Married vs. Single

[Rick_Sharpless]

Marriage is a lot of work (or mine is) for which there is a lot of reward. What Bug said - it takes a lot of committment to the marriage by both to make it work, and both have to want it to work. For me, after 21 years "we've had our ups and downs but were still playing together," and I think we love each other even more than when we were married. I know we know each other a whole lot better.

[archenemy]

I have noticed that any money that married people may get from a tax break is quickly handed over to their therapist...

[sk]

I have noticed that any money that married people may get from a tax break is quickly handed over to their therapist...

[chelle]

Wow!!! This thread went in so many unanticipated directions. It was an interesting read to see what people picked up on. Thanks for the entertainment.

 

I thought the article was interesting because it was saying that committed but unmarried heterosexual couples are not on the radar screen in this "marriage protection" debate. And because at the end I thought the point about the fact that marriage status shouldn't really contribute to whether or not one is entitled to benefits or tax breaks from the gov't or private sector. It was an equal rights stance.

 

And Bug - last I checked this country was founded on the basis of freedom from prosectution for being affiliated with a particular religion. I don't recall anything about being a Christian country. Contrary to what some politicians today want, we have a secular government and always have. This is why the founders were so clear in spelling out the separation of church and state.

[RobBob]

Well, ehmmic, your thread title suggests a discussion about being married vs single, which clearly some folks wanted to talk about. Like Rick S, I put in a vote for promoting marriage, loaded with tax advantages, etc. People are going to fall in love and have children. Think of all the anxiety, ill will, therapy $, etc. that could have been saved over the past 40 years if as a society we had trained and encouraged people to love each other and stay together as parents.

 

Those of you who are cynical of the institution because of personal experience need to pause and reflect. Doesn't everything of value take a lot of effort? (Goddamn, isn't effort one of the things you love about climbing?) If you are in love with someone, why wouldn't you want to be married? If you are going to have a relationship that may yield children, then why would you not have a desire to commit to building a two-parent family? Do you you want to grow old alone?

[minx]

i am completely appalled that we are running this country at a deficit, cutting valuable social programs and the one place that Shrub wants to add spending (besides military) is to promote marriage! i think it's outrageous. it's not as though we don't know what marriage is. it's not as though there aren't already a few perks to getting married. Our schools are struggling but lets run and advertising campaign to promote an "institution" that's been around for thousands of years?!?! frankly, i consider an antiquated, unnecessary insitution myself. if it makes you feel good to get married by all means do it. marriage does not ensure that people stay married or that children will have a 2 parent household. There are so many thing that i think are more important to spend billion on than this. this idea of Shrub's to promote marriage makes my blood boil!

[lummox]

i am completely appalled that we are running this country at a deficit, cutting valuable social programs and the one . . . blah blah blah

and dont forget: steroids are bad. so lets go to mars. you know: to get technolology beyond nookaler power.

[RobBob]

marriage does not ensure that people stay married or that children will have a 2 parent household.

No, and doing a lot of cardio exercise doesn't ensure that you will live longer or better. But it's worth a try, don't you think? Isn't it worth supporting things that might, just might improve the odds for a two-parent household?

[Bug]

Last time I checked, you were right. This country was not founded to uphold the practice of religions and I did not say that it was. This country was founded by christians who had a very christian stance on questions of world view. This made for a very different society than had our founders been Hindu or Buddist. Having gone down that road for 200 years, you and all natural US citizens, will be hard pressed to remove all christian dogma from your world view. It is where our world view comes from. This does not mean that we should doggedly stick to a fundamentalist view of things. On the contrary, the Bible says a lot of things that completely contradict most fundamentalist views. I sum it up by asking,"Who would Jesus bomb?"

[Rodchester]

Marriage predates Christianity. I'm not Christian and I'm married. Marriage is little more than a social contract that is ALSO recognized by MOST religions.

 

Promoting marriage in and of itself is not a bad thing, even for the government. But I do concur that it should be low on the list and that spending shitloads on it isn't likely going to do much

 

As far as running a deficit goes, most of our lives, and back another 50 years, deficits have been run by our government, by Dems and Reps. Sure, we should balance the budget, but a deficit in and of itself is not always evil.

[forrest_m]

sobo wrote

As for the rest, I am in agreement with both yours and Rob's position: Tax benefits for married folks, my ass. As stated earlier, I lived way more comfortably as a single person.

 

my experience was that, economically, married vs. single-but-cohabitating was about the same... until we bought a house. our mortgage is more than double what we paid in rent before, therefore much less cash floating around. of course, now that it is so common (and easy) for two non-married employed people to purchase a house together, this issue will likely spread to the non-married.

 

one thing that neither article mentioned was the international marriage phenomenon. the thing that finally tipped the balance for us to tie the knot wasn't economic, or moral, or family/societal approval, but simply that it radically simplified obtaining my wife's green card. we'd already been living together for several year at that point, so it wasn't really a traumatic decision. as our society becomes much more mobile, this has become more common - I personally know seven couples who have gotten married primarily to simplify the immigration process. i'm not speaking here about fraudulent marriages, rather about committed couples in legitimate relationships who would not otherwise have felt compelled to get hitched if it weren't for hassles with the INS.

[sk]

sobo wrote

As for the rest, I am in agreement with both yours and Rob's position: Tax benefits for married folks, my ass. As stated earlier, I lived way more comfortably as a single person.

 

my experience was that, economically, married vs. single-but-cohabitating was about the same... until we bought a house. our mortgage is more than double what we paid in rent before, therefore much less cash floating around. of course, now that it is so common (and easy) for two non-married employed people to purchase a house together, this issue will likely spread to the non-married.

 

one thing that neither article mentioned was the international marriage phenomenon. the thing that finally tipped the balance for us to tie the knot wasn't economic, or moral, or family/societal approval, but simply that it radically simplified obtaining my wife's green card. we'd already been living together for several year at that point, so it wasn't really a traumatic decision. as our society becomes much more mobile, this has become more common - I personally know seven couples who have gotten married primarily to simplify the immigration process. i'm not speaking here about fraudulent marriages, rather about committed couples in legitimate relationships who would not otherwise have felt compelled to get hitched if it weren't for hassles with the INS.

I see no diffrence inthis than people getting married to simplify insurance forms.... baking.... you name it. I am not saying it is right or wrong.. just commen

[chelle]

Muffy, did you mean banking? Cause I think making cookies is pretty simple married or single.

 

Bug - you are right that having grown up in the US I carry some judeochristian values in my world view. Some I like and others I have tried to rid myself of.

 

As for being jaded on marriage (can't recall who said that and I'm too lazy to go back one page...) I am not jaded on marriage. I think it is a really good thing when done well. Mine wasn't done well and ended. That was my ex and my problem, not marriage per se. The failure mostly occured because we were too young and niaeve to truly understand what life long commitment meant, nor did we know who we were as individuals yet to commit ourselves to another person. Next time around I will be much wiser and understand the work and rewards more deeply.