5 ms·

What’s worse, all signs point to a continuing downward trend for new marriages. Is this bad? I understand marriage as a religious rite. I've never understood w

by dfxm12 6y ago

What’s worse, all signs point to a continuing downward trend for new marriages. Is this bad? I understand marriage as a religious rite. I've never understood why the government cares enough to give tax, finance and legal incentives to married couples...

coldpie 6y ago
Society has a pretty clear interest in both procreation and healthy raising of children. Whether encouraging marriage is the best way to accomplish those goals is a reasonable question, but it's not obviously an invalid approach, either.
- t00ny 6y ago
  Where I live we have Civil Union. I feel like it's the best of both worlds.
  - swat535 6y ago
    Not sure where you are located but where I live a Civil Union is just as risky as a marriage, in terms of finances, mostly for men (though obviously not always) in terms of support payments for a former spouse without the tax benefits.
toyg 6y ago
To produce children. A stable family producing (and being responsible for) a well-educated and well-balanced offspring is one of the aims of any national government. Now, you might argue that children can be born and raised outside of marriage, and that is true. However, until very recently that was considered extremely bad. Current consensus is still that children benefit significantly from two stable parental figures.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
A family can be viewed as a business, and a marriage a financial and legal contract (among others) between two people. Based on the existence of this contract in almost every culture around the world, it seems like it is useful for society to have a template for what to do with assets and children in the event the parties want to dissolve the relationship.
- sjg007 6y ago
  Well children are considered separate; child support laws don't require a preexisting marriage contract for example.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>. I've never understood why the government cares enough to give tax, finance and legal incentives to married couples A married couple is a hell of a lot better than single parents for raising kids. The government wants functional kids because functional kids grow up, have jobs, don't revolt, don't engage in petty crime, have careers, pay taxes, etc, etc.
- dfxm12 6y ago
  A married couple is a hell of a lot better than single parents for raising kids. Is this true? Perhaps is it that two-parent families are better for raising kids? Or is it a function of household income? Is marriage just being treated as shorthand for a lot of things it isn't necessary for?
  - watwut 6y ago
    Plus, divorced parents family need to be compared not too ideal family with two parents that cooperate and respect each other. It needs to be compared to family with problems that led to divorce.
  - pizza234 6y ago
    At the very least, even if we compare intact and separated couples, both cooperative/non-conflicting, in the latter case, children are invariably pulled in different directions (physically and emotionally), which is not good. edit: misunderstood what the the parent meant.
    - username90 6y ago
      You can live together and raise a kid together without being married.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - loeg 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ralusek 6y ago
There are all kinds of societal benefits to a committed family unit. The difference in criminality, educational attainment, wealth acquisition, etc, among children raised by single parents vs coupled parents is staggering. Of course you can be a committed couple without the need for marriage, you can be married and in no way committed, and you can be married without kids, so it's not a perfect incentive structure...but I think that financially incentivizing a structure that removes burdens from the rest of society is definitely a good idea.
mdorazio 6y ago
Marriage actually has nothing to do with religion at all, at least in the US. It's a legal contract and done via the local government. The wedding aspect is ancillary and not required at all. Note that this legal contract does have many logical outcomes like setting things up for children and (optionally) treating the married couple as a single entity for things like taxes and property ownership.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  You bring up a good point, that the word ‘marriage’ has lost a lot of meaning due to the history of government involvement. It would have been better in hindsight if the U.S. had done what other governments around the world had done and called every contract it deals with a ‘civil union.’ Then there would be no confusion that ‘civil union’ has nothing to do with religion.
drdec 6y ago
Society needs children to survive. Even if you don't care about the propagation of the species, you will need younger people to run things when you are in your old age (if you want to be comfortable). So in that way we all have an incentive for children to exist (even if you don't want or have any yourself). As a more concrete example, in the US we need a working population to support the Social Security of the retired population. When these rules were being created, people assumed that children are better off in home with two married parents and that people are more likely to have children if they are married. So it made sense for the government to encourage marriage with the incentives you mentioned. Of course, you may want to argue those assumptions now. But that is beyond the scope of my comment.
- sillypuddy 6y ago
  I think there is a lot of data to support better outcomes for kids from two parent household. Not sure if there is a difference between two parent household vs married two parent household.
tbihl 6y ago
Overall better outcomes for children in two-parent households, directly reduces the number of young-ish listless males (large numbers tend to destabilize societies), and makes it extremely clear who is the "next in line", so to speak, for a myriad of societal interactions in which a person becomes somehow incapacitated and needs individual assistance. In the case of two earners, it also significantly reduces risk in a world where most people are paid a single salary or wage rather than having many customers.
