Should marriage be privatized?

kkitkat79

In the other thread I argued that government should not be involved in the institution of marriage because it leads to discrimination. This discrimination did not end with the legalization of gay marriage. A lot of groups are still discriminated against: singles, polyamorous, unmarried couples, and many other forms of interpersonal relationships.

I think that is probably right that extending public benefits associated with marriage to all of these groups is unrealistic. So, I think, the only just solution is to not extend these benefits to anyone. Instead, private contracts can be made to have all sort of provisions for child care, division of assets, various set ups like breadwinner/homemaker contract, etc.

What do you think?

novella1186

I think if the government is discriminatory in its practices (which it is) the solution is not to remove government. The solution is to fix the source of the problem and change the discriminatory practices. 

Otherwise, to me, it's like saying "It's ok to discriminate, guys! We'll just remove you from being involved in marriage so it can be equal. But go ahead and still discriminate when it comes to federal benefits, governments jobs, etc. No prob!" 

kkitkat79

novella1186 said:

I think if the government is discriminatory in its practices (which it is) the solution is not to remove government. The solution is to fix the source of the problem and change the discriminatory practices. 

Otherwise, to me, it's like saying "It's ok to discriminate, guys! We'll just remove you from being involved in marriage so it can be equal. But go ahead and still discriminate when it comes to federal benefits, governments jobs, etc. No prob!" 

But that is exactly the point. The state is not allowed to discriminate. So when it comes to federal or state-level benefits, government jobs, etc. it should be equally available to everyone. Obviously I am not arguing for complete equality. That would be ridiculous and prohibitively expensive. The government has a legitimate role in providing for the poor for example. So it would discriminate based on one's financial situation by providing access to welfare services to the poor, but not the rich. But there is no legitimate reason as far as I can see for state-mandated discrimination based on race, gender, marital status, etc. 

ShesSoCold

kkitkat79 said:

In the other thread I argued that government should not be involved in the institution of marriage because it leads to discrimination. This discrimination did not end with the legalization of gay marriage. A lot of groups are still discriminated against: singles, polyamorous, unmarried couples, and many other forms of interpersonal relationships. I think that is probably right that extending public benefits associated with marriage to all of these groups is unrealistic. So, I think, the only just solution is to not extend these benefits to anyone. Instead, private contracts can be made to have all sort of provisions for child care, division of assets, various set ups like breadwinner/homemaker contract, etc. What do you think?

I should really just keep my mouth shut here, but the bolded is bugging me. This is very "every kid is a winner and deserves a trophy" to me. Singles are discriminated against because they don't get married benefits? Should I be upset that I'm discriminated against because the elderly get social security? That's so ageist of the government! Or that disabled people receive disability? That discriminates against people who aren't disabled! 

I am not referring to poly relationships, though. I don't believe I am educated enough to have an opinion on that. 

kkitkat79

ShesSoCold said:

kkitkat79 said:

In the other thread I argued that government should not be involved in the institution of marriage because it leads to discrimination. This discrimination did not end with the legalization of gay marriage. A lot of groups are still discriminated against: singles, polyamorous, unmarried couples, and many other forms of interpersonal relationships. I think that is probably right that extending public benefits associated with marriage to all of these groups is unrealistic. So, I think, the only just solution is to not extend these benefits to anyone. Instead, private contracts can be made to have all sort of provisions for child care, division of assets, various set ups like breadwinner/homemaker contract, etc. What do you think?

I should really just keep my mouth shut here, but the bolded is bugging me. This is very "every kid is a winner and deserves a trophy" to me. Singles are discriminated against because they don't get married benefits? Should I be upset that I'm discriminated against because the elderly get social security? That's so ageist of the government! Or that disabled people receive disability? That discriminates against people who aren't disabled! 

I am not referring to poly relationships, though. I don't believe I am educated enough to have an opinion on that. 

You are absolutely right. Government does discriminate based on age, disability, financial status, etc. I believe the government has a legitimate role when it comes to providing a social safety net. So I have no problem with state discrimination based on well-being of an individual. 

