Hate speech at Georgetown?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Too broad (pardon the pun). I think under your definition those, who call for marriage to be recognized by the government and demand the government provide special benefits to those who are married, are a hate group. Why should those who don't marry not be afforded the same respect and rights as those who do marry, gay or otherwise?

If the marriage discussion is truly about equality, then tell the government to stay out of granting special treatment to those who are married.

An interesting argument and one I don't necessarily disagree with. I'll be honest, I don't really know what rights or advantages a person gets from the government for being married. So far the only thing that has kicked in is that we had to pay a crap ton to change a bunch of paperwork because my wife wanted to take my name.

[forgetful]

An interesting argument and one I don't necessarily disagree with. I'll be honest, I don't really know what rights or advantages a person gets from the government for being married. So far the only thing that has kicked in is that we had to pay a crap ton to change a bunch of paperwork because my wife wanted to take my name.

There are a crap-ton of legal benefits to being married.  One of the more obvious one is taxation following inheritance.  Your spouse can inherit the entire estate tax free.  If not married, you pay taxes on the estate. 

There are a number of other ones involving benefits (e.g. IRA's, Social Security...). 

[B. McBannerson]

There are a crap-ton of legal benefits to being married.  One of the more obvious one is taxation following inheritance.  Your spouse can inherit the entire estate tax free.  If not married, you pay taxes on the estate. 

There are a number of other ones involving benefits (e.g. IRA's, Social Security...).

There are also situations where being married causes one to pay higher taxes. 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/interactive-tools/marriage-bonus-and-penalty-tax-calculator


If divorce happens, 50/50 split but not usually the case if you don't marry.  If you are married and still going to school, your financial aid prospects are lower as your spouse's income is included in the tabulation. 

[Pakuni]

We've decided as a country - correctly, I believe - that marriage is beneficial to society, and therefore worth incentivizing.

Married people live longer, healthier, more productive lives,  and are far less likely to need various forms of public assistance.
Married people are less likely to commit crimes, and the ones they do commit tend to be less serious.
Kids raised by married parents are significantly less likely to live in poverty, become delinquent (or end up incarcerated as adults), suffer emotional or behavioral problems, become victims of abuse, experience a teenage pregnancy, abuse alcohol or drugs, drop out of school or struggle academically.

Marriage is a good deal for taxpayers and should be encouraged by the government strictly for economic and societal reasons.

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

And has anyone or anyone's marriage been harmed by gay marriage?  There are close to zero negatives about granting this right, and as Pakuni states, a great deal of positives.

[warriorchick]

We've decided as a country - correctly, I believe - that marriage is beneficial to society, and therefore worth incentivizing.

Married people live longer, healthier, more productive lives,  and are far less likely to need various forms of public assistance.
Married people are less likely to commit crimes, and the ones they do commit tend to be less serious.
Kids raised by married parents are significantly less likely to live in poverty, become delinquent (or end up incarcerated as adults), suffer emotional or behavioral problems, become victims of abuse, experience a teenage pregnancy, abuse alcohol or drugs, drop out of school or struggle academically.

Marriage is a good deal for taxpayers and should be encouraged by the government strictly for economic and societal reasons.

I think Jay Bee's original point was that he is missing out on a lot of sweet perks because he has decided to remain single, not that he and any shack-up partner (NH) are being treated unfairly because they don't have "a piece of paper".

[PBRme]

We've decided as a country - correctly, I believe - that marriage is beneficial to society, and therefore worth incentivizing.

Married people live longer, healthier, more productive lives,  and are far less likely to need various forms of public assistance.
Married people are less likely to commit crimes, and the ones they do commit tend to be less serious.
Kids raised by married parents are significantly less likely to live in poverty, become delinquent (or end up incarcerated as adults), suffer emotional or behavioral problems, become victims of abuse, experience a teenage pregnancy, abuse alcohol or drugs, drop out of school or struggle academically.

Marriage is a good deal for taxpayers and should be encouraged by the government strictly for economic and societal reasons.

How is it incentivized?  There may be benefits, but I do not see the incentives.

You generally pay higher taxes

[TinyTimsLittleBrother]

How is it incentivized?  There may be benefits, but I do not see the incentives.

You generally pay higher taxes

Is there a difference?  The benefits incentivize people to get married versus simply living together.

