A Society Without Need for Men (or at least their emotions and money)

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why'd you go to the expense then?

To make her happy.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
To make her happy.

So it's not meaningless

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Wycoff
I can agree with that. The problem is that too many people tend to conflate marriage as you've defined it with the concept of a longterm, committed, monogamous relationship between two people who love each other. People who attack the first concept as "silly and outdated" often say the same about the second concept.

I never called marriage silly. I just think that if people are going to go about and use that term, they'd better damn well realize what it entails.

Too many people don't. It cheapens it, ruins it, and does far more damage to it than two boys having the buttsecks with each other ever could.

Is it outmoded? In some ways, yes. There's no need for the attached baggage that comes with the term in many cases: the property, the obeying, all that bollocks. These days, divorces and splits are so easy that in half of all marriages, they could conceivably save themselves a whole ****load of trouble by not actually bothering to go out and get the piece of paper.

Such relationships bring happiness to millions of couples. I find the rush to dismiss such relationships as "silly" to be foolish and insulting. I'm much happier in a relationship with my wife than I would be as a single bar fly.

More power to you, then. Some people want such relationships, others don't. I never called the relationships silly.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Lorizael
I would imagine because of the legal and financial benefits?

Or the symbolic significance?

Or both?

Financial benefits, I can see, pooling resources. But you don't need a marriage to do that. Legal benefits are the same; just will/deed everything over upon your death.

Taxes should never come into it, and I think it's a farce that marriage is even a factor when it comes to taxes--it's not something the government should even bother with.

Symbolic significance, that too is something for the individuals involved to decide. *shrugs*

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lorizael
I would imagine because of the legal and financial benefits?

Actually, there is a financial disincentive to marry. Her and I both file nonresident US federal taxes. Under the current rules this means that we cannot file jointly. The rates for married couple filing individually are higher than the rates for nonmarried individuals.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
I just think that if people are going to go about and use that term, they'd better damn well realize what it entails.

Too many people don't. It cheapens it, ruins it, and does far more damage to it than two boys having the buttsecks with each other ever could.

Great post.

I misunderstood you then. I've had many arguments with people who considered the relationships themselves to be silly. As a result, I tend to assume that when people are complaining about marriage, they're complaining about longterm committed monogamous relationships as much as about the ceremonial aspects.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Actually, there is a financial disincentive to marry. Her and I both file nonresident US federal taxes. Under the current rules this means that we cannot file jointly. The rates for married couple filing individually are higher than the rates for nonmarried individuals.

I can't help the fact that the two of you are dirty Canadians.

[KrazyHorse]

We might make it up on the Maryland state income tax.

There's a large income disparity (I'm still a graduate student) and that helps when you file jointly (as I should be able to do for Maryland).

[KrazyHorse]

Damnit. Just checked. Since we aren't filing jointly federally we're prohibited from filing jointly on the state tax.

That's wicked ****ing annoying.

[KrazyHorse]

Not to mention that nonresidents can't take standardised deductions.

Why the **** am I paying more taxes to the US federal government than a US citizen making equivalent money would?

God ****ing damnit.

[Arrian]

Because you are not a citizen. Duh. You want the benifits, change your citizenship. Join the darkside.

Heck, my dad (formerly a Canadian citizen) finally caved in ~10 years ago for tax reasons. Good Republican that he is.

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Arrian
Because you are not a citizen. Duh. You want the benifits, change your citizenship. Join the darkside.

a) No.

b) Doesn't make any sense. I get less benefits from US government (ineligible for social programs, can't vote etc). Why do I have to pay more for less services.

[Arrian]

a) That's just pride, ****ing with you. [/Pulp Fiction]

b) Why should you get the same benifits-to-taxes ratio that citizens do?

-Arrian

[Elok]

It's just our way of reminding you that Canada sucks, KH. It's nothing personal. If I ever have to live in Canada for whatever reason (perhaps my family will be held at gunpoint by terrorists who demand a ransom of one thousand beaver-fur caps), I fully expect them to screw me on taxes.

Marriage is outdated if you consider it outdated. I don't, so it's not outdated for me.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


To make her happy.

I didn't know you were married.
You're quite young for a married Quebecois scientist?

anyway...
Grats

EDIT:
I missed you live in the US now?
To go to some University I guess.
Your wife followed you?
What does she do, so that she doesn't mind following you.

I guess Maryland can't be that bad.