Why should a married couple get a cookie? What is so special about that achievement? Is it that somehow an individual is less of something because they were not fortunate enough to find someone to marry?

People here argue all the time that one should not judge a relationship based marital status. I think the argument should extend to not judging anyone based on their marital status. But then again, private individuals are free to judge or not judge however they see fit. That should not apply to governments. Especially when it comes to something so private as marriage.     

ShesSoCold

kkitkat79 said:

ShesSoCold said:

kkitkat79 said:

In the other thread I argued that government should not be involved in the institution of marriage because it leads to discrimination. This discrimination did not end with the legalization of gay marriage. A lot of groups are still discriminated against: singles, polyamorous, unmarried couples, and many other forms of interpersonal relationships. I think that is probably right that extending public benefits associated with marriage to all of these groups is unrealistic. So, I think, the only just solution is to not extend these benefits to anyone. Instead, private contracts can be made to have all sort of provisions for child care, division of assets, various set ups like breadwinner/homemaker contract, etc. What do you think?

I should really just keep my mouth shut here, but the bolded is bugging me. This is very "every kid is a winner and deserves a trophy" to me. Singles are discriminated against because they don't get married benefits? Should I be upset that I'm discriminated against because the elderly get social security? That's so ageist of the government! Or that disabled people receive disability? That discriminates against people who aren't disabled! 

I am not referring to poly relationships, though. I don't believe I am educated enough to have an opinion on that. 

You are absolutely right. Government does discriminate based on age, disability, financial status, etc. I believe the government has a legitimate role when it comes to providing a social safety net. So I have no problem with state discrimination based on well-being of an individual. 

Why should a married couple get a cookie? What is so special about that achievement? Is it that somehow an individual is less of something because they were not fortunate enough to find someone to marry?

People here argue all the time that one should not judge a relationship based marital status. I think the argument should extend to not judging anyone based on their marital status. But then again, private individuals are free to judge or not judge however they see fit. That should not apply to governments. Especially when it comes to something so private as marriage.     

What are you even talking about, though? What married benefits are you upset about? Should single people be allowed to file taxes with their bestie? Do you want people who are dating to be able to make end of life choices for the other? What, exactly, is your problem with legal marriage?

TrixieJess

kkitkat79 said:

ShesSoCold said:

kkitkat79 said:

In the other thread I argued that government should not be involved in the institution of marriage because it leads to discrimination. This discrimination did not end with the legalization of gay marriage. A lot of groups are still discriminated against: singles, polyamorous, unmarried couples, and many other forms of interpersonal relationships. I think that is probably right that extending public benefits associated with marriage to all of these groups is unrealistic. So, I think, the only just solution is to not extend these benefits to anyone. Instead, private contracts can be made to have all sort of provisions for child care, division of assets, various set ups like breadwinner/homemaker contract, etc. What do you think?

I should really just keep my mouth shut here, but the bolded is bugging me. This is very "every kid is a winner and deserves a trophy" to me. Singles are discriminated against because they don't get married benefits? Should I be upset that I'm discriminated against because the elderly get social security? That's so ageist of the government! Or that disabled people receive disability? That discriminates against people who aren't disabled! 

I am not referring to poly relationships, though. I don't believe I am educated enough to have an opinion on that. 

You are absolutely right. Government does discriminate based on age, disability, financial status, etc. I believe the government has a legitimate role when it comes to providing a social safety net. So I have no problem with state discrimination based on well-being of an individual. 

Why should a married couple get a cookie? What is so special about that achievement? Is it that somehow an individual is less of something because they were not fortunate enough to find someone to marry?

People here argue all the time that one should not judge a relationship based marital status. I think the argument should extend to not judging anyone based on their marital status. But then again, private individuals are free to judge or not judge however they see fit. That should not apply to governments. Especially when it comes to something so private as marriage.     

Marriage has never been private. Marriage has always been performed in a public setting. Marriage has never been something between 2 people, this is a recent concept. Marriage is something that has been for the benefit of others. The two people who have gotten married have done so at the behest of others. It is only in the past 100 years that we have gotten away from marriages for reasons of property and breeding, and gone onto marriages of love. 