[forgetful]

There are also situations where being married causes one to pay higher taxes. 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/interactive-tools/marriage-bonus-and-penalty-tax-calculator


If divorce happens, 50/50 split but not usually the case if you don't marry.  If you are married and still going to school, your financial aid prospects are lower as your spouse's income is included in the tabulation.

Then if in your particular case (which is the minority) you do not benefit from getting married, you have the option to not get married.  Why ban a particular group from partaking in legal benefits afforded others, for no reason besides their sexual preference?

 

[Pakuni]

How is it incentivized?  There may be benefits, but I do not see the incentives.

You generally pay higher taxes

Are we arguing semantics here? Allowing access to a benefit = incentive.

[MUBurrow]

We've decided as a country - correctly, I believe - that marriage is beneficial to society, and therefore worth incentivizing.

Married people live longer, healthier, more productive lives,  and are far less likely to need various forms of public assistance.
Married people are less likely to commit crimes, and the ones they do commit tend to be less serious.
Kids raised by married parents are significantly less likely to live in poverty, become delinquent (or end up incarcerated as adults), suffer emotional or behavioral problems, become victims of abuse, experience a teenage pregnancy, abuse alcohol or drugs, drop out of school or struggle academically.

Marriage is a good deal for taxpayers and should be encouraged by the government strictly for economic and societal reasons.

How many of these can simply be attributed to the economies of scale (income, division of domestic labor, or both) of a two adult household? That's not a pandora's box attributable to, and only achievable by, marriage.

[Pakuni]

How many of these can simply be attributed to the economies of scale (income, division of domestic labor, or both) of a two adult household? That's not a pandora's box attributable to, and only achievable by, marriage.

For children, the differences between cohabiting and married parents extend far beyond the lack of a marriage license. Compared to children of married parents, those with cohabiting parents are more likely to experience the breakup of their families, be exposed to "complex" family forms, live in poverty, suffer abuse, and have negative psychological and educational outcomes.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/for-kids-parental-cohabitation-and-marriage-are-not-interchangeable/

[MUBurrow]

For children, the differences between cohabiting and married parents extend far beyond the lack of a marriage license. Compared to children of married parents, those with cohabiting parents are more likely to experience the breakup of their families, be exposed to "complex" family forms, live in poverty, suffer abuse, and have negative psychological and educational outcomes.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/for-kids-parental-cohabitation-and-marriage-are-not-interchangeable/

Fine jumping off point, but these conclusions suffer from a major correlation vs causation problem. I posit that the institution of marriage is not responsible for the outcomes with which its credited nearly as much as the preexisting socioeconomic conditions of the individuals that are statistically more likely to marry.

[mu03eng]

The marriage penalty, to my knowledge, only impacts those on a higher socioeconomic plane. Those on the low to lower end of the socioeconomic plane who benefit from incentives are also most likely the ones to be positively impacted by the behavior they are trying to drive. So the fact that Jay Bee doesn't get "benefits" for staying single has no bearing on whether it is good social policy to have said benefits.

[Pakuni]

Fine jumping off point, but these conclusions suffer from a major correlation vs causation problem. I posit that the institution of marriage is not responsible for the outcomes with which its credited nearly as much as the preexisting socioeconomic conditions of the individuals that are statistically more likely to marry.

Posit away, but does any actual research support that? For example, are the outcomes for lower-income children of married parents the same or similar to those raised in single-parent or cohabitating households?

[muwarrior69]

Just because you haven't been able to talk anyone into marrying you, don't try to ruin it for everyone else.   

And I am not sure what you mean by "special treatment".  The marriage penalty has cost Glow and I six figures in additional income taxes.

There go those 100 inch TVs!

[MUBurrow]

Posit away, but does any actual research support that? For example, are the outcomes for lower-income children of married parents the same or similar to those raised in single-parent or cohabitating households?

What about a survey of studies on the outcomes of children of same-sex parents - a population to whom marriage as an institution was wholly unavailable until very recently? Concludes that children of same-sex parents do not have worse outcomes than children of opposite-sex parents.

I'm sure the opposite-sex parent populations include a lot of unmarried parents, but if the institution of marriage alone were statistically significant, wouldn't that by extension make life harder for the same-sex parent children, 100% of whose parents are unmarried?

http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

[buckchuckler]

What about a survey of studies on the outcomes of children of same-sex parents - a population to whom marriage as an institution was wholly unavailable until very recently? Concludes that children of same-sex parents do not have worse outcomes than children of opposite-sex parents.

