View Poll Results: What should be the government's involvement in marriage?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Okay as it is/make only minor changes

    7 25.00%
  • Take away all government financial incentives

    1 3.57%
  • Make some specific changes only

    0 0%
  • Take government out of marriage completely

    13 46.43%
  • Other

    7 25.00%
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 82

Thread: What should be the government's involvement in marriage?

  1. #11
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: What should be the government's involvement in marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    some of the problems inherent in the system.
    What do you mean?


    Aside, I've met people who are ok with multiple wives but not multiple husbands (with one or multiple wives).



    Quote Originally Posted by MistressNomad View Post
    When it comes to things like medical proxies and other extensions of personal rights, I think a person should be able to assign those to whoever they want regardless of whether they co-habitate or are romantically involved. Telling someone they can't decide to designate whomever as their advocate in, say, end-of-life care, since being in control of their own medical decisions is part of their right to life, is fundamentally wrong.
    One can give power of attorney and the other can sign one's name legally. Any documents needed to establish whatever can be signed by anyone in the union.
    Last edited by ecofarm; 05-30-11 at 04:31 PM.

  2. #12
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    29,048

    Re: What should be the government's involvement in marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I voted other. I think that the government should make marriage more permanent and make divorces much harder to obtain. I think that they should remove financial benefits to being married as well.
    I agree with making it harder to get a divorce when there are children involved in the marriage. I could care less if two adults alone want to get a divorce with little effort because they are only affecting their own lives. And there would be certain times when a divorce should be given easily, with or without children, such as abuse.

    As for the financial benefits, I want to know what people mean specifically by this. I realize that there are tax benefits to some married people, but there are also penalties for other married people, and the budget department's estimate is that the government actually makes a small amount more money from those who are married over what is lost to those who benefit from it.

    The social security issue isn't really fair, since for many couples, as I explained in an earlier thread, one spouse makes significantly more than the other spouse during most of the marriage but that is usually balanced by taking on other, non-financial responsibilities for the couple and/or their children. Also, during marriage, money is legally considered to belong to both spouses, yet the government would still be taking out money for SS from a person when they are married, regardless of whether the person's spouse is paying into their own SS or not. So that SS accrued during a marriage would technically belong to both members of the marriage. Anything accrued after a marriage or before a marriage, that would be fair to not include when determining SS for a spouse/former spouse.

    What other specific financial benefits are there/are you referring to? I am just asking so I know what I need to address or if it is reasonable to take it away.
    Last edited by roguenuke; 05-30-11 at 04:39 PM.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  3. #13
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: What should be the government's involvement in marriage?

    Keep it as is, where is.
    And I cannot disagree with MistressNomad more.

  4. #14
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,802

    Re: What should be the government's involvement in marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I voted other. I think that the government should make marriage more permanent and make divorces much harder to obtain. I think that they should remove financial benefits to being married as well.
    I don't think they should remove the benefits, I think they ought to impose serious financial penalties in a divorce. Make it hurt.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  5. #15
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,802

    Re: What should be the government's involvement in marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    What do you mean?
    There are inherent problems, particularly with financial dealings, in multiple marriages. When one person leaves, how do you determine what percentage of the community property they are entitled to? Since these relationships tend to be more fluid, with people coming and going, there needs to be some comprehensive system to determine who gets what, who gets child custody, etc. Until these issues are dealt with, polygamous marriages are going to be much more legally difficult.

    Aside, I've met people who are ok with multiple wives but not multiple husbands (with one or multiple wives).
    I don't really care what anyone not directly involved in the marriage is okay with. None of their business.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  6. #16
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: What should be the government's involvement in marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I don't think they should remove the benefits, I think they ought to impose serious financial penalties in a divorce. Make it hurt.
    So you want to make people pay for optimistically taking a risk and trying to build a life together, even if it turns out not to work? That's just kinda douchey.

    The main benefits of marriage come from the ability to co-own things, like a house. Linking people together financially for the purpose of shared property. Also things like inheritance, medical privacy, and custody of children are an issue. There really is no ethical way to justify tax benefits for marriage, and then deny marriage to some people because society deems them "icky". Any two people should be able to form this union, and build a family together. And, as long as you can sort out the paperwork, more people could be added.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  7. #17
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,175

    Re: What should be the government's involvement in marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I don't think they should remove the benefits, I think they ought to impose serious financial penalties in a divorce. Make it hurt.
    Are you aware that divorce often improves the child's life? It was certainly the case with me. Even when there is no explicit "abuse" going on, living in a home where your parents obviously don't like each other sucks. Kids aren't stupid. They can tell.

    You can have whatever your personal morality to the sanctity of marriage is, but enforcing it on others to the detriment of their own lives is pretty selfish and short-sighted.

  8. #18
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: What should be the government's involvement in marriage?

    I don't care what their role is as long as they impliment that role equally. Regardless or race, gender or religion. And by that I mean that homosexuals can marry the partners of their choice, even of the same sex.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #19
    Guru

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:06 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,469

    Re: What should be the government's involvement in marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Why not, 3+ is a party.

    Now, to convince my wife.....
    Just ask. She might enjoy a few more dudes around to choose from.

    .

  10. #20
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993

    Re: What should be the government's involvement in marriage?

    arbiter in disputes.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •