[Pseudonym]

Teikiatsu wrote:

Alternatively, why should M+W get any special legal benefits in the first place? How does it benefit the government to allow tax leniency on a M+W couple when a M and a W separately shoulder a relatively higher burden? Marriage really doesn't benefit a nation until it creates a new human child to be raised for the next generation, so perhaps we should not allow any couple to gain legal recognition and benefits until they produce offspring. This of course would not prohibit any two people from gaining social or religious recognition for their union.

It does seem to me that the primary areligious justification for incentiving marriage is the production of offspring. As society that does not reproduce dies. However, if you just go around incentivizing children without marriage attached to it, you get welfare babies and other tough situations. So it does make sense to incentivize a structured family situation that produces children.

Thought with the way the family is breaking down in modern society, it makes less sense today than it has in the past.

[MeganC]

Thanos wrote:

Sucks to be a girl in a fundy family I guess.

I don't think so. I grew up in a family that didn't care about church and now I am around believers and they have things a lot better. The kids are safe and have everything they need. My father wanted his drugs and went to jail and my mom is smoking pot with her boyfriend all the time and thinks I am crazy for living like I do now. I wish I grew up fundy because it would have been tons better than the way I grew up.

[Tricks]

MeganC wrote:

Thanos wrote:

Sucks to be a girl in a fundy family I guess.

I don't think so. I grew up in a family that didn't care about church and now I am around believers and they have things a lot better. The kids are safe and have everything they need. My father wanted his drugs and went to jail and my mom is smoking pot with her boyfriend all the time and thinks I am crazy for living like I do now. I wish I grew up fundy because it would have been tons better than the way I grew up.

Growing up like that wasn't because your family wasn't "fundy".

[andyt]

Kjorteo wrote:

Thanos, I'm not religious either, and I too am pushing for we as a society to move past things that owe the majority of their current legal status to the law of Moses, but you're being needlessly incendiary without providing any actual light to the discussion. Please stop.

Well I'll cast my vote that you continue, Thanos. Your posts are a lot more interesting and entertaining to read than most on this forum, even when I don't agree with you. So keep up the needless incendiarism there, big guy.

[andyt]

Teikiatsu wrote:

Alternatively, why should M+W get any special legal benefits in the first place? How does it benefit the government to allow tax leniency on a M+W couple when a M and a W separately shoulder a relatively higher burden? Marriage really doesn't benefit a nation until it creates a new human child to be raised for the next generation, so perhaps we should not allow any couple to gain legal recognition and benefits until they produce offspring. This of course would not prohibit any two people from gaining social or religious recognition for their union.

First time I've agreed with something you've written. This is a really good idea. Save the benefits of marriage for couples who have children. But this would have to include adoptive parents, of course. See where I'm going with this?