Why get married?

[Jib 0]

A friend of mine said the only reason to get married is to have kids. Otherwise, you're just agreeing to give someone half of what you have. Now, that seems a little cynical, but why else would you? [/devil's advocate]

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Otherwise, you're just agreeing to give someone half of what you have

Or, I guess you can say you are looking at taking half of what a person has for yourself.

Or, perhaps you just want to tell the world that you've found the one person that you intend to spend the rest of your life with, and maybe you want to simplify the rest of your life through the presumptions that marriage offers.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[labrys 0]

One stop shopping for all these goodies:

Here are a few of the 1,049 benefits the United States government provides to couples in a heterosexual marriage:


Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Here are a few of the state level benefits within the United States:


Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Automatic Inheritance
Automatic Housing Lease Transfer
Bereavement Leave
Burial Determination
Child Custody
Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
Divorce Protections
Domestic Violence Protection
Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
Insurance Breaks
Joint Adoption and Foster Care
Joint Bankruptcy
Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Certain Property Rights
Reduced Rate Memberships
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Visitation of Partner’s Children
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison
Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits

Owned by Remi #?

[CornishChris 5]

I suppose it would be old fashioned of me to say something as stupid as:

"To declare your love and devotion to your significant other in front of family, friends and God"

CJP

Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people

[pajarito 0]

Why should I get married?
It's just a piece of paper.

[labrys 0]

Quote

"To declare your love and devotion to your significant other in front of family, friends and God"

I did that and I'm not married

Owned by Remi #?

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

A friend of mine said the only reason to get married is to have kids. Otherwise, you're just agreeing to give someone half of what you have. Now, that seems a little cynical, but why else would you? [/devil's advocate]

If you love someone deeply, it can be a great expressionof that love -- fulfilling for both people -- to agree to give half and get half of what each other has and is. It's about commitment to share forever, and to trust forever.

In this modern era of everyone being in it for only themselves, it is not surprising that people are so untrusting of others that they enter marriage half-heartedly, half-trustingly, and do these pre-nuptial agreements.

All they say to me is that if you have to have one of those, you shouldn't be marrying this person because you don't fully believe and trust that you can make it work for the rest of your lives.

I believe in marriage, but I haven't found the right girl to make a match.

Here's to hoping.

Blue skies,
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Why get married?

Exactly. It's not like it has anything to do with love.

OTH the legal benifits extended to some in this country should not be limited by a religios bigotry.

Seperate the two. Leave marage for those that want to be "club" members and let the churches play by their own rules.

But if benifits are going to be handed out, hand them out fairly, or don't give them at all.

Why the heck sould we be giving anyone a break for being married anyway?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[lifewithoutanet 0]

Man, Lawrocket...I was almost certain if anyone would think about this, it would be you:

You're all forgetting 'spousal privilege'.

-C.

[Unstable 9]

Having a Family is awufully hard with just one parent. I don't know about you all, but I'm actually really looking forward to being married and sharing my life with somebody.

=========Shaun ==========

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

First of all, we need marriage because God says we should be married.

I stopped reading there. Since I don't believe that claim that point is moot. At least for me.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

First of all, we need marriage because God says we should be married.

I stopped reading there. Since I don't believe that claim that point is moot. At least for me.

That's cool...and it's just my opinion. The reason you quoted is just the first and most important reason. There are more. Just because it’s religious in nature doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have anything meaningful to say. It's a short article. You can make it through. Whether you believe that God ordained marriage in the beginning or not, I still think marriage, as has been shown in many posts in this thread, has become mostly about "what does it do for me" or "what can I get out of it." I think that is the main reason why most marriages fail. I've been married for 9 years next weekend and I'm no exception. Most of the major arguments that we've had in the past have dealt with selfishness and control issues. I think that if you're going into marriage with the benefits at the forefront in your mind, you're missing the point. It's not only that half of the material things you own now belong to your spouse; it's that all of you belongs to your spouse and them also to you. That's what marriage is about.

