Why get married?

Some same sex couples have children and/or have a desire for their state/country to recognise their relationship just like it does with a Herero couple if they want to upper it to a next level. Paying lower taxes is associated with marriage, as well as a combination of legally recognised visitation rights and parental custody. It's a lot easier when two people are married.

 

I think there are legal benefits you can get through marriage, depends what country you live in though I suppose. Some people see marriage as a sort of religious or spiritual thing. Weddings can be celebrations of relationships, however people don't really need to marry to have a celebration.

 

I don't think it's really correct to say having children is one of the biggest reasons for marriage. You don't *have* to be married to have children. Not every married couple has them, and also many married gay/lesbian couples do.

I am also of the opinion that marriage in general is pointless, but I wouldn't push that onto anyone else. For some people it's fulfilling and helps them feel less ostracized. There are also state-granted benefits to getting married almost everywhere, as others have already mentioned, lower taxes and such.

 

Benefits.

 

If you've been with someone for 40 years, and they end up in hospital on death's door, you wouldn't be able to see them because you're not married, and therefore do not count as family. (Stolen from Chad Michaels, RPDR)

If you're married, you stand a better chance of being allowed to adopt. (which relates back to your 'having children' point.)

If you love someone, you usually want to marry them. That's how the world has been for a very long time.

Denying someone a basic human right on the grounds of something like their race, sexuality etc, is just a crappy thing to do.

Because we will never truly have equal marriage rights until people stop needing to ask why.

Straight people don't need marriage.
Straight people can have kids without marriage.
They can walk down the street holding hands and nobody cares, they can be openly straight without fearing for their life, or fearing that their family will not accept them.
They can kiss in public without any repercussions, not even a dirty look from a stranger. (A gay man was arrested because he wouldn't stop kissing his boyfriend on a plane.)

LGBT+ people don't have that luxury. For the community, this is a huge win, and why? Because we have been granted a basic right, which we should have had from the start.
No-one needs marriage, but everyone should have a right to it.

---------- Post added 30th Sep 2016 at 07:39 AM ----------

Also, there was something happening a while back where your will would be revoked if you were in a civil partnership, meaning your partner would get absolutely nothing if you died.

 

I never understood why people feel the need to get married period.

 

^This.

It's not about money, or benefits, or children. For me, it's one of the greatest ways of demonstrating your love and commitment to another person. I adore my husband and he has changed my life for the better and that's why I wanted to be joined to him in marriage. Every time I see my wedding ring it gives me a warm, happy feeling.

It's also a matter of equality. Why should we be denied something that straight people have enjoyed for centuries? I could have opted for a civil partnership some years ago, with many (not all) of the rights I now enjoy as a married man, but it would have felt like a 'half measure'.

Marriage isn't for everyone and I understand that, but for those who want it, it should be an option.

 

Marriage historically was partly about putting the worry of men at ease that their baby was actually there's. The mother always knows that she is the mother, but the father can never be completely sure, even today. So a man and a woman would get married so that he knew any baby she had was his.

Is this fool proof? Of course not. And modern paternity tests can answer that question much better than marriage.

Does that mean marriage is meaningless? Well, no, I don't think so. I think marriage is still largely about two people agreeing to only have sex with each other. Having a baby is something that might not happen even for hetero couples, and while that is a reason why people get married, not having kids doesn't dissolve relationships, or make that agreement for exclusive sex meaningless.

 

Benefits (including visiting rights, pensions, children etc, etc) and cultural tradition.

 

Even if legally equivalent unions provide the same material benefits and protections as marriage, but are not marriage, marriage carries a certain additional social benefit that can't be measured in the same way.

The recognition a married couple enjoys as a unit is far greater than that of a civil partnership or a de-facto couple. The family unit is seen as much more integrated into a married person's life and people conceptualise that couple as an inseparable unit far more than they do with other unions which carry little social and historical weight.

It's the sort of equality that needs to be won even when there's no material difference between the rights and obligations found in heterosexual and homosexual relationships. It's about culturally equating same-sex and opposite-sex relationships and the entrenchment of a couple's status within society that says our relationships are in both function and value no different from those of straight couples.

That's a messaging effect that can't be dismissed easily.

 

Benefits and recognition, I think. You hear so many horrible stories online of people who lost their partner and because they weren't recognized as a family unit they've lost homes, businesses, even children. I heard of one man who wasn't allowed to visit his partner while he was dying in hospital, and that partner's awful (demonic, evil, malicious, etc.) family used it as a chance to bar him from saying goodbye, going to the funeral, or even knowing where his partner was buried. And then they took their business and his dog.

Ancedotal, yes, but damn. I'd take supporting an archaic tradition over that anyday.

 

I believe marriage is an expression of love between 2 people whether gay or straight and we should be allowed to marry who we want if two people are in love we deserve the same rights straight people have

 

In most countries, marriage requires a witness, the reason is simple and profound. Marriage is first and foremost a public event. The community witnesses and recognizes the union of two individuals, the community to a certain extent becomes involved in your relationship (whether we like it or not). If a divorce occurs, the community, again to a certain extent, is affected by this event as well.

Community recognition implies that a spouse is granted certain rights, and obligations, with respect to decisions of life or death, property, inheritance, children, etc. etc.

Yes, it is indeed a social construct, it is not a "natural" thing, but it has endured for a long time for a reason, primarily because it arises naturally out of a need within all of us to form profound and intimate relationships with another human being. Of course, this can occur without the shackles of marriage, but here is a video that may explain why this institution persists, despite the decline of religion and high divorce rates.

[YOUTUBE]kp4FLeY6F9g[/YOUTUBE]

 

We didn't go through all this bullshit the last 20 years to not use the right we fought for.

 

That too.

 

One fun reason for gay/lesbian couples to get married: piss off conservatives!

 

Because I want a family.

And if I can't get married because of personal circumstances, I shall forever vote agaisnt gay marriage, if I can't have it, no one can mwuahahahahahaha.

 

Lots of good responses here! For me, it definitely has to do with a good feeling (it just feels nice to say that someone is your husband / wife for instance), but obviously the associated benefits, both socially and economically.

Extra props to ForNarnia for her amazing post, it really sums it up very well. :icon_bigg And also to greatwhale (who posted a video of the School of Life channel ^-^ ).

I don't agree with AwesomGaytheist's reasoning. In fact, that's a sunk cost fallacy.

 

I actually got married so that if one of us were to die the other could inherit retirement assets without them going into required minimum distribution. What can I say, I'm a banker I worry about these things.:lol: We had already set up the other stuff--personal trust, medical power of attorney, etc.--but there is actually no legal way in the States to avoid the required minimum distribution thing without getting married. Plus, it's a little irritating that we spent a couple thousand dollars on legal documents that can now be mostly accomplished with a fifty dollar marriage license.

So that's why I did it. My husband had much more romantic notions about the whole thing and that's cool too. Generally speaking I like it when he gets what he wants so I guess that was reason number two, but really it was the retirement asset thing. To be honest after seventeen years together having a piece of paper from the state that said we were a couple seemed sort of silly to me. But you know what? I LOVE being married. I love talking about my "husband" without even a touch of irony when I use that word. It's been almost a year since we got married and I still sometimes tear up when I look at my ring, or his. It means something to me that I never really anticipated.