• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has your marriage changed since SCOTUS ruling?

My marriage


  • Total voters
    49
If you don't want the "special privileges" and are married, get divorced. Problem solved. And I don't buy your explanation. Perhaps you're being honest, but I've been debating this issue for years, and I have yet to find someone who didn't "magically" come to the conclusion that government sanctioned marriage is wrong for any reason other than SSM becoming more likely to be law. As far as other types of relationships, that is not for the scope of this thread, however, there is no consistency between those relationships and either traditional marriage or SSM.

For most of this discussion, I have tried to respond to your somewhat belligerent questioning. How about turning it around and you provide a good reason why the government should get involved in marriages. My views on this is part of my overall views. I support liberty, equality, personal freedoms, and individual meritocracy. Thomas Paine's main complaint in Common Sense
was his hatred of inherited power. I think that if he were alive today, he would also understand the evils of inherited wealth which leads to power. I am opposed to the conservative idea (supported by so many self-proclaimed liberals) that family matters and that wealth should be passed down. People should gain success as individuals, not as a member of a dynasty. So I tend to be leery of marriage and family when government puts their finger on the scale and enables spouses and children, grandchildren, to be given wealth. I don't deserve anything my father achieved, my wife achieves, and my children don't deserve anything I achieve. People should stand on their own merits, not on family connections. You can never have equality when people are born, or married, into a head start, aided by the government.
Off topic but simply a reason why my feelings about SSM, and hetero marriage, are part of a whole. Marriages add to inequality.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/m...e283&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&_r=0
 
And if I am against white privilege, I should simply undergo plastic surgery and dermatology changes to be Black? What a silly, narcissistic concept. Inequality anywhere is a crime against all of us as humans.

You do understand that there is a difference between a behavior you can choose to do (marriage) and a complete alteration in one's race, something that cannot be done. What a silly, invalid analogy.

I have been presenting my views on this in public forums for some time, long before the first time I heard that some others wanted to end marriage due to these changes. Frankly I am surprised at this turn of events.

Perhaps you have been presenting this opinion for years. I have no way of knowing. In my experience, those who present it, came to the conclusion when they believed that SSM was a foregone conclusion. Before that, they didn't care. Perhaps you are different. As I said, I have know way of knowing.

But still, why are you opposed to ending government special rights to married people? Why should government be involved in this? We have laws on equal protection and special rights seem to be a violation of equal protection laws.

I don't really care whether or not the government gives special rights to married people or not, but I understand why they would promote marriage. Married couples help both the nation and the population. Married couples do best at rearing children. Married couples tend to be more stable financially. Married couples tend to be healthier. All of these things benefit the country, so I can understand why the government would promote it.
 
This is all rather funny because I'd bet the absolute VAST MAJORITY of people who get married are NOT getting married because of the "wonderful benefits package" that the government provides for being married. :roll:

I mean seriously, getting married doesn't equate to winning the damn powerball lottery.

There are some things married couples benefit from, but it ain't the difference between poor and rich that's for damn sure, and the costs for having that marriage dissolve far outweigh the benefits of getting married.

I really don't get what all this fuss is about.

I did not get a check in the mail from Washington a few days after I got married. :roll:
 
Not sure how many of my posts you have read on this subject. Everything that you write is correct. Not sure if it is important to wait for some group to demand change-laws should provide equal protection from the start. Same sex couples could live together for some time. as have hetero unmarried couples. There is no basis for tying marriage benefits to child raising as many hetero and same sex couples have no children. So my basic question was-Is there still a reason to have special benefits given to married people? Or, if there is, why not make it available to all, including blood relatives, polygamists, polyandrists, asexuals, non-sexuals, etc. who may have one or more people in their lives who they have tight, platonic perhaps, connections?
I think that it is time to get government out of the marriage business. All those benefits of marriage are available through legal partnerships, power of attorneys, annuities, etc. Government simply makes it easier by wrapping this up in a neat and easy package.

