Do You, Married Person, Take These Unearned Privileges, for Better or for Better?

Ambersky

The phrase Marriage Equality hasn't been something I have been comfortable with for some time. For quite a while it seems equality has been taken to mean "the same as" and valuable difference gets brushed aside to climb another rung of the ladder.

I remember when there was a political divide between gay men and lesbians because some mens groups saw themselves as single issue organisations looking for parity or equality with their heterosexual counterparts.

Many of the more political lesbians felt they couldn't work on a single issue because equality with their heterosexual sisters still left them very badly discriminated against. Some men did see the connections between the oppression of women and the oppression of gay men and did work for womens rights but this was a minority at the time.
Women in the 70s 80s and still into the 90s were working on a number of equality issues, like being able to control the number of children they bore, work after marriage, sit on a jury, collect the childrens allowance, refuse to have sex with her husband or get equal pay. http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/57301/ten-things-an-irish-woman-could-not-do-in-1970-and-be-prepared-to-cringe

Equality for lesbians at this time would not have been achieved by being the same as their heterosexual counterparts which was the kind of equality some gay mens organisations and some women campaigned for.

Now we have marriage equality and everyone just wants us to be the same to be equal to our heterosexual counterparts once again. Even if people argue against marriage as an institution the response to those issues often is "Well I just want to have the choice". Fair enough but I question one group of people ie couples be they same sex or opposite seeing themselves as deserving of more favorable treatment socially financially and legally than others. Who are these others, they are unmarried couples, other forms of family groupings, friends, or single people.

Only recently I have begun reading information on the growing awareness of the negative attitudes and treatment of single people and I think it makes for very interesting reading.

Marital Privilege: It's Not Just a Courtroom Thing Bella DePaulo


"White privilege" and "male privilege" are controversial notions. I don't think they should be. It seems self-evident that there are significant ways in which white people and men enjoy advantages they have not earned just because they are white or male. The growing awareness of white privilege and male privilege has opened our eyes to other kinds of privileges, such as those that come with being young instead of old, able-bodied instead of disabled, wealthy instead of poor, and heterosexual instead of gay or lesbian or transsexual or asexual. Yet amidst all this consciousness-raising, most people have remained oblivious to the unearned privileges that advantage at least half of the adult population – people who are married.

Here are just a few excerpts from the article, highlighting some of the points we made about marital privilege:

"Marital privilege means that married status is valued and glorified, whereas single status is portrayed as that which must be escaped."

"Marital privilege is a place of respect. Married people are regarded as mature and fully adult; single people are seen as immature and child-like."

"Marital privilege is emotional privilege. Other people express happiness for people who marry but pity for those who stay single."

"Marital privilege is about entitlement. People who marry expect shower gifts, wedding gifts and attendance at their weddings."

"Marital privilege means that married people's experiences are normalized while single people's are problematized. 'Why is a person as nice/successful/intelligent as you still single?' is an unremarkable conversational gambit, whereas the analogous why-are-you-still-married would be considered unthinkable - and unthinkably rude."

"Pandering is part of the package, too. Political candidates vow to fight for "working families," though 2-year-olds make for rather inadequate employees."

"In institutions of higher education, marriage has a special and uncontested place."

"Single people have been mostly missing from the ongoing cultural conversations about balancing personal life and work life."

"In everyday life, as in the law, the friends, relatives, neighbors, mentors and other people who might be significant to single people are typically treated as nonexistent or of no consequence."

In the 2011 census 41.7 percent of people in Ireland were single. The rise of single people, and of people living alone, is an unprecedented demographic revolution that is changing the way we live, the way we love, the way we vote, the way we do business, the way we age, and the way we think about what constitutes a meaningful life yet the only time I have heard that statistic of 41.7 percent mentioned was as a social problem.

I dont think Marriage Equality is going to make me equal and I am concerned that the campaign has perhaps further idealised coupledom and further isolated single people maybe even creating a feeling of failure for people who dont seem to be able to create the ideal partnership. I do want the proposal to pass but I hope the campaign for Equality doesnt stop at getting parity with heterosexual married couples.



https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201501/marital-privilege-its-not-just-courtroom-thing
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201405/23-ways-single-people-are-better-the-scientific-evidence
http://www.amazon.com/Singlism-What-Why-Matters-Stop/dp/0615486789/?tag=wwwbelladepau-20

Deranged96

Ambersky wrote: »

The phrase Marriage Equality hasn't been something I have been uncomfortable with for some time. For a long time now it seems equality has been taken to mean "the same as" and valuable difference gets brushed aside to climb another rung of the ladder.

I remember when there was a political divide between gay men and lesbians because some mens groups saw themselves as single issue organisations looking for parity or equality with their heterosexual counterparts.

Many of the more political lesbians felt they couldn't work on a single issue because equality with their heterosexual sisters still left them very badly discriminated against. Some men did see the connections between the oppression of women and the oppression of gay men and did work for womens rights but this was a minority at the time.
Women in the 70s 80s and still into the 90s were working on a number of equality issues, like women not being able to control the number of children they bore, work after marriage, sit on a jury, collect the childrens allowance, refuse to have sex with her husband or get equal pay. http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/57301/ten-things-an-irish-woman-could-not-do-in-1970-and-be-prepared-to-cringe

Equality for lesbians at this time would not have been achieved by being the same as their heterosexual counterparts which was the kind of equality some gay mens organisations campaigned for.

Now we have marriage equality and everyone just wants us to be the same to be equal to our heterosexual counterparts once again. Even if people argue against marriage as an institution the response to those issues often is "Well I just want to have the choice". Fair enough but I question one group of people ie couples be they same sex or opposite seeing themselves as deserving of more favorable treatment socially financially and legally than others. Who are these others, they are unmarried couples, other forms of family groupings, friends, or single people.

Only recently I have begun reading information on the growing awareness of the negative attitudes and treatment of single people and I think it makes for very interesting reading.



In the 2011 census 41.7 percent of people in Ireland were single. The rise of single people, and of people living alone, is an unprecedented demographic revolution that is changing the way we live, the way we love, the way we vote, the way we do business, the way we age, and the way we think about what constitutes a meaningful life yet the only time I have heard that statistic mentioned was as a social problem.
I dont think Marriage Equality is going to make me equal and I am concerned that the campaign has perhaps further idealised coupledom and further isolated single people maybe even creating a feeling of failure for people who dont seem to be able to create the ideal partnership. I do want the proposal to pass but I hope the campaign for Equality doesnt stop at getting parity with heterosexual married couples.



https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201501/marital-privilege-its-not-just-courtroom-thing
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201405/23-ways-single-people-are-better-the-scientific-evidence
http://www.amazon.com/Singlism-What-Why-Matters-Stop/dp/0615486789/?tag=wwwbelladepau-20

Respectfully, I would question if this thread is in the right place: it would seem that you said yourself this issue transcends gender or orientation.

Anyway, It would seem you have a gripe with SSM being too similar to marriage? "Now we have marriage equality and everyone just wants us to be the same to be equal to our heterosexual counterparts once again"
If that's the case, then I would say you're in a very small minority there and that sexuality only influences one aspect of a person's character: who they wish to sleep with/find themselves growing emotionally attached to. Therefore it seems logical that marriage be a right of two people regardless of gender and that same-sex marriages and hetro marriages be for all intents and purposes the exact same.