[rehmwa 2]

L - THANK YOU for that list!!

All the emotional stuff is important, but a moot point. It's an issue of standardized contractual rights in an 'intended' permanent relationship, not an emotional issue.

That list is what's at stake, not the 'expression of one's feelings' etc. That can happen in so many ways and the government should have nothing to say in those aspects, just the contractual bits.

Now, make the official contractual stuff (like the list) part of a legal contract (marriage license, domestic partner, civil union, WHATEVER) be the debate and call it something that has no religious or family overtones or history, because people are too thick to separate the issues without the stupid semantics of it getting in the way.

If the government wants to separately promote those parts specifically dealing with child bearing (or raising) by heterosexual couples, then codify that as a separate topic. I don't think too many argue that, (for gosh sakes - in general) this model should be promoted for the general welfare of the country.

And of course have laws in place covering contractual issues for children of all combos the various 'family models' too.

1 - What contractual rights should 'partners' of all kinds have

2 - What else do we do, if anything, to promote the concept of heterosexual couples with children?

3 - What contractual rights accrue to people with children regardless of the parent structure (gays, mixed, single, divorced, extended, etc)?

Three separate issues, but the big problem is everyone gets bent out of shape trying to combine them all into one big single issue. This is why the emotional content comes in because it's too complicated to understand so people don't try and start talking from their guts instead of their heads.

The emotional content - call it whatever and let it be dealt with elsewhere. That's a fourth issue and no one will be happy with any resolution.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Darius11 12]

I think there is long-term rewards unknown to us who have not been married. I see it in people who have been married for a long time.
Kids part is a big deal. I know there is many single parents who say they are great parents I am sure they are, But it would be better and easier to have a foundation like family. I don’t think it is a coincidence that we have more kids growing up too soon. I think a family can keep you on track.

Every one has become very selfish and concentrated on the instant pleasure, Believe it or not there are things that bring long-lasting joy to the heart that don’t include sex, drugs, or any material things.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Why the heck sould we be giving anyone a break for being married anyway?

The government has an interest in the continued production of new citizens (i.e. taxpayers). When most of the "breaks for being married" originated creating new citizens outside of marriage was, according to society, a bad thing.

New citizens cost money to raise. Many of the "breaks" seem to me to be intended to free up income so the couple can better care for their future taxpayers.

By providing "breaks" for those who were married (and therefore more likely to produce 2.5 new taxpayers) the government encourages said new citizen production and ensures it's own future revenues...

[PhillyKev 0]

What are you doing in here?

[skybytch 273]

Quote

What are you doing in here?

Boredom sometimes causes me to act totally out of character.

[labrys 0]

Quote

New citizens cost money to raise. Many of the "breaks" seem to me to be intended to free up income so the couple can better care for their future taxpayers.

The government thinks it's ok not to give someone who's been in a life-long relationship leave to care for a sick partner so that we can shovel more money into raising future taxpayers?

It's ok for the government to give Social Security Survivor benefits to one person who's relationship was "legal" but deny them to another person who's relationship was not "legal" even though all 4 people involved paid into Social Security?

The unrecognized partner's money goes back into the pot? Sorry, we need that for um... football uniforms. We want our kids to have what they need so that they grow up to be good taxpayers.

It's ok for 2 people to pay into a Government pension plan for an entire career, but when they die, one of their partners gets to continue to receive income and then we tell the other partner sorry, it's our money now? We need um.... library books so that kids will be smarter and get better jobs and pay more taxes.

All people in unrecognized partnerships are already paying Federal, State, Local, School, and Property taxes just like everyone else. Many who choose never to have children still pay school taxes.

The government gives extra tax breaks to people with kids ON TOP of the other legal rights and incentives for marriage. You don't have to have kids if you're legally married.

It's not ok to tell people who nuture relationships and pay taxes just like everyone else that they have to contribute, but they don't get the same benefits as their peers.

