Ionathus's Random Banter #249 -- Directionless Rambling Is Now Mandatory

[Rater202]

Youre right, we could create a contract that is identical to marriage except we don't call it that. Why would we do that? We already have that contract!

Having multiple such contracts would allow those rights to be accessible to more people without the necessary social baggage of one specific contract.

[Anonymouswizard]

Marriage is a ceremony.

Marriage is a contract. Is it a contract which should absolutely require the ceremony known as a wedding to sign? Probably not. Is it a contract that needs to have the name marriage? Probably not. But at the end of the day I don't see a realistic way to get the benefits of marriage without a contract. At which point most people are probably fine having everything come together in one package.

Is it something that comes with a bunch of connotations that it doesn't need? Yes, but honestly if people don't want those connotations they'll almost certainly disappear. At least where I live you're not expected to marry someone in another company to improve your dad's career prospects, which I'm sure the princesses are grateful for.

There is an argument that at least some benefits shouldn't be exclusive to marriage, but, wait...

In America you can't visit your friends in hospital? What kind of heartless bastard stops you from cheering up a friend with a broken leg?

[Keltest]

Having multiple such contracts would allow those rights to be accessible to more people without the necessary social baggage of one specific contract.

Please feel free to elaborate on this. Keep in mind theres absolutely nothing stopping people from entering completely platonic marriages to get the benefits already.

In America you can't visit your friends in hospital? What kind of heartless bastard stops you from cheering up a friend with a broken leg?

Its more complicated than that, as one might expect. Theres a whole spectrum of visitation depending on exactly what youre in there for.

[Rater202]

Please feel free to elaborate on this. Keep in mind theres absolutely nothing stopping people from entering completely platonic marriages to get the benefits already.

If that wasn't clear enough then I don't think I have enough words or spoons to articulate my thought process.

@Anon: There are a number of situations where hospitals will traditionally only let family visit with a patient, meaning if you aren't a close blood relative or you don't have some legal contract establishing a familial relationship such as adoption forms or a marriage contract, you can't visit with them even if you've been friends or seeing them romantically for years and live in th same house but their next of kin lives two states away said next of kin gets prioritized over you.

Part of the reason why marriage is more of a big deal than it should be is stuff like that.

[Peelee]

Why not?

You're saying that you can't do it, but what intrinsic property of the marriage, which may I remind you is something humans made up, not an immutable property of the universe, presents its practical benefits from being realized by other relationships or other contracts?

Married people have, quite literally, over a thousand legal benefits that cannot be accessed without marriage. Right off the bat, ease of immigration/naturalization capability, inability to compel testimony in court, and acceptance of military benefits, for an easy three that tend to be universal and absolutely cannot be recreated without being married.

If you want to go over the literally thousands of benefits married people get and determine which could or could not be attained without marriage, you're certainly welcome to. I'm not going to do all the work of going step by step why you're wrong when you simplify marriage, conflate it with weddings, and refuse to critically examine the benefits. Again, nearly every government of nearly every country for thousands of years have realized the value in extending additional benefits through marriage. You don't. And despite your claim that your plan would not affect married couples, it would absolutely affect married couples because you would be immediately depriving people of numerous rights and benefits they cannot and will not be extended to non-married people. You are the Skinner "no, it's the children who are wrong" meme right now.

[Keltest]

Married people have, quite literally, over a thousand legal benefits that cannot be accessed without marriage. Right off the bat, ease of immigration/naturalization capability, inability to compel testimony in court, and acceptance of military benefits, for an easy three that tend to be universal and absolutely cannot be recreated without being married.

If you want to go over the literally thousands of benefits married people get and determine which could or could not be attained without marriage, you're certainly welcome to. I'm not going to do all the work of going step by step why you're wrong when you simplify marriage, conflate it with weddings, and refuse to critically examine the benefits. Again, nearly every government of nearly every country for thousands of years have realized the value in extending additional benefits through marriage. You don't. And despite your claim that your plan would not affect married couples, it would absolutely affect married couples because you would be immediately depriving people of numerous rights and benefits they cannot and will not be extended to non-married people. You are the Skinner "no, it's the children who are wrong" meme right now.