"In the 2011 census 41.7 percent of people in Ireland were single. The rise of single people, and of people living alone, is an unprecedented demographic revolution that is changing the way we live, the way we love, the way we vote, the way we do business, the way we age, and the way we think about what constitutes a meaningful life yet the only time I have heard that statistic mentioned was as a social problem"

I would imagine the baby boom coupled (ha) with people getting married later has lead to an increase in single people, but you haven't said what that figure increased from?

Relationship status doesn't define a person, you would seem to think it does. What would you like to see done to improve the lot of singles? how are their rights being inhibited?

I don't understand the relevance of lesbian and gay men relations.

Ash885

Wanting to be the same and wanting to treated the same under the law are completely different things in my view. Easily confused, but categorically doesn't apply to this ref. A lot of the basis for the No campaign is the thought that gay people want the exact same marriage recognised by the Church. Which, maybe I'm speaking out of turn here but, is untrue.

If you're thinking equality recognised under the law as being somehow equates to conforming to the majority and the norm. then that's insecurity speaking. Me seeking the same rights as my straight friends and peers doesn't necessarily extend to be wanting to be somewhat more like them. If anything it means that I can still be as gay as I want and not encur any consequences. Isn't that promoting diversity?

Peregrinus

Ambersky wrote: »

I dont think Marriage Equality is going to make me equal . . .

Well, it will make you more equal than you currently are, to at least this extent; you’ll have the same right that a straight woman has to choose between married and unmarried status, treatment, etc. Plus, in so far as there is a remaining inequality, it won’t be linked to your sexual orientation. And, given how enduring and deeply-rooted discrimination against gays and lesbians has been, I think that’s important and valuable, even for gays and lesbians who have no wish to marry, or who are critical of the institution.

Ambersky wrote: »

/ / / and I am concerned that the campaign has perhaps further idealised coupledom and further isolated single people maybe even creating a feeling of failure for people who dont seem to be able to create the ideal partnership. I do want the proposal to pass but I hope the campaign for Equality doesnt stop at getting parity with heterosexual married couples.

Um. I don’t think equality requires that everybody be treated identically. The principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of age doesn’t mean that we have to treat children as if they were adults, for instance, or adults as if they were children. Banning discrimination on the grounds of health or disability doesn’t mean that we have to treat the ill or the disabled as if they were healthy or able-bodied. And so forth.

We are relational creatures. Who we are is pretty much bound up with who we relate to, and how we relate to them. If we’re in a committed, conjugal, mutual and exclusive, that’s usually a pretty fundamental fact about us which is going to impact on a lot of other relationships that we have. And it doesn’t strike me as wise to suggest that, legally, socially, administratively, people in such relationships should be treated as though they were single.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re calling for when you talk about discrimination against singles. But it makes sense to me that, e.g., it’s my spouse and not my parents or siblings who will be making medical and care decisions for me, should the need arise, and who will inherit my estate, should I die without making a will. And there are countless other ways in which it’s appropriate for everyone else to treat me differently on account of my marriage.

That’s not to say that every difference of treatment between married and single people is appropriate. But in general the fact that married and single people are treated differently isn’t inherently objectionable.

But maybe that’s not what you’re talking about?

J_E

I don't personally like the heteronormativity that is evoked my 'Marriage Equality', and I actually enjoy the differences/distinction from the general population that being gay affords me, but I won't deny it to those that do want it. The real issue with marriage goes a lot deeper than same-sex marriage does.

However, marriage to me is a legal construct as well as a social one - and when I do marry (it could happen within the next 10 years) I need to know that both of us are afforded certain protections. I'm not really sure what 'privilege' has to do with that.

Ambersky

Peregrinus said
That’s not to say that every difference of treatment between married and single people is appropriate. But in general the fact that married and single people are treated differently isn’t inherently objectionable.

But maybe that’s not what you’re talking about?

Im working this one through myself Peregrinus and have only recently begun thinking seriously about the position of single people. Im well aware that Im in a tiny minority but thats how ideas start and I think its healthy wherever there seems to be consensus thinking to have at least one or two people who are raising what they see as possible problems or issues.

I dont think the social legal or financial position of single people is on very many peoples list of concerns. As Ive already posted in my OP there is a large focus on couples and married couples in particular, being single can be considered a kind of non state as in not married. Here we are entering into one of the biggest weekends for couples celebrating Valentines day. A day thats hard for anyone to escape like it or not with hotels, cinemas, flowers, restaurants, card shops, newspapers all encouraging the romance of the couple. There is no celebration for being single.

Peregrinus said
I’m not entirely sure what you’re calling for when you talk about discrimination against singles. But it makes sense to me that, e.g., it’s my spouse and not my parents or siblings who will be making medical and care decisions for me, should the need arise, and who will inherit my estate, should I die without making a will. And there are countless other ways in which it’s appropriate for everyone else to treat me differently on account of my marriage.

What do you think happens to a person if they are not coupled, what if there isnt a partner one is having a sexual emotional relationship with, to care for you and make medical decisions etc?
Yes I think it makes sense to a lot of people that it would be your partner who makes the decisions mentioned and I think a lot of time people presume there is a partner, or there is going to be a partner by their side some day. One of the most frequent statements I get on coming out to people about my sexuality is "so do you have a partner Id love to meet her" one of my younger friends asked "So who are you gay with?". Its almost like you arent a fully fledged or a real LGBT person unless you can call on a partner. The Irish census took account of the number of gay people living together in Ireland but no account of the number of gay single people. I know that could have been difficult but you could literally say that gay single people dont count we literally arent counted.

In Ireland from the statistics Im aware of over 40 percent of people over 18 are single. 40 percent is a sizable percentage of a population, a minority but not by much. There are a lot of LGBT people who are single. I think we are socialised to believe, hope, plan that one day we will get married. Not everyone will get married, indeed not everyone wants to get married and you never know what life is going to have in store for you, there are people who are in couples now who will later find themselves single by choice, separation or even death. The lives and futures of single people needs to be valued and cared for too.

Its not just couples who have concerns about preparation for their old age, what they are going to do in an emergency, who's going to inherit their property and remaining estate, single people have these concerns too but it takes a bit of imagination to sort these issues out when you are thinking outside of the traditional model of the family.
I would like to see single people having the same entitlements as couples, being free to nominate the person or persons they want as a significant other/s to avail of tax breaks, inheritance rights and medical decision making. Often LGBT people make up our own social units comprised of committed friends, lovers, ex partners, chosen family, children etc and some of the people in those groups are officially single.
I would like to see more thought going into how to accommodate single people acknowledging their connections with others and creating ways that single people can also avail of financial and social benefits including inheritance and tax rights where there are shortfalls in the current situation.

Peregrinus

Ambersky wrote: »

I dont think the social legal or financial position of single people is on very many peoples list of concerns. As Ive already posted in my OP there is a large focus on couples and married couples in particular, being single can be considered a kind of non state as in not married. Here we are entering into one of the biggest weekends for couples celebrating Valentines day. A day thats hard for anyone to escape like it or not with hotels, cinemas, flowers, restaurants, card shops, newspapers all encouraging the romance of the couple. There is no celebration for being single.

That’s true enough. In some ways, being single is tacitly regarded as a negative category - you are defined by what you are not. A single person is seen as someone who has, for whatever reason, failed to construct or sustain a conjugal relationship, and the unspoken assumption is that they want, or certainly at one time wanted, a conjugal relationship, and singlehood wasn’t something they actively sought or wanted.

It doesn’t have to be so, and it wasn’t always so in our own society. We used to have recognised, and indeed high status, roles for people who committed to celibacy - religious communities, obviously, who were committed to communal life rather than to conjugal relationships, but also e.g. certain academic positions and other careers were either formally or in practice associated with remaining unmarried. Or, socially, it was accepted that some people were “not the marrying type”. (And, no, this wasn’t always a euphemism.) But with the rise of a romantic understanding of human sexuality and human personhood all this has pretty much fallen by the wayside.

