Tories=Bigots..... proof if needed

peterg1965

sjaypink wrote: »

Yes, with my point being- how does this necessarily equate to marriage? Would it not be more beneficial to incentivise couples who stay together, rather than automatically suppose the most 'successful' parents will be those who have married?

I would guess that the overwhelming majority of couples who stay together, are actually married or will eventually marry.

Mr_Mumble

I really can't tell if half the topics on this board are supposed to be serious or not! (Presuming this one is meant to be a joke thread given the OP's final paragraph and the ridiculous comparison between racism - people can't choose their race! - and delineating between cohabitation and marriage).

WhiteThierry

peterg1965 wrote: »

I would guess that the overwhelming majority of couples who stay together, are actually married or will eventually marry.

Thats only because its seen as the done thing. If marriage didn't exist would we invent it now? No. There's plenty of bad parents out there who are married, marriage didn't make them good parents, did it? Besides my original point was not about the pro's and cons of marriage, more about the descrimination against those who choose not to.

Blacksheep1979

WhiteThierry wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8463907.stm


any policy of tax incentives for marriage in my opinion are bordering on racism and definately decriminatory because if you are not married for whatever reason it clearly puts you at a disadvantage.


im too ugly to find a wife, and now the government is discriminating against me for it, cheers for kicking a man when he's down! :mad:

Ugliness isn't a race thing and as far as I'm aware all races in this country are allowed to marry?

BuyToLie

sjaypink wrote: »

Really? Well, since I'm such a caring poster I shall therefore refrain from calling you both a pair of grade A twats

How did you get round the filter?I am actually going to stay with my wife due to the financial enhancements of staying together.

ukcarper

mitchaa wrote: »

Only the underclasses vote for labour.

what makes you think they vote

WhiteThierry

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

Ugliness isn't a race thing and as far as I'm aware all races in this country are allowed to marry?

ok racism was the wrong word, religious descrimination is the word i was looking for, as atheism is a faith and a true atheist would not get married.

sjaypink

peterg1965 wrote: »

I would guess that the overwhelming majority of couples who stay together, are actually married or will eventually marry.

The long term stat trends are skewed (< not the right term, but I'll run with it ) somewhat I think by those who have been married for a long time, and whose values are that they place huge importance on the stability of their relaionship, and famiy unit IYSWIM.

My problem with incentivising marriage over co-hab is that it will have no effect to how children are bought up. Of course, unless you also change societies ever changing values back towards regarding a life long relationship as something to strive for... in which case marriage would not be necessary anyway

Thats about as clear as mud , but I am very firm in my view that it is good values that create decent families, and therefore marriages. Simply encouraging more marriages will not magically create happier families.

Mr.Brown_4

Genuine question.

If I were to take more than one wife, for example as a practising Mormon, would I be eligible for an ISA?

ukcarper

It would be good for us as you would be eligible to be locked up