[anasawad]

In most countries 'm familiar with its law have religious institutions serving one legal function which is marriage and thus don't have to pay taxes as they became representatives of the state due to this.
Those which does not register marriage or anything don't get tax breaks of any sort rather considered private institutions.

For married couples, it differs on the income really.
People who have lower incomes even they get married they still pay the same tax. But those whom are in the higher incomes get larger reduction in their taxes due them going down in tax brackets. This is the situation in most of Europe, and also in Lebanon and Iran, and i think its also the same for the US.

Basically, the richer you are, the less taxes you pay when you get married. while the poorer you are, the less the difference in tax rates before and after marriage.

[mikema63]

Yeah religious tax breaks aren't tied to anything. They are actually so vauge and loose that John Oliver legally created a "church" on his TV show and started accepting donations.

You could literally just change the law on joint filing without doing away with marriage.

[anasawad]

The law on these taxes should change.
But for the idea of legal marriage, once you go away with these types of laws, its really not that special any more.
And its less complexity and less time wasted on all the organizing for legal institutions and registrations for it.

If we made it just a social construct that can be done between any two people or even more if you'd like. Then its much easier, and you can register it in censuses and already existing government forms handling the recording of information about the population.

And on the plus side, you also don't have to have dozens of protests and news coverage everytime a new type of marriage arises and start an entire process to change the legal code and fit it in.

Really, if marriage now includes not only between humans but also between humans and animals and objects, then its useless to waste time and money on it, just let people do whatever they want without having all this buzz about it.



@Vlerchan
Sure, but if we were taking it from a family perspective, its more damaging to have parents that hate each other and depressed, all while living together because they cant afford getting divorce, than just them separating and still caring for the children.

What should be done is increasing awarness and education about raising families and relationships, and allowing birth control and abortions for those who are not ready to have children so they're not trapped in such scenario.

[Vlerchan]

[...] but if we were taking it from a family perspective, its more damaging to have parents that hate each other and depressed, all while living together because they cant afford getting divorce, than just them separating and still caring for the children.

If that claim is coming from an study or report, I would appreciate it was sourced. I don't disagree that marriage quality affects children's outcomes but I'm not sure how someone would identify the good or bad releationships for the purpose of empirical research - and, thus, the purpose of supporting that claim.

Nevertheless, I am not arguing against all divorces, or even divorce, period. I am fine with people being able to exit relationships. What I am arguing, just to restate the point, is that when the costs of exiting a relationship are higher, it creates an incentive for couples to work harder to sort out their problems. But, at the same time the current regime around divorce isn't so restrictive as to force couples who have insurmountable problems to remain together despite this - and I wouldn't support that sort of regime.

What should be done is increasing awarness and education about raising families and relationships, and allowing birth control and abortions for those who are not ready to have children so they're not trapped in such scenario.

Sure. I have no issue with any of these things.

Though, 'increasing awarness and education' is somewhat of a cop-out, do you have any specific suggestions that have been demonstrated to work consistently .

[Drlee]

So let me see. We can't agree on whether or not men should be allowed to marry one another so we want to abolish marriage. That is just stupid.

Marriage is ingrained in our society. It is very popular. It has far more meaning than association legal conveniences.

Men want to marry men and women want to marry women. They want this because of the commitment marriage solemnizes. They could have a lawyer draw up the legal benefits for less than the cost of a suit. I am offended by the cavalier manner in which marriage is trivialized almost entirely by those who are not married.

I think we can drop the nonsense about abolishing marriage. It will not happen in any of our lifetimes. Not even close. We can also forget the utterly stupid nonsense about marrying animals and such. These are junior high school rants and nothing more. Logic is not a super power and it is meaningless without adding emotion to the equation.

So I am still waiting for someone to tell me how they are negatively affected by same sex marriage.

[Godstud]

Well, Drlee, when I am making love to my wife and then suddenly a thought pops into my head that somewhere a homosexual might be having sex too, I get offended, and turned off. It's hurting my marriage to think that people somewhere else might be having sex and being happy. To think they might be married to each other, as well, is almost too much for my snowflake delicate ego to contain.

I think that's the argument.

I agree with you, 100%, regarding marriage, Drlee.

[anasawad]

@Drlee

So let me see. We can't agree on whether or not men should be allowed to marry one another so we want to abolish marriage. That is just stupid.

You clearly misunderstood my argument.
'm not saying that we should abolish marriage, 'm saying we should allow it for everyone by socializing it instead of having it as a political or legal institution. Basically, the government not interfering what the people do in their own lives and everyone can marry who they want without needing government approval as long as it is under consent of both sides.

And considering that the financial and legal policies regarding marriage are simply stupid at best and damaging at worst, we should remove those.