Your argument doesn't hold water. The reason the government is so invested in marriage has to do with the original intent of marriage as a way to increase property and assets. You also have to understand that not every government views marriage, singles and common-laws as the States does so your arguments only apply to one small part of the Westernised world.

kkitkat79

ShesSoCold said:

   

What are you even talking about, though? What married benefits are you upset about? Should single people be allowed to file taxes with their bestie? Do you want people who are dating to be able to make end of life choices for the other? What, exactly, is your problem with legal marriage?

I am talking about a principle here. Throughout the debate re gay marriage the argument was that married people get thousands of all kinds of benefits. Insurance benefits, tax breaks, etc., etc., etc. Some of these benefits are available through private contracts, like ability to make end of life choices. However, some of the benefits are only available through government. Apparently, there are over a thousand benefits, rights, and protections afforded only to married couples. But everyone pays taxes. What is so special about married couples? Why am I not able to file taxes with my bestie? Why am I penalized for not finding someone to "join property and breed" with?

@TrixieJess, you are absolutely right, traditionally marriage has been about property and breeding. But I think the gay marriage movement rejected this tradition and rightly so. If marriage is about breeding than infertile people should not be able to get married. If marriage is about property than couples must be forced to join assets once they are married. Would you agree with that?

To nitpick a little bit, my argument either "doesn't hold water" or it only "applies to a small part of the Western world", it cannot be both. But to address your point re more equal laws for singles, common-law etc. in other countries. I am mostly familiar with North America and a bit of Middle East. It is entirely possible that there are countries that grant no additional benefits to married couples. I am fine with it. As long as the state treats everyone equally the title doesn't concern me. It can be called, marriage, commom-law, whatever. Someone in the other thread did make a point about "separate, but equal" not being a thing, but you know... it's a different discussion. The countries I am familiar with do grant special benefits to married couples and I do not think that it is just. Or necessary.        

TrixieJess

kkitkat79 said:

ShesSoCold said:

   

What are you even talking about, though? What married benefits are you upset about? Should single people be allowed to file taxes with their bestie? Do you want people who are dating to be able to make end of life choices for the other? What, exactly, is your problem with legal marriage?

I am talking about a principle here. Throughout the debate re gay marriage the argument was that married people get thousands of all kinds of benefits. Insurance benefits, tax breaks, etc., etc., etc. Some of these benefits are available through private contracts, like ability to make end of life choices. However, some of the benefits are only available through government. Apparently, there are over a thousand benefits, rights, and protections afforded only to married couples. But everyone pays taxes. What is so special about married couples? Why am I not able to file taxes with my bestie? Why am I penalized for not finding someone to "join property and breed" with?

@TrixieJess, you are absolutely right, traditionally marriage has been about property and breeding. But I think the gay marriage movement rejected this tradition and rightly so. If marriage is about breeding than infertile people should not be able to get married. If marriage is about property than couples must be forced to join assets once they are married. Would you agree with that?

To nitpick a little bit, my argument either "doesn't hold water" or it only "applies to a small part of the Western world", it cannot be both. But to address your point re more equal laws for singles, common-law etc. in other countries. I am mostly familiar with North America and a bit of Middle East. It is entirely possible that there are countries that grant no additional benefits to married couples. I am fine with it. As long as the state treats everyone equally the title doesn't concern me. It can be called, marriage, commom-law, whatever. Someone in the other thread did make a point about "separate, but equal" not being a thing, but you know... it's a different discussion. The countries I am familiar with do grant special benefits to married couples and I do not think that it is just. Or necessary.        

Okay, so I'm going to address the bolded. The laws where I'm from say that as soon as I'm married, all assets that go into that marriage are now 50/50. Pre-nup agreements are unenforceable in my neck of the woods. 

In our Country we have Common-Laws. FI and I pay taxes as if we are married because we have a child and we live together and we present like a married couple. He is also entitled to be on my insurance as "spouse" because we are common-law. We are getting married because it offers other protections in the way of splitting assets in cases of death and/or separation that common-laws don't account for. Oh, and common-laws are across the board, for same-sex or opposite sex couples, as long as you have lived together for 3 or more years and you present as a couple or you have a child and live together and present as a couple. 

