Hacker News Reader

Comment by grandalf | Hacker News Reader

Serious long term relationships are great. "Marriage" is a silly, bigoted custom that should just go away.

I fail to understand how you simply ignoring it is not a better option.

That would seem a more efficient, happy, and logical path to me.

I don't like X, therefore, instead of ignoring X, I think everyone else should stop doing X because I said so. Sounds silly when put that way, doesn't it?

Also, downvoted for implying my marriage is silly and/or somehow bigoted, ;)

He didn't say it in the best possible way but in essence I think the point is that if you want to guarantee to you don't go through divorce hell, simply never get married. Or married with rock-solid prenup, plus be very careful about what state you're living in law-wise. Easy? No. But probably easier than trying to single-handlely change laws and change lawyer culture.

That seems very much like saying "The best way to make sure your startup never fails is to not start one." Or "The best way to make sure you don't fail out of college is to not attend one."

It's odd how in so many other situations, HN readers would rather take the risky-but-personally-fulfilling path, even if the numbers don't quite work out. Yet when it comes to marriage, everybody seems to say "Don't bother because you may fail."

When it comes to long term romantic relationships, people say "don't tie your romantic relationship to a dangerous financial contract which is loaded against you."

The usual advice about startups, namely "incorporate and get everything in writing early" is very similar advice. Incorporation and contracts limit your liability in much the same way that avoiding marriage does.

It seems a lot of people here are tainted by the litigious society they live in, and have decided that marriage is the bad guy, a "liability", and want to stop everyone's marriages. I reject your viewpoint of my marriage and will remain in my non-litigious society. I feel a bit sorry for others.

I fail to see the analogy between a startup and a marriage, and I'm a bit curious on why so many others see it. A long bow to draw, I think.

I am in favor of people having serious relationships, long term and not long term. I just don't think the state or religious institutions ought to have anything to do with it.

Any commitment is only as strong as the people who make it. Marriage is a meaningless stamp on a relationship.

Serious long term relationships are great, but without some kind of well-understood commitment like marriage there's nothing keeping two people together for life.

When everything is going great in my marriage, I don't need a reminder that I'm obligated to stay with my wife. It's when things suck that my ring, my vows, and my marriage certificate are beneficial. They keep me there because I know that if I break them, I'd be a liar. And I know my wife will stick with me when things are tough because she's made the same commitment.

If marriage is silly, are contracts between employers and employees and between founders and investors also silly? If not, why?

Some differences between marriage and those contracts you mentioned...

* they have performance requirements * they aren't life long commitments

If you don't perform well as a CEO the board can fire you. And you don't get to keep half of their personal net worth either.

You make a valid point that when things are tough, marriage helps you stay together. But it seems like for the wrong reason (fear of divorce, rather than love of the person).

It also seems likely that if the other person know's it's difficult for you to leave, they may not try as hard.

This same problem exists when professors get tenure, when you sign a 2 year contract with AT&T, or any long term contract that locks you in.

You're certainly right about the effects of being in a long-term relationship/contract. That's why things work much better when one has an attitude of, "I'm in this for the long haul- I better make an effort to straighten things out," rather than, "It's hard for my spouse to end this thing so I can slack off and be selfish."

If marriage is silly, are contracts between employers and employees and between founders and investors also silly?

If your employment contract commits your entire lifetime to the company, then yes, it is silly, and will be deemed unenforceable in any court in the civilized world.

None of that is because your bond was sanctioned by the state or church... you might as well call yourselves "joined" or "committed" or "unioned".

Marriage is the term that only validates relationships deemed OK by the state or church. It is a mechanism of social control and if anything undermines the gravity of two people's commitment to each other.

No, marriage is fine. The question to ask is why should couples get tax benefits just by being a couple? The state wishes to have a stable or growing population, but marriage is no longer a prerequisite for that, nor is it a "booster".

So why should unmarried couples pay more taxes than married couples? Why should singles?

In some cases married couples pay more in taxes! The actual effect is to tax the lower earner more highly, which (if the two have separate accounts) puts more power in the hands of the higher earner (traditionally this was usually the man).

I agree that one's marital status should not impact anything relating to government services, including taxes.

Marriage used to be about survival. Two people together making more (food, shelter, money, whatever material) than two people separately, thus increasing the chances of surviving.

However, no later than maybe the 60's or 70's marriage seems to represent the need for a person to grow in life, personally and psychologically. It's about two people being together not because they couldn't survive alone but because they want to learn about life together and through each other.

That is, loving the other person by showing them their weaknesses and being loved by letting the other do the same. Rather than physical survival, the process of growing in life won't necessarily benefit for a life-time commitment.

This is reflected in the divorce rates.

People tolerate each other to the extent they are willing to grow. There's no other reason for marriage any more than to artificially keep the people together a bit longer, should one or both of them decide that they just met their extent sooner than they thought.

* * *

Disclaimer: I'm married. For me, it's good, I want to be married rather than just in a long-term relationship. We have a prenuptial agreement (for the case of a divorce only) to dissociate our marriage from our individual and financial lives. Most of our current spending and money is joint while we live together, which hopefully is a long time.

Is your assertion itself not bigoted?

Marriage is the sanction of two people's private agreement by a religious institution or a government. Who needs that?

Both religious groups and governments have bigoted policies about who may marry. There is really no defense of it. It's a crude, outdated custom, and any relationship is only as strong as the commitment of the people in it, no more so, no less.

[citation needed]?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com