Rikurzhen
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2014
- 6,145
- 1,292
- 185
Well, ok. But the laws exist. If laws only conveyed economic rights to child rearing couples, or laws conveyed no benefits at all, you'd maybe have a point. But that's not the law, and I really don't see any changes occurring.Rikurzhen, you posted "Why does society care that two people love each other? The legal and social benefits only kick in when kids are born." That's not correct. There are economic benefits to marriage for childless people in terms of employment benefits, social security, health care decision making ..... This was actually the basis for striking down DOMA, and there was no mention there of kids.
I apologize for not being clear. What I wrote was about how laws SHOULD be. Those economic benefits to marriage should not exist for couples without kids, for after all, marriage is about love. Society doesn't benefit when you love your spouse. Society benefits when you sacrifice and raise kids.
You don't see changes occurring? I, and others, sure do. Let me explain how the changes play out.
Think of a baseball game. At the end of the game a MVP is selected and gets an award. Now inject liberal parents into the situation and at the end of the game every player gets a MVP award.
Those benefits to marriage now get extended to more and more groups, meaning those left out of the circle get more and more pissed off with subsidizing those in the circle. They could understand the benefits when they were focused on couples having kids, for with kids parents eat the cost of raising them and society, rather than the parents, gets huge financial benefits from the taxes those kids pay, but now the benefits go to people who love each other. The change won't be a clawback of benefits, it will be an extension of the same benefits to more and more groups until no one is left outside of the circle providing the subsidy.
The benefits will cease to be beneficial because any gain in one area will have to be offset by increased taxes and burdens in other areas due to the loss of subsidy from single people.