Also, I know a lot of people that lost out on tax breaks when they got married because their combined income pushed them into a higher tax bracket and screwed them out of credits that they were entitled to when single. So, no, being married doesn't automatically get you a tax break, it can actually harm you. 

Your argument doesn't hold water because you are arguing from a limited point-of-view. The wide world has differing laws when it comes to marriage and who is entitled to assets from before the marriage, during and after. Marriage is still about joining of property, only now, people can make their own decisions about it. If you are still using your church argument for marriage, if you get married in the Catholic Church, you have to promise to raise your children Catholic, which amounts to promising to have children.

MyNameIsNot

kkitkat79 said:

ShesSoCold said:

   

What are you even talking about, though? What married benefits are you upset about? Should single people be allowed to file taxes with their bestie? Do you want people who are dating to be able to make end of life choices for the other? What, exactly, is your problem with legal marriage?

I am talking about a principle here. Throughout the debate re gay marriage the argument was that married people get thousands of all kinds of benefits. Insurance benefits, tax breaks, etc., etc., etc. Some of these benefits are available through private contracts, like ability to make end of life choices. However, some of the benefits are only available through government. Apparently, there are over a thousand benefits, rights, and protections afforded only to married couples. But everyone pays taxes. What is so special about married couples? Why am I not able to file taxes with my bestie? Why am I penalized for not finding someone to "join property and breed" with?

@TrixieJess, you are absolutely right, traditionally marriage has been about property and breeding. But I think the gay marriage movement rejected this tradition and rightly so. If marriage is about breeding than infertile people should not be able to get married. If marriage is about property than couples must be forced to join assets once they are married. Would you agree with that?

To nitpick a little bit, my argument either "doesn't hold water" or it only "applies to a small part of the Western world", it cannot be both. But to address your point re more equal laws for singles, common-law etc. in other countries. I am mostly familiar with North America and a bit of Middle East. It is entirely possible that there are countries that grant no additional benefits to married couples. I am fine with it. As long as the state treats everyone equally the title doesn't concern me. It can be called, marriage, commom-law, whatever. Someone in the other thread did make a point about "separate, but equal" not being a thing, but you know... it's a different discussion. The countries I am familiar with do grant special benefits to married couples and I do not think that it is just. Or necessary.        

I'm only going to address the bold. 

Marriage is encouraged with tax benefits because our society decided long ago that it is in the best interest of society if more people are married. Society therefore enacted tax laws that gave incentives to married couples*. This is the same reason that homeowners get tax breaks on interest and certain other home expenses. We decided long ago that it was in the best interest of society as a whole to encourage home ownership. Singles don't get those tax benefits just like renters don't get those benefits, because they aren't doing something we decided we wanted to encourage. 

*I fully recognize that these tax incentives don't work out as benefits for many married couples because joint incomes push them into higher tax brackets and for other reasons. It was designed to, though. 

STARMOON44

Seems like a fantastic way to make sure the poor have no access to the stability and protection of marriage.

KatWAG

OP, if you think marriage should be privatized, will you and your SO be getting a marriage license?

TrixieJess

KatWAG said:

OP, if you think marriage should be privatized, will you and your SO be getting a marriage license?

They are already married.

KatWAG

TrixieJess said:

KatWAG said:

OP, if you think marriage should be privatized, will you and your SO be getting a marriage license?

They are already married.

Did they sign the government paperwork associated with being legally married?

ShesSoCold

KatWAG said:

TrixieJess said:

KatWAG said:

OP, if you think marriage should be privatized, will you and your SO be getting a marriage license?

They are already married.

Did they sign the government paperwork associated with being legally married?

Yep. 

thisismynickname2

I voted yes to this poll, admittedly with my narrow world view of what's acceptable in my country and state. Think about things like household tax status, ability to visit people in a hospital, ability to inherit when one dies, ability to receive certain benefits of another's employment. It's all currently overly complicated by the fact that marriage carries so much weight. Look what abuses of the system can take place--- someone refusing to get married to someone new in order to keep taking benefits from a former spouse, someone refusing to get married in order to keep qualifying for government benefits. 