Marriage is ingrained in our society. It is very popular. It has far more meaning than association legal conveniences.

And no one is saying it should be abolished, it simply shouldn't have governmental restrictions over it.

Men want to marry men and women want to marry women. They want this because of the commitment marriage solemnizes. They could have a lawyer draw up the legal benefits for less than the cost of a suit

And those can still be done between consenting couples who want to do such contract. But instead of having a standard one by the state that is in many case harmful to one of the sides if not both, it should be between people who want to engage in it to decide what should and should not be in it.

I am offended by the cavalier manner in which marriage is trivialized almost entirely by those who are not married.

who ?

I think we can drop the nonsense about abolishing marriage. It will not happen in any of our lifetimes. Not even close. We can also forget the utterly stupid nonsense about marrying animals and such. These are junior high school rants and nothing more. Logic is not a super power and it is meaningless without adding emotion to the equation.

Too late, marriage to animals is already legal in many countries including the US.

So I am still waiting for someone to tell me how they are negatively affected by same sex marriage.

I'm not sure if this is pointed at me or not, but i don't see where did i state 'm against it.
Infact, here is my first post in this matter;

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I support full freedom in the marriage topic for people including homosexual marriage, polygamy for both genders and to all genders.

@Vlerchan

If that claim is coming from an study or report, I would appreciate it was sourced. I don't disagree that marriage quality affects children's outcomes but I'm not sure how someone would identify the good or bad releationships for the purpose of empirical research - and, thus, the purpose of supporting that claim.

Not sure if there is a study about this topic or not, didn't do a research on the psychological effects on children, but 'm speaking from a personal perspective based on my experience.

Nevertheless, I am not arguing against all divorces, or even divorce, period. I am fine with people being able to exit relationships. What I am arguing, just to restate the point, is that when the costs of exiting a relationship are higher, it creates an incentive for couples to work harder to sort out their problems. But, at the same time the current regime around divorce isn't so restrictive as to force couples who have insurmountable problems to remain together despite this - and I wouldn't support that sort of regime.

I agree, but what 'm saying is, those decisions should be put in people's hands not in government hands which could produce damage depending on which country and the basis of these legislations.
So, when its between people or more specifically the couples in hand, they decide what it should be suit them.
When marriage becomes a social institution and construct rather than a political and legal one, it makes these things more just and fair to the people involved.

And also it gives the overall benefits stated in previous posts to the community as whole by redirecting resources and getting more taxes from those who can afford it( the taxes) while either not changing or lowering taxes for those who cant afford such taxes.

Though, 'increasing awarness and education' is somewhat of a cop-out, do you have any specific suggestions that have been demonstrated to work consistently .

There already are classes for couples starting families on how to raise a family, and there are many private firms for helping couples solving any problems they have in their relations and consulting them on how to improve it.
We don't need to start anything new, just promote the already existing ones.
And these things spans all corners of a relationship and a family from helping with communications to even how to improve the sex-life of the couple.
But most people are usually hesitant to take these type of educational materials or seek consultancy.
Promoting them and making people more open to such things to improve their relationships and lives would help greatly in improving the quality of their relations and the quality of marriage they're in, and i would argue would reduce the rates of divorce and separation.


@Godstud
I don't think anyone is arguing that.

[Stormsmith]

Men want to marry men and women want to marry women. They want this because of the commitment marriage solemnizes.

Excellent post, Drlee

Here couples can live together as married, under common law. They can have a civil ceremony, or they can have a vicar and be married at some lovely place or in a church, Temple etc.

There are plenty of choices. None needs to trump the others, but for us, marriage is a solemn affair, and a proper marriage was preferred.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Too late, marriage to animals is already legal in many countries including the US.

Is this a problem with your understanding of English? Do you think 'marriage' means 'sex'? That might explain some of your other comments, and it's the only possible explanation of this comment. No, marriage to animals is not legal in the US, and I doubt it's legal in any country. Because it makes no sense, and whatever your ideology, having a law liek that would be a farce.

[anasawad]

@Prosthetic Conscience
Bestiality is already legal in many countries (thats sex), and marriage between humans and their pets is a thing now specially in Europe, US and India.
Though full legislation for it isn't up yet but you can have official certificates from sites and representatives which has state license to give marriage certificates for people. So i wont put it too far that there would a legal discussion about its legislation in the upcoming times since its currently in the grey, i.e not illegal in many places.

For the other comments, 'm arguing that marriage should be socialized and not the business of the state or authority. If you have an opinion on the topic, go ahead and respond to my argument, if not, saying i don't understand English is not an argument.

[Drlee]

Talking about people having sex with or marrying their animals is not only a sure sign of stupidity it is a direct and deliberate insult to gay and lesbian people who want to marry one-another. It is disgusting that someone would even think to do it.

