Traditional Marriage

[Ken-1122]

Only because you have unfairly shrunk the playing field so that only the religious may participate.

Marriage has never been solely a religious activity, not even in the Bible.

We seem to be talking past each other; let me try it this way.
If the Government were no longer involved in marriage, what do you think would be the advantage of a non religious person getting married?

 

[Queller]

We seem to be talking past each other; let me try it this way.
If the Government were no longer involved in marriage, what do you think would be the advantage of a non religious person getting married?

Societal approval and support. Higher chance of a stable environment for any children produced through the union.

 

[Ken-1122]

Societal approval and support. Higher chance of a stable environment for any children produced through the union.

Why would this be the case by simply labeling the union marriage?

 

[Queller]

Why would this be the case by simply labeling the union marriage?

It has nothing to do with what it is labeled. You could call it gribnap nap for all that it matters. It's the societal contract part of it. You can't, despite your wish, just make that go away because the legal aspect of it does.

 

[Ken-1122]

It has nothing to do with what it is labeled. You could call it gribnap nap for all that it matters. It's the societal contract part of it. You can't, despite your wish, just make that go away because the legal aspect of it does.

I have no problem with people coming together under a social contract. My problem is when the government gets involved with that contract and gives those people under the contracts specific advantages at the expense of those who are not under the contract.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But if you take away the social contract of marriage, all you are left with is the religious aspects of marriage.

Marriage has not innate religious aspects; they are tacked on by people associating it with various faiths. You'll notice that, regardless of the predominant religion, most human cultures have some form of marriage. You'll also be able to note that the cultures that don't aren't without religion. You can strongly associate religion with marriage all you like, but the two are, ultimately, independent of each other.

People can get social contracts between each other without calling it a marriage.

Why do you care what word is used? If you want to distinguish a religiously affiliated marriage from a secular one, call it a Christian marriage or something. Other people shouldn't have to bend over backwards because "you don't like that marriage isn't associated with religion primarily". What even is your issue? I can understand religious people not liking something they traditionally view as part of their religion having non-religious participants, but you are an atheist. Why do you even care?

Are you suggesting marriage was a secular institution before it became a religious one?

Yes. It has the innate purpose of legitimizing children (being able to tell who the most likely father is), forming family bonds, and helping to maintain social order in small groups.

 

[Ken-1122]

Marriage has not innate religious aspects; they are tacked on by people associating it with various faiths. You'll notice that, regardless of the predominant religion, most human cultures have some form of marriage. You'll also be able to note that the cultures that don't aren't without religion. You can strongly associate religion with marriage all you like, but the two are, ultimately, independent of each other.


Why do you care what word is used? If you want to distinguish a religiously affiliated marriage from a secular one, call it a Christian marriage or something. Other people shouldn't have to bend over backwards because "you don't like that marriage isn't associated with religion primarily". What even is your issue? I can understand religious people not liking something they traditionally view as part of their religion having non-religious participants, but you are an atheist. Why do you even care?

All I said is that the Government should get out of the marriage business. Now if this were to happen, who other than someone from the religious community is going to marry people? A Judge? Justice of the peace? No; these are representatives of the state! I don't know of anybody else other than a religious representative who does marriages; perhaps I'm missing something here, can you?

Yes. It has the innate purpose of legitimizing children (being able to tell who the most likely father is), forming family bonds, and helping to maintain social order in small groups.

Legitimizing children? In whose eyes? If the State is no longer in the marriage business, the state is no longer in the business of legitimizing children who are a product of marriage; so in such a scenario; if not in the eyes of religion, in whose eyes are these children legitimized?

 

[PsychoSarah]

All I said is that the Government should get out of the marriage business.

For what purpose? Governments recognizing marriages helps in a lot of legal situations, such as child custody, as well as allowing utilitarian mergers of insurance coverage between two parties that have made a huge investment in each other.

Now if this were to happen, who other than someone from the religious community is going to marry people? A Judge? Justice of the peace? No; these are representatives of the state! I don't know of anybody else other than a religious representative who does marriages; perhaps I'm missing something here, can you?

-_- my mother was married by a judge. You could have a hairdresser perform the ceremony if you wanted. Marriage licences are so easy to get, you can apply online for them. Like I said, I could get one if I wanted. The only reason why people don't usually have it as a career is that it doesn't pay well enough.

Legitimizing children? In whose eyes? If the State is no longer in the marriage business, the state is no longer in the business of legitimizing children who are a product of marriage; so in such a scenario; if not in the eyes of religion, in whose eyes are these children legitimized?