I thought I pointed that out? Blood ties already connect those people with most or all those benefits and protections for the kids, so a 'marriage contract' isnt necessary to provide them.

As for polygamy...I dont care, let them marry. Just dont accord them any additional/extra benefits and privileges because of their union. I think it's a stupid idea for most women to be in a marriage with multiple women and one man, but that's a consenting adult decision. As for the other combinations, again...consenting adults.
 
This is all rather funny because I'd bet the absolute VAST MAJORITY of people who get married are NOT getting married because of the "wonderful benefits package" that the government provides for being married. :roll:

I mean seriously, getting married doesn't equate to winning the damn powerball lottery.

There are some things married couples benefit from, but it ain't the difference between poor and rich that's for damn sure, and the costs for having that marriage dissolve far outweigh the benefits of getting married.

I really don't get what all this fuss is about.

I did not get a check in the mail from Washington a few days after I got married. :roll:

Actually if you think about it, the benefits are indeed what a vast majority bother to get the legal paperwork for. If no one was worried about all the things that come from the government recognition of their marriage, they would just have their social marriage as my wife and I had for about 5 or so years, before the legal benefits became advantageous.

Seriously, if not for all of what it does, and that is not to say that you desired each and every thing that comes from it, why did you bother to get your marriage recognized by the government?
 
As for polygamy...I dont care, let them marry. Just dont accord them any additional/extra benefits and privileges because of their union. I think it's a stupid idea for most women to be in a marriage with multiple women and one man, but that's a consenting adult decision. As for the other combinations, again...consenting adults.

Do you find it as stid for most men to be in a marriage with multiple men and one woman (polyandry)? If so why are you not being as dismissive of that as you are of one man and multiple women (polygyny not polygamy)? Or for that matter do you think it is a stupid idea for a family unit to have two wives and two husbands? Yes I know you said consenting adults, but what you are willing to allow and what you find stupid are two separate things as you post notes. I'm trying to find out why you have such a bias.
 
Anybody else intrigued by the insistence on left of the presupposition that Thatcher was right about society.... on only this issue?
 
Yes or no, and why if yes. Please.

How long have you been married?

Did the SSM ruling by SCOTUS somehow change your marriage?

Unless you're homosexual and now get to marry, there is no possible way the ruling changed marriage for you.
 
Anybody else intrigued by the insistence on left of the presupposition that Thatcher was right about society.... on only this issue?

I never go to the left meetings, so I can't really answer this specifically; however, it is possible for someone, anyone, to be wrong a lot, and be right on one issue. It's not either raight all the time or wrong all the time.
 
Actually if you think about it, the benefits are indeed what a vast majority bother to get the legal paperwork for. If no one was worried about all the things that come from the government recognition of their marriage, they would just have their social marriage as my wife and I had for about 5 or so years, before the legal benefits became advantageous.

Seriously, if not for all of what it does, and that is not to say that you desired each and every thing that comes from it, why did you bother to get your marriage recognized by the government?

No. I don't believe that at all. People do not get married for the benefits.
They get married because they love each other and want to make a life-long lasting commitment to each other, and society has deemed that "marriage" is the vehicle for that type of commitment.

Government benefits is NOT why people get married.

There is no prize for getting married. Uncle Sam does not send you an envelop with cash in it.
 
No. I don't believe that at all. People do not get married for the benefits.
They get married because they love each other and want to make a life-long lasting commitment to each other, and society has deemed that "marriage" is the vehicle for that type of commitment.

Government benefits is NOT why people get married.

There is no prize for getting married. Uncle Sam does not send you an envelop with cash in it.

Those benefits range anywhere from the child protection benefits, visitation rights, and so many more. They are not just financial. I believe it was here that someone link to nearly 1000 different benefits of legal marriage. Inheritance, financial aid, protection against testifying against your spouse, and so many others. While it could easily be argued that many couples do not consider all the benefits available as the reason for obtaining that piece of paper, they want something outside their love.

