timm1776

A lot of the rights and privileges you get in a legal marriage can also be obtained through contracts, wills, and other legal arrangements.

For example, if I married a woman the law would automatically give her a right to a share of my property (both during and after my life), the right to make certain medical decisions on my behalf, and the right to continued support should I break my vows. But with the help of an attorney I could also write up a will, medical directives, and contracts with a woman I love and give her all of those same rights WITHOUT going through a legal marriage with her.

My question is: what rights or benefits are ONLY available through a traditional legal marriage? What could my hypothetical wife get ONLY by marrying me, and not by signing some other kind of agreement with me or with the state?

All I can think of is the advantage of joint filing for taxes. As far as I know the only way you are allowed to do that is if you are legally married to someone.

Is there anything else I'm overlooking?

A lot of the rights and privileges you get in a legal marriage can also be obtained through contracts, wills, and other legal arrangements.

For example, if I married a woman the law would automatically give her a right to a share of my property (both during and after my life), the right to make certain medical decisions on my behalf, and the right to continued support should I break my vows. But with the help of an attorney I could also write up a will, medical directives, and contracts with a woman I love and give her all of those same rights WITHOUT going through a legal marriage with her.

My question is: what rights or benefits are ONLY available through a traditional legal marriage? What could my hypothetical wife get ONLY by marrying me, and not by signing some other kind of agreement with me or with the state?

All I can think of is the advantage of joint filing for taxes. As far as I know the only way you are allowed to do that is if you are legally married to someone.

Is there anything else I'm overlooking?

Every once in a while when I am out in public, I observe a couple where the woman seems much more attractive than the man.

Whenever this happens, I say to myself, "How did he end up with a woman like that? He sure is a lucky guy."

I can't say that I've ever really noticed the opposite...that is, I've never seen a couple and thought, "Wow, HE is much more attractive than she is. How did that happen?"

I don't know if this is because I am a man and simply do not notice these things, or because women really are more likely to choose an unattractive boyfriend.

Women of YA, please help me out! How often do you see couples where the man is more attractive than the women? Or to put it another way, how often do you see a couple and you think...."Wow. SHE is lucky to have a guy like that?"

Does this happen more often than when you see couples where the woman is more attractive... or is it about the same?

Imagine that charming and attractive men would be interested in you no matter how you looked. Regardless of your weight, clothes, proportions, etc. you'd still be desirable to the kinds of men *you* find desirable.

BUT, everyone else in the world would still react to your appearance as they do now. Your girlfriends, kids, and your female workmates, for example, would still judge you based on how you look to the same extent as they do now.

If this imaginary scenario happened tomorrow, would you change how much effort you put into maintaining your appearance? If so, how drastically would you change the way you dress, eat, style your hair, etc?

The more detailed and thoughtful answers are more likely to win!

What kind of tax system would you establish in your country? What do you think would be the fairest, most efficient, and most practical way to raise revenue for the government?

Under what circumstances should the government be able to force its citizens to be vaccinated against diseases? What kinds of diseases should have mandatory vaccines? Airborne diseases? STD's? Any vaccines that are available?

Suppose there was a disease that would kill 10% of the public if nothing was done. A vaccine is developed which will prevent the disease most of the time, but causes death 1% of the time it is used. Should the government require everyone to get that vaccine in order to save 9% of the people, even if that means deliberately sentencing 1% of the people to death?

Why do you think most of your political opponents hold different beliefs than you do? Is it because they are misguided anduninformed? Or is it because of their character, such as being selfish, lazy, amoral, or just plain evil?

If you think it's both, how many of your opponents are misguided vs. evil? Which factor tends to motivate them the most...their ignorance, or their lack of values?

Information about a law proposed in Maryland (from the Baltimore Sun):

"Under Jewish law, a man must grant his wife a divorce degree, or get, to end a marriage. Without it, a Jewish woman is unable to remarry within the faith...If passed, the measure - up for hearings this week in House and Senate committees in Annapolis - would require those filing for divorce or not contesting one to also file an affidavit stating that they had removed all religious barriers to remarriage within their power."

Is this a violation of the separation between church and state? Is this a good idea?

What do you think of this proposed law in Maryland?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/ba...

What do you think of this idea?

Every year, when you are paying your taxes, there would be a sheet with a list of all government departments/programs. Every department and program would have a check box next to it. Taxpayers could check off the programs and departments they wished to fund, and choose what percentages of their taxes go to those programs.

For example, a war supporter could choose to give 70% of his taxes to the military, and 30% to transportation. Another citizen might choose to give 0% to the military, and 100% to environmental protection. This way, government spending would truly reflect the will of the taxpayers.

Under this plan, you'd still have to pay taxes, but you'd get to directly choose how they were spent. What do you think of this idea? Do you think it would be good, or is this "too much" democracy?

Please add your political affiliation (Republican, liberal, communist, moderate ...whatever fits you) with your answer. Detailed answers are best!

