Is MARRIAGE becoming an OUTDATED institution?

[decem]

another note/question.. i'm pretty sure you're addressing the fact that a couple in a long-term relationship should receive same breaks/assistance as a married couple.. right? so.. how much should a single parent, in no type of relationship recieve then? the same amount as two people?

hasn't our government already covered what you guys are discussing here.. i.e. tax breaks - a married couple receives tax breaks.. even more if have a kid.. two unwed parents receive tax breaks.. dependent on how much custody they have of the child.. right? poor, married couples receive govt assistance.. even more if have a kid.. poor, single parent receives govt assistance.. but the other parent who does not have custody does not.. or if they do.. they receive very little.. and why should they... the child isn't a burden on them at all...

so what i'm getting at.. is that the law has already accounted for married, unmarried, single parents.. and gives the appropriate amount of breaks/assistance dependent on the amount of custody each parent has of the child.. right??

 

[musclebrains]

Hmmm That's interesting.. Now you are treading in some very dangerous territory.. Suppose that we appealed to whim of every group who did not follow the domininant culture's values?

Comon, child abuse isn't so bad... why should I be punished for hitting my kid with a belt... Lets descriminalized child abuse..

That mother took my crack, he deserved to pumped full of lead..
Lets repeal murder laws... because that guy deserved it IMO.

Man, that girl wanted sex, you should have seen the dress she was wearing... Lets relax rape laws...


You cant always give people what they want... People sometimes want things that are BAD for them.. go figure.

Thats why we have laws, and further thats why we have legislation that supports those laws...

Hey, if you dont like the group you hang out with,leave.. Im sure the europeans would love to have you.

I hardly think conferring the tax advantages of the married on the unmarried -- giving the unmarried equal status under the law -- is analogous to the legalization of rape.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

I hardly think conferring the tax advantages of the married on the unmarried -- giving the unmarried equal status under the law -- is analogous to the legalization of rape.

Not yet anyways....

 

[Prometheus]

There is some confusion here.. There is a difference in marriage of the law, and marriage of gods blessing. Don't confuse the two.

good point.

some of the posts here have exaggerated the difficulties involved - it is easier to get married than it is to get a driver's license. divorce is somewhat more involved, as it should be any time people who have jointly created something have to divide it, although the process is certainly abused by greedy lawyers and by the judicial system.

 

[curling]

My opinion is "no" marriage is not an outdated institution. I think sticking by your vows is becoming an outdated institution. In otherwords going back on your word. Look at the Clintons they are a prime example. Marriage is a wonderful thing if you live by your word that you give before God and man.

Think about you have two people totally committed to each other for life. So when you get sick your mate doesn't split because they promised they wouldn't. But what would stop a live in girl/boy friend from splitting nada. So with marriage you have someone to look out for you your whole life and you have someone to grow old with and someone to share your hopes and dreams as well as you downs and problems.

 

[musclebrains]

imusclebrains.. great posts man.. but you did step around my question.. i'm somewhat ignorant to the laws.. but from what i've seen and understand.. a single parent gets the same if not more govt assistance... whether through tax breaks or programs (wic..etc).. you have a legal background.. could you please shed light on this.. are married parents getting that much more assistance or breaks? why should an unwed, single parent receive MORE assistance?

more of my vies.. gay companions should absolutely be entitled to inheritance.. should be allowed to marry.. should be allowed to adopt.. and covenant marriages suck..

I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea what benefits single parents receive from the state.

I certainly know that married people receive all manner of benefits that single people do not -- from the state and in the private sector. These are not necessarily linked to childrearing. A few of the entitlements that come to mind off the top of my head, some of which were outlined in a Hawaii case someone with more time can look up:

Federal tax advantages

Immigration and naturalization advantages

Rent control benefits in some cities

Discounts on joint applications for services, including insurance and membership

Division of community property

Rights of inheritance

Child custody

Spousal privilege and confidentiality in all kinds of legal actions

The right to enter premarital agreements (much more difficult for nonmarried people to form contracts)

The right to spousal support

The right to bring a wrongful death action.


