Yes. Because two incomes isn't enough, they need benefits too. What's that? Married couples need benefits because they more likely to have kids. Well, it's not like the're getting benefits from their kids too! (Obvious sarcasm alert)

I would think the marriage benefit was given to encourage marriage, which is weird because it seems outside the realm of our government. On the other hand, maybe it came about from a time when Americans thought the typical married couple consisted of one breadwinner - the male, and one unemployed homemaker.

I don't think we need ANY more encouraging then. We wouldn't have a 55% divorce rate if people weren't so snappy to get married. But, why would the government care? The're practically profiting off divorces.

I'm ready for gay divorces and poly divorces. I'm fine with that.

Again, I said I thought it was outside the concerns of the government, but if you look at it this way, a government should be concerned with it's people. If the population is stable or growing, it would be seen as good for a nation, especially a new and developing nation such as the US was for a long time. Typically or traditionally, marriage was seen as the foundation for building families. None of this thinking takes the divorce rate into consideration unless there is somehow a penalty for divorce.

People, by the way, will still marry the wrong person or not show the necessary skills to stay married even if they take their time getting married. Divorce happens for many reasons that are complicated. Relationships are complicated. When you are in a long term relationship, you might begin to get a glimpse of this. And something to consider, since I'm sensing a judgement on your part: If you are blessed or lucky, you won't be abused by your spouse. If you are good, you won't abuse your spouse. I suspect that there is more abuse going on than is commonly reported. I couldn't believe the number of stories I heard from abused divorced women - so many of them - when they learned I was divorced and we started sharing stories. Divorce isn't always bad.

Yet another thing I don't agree with! I don't agree with tax benefits for having kids either. People who want kids are going to have them, and we don't need to be encouraging anyone to have extra kids that they couldn't afford without tax breaks. Is urban sprawl something we really want to encourage? Isn't 7-billion+ people on this planet enough?



That's my thought too; that it was given to encourage marriage, because co-habitation without marriage is "morally wrong". Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've always believed its roots stem from religious influence in government. Religious people who want the bond of holy matrimony will get married whether they get tax breaks or not. People who want to live together and pool their economic resources will still do so even without tax breaks.

I'm not familiar with a tax benefit for having kids - there's the exemption for dependents which I believe was all of $3800 per dependent last year, the same as the personal exemption. I don't think it's unreasonable to allow every citizen to have this exemption if they appear on a tax return whether as filer or dependent. There's also a child tax credit but over a certain income you don't qualify for it. I don't begrudge poor and struggling people these benefits, especially when people like Mitt Romney are hiding millions of dollars offshore to evade the IRS.

I wouldn't object if it was limited - my preference would be "limit 2", one child to replace each parent would be enough to keep the population stable. I don't think we should be rewarding people for having 5+ kids they can barely afford with things like the child tax credit. On the other hand, I do agree with the adoption credits.

I do agree that there should be fewer ways for the wealthy to evade taxes.

you guys do know that youre part of a society, right? a hive of people, rather than an island?
every choice that anyone makes, costs money from everybody to execute. its part of not living completely on your own. should we stop being allowed to have choices, because i dont want to make those choices, i shouldnt have to pay for them? >_>

my country was founded on the idea of enjoying freedom of choice. if someone else doesnt like it...oh, well. they can go elsewhere. i wouldnt mind paying for it--not my life, but then, i have everything that i need. why should i stop someone from living the way they want to? just because i, personally, wouldnt live that way? thats just such a selfish train of thought.
as long as they arent trying to kill or otherwise traumatize/violate anyone, its fine by me.

if your circumstances are different, you need different treatment. thats just how it goes. you dont treat a disabled person as you would a healthy person, because they have different needs, and visa versa. when will people learn to accept that difference is just one of those things that exists? if you want a truly equal quality of life, i suggest moving to your own island full of clones of you who all do exactly the same things and have exactly the same needs. cripes.