I'm sure the opposite-sex parent populations include a lot of unmarried parents, but if the institution of marriage alone were statistically significant, wouldn't that by extension make life harder for the same-sex parent children, 100% of whose parents are unmarried?

http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

I would tend to think children in same sex families would be ok, because the couple has to really seek out the children, and go through a process to acquire them.  This, I think, would generally show a level of relationship commitment different from some other co-habitation couples.  Kids don't result from homosexual unions (shouldn't be news), this is quite different from male-female couples.  I think this makes those situations a very shaky comparison. 

But with that being said, this study is 75 couples.  That is a pretty useless sample size. 

[warriorchick]

I would tend to think children in same sex families would be ok, because the couple has to really seek out the children, and go through a process to acquire them.  This, I think, would generally show a level of relationship commitment different from some other co-habitation couples.  Kids don't result from homosexual unions (shouldn't be news), this is quite different from male-female couples.  I think this makes those situations a very shaky comparison. 

But with that being said, this study is 75 couples.  That is a pretty useless sample size.

If it's two women, not necessarily.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

I think Jay Bee's original point was that he is missing out on a lot of sweet perks because he has decided to remain single, not that he and any shack-up partner (NH) are being treated unfairly because they don't have "a piece of paper".

This is brilliant. 

[MUBurrow]

I would tend to think children in same sex families would be ok, because the couple has to really seek out the children, and go through a process to acquire them.  This, I think, would generally show a level of relationship commitment different from some other co-habitation couples.  Kids don't result from homosexual unions (shouldn't be news), this is quite different from male-female couples.  I think this makes those situations a very shaky comparison. 

But with that being said, this study is 75 couples.  That is a pretty useless sample size.

Couple of thoughts. 75 studies, not 75 couples, so its really a compilation of a lot of studies of a lot of couples.

And the level of commitment argument, to me, exactly proves my point - that there's a problem with saying government should be incentivizing marriage because it reaps societal benefits. The socioeconomic circumstances of the parents is the causation behind the child's outcomes - not whether those parents are married.  It just so happens that, statistically, the people that are the most likely to be married are also the people who are most able/prepared to give their future children the advantages that lead to positive outcomes, whether they are married or not. In that respect, a same-sex couple that has the means for adoption, IVF, etc, is likely in a socioeconomic class that bodes well for that child. 

Marriage just gets the credit because it correlates heavily, not because its actually playing a causal role.

[Pakuni]

Couple of thoughts. 75 studies, not 75 couples, so its really a compilation of a lot of studies of a lot of couples.

And the level of commitment argument, to me, exactly proves my point - that there's a problem with saying government should be incentivizing marriage because it reaps societal benefits. The socioeconomic circumstances of the parents is the causation behind the child's outcomes - not whether those parents are married.  It just so happens that, statistically, the people that are the most likely to be married are also the people who are most able/prepared to give their future children the advantages that lead to positive outcomes, whether they are married or not. In that respect, a same-sex couple that has the means for adoption, IVF, etc, is likely in a socioeconomic class that bodes well for that child. 

Marriage just gets the credit because it correlates heavily, not because its actually playing a causal role.

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

[PBRme]

Are we arguing semantics here? Allowing access to a benefit = incentive.

I view higher taxes for being married (vs two people living together) as a disincentive

Is that semantics?

[rocket surgeon]

And has anyone or anyone's marriage been harmed by gay marriage?  There are close to zero negatives about granting this right, and as Pakuni states, a great deal of positives.

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.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

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.

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

I'll give it a go.

1. Couples more committed to each other and their relationship are more likely to get married.  A study would need to control for marriage: Either force all couples to marry, allow no couples to marry, or randomly assign which couples get married.

2.  Socioeconomic status predicts both earning power and the likelihood of marriage.  Unless wages and raises are now based on marital status and length, I think this is once again confusing correlation with causation.

3. Do substance abuse issues and depression make someone a more attractive marriage option or less attractive? Not saying such people are not worthy of love, but I don't think we can ignore this as a possibility.

4. The poor relationship quality prevents people from getting married, not the other way around.