Although I agree people should have the right to marry, I do not believe it should confer these SPECIAL rights. And, if I had to take a position in a debate, I'd argue for its abolition since it seems to me to be, bizarrely, a fundamentally private relationship with private understandings but nonetheless under the contractual regulation of teh state and other third parties.

And, by the way, I have been married.

 

[polarpixie]

My opinion is "no" marriage is not an outdated institution. I think sticking by your vows is becoming an outdated institution. In otherwords going back on your word. Look at the Clintons they are a prime example. Marriage is a wonderful thing if you live by your word that you give before God and man.

Think about you have two people totally committed to each other for life. So when you get sick your mate doesn't split because they promised they wouldn't. But what would stop a live in girl/boy friend from splitting nada. So with marriage you have someone to look out for you your whole life and you have someone to grow old with and someone to share your hopes and dreams as well as you downs and problems.

I agree. People seem to place very little importance on their "word" these days. When I make a promise, I keep it, my word means something to the people I give my word to, my word means something to myself. If you don't think you can keep your word to someone when you tell them that you will stick by them til death, then don't get married in the first place!!! Or at least please don't have kids together.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

I agree. People seem to place very little importance on their "word" these days. When I make a promise, I keep it, my word means something to the people I give my word to, my word means something to myself. If you don't think you can keep your word to someone when you tell them that you will stick by them til death, then don't get married in the first place!!! Or at least please don't have kids together.

Couldn't have said it better myself pixie...

 

[decem]

I'm not a lawyer and I have no idea what benefits single parents receive from the state.

I certainly know that married people receive all manner of benefits that single people do not -- from the state and in the private sector. These are not necessarily linked to childrearing. A few of the entitlements that come to mind off the top of my head, some of which were outlined in a Hawaii case someone with more time can look up:

Federal tax advantages
Immigration and naturalization advantages
Rent control benefits in some cities
Discounts on joint applications for services, including insurance and membership
Division of community property
Rights of inheritance
Child custody
Spousal privilege and confidentiality in all kinds of legal actions
The right to enter premarital agreements (much more difficult for nonmarried people to form contracts)
The right to spousal support
The right to bring a wrongful death action.

Although I agree people should have the right to marry, I do not believe it should confer these SPECIAL rights. And, if I had to take a position in a debate, I'd argue for its abolition since it seems to me to be, bizarrely, a fundamentally private relationship with private understandings but nonetheless under the contractual regulation of teh state and other third parties.

And, by the way, I have been married.

i covered my thoughts on the taxes already..

immigration and naturalization advantages: i'm not sure what all this entails.. but if it's mainly the fact that someone can marry an immigrant and make them a citizen.. then i'm all for it.. after all.. at least it's putting the one party at some risk.. and making the decision a little harder for them.. whereas if you were to grant this right to singles.. say some guy dates a girl and wants her to be legal and he can just vouch for her. then he's risking nothing... and then everybody and their neighbor would be legal here simply because they'd get some schmuck or personal acquaintence to vouch for them..

discounts on joint apps: two people are more likely to pay the bills then one.. two are responsible.. they have two people to look for if it's delinquent.. it's bringing twice the business to them in the long run.. i'm for it..

rights of inheritance: i'm against.. you're right... this is wrong
custody: depends on what are being called "advantages"..

premarital agreements: um.. they're not getting married.. j/k.. but is this in reference to gays... or no? i can't help but think that it'd be too awful hard to form a legally binding contract between two long-term relationship partners.. same sex or not..

spousal support: as in how? like child support? cuz my cousin has a kid and never been married and he pays child support..

the others i mentioned i really know absolutely nothign about...




i absolutely agree that the state should not be involved in a private relationship... but the fact is.. when it comes down to property.. it has too. doesn't it? how could one even join in with someone.. share everything.. make each others money, property, etc as one.. then part ways and expect to not have problems getting a fair deal? besides of course a legal binding contract regulated by the state.. i.e. marriage

 

[mrbill]

Though I still personally believe in the institution of marriage, I have to say that I am not anit-NOT marriage (Did that make any sense?).

no