On Marriage

[Malamis]

Don’t marry for money; you can borrow it cheaper – Scottish proverb

Having just heard of one of my long-time-ago co-students has gotten married to someone she met on WoW (which is both hilarious and completely understandable), as well as a few other peripheral events, I thought I'd open a discussion about the place of marriage (or indeed civil union) in todays connected society.

I think it:
a. is obsolete for the prevailing culture
b. should be taxed further
c. was of limited and imbalanced use even when it was relevant

The Fundy in me justifies this by pointing out that the purpose was to stabilise and perpetuate the family unit tracing from Abraham, which, quite frankly, i'm probably exempt from.

Having seen a not inconsiderable amount of discussion of the Japanese viewpoint on here previously, i'd just like to hear what ye all think of the subject.

[Derfel]

What purpose does it serve that plain agreements or values could not fulfil? Ugh, none?

[Malamis]

Standardisation, I think.
Refuge for the ignorant?
But in both cases it could stand revising since neither is especially effective.

[kukuruu]

I'm going to get married after uni to my partner of 6 years. But it's just a bit of paper, isn't it? It's just like making a statement "we're serious". It would never change anything in the relationship, and anybody that expects it to make things suddenly wonderful is a real idiot. lol. And a hell of a lot of the time they just end in divorce anyways.

I agree that it serves no purpose. It's pointless and not worth taking out loans/saving up for YEARS for. But for some reason, I still want to do it. Probably because I can be an attention ***** for a day. LOL!!!!!

[Derfel]

Don't get me wrong. Marriage is a very crucial. After all, you never get a great chance of disposing of all your assets in one divorce lawsuit. Isn't marriage a great thing? I mean, honestly, its like yelling "HEEEERE, HAVE A CLAIM AGAINST ME PLEASE!!!"

[Damicci]

You forget that people of another country want to be together they pretty much have to get married.

I originally thought the same about marriage, It's Just Jewlery and some documents. But once your Married you kind see things a little different and it adds respect and emotional value to your connection with your partner. Deep down I still probably would not have gotten married if we could have been together with immigration dealings.

[Malamis]

Deep down I still probably would not have gotten married if we could have been together with immigration dealings.

So... you used the mechanism (and associated risk) of a near universal cultural denominator to direct physical benefit to yourself.

I really can't respond to that civilly and coherently,so good on you.

[Derfel]

I really can't respond to that civilly and coherently,so good on you.

I fail to understand why and how would you condemn such a step? It is obvious, Damicci had in mind a goal to achieve, living with whoever he lives with now. Where, I ask, is the sin in there?

[Malamis]

I fail to understand why and how would you condemn such a step? It is obvious, Damicci had in mind a goal to achieve, living with whoever he lives with now. Where, I ask, is the sin in there?

None whastsoever, my complaint is that the mechanism exists solely for people who already have an imbalanced economic advantage. And I cant express that too well without getting an attack of the vapors.

Admittedly, said imbalance may be explicitely for the economic advantage, as it improves the odds of a meaningful investment at the state level.i.e. not having support some dumb foreigner when the spouse can do it for them.

Still gets my hackles up mind.

[Glenski]

I think it:
a. is obsolete for the prevailing cultureWhose? Different cultures have different views on marriage, including polygamy.

c. was of limited and imbalanced use even when it was relevantWhen was that, and what was the "relevance", in your opinion?

[Tsuyoiko]

I got married twelve years ago for a lot of different reasons.

The main one was that I wanted to advertise the fact that I intended to spend the rest of my life with this guy. I wanted to make a point that I was making a conscious decision to be with this person, unlike most of my cousins, who just got married or moved in with someone because there was a baby on the way. When people just live together it always seems open-ended and indefinite somehow. I like things clearly defined, and marriage gave that definition to our relationship.

There were family reasons. One of my grandmas had just died, and I wanted to get married while my other grandma was still around. My dad is the youngest of six; many of my older cousins had fantastic weddings, and Dad always wanted me to have a nice wedding too.

There were shallow reasons. It was fun organising the whole thing, choosing the venue, cars, dresses and honeymoon, and it was fun to wear a beautiful dress and have my hair and make-up done. It was nice to see my extended family and my husband's all together. We have a beautiful photo album to remind us of the day, and I still have my dress, hat and shoes. The shoes are a regular fixture at family weddings now; my sister wore them at her wedding too (something borrowed ;-) ). Call me old-fashioned, but I like traditions like that.

Financial considerations definitely didn't come into it. Although my husband did get a tax break after we were married, it would have taken years for the wedding to pay for itself, and it wasn't a particularly expensive wedding.

So while I agree that marriage is pretty pointless, I don't think it's obsolete. It's a nice tradition.

[Malamis]

Whose? Different cultures have different views on marriage, including polygamy.

Eh...

Good point.

I'm getting less at the the individual characteristic national culture, and more the whole globalisation with associated benefits and drawbacks thing. Where gender, caste/class and plain ole' poverty prevent various property rights for example, a lucky or perceptive investment under foreign skies can render such concerns irrelevant. Since marriage is now no longer the sole practical method for transcending a poor start in life, it's only practical purpose is in providing the economic benefits in imitation of an older to archaic legal and cultural framework.

Since I will most certainly be directly inconvenienced by this all my life, I intend to complain about it.:lol:


When was that, and what was the "relevance", in your opinion?

As above; In classical Japan, India, bits of Europe at some point or other and most of Saracenstan for example i'm pretty sure property + women = LOL no. The way out for the woman (and her family concievably) was bagging some rich ole' dude, and possibly poisoning him.

Furthermore the inheritance business was once strictly and stubbornly used to the disadvantage of illegitimate children. Where patri- or matri-lineal descent was the only (nearly) universally shared method for ensuring the passing down of one's filthy lucre. Nowadays the passing down of Uncle Bob's fortune is not even guaranteed to remain in the family.

So in summation, my viewpoint is that marriage as an institution was the implicitly shared element of a primitive legal system, which is now tremendously obsolete and puts me and my fellows to a disadvantage. And by disadvantage, I mean those benefits that are not part of the economic mechanism of 2+ incomes maintaining one household. The later I have no complaints about, and fervently wish for a civilian/upscale version of military barracks and section houses.

[Glenski]

Good point.