In fairness to Rater, I'm almost positive he isn't saying that the rights should just disappear from society, just be moved to a different contract. Which is all kinds of pointless and ridiculous, just not in ways that would make him look like a C-list DC villain.

[Rater202]

In fairness to Rater, I'm almost positive he isn't saying that the rights should just disappear from society, just be moved to a different contract. Which is all kinds of pointless and ridiculous, just not in ways that would make him look like a C-list DC villain.

I'm saying that they should be accessible via a variety of different contracts so that it is not necessary to get married just to have them.

In a perfect world, the only reason to get married should be "because you want to get married." Other matters should be available in whole or in part by other means and conversely, if you don't want those things to be part of your marriage they shouldn't have to be.

Like, if Bob and Smatha have been platonic life partners for a decade at this point, have lived together for years, have no intent to stop living together, and have no interest in outside partners, they should not have to get a sham marriage to attach certain legal benefits to this relationship.

[Peelee]

In fairness to Rater, I'm almost positive he isn't saying that the rights should just disappear from society, just be moved to a different contract. Which is all kinds of pointless and ridiculous, just not in ways that would make him look like a C-list DC villain.

Except marriage has all of those already bundled together for twenty ****ing dollars and a ten minute appointment (amounts may vary by state). And many of the irreplaceable rights and benefits are irreplaceable because they're pretty much a courtesy that exist solely for married people (again, the three quick and easy, near-universal benefits previously listed).

Even assuming the absolute best intentions, the solution is to recreate a worse version with more complexity when a simple version that is more robust already exists and has centuries of legal precedent behind it.

[Rater202]

Except marriage has all of those already bundled together for twenty ****ing dollars and a ten minute appointment (amounts may vary by state). And many of the irreplaceable rights and benefits are irreplaceable because they're pretty much a courtesy that exist solely for married people (again, the three quick and easy, near-universal benefits previously listed).

Even assuming the absolute best intentions, the solution is to recreate a worse version with more complexity when a simple version that is more robust already exists and has centuries of legal precedent behind it.

No one is saying anything about replacement.

"Divorce it from these things" is not "get rid of these things.

It's "there should be other ways to get these things."

[Anonymouswizard]

In fairness to Rater, I'm almost positive he isn't saying that the rights should just disappear from society, just be moved to a different contract. Which is all kinds of pointless and ridiculous, just not in ways that would make him look like a C-list DC villain.

...I'm getting flashbacks that I'm not allowed to talk about here.

But yes, at this point Rater's proposed solution is to either make people sign a bunch more contracts for the same rights (which people looooove doing) or essentially just renaming marriages. The second is pointless, and the first is disturbingly close to making 'burn it all down, rebuild it, and piss off everybody who's already married' sound reasonable.

Okay, there's a third reading which is basically 'bring back common law marriage', but I'm not actually certain how feasible that is.

But at least I can now imagine Batman punching out The Divorcer.

[Keltest]

No one is saying anything about replacement.

"Divorce it from these things" is not "get rid of these things.

It's "there should be other ways to get these things."

Ok, but you know what you have when you have those things? Marriage.

Its like... objecting to a cake because you think there should be other ways to combine sugar, flour, eggs and milk in a mix and then bake it to get a confection. Even if you did that, you still ended up with cake.

[Rater202]

Ok, but you know what you have when you have those things? Marriage.

Its like... objecting to a cake because you think there should be other ways to combine sugar, flour, eggs and milk in a mix and then bake it to get a confection. Even if you did that, you still ended up with cake.

Whose objecting to marriage?

I'm objecting to what should honestly be a mostly ceremonial thing being the only way to get access to certain rights and privileges that I believe should not be gated behind such things.

Like... Peelee hasn't really explained why marriage is irreplaceable in regard to things like military benefits. What's stopping legislation from being passed that would allow unmarried couples with one member in the military from being able to fill out some paperwork to ensure that those benefits are granted to a long-term partner as an alternative?

[Peelee]

No one is saying anything about replacement.