Ambersky wrote: »

Its not just couples who have concerns about preparation for their old age, what they are going to do in an emergency, who's going to inherit their property and remaining estate, single people have these concerns too but it takes a bit of imagination to sort these issues out when you are thinking outside of the traditional model of the family.
I would like to see single people having the same entitlements as couples, being free to nominate the person or persons they want as a significant other/s to avail of tax breaks, inheritance rights and medical decision making. Often LGBT people make up our own social units comprised of committed friends, lovers, ex partners, chosen family, children etc and some of the people in those groups are officially single.

Mmm. This might be one of the areas where identical treatment is not necessarily the same as equal treatment. The reason why my spouse and I get to file a joint tax return, share tax allowances, etc, etc is because this tax treatment reflects the social and economic reality that we have in fact pooled our financial affairs, and undertaken binding and enforceable obligations in that regard. If we haven’t, why should we be treated as if we have? Similarly, the reasons why it makes sense that my spouse is the person who makes medical/care decisions about me when I can’t do it for myself just don’t apply as between me and my friends. Marriage isn’t a legal fiction; it is a legal and administrative recognition of a social reality. That’s why denying legal marriage to people who are in committed conjugal relationships is monstrously unjust. But by the same token treating people as if they were in committed conjugal relationships when in fact their choice is not to be in them seems unjust also.

Ambersky wrote: »

I would like to see more thought going into how to accommodate single people acknowledging their connections with others and creating ways that single people can also avail of financial and social benefits including inheritance and tax rights where there are shortfalls in the current situation.

I’d like to see more thought going into how to accommodate single people too. But I don’t think that assimilating their treatment to that of married people is the way to go. Their legal, administrative, tax etc situation should reflect the realities of singleness, and this suggests different treatment from that afforded to married people. So, for example, if an affirmative reason for choosing the single life is to retain financial and personal independence, then your tax, etc treatment should reflect the fact that your finances are independent of other people’s. That may result in a higher tax bill, but is that any different from denying mortgage interest relief to people who don’t have mortgages?

Ambersky

Posted by Peregrinus
Similarly, the reasons why it makes sense that my spouse is the person who makes medical/care decisions about me when I can’t do it for myself just don’t apply as between me and my friends.

Again if you have a spouse to put down as the person to make medical decisions that is just great but for those of us without a spouse it can well be our friends that do apply for that position. Remember at least 40 percent of us are single, it doesn't make sense for all of us to be fighting to allow our spouses to make medical decisions etc for us.

Posted by Peregrinus
So, for example, if an affirmative reason for choosing the single life is to retain financial and personal independence, then your tax, etc treatment should reflect the fact that your finances are independent of other people’s. That may result in a higher tax bill,

Say I rephrase that to
being in a situation where you are able to pool your resources financial and social as a couple means you have more resources, have the support of one another and two people to pay any bills, therefore your tax etc treatment should reflect the fact that your finances are shared maybe even doubled and this may result in a higher tax bill.

That rephrasing makes at least as much sense as the idea that single people should pay more for their independence.

We are used to hearing all the ways married couples union should be encouraged, celebrated and financially rewarded. We are used to hearing about how married people deserve certain Privileges so much so that I dont think we question or really look at it . Marriage seems to go with a sense of entitlement and if marriage confers privileges they are not rights so they are probably seen as something that is given as a reward for being better in some way than others who do not deserve those privileges . Married people can often see themselves as deserving reward and independence is something other people are going to have to pay for.

Peregrinus

Ambersky wrote: »

Again if you have a spouse to put down as the person to make medical decisions that is just great but for those of us without a spouse it can well be our friends that do apply for that position. Remember at least 40 percent of us are single, it doesn't make sense for all of us to be fighting to allow our spouses to make medical decisions etc for us.

I get that. And, of course, married or single, you can execute an enduring power of attorney to allow someone chosen by you to make personal care decisions, manage your affairs, etc, should the need arise.

But for married people the default, should they do nothing in the way of executing documents, is that their spouse will fill this role. There is no analogue for single people; you have to identify the person you want to do it, and fill out the paperwork with them, all of which is a bit of a barrier. (How many single people have actually completed powers of attorney?) But I don’t see that there’s any way around this; single people don’t have a person who stands in relation to them as a spouses stand in relationship to one another.

Ambersky wrote: »

Say I rephrase that to
being in a situation where you are able to pool your resources financial and social as a couple means you have more resources, have the support of one another and two people to pay any bills, therefore your tax etc treatment should reflect the fact that your finances are shared maybe even doubled and this may result in a higher tax bill.

That rephrasing makes at least as much sense as the idea that single people should pay more for their independence.

Yes, it does, because it doesn’t start from looking to the bottom line for married people, and seeking the same bottom line. It looks at the reality of life for single people, and seeks recognition of that in the tax code. When you’re single, you generally do have to devote a larger chunk of your income to, e.g., housing yourself than when you are part of a couple; maybe personal allowances should reflect that. Or maybe there should be deductions for rent or housing costs which would be available to single and married people alike, but which in practice would be claimed more by single people than by married people.

Ambersky

Power of attorney is something I think everyone married or single could do with thinking about just like writing a will. I don't think its a problem that married people's default person is their spouse. Single people choosing a friend demonstrates the importance of friendships. I think pretty much all financial and legal priveledges of marriage that are not now available could be afforded to single people with a little imagination. Marriage and the commitment to love and relationship is a reward in itself. Social acceptance, value and support is something we all want whether we be single coupled married or whatever way we are.

Ambersky

I dont wish to deny couples or married people all benefits from their pooling of resources and the good things that come from creating a life with another person.
I am questioning the assumptions of the superiority of the couple and the sense of entitlement to legal social and financial benefits some people believe married couples deserve above and beyond that deserved by anyone else.

I am also asking people to be aware of the encouragement praise and support given to couples and to ask themselves when they see it if there is any parallel for single people.

I would like to raise awareness of the positives about being single and the contribution single people make to society. I dont know what the LGBT community would do without single people who are always involved in organisations and events even when their coupled counterparts no longer feel the need to socialise.
Being single isnt always just a state of waiting for the right person to come along it can also be a unique way to really find yourself to become your own person and that should not be presented as it so often is as a selfish or sad negative state.
Yes being single is sometimes temporary and so is being coupled we need to learn to value and support all our citizens.

floggg

I really think this type of argument and invoking of the term "privilege" kind of illustrates why most people who use the term "privilege" aren't taken seriously in the first place.

Without going through all the responses, here are my thoughts after reading all of the posts here:

* any argument that questions why married people are conferred certain benefits and privileges not available to single people, or which suggests the deferential treatment is discriminatory, without also considering the OBLIGATIONS imposed on married couples on each other is disingenuous, misinformed or both.

While married couples get tax, inheritance, immigration benefits etc, they are also subject to obligations to support and maintain one another, to make provision for their spouses on their death (spouses are guaranteed a share of their deceased spouses estate, regardless of the terms of their will), restrictions on the alientation of the family home etc.

Therefore, if you want to argue that you, as a single person, should be able to leave their estate to their friend tax free, then that friend should be required by law to also make a minimum provision for you on their own death, be liable to pay maintenance/support to you, and be prevented from selling any property you may reside in without your consent - and vice versa in each case.

