Marriage

[Ford Prefect]

So, I've been thinking for the past week or so... what is the purpose of getting married? What's the difference between:
1. two people committing to each other to live the rest of their lives together and,
2. two people committing to live the rest of their lives together in front of a bunch of people and signing a piece of paper?

[Dekar]

You pay less taxes. When one dies its easier for the other to get all the money.

Its all about the money!

[Reaper]

Having the government recognize the marriage has its advantages

[Dark_Nemesis]

I've read/heard they're have been some studies (can provide some prolly if needed) to suggest you live on average 7 years longer, and tend to be happier overall if married. Too, the studies have shown that if your commitment is bound by a ring (actual marriage) rather then simply living together, there is a more lower chance of divorce or your spouse leaving, vice versa. And of course, they are the reasons Discom and Reaper stated. Which are good too. Also, isn't it easier finanically to live if you're married than living by yourself? Provided you don't have children of course. Thought I heard that somewhere too...

My own personal preference, while I do think people in general seem happier/live longer if married, simply looking at my own parent's marriage has me concerned. Don't get me wrong, I love my mom, but boy, she can scare me at times. In that sense, I can see why a guy wouldn't want to loose his "freedom". I guess you just have to find the right one.

Too, I find it slightly funny that contemporary feminists are complaining about having less rights, yet in all the marriages I see (friends/family/relatives) the woman is the "head" of the house. My grandparents are totally this way, and my parents are as well, to a lesser extent. Not trying to attack anything here, just a thought.

[CryptLord1234]

Also, I find it slightly funny that contemporary feminists are complaining about having less rights

Okay, first off, stop it with that "Too, ..." stuff. It's bad grammar, replace it with the word 'also'. Edited in for grammar nazi-ism. (And didn't you say you were going for a journalism major? That requires writing easily-read articles.)

Now that I'm slightly closer to the topic, I find it odd that they want everything to be equal, but when you even MENTION the draft, they go, "Aw, no, you guys can keep that." Sorry, but equal is completely equal. If you get rights that men get, you get the downsides too. No dice.

And now on topic. . .Are we talking about marriage, or the wedding celebration? Marriage, if both people are sure of what they want, is a healthy relationship -- after all, you've got your spouse right there to support you through thick and thin, so to speak, not to mention some of the financial breaks married couples get. Now, the celebration doesn't make sense, to me. Honestly, having a huge celebration seems kinda pointless -- It seems to me that it is more for the relatives of the married couple, than it is for the married couple themselves.

I will admit I'm biased in this regard, I don't particularly like blatant wastes of money, or large gatherings of people I barely/don't know, so a huge celebration just seems wasteful to me.

[Discombobulator]

I've read/heard they're have been some studies (can provide some prolly if needed) to suggest you live on average 7 years longer, and tend to be happier overall if married. Too, the studies have shown that if your commitment is bound by a ring (actual marriage) rather then simply living together, there is a more lower chance of divorce or your spouse leaving, vice versa. And of course, they are the reasons Discom and Reaper stated. Which are good too. Also, isn't it easier finanically to live if you're married than living by yourself? Provided you don't have children of course. Thought I heard that somewhere too...

My own personal preference, while I do think people in general seem happier/live longer if married, simply looking at my own parent's marriage has me concerned. Don't get me wrong, I love my mom, but boy, she can scare me at times. In that sense, I can see why a guy wouldn't want to loose his "freedom". I guess you just have to find the right one.

Too, I find it slightly funny that contemporary feminists are complaining about having less rights, yet in all the marriages I see (friends/family/relatives) the woman is the "head" of the house. My grandparents are totally this way, and my parents are as well, to a lesser extent. Not trying to attack anything here, just a thought.

So you're imagining that I'm talking to you?

Please, understand that nobody wants to talk to you.

[Reaper]

Also I did not specify a reason

[Ford Prefect]

I believe that, technically speaking, starting a sentence with "too" is proper grammar. However, it definitely gives a bad impression.

And now on topic. . .Are we talking about marriage, or the wedding celebration?

I'm talking about everything about marriage: wedding celebration or private ceremony, signing a piece of paper to legalize it, making a big fuss over an act that symbolizes your love... when your love shouldn't need to be symbolized. Why not just choose to live together for as long as you continue to feel comfortable doing so. If that's until death do you part, great; if not, yay for not having to deal with getting divorced. If you're in love, stay together, live together, have kids, make a commitment to stay together for the kids, if that's even necessary.
As for the financial details, that just pisses me off. The government is telling you that you have to get married in order to get certain benefits, like they should be interfering in such personal matters.