I'm getting less at the the individual characteristic national culture, and more the whole globalisation with associated benefits and drawbacks thing.I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can do that with all the cultures and customs in the world.

Since marriage is now no longer the sole practical method for transcending a poor start in life, it's only practical purpose is in providing the economic benefits in imitation of an older to archaic legal and cultural framework.Economic benefits to whom? Let's take a polygamous culture. Sheiks don't gain that much from marrying many women, do they? How about Mormons? The women might, but do the men...really?

As above; In classical Japan, India, bits of Europe at some point or other and most of Saracenstan for example i'm pretty sure property + women = LOL no. The way out for the woman (and her family concievably) was bagging some rich ole' dude, and possibly poisoning him."The woman". Hmm, the way you write, you say that most of them did it that way, which is not true, of course.

Furthermore the inheritance business was once strictly and stubbornly used to the disadvantage of illegitimate children.I thought we were talking about marriage, a legal (legitimate?) thing. Bringing up illegitimate kids is a tangent.

Nowadays the passing down of Uncle Bob's fortune is not even guaranteed to remain in the family.I don't get your point.

#1, if it's Uncle Bob, then the nieces and nephews are not a result of his marriage.
#2, times change, and so do wills. Is this really a marriage-related issue?

So in summation, my viewpoint is that marriage as an institution was the implicitly shared element of a primitive legal system, which is now tremendously obsolete and puts me and my fellows to a disadvantage. And by disadvantage, I mean those benefits that are not part of the economic mechanism of 2+ incomes maintaining one household. The later I have no complaints about, and fervently wish for a civilian/upscale version of military barracks and section houses.Why 2+ incomes? In the past, there weren't that many unless you consider family farms as separate incomes.

As for advantages "not part of the economic mechanism", you lost me. In fact, you pretty much lost me on most of this paragraph.

Basically, what are you complaining that you have lost? And, what do you want to happen? And, what is stopping you (if it isn't obvious from the previous answers)?

[Malamis]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can do that with all the cultures and customs in the world.

Fair enough, I'll restrict it to the ones that apply to me.

Economic benefits to whom? Let's take a polygamous culture. Sheiks don't gain that much from marrying many women, do they? How about Mormons? The women might, but do the men...really?

Sheik wise, they potentially gain sons, aka indentured workers.
Mormon wise, I can only talk about the extreme I have read about in "Under the Banner of Heaven", that is it allows for a community spanning lockout of non-mormons in matters of industry, through employing only members of a tremendously extended family at cut rates. I know this isn't exactly the norm, so point conceded there.

"The woman". Hmm, the way you write, you say that most of them did it that way, which is not true, of course.

I'd disagree on that one.Records of the opposite would be made by those by whom it did not apply to, and would have no reason ( and plenty of disincentives ) to show an even hand in documenting.

I thought we were talking about marriage, a legal (legitimate?) thing. Bringing up illegitimate kids is a tangent.

In the sense of backdating and falsifying marriage certifications for inheritance purposes. That is, its a mechanism that can be abused more than it is beneficial.

#1, if it's Uncle Bob, then the nieces and nephews are not a result of his marriage.
#2, times change, and so do wills. Is this really a marriage-related issue?

#1 but they would traditionally (from the catholic tradition) default to whoever had descendants from that branch, i.e. uncle Bob's brother Frank, and his grandson Larry.
#2 In the sense of it provides a default when no explicit instructions exist, yes.

Why 2+ incomes? In the past, there weren't that many unless you consider family farms as separate incomes.

At present, the two income is self explanatory. In the past it was income in the sense of an expendable manual labor resource for the purpose of, as you say, farming, or other labor intensive productive purposes, the pre-steam weaving industry for example.

As for advantages "not part of the economic mechanism", you lost me. In fact, you pretty much lost me on most of this paragraph.

I'm referring to the simple fact that a stack of bricks with two people living between them natively costs less to operate and maintain than two stacks of bricks (which obv. requires more bricks) with one person between each. More modern instances being preferential mortgages, preferential health insurance, banking, auto insurance, transport, accommodation and so on.

Basically, what are you complaining that you have lost? And, what do you want to happen? And, what is stopping you (if it isn't obvious from the previous answers)?
1. Tax breaks for married people, when they inevitably use more services than I do (public schools, children's hospital costs, children's bus subsidies, legal aid for divorce lawyers, maintenance of registrar of marriages, free/subsidised government marriage services etc etc).
2. Preferential treatment in the case of immigration which I myself have benefited from (as a descendant) wherein immigration is fast tracked not through merit of accomplishment, but by the use of a non-universally available mechanism (could be spun into a LGBT issue).
On the first count I consider this to be unacceptable when marriage(the institution, not the ceremony) provides an economic benefit which is further artificially supplemented by preferential treatment at the state level at the expense of those who choose not to submit to it.
On the second count it is largely justifiable due to the innate benefits of the institution (the state is at less risk of a failed investment), but it is only available to married couples. An alternative such as the civil partnership is not universally recognised and is subject to significant restrictions.
As for what I want to happen, Less Of This Sort Of Thing! :blush:
My intentions in this debate is to find a practicable alternative, which quite frankly I am not aware of yet.

[bakaKanadajin]

I can only comment on what marriage means to me, as I have no clue about any of the traditions or practices surrounding marriage in terms of what use they were viewed as above and beyond indicating your undying faith to your partner. I mean, common knowledge dictates that in various cultures marriage brings to families together for economic union via a dowry or something, or secures the continuity of certain bloodlines should that be an important factor, etc. It promotes procreation since in many cultures sex is forbidden before marriage.

But aside from all that, if we take all that to be unimportant in todays modern culture...

Is it necessary..?

I think it really depends on whether both people see it the same way. It's kind of like a tattoo. It's a ***** to erase. It kind of forces people to work through their differences, although divorce is getting easier and easier to do. For me, provided my partner and I were on the same page, I'd be happy to take it all the way to marriage and show her I was dedicated to her. However if she wasn't into the marriage thing, I'd also settle for a vow ceremony. But either way, I think some kind of formal indication is needed, I think the whole act of indicating monogamy and faith to your partner is really important.

[Glenski]

Sheik wise, they potentially gain sons, aka indentured workers.Not all sons work for daddy.