-_- the eyes of the families of the betrothed are to whom the children are legitimized. Ever notice how people treat children in their own family better than random kids? Marrying someone makes you a part of their family, as well as your kids. This is the ultimate purpose of marriage. You need not government or religious intervention for it.

 

[Queller]

I have no problem with people coming together under a social contract. My problem is when the government gets involved with that contract and gives those people under the contracts specific advantages at the expense of those who are not under the contract.

The government gives specific advantages to groups all the time. Why should someone who starts a small business get tax breaks that I don't? Why should homeowners get tax breaks that I don't?

And how do married couples get an advantage at the expense of single people?

 

[Ken-1122]

For what purpose? Governments recognizing marriages helps in a lot of legal situations, such as child custody, as well as allowing utilitarian mergers of insurance coverage between two parties that have made a huge investment in each other.

And when insurance companies give married couples a lower insurance rates than unmarried couples, the unmarried couple has to pay extra to cover or the married couple.
When the Government gives tax breaks to married couples that they don't give to unmarried couples, the unmarried couple has to pay extra to cover for what the married couple is not paying.

-_- my mother was married by a judge. You could have a hairdresser perform the ceremony if you wanted. Marriage licences are so easy to get, you can apply online for them. Like I said, I could get one if I wanted. The only reason why people don't usually have it as a career is that it doesn't pay well enough.

I’m not talking about who preforms the ceremony, I’m talking about the person who signs the license making it a legal document. As long as this person is a representative of the state, my point stands.

-_- the eyes of the families of the betrothed are to whom the children are legitimized. Ever notice how people treat children in their own family better than random kids? Marrying someone makes you a part of their family, as well as your kids. This is the ultimate purpose of marriage. You need not government or religious intervention for it.

The government getting out of the marriage business is not going to stop families from loving each other, and bringing couples into the family.

 

[Ken-1122]

The government gives specific advantages to groups all the time. Why should someone who starts a small business get tax breaks that I don't? Why should homeowners get tax breaks that I don't?

And how do married couples get an advantage at the expense of single people?

Does starting a business take away from the tax base for someone else to pick up the tab? Does buying house take away from the tax base for someone else to pick up the tab? An argument can be made either way for those issues, but for now we are talking about marriage. If you wish to discuss something else perhaps another thread is in order

 

[Queller]

Does starting a business take away from the tax base for someone else to pick up the tab?

Yes, when they get tax breaks to start the business.

Does buying house take away from the tax base for someone else to pick up the tab?

Yep. Tax incentives to buy a home mean that others that pay property taxes must make up the lost revenue.

An argument can be made either way for those issues, but for now we are talking about marriage. If you wish to discuss something else perhaps another thread is in order

They are all advantages given to one group and not others. Why is that any different than what you are claiming regarding the unfairness of government support for marriage?

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, when they get tax breaks to start the business.

Yep. Tax incentives to buy a home mean that others that pay property taxes must make up the lost revenue.

They are all advantages given to one group and not others. Why is that any different than what you are claiming regarding the unfairness of government support for marriage?

When people start a business, the people involved pay additional taxes they would not be paying if they didn't start the business. Business lead to more taxes not less (not to mention other people employed who also pay taxes)
When people buy a house, they buy things and pay taxes they would not be paying if they didn't buy that house. So even if they get a tax break on buying those extra things for their house, a smaller percentage of taxes is better than no taxes at all. House buying leads to more taxes being paid.
When people get married, those involved do not pay extra taxes they wouldn't be paying if they didn't get married, they pay the same taxes just a lower percentage. Marriage leads to less taxes paid.

 

[Queller]

When people start a business, the people involved pay additional taxes they would not be paying if they didn't start the business. Business lead to more taxes not less (not to mention other people employed who also pay taxes)

<SIGH> They also get tax breaks (call them incentives if that makes you feel better) for starting the business.

They also get extra income from the business so of course they pay extra taxes. Not to mention that if the business loses money, that can lower their individual tax burden as well.

When people buy a house, they buy things and pay taxes they would not be paying if they didn't buy that house. So even if they get a tax break on buying those extra things for their house, a smaller percentage of taxes is better than no taxes at all. House buying leads to more taxes being paid.

We're not talking about things like sales tax here. Married couples pay sales tax just like single people do. House buying usually leads to significantly less income tax being paid (for most regular homeowners anyway) due to deductions for things like mortgage interest, property taxes, home improvement loan interest, and the like.