If you are pursuing this line of "reasoning" do not apply for Mensa. You will definitely not pass the test. Do not ring my doorbell either. You will definitely not pass the threshold. I have no room in my house for stupid people or bigots.

[anasawad]

Good to know that you are unable to have a counter argument.
bye.


Its funny how everyone is ignoring all the argument and ignoring that in the very point the sub-standard intelligence people who keep trying to pin point was about the fact that there are all sorts of marriages currently on the table thus its best to leave it to the people to decide what they want and how, instead of having the government supervising everything. And not about human-animal marriage in particular, which exist all over the world whether you like it or not BTW.

[Godstud]

Drlee is correct. The arguments that gay sex is icky or that people will start marrying animals, if homosexual marriage is allowed, is offensive, idiotic, and absurd.

People are NOT allowed to marry animals. There is no human-animal marriage, and if so please show a source supporting this claim. That's downright idiotic.

They're actually enacting laws to BAN bestiality, because it's animal abuse. There is no state in the world that allows human-animal marriage, so ditch that fucked up argument.

[anasawad]

@Godstud
Can you explain how exactly my argument to abolish institutional marriage and make it between the people without government interference or restrictions somehow translates to gay sex being "icky" or against gay marriage ?

And in the same time, can you explain how saying that there are several types of marriages and that includes everything from hetrosexual marriage, homosexual marriage,polygamy, and also human-animal marriage and that people should be able to do what they want without restrictions in this topic, somehow means that 'm equating gay marriage to human-animal marriage ?
Because 'm pretty sure thats a point you guys made up and then stuck too in order to ignore the actual argument 'm presenting which is socializing marriage.

And bestiality is actually no prohibited in most countries, only a handful of countries ban it.
And human-animal marriage is actually a grey area, there is no state that officially uphold it, but also no state that has active law against it.
Thats why you see articles on android magazine about some people marrying their pets. Its in the grey.
This nevertheless is not the argument, its the part where your side felt like strawman-ing on to avoid the argument.



Here is my original comment which you guys felt like twisting.

It seems a waste of time to keep this thing going, not just gay marriage, but the entire topic. Every while there will be a huge chaos and disputes over some sort of marriage or anther. Whethers it between different races, genders, classes, orientations, etc. The topic will always rise up. Heck i think a while back even marriage to animals became an issue of debate.
Why not just make marriage a social construct purely rather than a political and legal one.
It'd be much better for everyone, and much less wasteful of resources spent both by the government and the people on it.

You should really consider the fact that the argument went on about it without anyone feeling offended or finding an insult in any of this comment and went to argue on the merits of the suggestion of removing marriage from politics and law and make it between people.
Ofcourse until Drlee and the special snowflakes arrived and somehow missed the page and a half of the discussion and thought to focus on these couple of words.
Really high and advanced level of arguments and brightness shown there.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

So let me see. We can't agree on whether or not men should be allowed to marry one another so we want to abolish marriage. That is just stupid.

Marriage is ingrained in our society. It is very popular. It has far more meaning than association legal conveniences.

Men want to marry men and women want to marry women. They want this because of the commitment marriage solemnizes. They could have a lawyer draw up the legal benefits for less than the cost of a suit. I am offended by the cavalier manner in which marriage is trivialized almost entirely by those who are not married.

I think we can drop the nonsense about abolishing marriage. It will not happen in any of our lifetimes. Not even close. We can also forget the utterly stupid nonsense about marrying animals and such. These are junior high school rants and nothing more. Logic is not a super power and it is meaningless without adding emotion to the equation.

So I am still waiting for someone to tell me how they are negatively affected by same sex marriage.

Ideally we would abolish the government benefits of marriage and make it an unimportant institution, but people would never allow that. I'm also not sure the ideal is worth the pain that it would cause in the short term.

[redcarpet]

Lol, you consider it the 'ideal' not most people. Nor is abolition the topic. Equalisation for same-gender couples is.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

And my position is that I am for marriage. Reactions like that are exactly why. Nobody wants to get rid of marriage even though it makes so much sense to do so.

[Know It All]

Sorry know it all, the world is not static.

My world is

[Godstud]

This thread is not about abolishing marriage, but equality, in regards to it.

I think abolishing marriage is a stupid idea. If you don't like marriage, THEN DON'T GET MARRIED!

It's that simple.

[anasawad]

@Godstud
By socializing marriage you're bringing equality to it.

And no one is abolishing marriage, but rather abolishing the government institutions of marriage.

And on a side note, saying something stupid is not an argument. I for one already presented a good reason why marriage should be socialized and removed from politics and legislation.
If you're against it then you should provide an argument against it.