Hate speech at Georgetown?

[MUBurrow]

I think we can agree that the stability provided within the circumstances of a marital relationship - and not the marriage itself  - is what produces better outcomes for both the couple and their children.
You seem to be making the case (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the same outcomes would exist from a cohabitating couple as ine that goes through with a marriage.
Could you discuss that position in light of these facts:

- Cohabiting couples had a separation rate five times that of married couples and a reconciliation rate that was one-third that of married couples.
- Cohabiting couples earn less money and are less wealthy than their married peers later in life.
- Compared to married individuals, those cohabiting have higher levels of depression and substance abuse.
- Compared to those planning to marry, those cohabiting have an overall poorer relationship quality. They tend to have more fighting and violence and less reported happiness.

https://www.thespruce.com/cohabitation-facts-and-statistics-2302236

Totally - I don't think we're all that far apart. But imho, there are no marginal returns to society by incentivizing those same cohabitating couples to become married couples.  Reasonable minds can certainly disagree there.

I don't for a second doubt the veracity of the statistics, but I don't think they lead to the conclusion that we as a society have anything to gain by incentivizing marriage. If you allocate incentives to try to transition some number of  the unmarried cohabitating couples into the married column, I think you'd also just be transitioning the socioeconomic conditions that are the real predictive factor of their children's outcomes. For every additional 1% of children that would be raised in married homes, marriage would be 1% less predictive of positive child outcomes. I don't think you'd actually be taking steps to improve child outcomes in the aggregate.

In my book, to the extent the tax code incentivizes marriage (I don't profess to know the revenue impact of marriage "incentives" vs "penalties") I think you'd positively impact children more by eliminating any reduction in tax designed to incentivize marriage, and take that additional revenue and chuck it toward expanding the earned income tax credit.

[reinko]

If I were gay and/or in a gay marriage, I would cringe at this argument.  The first sentence anyway.  The rest of it is opinion.  Please do NOT interpret this as me being anti-gay.  Remember, I’m an MLK guy as a strong strong proponent for the content of ones character.

Well you aren't gay, and are not in a gay marriage, but many of my LGTBQ friends make this exact same argument.

[MU82]

When my Catholic girlfriend and I got engaged while we were still in college, my mother sent me results of some kind of study that showed the pitfalls of interfaith marriages. They were more likely to create all kinds of problems, both for the couple and the kids. There would be all kinds of stress and strain, including financial, extended family, etc.

Interestingly, my two older brothers each married Jewish girls ... and each ended up getting divorced and is now on his second wife.

Meanwhile, my Catholic wife and I are now in Year 35. We started out not thinking about religion at all, tried the Jewish thing for a few years (at her insistence) and have been happily atheist for at least 10 years now.

So I'm sure there are studies that show all kinds of things that are more likely to happen to this group or that group, but each married couple and/or cohabiting couple is very different. I've always been wary of using marriage to dictate policy. But yes, I have been glad to take advantage of the tax perks.

All IMHO, of course.

[rocket surgeon]

Well you aren't gay, and are not in a gay marriage, but many of my LGTBQ friends make this exact same argument.

Reinko  my man, you are right and right, but, I’m just saying, arguing about whether or not something or someone is “harmed” by something to make it right, proper, ok, etc is not a good argument.  As a matter of fact, I think it would be insulting to a gay or straight person.  There are much stronger reasons for why a gay marriage is ok.  Should it be legalized in the eyes of the government?  I stay out of that because if I were to disagree with that aspect of the relationship, it would be purely selfish and because as you correctly  stated, I am not gay or in a gay marriage.  And yes, I do have some family members in long term relationships, one I believe is married, but it doesn’t matter to me.  They are great people, married or not

[Jay Bee]

Lots of you are in a hate group, I see.

When are we going to go after insurance companies for charging different rates based on "gender", when it's a fluid thing and not something that should cause higher costs for one vs. another (of the thousands types of genders, ain@?)

I think the principled argument FOR marriage being afforded special benefits by the federal gov't is what lil Mike brought up - society feels being married is such a great benefit to families and society that the federal gov't should give those people special benefits and rights.

While principled, I think it's also absurd and opens the door for giving benefits for any number of reasons. It also ignores that marriage is driven - for many people - by religious views (including timing, the population of potential mates, etc.). 

Government need not give special benefits for "laying a landscape" (e.g., getting married) for a higher likelihood of success. The benefits will arise by people doing well for themselves or not.

#StopMarriageDiscrimination

[B. McBannerson]

Lots of you are in a hate group, I see.

Only one side can be in a hate group.  You need to learn this

[naginiF]

Only one side can be in a hate group.  You need to learn this

http://dailycaller.com/about-us/