I don't know anyone who minds paying school taxes even though they have no children in schools, but I know a couple of people who lost partners and then shared homes or livelihoods because they didn't have access to the protections the government gives legally married couples.

I don't mind paying may share of taxes for welfare, even though I don't plan to use the service. But it pisses me off knowing that I'm paying into Social Security and have been all my life, and when I die if I'm survived by my SO they're going to (in my mind) steal my money.

Some of the rights that the government gives married couples can be obtained independently through the courts, be it's a nightmare and gets really, really expensive to achieve.

Owned by Remi #?

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Why the heck sould we be giving anyone a break for being married anyway?

The government has an interest in the continued production of new citizens (i.e. taxpayers). When most of the "breaks for being married" originated creating new citizens outside of marriage was, according to society, a bad thing.

New citizens cost money to raise. Many of the "breaks" seem to me to be intended to free up income so the couple can better care for their future taxpayers.

By providing "breaks" for those who were married (and therefore more likely to produce 2.5 new taxpayers) the government encourages said new citizen production and ensures it's own future revenues...

Note I'm not saying you're wrong, but what a crock of shit. I live in a very Mormon community. Those people have a SHITLOAD of kids (6-9 is not all that uncommon). Between public schools, using public roads to transport those kids everywhere, etc, they use substantially more tax dollars than my girlfriend and I, yet they get more tax breaks for each kid and we have to pick up the slack for them. That's bullshit. I think the tax laws should be amended to make no distinction between single and married adults, nor offer tax breaks for having kids. If people can't afford to have a kid without a tax break, they shouldn't have the kid.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Marriage is not just a piece of paper. It is a promise to live together faithfully, till death, through thick and thin, sickness and health and it is a benefit to the children who are raised in it.

Why can't two people make the same promise without the piece of paper, especially if they don't intend to raise children together?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[skybytch 273]

Quote

Note I'm not saying you're wrong, but what a crock of shit.

Hee hee. I guess I shoulda noted that what I posted doesn't reflect my views on whether those breaks are right or wrong. Just trying to give a possible reason for their existence.

[crwtom 0]

Quote

Between public schools, using public roads to transport those kids everywhere, etc, they use substantially more tax dollars than my girlfriend and I

costs such as schooling are investments. They (are supposed to) pay-off by
them becoming productive tax-paying citizens a few years later - and thus
supporting older generation's retirements as well as a national economy as
a whole.

I know that if the generation after me would suddenly evaporate I'd be in
very serious economical trouble - even if I'm well-to-do at the moment with
plenty of savings.

Kids, marriages, and all that are contracts for sort-of "joint enterprises" that
a society offers to its individuals.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

Marriage is not just a piece of paper. It is a promise to live together faithfully, till death, through thick and thin, sickness and health and it is a benefit to the children who are raised in it.

Why can't two people make the same promise without the piece of paper, especially if they don't intend to raise children together?

People break promises. Granted, they also break contracts but at least that makes it more official and gives more of an incentive to stick to it. People need to be held accountable. Putting it into writing has always increased the seriousness of a commitment.

[newsstand 0]

Quote

"Don't Mess with Kansas........ Um...Either!"

You do know that Don't Mess With Texas is an anti-litter campiagn don't you?

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[skydiverkaz 0]

Personally, i believe the "because God says it's the way to go" thing, but that is my opinion.

Also, If a couple co-habit, without marriage, it is easier to dissolve the partnership, but marriage is harder to dissolve, so may encourage the couple to work at not having to break up when difficulties arise, and this may result in a couple working through their issues and staying together. Or that was kinda the way it worked with my parents. A good thing or not? Well, that must be dependent on the individual situation.

But I do think co-habiting can work too, i think if it means a more relaxed, comfortable environment for a couple and their children, if it's what suits that family, then surely it must be a more positive environment to raise that child. So, again, i guess I'm saying I can see why both work for some people, it's just I personally believe for me, that I should try to go down the marriage route.

If you're gona skate on thin ice, you might as well dance