5 ms·

They might want to look into not being married. Wow. Just wow. For some people, marriage is more than a financial arrangement. They'd also save a bundle by no

They might want to look into not being married. Wow. Just wow. For some people, marriage is more than a financial arrangement. They'd also save a bundle by not having kids. Maybe they should sell one of them, it would help pay for the others?

lostcolony 9y ago
-Legally- married. There's usually a difference between legal recognition and personal recognition. Though I agree (as does the OP) that even having a situation where that might be an advantageous distinction is messed up.
koolba 9y ago
> Wow. Just wow. For some people, marriage is more than a financial arrangement. In the eyes of the government the only thing in marriage that's more than a financial arrangement is hospital visitation privileges and the right to not testify against your spouse. I didn't say to annul their wedding vows or diminish whatever non-financial meaning their marriage has. > They'd also save a bundle by not having kids. Maybe they should sell one of them, it would help pay for the others? That's disgusting.
- bykovich2 9y ago
  That's the point, dude.
  - kittiepryde 9y ago
    The point seemed to me, they were saying that selling a kid to pay for the others was equivalent to not being legally married.
    - bykovich2 9y ago
      I believe the point was that selling a kid to pay for the others is a suggestion similarly (if not identically) indifferent to emotional realities as suggesting that a committedly-married couple get a divorce to change their tax status.
      - chii 9y ago
        It's a nasty analogy, since they are not the same class of event.
sauronlord 9y ago
Wrong. Legal marriage by definition is JUST that. It is a Civil partnership aka. business agreement. If it's not JUST that for them, then why would they sign JUST that?
redthrowaway 9y ago
He's pointing out the absurdity of various incentives that exist, not defending them.
wutbrodo 9y ago
> Wow. Just wow. For some people, marriage is more than a financial arrangement. Marriage in the legal sense and marriage in the religious/personal/emotional commitment sense are not the same thing. I don't think you're necessarily _always_ wrong, but I also don't see why you think it's so universal that people should load a specific legal status with so much emotional weight and be unable to separate it from the actual commitment, in the context of meaningfulness. If I have a religious ceremony during which I get married to someone, I would consider myself married even if I didn't file the papers at the courthouse. The latter is just paperwork. I can't say I relate to the notion that a relationship between two people doesn't have meaning until you get the government to approve it.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  It sounds like you've never been married. It's not a matter of getting the government to approve, it's a matter of getting other people to recognize it. If you have a common-law marriage but it's not documented then if your spouse falls ill and taken to hospital you might be denied visitation rights, for example. I suggest you read some court filings/legal articles on the gay marriage cases from a few years ago to get an understanding of why people sued to have the right to get legally married, over and above just having an emotional commitment.
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    It sounds like you haven't read the thread you're commenting on. Those issues (visitation rights etc) are explicitly stated in the GP comment, and the comment was speculating that it may be worth the trade-off. The comment _I_ was responding to was talking entirely about legal marriage _meaning_ more to its participants. I suggest you read the threads you're participating in before smugly assuming that someone else is the one who doesn't know what they're talking about.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      I'd read it, and I stand by my original comment. Your understanding of this seems to be abstract rather than concrete and I'm suggesting reading material you could examine to concretize your understanding. I don't know why you're being so rude about it.
oneshot908 9y ago
Sadly, the US tax code rewards not getting married, doubly so if both partners are high earners (see the marriage penalty). If you don't like this, don't concern troll, instead, ask your representatives why this continues to exist.
- tzs 9y ago
  The US tax code also rewards people getting married, typically when the partners have very different incomes (see marriage bonus). Marriage penalties and bonuses are a consequence of joint filing combined with a progressive rate structure. They continue to exist because to get rid of them would require giving up either join filing or progressive rates, and it is very unlikely that people would go for giving up one or both of those.
  - oneshot908 9y ago
    So what you're saying is that the US tax code continues to reward one partner sacrificing their career and penalizes partners who wish to both continue their careers? There's more than one way to make ends meet and I'd be happy to see the wide variety of elaborate tax breaks available to high-income sorts based on elaborate business constructs removed to make up for this rather than punish young married couples. But then, I'm all for a mostly flat tax, warts and all, no deductions whatsoever, past a certain level of income, say the national median.
nathan_f77 9y ago
> For some people, marriage is more than a financial arrangement. For sure, but you don't have to tell the government about it. You can still have a ceremony and wear rings and swear you'll live together until you die. Informally, you can pretty much have whatever kind of marriage you want, even a polygamous one. No-one is going to stop a bunch of people from living together as roommates in some kind of committed relationship. Although I just checked, and some of these relationships are actually illegal in Canada [1]. I think it's really just to protect minors, and they don't care what a bunch of adults are doing. EDIT: Haha I also just noticed your username [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_polygamy#North_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_polygamy#North_Ame...
- Houshalter 9y ago
  There's no federal law against it, but many parts of the US have laws against "unlawful cohabitation". Which is the main tool used to enforce the ban on polygamy. The laws could apply to unmarried couples that live together, but have only ever been used against polygamists. The supreme court recently turned down hearing a case to overturn such laws, keeping the practice illegal: http://www.sltrib.com/home/4848475-155/polygamy-remains-a-crime-as-us http://www.sltrib.com/home/4848475-155/polygamy-remains-a-cr...
bashinator 9y ago
Marriage being for love is a fairly recent re-definition of the institution. For most of human history the social and financial contract has been far more important than peoples' feelings.
oh_sigh 9y ago
You can get married in your church and simply not get a marriage license if that is what is important to you.