I don't have a solution to propose, but do think that marital benefits are needlessly exclusive and complicated and better legal structures could exist in current society, regardless of why they existed in the past. 

That said, I'm not at all a fan of "band-aid" solutions to problems in the world and though it's not realistic of course, wish we could completely scrap systems that don't work and start all over. 

kkitkat79

@TrixieJess, First, I am glad that in your country the government is at least consistent. Marriage is about property so no prenups. That makes sense. It is definitely debatable whether marriage should be about property, but that is a separate debate. With respect to common law, I know that common law offers some of the benefits in some of the countries, maybe even most benefits, but even you concede that there are still differences. And none of it addresses the question what is so special about married people as opposed to single people.

Well, maybe married people are special. @MyNameIsNot, You are right, there is an argument that a society is more stable when there are more married people (mind you, until recently that argument was used against gay marriage) so there seems to be a legitimate role for the government to provide incentives. However, as you and @TrixieJess mentioned some couples might face a disincentive to get married. This seems inconsistent. It seems that the government wants to incentives poorer people to get married, but doesn't care that much when it comes to the rich. I find it curious. It might be that the disincentive is not that strong.

Despite the inconsistencies, I think that the argument that marriage should be encouraged because it has a public benefit is a strong one. I am not a utilitarian, but I understand how compelling it is. But then the definition of what marriage is should be very very clear. Is it only the union of two people? Can it be three people? Four? Are we willing to say that as much as people have the right to form any kinds of relationships only certain kinds of relationships provide public benefit? Because that implies that some relationships are better than others. Are we ok with that?

With respect to me being married. As I mentioned in the other thread, I am a hypocrite when it come to this issue in the sense that I will be taken taking full advantage of the privilege that will be granted to me when my husband joins me (I have huge issues with immigration policies as well!). However, I also recognize that it is a privilege and in my opinion an unjust one. So I have no problem letting go of it and I encourage others to agree with me. 

Me being a hypocrite does not invalidate my argument though. It might not be valid for other reasons, but my hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

TrixieJess

kkitkat79 said:

@TrixieJess, First, I am glad that in your country the government is at least consistent. Marriage is about property so no prenups. That makes sense. It is definitely debatable whether marriage should be about property, but that is a separate debate. With respect to common law, I know that common law offers some of the benefits in some of the countries, maybe even most benefits, but even you concede that there are still differences. And none of it addresses the question what is so special about married people as opposed to single people.

Well, maybe married people are special. @MyNameIsNot, You are right, there is an argument that a society is more stable when there are more married people (mind you, until recently that argument was used against gay marriage) so there seems to be a legitimate role for the government to provide incentives. However, as you and @TrixieJess mentioned some couples might face a disincentive to get married. This seems inconsistent. It seems that the government wants to incentives poorer people to get married, but doesn't care that much when it comes to the rich. I find it curious. It might be that the disincentive is not that strong.

Despite the inconsistencies, I think that the argument that marriage should be encouraged because it has a public benefit is a strong one. I am not a utilitarian, but I understand how compelling it is. But then the definition of what marriage is should be very very clear. Is it only the union of two people? Can it be three people? Four? Are we willing to say that as much as people have the right to form any kinds of relationships only certain kinds of relationships provide public benefit? Because that implies that some relationships are better than others. Are we ok with that?

With respect to me being married. As I mentioned in the other thread, I am a hypocrite when it come to this issue in the sense that I will be taken full advantage of the privilege that will be granted to me when my husband joins me (I have huge issues with immigration policies as well!). However, I also recognize that it is a privilege and in my opinion an unjust one. So I have no problem letting go of it and I encourage others to agree with me. 

Me being a hypocrite does not invalidate my argument though. It might not be valid for other reasons, but my hypocrisy has nothing to do with it.

Nope, not what I said. I said that pre-nups are unenforceable. It has to do with equity within the marriage and the laws that surround it. A pre-nup cannot negate any marital assets. 