Re: old Japan
The way out for the woman (and her family concievably) was bagging some rich ole' dude, and possibly poisoning him.

Me: the way you write, you say that most of them did it that way, which is not true, of course.

I'd disagree on that one.Records of the opposite would be made by those by whom it did not apply to, and would have no reason ( and plenty of disincentives ) to show an even hand in documenting. What the heck are you talking about here? Are you saying that truly the only way out of poverty in the past was for a woman to marry a rich guy and then poison him, and that they all did it? That was my question, but I have no idea what your answer here means.

I'm referring to the simple fact that a stack of bricks with two people living between them natively costs less to operate and maintain than two stacks of bricks (which obv. requires more bricks) with one person between each. More modern instances being preferential mortgages, preferential health insurance, banking, auto insurance, transport, accommodation and so on.


1. Tax breaks for married people, when they inevitably use more services than I do (public schools, children's hospital costs, children's bus subsidies, legal aid for divorce lawyers, maintenance of registrar of marriages, free/subsidised government marriage services etc etc).#1: Above you said it was cheaper for a couple to live together, but now you say they use more services. Which is it?
#2: Not all marriages result in kids, so your comments above don't fit everyone.
#3: Don't like it? Change the laws or have kids and a wife.

2. Preferential treatment in the case of immigration which I myself have benefited from (as a descendant) But I asked what you were complaining about.

Moreover, if you are just rhetorically stating that it is unfair to get married because one's children will benefit in this unique situation of immigration, you are not stating it accurately. The son or daughter had nothing to say about whether his parents got married in 99% of cases, so heritage leading to some immigration benefit is merely the child's right, not something they can strive for or fail to get on their own (or to use your own words "submit to").

It's unacceptable yet justifiable? You are arguing in circles here.

An alternative such as the civil partnership is not universally recognised and is subject to significant restrictions.There are a lot of things that are not universally recognized, which is why I started posting on this thread. Different cultures, different norms.

My intentions in this debate is to find a practicable alternative, which quite frankly I am not aware of yet.A practical alternative to marriage? What exactly do you want? I suspect you want to NOT get married, yet retain all the benefits of those who do. That's unacceptable and unfair!

[Malamis]

Not all sons work for daddy.


True, but enough do or at least did to warrant the investment.


What the heck are you talking about here? Are you saying that truly the only way out of poverty in the past was for a woman to marry a rich guy and then poison him, and that they all did it?


I obviously am not explaining my position well here, and will try and refrain from silly side comments since this is obviously counterproductive.

The raw element of what i'm trying to get at is in antiquity (for Europe at the very least), up to and including the recent past ( 1940~) the most assured method of economic elevation from dirt farming, the bottom-most rung of the service industry, or simply abject poverty for both a woman and potentially her family was to be attached to a marginally better well off male, who could be manipulated into benefiting the less fortunate family. In the specific case of europe, this was reinforced by punitive property and landholding rights (for said better off individual) which prevented even farming opportunities for those who wanted to better their condition.

Both the age of exploration and the industrial revolution managed to imbalance this stranglehold for a while, but both eventually regressed to land(holds) still being the premiere method for making wealth. In the former case, good crop soil/mineral rights, in the later, tenement buildings (even in the singular). By simple virtue of "getting there first", communities or families were able to dictate the exploitation of that resource and direct it to their(as a whole or even at the individual level) benefit at the expense of those not sharing whatever bond was held by the originals. It was necessary to be part of this edifice to improve your lot i.e. marrying into either the family or servants (inc. sub-merchants or service industry) of the family who had access to these resources, unless you were blessed with luck. To a lesser extent it still is, albeit the criteria has moved from family(nepotistic) to professional(oligarchical) ties.


#1: Above you said it was cheaper for a couple to live together, but now you say they use more services. Which is it?
#2: Not all marriages result in kids, so your comments above don't fit everyone.
#3: Don't like it? Change the laws or have kids and a wife.


#1 it's cheaper at the individual level, in that the option to use less to accomplish the same is presented. Services which add onto this benefit, but not part of the economic relationship of the marriage institution are, typically, subsidised or even freely provided at the state(tax breaks) or business(joint holdings) level. Generally at the expense of bachelors like myself.
#2 True, but those that don't can, at the very least, end up with conveniently elastic joint ownership circumventing inheritance tax.
#3. I cannot realistically do the first in this country (yet and for some time to come), so I intend to find somewhere that it isn't an issue like, say, Siberia or some tiny island no-one cares about in the Pacific.

For the second, that would be:

a. dishonest, in that i'd be making a public commitment, or at the very least an implicit commitment that I have no intention of maintaining for it's original and assumed purposes.
b. unrighteous, in that i'd be exploiting my fellow bachelors who have done nothing wrong to me, by joining those that have.
c. extremely foolhardy, since the only reason i'd be doing it is personal economic advantage, which divorce is not exactly conducive to. Especially since whatever partner would have every reason to do the exact same.
d. medically unrighteous, the details of which I will not go into.

So I wont be doing that.


But I asked what you were complaining about.

Paying for marriages (institution).
Or rather, subsidising them without being offered an alternative, legislatively supported institution to subscribe to. For example (that I made up a while ago) a religious or ideological chapter house of participants in society (as opposed to hermits or participants in business/industry) , communally sharing resources for mutual benefit and therefore being subsidised due to better return on investment. Off the top of my head I could think of justifiable water, television and utility rebates which married folk get which would be significantly more justifiable to such a situation.


Moreover, if you are just rhetorically stating that it is unfair to get married because one's children will benefit in this unique situation of immigration, you are not stating it accurately.
The son or daughter had nothing to say about whether his parents got married in 99% of cases, so heritage leading to some immigration benefit is merely the child's right, not something they can strive for or fail to get on their own (or to use your own words "submit to").


It's the fact that such a right exists that bothers me. Although the way you put it becomes obvious that any alternative I can think of would be very cumbersome.


It's unacceptable yet justifiable? You are arguing in circles here.


It is unacceptable at the personal level, (i.e. by Jenny X who is forced to stay in Provincia due to immigration quotients or what have you, while Sasha Y gets in free) but justifiable at the state level ( in that Sasha Y's husband is now less likely to be a direct burden on the state should something horrible happen to him, and will conceivably churn out more taxpayers). I thought when I posted it that that one needed more clarification, sorry :|


There are a lot of things that are not universally recognized, which is why I started posting on this thread. Different cultures, different norms.