lostcolony 9y ago

-Legally- married. There's usually a difference between legal recognition and personal recognition. Though I agree (as does the OP) that even having a situation where that might be an advantageous distinction is messed up.

koolba 9y ago

> Wow. Just wow. For some people, marriage is more than a financial arrangement. In the eyes of the government the only thing in marriage that's more than a financial arrangement is hospital visitation privileges and the right to not testify against your spouse. I didn't say to annul their wedding vows or diminish whatever non-financial meaning their marriage has. > They'd also save a bundle by not having kids. Maybe they should sell one of them, it would help pay for the others? That's disgusting.

bykovich2 9y ago
That's the point, dude.
- kittiepryde 9y ago
  The point seemed to me, they were saying that selling a kid to pay for the others was equivalent to not being legally married.
  - bykovich2 9y ago
    I believe the point was that selling a kid to pay for the others is a suggestion similarly (if not identically) indifferent to emotional realities as suggesting that a committedly-married couple get a divorce to change their tax status.
    - chii 9y ago
      It's a nasty analogy, since they are not the same class of event.

sauronlord 9y ago

Wrong. Legal marriage by definition is JUST that. It is a Civil partnership aka. business agreement. If it's not JUST that for them, then why would they sign JUST that?

redthrowaway 9y ago

He's pointing out the absurdity of various incentives that exist, not defending them.

wutbrodo 9y ago

> Wow. Just wow. For some people, marriage is more than a financial arrangement. Marriage in the legal sense and marriage in the religious/personal/emotional commitment sense are not the same thing. I don't think you're necessarily _always_ wrong, but I also don't see why you think it's so universal that people should load a specific legal status with so much emotional weight and be unable to separate it from the actual commitment, in the context of meaningfulness. If I have a religious ceremony during which I get married to someone, I would consider myself married even if I didn't file the papers at the courthouse. The latter is just paperwork. I can't say I relate to the notion that a relationship between two people doesn't have meaning until you get the government to approve it.

anigbrowl 9y ago
It sounds like you've never been married. It's not a matter of getting the government to approve, it's a matter of getting other people to recognize it. If you have a common-law marriage but it's not documented then if your spouse falls ill and taken to hospital you might be denied visitation rights, for example. I suggest you read some court filings/legal articles on the gay marriage cases from a few years ago to get an understanding of why people sued to have the right to get legally married, over and above just having an emotional commitment.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  It sounds like you haven't read the thread you're commenting on. Those issues (visitation rights etc) are explicitly stated in the GP comment, and the comment was speculating that it may be worth the trade-off. The comment _I_ was responding to was talking entirely about legal marriage _meaning_ more to its participants. I suggest you read the threads you're participating in before smugly assuming that someone else is the one who doesn't know what they're talking about.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    I'd read it, and I stand by my original comment. Your understanding of this seems to be abstract rather than concrete and I'm suggesting reading material you could examine to concretize your understanding. I don't know why you're being so rude about it.

oneshot908 9y ago

Sadly, the US tax code rewards not getting married, doubly so if both partners are high earners (see the marriage penalty). If you don't like this, don't concern troll, instead, ask your representatives why this continues to exist.

tzs 9y ago
The US tax code also rewards people getting married, typically when the partners have very different incomes (see marriage bonus). Marriage penalties and bonuses are a consequence of joint filing combined with a progressive rate structure. They continue to exist because to get rid of them would require giving up either join filing or progressive rates, and it is very unlikely that people would go for giving up one or both of those.
- oneshot908 9y ago
  So what you're saying is that the US tax code continues to reward one partner sacrificing their career and penalizes partners who wish to both continue their careers? There's more than one way to make ends meet and I'd be happy to see the wide variety of elaborate tax breaks available to high-income sorts based on elaborate business constructs removed to make up for this rather than punish young married couples. But then, I'm all for a mostly flat tax, warts and all, no deductions whatsoever, past a certain level of income, say the national median.

nathan_f77 9y ago

> For some people, marriage is more than a financial arrangement. For sure, but you don't have to tell the government about it. You can still have a ceremony and wear rings and swear you'll live together until you die. Informally, you can pretty much have whatever kind of marriage you want, even a polygamous one. No-one is going to stop a bunch of people from living together as roommates in some kind of committed relationship. Although I just checked, and some of these relationships are actually illegal in Canada [1]. I think it's really just to protect minors, and they don't care what a bunch of adults are doing. EDIT: Haha I also just noticed your username [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_polygamy#North_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_polygamy#North_Ame...

Houshalter 9y ago
There's no federal law against it, but many parts of the US have laws against "unlawful cohabitation". Which is the main tool used to enforce the ban on polygamy. The laws could apply to unmarried couples that live together, but have only ever been used against polygamists. The supreme court recently turned down hearing a case to overturn such laws, keeping the practice illegal: http://www.sltrib.com/home/4848475-155/polygamy-remains-a-crime-as-us http://www.sltrib.com/home/4848475-155/polygamy-remains-a-cr...

bashinator 9y ago

Marriage being for love is a fairly recent re-definition of the institution. For most of human history the social and financial contract has been far more important than peoples' feelings.

oh_sigh 9y ago

You can get married in your church and simply not get a marriage license if that is what is important to you.