Also, getting married is a choice. Now the States has equalised and done what many other countries have been doing for years, granting equal marriage status to gay marriage. Now it is marriage, and people who didn't have the choice before can and are choosing to get married.

And yes, your hypocrisy does invalidate your argument. You cannot stand there on your apple box preaching about how unfortunate it is that marriage grants these peoples rights and incentives (that you benefit from) and in the next breath say but my marriage has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with it. You could just as easily live with your SO and play house without benefiting from any tax breaks or insurance breaks. 

kkitkat79

@TrixieJess, if I have a contract, but I can't enforce it, do I have a contract?

Yes, getting married is a choice. My question is why this choice is so special that it provides access to special state benefits that are not accessible to everyone else? One suggestion was that marriage is special because it provides public benefit; our society is better if there are more married people in it. Fair enough. But then one can hardly claim that marriage is about love, dignity, etc. It can be about those things as well, but not only. And other forms of relationships be they as special as they are do not provide the same kind of public benefit so the state is not going to encourage it.

With respect to my hypocricy, your argument is ad hominem. Also, you got it wrong, I am not arguing that it is unfortunate that marriage grants rights, I am arguing that it is unfortunate that only marriage gets these rights. It is discriminatory and I personally see no good reason to discriminate based on marital status. I wish everyone would get these benefits, but that is very expensive so no one should get it. Regardless, my marriage has nothing to do with the validity of my argument. If I was a better person I would act on all of my beliefs, but alas, I am not so I don't. But if ever there will come a time that state and marriage will go their separate way I will embrace it. 

Also, good job suggesting unmarried couples "play house".

TrixieJess

kkitkat79 said:

@TrixieJess, if I have a contract, but I can't enforce it, do I have a contract?

Yes, getting married is a choice. My question is why this choice is so special that it provides access to special state benefits that are not accessible to everyone else? One suggestion was that marriage is special because it provides public benefit; our society is better if there are more married people in it. Fair enough. But then one can hardly claim that marriage is about love, dignity, etc. It can be about those things as well, but not only. And other forms of relationships be they as special as they are do not provide the same kind of public benefit so the state is not going to encourage it.

With respect to my hypocricy, your argument is ad hominem. Also, you got it wrong, I am not arguing that it is unfortunate that marriage grants rights, I am arguing that it is unfortunate that only marriage gets these rights. It is discriminatory and I personally see no good reason to discriminate based on marital status. I wish everyone would get these benefits, but that is very expensive so no one should get it. Regardless, my marriage has nothing to do with the validity of my argument. If I was a better person I would act on all of my beliefs, but alas, I am not so I don't. But if ever there will come a time that state and marriage will go their separate way I will embrace it. 

Also, good job suggesting unmarried couples "play house".

First bolded: If the writ of law supercedes the contents of the contract, yes.

Seconded bolded: I was actually talking about living unmarried and "playing house".

Reading comprehension is your friend!

As well, I have furnished you with a couple of examples where singles and other couples can have benefits as marrieds. Circumstances are different in different places. Marriage is an equaliser. It is something that can be offered as a choice to individuals, it can be taken or left. 

I have no idea why you believe that my telling you that your argument is invalid and the reasons why makes it ad hominem.

Maybe instead of using big words and arguing big ideas(that clearly you don't understand). Look inside yourself and figure out why you are so adamant that you want the nature of marriage changed. 

kkitkat79

@TrixieJess, you said that my hypocrisy invalidates my argument. That is ad hominem - you are attacking my character, not my argument.

And again, good job suggesting that unmarried couples "play house". It sure seems you take those relationships seriously. 

Yes, you gave me examples that in some places some singles, and some common laws get some of the benefits. Some is not same.

 Do you think it is ok for people to get married just for the benefits? 

The nature of marriage has already changed. A lot. Like, a whole lot. That's why we have gay marriage now. I want it to be even more equal.

TrixieJess

kkitkat79 said:

@TrixieJess, you said that my hypocrisy invalidates my argument. That is ad hominem - you are attacking my character, not my argument.

And again, good job suggesting that unmarried couples "play house". It sure seems you take those relationships seriously. 