And I thank you for it. I am, after all, looking for one to which I could be a meaningful contributor to without this bothering me.


A practical alternative to marriage? What exactly do you want? I suspect you want to NOT get married, yet retain all the benefits of those who do. That's unacceptable and unfair!

Pretty much, although thats a bit hyperbolic. I resent that this institution exists at my expense, when an equal or alternative one to which I could subscribe does not.

I suppose it could be analogous to some Americans resenting that their taxes going to supporting intelligent design( or indeed evolution) in schools, without even the option for the/an alternative. Like many of them, i'm taking the easy option and trying to relocate my interests, but I'm hindered by lack of information.

p.s. some other state funded marriage support services I forgot which are very intrusive in this country, are the whole child & vulnerable adults protection database fiasco, and state subsidised childcare provision.

[Glenski]

True, but enough do or at least did to warrant the investment.What investment? Sheiks have money to burn.



I obviously am not explaining my position well here, and will try and refrain from silly side comments since this is obviously counterproductive.Thanks. I appreciate that. But your subsequent description didn'T even include Japan (where this site does most of its discussions and where I live now), and you failed again to talk about how women not only had to kill their rich husbands but actually did it in great numbers.

And, what about those poor men wanting to move up? I think most of what you are talking about here pertains to the elite royalty that married to share property and abate wars and such.

#1 it's cheaper at the individual level, in that the option to use less to accomplish the same is presented. Services which add onto this benefit, but not part of the economic relationship of the marriage institution are, typically, subsidised or even freely provided at the state(tax breaks) or business(joint holdings) level. Generally at the expense of bachelors like myself.Cheaper at the individual level? Huh? A single person can live more cheaply than a married one. Less food, less utilities cost, whatever. It can be a tricky thing to calculate, though, depending on whether the spouse works. Not all do.

And, besides, why do you think the governments subsidize people with families in the first place?

I intend to find somewhere that it isn't an issue like, say, Siberia or some tiny island no-one cares about in the Pacific.This may be your best bet. Good luck.

For the second, that would be:

a. dishonest, in that i'd be making a public commitment, or at the very least an implicit commitment that I have no intention of maintaining for it's original and assumed purposes.What would be dishonest? Getting married for the perceived benefits? C'mon! I've already shown you that they are not always what you think they are, and what is this "unrighteous" drivel about "joining" the married ranks and "exploiting my fellow bachelors who have done nothing wrong to me"? That implies that marriage does directly and purposefully exploit the unmarried. Your view. Not mine. I got married for other reasons. You want your cake and want to eat it, too, but I still don't understand what that cake is completely.

Off the top of my head I could think of justifiable water, television and utility rebates which married folk get which would be significantly more justifiable to such a situation.Ah, so now you see marriage breaks as "justifiable"? Circular reasoning rears its head again.

I resent that this institution exists at my expense, when an equal or alternative one to which I could subscribe does not.You have not described any alternative that you desire. Kind of hard to debate with you. Oh, and marriage was not created to niggle you.

I suppose it could be analogous to some Americans resenting that their taxes going to supporting intelligent design( or indeed evolution) in schools, without even the option for the/an alternative.Ah, but there is an alternative of a sort. It's called legislation and lobbying for change.

Like many of them, i'm taking the easy option and trying to relocate my interests, but I'm hindered by lack of information.What info do you want? Most of your post has been circular reasoning, self-centered bemoaning of perceived benefits, and complaints (many of which I either negated or could not understand).

p.s. some other state funded marriage support services I forgot which are very intrusive in this country, are the whole child & vulnerable adults protection database fiasco, and state subsidised childcare provision.I have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you just get off any topic related to child care? As you agreed, not all married couples produce children, so you can't argue that for the masses.

[Malamis]

What investment? Sheiks have money to burn.
the investment of noticing the existence of somebody else maybe.


Thanks. I appreciate that. But your subsequent description didn'T even include Japan (where this site does most of its discussions and where I live now), and you failed again to talk about how women not only had to kill their rich husbands but actually did it in great numbers.

Not necessarily by choice. The good wife who sincerely wished the recovery of their fine husband was limited to the horrors of pre.... 1900? medical practice, where Galen was still authoritative and an attack of the vapors could be found written on the death certificate.


And, what about those poor men wanting to move up? I think most of what you are talking about here pertains to the elite royalty that married to share property and abate wars and such.

I live in Scotland.
This means that property wars at knife/gun/molotov point still happen ( my da' was in charge of demolishing the aftermath for the Stirling City Council at one point).
Indeed they have happened continuously since before the place was recognised as a country :blush:
And the easiest way to be unscathed according to misfortune of your birth or place of upbringing, is at the least bedding somebody important.
But in more global terms, the colonial Americas (and especially the Canadian MacOcracy of the early 1800s) was less to do with initial virtue of birth, and more of who's claim you married into. I haven't the slightest doubt that India and most of pre-communist (not Japan) "Colonial" Asia was the same up to the ultimate end of the European Empires.


Cheaper at the individual level?
Huh? A single person can live more cheaply than a married one.

I quite sincerely say no, that is not in fact the case.
At the ultimate and very least, two rents or two mortgages are not being maintained simultaneously. Smaller things like lower heating bills due to co-occupancy, joint ownership and operation of white goods ... a rather tedious recitation could be made on the subject.


And, besides, why do you think the governments subsidize people with families in the first place?

In the family ( I take it you mean children) aspect because they conceivably have to foot the orphanage bill, and would rather offset it early.


This may be your best bet. Good luck.

I'll need it :D


What would be dishonest? Getting married for the perceived benefits? C'mon! I've already shown you that they are not always what you think they are,


In any economic venture there will be risks, offsetting these with government handouts is what I find offensive ( as i've probably said so many times it gets annoying).
As for Dishonest, this is a circular reference to the point of the thread in that marriage carries a lot of baggage in whichever culture it is meant to be a part of. In the European case at least, married dude/dudette is expected by, at the very least the spouses parents, to contribute to the care and maintenance of said spouse at the expense of one's own wellbeing. The alternative of simply arranging a non-vague, non-exclusive partnership does not get the same government backing for, what I think at least, are purely sentimental reasons.


and what is this "unrighteous" drivel about "joining" the married ranks and "exploiting my fellow bachelors who have done nothing wrong to me"?