The beliefs of your parents? Life experiences? Personal study? Religion?

Once I was reading a magazine that was reviewing what seemed like the ultimate music website. This website had information on nearly every band imaginable, and would list the bands that had influenced them as well as the groups they would later influence. It would also list bands that had a similar sound, and had everything linked together.

Unfortunately, I can't remember what the name of that site was, and I can't seem to find it. Does anyone know of a website like this, or any good websites or blogs to help one discover new music and bands they may have never really tried?

What is it that makes you think the news media is biased, in either direction? Do you think there is any alternative explanation for such bias, or evidence that the media may be biased to the other side?

Generalized answers are acceptable, but specific evidence and examples are preferred.

This is a new program designed to help states reduce STD's, babies born out of wedlock, and welfare expenditures.

I can see where religious conservatives might support the abstinence message. But conservatives also claim to support the idea of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, particularly regarding the Federal government.

I don't read anything in the Constitution that empowers the Federal government to spend $50 million dollars to encourage people not to have sex. As conservatives, which is more important: respecting a strict interpretation of the Constitution, or promoting values you agree with?

This law allows an alleged father to challenge the paternity of a child with genetic evidence. If he wins (proves that the child is not his), he is no longer required to pay child support.

Men's rights advocates claim the law gives justice to men decieved into paying child support for someone else's child. Child advocates claim the law is not in the best interests of mothers or children, and will increase the state's welfare burden.

What is your opinion?

I am a right-libertarian. I believe in a very small, very weak government and prefer a laissez-faire approach. I oppose many forms of welfare, labor regulations, subsidies, and social programs.

However, I also believe all humans have equal rights, and that all people should be judged as individuals. In my opinion, men and women should be able to do whatever they want, so long as they have the ability, means, and consent of others involved.

I would like to consider myself a feminist, but it seems that many feminist organizations have a definite left-leaning orientation. Many feminist groups advocate things like universal healthcare, equal pay laws, or special legal protections for women. As a libertarian, I can not support using the state to achieve these goals, just as I would oppose laws against racist speech even though I hate racism.

Can I still be a feminist, if I oppose gender roles and discrimination, but NOT using the state to oppose them? Or must I be a progressive?

...Will those claiming a Republican conspiracy behind gas prices admit that they were wrong?

After all, if the Republicans maintain control of the government after the elections and prices stay down, they must not control the world oil market after all.

Or if the Democrats win control but gas prices go up again, it would also have to mean that the prices were outside of Republican control (or possibly that both parties manipulate prices).

Is anyone here willing to go on the record as stating that the only reason gas prices are down is because of a Republican conspiracy?

Why did you pick who you picked for each question? If the answers to the two questions are different, why didn't you choose the same person for both?

The U.S. introduces a new, streamlined immigration process that makes it easy for any law-abiding person to come to this country. Basically, immigrants would be held temporarily at border camps to check for health, criminal, and security risks. As long as they had proper ID and cleared background checks, they would be allowed to enter the country and put on a citizenship waiting list. The whole process would take 3-6 months.

The other part of the plan is that these immigrants would not be eligible for any public benefits beyond emergency healthcare, police services, and basic education. Anyone trying to enter outside of the easy, legal channels would be punished severly upon conviction. Immigrants would also have to enroll in English education classes.

It seems this plan would satisfy both sides. Immigrants could easily come here for a better life, without being a drain on other Americans or security risks. They would be encouraged to adapt to our language and culture. Agree?

I know the answer may seem fairly obvious, but I've heard different answers to this question. Some claim it's because these regimes are undemocratic and violate the rights of their citizens. Others claim it's because these regimes are not religiously extreme enough to satisfy the terrorist groups. I'm interested in this question because it's important to deciding how (or if) America should involve itself in Middle Eastern affairs.

For example, if the terrorists don't like U.S.-supported regimes because they are not democratic or liberal enough, would the terror groups be satisfied if the U.S. affected "regime change" and introduced democracy and liberalism to these countries?

Or if the terrorists are upset because the regimes are not "Islamic" enough, should the U.S. then support these regimes as a means of curbing radical, violent, religious extremism and intolerance?

Quite often people write questions or answers on here stating their belief in a 9/11 conspiracy. Most often, that conspiracy has the government orchestrating the attack, intentionally killing thousands of innocent Americans. The whole point of the conspiracy, it is claimed, is to start a war so that civil liberties can be destroyed, the world can be conquered, and the government/corporations can plunder the Earth.

To those who believe these conspiracy theories: Why haven't you taken up arms against the government? Or at least started engaging in some serious, active civil disobedience?

If I believed the government had done something like that, I would start or join a revolutionary group, and get to work immediately. I wouldn't waste my time with bickering on other partisan issues or one-upsmanship on political websites. Destroying the evil, neo-fascist regime would be my top priority. I think even most pacifists would agree.

So why haven't you done the same? Or HAVE you?