jariel 6y ago
"I understand marriage as a religious rite." Marriage is social institution that can have religious artefacts or governance, it's not specifically a religious thing per sey. Marriage-like institutions (i.e. formalized cohabitation + commitment + usually children) is a social concept that transcends most cultures, traditions, religions. 'Religion' or at least the 'applied' or 'civic' parts of religion, in some places came to embody the social governance of that institution, particularly in the West. There are no 'formal marriage rituals' in Buddhism at least in the way we'd understand that in other faiths - it's literally a 'secular institution' in their view [1]. (They have blessing rituals etc. they're not marrying you) In some places, the Religious Clerics manage it, in others the Civic Cleric, in other places, both. Someone mentioned 'it's a legal thing in the US' - which isn't quite right either. A 'marriage contract' is a civic formalization of the social institution, used in some places wherein the civil state governs the rules about it. Even language such as 'right to be married' is really misleading: 'the right to have a recognized marriage' would be more appropriate. Edit: To help your understanding: 'Sweden' is the formalized state of the 'Swedish people' (historically ethnic group). But if there were no formal nation state, the area 'where the Swedes live' may still be referred to possibly as 'Sweden' ie a social construct exists without formal recognition. Some aboriginal communities to this use the the term 'Nation' to describe their people, even with there are no civic formalities involved. The point being 'a Nation' exists independant of formal recognition, which is a civic construct. Marriages are an ancient kind of social organization and existed long before we developed the civic (or religious) notion of 'law'. [1] http://www.buddhanet.net/funeral.htm http://www.buddhanet.net/funeral.htm
LanceH 6y ago
The incentives to married couples are probably less than if they were single and filed separately. This is definitely true of two working spouses as both incomes would start from zero. For one spouse staying at home, they would now qualify for all forms of assistance and tax credits. Balance that against the single earner's reduced break points on marginal taxes and the status quo probably brings in more money to the government. Of course it looks like big incentives when you don't look at the penalties from being married.
eeZah7Ux 6y ago
Amazing how most of the answers completely confuse "marrige" with "kids living in a home with two parents". As if unmarried people cannot be couples and have kids.
matheusmoreira 6y ago
> I understand marriage as a religious rite. It used to be like that. Nowadays religions have little to no influence on marriage. Most people don't actually practice what the texts prescribe.
SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
I don't understand why someone has more financial assets than their partner would marry. It basically means if something goes wrong, you loose half your life savings, and potentially half your earning potential forever (until the other partner re-marries). It's a pretty nasty trap for the higher earner. Grandma taught me two things "No such thing as a promise" and "Nothing lasts forever". 40+ years after that and she's right on.
- 05 6y ago
  People are irrational. Why live when you die in the end? Why have kids if the universe would eventually meet its heat death/contraction? Your neocortex is just a coprocessor that can help execute the motivations generated by the reptilian brain more efficiently..
- wing-_-nuts 6y ago
  Or you could get a prenup that protects each partners assets at the time of marriage and negotiates the spousal support to be provided, ( or perhaps no support ). A prenup is fundamentally a discussion between two people, that love each other enough to marry, on how they will treat each other in the event of divorce. I would much rather have an uncomfortable discussion before marriage with the woman who loves me enough to marry me, than to leave my fate in the hands of a woman who hates me enough to divorce me. A solid and fair prenup would be a hard requirement for me to get married.
- vharuck 6y ago
  - Right now, my wife gets the benefits of being married to somebody with a better job (insurance, I'm sure there are other things slipping my mind) - I love her and want good things for her right now. That may change after years go by. But there's no reason to ignore how I feel now and make decisions based on how I might feel a long time away. - Symbolism is important. It might not be tangible, but you can't deny it has effects in the world.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Because there is more to life than finances. My wife is an asset, even if she's not a financial one. She has made my life richer for 30 years. She has cost me money and I still got an amazingly good deal.
bluGill 6y ago
The government has an interest in ensuring that there is a clear way to handle you should you be unable to. If you are married and are in the hospital your spouse is automatically someone who you trust to decide how to handle difficult medical decisions. If you are not married who decides? If you die your spouse more or less automatically gets everything - what happens to your stuff if you are not married ends up being a long court battle in many cases (kids are also a factor here of course). there are many other areas of life where it is useful to government to have a backup person responsible for your life. Note that if you are not married but living together that might be because you don't trust the other person with those decisions...
cblconfederate 6y ago
Marriage -> kids -> tax base++

by dfxm12 6y ago

coldpie 6y ago

Society has a pretty clear interest in both procreation and healthy raising of children. Whether encouraging marriage is the best way to accomplish those goals is a reasonable question, but it's not obviously an invalid approach, either.

