Hacker News Reader

Comment by lynx23 | Hacker News Reader

Whenever I hear "wedding" I wonder why the male is going for that risk. The obvious unfairness and non-equality during a divorce is the main reason why I never would get married. Its just illogical to put yourself that much at risk.

View on HN

I mean, disregarding "love" and whatnot, at least in the US, there are lots of bureaucratic benefits to it.

I'm not religious or anything, so a wedding in itself doesn't mean a lot to me, but my wife and I got married in no small part so we could share health insurance, help with her immigration, and lower our tax burden. I don't regret the marriage, I trust my wife, and we've been pretty happy for the last eight years.

People forget all the reasons gay marriage had to be fought for; no matter how solid a relationship is, the external privileges of having that status recognized matter.

(Also, few of the posters in this subthread are looking at the woman's side of the game theory)

I believe that seeking external recognition is only necessary when one is unsure and requires external validation to feel confident.

No, there are all sorts of very specific and sometimes tragic cases like "who is allowed at the bedside of their dying spouse in the hospital" where official recognition matters. The AIDS crisis produced a number of those incidents, but it's also happened to straight people as well that if you're not officially married you may find your partner's family having legal rights which you don't.

So, to sum it up, straight people marry so that one can not run away easily, and gay people marry for increased closeness? :-) In any case, this subthread was about the inequality between straight couples, so...

Well, as I am not married, this would also apply to my spouse and I. However, I dont feel like this is reason enough to marry, in fact, I never even thought about such a specific case. Death is painful, and likely will not go down as planned, so no reason to worry. See, not a gay marriage specific problem, just the way it is for unmarried couples.

Yeah, because these incentives matter for the fertility :)

Where I come from, public health insurance is a given, so no need to marry to obtain that basic "right". Marrying to fascilitate immigration is not unheard of, however, most cases I know are more about economic incentives then actual love. I can not speak about lowering tax burden, the system I am living in is apparently too different from yours.

Marriage is only worse, but having kids without marriage comes with most of the same risks and inequalities. Like what are the chances that the father gets custody?

The father only gets custody if the mother is proovably insane or basically unable to provide for herself. In all other cases, she is treated with extra priviledge.

In some countries divorce only leads to splitting assets acquired since marriage, not all assets. It's a lot more rational to do it then.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com