There should also be restrictions on how often you could "split up" from your friend - at least a 3 to 4 year separation period before it could be confirmed - and replace them with a new person.

* any discussion about why married couples get more privileges than singletons also needs to consider whether their are any benefits to being married which might justify the state in trying to incentivise the institution.

We know that married people tend to be healthier, happier, more productive, more stable, and less inclined to rely on state assistance than single people. Therefore they are more likely to contribute more to the state's economy through increased producitivity and less absences for illnesses, while also taking up less of the states resources through medical expenses, social welfare etc.

Admittedly, those benefits can also be derived from stable non-binding long term relationships, as it is reasonable for the state to require a lawful commitment before conferring the rights and imposing the obligations that go with marriage on couples. In any event, that doesn't change the position for single people.

We also know that children tend to do best in stable, loving homes and so its again reasonable for the state to encourage stability through marriage and the incentives it provides. A gain those homes could also be headed by unmarried people in LTRs (though the state can and should require a commitment first before fully recognising the relationship,), but this won't affect the position of single people either.

* If you want your friend to have control over medical decisions etc, then you can execute an enduring power of attorney in their favour.

The reason spouses/CPs are recognised as being capable of being in a position to make medical and care decisions for you is because you have made a legally binding commitment to support, maintain and take care of each other.

To be honest, most friends won't be willing to take that responsibility on for one another. Becoming the primary care giver, provider, or being responsible for another person is not something you really expect from your friends in the ordinary course. And there is no reason for the law to assume that just because you are "best friends" that you have both agreed to do so. I also wouldn't assume that any of my friends would know me well enough to know what I would want in any situation like that, nor even for my mother for that matter.

A couple makes that commitment to each other, build an entire life together and actively plan for each others future. Unless you and your friend start a joint pension, take out joint health insurance, and intertwine your finances over the course of your entire working lives, and make joint plans for each others caer how can you expect them to have to take over the financial, physical and emotional obligation of taking care of you?

Yes, it is more difficult for single people to plan for their old age etc, but that is because by definition, they are single and therefore haven't got the safety net of another person to rely on.

* The people who constantly ask about your relationship status are rude and it is an appropriate question, no doubt.

But without being condescending, if you are happy and comfortable being single then Valentines day shouldn't be any issue whatsoever. I spent most of my (adult) life so far single and alone and the day never bothered me in the slightest, and now that I'm in a relationship the day also doesn't bother me in the slightest. While its not a celebration for single people, it also not a celebration for many couples either. It has always been and always will be a non-event for me, regardless of my relationship status.

Its just a made up day to sell cards, and if it makes you feel bad then that's something internal related to the importance you put on it and any feelings you may have about your relationship status (for want of a better term - I know, so "couple-normative").


* the reason relationships are seen as the norm and a goal for people is because for most of us it is. It's human nature to want to pair up in some fashion of sexual relationship. Most of us tend to do better when paired up, and we assume everybody feels the same way.

Unfortauntely, I don't ever see that changing as I think most people will be inclined towards relationships. If you are happy and content with your status though, why let it get you down?

The norm is for couples to want to have kids and start a family, and even now that I am engaged I have people ask about it. We don't however.

For the most it doesn't bother me because its simply I am happy and comfortable with my decision. The only time I ever get a twinge of discomfort at being asked is the times when that little part of me that might want kids awakes. I realise that its my own slight unease about it that makes me uncomfortable, not anything else.

* I don't really get this "marriage equality is so heteronormative" stuff.

LGBT people have a wonderful capacity to break free from traditional relationship models and conventional family life, and that's to be celebrated. But we can also choose to be more traditional if we wish.

Once married, we can define how our own relationship works.

But I resent the idea that living a life that more closely resembles my straight brothers and sisters is a betrayal of radical queer ideas. I more closely resemble my straight brothers and sisters than I do any radical queer ideologists so its own right my family life does.

In the past, the LGBT community was more non-conformist or non-traditional, because the non-traditional and non-conformist LGBT people tended to find it hard to hide in the closet. They therefore made up a probably disproportionate percentage of the LGBT community - not that was a bad thing, as we wouldn't be where we are today without their sacrifices.

But thanks to those sacrifices, the more traditional and bland of us are comfortable coming out. And we want to have what might be considered traditional and bland lives and relationships - not because we are trying to conform, but because its what feels right to us.

I'm quite happy on the couch watching crappy tv with my fiance, and doing the same things most straight couples do. Its what is right and natural for us, so if we were to ever betray our own nature it would be by trying to be different from the norm just for the sake of it.

Ambersky

flogg says
most people who use the term "privilege" aren't taken seriously in the first place.

Its interesting that you consider yourself in a position to judge who gets taken seriously or not while dismissing the notion of privileged positions.

I think its fine to have benifits to living in different ways but it seems to be only the state of marriage that is being put forward as one that justifys the state in trying to incentivise the institution it is frequently put forward as a healthier happier and more productive state.
"We know that married people tend to be healthier, happier, more productive, more stable, and less inclined to rely on state assistance than single people. Therefore they are more likely to contribute more to the state's economy through increased producitivity and less absences for illnesses, while also taking up less of the states resources through medical expenses, social welfare etc.

But the married people are happier and contribute more to society and therefore deserve more from society argument is a kind of unexamined myth that is beginning to be challenged
There has been some research into the truth of studies on couples and individuals which compare people of different marital or relationship statuses at just one point in time the results of such studies are open to different interpretations. True experiments are impossible, since people can’t be randomly assigned to get married or stay single, but longitudinal studies, in which the same people are followed over time, are better than the studies comparing people at just one point in time. Some of these studies contradict the unquestioned theory that married people are happier and more productive.
23 Ways Single People Are Better: The Scientific Evidence
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201405/23-ways-single-people-are-better-the-scientific-evidence

Also married people are not the only ones who have commitments or OBLIGATIONS to others. I see so many single people caring for elderly people who were once married and whos partners have died. Just because you married someone does not mean that you will be the one who will care for them in sickness or in health. Single people comprise a large percentage of carers in Ireland. Obligations to a partner are not the only obligations people live with.

The idea that most friends wont want to take responsibility for one another is one that will have to be got over if you are single and there isnt a partner. Like I said a lot of us are in that position or are going to be in that position and its our job to think creatively about it
I notice the huge resistance there is to this idea that friends or any other way of relating other than a married couple can be there for one another and resistance especially to the idea that benifits married people get are deserved by anyone else.

floggg

Ambersky wrote: »

Its interesting that you consider yourself in a position to judge who gets taken seriously or not while dismissing the notion of privileged positions.

I think its fine to have benifits to living in different ways but it seems to be only the state of marriage that is being put forward as one that justifys the state in trying to incentivise the institution it is frequently put forward as a healthier happier and more productive state.
"We know that married people tend to be healthier, happier, more productive, more stable, and less inclined to rely on state assistance than single people. Therefore they are more likely to contribute more to the state's economy through increased producitivity and less absences for illnesses, while also taking up less of the states resources through medical expenses, social welfare etc.

But the married people are happier and contribute more to society and therefore deserve more from society argument is a kind of unexamined myth that is beginning to be challenged
There has been some research into the truth of studies on couples and individuals which compare people of different marital or relationship statuses at just one point in time the results of such studies are open to different interpretations. True experiments are impossible, since people can’t be randomly assigned to get married or stay single, but longitudinal studies, in which the same people are followed over time, are better than the studies comparing people at just one point in time. Some of these studies contradict the unquestioned theory that married people are happier and more productive.
23 Ways Single People Are Better: The Scientific Evidence
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/living-single/201405/23-ways-single-people-are-better-the-scientific-evidence

Also married people are not the only ones who have commitments or OBLIGATIONS to others. I see so many single people caring for elderly people who were once married and whos partners have died. Just because you married someone does not mean that you will be the one who will care for them in sickness or in health. Single people comprise a large percentage of carers in Ireland. Obligations to a partner are not the only obligations people live with.