I am fully aware of what I perceive to be the economic advantages of marriage, compared to what I currently enjoy. Therefore, I would be entering such an agrement knowing:
the situation i'd be leaving,
the level of disadvantage that it gives to those who i am going to be leaving
the fact that if I dont make use of those benefits, i'd have wasted my efforts in the first instance.
Bad analogy: relieving a night's worth of ale and whores on your neighbors door and justifying it because your other neighbor did the same to you the night before.


That implies that marriage does directly and purposefully exploit the unmarried.

Directly, yes. Purposefully, I doubt it.


Your view. Not mine.


I kinda guessed :lol:
Thanks for making it clear though. As at the very least you're in Japan which has (at the very least) a different tax system, and so you have a radically different perspective on what would probably seem a trifling issue.


I got married for other reasons. You want your cake and want to eat it, too, but I still don't understand what that cake is completely.


I want a different cake, because I cant by virtue of choice and circumstance, have some of yours.


Ah, so now you see marriage breaks as "justifiable"? Circular reasoning rears its head again.


Justifiable because there are two people using less for the same benefit. In less eco-daft times this would be encouraged as it didn't use up the state's national oil reserves, now it's a matter of public policy to be as green as possible. Alternatively, if five dudes were kept in one house, even less heating, water and potentially electricity would be necessary, to generally better gain to everyone but the utility company ( who probably wouldn't notice).


You have not described any alternative that you desire.

Thats what I meant by the chapter house dealy. An equally legislatively beneficial household structure available to bachelors.


Oh, and marriage was not created to niggle you.

I know, but largely by virtue of politicking, it does anyway.


Ah, but there is an alternative of a sort. It's called legislation and lobbying for change.


You show me a politician or legislator who would willingly and publicly cut into the benefits of significantly more than half of his constituency for a special interest like myself, and I will show you a candidate from the Monster Raving Loony party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party).


What info do you want? Most of your post has been circular reasoning, self-centered bemoaning of perceived benefits, and complaints (many of which I either negated or could not understand).


Basically, does any country in the world not actually care about married couples enough to subsidise them, and am I welcome there. Alternatively, is there some wonderful societal or cultural mechanism i'm not aware of that provides bachelors with perks outside of those they get automatically, of the same or similar stripe that wedded folk have.


I have no idea what you are talking about. Why don't you just get off any topic related to child care? As you agreed, not all married couples produce children, so you can't argue that for the masses.

The last bit was an extra that would be unwieldy to add into the original, probably shouldn't have bothered.
Because, again,
1. I have to pay for it through the taxation system,
2. Those who benefit from it typically recieve rebates.
and
3. I receive no equivalent benefit.

[Glenski]

I quite sincerely say no, that is not in fact the case.
At the ultimate and very least, two rents or two mortgages are not being maintained simultaneously. Smaller things like lower heating bills due to co-occupancy, joint ownership and operation of white goods ... a rather tedious recitation could be made on the subject.Oh, let's!

In a single-worker marriage, there is only one salary.
That goes for everything. A second car is often needed.
Doctor bills, insurance payments, food costs, all add up. Agree to disagree on this one?

In the family ( I take it you mean children) aspect because they conceivably have to foot the orphanage bill,What orphanage?


In any economic venture there will be risksYou seem to be quite taken with finances. I hope you don't marry based largely on them. You really dismiss love and affection with terms like "sentimental reasons".

As for Dishonest, this is a circular reference to the point of the thread in that marriage carries a lot of baggage in whichever culture it is meant to be a part of. In the European case at least, married dude/dudette is expected by, at the very least the spouses parents, to contribute to the care and maintenance of said spouse at the expense of one's own wellbeing.Western marriage vows pretty much state that in Christian weddings. Don't you feel you should do all you can to protect, support, and care for your loved spouse?


I am fully aware of what I perceive to be the economic advantages of marriage, compared to what I currently enjoy. Therefore, I would be entering such an agrement knowing:
the situation i'd be leaving,
the level of disadvantage that it gives to those who i am going to be leavingFilll us in. What harm does it do financially to your bachelor friends if you get married?

Me: That implies that marriage does directly and purposefully exploit the unmarried.
Directly, yes. Purposefully, I doubt it. You have not proven the directly part at all.

at the very least you're in Japan which has (at the very least) a different tax system, and so you have a radically different perspective on what would probably seem a trifling issue.And, what is that? BTW, do you even know the Japanese tax system?

I want a different cake, because I cant by virtue of choice and circumstance, have some of yours.By virtue of choice you can. You just choose not to exercise that.

In less eco-daft times this would be encouraged as it didn't use up the state's national oil reserves, now it's a matter of public policy to be as green as possible.Eco-daft times or not, the oil reserves were being consumed, by bachelors and married alike.

Alternatively, if five dudes were kept in one house, even less heating, water and potentially electricity would be necessaryPerpahs you need to start/join a commune.

An equally legislatively beneficial household structure available to bachelors.Why should it be equal?

You show me a politician or legislator who would willingly and publicly cut into the benefits of significantly more than half of his constituency for a special interest like myself, and I will show you a candidate from the Monster Raving Loony party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party).You seem to be the only one who considers himself such a special interest group.

Basically, does any country in the world not actually care about married couples enough to subsidise them, and am I welcome there.You are welcome almost anywhere, but you have not proven/explained why you should have such fair/equal/equivalent standing.

1. I have to pay for it through the taxation system,
2. Those who benefit from it typically recieve rebates.
and
3. I receive no equivalent benefit.With road taxes, as an example, everyone pays into them, even those who do not drive. Is that fair? Most people have the potential to drive (or get married), so such regulations/benefits/perks need to apply to the majority.

The perceived benefits and taxes are there because of the perceived reasons

[Malamis]

Oh, let's!
In a single-worker marriage, there is only one salary.
That goes for everything. A second car is often needed.
Doctor bills, insurance payments, food costs, all add up. Agree to disagree on this one?


Conceded. The opportunity for it to be the case doesn't necessarily mean it will be.

What orphanage?


