Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nadaka]

And besides that, the amount of money saved by filing jointly is insignificant compared to a ceo's salary. And even for people with normal incomes, the savings are strongest when there is a large disparity in income between the married couple.

[MonkeyHead]

Lets not forget weddings for Visa/Green Card...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Lets not forget weddings for Visa/Green Card...

And? Is that such a bad thing?

What changed? Really, I want to know. What happened to the time where other people wanting to become part of your country was seen as a good thing?

[Montague]

... How is this any more open to abuse than, say, two CEOs of opposite gender doing the same? This is a complete red herring that is endemic to marriage itself, not gay marriage specifically.

Except then they should be criticizing marriage itself, not gay marriage in particular.

Right. They'd object to same-sex marriage because they don't agree with the concept of it, or they don't believe it's any of the government's businesses, or don't like there to be benefits associated with it.

So they object because they don't want anybody getting married and certainly don't want to expand marriage eligibility to ever more people when marriage is a discriminatory and flawed system open to abuse.

Straight marriages are abused for legal benefits all the time.

Let's ban those.

Exactly.

[G-Flex]

I don't think anybody objecting to gay marriage specifically is doing so because they're against the institution of marriage altogether. If you're against marriage per se, why would you rally against gay marriage and send completely the wrong signal?

Note that when I say "anybody" I mean "a significant proportion of people".

[Aequor]

... How is this any more open to abuse than, say, two CEOs of opposite gender doing the same? This is a complete red herring that is endemic to marriage itself, not gay marriage specifically.

Except then they should be criticizing marriage itself, not gay marriage in particular.

Right. They'd object to same-sex marriage because they don't agree with the concept of it, or they don't believe it's any of the government's businesses, or don't like there to be benefits associated with it.

So they object because they don't want anybody getting married and certainly don't want to expand marriage eligibility to ever more people when marriage is a discriminatory and flawed system open to abuse.

The problem with people who are all 'I'm against government being in marriage' is that 9/10ths of them only apply it to gay marriage. When it comes to gay marriage, they will all say 'ah well, I'm against government being in marriage' but they won't bother lobbying for the removal of government in straight marriage.

Personally, I'm against government in marriage. But as long as government is in marriage, it should be in all marriage. Otherwise you aren't 'stopping government from expanding marriage eligibility' you're just making sure only one group gets the benefits - however much you disagree with those benefits - and the other groups get absolutely zilch.

[G-Flex]

The problem with people who are all 'I'm against government being in marriage' is that 9/10ths of them only apply it to gay marriage. When it comes to gay marriage, they will all say 'ah well, I'm against government being in marriage' but they won't bother lobbying for the removal of government in straight marriage.

There's also a big difference between "I'm against government being in marriage" and "I'm against the federal government being in marriage".

[kaijyuu]

I'm one of those people who think marriage should be completely divorced (tee-hee) from government.

Do something along the lines of "households" for tax benefits/etc.

[G-Flex]

The notion of "family" is still quite relevant, though, for many purposes, and the social purpose of a spouse is also relevant in ways that have little to do with the "household" itself.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States#Rights_and_benefits

[Montague]

The problem with people who are all 'I'm against government being in marriage' is that 9/10ths of them only apply it to gay marriage. When it comes to gay marriage, they will all say 'ah well, I'm against government being in marriage' but they won't bother lobbying for the removal of government in straight marriage.

There's also a big difference between "I'm against government being in marriage" and "I'm against the federal government being in marriage".

There is also a big difference between working to undo a problem and working to prevent the problem from growing.

But yeah, there is that. If you wanted to create greater equality before the law, you'd abolish governmental and legal involvement in marriage. Marriage the way it is now, discriminates against everyone who chooses not to get married. You can downplay the benefits of marriage, but there are benefits, incentives even, to get married.

It's sort of like a civil rights bill saying "Ok, this ethnic minority now gets the same special minor entitlements as the majority, but the rest of the minorities still won't get them, they don't need them anyways" and I'm not sure if that's really promoting equality.

[G-Flex]

But yeah, there is that. If you wanted to create greater equality before the law, you'd abolish governmental and legal involvement in marriage. Marriage the way it is now, discriminates against everyone who chooses not to get married. You can downplay the benefits of marriage, but there are benefits, incentives even, to get married.

... And all those benefits are related to having a spouse. Married people do not get any special rights that I can think of that would even make sense for an unmarried person to have. God forbid an unmarried person doesn't get to take leave from work when their nonexistent spouse dies, or can't jointly file income tax returns with their imaginary wife.

[MonkeyHead]

Lets not forget weddings for Visa/Green Card...

And? Is that such a bad thing?

What changed? Really, I want to know. What happened to the time where other people wanting to become part of your country was seen as a good thing?

Been quite high profile here in the UK over the last few years as part of our ongoing problems with illegal immigration. There have been documented cases (often carried out by organized bodies) involving either an "undesirable" (criminal) or someone with no legal right to be in the country (i.e. illegal immigrants or individuals who have had asylum requests turned down) marrying in order to obtain passports/visa etc. Most of these individuals go on to become a bruden to the state in terms of housing/benefits, but the state has its hands tied as a convenient wedding makes it all nice and legal.

Of course, there might be "sham" weddings which act as a net gain to our country, but most are criminal acts where people (often the bride, sometimes as human traffiking for prostitution or other slavery) are exploited for the profit of criminal bodies.

[Nadaka]

Um... the purpose of the tax benfits of marriage is to partially offset the cost of supporting a family, not to punish someone for being single. And even if unmarried, you can still claim adults you live with as dependants if you provide more than half their support.

[Aequor]

Lets not forget weddings for Visa/Green Card...

And? Is that such a bad thing?

What changed? Really, I want to know. What happened to the time where other people wanting to become part of your country was seen as a good thing?

Been quite high profile here in the UK over the last few years as part of our ongoing problems with illegal immigration. There have been documented cases (often carried out by organized bodies) involving either an "undesirable" (criminal) or someone with no legal right to be in the country (i.e. illegal immigrants or individuals who have had asylum requests turned down) marrying in order to obtain passports/visa etc. Most of these individuals go on to become a bruden to the state in terms of housing/benefits, but the state has its hands tied as a convenient wedding makes it all nice and legal.

Of course, there might be "sham" weddings which act as a net gain to our country, but most are criminal acts where people (often the bride, sometimes as human traffiking for prostitution or other slavery) are exploited for the profit of criminal bodies.

And of course, such problems have a knock-on effect that causes more problems throughout the country, such as the Daily Mail.

[Montague]

... And all those benefits are related to having a spouse. Married people do not get any special rights that I can think of that would even make sense for an unmarried person to have. God forbid an unmarried person doesn't get to take leave from work when their nonexistent spouse dies, or can't jointly file income tax returns with their imaginary wife.

Not all are. For example, your salary in the military is dependent on if you are married or single. If both spouses work and don't have kids, what is the rationale behind giving them a tax-cut? You don't think it's unfair that single people pay higher taxes or must work longer hours then married people?

Sure, some of the benefits really only apply to couples, but many do not and so long as the legal status of marriage is discriminatory for tangible reasons then then it is essentially institutionalized discrimination against singles. Simple as that.