Also, isn't it easier finanically to live if you're married than living by yourself?

This is not about living by yourself, it's about the symbolic and legal act that changes you and your significant other from a couple to a married couple.

Too, the studies have shown that if your commitment is bound by a ring (actual marriage) rather then simply living together, there is a more lower chance of divorce or your spouse leaving, vice versa.

I don't know if any such study exists but, logically speaking, splitting up should be more likely. That's the whole point. If you're married, you have to go through the whole hassle of getting divorced. If you're not married and you suddenly realize that you've grown apart and aren't really compatible anymore, then it's only natural to separate and kudos for not clinging to a sinking ship.

[CryptLord1234]

I'm talking about everything about marriage: wedding celebration or private ceremony, signing a piece of paper to legalize it, making a big fuss over an act that symbolizes your love... when your love shouldn't need to be symbolized. Why not just choose to live together for as long as you continue to feel comfortable doing so. If that's until death do you part, great; if not, yay for not having to deal with getting divorced. If you're in love, stay together, live together, have kids, make a commitment to stay together for the kids, if that's even necessary.
As for the financial details, that just pisses me off. The government is telling you that you have to get married in order to get certain benefits, like they should be interfering in such personal matters.

Some people feel that, for religious purposes, marriage is necessary. That having been said, tradition dictates most of the rest of it -- the legalization, the celebration, etc.

Now, as to 'your love shouldn't need to be symbolized' -- Well, I agree, I don't think it should be either. However, it's been said that the marriage (the entire thing) is more for the families than it is for the two people choosing to live together. From what I've seen in being present at them, this is true -- and having a happy get-together is far superior to having a sad one, like, say, a funeral. The two people deciding to 'finalize' their decision to stay together is, to some, a cause for celebration.

And for the alternative? That of just making a commitment to stay together and have kids? Yeah, okay, that works too. However, if you're going to do this, why not be recognized as a married couple and get the benefits for it? It's basically the same situation, except you get a bit more financial leeway because of it.

Speaking of the financial details, I think they're meant more along the lines of, 'we're gonna assume you're having kids. We'll be taxing you for said kids, even though they add nothing to the income of the house -- indeed, you have another mouth to feed. Have a financial break to compensate for that.' than they are of 'you need to be married to have the most benefits!' Seems to make sense to me, that you get a tax break for having an extra mouth to feed but no more income for it. You ARE spending more, to deal with this third person, that the break you get is probably made up for in the increase in sales tax revenue.

EDIT: About the financial stuff, I do think it should be modified for married, childless couples. They shouldn't get any breaks.

[Luftwaffles]

I'll go find the statistic later but I remember reading a few studies in one of my psyc courses that said if you get married you have like a 52% chance of getting divorced.

In addition, I have to read another one of those posts saying "Too..." I am just going to delete it. There's bad grammar that we can all ignore cause you're foreign/tired/don't care/drunk etc. and then there's stupid shit like that and I won't burn my eyes out reading it anymore (and I'm not shifting the burden to some other poor soul except the mods who have to check it before deletion but they have no souls anyway).

[Dark_Nemesis]

Now that I'm slightly closer to the topic, I find it odd that they want everything to be equal, but when you even MENTION the draft, they go, "Aw, no, you guys can keep that." Sorry, but equal is completely equal. If you get rights that men get, you get the downsides too. No dice.

I have a cousin in the army. And the requirements for women to pass boot camp are much less strenuous. Just to add on to what Crypt said.

Crypt, please stop. I'll work on that, but just stop.

In addition, if I have to read another one of those posts saying

You need an "if" here chump. Your move. Oh, and if you don't like the posts (burning those little eyes).....don't read it. If it's not breaking any forums rules, then you have no right to touch our posts, and I will kindly ask you not to. And rest assured, I will take you to an adim if you do, in any way, overstep your power.

Five bucks says he deletes this.

I'll go find the statistic later but I remember reading a few studies in one of my psyc courses that said if you get married you have like a 52% chance of getting divorced.

You spelled "psych" wrong, mister grammar.

And while the numbers may be accurate, it is largely dependent on you and your spouse's choice. Numbers don't have any say on that.