Or whatever childcare provisions services are deemed necessary. I.e. if the family should be dismantled due to fear farmine or plague, state run orphanage types (which are unfortunate expensive necessities) will have to intervene.

You seem to be quite taken with finances. I hope you don't marry based largely on them.


Thats rather the point :D

You really dismiss love and affection with terms like "sentimental reasons".


We will have both in pill form by the end of the century at the very latest, and probably perfected in machine form in the next 15 years. And besides, its hardly a universal component of the institution.

However, the sentimental reasons I was getting at are those held by the sate for the institution, not the individuals. Or rather, through the sentiment represented by ... elected representatives.

Western marriage vows pretty much state that in Christian weddings. Don't you feel you should do all you can to protect, support, and care for your loved spouse?


Not entirely sure what you're getting at here.
Of course since it is mutually beneficial?
I.e. its in the couple's best interests that neither of them succumb to the bubonic plague(for example)?

Filll us in. What harm does it do financially to your bachelor friends if you get married?


They have one more leech on their taxes, and one less contributor to the pool that supports said leeches.


And, what is that? BTW, do you even know the Japanese tax system?


What little I do know is that it is oriented differently, and that there is much more emphasis on property tax than there is here. Maybe you could elaborate.

By virtue of choice you can. You just choose not to exercise that.


.. what?
I am advocating a different/new form of cake, not lamenting that I cant have any of yours. I've seen what your cake is made of, and have determined it doesn't agree with me. But I don't have much choice in paying for it since we're a buffet group.


Eco-daft times or not, the oil reserves were being consumed, by bachelors and married alike.


*as much* damn , I thought i'd put that there >.<
By virtue of joint ownership and joint benefit of heating lighting and what have you, less is required overall as the drain on the maintained element(heater, light etc) is near identical for 1 person using it as for 5.

Perpahs you need to start/join a commune.


I would but
1. there are none in this country as far as I know
2. i'm no community organiser
3. the ones that I do know of tend to be very isolationist or share some ideology that I do not,both of which I believe to be counter productive in the pursuit of prosperity and contentment.

Why should it be equal?


Equal or equivalent. And because it accomplishes more toward the economy by virtue of joint ownership than a marriage does.

You seem to be the only one who considers himself such a special interest group.


Point of the thread, I know i'm not alone in this standpoint (in that I can count most of my small pool of co-workers), but we are a minority compared to, for example, the LGBT interests.

You are welcome almost anywhere, but you have not proven/explained why you should have such fair/equal/equivalent standing.


Why should I not have equivalent standing?

With road taxes, as an example, everyone pays into them, even those who do not drive.


Actually no. In this country and a lot of Europe a separate road & car tax is applied to car owners.

Is that fair?


Depends. In the case of not being separately taxed, yon non-driver benefits from:
1. Pavements.
2. Traffic crossings.
3. Reasonable roads for public transportation.
4. Flood redirection measures as a convenient side effect.
5. Very indirectly, lower logistic costs for goods and services ( here for example, there is no way that Scotland could afford to live without the road links to coastal fisheries and food processing plants. rail links still aren't up to par).
But could still be shortchanged in that he pays the same as the driver who gets all of those benefits, as well as the use of e.g. highways yet doesn't pay any more.
Which is essentially my complaint at the marriage tax break issue, compounded by the fact that I actually pay more, and get no benefits.

Most people have the potential to drive (or get married), so such regulations/benefits/perks need to apply to the majority.
The perceived benefits and taxes are there because of the perceived reasons

Which is exactly why I want an alternative to which a separate group can subscribe to, since those societal and economic benefits can be replicated without the need for the marriage element.

[Glenski]

Or whatever childcare provisions services are deemed necessary. I.e. if the family should be dismantled due to fear farmine or plague, state run orphanage types (which are unfortunate expensive necessities) will have to intervene. I thought you were going to stop with the silliness.


Not entirely sure what you're getting at here.
Of course since it is mutually beneficial?
I.e. its in the couple's best interests that neither of them succumb to the bubonic plague(for example)?If you're not going to be serious, why should I debate with you?


They have one more leech on their taxes, and one less contributor to the pool that supports said leeches.Leech?



What little I do know is that it is oriented differently, and that there is much more emphasis on property tax than there is here. Maybe you could elaborate.no.


.. what?
I am advocating a different/new form of cake, not lamenting that I cant have any of yours. I've seen what your cake is made of, and have determined it doesn't agree with me. But I don't have much choice in paying for it since we're a buffet group.You are lamenting/complaining/bemoaning the fact that you don't agree with the concept of marriage solely for some trumped up reasons of financial inequality. You have a choice, perhaps more than one.
1. Get married.
2. Live abroad where you don't have to pay taxes from your home country, if that's possible. Don't know about Scotland; I'm American.


heating lighting and what have you, less is required overall as the drain on the maintained element(heater, light etc) is near identical for 1 person using it as for 5. You never passed general math or physics, did you?

Re: starting a commune
I would but
1. there are none in this country as far as I know
I said start one.
2. i'm no community organiser
Excuses, excuses. If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
3. the ones that I do know of tend to be very isolationist or share some ideology that I do not,both of which I believe to be counter productive in the pursuit of prosperity and contentment.
See #1. Problem solved.


Equal or equivalent. And because it accomplishes more toward the economy by virtue of joint ownership than a marriage does.You have not proven that.


Point of the thread, I know i'm not alone in this standpoint (in that I can count most of my small pool of co-workers), but we are a minority compared to, for example, the LGBT interests.There's your commune starting point! What are you waiting for?


Why should I not have equivalent standing? Because 2>1. Simple math again.


Actually no. In this country and a lot of Europe a separate road & car tax is applied to car owners.Merely an analogy. Same principle despite the geographic difference. Don't obfuscate.

[Malamis]

I thought you were going to stop with the silliness.
If you're not going to be serious, why should I debate with you?


Nothing particularly silly about collapsing families due to adverse circumstances, those were just the ones that came off the top of my head as they can generally be applied everywhere.

Leech?


parasite, non-contributor, welfare junky, etc.

no.


Fair enough.

You are lamenting/complaining/bemoaning the fact that you don't agree with the concept of marriage solely for some trumped up reasons of financial inequality. You have a choice, perhaps more than one.
1. Get married.
2. Live abroad where you don't have to pay taxes from your home country, if that's possible.