When people get married, those involved do not pay extra taxes they wouldn't be paying if they didn't get married, they pay the same taxes just a lower percentage. Marriage leads to less taxes paid.

You do know that married couples with similar incomes pay more in taxes than if they filed individually, right? The only real tax break a married couple gets is if one spouse makes significantly more than the other. It's called having dependents.

Do you want to take away the tax breaks that single parents get for supporting their children as well? It would make sense given your logic so far.

 

[Ken-1122]

<SIGH> They also get tax breaks (call them incentives if that makes you feel better) for starting the business.

They also get extra income from the business so of course they pay extra taxes. Not to mention that if the business loses money, that can lower their individual tax burden as well.

We're not talking about things like sales tax here. Married couples pay sales tax just like single people do. House buying usually leads to significantly less income tax being paid (for most regular homeowners anyway) due to deductions for things like mortgage interest, property taxes, home improvement loan interest, and the like.

I don't want to throw this thread off topic by bringing this into the conversation; but if you started another thread I would love to discuss my disagreement with you on these issues.
That being said, it sounds like your argument is like if I were saying Hitler was an evil man, you would point out some of the stuff that Gasey and Amin did to justify Hitler. Is this the position you are trying to take here?

You do know that married couples with similar incomes pay more in taxes than if they filed individually, right? The only real tax break a married couple gets is if one spouse makes significantly more than the other. It's called having dependents.

Do you want to take away the tax breaks that single parents get for supporting their children as well? It would make sense given your logic so far.

While true, if they both make similar incomes, the "marriage tax" can apply to a small extent, but if the incomes are much different, it can be big savings for the spouse making more money. Also when you consider the advantages for married couples using IRA, collecting social security after one spouse has died, Tax breaks for charity donations, medical coverage, these advantages outweigh the amount of damage done by the marriage tax.

 

[Queller]

I don't want to throw this thread off topic by bringing this into the conversation; but if you started another thread I would love to discuss my disagreement with you on these issues.
That being said, it sounds like your argument is like if I were saying Hitler was an evil man, you would point out some of the stuff that Gasey and Amin did to justify Hitler. Is this the position you are trying to take here?

First off: Godwin: you lose.

Second, what you're saying is we should stop Hitler but do nothing about Gasey and Amin.

Third, It isn't off-topic to this thread to discuss why you think legal marriage should be abolished in favor religious-only marriages.

While true, if they both make similar incomes, the "marriage tax" can apply to a small extent, but if the incomes are much different, it can be big savings for the spouse making more money.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

Also when you consider the advantages for married couples using IRA, collecting social security after one spouse has died, Tax breaks for charity donations, medical coverage, these advantages outweigh the amount of damage done by the marriage tax.

Similar to social security benefits is collecting inheritance (depending on the amount) and tax breaks for charitable donations apply to single people as well.

Dependents getting medical coverage goes right back to the question I asked you (to which you failed to respond). Namely; should we do away with tax credits for single people with children?

 

[Sammy-San]

First off: Godwin: you lose.

Second, what you're saying is we should stop Hitler but do nothing about Gasey and Amin.

Third, It isn't off-topic to this thread to discuss why you think legal marriage should be abolished in favor religious-only marriages.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

Similar to social security benefits is collecting inheritance (depending on the amount) and tax breaks for charitable donations apply to single people as well.

Dependents getting medical coverage goes right back to the question I asked you (to which you failed to respond). Namely; should we do away with tax credits for single people with children?

Was there an equivalent to that in ancient or medieval times?

 

[PsychoSarah]

And when insurance companies give married couples a lower insurance rates than unmarried couples, the unmarried couple has to pay extra to cover or the married couple.

In what situation does that happen? I said when you marry someone, you can put them under the same insurance plan as yourself, not necessarily pay less. You only personally pay less that way if it happens to be that your insurance is a benefit of your job, otherwise, it's just a convenience.

When the Government gives tax breaks to married couples that they don't give to unmarried couples, the unmarried couple has to pay extra to cover for what the married couple is not paying.