"Divorce it from these things" is not "get rid of these things.

It's "there should be other ways to get these things."

Yes, you are saying "get rid of these things," you just aren't aware because you consistently refuse to accept that the things that are completely unavailable without marriage would not exist without marriage. Military benefits to surviving spouse after death? That's a pure act of consideration with no reason to exist other than as a courtesy, which would not exist without marriage. Enhanced ability to immigrate/naturalize? Exact same thing, and even then "easier" is a hell of a thing (eg i have Austrian dual citizenship, and if my wife wanted to get Austrian citizenship, it would take at least a decade, which is a significant improvement over the minimum 30 years required if we weren't married, but is still a hell of a timeline. And, again, that's the shortest possible time for it).

The things you think would or could be trivially recreated cannot and would not be. Again, given that you have consistently portrayed a much more simplistic view of marriage is likely the cause of this. It is, legally, significantly more involved than you clearly imagine, with centuries to millennia of precedent and with civil and legal reasons that simply do not apply otherwise*. Again, the simple fact that you called marriage "a piece of paper" means you simply are not aware of what marriage actually entails, so far as benefits goes. Also, you keep attempting to put the onus of "why not" on me. You're making fundamentally insupportable claims and instead of trying to support them you're just shoving all the burden of evidence on me instead.


Again, if you think marriage is just a piece of paper, then the solution is for you, specifically, to not get married. It's that easy.


*Anon Wiz, i don't disagree at all with your position of allowing poly marriage benefits, but i have nowhere near the legal knowledge to even imagine how the complexities of that would work out, since dissolution would by necessity need to also be an available avenue and that's already messy enough with two people and centuries to millennia of precedent in every country. A braver and smarter person than I should take a crack at it.

[Keltest]

Whose objecting to marriage?

I'm objecting to what should honestly be a mostly ceremonial thing being the only way to get access to certain rights and privileges that I believe should not be gated behind such things.

Like... Peelee hasn't really explained why marriage is irreplaceable in regard to things like military benefits. What's stopping legislation from being passed that would allow unmarried couples with one member in the military from being able to fill out some paperwork to ensure that those benefits are granted to a long-term partner as an alternative?

Rater.

People can already do that. By getting married. You don't need an alternative.

There is literally no romantic obligation to marriage, its just that people don't often want to extend the benefit and trust that comes with those rights to people that they aren't literally willing (at the time) to spend the rest of their lives with, which has a pretty substantial overlap with being a romantic partner by coincidence.

[Peelee]

Like... Peelee hasn't really explained why marriage is irreplaceable in regard to things like military benefits.

Yes, because i choose to assume you already know the facts of life. But fine, why are military benefits extended to spouses? Because, under the standard idea that the person married to form a family, then the service member's choice to be a service member by necessity affects the spouse throughout the service member's entire career, which is not the case for a friend. As Keltest points out, romance, cohabitation, etc are not required more marriage, but marriage fraud exists in most places because getting married solely to get benefits like this is a fraud, specifically because the reason the benefits are extended is because the spouse is directly affected. Again, it is a courtesy granted.

Here's one of the many problems in your reasoning: you're taking rights and benefits that would never have been created or granted except to as courtesy for a spouse and seeing it as intrinsically entitled to everyone, regardless of why it was created to start with. Without marriage, it would not exist. There is no practical reason for the insurance company that your employer contracts to cover anyone except for you. They extend benefits to spouse as a courtesy. This courtesy would not exist if not for marriage..

Again, your ideas on marriage are incredibly narrow and do not reflect the reality of everything they cover. If you would like to explore the myriad of benefits of marriage that cannot be attained without marriage, I am not beholden to do it for you, and i do not know why you expect me to be. And frankly, as you seem to have just dug your heels in further on this, I'm happy to drop it if you also feel that way.

[Rater202]

Rater.

People can already do that. By getting married. You don't need an alternative.

There is literally no romantic obligation to marriage, its just that people don't often want to extend the benefit and trust that comes with those rights to people that they aren't literally willing (at the time) to spend the rest of their lives with, which has a pretty substantial overlap with being a romantic partner by coincidence.