I'm all for the freedom of choice, but I don't expect, or want others to pay for my choices. I make my choices, I pay for them. You make your choices, you pay for them. I always thought expecting others to pay for your choices was more selfish. It's like saying, "I want it my way, I don't care who has to pay for it if I can't afford it." That sounds more like selfishness, to me, anyway.

The average age of first marriage is creeping back to the high end. Maybe we wouldn't have a high divorce rate if we went back to prohibiting women from having careers outside the home, forcing them to stay with whatever jerk they married due to crippling financial dependence.

Or if they got a stable job, (Weren't so snappy to get married) and didn't need a man to be financially stable in the first place, then there wouldn't be a divorce, because there was no marriage in the first place. That's just my thoughts, and your entitled to yours.

Why do you assume that all divorcing ladies got married for the financial benefits?

That is just as bad as having multiple children for the sole purpose of obtaining more 'tax deducations' (at least in the US)

We could easily solve this entire issue by providing universal health care to everyone, along with a housing and accommodation allowance for the needy. Then we could all cheerfully go "screw kids! what else do they need? Poor people? Pffft, all taken care of!" No need to get married unless you really want to, no social welfare purpose to tax deductions for married folks or having kids. If we did those things no matter how disparate people's wealth was when they divorced, we would be looking at it as significantly punitive because no on in the country would be completely SOL if they suddenly lost everything, including their income. People living in poly households wouldn't get more than their fair share of the pie, because they'd be sharing the same sort of pie everyone took for granted.

But women do have jobs and financial stability, and they do still continue to get married (albeit later, what with the getting stable jobs and not being so snappy to marry thing)*... so I'm not sure what your counterpoint really is. My point was noting that a low divorce rate in the past (especially when the older generations still around got married much more snappily than today's folks!) doesn't necessarily suggest they were more wise, stable, cautious, dedicated, or whatever in getting and staying married, because (for example) it's damn hard for a woman to leave her husband with no money. (And, for a good long time, there was no such thing as a no-fault divorce... and there was a huge stigma against divorcees and otherwise single, non-widowed mothers... thus, unhappy relationships continue while today they take the opportunity to split.)

* The median age for marriage is the highest we've seen it. Over half of college attendees are female. The percentage of women who rank career success highly has risen. More women are in the workforce, period.
Though of course, both the situations of no divorce and common divorce/less frequent marriage are more complex than just "job or no job," as I alluded to in the other paragraph.

I'm not sure if your tone was sarcastic or genuine, but I agree with it!

Oh no no, you got it wrong. You see, everything has a reason for why it was chosen to be that way. You see, it is said that females are of a larger percentage of the world's population and that is why polygamy is allowed in Islam, it is allowed so that men would marry atmost 4 wives, (+1 if it was a slave (not sure if it is true though)). This way, less females would be left single and childless.

As for competing, it depends on how the wives see each other, some are great friends while others are enemies.

Also, it is true to say that woman in Islam may not be treated as equally as men, because, again, there are reasons, for example, the man would inherit a larger percentage of his father's wealth than his sister's because he will need it to get married, while the girl would be the one who will get married and move to her husband's house. This is just an example.

Yes, I agree, some countries do have some inequalities due to culture norms. Also, not all Muslim parents force marriages, some are quite considerate actually, and I know people who are. Some people came to ask for the hand of a girl, but she refused and her parents didn't force her into it, she was free. Some people have a more modernized cultures than others, with the examples of countries that Baroock gave above.

Also, Islam encourages having large families, and polygamy is one way. The reason why a woman cannot get married to several men is because, if it where to happen,then there will be a mix of genetics, i.e. they will not know which is which's child.

:google: Islam and read the wiki page(s).

AMEN to that!

We did not. But to anser your question, I guess its because of our basic christian view on the sexes and all that stuff related to morals. Marriage is a sacred thing that should support a nuclear-family that in turn supports the whole society and create values by wich we navigate here in our western world. We also built our laws around that very idea. It´s entirely old school, I know. But the more I think about it, the more I like it.

Nice necromancy. Actually, I WOULD like to see this thread revived (as a long time believer in group marriage) except that too many people find this a hot-button topic and get all in-you-face.