I'm not doing 1, and there are very few places in the world I can do 2, if any.

You never passed general math or physics, did you?


With honours, actually. Went on to do calculus in university for Fourier analysis, partial differential & Maxwell equations for free space and copper conducted signals.
I'm simply referring to the fact that a light bulb doesn't need more power (and therefore more funding) to light a room containing one person than it does for five.

Re: starting a commune
I would but
1. there are none in this country as far as I know
I said start one.
2. i'm no community organiser
Excuses, excuses. If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
3. the ones that I do know of tend to be very isolationist or share some ideology that I do not,both of which I believe to be counter productive in the pursuit of prosperity and contentment.
See #1. Problem solved.


1. I'd love to. heres why I can't:
a. it would require the registration of a corporate or equivalent body, with associated taxes , professional management and bureaucratic oversight for the prevention of fraud.
b. it would require enough co-participants to make the initial major investments successful.
c. it would require an underpinning legal and ethical framework to ensure no exploitation by those within it, which i'm not qualified to write or capable of affording the commission and maintenance of.
d. it would require a dirty great big piece of property, which is something I'm not exactly endowed with at present.
Here's why it wouldn't work
a. British Welfare, which provides money for nothing and a (nominally) free house, usually biased towards the unemployed. Not exactly the best of either, but it already exists and is, largely, preferable to Joe Public.
2. Yeah... I realise that but i'm not exactly going to condemn my remaining 40 odd years to paying for one failed business move which i'm plainly not qualified to organise or capable making successful from any position of authority.

You have not proven that.


Didn't think I would need to, given the fact that higher initial investment will generally give higher returns to both the individual and the economy he's part of.
but have some anyway.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3164495.stm
http://www.regulateonline.org/content/view/365/31/
http://www.rickross.com/reference/holyland/holyland4.html
http://www.authorstream.com/presentation/Ulisse-52526-FRATERNITY-HOUSE-PROPOSAL-Grad-Chapter-v4-PRESENTED-KAPPA-ALPHA-PSIGRAMBLING-ALUMNI-hous-Education-ppt-powerpoint/
http://info.wlu.ca/greek/faqhousing.htm
http://www.taxcafe.co.uk/articles/letsgettogether.html
http://www.ourproperty.co.uk/guides/buying_with_a_friend_or_family_member.html

There's your commune starting point! What are you waiting for?


A trustworthy and competent group of partners :-)

Because 2>1. Simple math again.


and 5 > 2. But the 2 get preferential treatment.

Merely an analogy. Same principle despite the geographic difference. Don't obfuscate.

Same principle indeed, in that there is an alternative organisation to what you have suggested.

[Glenski]

you have not proven that.

Didn't think I would need to


....................B'Bye!

[Mars Man]

I had actually been thinking of joining in here on this thread in a more 'overall' manner of proposition and discussion on the subject of marriage--a seemingly broad enough theme--but I may have to wait until my retinas recover from the holes punched through those nerve axions by the large, bold quotation marks that keep jumping out at me through the screen, first.

Of course, it goes without saying at all, actually, but yet I feel compelled by some strange lure, to point out that yes, 'marriage,' as usually defined in the sense of a civil union (even with the 'religious right's fine printed restraints) is a social construct. Nevertheless, as has been alluded to, in a air of asthetic appreciation, by our dear, fearless (most of the time) Martian sister, Tsuyoiko chan, the natural push for pair bonding in the first place, will more likely never come to an end--it surpasses all human derived religious belief-systems' mythical themes on the nature that came first.

I'll wait for those damaged nerve tails to heal up some. . . or . . .

[Malamis]

I'll be good :D

I appear to have pissed off Glenski , so point by point deconstruction is no longer necessary.

I'd argue however that pair bonding is not the imperative, and is simply a derivative of the reproductive cycle.

To use those abominable bonobo monkeys as a non-human example, monogamy isn't exactly a universal imperative, and the alternative certainly isn't afforded the same rights and privileges,

[Mars Man]

I appreciate the come back, there, Malamis san. I'll take your word on being good, then. . . hee, hee, hee...

Well, as it appears to be, actually, the more secure understanding would be that pair bonding is both a derivative and an imperative of the reproductive cycle. That would include, of course, the chronological order of events; however I'd venture to posit that such would not be pertinent to the more focused scope of the theme 'marriage,' and thus not in need of being expounded on.

It is also true, at the same time, that pair bonding does not equate monogyny nor monandry [i]on a permanent time scale[i] in by far most animals. It is much more natural, even for the Homo sapien, to have multiply partners (by nature, not including extra copulation here . . . copulation in and of itself does not always mean a pair-bonding event, but can also be a way to earn favor and food).

So, where marriage, as it has developed in the 'Western' world in the past, say 3000 years or so, comes into the picture, it is clearly that social construct--the civil union. It also clearly displaced other forms; in the minds of the populace (especially after Judeo-Christian influence gained a stronghold). That, I feel, is too bad.

[Kinsao]

Okay, my thoughts...

Marriage in the sense of 'the piece of paper' is about keeping records, which is useful to know which families are connected and how; this also helps to avoid 'serious relationships' between blood relatives, which although not necessarily taboo is in our human instinct to avoid since it narrows the gene pool and weakens the species if it happens too much. That is a purely practical reason for humanity's record-keeping on this matter, and it seems quite sound to me.

The above is my main reason for continuing to favour the 'institution' of marriage (in the legal sense - I'm not discussing the religious sense here which I believe is something different).

The other main reason is about wanting to state your commitment to someone publicly and with a bit of a ceremony; a natural human instinct (well it seems to have been around a long time in various forms) and again not something negative in my opinion.

As far as I am concerned... that is it!

When it comes to practical matters, I think there is nothing else that cannot be 'taken care of' simply by living together, and/or having some other kind(s) of legal provision/protection.

In my case (of getting married) it was only a question of my first two points - financial matters didn't enter into it at all (since neither of us have any money to speak of).

[Mars Man]

Greetings there Kinsao chan; you have touched on some important areas there, and have made good points. I am of the position that more detail should be weighed in to reach that more balanced and fair to nature state.