The idea that most friends wont want to take responsibility for one another is one that will have to be got over if you are single and there isnt a partner. Like I said a lot of us are in that position or are going to be in that position and its our job to think creatively about it
I notice the huge resistance there is to this idea that friends or any other way of relating other than a married couple can be there for one another and resistance especially to the idea that benifits married people get are deserved by anyone else.

I have zero issues with singletons getting all the benefits of marriage - provided they also take on the obligations, and not just in the voluntary capacity you suggest (which I imagine would mostly be relatives of each other).

For example, if you think you and your friend should get the same tax benefits as a married couple I am ok with that as long as both enter into a legal binding and enforceable commitment to maintain and support one another financially, and give each other claims on the others assets which can be enforced through the courts in the same way as maintenance payments between separated and divorced spouses. You would both also have to have legal claims against the others estate on your deaths.

That would of course mean a life long obligations, even if you fell out with one another or one of your financial circumstances changed. The only way to break that link would be if the dependant person either married or entered into a new binding financial relationship with another friend (in each case allowing at least a 3-4 year separation period between the two friendships as required for a dissolution of CP/divorce).

Because if you want parity with marriage, then that's what would be required.

The privileges of marriage arent handed out free - they come with reciprocal obligations and any divorced person will tell you they can come at a steep price. The State doesn't hand out those privileges unless you are willing to make a life long financial commitment to each other, and there's a heavy price to pay to break that - just ask anybody whose can through a divorce!

You haven't made any attempt to show how that price of admission would be paid by single people who get those benefits. And until they do, they shoudln't get the same privileges.

After all, if single people could provide each other with the same benefits, but could still walk away from each other for free if they changed their mind, they would be in a (completely unjustified) position of privilege versus their married counterparts.



And while I am not the arbiter of who gets taken seriously when using the word privilege, each of us can make our own judgments in that regard as well as observing the way in which those arguments are viewed by our peers. And people who throw the word around too easily are viewed by many as cheapening it.

You of course are fully entitled to come to a different conclusion though.



PS - you know you are free to just marry a single friend and get all the legal benefits if you want. As long as they are EU national, you don't even need to pretend to be doing it for any reason other than the tax breaks.

of course then you would be tied to them financially for life, but you would have your equality.

Ambersky

You know I'm not actually sure what financial and legal benifits are given to married people. As I said I know same sex couples who are at a loss financially because they are now assessed as a couple as well as welfare recepients who get less because they are considered a co inhabiting couple. I'm also told that many tax benefits have been amended to make things equal for both married and single people, giving married people the choice to be as two individuals or as a couple.
At one time it was argued that men, especially married men had to be paid more than women because they had to support families. Women were told that we could have equal pay for equal work when we had the same commitments and obligations a married man had and untill then we were going to have to settle for earning less.
Marriage is so often put forward as special status deserving of more favorable treatment socially morally and financially. A lot of the argument in favour of gay marriage, its special nature, its deserving nature, its bigger contribution to society, sounds just like the conservative argument for the special nature of marriage. The anti gay marriage groups usually see themselves as protecting the special status and privileges of marriage even if that's only as a perception. The defensiveness hostilely of both groups to any argument that is seen as questioning the special nature of marriage is remarkably simular .
I think if people were willing any financial or legal benefit that is given to married people could also be given to single people, couples, single parents etc. We all have commitments and responsibilities. Some of us are called to devote more of our lives to others and that isn't based on marital status. I'm questioning the sense of Entitlement and defensiveness of marriage which I think has been illustrated very well in previous posts. I'm also putting forward positive ideas about single people, questioning the idea that marrieds contribute and deserve more. I'm looking for equality and not just for married people.

floggg

Ambersky wrote: »

You know I'm not actually sure what financial and legal benifits are given to married people. As I said I know same sex couples who are at a loss financially because they are now assessed as a couple. I'm also told that many tax benifits have been ammended to make things equal for married and single giving married people the choice to be assessed either way. At one time it was argued that men especially married men had to be paid more than women because they had to support families.
Marriage is so often put forward as special deserving of more favourable treatment socially morally and financially. A lot of the argument in favour of gay marriage its special nature its deserving nature its bigger contribution to society sounds just like the conservative argument for the special nature of marriage. The defensiveness of both groups to any argument that is seen as questioning or threatening to the special natur of marriage is the same.
I think if people were willing any financial or legal benifit that is given to marrried people could also be given to single people, couples, single parents etc. We all have commitments and responsibilities. Some of us are called to devote more of our lives to others and that isn't based on marital status. I'm questioning the sense of Entitlement and defensiveness of marriage which I think has been illustrated very well in previous posts. I'm also putting forward positive ideas about single people, questioning the idea that marrieds contribue and deserve more. I'm looking for equality and not just for married people.

I have no issue with anything which affirms or distigmatises single status.

But I think the idea marriage is some undeserving privilege or that tax benefit should be equalised (which you suggested) is an disingenuous and I'll informed because it doesn't make any attempt to actually consider what marriage entails.

I don't think any person should be entitled to the legal benefits and protections without making some form commitment or sacrifice in exchange, and if you wish to have the same benefits as a married couple then you should do so under the same conditions.

And as you never made any effort to address how that could be done for single people, or that marriage comes with commitments and obligations, do find it hard to take the equality argument seriously.

Ambersky

It could be argued that the EU is already equalizing tax benifits.

The Equal Status act not only covers discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender but also of Civil status which says you cant discriminate against people on the grounds of them being single, married, separated, divorced, widowed and civil partnered.

The idea that equality can't be given to people untill they prove they deserve it by showing that they have the same responsibilities and commitments as others who see themselves as making all kinds of sacrifices and therefore deserving more respect or allowances, is a familiar but old attitude .
Remember that's the very same argument that was used against equal pay. It was argued you couldn't give women equal pay for equal or equivalent work because women just didn't have the same responsibilities or commitments as men.
Its also the same argument used by the anti gay marriage side saying that the word marriage should not be given to same sex unions because they dont deserve it not having the same responsibilities or commitments as male female couples because they cant produce biological children of their unions. They too argue that male female couples contribute more to society than same sex couples if not only for the fact that they actually produce children.(remember Im not arguing for this position )

Not all countries have the same rules for married people by the way. This almost punishing attitude in Irish law towards those who want to separate saying that married people have to be separated for so long before they can get divorced , etc. seems to be an Irish thing that came as a kind of reassurance to the anti divorce lobby. Its not necessarily a thing that makes married people more deserving of anything or a measure of any kind of worth.

floggg

Ambersky wrote: »

It could be argued that the EU is already equalizing tax benifits.

The Equal Status act not only covers discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender but also of Civil status which says you cant discriminate against people on the grounds of them being single, married, separated, divorced, widowed and civil partnered.