[Tehw00tz]

You agree that “Eve of the Apocalypse: Twilight” have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time should we see fit

Someone didn't read the user agreement.

[Cokemonkey11]

To the OP:

No one said you had to do it in front of a bunch of people, and the signing of the parchment is for government/legal recognition.

[Ford Prefect]

To the OP:

No one said you had to do it in front of a bunch of people, and the signing of the parchment is for government/legal recognition.

Um, you're absolutely right... no one said that. Also, I already noted and commented on the fact that it was for legal/governmental purposes.

[CryptLord1234]

By that token, unmarried couples with children should get the same breaks. Again, I don't see why marriage should factor into it at all.

I can agree with that. By the logic I put up there, anyone with children, be they single, unmarried, or married, should get a break. I'm fairly sure that single parents with children get financial breaks, as do married couples, but unmarried couples with children should as well.

A shot in the dark here, but I think the break might have something to do with America's roots, where we were all religious people, who came here to escape religious persecution. IIRC, having children outside of wedlock was taboo in that day and age, so there was no need to think, 'well, what about unmarried couples with children?'. It just didn't happen. (This isn't to say that it should remain the same, despite different circumstances. Just trying to draw out the marriage connection.)

Even as is, though, the percentage of unmarried couples, let alone those with children, only makes up about 10% of the US population (2007 US Census). those with children, let's assume half, would be all of 5 percent. Now, I'm for equality on that, but if those people are doing fine on their own, they're not likely to make noise about not having a financial break, so a relatively tiny portion of the population having problems they aren't complaining about, isn't likely to make a change in the way taxes are collected.

[Reaper]

Just to clarify: The moderators are an extension of the admins. We represent them and their power.

Let's keep this on topic now.

[Elreth]

The reason there are tax breaks is because the government views people being married as desirable. The reasons should be obvious but for example, it wants happy, stable, little families over a bunch of adult males with way too much free time and money on their hands. Regardless of your moral standing on marriage or whether such manipulation is 'fair', marriage is good for the country or at the very least it was decided that it was when these breaks were put into place. Incentives lead to people doing more of something and so on, etc.

This is why we also have things like sin taxes on cigs/beer, even though strictly speaking it isn't 'fair' to have extra heavy taxes on these specific goods.

[Ford Prefect]

Besides the obvious issues with the government interfering in your personal life, let's look at how that's working out. It's commonly quoted that the divorce rate is approximately 50%. Happy stable little families? Yeah, maybe the other half. Of course, there's no guarantee that half is all that happy, either. Then, of course, if I wasn't clear, I was not suggesting males be bachelors "with too much free time and money on their hands." I'm only saying that being a monogamous couple should not require a ceremony (public or private) or the signing of a document. Just do it.

[Elreth]

It is certainly not required, they just recieve benefits for doing so because theres no other way to determine who does and does not qualify for marriage benefits. If they don't want those benefits then they can certainly pass on them.

Also remember that the idea behind the incentive isnt to make marriages perfect or even to make everyone married. Only to increase what would otherwise presumably be fewer marriages. While you could argue that this could lead to an increase in divorces since people got married for partially or entirely for monetary reasons (I know two people who did this with the intention of getting divorced later and did), this is also not entirely against the government's wishes. Also, the incentives were created in a time when getting a divorce was a bigger deal.

Lastly, I fully support the idea of getting married or otherwise merely agreeing to be together without the involvement of some third party. I am just trying to explain the third party's motivations.

[Cokemonkey11]

To the OP:

No one said you had to do it in front of a bunch of people, and the signing of the parchment is for government/legal recognition.

Um, you're absolutely right... no one said that. Also, I already noted and commented on the fact that it was for legal/governmental purposes.

I'm glad we agree. Sorry I didn't have time to read the entire discussion.

[coramoor2]

the best part about the marriage license is that in some states its not even signed by the married couple, but just by the witnesses. found this out when my best friend got married, and me and the maid of honor had to sign the thing but the married couple didn't. cracked me up.

The legal paper makes taxes easier, and sometimes you get a tax break. also makes separation into a legal matter with rules to follow, protecting both parties from being totally screwed afterwards (yeah you could potentially lose half of everything you considered your own, but its not like you can lose everything).

the ceremony itself is really more of a societal template for stating your intentions towards each other openly so those close to you fully understand what you mean to each other. also an excuse to party and hang out with friends and spend too much money on flower arrangements. who doesn't love that?