One important point is that pair bonding drive, in the immediate range, (perhaps not going beyond first cousin level?) is something that is strikingly found among the great apes. While this factor may not always come into effect for mounting attempts, it has been found quite strong in the long-term relationship state. The degree to which is natural in humans I have not come across, but would tend to think that it would be there, as you have mentioned.

That said, however, if it were something that obviously strong and active a natural state, there probably would never have been any need to write up a law to prevent such. (Of course in some places, first cousins can marry, it seems.)

In Christendom, the 'institution' of marriage was very much based on Judeo-Christian doctrine--which is why there have been efforts to strongly define that marriage is a state only entered into by one man and one woman in the US. That is unnatural, which is one more reason why the 'institution' of marriage needs very much to be overhauled.

Marriage ceremony is more evidently and more often directly tied in with religious belief-system ceremony; only becoming an act of state from some later point in more developed government states. Societies of old, bound by the religious belief-systems which helped them adhere, 'pushed' the ceremony into a norm.

Unless the law has changed, divorce was illegal in Peru--was that not perhaps due to an overly strict view of 'until death do you part?' The Christian religious belief-system basically did not allow for remarriage (other than due to the death of a spouse). Because Allowing an unnatural design① to overstep a more natural trait will more often surely create more problems than it solves--one more reason why the 'institution' of marriage needs to retro-evolve, is found.

I absolutely agree--when it comes to the more natural practical matters, simply living together should do the trick completely. Legal and financial matters should be designed to take care of that state too. For all who express any desire to marry, I always strongly urge a year or two of simply living together first. (just be sure to keep the sex safe, and not create any new people)




① From a certain point of view, we could admit to this being natural--in the same sense that we could admit to any and all human activity and products as being the workings of nature. From a more pragmatic point of understanding, it would have to held to be that that which is against what the spieces is by nature, is unnatural, and thus the demand made by the basic Christian doctrine is unnatural.

[kukuruu]

Ahhh it's so refreshing to have an intellectual, serious discussion on here. Thanks for waking my brain up, everyone :) Much appreciated. :lol:

[Kinsao]

I'm inclined to think that the religious aspect of marriage ceremony is linked with the desire to make a public commitment of the relationship (underwriting the long-term monogamous pair-bonding which is 'natural' in terms of humans as a type of animal). The public commitment would naturally have taken place in the 'church' or whatever 'religious community' is prevalent because in the 'old days' worship would have been one of the main communal activities of the 'tribe' and therefore provide the perfect arena for such a ceremony to be carried out.

Added to that, of course, is the desire for other/spiritual 'being(s)' to look kindly on the union and send blessings or luck or good fortune or however you want to phrase it, to the couple in their future life together. Which looks ridiculous if you don't believe in such 'being(s)', but on the other hand is quite understandable if you take the perspective of those who do believe in such things (even if you disagree with their belief).

So the public ceremony in a 'religious' context fulfils those functions... however, there is no reason why this has to be linked these days with legal stuff.

[Mars Man]

First of all please allow me to make a correction on my #29 above--since it is now past editability. In the second paragraph, line two, I missed the negative 'not' (even in the proof-reading). I guess that just goes to show how strong 'covering' in visual perception can go--my mind read it in both times. That line should read:

...is something that is strikingly not found among the great apes

While mounting attempts may be spotted here and there, to some degree, you just don't find siblings going into pair-bonds--and seemingly in a lesser strength, first cousins.



I would agree, Kinsao chan, that in the general age (say late 18th century to now) the ceremony is used as a tool for public recognition. In the same breath I would also argue that social structure has pushed that (a socializing, or social conditioning factor) to become what it has; thus the tendency for the vast majority to almost automatically take the concept for granted.

What is it with the state of being married, as laid out by secular (or religious belief-system) law, that naturally fuels a need to publicly publish a promise to do something which is by simple nature, not yet so natural at all; if not the prior social constructed concept that this state called marriage is to be a non-nullifyable matter?

And what might it be that would have historically, more understandably given rise to the notion (especially in the Western World) that a male and female (physcially speaking) once having taking up sexual interaction are automatically bound by a sort of contract, if you will, to remain together in sexual union with each other alone, until one of them dies? Most surely, the doctrine of the Christian belief-system, is the answer I'd offer.

Even though we can see that religious ceremony was a prior phenomenon--looking back towards the earliest of recognizable times--I am not convinced that that, then, was due to any emotional need to publicize the event except in 'royal' or 'tribal pacts'-like situations.

However, it is still most evident that even the Homo sapien, like most animals (and especially the great apes--in that they are our closet kin species--is not a permanent pair bonding species. I am only pointing this out due to how I have interpreted your second to third line embedded clause. If I have misread you there, I apologize. It appears as though you had been suggesting that permanent pair bonding was a natural element of the H. sapien.

In Japan (as probably elsewhere in the world too) it is slowing becoming fashionable to have what is called a 'jinzen' ceremony--which means a simple ceremony before a small group of members of both families, and a few friends. This style ceremony is totally non-religious belief-system based.

Again, however, to strengthen a point made in my #29, the 'institution of marriage' is in great need of an overhaul. The connecting emotions with religious belief-system doctrine which are beyond natural factors (such as altruism) should be fully disconnected from the jurisdiction of the state, so that (holding other things equal) those with natural homosexual orientations can marry.

[badeth]

Communication is always the key to successful marriage. Trough proper communication, the two of you can talk to understand the other person's side better. Most of all---never take your spouse for granted. You have to make effort to look for things or hobbies that make your partner happy and contented.

[Putrefaction]

Well, I think Mars Man's use of "natural push for pair bonding" is degrading in this society, at least in the US. People take vows, and then cheat. What used to be considered sacred is being taken lightly as we move towards more and more sexual freedom and perverseness. Take this message how you like, but the term marriage is getting less meaningful (and I don't mean the gay marriage sense) and more of a burden to avoid.

Unless the law has changed, divorce was illegal in Peru--was that not perhaps due to an overly strict view of 'until death do you part?' The Christian religious belief-system basically did not allow for remarriage (other than due to the death of a spouse). Because Allowing an unnatural design① to overstep a more natural trait will more often surely create more problems than it solves--one more reason why the 'institution' of marriage needs to retro-evolve, is found.

That's what I mean by degradation. Religious followers have some weird asinine way of following some parts of a religious book, and ignoring others, on top of the religion itself "evolving" and trying to keep up with the current society.