The idea that equality can't be given to people untill they prove they deserve it by showing that they have the same responsibilities and commitments as others who see themselves as making all kinds of sacrifices and therefore deserving more respect or allowances, is a familiar but old attitude .
Remember that's the very same argument that was used against equal pay. It was argued you couldn't give women equal pay for equal or equivalent work because women just didn't have the same responsibilities or commitments as men.
Its also the same argument used by the anti gay marriage side saying that the word marriage should not be given to same sex unions because they dont deserve it not having the same responsibilities or commitments as male female couples because they cant produce biological children of their unions. They too argue that male female couples contribute more to society than same sex couples if not only for the fact that they actually produce children.(remember Im not arguing for this position )

Not all countries have the same rules for married people by the way. This almost punishing attitude in Irish law towards those who want to separate saying that married people have to be separated for so long before they can get divorced , etc. seems to be an Irish thing that came as a kind of reassurance to the anti divorce lobby. Its not necessarily a thing that makes married people more deserving of anything or a measure of any kind of worth.

The Equal Status Act does no such thing as regards the tax situation. It is expressly stated not to apply as regards any measures or actions required by law - which would include taxation.

In fact the Equal Status Act expresaly allows for some preferential treatment for couples and families.

I am also not aware of the EU taking any measures to require parity between single people and couples as regards taxation, and do not believe that the EU has any competency to do so as its a private matter for each state to determine.

In any event equality law does not always require equal treatment - and there are times where to do so would be unfair (see in particular the provisions relating to discrimination on grounds of disability - equal treatment would be patently unjust in those circumstances).

As for the rest of the post, the position and circumstances of married and single people are patently unequal, and therefore it would not be appropriate to treat them in the exact same manner.

For example, you have continuously failed to demonstrate how the position of the two could be equalised for inheritance tax purposes. If you want us to allow a single person nominate a friend to recieve their estate tax free, do you also think the two couple should have a legally enforceable obligation to leave a legal right share to one another as the same way as married couples are? Should there also be provision to support and maintain each other while still alive?

If not, you are treating the single person more favourably. If your only answer is to do any obligations for married couple, then what you are really arguing for is to do away with marriage - which is a different argument, but one which few would agree with.

It's disingenuous to keep arguing that they should receive equal benefits without showing how equal obligations can be imposed.

Also, what's the justification for the preferred tax treatment? For married couples it reflects their maintenance and support obligations, the fact that the help build their assets together or support one another in the business and financial endeavours, and to facilitate family stability.

Why should the friend receiving the property benefit when they may never have done anything to help accumulate it in the first place. It would be a totally undeserved windfall for them. What's the rationale for the state foregoing the inheritance tax in such circumstances?

Any exemption from inheritance tax is a benefit or right of the surviving recipient, not the deceased, so we need to consider it from their perspective. What have they done to justify receiving the estate tax free? And how would the state identify deserving and non deserving relationships to the deceased if not (solely) through the marriage relationship.

Can any friend recieve it no matter how superficial the relationship - and even if they have made no reciprocal commitments to the deceased?

Please do explain all of this because I am interested to see what you have given any thought to the how's or why's of the allegedly discriminatory laws you seek to changes.


The position of single people v married people is very different from straight couples v gay couples or women v men.
In the last two cases, each group is capable of performing the same or substantially the same roles and functions, and so the rules are capable o being easily applied on an equal basis.

But you cannot say that for single people v couples. The rights and obligations of marriage are imposed by virtue of the relationship between them.

The relationship between a married couple and that between are two single friends differ significantly in a number of aspects as we both know. They cannot be compared as like for like.

There is no way in the world I would want to ever enter into a quasi marital legal relationship with any of my friends. I love them but I am and wish to remain utterly independent from them. It would therefore be absurd for the state to treat us as if we had done so.

The thing is though, if we get marriage equality you will have a choice to do so. You can have the choice to marry any of your single friends, regardless of gender, maintain a platonic relationship and still recieve all the rights and obligations as other married couples.

That way you can have exactly what you want - equal treatment of your relationship as that of couples.

Is that something you would wish to do? Or that your friends would be willing to do?

My bet though is that even if you wanted to, none of your friends would like to do so, because in order to recieve equal privileges to married couples you would have to give something up - your legal independence from one another. That's a heavy cost most are unwilling to pay for a friend.

So again, it's not that I have anything against single people. I am one myself in the eyes of the law and have never had a problem being taxed on that basis.

It's that I think the argument that single people and married people can be treated equally is either dishonest or else shows a fundamental lack of understanding of marital rights and obligations.

Ambersky

The EU ended the marriage bar in this country in 1973 and brought in the right to equal pay for equal work in 1974, as well as laws prohibiting discrimination on grounds of gender or marital status in recruitment and laws governing maternity leave in 1981.
Tax individualisation brought in by Charlie McCreevy is frequently thought of as being anti marriage and is often criticised for this.
All of these changes were resisted because giving men and married men in particular more favorable treatment financially was seen as a way of protecting marriage and the family. Equality was seen as being anti marriage and anti family. All those arguments were about the perception that men had more commitments and obligations and until women could demonstrate how equality would work, to the men in charge, they couldnt have it.

The arguments being put forward here for the superiority of marriage, the ideas that married people are happier and give more to society and deserve economic privileges sound so like the pro family anti gay marriage arguments that I looked around to see if I could find some. Sure enough the Iona Institute was there to provide further insights. They dont see themselves as opposing equality either they just think marriage is special and think people in different situations should be treated differently. Isnt that the same argument that being put forward here against my idea of single equailty.

“Those on the No side have argued that calling the referendum ‘The Marriage Equality Referendum’ contains an implied value judgement about the nature of equality and suggests that those voting No are opposed to equality.....
That is quite correct. Those of us who will be voting no in May are not voting no to equality. Instead we’re voting to ensure that different situations are treated differently

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=3836

The Iona Institute seems to make almost identical arguments in favour of married people as those in this thread but it does also recognise the contributions commitments and needs of couples and people who are in non conjugal relationships, ie single people. Actually the Iona Institute seems to be more supportive to single people than some of the previous posters who seem to have come across the idea of the rights of single people for the first time treating it almost as an absurdity.

flogg if you really do have to have suggestions for ways to govern the rights of non married people and the obligations they would have to take on before you could take them seriously The Iona Institute has already had a go at that for you on page 6 of Domestic Partnerships:A response to recent proposals on civil unions. http://www.ionainstitute.ie/assets/files/civilunionweb.pdf

While so many pro gay marriage people are in agreement with anti gay marriage people on the importance of marriage thats not what Im worried about. What Im worried about is the superior position, the self congratulatory attitude, the elevation of sacrifice and the perception of themselves as the arbitrators of who is to be taken seriously and whos not.

The Iona Institute makes some quite inclusive suggestions for domestic partnerships but the problem is they dont want to let same sex couples into the Special group of Married People.
Thats all the pro gay marriage people seem to be objecting to, not being let into the club, they dont mind there being a club or the notion of exclusivity they just want to be let in. Once they are in, it seems some pro gay marriage people dont even see the outsiders to that situation being an issue, for example there has been remarkable ignorance towards single people displayed in this thread. I think this is because we have been working on the issue of marriage equality for so long we have been viewing others as simply non marrieds and these people have been marginalised.
I hope marriage is legalised for LGBT people but I hope equality does not end there and that all kinds of people and relationships are valued and appreciated.

floggg

Ambersky wrote: »

The EU ended the marriage bar in this country in 1973 and brought in the right to equal pay for equal work in 1974, as well as laws prohibiting discrimination on grounds of gender or marital status in recruitment and laws governing maternity leave in 1981.
Tax individualisation brought in by Charlie McCreevy is frequently criticised as being anti marriage and is often criticised for this.
All of these changes were resisted because giving men and married men in particular more favorable treatment financially was seen as a way of protecting marriage and the family. Equality was seen as being anti marriage and anti family. Still is it seems.

