary benefit designed to reward conservative family values, I think the government is well justified to be the one handing out marriage licenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top