The best policy the Tories could introduce is a proper married couples allowance

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

That's kind of what I am getting at. Correlation but not causation. The people who get married would stay together anyway even if they were not married.

But will the people not married be more likely to stay together get guidance and try to resolve things more than married people.

Divorce is high, but I would say the average marriage lasts longer than the average non married relationship.

Even if it makes people think twice before splitting surely this is good (splitting without trying to work things out is the easy option in modern society).
A lot of our problems with the young are put down to broken family's and lack of positive role models.

Sir_Humphrey

Really2 wrote: »

Divorce is high, but I would say the average marriage lasts longer than the average non married relationship.

Not sure how you'd could work that out - a teenage fling is a relationship, but you would not expect it to last that long. I suppose the comparison would be with be a cohabiting relationship.

EDIT: If children aren't involved, then I do not see the moral issue in splitting up (my mutual consent). Not suggesting it should be done after the first row, but sometimes things just do not work out.

JonnyBravo

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

At least with the internet these loons can foam online without actually trying to take power.

It didn't stop El Gordo did it?

Pennywise

I think a potentially good topic has been side tracked by the marriage versus non marriage argument. Can we get back to the original topic?

For tax purposes, "marriage" has the same status as civil partnerships, so any objection of grounds of religion or cost of marriage is irrelevant here as any proposed transferrable marriage tax allowance would legally have to extend to all civil partnerships including same sex couples.

I would have thought that some form of "contract" i.e. either marriage or civil partnership was desirable for people living together and committed to eachother anyway - i.e. formalisation of next of kin, inheritances, ownership of property, etc., especially where children are concerned. Perhaps a transferrable tax allowance would be an incentive for people in informal long term relationships to formalise either by marriage or civil partnership?

The transferrable tax allowance is a brilliant idea, especially if extended to tax bands as well. It is completely absurd that a household where one person works and earns £70k per year pays more tax than a household where two people work both earning £35k. It's obvious that this is wrong and needs to be addressed. I worry that bringing rational debate on this point down to the marriage versus non marriage argument devalues the whole topic and makes us lose sight of the basic stupidity of the existing position.

How about transferrable tax allowances for people living together regardless of marital status?

Sir_Humphrey

Pennywise wrote: »

How about transferrable tax allowances for people living together regardless of marital status?

The rational solution would be for the state to only recognise civil partnerships, and keep the religious aspects of marriage to religious authorities. AIUI, non-Christian marriages need a separate legal registry office ceremony. Why not the same for any marriage? That would remove religious preference from the legal issue, which would be good thing in a free society IMO.

The transferable tax allowance is an interesting idea. The two problems I could see would be that it could be a powerful disincentive for the spouse to pursue a separate career if she/he wished. I think it would also be vulnerable to abuse by tax-dodgers. Just my initial thoughts on that.

Peelerfart

Anyone remember what children born out of wedlock were called ?
Seems so long ago now .

I had a friend who espoused the same theory as Mr W Horse. He's on his second marriage now, don't know if it's relevant but his second wife looks like a horse.

(well the back end anyway)

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The rational solution would be for the state to only recognise civil partnerships, and keep the religious aspects of marriage to religious authorities. AIUI, non-Christian marriages need a separate legal registry office ceremony. Why not the same for any marriage? That would remove religious preference from the legal issue, which would be good thing in a free society IMO.

I am not religious , but why not wipe out the whole country and replace us with robots that don't need relationships. Or remove beliefs and relationships from our needs (perhaps even reproduction also).

You solve the problem then.

I do worry about this free society we might get.:rolleyes:

Lotus-eater

movilogo wrote: »

UK divorce rate is more than 50%

Do you not understand sarcasm when you get married?

Anyway, so your divorce rate of over 50% still means you think people should get married does it?
Keeps the lawyers in business anyrate ........:rolleyes:

Sir_Humphrey

Really2 wrote: »

I am not religious , but why not wipe out the whole country and replace us with robots that don't need relationships. Or remove beliefs and relationships from our needs (perhaps even reproduction also).

You solve the problem then.

I do worry about this free society we might get.:rolleyes:

I think you may have misunderstood my point. The point I was making above was the legal framework for marriage, not whether you need relationships or not!

The_White_Horse

Lotus-eater wrote: »

I don't see why in the slightest why married people should have more rights than non married.
Who wants us to be married? The church, the people who know "what is right for us" and sometimes the state. We can ignore the church, because if you are religious, you are going to get married anyway.

The people who know what is right for us (ie people like you) think you know how we all should live, you project your personal worries and inadequacies on the rest of us.

Well here is a newsflash sunshine, nobody needs to get married, if you need to get married to stay together, then something is wrong with the relationship.
I'm sure many people get married because of social pressure, not helped by people like you.

I don't care or judge if anyone is married or not, I would like to have the same openmindedness from everyone else as well. But I certainly don't expect it, as idiots like you show very clearly.

I suspect you are going to answer "I presume you're not married then " and no I'm not, I don't have commitment problems, have kids and the only reason I would want to marry is because of social pressure on them.


I still don't get it, you aren't religious, yet you still want people to get married..... why?
Either you are a troll, a small minded bigot, or you think you know better than anyone else, therefore your way must be right.

What would happen if you lived in the middle of the amazon, would you still need desperately to get married then?
Civilization is just a thick layer on human life, get back to basics and see what really matters.

The only reason you are not married is because your partner has never asked you - despite you really really wanting him to. Its been so long now that you have convinced yourself of what you typed. The reality is, your bloke doesn't want to commit to you in case he finds someone/something better.

You know its true.