t00ny 6y ago
Where I live we have Civil Union. I feel like it's the best of both worlds.
- swat535 6y ago
  Not sure where you are located but where I live a Civil Union is just as risky as a marriage, in terms of finances, mostly for men (though obviously not always) in terms of support payments for a former spouse without the tax benefits.

toyg 6y ago

To produce children. A stable family producing (and being responsible for) a well-educated and well-balanced offspring is one of the aims of any national government. Now, you might argue that children can be born and raised outside of marriage, and that is true. However, until very recently that was considered extremely bad. Current consensus is still that children benefit significantly from two stable parental figures.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

A family can be viewed as a business, and a marriage a financial and legal contract (among others) between two people. Based on the existence of this contract in almost every culture around the world, it seems like it is useful for society to have a template for what to do with assets and children in the event the parties want to dissolve the relationship.

sjg007 6y ago
Well children are considered separate; child support laws don't require a preexisting marriage contract for example.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

>. I've never understood why the government cares enough to give tax, finance and legal incentives to married couples A married couple is a hell of a lot better than single parents for raising kids. The government wants functional kids because functional kids grow up, have jobs, don't revolt, don't engage in petty crime, have careers, pay taxes, etc, etc.

dfxm12 6y ago
A married couple is a hell of a lot better than single parents for raising kids. Is this true? Perhaps is it that two-parent families are better for raising kids? Or is it a function of household income? Is marriage just being treated as shorthand for a lot of things it isn't necessary for?
- watwut 6y ago
  Plus, divorced parents family need to be compared not too ideal family with two parents that cooperate and respect each other. It needs to be compared to family with problems that led to divorce.
- pizza234 6y ago
  At the very least, even if we compare intact and separated couples, both cooperative/non-conflicting, in the latter case, children are invariably pulled in different directions (physically and emotionally), which is not good. edit: misunderstood what the the parent meant.
  - username90 6y ago
    You can live together and raise a kid together without being married.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- loeg 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ralusek 6y ago

There are all kinds of societal benefits to a committed family unit. The difference in criminality, educational attainment, wealth acquisition, etc, among children raised by single parents vs coupled parents is staggering. Of course you can be a committed couple without the need for marriage, you can be married and in no way committed, and you can be married without kids, so it's not a perfect incentive structure...but I think that financially incentivizing a structure that removes burdens from the rest of society is definitely a good idea.

mdorazio 6y ago

Marriage actually has nothing to do with religion at all, at least in the US. It's a legal contract and done via the local government. The wedding aspect is ancillary and not required at all. Note that this legal contract does have many logical outcomes like setting things up for children and (optionally) treating the married couple as a single entity for things like taxes and property ownership.

mensetmanusman 6y ago
You bring up a good point, that the word ‘marriage’ has lost a lot of meaning due to the history of government involvement. It would have been better in hindsight if the U.S. had done what other governments around the world had done and called every contract it deals with a ‘civil union.’ Then there would be no confusion that ‘civil union’ has nothing to do with religion.

drdec 6y ago

Society needs children to survive. Even if you don't care about the propagation of the species, you will need younger people to run things when you are in your old age (if you want to be comfortable). So in that way we all have an incentive for children to exist (even if you don't want or have any yourself). As a more concrete example, in the US we need a working population to support the Social Security of the retired population. When these rules were being created, people assumed that children are better off in home with two married parents and that people are more likely to have children if they are married. So it made sense for the government to encourage marriage with the incentives you mentioned. Of course, you may want to argue those assumptions now. But that is beyond the scope of my comment.

sillypuddy 6y ago
I think there is a lot of data to support better outcomes for kids from two parent household. Not sure if there is a difference between two parent household vs married two parent household.

tbihl 6y ago

Overall better outcomes for children in two-parent households, directly reduces the number of young-ish listless males (large numbers tend to destabilize societies), and makes it extremely clear who is the "next in line", so to speak, for a myriad of societal interactions in which a person becomes somehow incapacitated and needs individual assistance. In the case of two earners, it also significantly reduces risk in a world where most people are paid a single salary or wage rather than having many customers.