The arguments being put forward here for the superiority of marriage, the ideas that married people are happier and give more to society and deserve economic privileges sound so like the pro family anti gay marriage arguments that I looked around to see if I could find some. Sure enough the Iona Institute, once again, was there to provide further insights.
The Iona Institute seems to make almost identical arguments in favour of married people but it does also recognise the contributions commitments and needs of couples and people who are in non conjugal relationships, ie single people. Actually the Iona Institute seems to be more supportive to single people than some of the previous posters.
flogg if you really do need some suggestions for ways to govern the rights of non married people and the obligations they would have to take on before you could take them seriously The Iona Institute has already had a go at that for you on page 6 of Domestic Partnerships:A response to recent proposals on civil unions. http://www.ionainstitute.ie/assets/files/civilunionweb.pdf

While so many pro gay marriage people are in agreement with anti gay marriage people on the importance of marriage thats not what Im worried about. What Im worried about is the superior position, the self congratulatory attitude, the elevation of sacrifice and the perception of themselves as the arbitrators of who is to be taken seriously and whos not.

The Iona Institute makes some suggestions for domestic partnerships but the problem is they dont want to let same sex couples into the special group of married people. Thats all the pro gay marriage people seem to be objecting to not being let into the club. Once they are let into the club it seems some pro gay marriage people dont even see outsiders to that situation even being an issue. Many Pro gay marriage people dont have any issue with the club itself once let in they could be even more conservative than the crowd thats already in there not having thought of anything but themselves for so long.

Can you please explain how the inheritance tax situation should work in your preferred equalised world?

How are issues such as shared finances, legal right shares on death, shared finances, non-financial contributions to enployment and business endeavours, maintenance obligations etc to be applied to single people?

In what type of circumstances will it apply to and how are they to be recognised - bearing in mind you raised inheritance tax and argued for equality for single people as opposed to forms of relationship other than marriage.

Is it by nomination only? Can a person recieve tax free inheritances from multiple friends? From a friend and a spouse?

Or is it only for specific relationship types? Do they have to be registered or not? And what sorts of rights and obligations should the persons in said relationships be subject to?

Would the requirement to form some sort of relationships first before receiving the rights not undermine the "single" status of the people concerned?

I don't necessarily expect an answer on any of these, and it's only one example of how the law treats married people, but I want to see if you've given any thought to what equalising the positions of married and single people would mean - and whether any single persons would actually want equality in those circumstances.

I would add that if you could propose a model which provide equity in terms of both rights and obligations I wouldn't be opposed to the idea in principle.

But it's the seaman dinf all the "privileges" of marriage without wanting to incur any of the obligations or experiencing any corresponding loss of independence that is absurd in my book.

Ambersky

flogg says
I would add that if you could propose a model which provide equity in terms of both rights and obligations I wouldn't be opposed to the idea in principle.

Not being against the idea in principal I have to acknowledge is a good start. If we have got that much in common on the basic principal I think the finer points could be worked out, it might be a long time , but i think it could be done.
Ive read there is work being done and legislation enacted in Alberta Canada and New South Wales Australia on what they are calling Interdependent Relationship rights.

Just quickly looking for your succession law issue I found this. I wasnt able to get access to the paper but you might . Anyway there are people with much more legal expertise than I thinking about and working on just how you could work out issues like inheritance rights etc.

The Concept of Coupledom in Succession Law byBrian Sloan

University of Cambridge - Robinson College, Cambridge; University of Cambridge - Faculty of Law

October 1, 2011
This paper compares the eligibility of informal cohabitants to bring claims against estates under the English Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 and the Irish Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. It argues that in spite of different methodologies, the two Acts cover a similar range of relationships. It also contends that both English and Irish Law nevertheless adopt an unduly narrow approach to eligibility as compared to the law in New South Wales inter alia, particularly in the light of some of the special features surrounding succession law.

floggg

Ambersky wrote: »

Not being against the idea in principal I have to acknowledge is a good start. If we have got that much in common on the basic principal I think the finer points could be worked out, it might be a long time , but i think it could be done.
Ive read there is work being done and legislation enacted in Alberta Canada and New South Wales Australia on what they are calling Interdependent Relationship rights.

Just quickly looking for your succession law issue I found this. I wasnt able to get access to the paper but you might . Anyway there are people with much more legal expertise than I thinking about and working on just how you could work out issues like inheritance rights etc.

I was more interested in your thoughts on it - not other people's.

If you think the current inheritance/gift tax treatment of single people is unfair or discriminatory in comparison to the more privileged position of married people, you should be able to articulate how to achieve equality, beari in mind the obligations in relation to inheritance and maintenance that are imposed on married couples.

You have so far failed to even put forward any argument which did so - the closet was to point to voluntary care giving arrangements, which many married couples also undertake (and for which there is a separate state compensation mechanism, even if it is under funded).

It is instructive though that you have cited legal provisions relating to co-habitees and inter dependent relationships as example of a move to parity.

Firstly, the laws you refer to generally grant some form of inheritance rights or entitlement to a portion of a partners estate, but they don't seem to apply an exemption from inheritance tax.

Secondly, they are really not a great example of how parity might be achieved for single people, as those laws are dependant on the existence of some sort of relationship and mutual commitment and obligations. Usually a sexual/romantic Union is required, but even where it isn't (such as Alberta) it must otherwise be a committed inter dependant relationship akin to marriage.

In most cases therefore you aren't talking about single people - they are people in quasi marital relationships and therefore receive quasi marital benefits in certain areas. Similar to marriage, it's an assessment by reference to another person in a definable and legally recognised relationship - not a conferral of benefits on a single person in their own right.

So that is very different from what you appeared to be first arguing for.

Thirdly, the existence of those rights is again predicated on their being some form of mutual commitment and obligations towards each other in the first place (whether express or tacit).

They necessitate exactly the sort of sacrifice of independence and quasi marital obligations I pointed to as being necessary to confer quasi marital benefits on couples.

That is not something which can be applied to single people, since by definition you must be in a relationship to recieve them. And even where platonic relationships are recognised such as Alberta, it's still necessary to commit to financially supporting and maintaining the other, but while living and on death.

Those laws are generally intended to protect the weaker/non-property owning/lower income partner rather than to privilege, and on the whole impose as much burden as benefit - just like marriage. Their main effect is to granny maintenance rights, rights over the other partners property and rights over the partners estate.

Any benefit conferred on one partner constitutes an obligation on the part of the other partner.

And the type of commitment and required of the parties and obligations imposed would not be viewed as a fair trade for the rights by most single people.


They don't actually impose any obligation on the state btw in most cases. I don't know about the tax codes in each jurisdiction but would imagine you have to actually marry to get the state conferred benefits - and as its open to the people involved to do so in each jurisdiction, that seems like a reasonable approach. They have the choice on which relationship they form, and so only providing state benefits for full requiring them to enter a full marriage if they want state benefits seems a fair approach.

Again, I have no issue with these laws and think they are worthwhile. But they are something very different from what you argued - which was to confer equal tax and inheritance rights on single people. These people aren't single, they are married in everything but name.

And they again the highlight that far from "privileges for better or better" as your misleading thread title argues, they are just as much about imposing obligations on partners as conferring benefits.

Ambersky

You've put a lot of work into reading those articles flogg.

flogg says
That is not something which can be applied to single people, since by definition you must be in a relationship to recieve them. And even where platonic relationships are recognised such as Alberta, it's still necessary to commit to financially supporting and maintaining the other, but while living and on death.