There are couples with valid reasons not to get married who nonetheless, may want or deserve certain rights and privileges that are currently gated behind a marriage contract or are difficult to get without said contract.

Marriage additionally has social connotations: a marriage without romantic love is consistently depicted as "lesser" in our culture due to failure to conform to such expectations.

[Keltest]

There are couples with valid reasons not to get married who nonetheless, may want or deserve certain rights and privileges that are currently gated behind a marriage contract or are difficult to get without said contract.

Marriage additionally has social connotations: a marriage without romantic love is consistently depicted as "lesser" in our culture due to failure to conform to such expectations.

Rater, you literally just responded to me with "because reasons" there. What reasons, exactly, are you thinking of here?

Also, romance-less marriages have been, if not the norm, then at least extremely common throughout history.

[Rater202]

Rater, you literally just responded to me with "because reasons" there. What reasons, exactly, are you thinking of here?

I don't think I'm allowed to explain most of the reasons why someone would choose not to get married.

Except for th e"don't feel the need to" one but that one is rather irrelevant for the argument at hand given that if they don't feel the need to they likely don't feel the need for such benefits either.

[Keltest]

I don't think I'm allowed to explain most of the reasons why someone would choose not to get married.

Except for th e"don't feel the need to" one but that one is rather irrelevant for the argument at hand given that if they don't feel the need to they likely don't feel the need for such benefits either.

Yes, presumably if they don't want to extend the benefits to someone, thats a reason to not get married, but if thats the case then having alternate methods of extending the benefits to people does not affect that situation at all.

[Rater202]

Yes, presumably if they don't want to extend the benefits to someone, thats a reason to not get married, but if thats the case then having alternate methods of extending the benefits to people does not affect that situation at all.

Hence my pointing out that it is not, in fact, relevant to the case at hand.

It was mentioned solely for the sake of completeness.

@Peelee: I'm going to be honest, the argument you made in this post to me reads like "we can't allow alternative means of getting these benefits to people because we've already criminalized a means of getting them that isn't what we consider to be a legitimate marriage" and that um.Doesn't seem like the slam dunk argument you seem to be presenting it as.

In fact, the very existence of "marriage fraud" seems to be a point against Keltests "you don't need romance to get married" argument since um... If you're getting married primarily for the benefits you are, in letter or in spirit, committing such fraud.

[Keltest]

Hence my pointing out that it is not, in fact, relevant to the case at hand.

It was mentioned solely for the sake of completeness.

@Peelee: I'm going to be honest, the argument you made in this post to me reads like "we can't allow alternative means of getting these benefits to people because we've already criminalized a means of getting them that isn't what we consider to be a legitimate marriage" and that um.Doesn't seem like the slam dunk argument you seem to be presenting it as.

In fact, the very existence of "marriage fraud" seems to be a point against Keltests "you don't need romance to get married" argument since um... If you're getting married primarily for the benefits you are, in letter or in spirit, committing such fraud.

Marriage fraud, from my understanding, is about living conditions and economic impact rather than romance. IE somebody in the next town over getting married to you just so they dont have to pay for insurance while they continue to live a completely separate life that mostly doesnt intersect with yours.

This comes with the caveat that I am not a lawyer and am not intending to advise you on who you should or should not get married to, if that was not obvious.

[halfeye]

may I remind you is something humans made up

Some birds do it, some mammals do it. Probably the majority don't, but except for the laws there's nothing particularly human about it.

[Rater202]

Marriage fraud, from my understanding, is about living conditions and economic impact rather than romance. IE somebody in the next town over getting married to you just so they dont have to pay for insurance while they continue to live a completely separate life that mostly doesnt intersect with yours.

Fair enough, but... Still. Could be a valid reason to not be living together.

For example, maybe you can't actually afford to move in together. Maybe enlisting in the armed forces is the only way one of you can find a paying job. Obviously, you know there's a chance you might not come back if you get deployed to a combat zone, you get married now while you have the chance and... oops, you're not living together so when you get shot and killed in the line of duty then a marriage fraud argument can be made to avoid paying out benefits.

