4 ms·

It would need to be as easy as starting or quitting a job. There also couldn't be pre-conditions around it such as a limit of two people, prohibitions on same-s

It would need to be as easy as starting or quitting a job. There also couldn't be pre-conditions around it such as a limit of two people, prohibitions on same-sex marriage, and bans on "adultery."

sheepmullet 8y ago
But then what are the advantages? I think we should have a few different types of marriage and then see what people choose. For example one marriage option could be the man gets automatic full custody of the kids in the event of a divorce. We could have another free and easy option like you are suggesting. Etc. Then we let the market sort it out.
tptacek 8y ago
You are describing an arrangement totally unlike marriage. If you want termination-at-will, don't get married! If there is some social pressure to get married when you don't want to, that pressure is wrong; you should only get married when you're sure it's the right thing to do. On the other hand, at least in the US, there are huge numbers of people who fought for decades just to have the right to enter into the arrangement we're pretending needs to be fundamentally re-thought.
- jdavis703 8y ago
  The idea is to get some of the government benefits of marriage without the overhead, i.e. the ability to make medical decisions and potentially lower tax rates depending on income situations. Past generations of my family were prohibited from marriage because of race. It took a lot of rethinking of what marriage was for them to be granted those rights, ditto for LGBT people who just got those rights a few years ago in the US. There's still no reason why the current definition of marriage is the right definition.
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Can't you arrange to make medical decisions for each other without being married? Isn't that what an MPOA does? I'm not sure what tax benefits you're looking at but I believe we pay for the right to be married. From a formal perspective, considering marriage as a (very old) legal and economic arrangement, and stripping it down to its essence (without any of the bullshit about it being a means to bring children into the world or express Judeo-Christian values), marriage is about durable interdependency. You agree to combine assets and opportunities, in order to maximize those opportunities jointly and to bear the costs of misfortune together. Define marriage as an "at-will" arrangement dispenses with durability. A person in a transient marriage can't reasonably put their spouse through medical school, or help them start a company --- or, for that matter, raise children --- without an onerous set of additional contractual arrangements that would asymptotically approach what marriage already is. Again: it's totally reasonable to want a long-term at-will relationship, and to seek one out. You don't have to get married.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

It would need to be as easy as starting or quitting a job. There also couldn't be pre-conditions around it such as a limit of two people, prohibitions on same-sex marriage, and bans on "adultery."

sheepmullet 8y ago

But then what are the advantages? I think we should have a few different types of marriage and then see what people choose. For example one marriage option could be the man gets automatic full custody of the kids in the event of a divorce. We could have another free and easy option like you are suggesting. Etc. Then we let the market sort it out.

tptacek 8y ago

You are describing an arrangement totally unlike marriage. If you want termination-at-will, don't get married! If there is some social pressure to get married when you don't want to, that pressure is wrong; you should only get married when you're sure it's the right thing to do. On the other hand, at least in the US, there are huge numbers of people who fought for decades just to have the right to enter into the arrangement we're pretending needs to be fundamentally re-thought.

jdavis703 8y ago
The idea is to get some of the government benefits of marriage without the overhead, i.e. the ability to make medical decisions and potentially lower tax rates depending on income situations. Past generations of my family were prohibited from marriage because of race. It took a lot of rethinking of what marriage was for them to be granted those rights, ditto for LGBT people who just got those rights a few years ago in the US. There's still no reason why the current definition of marriage is the right definition.
- tptacek 8y ago
  Can't you arrange to make medical decisions for each other without being married? Isn't that what an MPOA does? I'm not sure what tax benefits you're looking at but I believe we pay for the right to be married. From a formal perspective, considering marriage as a (very old) legal and economic arrangement, and stripping it down to its essence (without any of the bullshit about it being a means to bring children into the world or express Judeo-Christian values), marriage is about durable interdependency. You agree to combine assets and opportunities, in order to maximize those opportunities jointly and to bear the costs of misfortune together. Define marriage as an "at-will" arrangement dispenses with durability. A person in a transient marriage can't reasonably put their spouse through medical school, or help them start a company --- or, for that matter, raise children --- without an onerous set of additional contractual arrangements that would asymptotically approach what marriage already is. Again: it's totally reasonable to want a long-term at-will relationship, and to seek one out. You don't have to get married.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]