Remember Im arguing that single people do have commitments, take on obligations and are in relationships Im looking for a recognition of those relationships.

flogg says
Again, I have no issue with these laws and think they are worthwhile. But they are something very different from what you argued - which was to confer equal tax and inheritance rights on single people. These people aren't single, they are married in everything but name.

That's great flogg, to read you think laws like these are worthwhile.
You seem to be saying you see a group of people who's needs were not recognised who would benefit from new laws that catered for them in their situation. I think that is progress.
However I think people should be let decide how they wish to define their own relationships. Saying that people are married in everything but name is still insisting on seeing your own perspective, ie that of a coupled person looking for marriage as the norm. Its another example of seeing yourself in a position to decide who to take seriously or not and seeing yourself as being in the position to decide what other peoples relationships get called.
But still the recognition of there being an issue in the first place I take as progress.

floggg

Ambersky wrote: »

You've put a lot of work into reading those articles flogg.



Remember Im arguing that single people do have commitments, take on obligations and are in relationships Im looking for a recognition of those relationships.



That's great flogg, you are actually saying you think laws like these are worthwhile.
You seem to be saying you see a group of people whos needs were not recognised who would benifit from new laws that catered for them in their situation. Great we agree on something anyway.
There seems to be a problem in that you seem to be continuing to see everything from your own point of view i.e someone in a coupled relationship looking for marriage to be legalised and thinking of marriage as the norm. Single people in relationships you say are in a "quasi marriage". A lot of single people in relationships and in relationships for a very long time, know they are committed to one another but dont see themselves as and dont want to be married. There are a lot of different kinds of relationships.

I know for many people all this is a new idea but society will need to get around to looking at the needs of over 40percent of its population. That may happen after gay marriage is legalalised but for now like most changes the ideas and the basic principals are worked out first. The fine tuning of the idea and the how it is worked out can come later.

The LGBT community is often at the forefront of creating new ways of relating, although the focus seems to be only on married couples for the time being, I think it is useful to continue to look at the other ways we make family and relate to one another even if that is a challenge to people who see marriage as the norm.

In fairness I think you are moving the goal posts if you are now taking "single" to mean unmarried couples in committed long term romantic relationships.

At the start of this thread you talked about single people as meaning persons not in any form of romantic relationship at all - hence the complaints re Valentine's Day and the perception of gay and other people not being "whole" until they found a partner.

The two are very different things. So while some or all of the rules applicable to married people could conceivably be applied to people in LTRs on equal or similar terms (though per below I don't think they should) they could not be so applied to single people (such as property and maintenance rights or inheritance tax exemptions, which arise by virtue of the relationship between spouses or other persons, and therefore cannot be applied to single persons).

While single people will have many non-romantic relationships, they are generally not comparable to romantic partnerships. They are also not exclusive to single people, and married or partnered people will have the same types of relationships and responsibilities towards parents and relatives etc.

Very Rarely do those relationships involve the type of mutual commitment and shared maintenance and support that justify state protections being afforded.

As for the relationships between non-married couples, while I agree with the type of partnership laws referred to above, I don't see why they should go any further than they currently do (which is to provide certain minimum protections). I don't believe for example that the state should give them equal tax treatment to married couples.

It's not that I have anything against those couples, or see them as less equal. It's simply that assuming they have the right to marry, but choose not to, then they can't complain about not getting all the benefits of marriage. It is their choice not to do so - presumably because they do not want to incur the corresponding obligations of marriage (particualrly re divorce, and more rigorous rules re maintenance and support).

Assuming the state provides a marital system reasonably open to all couples it has done its job.

For the record, it's not because I am overly defensive of marriage, or refusing to see it from other perspectives.

I honestly just thought your original idea (equal treatment for single and married people) was not only a bad idea, but flawed, unworkable and lacking a full understanding of what marriage entails as a matter of law.

Contrary to your suggestions, I think it's me that has had the bigger picture in mind here. You seem to have focused only on the positive aspects of marriage ("for better or better") but continuously ignore the obligations it imposes.

My position is informed by my knowledge and understanding of the burdens and obligations which marriage entails (and the purpose of same) as much as anything else.

Ambersky

Contrary to your suggestions, I think it's me that has had the bigger picture in mind here. You seem to have focused only on the positive aspects of marriage ("for better or better") but continuously ignore the obligations it imposes.

Obligations dont have to be negative things and just as there are all kinds of obligations not just marital ones there are several kinds of single people, some in LTR are officially and some are in LT and some are in other kinds of relationships.

We are coming at it from different positions I wouldnt say mine is coming from a place of thinking of relationships as burdens but there are obligations and commitments for single people and I think there is a need for and will be recognition for that too no matter how incomparable and unworkable it might be though to be.
Any change thats ever come was said to be unworkable in the beginning.

floggg

Ambersky wrote: »

Obligations dont have to be negative things and just as there are all kinds of obligations not just marital ones there are several kinds of single people, some in LTR are officially and some are in LT and some are in other kinds of relationships.

We are coming at it from different positions I wouldnt say mine is coming from a place of thinking of relationships as burdens but there are obligations and commitments for single people and I think there is a need for and will be recognition for that too no matter how incomparable and unworkable it might be though to be.
Any change thats ever come was said to be unworkable in the beginning.

Sure, there are certainly non-marital relationships and commitments that should be recognised and supported by the state.

I would be fully supportive of care givers being supprted financially by the state for example. I can't remember how foster children or other quasi parental relationships are treated for inheritance tax purposes but would think they should also be given comparable treatment to children.

Treating those relationships as anything akin to marriage would be completely the wrong way to do it, because they aren't akin to marriage in so many ways.

It would be absurd to try to do so, and wouldn't in any way reflect the reality of the relationships involved. E.g. Full time carers need financial support, not shared tax credits.

You need to look at each relationship and commitment, and ask how and why the state should recognise, support or regulate it.

Allowing joint tax credits, a right of maintenance and inheritance rights doesn't meet the needs of a single person who acts as a full time carer for a relative. They won't pay tax, and their dependant relative won't have any assets to leave if they can't work.

What the carer needs is immediate state assistance.

The problem with the argument in the opening post is that it seems to assume that equality demand equal treatment in all circumstances, and anything less than that is wrong.

But that argument is patently wrong. Often times equal treatment would be inequitable - such as in the cases of disability or incapacity. You need to look at each type of relationship in its own right, and determine what it is the state can or should be doing in each case, and what justification has it for inserting itselfs into people's private lives.

Ambersky

I think you are drawing conclusions and making incorrect assumptions about what my posts seem to imply to you and therefore misrepresenting my position.
Nothing I can or care to do about that, we differ on some things and agree on others.
But
I really agree with this

flogg says
You need to look at each type of relationship in its own right, and determine what it is the state can or should be doing in each case, and what justification has it for inserting itselfs into people's private lives.

I think you will find that a lot of people currently married have questions about marriage and the way it inserts itself into peoples lives its not something that is unchanging or not open to question either. That too will have knock on effects on the lives of single people.

floggg

Ambersky wrote: »

I think you are drawing conclusions and making incorrect assumptions about what my posts seem to imply to you and therefore misrepresenting my position.
Nothing I can or care to do about that, we differ on some things and agree on others.
But
I really agree with this

I think you will find that a lot of people currently married have questions about marriage and the way it inserts itself into peoples lives its not something that is unchanging or not open to question either. That too will have knock on effects on the lives of single people.

To be honest it's hard for me to understand what it is you are arguing for because despite asking a number of times, I'm yet to get any explanation of how you think any equalisation should apply.