No clue if that's likely or if it's ever happened, but it took me like, ten seconds to come up with that scenario.

[Keltest]

Fair enough, but... Still. Could be a valid reason to not be living together.

For example, maybe you can't actually afford to move in together. Maybe enlisting in the armed forces is the only way one of you can find a paying job. Obviously, you know there's a chance you might not come back if you get deployed to a combat zone, you get married now while you have the chance and... oops, you're not living together so when you get shot and killed in the line of duty then a marriage fraud argument can be made to avoid paying out benefits.

No clue if that's likely or if it's ever happened, but it took me like, ten seconds to come up with that scenario.

We're starting to hit the murky depths of my knowledge here, as I have neither been married nor been killed in military service, but in general situations like that are what lawyers are for.

[Peelee]

@Peelee: I'm going to be honest, the argument you made in this post to me reads like "we can't allow alternative means of getting these benefits to people because we've already criminalized a means of getting them that isn't what we consider to be a legitimate marriage" and that um.Doesn't seem like the slam dunk argument you seem to be presenting it as.

In fact, the very existence of "marriage fraud" seems to be a point against Keltests "you don't need romance to get married" argument since um... If you're getting married primarily for the benefits you are, in letter or in spirit, committing such fraud.

Marriage fraud exists for attempting to get the benefits without the reason behind them. If you're two friends who platoncially cohabitate, and if one gets a job in a new state and the other moves simultaneously so they stay together, for example, then sure, it's marriage fraud, but there's also no way for the government to prove that. And marriage fraud is typically only even investigated in cases where it's pretty obvious that the fraud is happening - ie, not the described scenario. There's no law that married people have to **** ans the feds can't make you do it to prove you're married.

That aside, my argument is "your reasoning is pure entitlement of 'why can't everyone have access to everything with no downsides?'" Which, yes, I agree would be nice, but is also an unbelievably simplistic view that i honestly never really expected to encounter on these boards.

Again, virtually every government for hundreds to thousands of years has figured out that this system is beneficial. Millions of people in charge, and billions of people supporting them. And you think that it's wrong and have better ideas, despite objectively and demonstrably not grasping the full breadth of the benefits granted.

Again, this is the personification of the "it's the children who are wrong" meme. I am begging you to realize this.

[Rater202]

That aside, my argument is "your reasoning is pure entitlement of 'why can't everyone have access to everything with no downsides?'" Which, yes, I agree would be nice, but is also an unbelievably simplistic view that i honestly never really expected to encounter on these boards.

No. it's not.

My argument is "I do not believe that these benefits should e arbitrarily gated behind only one specific legally recognized relationship/contact that has pre-existing social baggage associated with it beyond the legalities thereof. Long-term relationships of te appropriate type should have access to those benefits without unwanted or unnecessary baggage."

[Peelee]

No. it's not.

My argument is "I do not believe that these benefits should e arbitrarily gated behind only one specific legally recognized relationship/contact that has pre-existing social baggage associated with it beyond the legalities thereof. Long-term relationships of te appropriate type should have access to those benefits without unwanted or unnecessary baggage."

Fine, dude. You trivially solved marriage, despite it not being a problem except in your own mind. Congratulations.

Anyway, supposed to be able to see the northern lights in the upper US tonight. That's pretty neat.

[Keltest]

Fine, dude. You trivially solved marriage, despite it not being a problem except in your own mind. Congratulations.

Anyway, supposed to be able to see the northern lights in the upper US tonight. That's pretty neat.

Meanwhile me, in one of the cloudiest towns in the country.

[Peelee]

Meanwhile me, in one of the cloudiest towns in the country.

I'm not too far away from you and have the same conditions, sadly.

ETA: Also checkout and flight back tomorrow so staying up til 2am would be ill-advised anyway.

[enderlord99]

The northern lights are just barely visible from where I am. They would be prominent, but the combination of clouds and light pollution mean the patterns are subtle and not very colorful, despite covering almost half the sky.

Going outside to see them was worth it, but only because they're so rare here.