This is not to say that they would not get socially married. Remember you can have a full blown wedding, televise it, even get the Pope to conduct it. While you may be married in your eyes, the eyes of the church and even in the eyes of the public, you are not married in the eyes of the government without that piece of paper.

So to be clear, people get married in the eyes of society for love. They get married in the eyes of the government for benefits. Most times both occur. Sometimes only one or the other occurs.
 
Last edited:
If the "benefits" of government marriage were so fabulous, then I'm sure loads and loads of people would "fraudulently" marry just to reap the vast rewards our government bestows upon us.

I've never known such an arrangement to happen. I'm sure it does, but I'd bet it was on a scale so small as it doesn't register any concern.

Marriage is a social/cultural construct that is not tied directly to government benefits.
I agree there are some benefits. I disagree that most people marry because of those benefits.

I'd say people marry more because they're brainwashed into thinking that's just the natural course of life, and that they are expected to do it as a sign of being a successful and mature adult.

The phrase "settle down" comes to mind rather quickly.
 
Do you find it as stid for most men to be in a marriage with multiple men and one woman (polyandry)? If so why are you not being as dismissive of that as you are of one man and multiple women (polygyny not polygamy)? Or for that matter do you think it is a stupid idea for a family unit to have two wives and two husbands? Yes I know you said consenting adults, but what you are willing to allow and what you find stupid are two separate things as you post notes. I'm trying to find out why you have such a bias.

I personally think it's stupid and in general shows a weakness or certain needs in a woman. I think it shows a lack of self-esteem. These are generalizations of course. I can see women finding a financial benefit to it.

And it is my personal opinion. I think it allows men to take advantage of women and just be able to indulge their desire for multiple sex partners....'fresh ones' when they want them. But of course, there are certainly financial drawbacks for them. Meh, as I said, generalizations, but significant IMO.

OTOH, people do all sorts of stupid things that are legal. I see men and women enter into straight marriages, just as a couple, and then remain in them....which are huge mistakes. Free will. Has its consequences.
 
If the "benefits" of government marriage were so fabulous, then I'm sure loads and loads of people would "fraudulently" marry just to reap the vast rewards our government bestows upon us.

I've never known such an arrangement to happen. I'm sure it does, but I'd bet it was on a scale so small as it doesn't register any concern.

Marriage is a social/cultural construct that is not tied directly to government benefits.
I agree there are some benefits. I disagree that most people marry because of those benefits.

I'd say people marry more because they're brainwashed into thinking that's just the natural course of life, and that they are expected to do it as a sign of being a successful and mature adult.

The phrase "settle down" comes to mind rather quickly.

Despite your lack of knowledge "fraudulent" marriages already happen. The most common type being people marrying others from other countries to get them citizenship. Also previously there were gays who would marry opposite thief preferred gender for either hiding or for their pose of having and raising kids.

As I noted, people marry under the eyes of the government for whatever benefits they are seeking. At a minimum, it is the legal recognition that the government or other businesses require for various purposes. A bank might give a married couple a better rate than two individuals not so legally bound.
 
I personally think it's stupid and in general shows a weakness or certain needs in a woman. I think it shows a lack of self-esteem. These are generalizations of course. I can see women finding a financial benefit to it.

And it is my personal opinion. I think it allows men to take advantage of women and just be able to indulge their desire for multiple sex partners....'fresh ones' when they want them. But of course, there are certainly financial drawbacks for them. Meh, as I said, generalizations, but significant IMO.

OTOH, people do all sorts of stupid things that are legal. I see men and women enter into straight marriages, just as a couple, and then remain in them....which are huge mistakes. Free will. Has its consequences.

Again your bias shows. It would also allow women to take advantage of men by having multiple husbands. Fresh ones as you say.
 
Again your bias shows. It would also allow women to take advantage of men by having multiple husbands. Fresh ones as you say.

Hey my personal opinion on the subject would not affect my political one, once I saw a good discussion of both sides of the issue.

I said the were generalizations. Historically, my perspective has been borne out. "Generally" :)
 
Back
Top Bottom