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 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 82

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

  1. #1
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    What should be the government's involvement in marriage?

    Many times during SSM debates it comes up whether the government should be involved in marriage at all or whether certain financial benefits should be offered for being married.

    So my question is, what should the government's involvement in marriage be?

    What should be provided with marriage? What parts should stay/go/be added? How would taking the government out of marriage affect our lives (be realistic)? What would happen if some/all financial benefits were taken from married couples, in regards to affecting the economy (please provide some backing for claims)? Some examples of financial benefits of marriage would be helpful.

    Personally, I believe that there is little that should be changed as far as the government's financial involvement in marriage goes because I don't believe that people getting governmental financial benefits from being legally married really affects our economy in any significant way. From what I understand about the marriage tax breaks they are actually balanced by those married couples who have to pay more together than if they were separate.

    There might be a couple that could easily go away and not have much affect at all, but nothing that would actually make a significant positive difference in our economy. And I believe that many big changes are likely to make a significant negative economic difference.

    And I do believe that there is a relevant difference in allowing benefits based on marriage vice giving those same benefits to single people due to the responsibility and commitment that comes with being legally married, that provides benefits to our economy and our society, such as taking on responsibility for each others financial obligations, combining incomes that provides more buying power to the economy, and agreeing to make decisions of life and death for a person that would otherwise be left up to the government to make.
    "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.

  2. #2
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

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

    In my opinion, nothing.
    There is no real compelling reason for it, aside from welfare and tax benefits.
    Which I don't agree with from the federal level anyway.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  3. #3
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,762

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

    The way it's handled now is fine, marriage is just a civil contract anyhow. It should be expanded to include all adult unions regardless of gender.
    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!

  4. #4
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,329

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

    Should we be allowed to have a union of 3 or more?

  5. #5
    Sewer Rat
    Risky Thicket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,803

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

    No involvement other than minimum legal age and that should be, as it is today, determined by each state. I don't care if a guy marries 5 women as long as doing so doesn't give him any legal or financial advantage. Of course that means he'd have 5 people complaining because he didn't put the lid down on the toilet, but that would be his burden.










    "When Faith preaches Hate, Blessed are the Doubters." - Amin Maalouf

    When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual who perceives a solution and is willing to take command. Very often, that person is crazy. ~Dave Barry



  6. #6
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Should we be allowed to have a union of 3 or more?
    Why not, 3+ is a party.

    Now, to convince my wife.....
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  7. #7
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

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

    Fine as it is, but all adults should be able to get married.

  8. #8
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,762

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Should we be allowed to have a union of 3 or more?
    Doesn't bother me, so long as you can work out some of the problems inherent in the system. Have fun.
    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!

  9. #9
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,953

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

    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.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  10. #10
    Sage
    SmokeAndMirrors's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    RVA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,143

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

    None. I would remove the government from marriage completely and give it no legal status whatsoever. If people want to have a ceremony and call themselves married, fine by me, and I couldn't care less what gender or sex they are, or how many people want to be "married" to each other, but I don't think it should have anything to do with government.

    No financial benefits. In terms of legal benefits, again I think it should have nothing to do with marriage. 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.

    I think marriage is a dated, pointless, and discriminatory institution. I don't pretend to think doing the above is practical at this particular moment in time, but I'd like to see this happen eventually. I think we'd be financially and socially better off.

Page 1 of 9 123 ... 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
  •