[karajorma]

Change is good as long as you don't lose morals and traditions.

Except that some of them really do need to be lost.

[Kosh]

Change is good as long as you don't lose morals and traditions.

Except that some of them really do need to be lost.

Exactly. Traditional asian culture is dying, and nations that hold onto it, like japan and korea, have a bleak future.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

...not to mention the old people and at least 60% of all Singaporeans who like to speak in every other language and dialect except English.

[iamzack]

I've loved the same woman for close to a decade now, don't need a piece of paper to tell me how I feel, and neither does any kind of God, and if I did have a piece of paper and a 'blessing' from some guy that I paid a fortune to for it, it wouldn't change the future one whit.

It's not about the wedding or the piece of paper. It's about the legal benefits and rights that come with signing the contract.

[General Battuta]

Which just sounds like a bad reason to marry and not what marriage should be about. It should be out of love only (both in love with each other) and not for a selfish hidden agenda. That is also another superficial thing that makes me angry and doesn't sound like love at all. It is quite low.

So it sounds like you'd agree that we should abolish marriage as a legal institution, right? I mean, why should some people get legal benefits because of an old law, whereas other people who are just as much in love don't get anything?

Nobody should get any benefits at all, like you said.

[Flipside]

I've loved the same woman for close to a decade now, don't need a piece of paper to tell me how I feel, and neither does any kind of God, and if I did have a piece of paper and a 'blessing' from some guy that I paid a fortune to for it, it wouldn't change the future one whit.

It's not about the wedding or the piece of paper. It's about the legal benefits and rights that come with signing the contract.

Which is a large degree of what is wrong with it in my opinion, once upon a time people got married because they wanted to be married, nowadays, it's a financial concern, and that, in and of itself is merely a way to force people to conform, simple bribery.

Say the couple were married by a non-Christian denomination, or are part of a religion that doesn't have any kind of marriage ceremony? Do those benefits still apply (I'm asking in seriousness here, since I don't know the US laws regarding it), because if not, it's just yet another way of forcing a religion down someone's throat.

[Rian]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The US government can’t grant or deny any special benefits to someone based on his or her religious observances. Secular marriages are reasonably common - it’s only if you’re gay that you’ll have trouble. (This of last point, of course, represents a somewhat troubling intrusion of religious arguments into public policy. But that’s another argument.)

[General Battuta]

Not being rich can minimize the chances of someone marrying you for financial reasons or using you for money and therefore it is more likely to be out of love. I wouldn't want to be rich or famous for about 6 reasons. Middle class will do perfectly.

But just being married provides financial incentives in the way of tax breaks, which advantages heterosexuals over homosexuals.

[Rian]

Childless couples receive the same tax breaks, do they not?

[General Battuta]

Childless couples receive the same tax breaks, do they not?

And unmarried people have kids too, right? Why don't they get the same kind of tax breaks? (There is a child tax credit, but it's not as big if you're a single parent.)

What about gay couples who've adopted kids? Why don't they get tax breaks for being married?

[TrashMan]

Ahmadinejad is a troll

I actually like the guy. He has balls and let's no one dictate the politics of his country. You got to respect that.

[Janos]

Ahmadinejad is a troll

I actually like the guy. He has balls and let's no one dictate the politics of his country. You got to respect that.

He's in kinda weird position: he can dictate policies... except when he can't (Supreme Council is very powerful). And then there's the parliament as well. I don't actually think he's a bad president, but his rhetorics are a bit... well, insane at time. I mean, the guy has been in odds with every single regional and global power, as well as with the parliament and the Council and Supreme Leader. Still he stays, so he must be doing at least something right. The politics of Iran are a complete mess.

But wild religious rhetorics that manage to wake up criticism in Iran itself? The notorious "wipe Israel off the map" -mistranslation junglebungle? Demands for apology? I don't know what the guy is trying to achieve, but at least it gets a response. He's a troll, but a troll ain't necessary wrong about things. Just a tad too provocative to always get what he wants.