Yes, you gave me examples that in some places some singles, and some common laws get some of the benefits. Some is not same.

 Do you think it is ok for people to get married just for the benefits? 

The nature of marriage has already changed. A lot. Like, a whole lot. That's why we have gay marriage now. I want it to be even more equal.

It only attacks your character if I called you a hypocrite. You called yourself a hypocrite and I shone a light on why your hypocrisy invalidated your argument.

See why words and context are important.

Viczaesar

kkitkat79 said:

@TrixieJess, you said that my hypocrisy invalidates my argument. That is ad hominem - you are attacking my character, not my argument.

And again, good job suggesting that unmarried couples "play house". It sure seems you take those relationships seriously. 

Yes, you gave me examples that in some places some singles, and some common laws get some of the benefits. Some is not same.

 Do you think it is ok for people to get married just for the benefits? 

The nature of marriage has already changed. A lot. Like, a whole lot. That's why we have gay marriage now. I want it to be even more equal.

I want it to be more equal by extending the benefits of marriage to all consenting adults.  Right now we're working on extension to same-sex couples; polyamorous groupings will be next.  I'm not a fan of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

kkitkat79

@TrixieJess, it does not matter that I am a hypocrite. 

Let me explain with an hypothetical. I smoke, but I encourage everyone not to do it because it is bad for them. Is my argument invalid?  

kkitkat79

Viczaesar said:

I want it to be more equal by extending the benefits of marriage to all consenting adults.  Right now we're working on extension to same-sex couples; polyamorous groupings will be next.  I'm not a fan of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I am not asking to be difficult, I am genuinely interested in your answer. Why do you think married groups are more special than unmarried groups or singles? Why do you think we need to encourage or reward marriage?  

CMGragain

Marriage is a legal state which governs how people are treated within the law, regarding taxes, home ownership. medical rights, obligation for children's welfare, and decision making, insurance and benefits, etc.  It is regulated by the law.  The law changes occasionally.  Without the framework of the law, marriage does not exist.

photokitty

If we all agree "life is not fair," can we move on?

ShesSoCold

photokitty said:

If we all agree "life is not fair," can we move on?

Not until everyone gets a trophy.

kkitkat79

CMGragain said:

Marriage is a legal state which governs how people are treated within the law, regarding taxes, home ownership. medical rights, obligation for children's welfare, and decision making, insurance and benefits, etc.  It is regulated by the law.  The law changes occasionally.  Without the framework of the law, marriage does not exist.

Marriage started out as a private contract between families. There was, as is now, contract law that governs oral and written agreements associated with exchange of goods and services, money, and properties. Theoretically anyone should be able to have a binding agreement that would cover asset ownership, private insurance, obligation for children's welfare and decision making, and any other aspects that private individuals have control over. However, there are also aspects like taxes, government benefits that private individuals have no control over. Why should laws that cover taxes and government benefits be different for married people? What is so special about people who choose to enter a specific type of binding contract that they should be treated differently by the government?

I am not suggesting we do way with the institution of marriage. I am suggesting that the government should have nothing to do with this institution. Marriage should be a private binding agreement between private individuals. Then there are no issues with defining what marriage is. People of religion can view it as a binding agreement between two individuals and God, polyamorous partners view it as a binding agreement between a number of consenting adults. And unmarried couples and single people are not penalized for not entering a legally binding contract.   

 

Viczaesar

kkitkat79 said:

Viczaesar said:

I want it to be more equal by extending the benefits of marriage to all consenting adults.  Right now we're working on extension to same-sex couples; polyamorous groupings will be next.  I'm not a fan of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I am not asking to be difficult, I am genuinely interested in your answer. Why do you think married groups are more special than unmarried groups or singles? Why do you think we need to encourage or reward marriage?  

I never said that married groups are more special than unmarried groups or singles.

TrixieJess

kkitkat79 said:

@TrixieJess, it does not matter that I am a hypocrite. 

Let me explain with an hypothetical. I smoke, but I encourage everyone not to do it because it is bad for them. Is my argument invalid?  

Please read Descartes or Plato then present your terms of validity.