weebeardedman t1_j517amg wrote
Reply to comment by PinkbunnymanEU in LPT If he is willing to make a baby with you, but unwilling or "not ready" to get married, RUN. RUN LIKE HELL by KhaosDancer
Is that really your argument?
Marriage isn't strictly a religious construct, and hasn't been since tax/medical/legal benefits were introduced for married couples/married couples with children.
If someone was willing to have a child with me, but unwilling to get married while subject to a government that provides huge amount of legal benefits for being married, I'd run like hell.
To be clear, I am 200% opposed to organized religion, and its affect on the general population. That has nothing to do with getting "married" in the eyes of the gov't - you can get married in a courtroom with no ceremony/religion involved.
PinkbunnymanEU t1_j518cw2 wrote
>since tax benefits were introduced for married couples with children.
Oh really? I'm in the UK and we have (almost) no tax benefits for marriage (£200 a year subject to very specific circumstances), almost every EU member state has no marriage benefit.
>while subject to a government that provides huge amount of legal benefits
So in the USA?
>Is that really your argument?
Is YOUR argument really "But 'murica gives us benefits for it"
Perhaps the real LPT should be "If you're in a place that give benefits for being married, discuss the benefits of marriage with your significant other, and if not being married is a deal breaker, don't invest in a relationship with that person" but I guess it's not quite as catchy as bashing men for not agreeing with your opinion...
weebeardedman t1_j519cv7 wrote
It's not just murica, the uk and eu gives a swath of legal/beneficiary and medical benefits for being married. Also, the uk does have a "married couples allowance" but it recently allows for unmarried partners as well.
But, regardless the u.s. situation is enough
PinkbunnymanEU t1_j51acnn wrote
>the uk gives a swath of beneficiary and medical benefits for being married.
Oh really? Because the only "medical benefit" is implied next of kin.
For beneficiary only non shared assets are subject to inheritance tax when one spouse predeceases the other. Non-shared assets can also be held in trust for minors.
The uk literally has alternative options for EVERY marriage benefit except married tax allowance, where £1250 of the tax allowance can be transferred, but only if you're a basic rate payer, meaning that only if one partner is earning under £12500 pre tax a year and the other under £50000 you can get up to £250.
weebeardedman t1_j51bgry wrote
It's not just next of kin I'm concerned with, it's medical visitstion/decision making that would otherwise have to be proactively dealt with, and even then, can fall through if it's not "as normal."
Same with power of attorney/beneficiary. A huge amount of people don't deal with this until its too late, and it's significantly more difficult to legally navigate.
Even in the u.s., most services are available for non-married couples, it's just an amount of hoops to hop through that don't make sense to deal with
PinkbunnymanEU t1_j51c4q0 wrote
>visitation
Not an issue I'm the UK, non married have the same visitation rights in all hospitals
>decision making that would otherwise have to be proactively dealt with
I agree with this point, however "get married because then you don't have to fill out as many forms" seems to be a reason that falls flat for me why it would be a reason to "run away"
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments