3 ms·

Isn’t this really just because married partners can share health care? /jk But really, I’d like to see more attention to how many of these effects are due to t

Isn’t this really just because married partners can share health care? /jk But really, I’d like to see more attention to how many of these effects are due to the ways in which marriages are legally recognized and respected in ways that other monogamous long term relationships are not. I’d also like to know why, if LIBERALS HATE MARRIAGE so much, they spent decades fighting for the right to gay marriage?

klysm 4y ago
The only part of marriage that bothers me is not about marriage itself, but how it is codified into legislation and being married can have significant financial implications
- xyzelement 4y ago
  If marriage is a virtuous institution that improves well being of society and brings about the next generation, why shouldn't it be promoted this way?
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    1 - Does such direct promotion actually work? My vague impression is "poorly, at best". 2 - How much overhead cost (especially legal & bureaucratic) does the promotion create? Note that politicians getting to congratulate themselves on being yet more pro-marriage is not a benefit for society.
    - xyzelement 4y ago
      It at the very least sends a message about what our society values. Something I noticed is at least nominally rewarded by the tax code: be married, have kids, buy a house, save energy, give charity. All the right messages.
      - loeg 4y ago
        Prior to like, 2017, the tax code used to impose a significant marriage penalty on couples with similar incomes; now it only imposes some smaller penalties. It is extremely recent that the tax code wasn't an active disincentive to get married for many couples. Being married is mostly not rewarded, unless one partner is a homemaker. (Home ownership, parenting, and charity are rewarded by the tax code in a way that is unrelated to marriage.) https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marriage-penalty.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marriage-penalty.asp
sangnoir 4y ago
> Isn’t this really just because married partners can share health care? j/k not needed: being single can be an adversely selected by poor health - or other things that can cause poor health, such as drug addictions and poverty.

klysm 4y ago

The only part of marriage that bothers me is not about marriage itself, but how it is codified into legislation and being married can have significant financial implications

xyzelement 4y ago
If marriage is a virtuous institution that improves well being of society and brings about the next generation, why shouldn't it be promoted this way?
- bell-cot 4y ago
  1 - Does such direct promotion actually work? My vague impression is "poorly, at best". 2 - How much overhead cost (especially legal & bureaucratic) does the promotion create? Note that politicians getting to congratulate themselves on being yet more pro-marriage is not a benefit for society.
  - xyzelement 4y ago
    It at the very least sends a message about what our society values. Something I noticed is at least nominally rewarded by the tax code: be married, have kids, buy a house, save energy, give charity. All the right messages.
    - loeg 4y ago
      Prior to like, 2017, the tax code used to impose a significant marriage penalty on couples with similar incomes; now it only imposes some smaller penalties. It is extremely recent that the tax code wasn't an active disincentive to get married for many couples. Being married is mostly not rewarded, unless one partner is a homemaker. (Home ownership, parenting, and charity are rewarded by the tax code in a way that is unrelated to marriage.) https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marriage-penalty.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marriage-penalty.asp

sangnoir 4y ago

> Isn’t this really just because married partners can share health care? j/k not needed: being single can be an adversely selected by poor health - or other things that can cause poor health, such as drug addictions and poverty.