That stems from it being typical, until about 50 or so years ago, for married people to have kids to support. Taxes like that are about redistributing wealth so that the act of reproducing isn't as hard on your wallet. This is why you get tax breaks for having children too. However, you take such issue with just this one aspect of the government being involved in marriages, that you neglect to acknowledge the many benefits. For example, matters of inheritance, child custody, and healthcare decisions. Who is going to make healthcare decisions on your behalf if you are, say, in a coma? The legal first is your spouse, if you have one. "But Sarah, people are just one legal document away from having anyone they want named as their health advocate". Yeah, and very few people are knowledgeable enough about that process and can pay for the legal third party to legitimize it. Do you not realize how much married couples would be taxed on gifts to each other were it not for the government recognition of the union? Furthermore, most of the "tax breaks" people get for just being married, are mostly exploitable loop holes, not explicit benefits of marriage. For example, there is a way to pay less on your taxes that only works if one spouse makes significantly less money than the other, and another that only works if one of the spouses also owns property. That giving to charity counts in both names makes sense to me, given that most married couples pool their money together and make such decisions jointly. Sounds to me that you are just bitter about having to pay taxes.

The government getting out of the marriage business is not going to stop families from loving each other, and bringing couples into the family.

It'd make living as a couple HARDER than living as two single people in a house. A husband might not even be able to replace his wife's junky car without having to pay the gift tax. Basically, if the amount of money (or objects valuing) you give to other people without anything in exchange is over $14,000 (in the United States) in a year, and it's not a charitable donation, you are taxed for it. The gift tax is a means of preventing other loop holes rich people took advantage of so that their kids would avoid paying taxes on their inheritance, so you can't get rid of it or just let random people apply to share their money, as that would prevent its important function.

Basically, taking the government out of marriage would lower the quality of living for anyone that is married down below that of an unmarried person, would result in huge legal disputes (as in, worse than already exist) over child custody, property, and healthcare, and wouldn't make your personal taxes any lower. Seriously, you act as if what you pay in taxes would be lower if married people could never pay less than you.

 

[Sammy-San]

In what situation does that happen? I said when you marry someone, you can put them under the same insurance plan as yourself, not necessarily pay less. You only personally pay less that way if it happens to be that your insurance is a benefit of your job, otherwise, it's just a convenience.

When the Government gives tax breaks to married couples that they don't give to unmarried couples, the unmarried couple has to pay extra to cover for what the married couple is not paying.

That stems from it being typical, until about 50 or so years ago, for married people to have kids to support. Taxes like that are about redistributing wealth so that the act of reproducing isn't as hard on your wallet. This is why you get tax breaks for having children too. However, you take such issue with just this one aspect of the government being involved in marriages, that you neglect to acknowledge the many benefits. For example, matters of inheritance, child custody, and healthcare decisions. Who is going to make healthcare decisions on your behalf if you are, say, in a coma? The legal first is your spouse, if you have one. "But Sarah, people are just one legal document away from having anyone they want named as their health advocate". Yeah, and very few people are knowledgeable enough about that process and can pay for the legal third party to legitimize it. Do you not realize how much married couples would be taxed on gifts to each other were it not for the government recognition of the union? Furthermore, most of the "tax breaks" people get for just being married, are mostly exploitable loop holes, not explicit benefits of marriage. For example, there is a way to pay less on your taxes that only works if one spouse makes significantly less money than the other, and another that only works if one of the spouses also owns property. That giving to charity counts in both names makes sense to me, given that most married couples pool their money together and make such decisions jointly. Sounds to me that you are just bitter about having to pay taxes.


The government getting out of the marriage business is not going to stop families from loving each other, and bringing couples into the family.[/QUOTE]
It'd make living as a couple HARDER than living as two single people in a house. A husband might not even be able to replace his wife's junky car without having to pay the gift tax. Basically, if the amount of money (or objects valuing) you give to other people without anything in exchange is over $14,000 (in the United States) in a year, and it's not a charitable donation, you are taxed for it. The gift tax is a means of preventing other loop holes rich people took advantage of so that their kids would avoid paying taxes on their inheritance, so you can't get rid of it or just let random people apply to share their money, as that would prevent its important function.

Basically, taking the government out of marriage would lower the quality of living for anyone that is married down below that of an unmarried person, would result in huge legal disputes (as in, worse than already exist) over child custody, property, and healthcare, and wouldn't make your personal taxes any lower. Seriously, you act as if what you pay in taxes would be lower if married people could never pay less than you.[/QUOTE]

How is that a union, but having a last name isnt?

 

[PsychoSarah]

How is that a union, but having a last name isnt?

-_- because unrelated people you don't even know can have the same last name as you. Or do you think all people with the last name Smith know each other and have deep, family bonds?

-_- furthermore, people don't always change their last name when they get married, it's optional.

-_- also, what if some stalker gets their last name changed to yours, does that make them your spouse now? That would be a scary world.