Thursday, August 6, 2009

On Marriage

I'm getting ready for vacation. I am off to WIFCON out in Lansing, MI for 9 days of gaming. Yes, I am a wargamer geek. I've gone before and it is fun and challenging at the same time. Due to domestic and logistical issues the local group has been unable to play, so I am a bit rusty.

I'm going to try to post from the con, we shall see how that goes.

Anyway, I wanted to collect my thoughts on marriage and a few other things from my earlier post.

See I don't really care who marries who, as long as they are of consenting age. Marriage is a cultural and religious ceremony. Despite the terrible divorces I've witnessed in my family and friends, I still think it's a good thing.

Now from the state side of things, marriage should be pretty much irrelevant. Yeah you read it right. No tax breaks, no insurance for the spouse) zip, nada, nothing.

There are a few reasons for this position I'd like to go over.

1) In our current society, I am penalized for being single. If you give one group a benefit, then the other group gets penalized by omission. Why should I pay higher taxes?

The assumption is that the wife stays home while the husband works. This model is simply a way of re-routing the dependency so everyone can feel good. The truth of this model is since the wife wasn't working, why shouldn't the breadwinner claim her as a dependant on his taxes?

2) Society is evolving and changing. Fifty years ago polyamory wasn't on the cultural radar. It was there, but way, way out in the fringes. Now how does an insurance company insure a workers 4 spouses? Wouldn't that bump up the rates for everyone, single, monogamous relationship, etc?

Even the simple problem of who can pick the kids up from school is an issue. Can husband C pick up wife A and husband B's kid from school if the student feels sick?

3) The State has no right into my bedroom. If I want to be hog-tied and smothered in pepto-bismal while wearing a Don Knots mask while I get spanked by a Democrat - that is my own business and no one else's, as long as both parties are consensual.

4) The State has no right to tell me who I can have a relationship as long as everyone is an adult. The one place the State has in the marriage is with blood relatives. There is untold amounts of documented proof that marrying your sister is a bad idea. There are whole communities where this crap has been going on. One I have seen with my own two eyes is in Wareham. It's a trailer park we called "pinkeye village" because of the rampant Albinism. What if it was a more sever genetic disorder? Why damn your children to that?

5) Let's get real unconventional. In the very near future, you will be able to buy or rent a "love robot." When AI gets here in the next 50 years, that robot could be controlled by another sentient life form. Can I marry it?

The conservative mantra of "family values" is shouted from most rooftops when dealing with marriage. How can these people have any idea what my family values are? People should worry about teaching these values to their children, not forcing them on other people. Lead by example.

Businesses will need to change their benefits packages, and insurance companies will need to re-think how they insure their customers. In the end I don't see it costing any more than it does now.


Herbalpagan said...

hmmm, I agree with most of what you are saying...having trouble getting past the don Knotts and pepto vision though! lmao

I do not think that for reasons other than safety (incest) that there should be any interference in a committed caring relationship. I do think that if there is insurance involved that it should be a "buy it" want it, you buy it - whatever you want, just like buying a la carte at a restaraunt.
Sex is no ones business as long as all participants are consenting and of legal age.
I don't think that taxes should be done the way they are done any ways...a flat tax woould be better if you need them at all.
Have fun at your game convention!

Humble wife said...

Herbal pagan - you said what I was laughing about!!

My thoughts are pretty basic...maybe offensive to others so forgive me in advance.

I think that everyone should marry in a civil union. If one is religious then that comes after the civil union.

I think that the benefits can go to whomever or work for them you should be able to disperse them.

I think that the burden that the single person carries in our tax system is wrong. Almost seems like one would marry just to reduce the bracket or whatnots...

I think that we could not and have not been able to regulate(for the most part) any activities in the bedroom and I am sick to death to consider who would be the watchdog...kind of a peeping police pervert. I say those that can should often and however they wish.(I know I am blushing and not even a bride!)

I think we are on a path that will only keep sliding downwards...

New Mexico prepper

western mass. man said...

I can't get it outta my head....

"If I want to be hog-tied and smothered in pepto-bismal while wearing a Don Knots mask while I get spanked by a Democrat - that is my own business and no one else's, as long as both parties are consensual."

I just can't.
way too funny Nat.

tweell said...

Devil's advocate coming up. Historically, nations have had reasons to promote monogamous marriage. First, it's the most common and enduring of ways we humans bond. Polygamy and polygyny are much less common throughout recorded history. Second, having a man and a woman as involved parents appears to be the best way to raise children. There isn't much data on this (and lots of fudged stuff around, as well as no guarantees either way), but read up on history and you might be convinced against your will.
Since the generations to come are important to the longevity of any nation, why not subsidize the most stable and well-proven method of getting them? The US has been subsidizing single mothers with children and gotten a lot more of them, has it really helped?

The fly in the ointment here is birth control. That has changed all the old paradigms, but nations move slowly in these matters.

Mayberry said...

Dude.... I was fine 'till I read Don Knotts and Pepto... I... I.... Damn.... ; )

irishdutchuncle said...

the state has an obligation to protect the public health. as i've said elsewhere, v.d. is now essentially forever, due to promisquity, and antibiotic resistance. who else is your democrat off spanking with when she/he isn't with you? all of that other experience becomes yours too.