jariel 6y ago

"I understand marriage as a religious rite." Marriage is social institution that can have religious artefacts or governance, it's not specifically a religious thing per sey. Marriage-like institutions (i.e. formalized cohabitation + commitment + usually children) is a social concept that transcends most cultures, traditions, religions. 'Religion' or at least the 'applied' or 'civic' parts of religion, in some places came to embody the social governance of that institution, particularly in the West. There are no 'formal marriage rituals' in Buddhism at least in the way we'd understand that in other faiths - it's literally a 'secular institution' in their view [1]. (They have blessing rituals etc. they're not marrying you) In some places, the Religious Clerics manage it, in others the Civic Cleric, in other places, both. Someone mentioned 'it's a legal thing in the US' - which isn't quite right either. A 'marriage contract' is a civic formalization of the social institution, used in some places wherein the civil state governs the rules about it. Even language such as 'right to be married' is really misleading: 'the right to have a recognized marriage' would be more appropriate. Edit: To help your understanding: 'Sweden' is the formalized state of the 'Swedish people' (historically ethnic group). But if there were no formal nation state, the area 'where the Swedes live' may still be referred to possibly as 'Sweden' ie a social construct exists without formal recognition. Some aboriginal communities to this use the the term 'Nation' to describe their people, even with there are no civic formalities involved. The point being 'a Nation' exists independant of formal recognition, which is a civic construct. Marriages are an ancient kind of social organization and existed long before we developed the civic (or religious) notion of 'law'. [1] http://www.buddhanet.net/funeral.htm http://www.buddhanet.net/funeral.htm

LanceH 6y ago

The incentives to married couples are probably less than if they were single and filed separately. This is definitely true of two working spouses as both incomes would start from zero. For one spouse staying at home, they would now qualify for all forms of assistance and tax credits. Balance that against the single earner's reduced break points on marginal taxes and the status quo probably brings in more money to the government. Of course it looks like big incentives when you don't look at the penalties from being married.

eeZah7Ux 6y ago

Amazing how most of the answers completely confuse "marrige" with "kids living in a home with two parents". As if unmarried people cannot be couples and have kids.

matheusmoreira 6y ago

> I understand marriage as a religious rite. It used to be like that. Nowadays religions have little to no influence on marriage. Most people don't actually practice what the texts prescribe.

SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago

I don't understand why someone has more financial assets than their partner would marry. It basically means if something goes wrong, you loose half your life savings, and potentially half your earning potential forever (until the other partner re-marries). It's a pretty nasty trap for the higher earner. Grandma taught me two things "No such thing as a promise" and "Nothing lasts forever". 40+ years after that and she's right on.

05 6y ago
People are irrational. Why live when you die in the end? Why have kids if the universe would eventually meet its heat death/contraction? Your neocortex is just a coprocessor that can help execute the motivations generated by the reptilian brain more efficiently..
wing-_-nuts 6y ago
Or you could get a prenup that protects each partners assets at the time of marriage and negotiates the spousal support to be provided, ( or perhaps no support ). A prenup is fundamentally a discussion between two people, that love each other enough to marry, on how they will treat each other in the event of divorce. I would much rather have an uncomfortable discussion before marriage with the woman who loves me enough to marry me, than to leave my fate in the hands of a woman who hates me enough to divorce me. A solid and fair prenup would be a hard requirement for me to get married.
vharuck 6y ago
- Right now, my wife gets the benefits of being married to somebody with a better job (insurance, I'm sure there are other things slipping my mind) - I love her and want good things for her right now. That may change after years go by. But there's no reason to ignore how I feel now and make decisions based on how I might feel a long time away. - Symbolism is important. It might not be tangible, but you can't deny it has effects in the world.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Because there is more to life than finances. My wife is an asset, even if she's not a financial one. She has made my life richer for 30 years. She has cost me money and I still got an amazingly good deal.

bluGill 6y ago

The government has an interest in ensuring that there is a clear way to handle you should you be unable to. If you are married and are in the hospital your spouse is automatically someone who you trust to decide how to handle difficult medical decisions. If you are not married who decides? If you die your spouse more or less automatically gets everything - what happens to your stuff if you are not married ends up being a long court battle in many cases (kids are also a factor here of course). there are many other areas of life where it is useful to government to have a backup person responsible for your life. Note that if you are not married but living together that might be because you don't trust the other person with those decisions...

cblconfederate 6y ago

Marriage -> kids -> tax base++