Single military personnel must live in barracks on base, while married soldiers of the same rank may live offpost and receive money to do so.
(at least that 's how it was back when I was in the army)
That’s the only case I’ve thought of.
I was single and lived off base.
But not as far off base as the OP.
Was it ‘official’? Or was your real address in the barracks?
What period of time was that? I got out in 1988.
Edit- BAQ? Separate Rats?
There ya go, DJ Motorbike! All you have to do is join the military and have your imaginary friend join at the same time, and achieve the same rank as you, and as soon as you’re out of boot camp, you’re livin’ in a sweet military-style bungalow, outside the gates!
Only two possible snags I can see: first, your imaginary friend, particularly if not in the same training platoon as you, might fall for another recruit. Love can be fickle that way.
The other snag, which strikes me as more likely, is the possibility that your imaginary fiancee will turn out to be so much more . . . yeah, never mind, I just noticed we’re still in GD.
Being married vs single does not place you in a protected class under discrimination laws. There is no unlawful discrimination.
How about offering a list of tangible “benefits” that a married individual has vs a single person? That way each can be debated on their merits, free of any perceived non-existing bias that may exist.
He’s so ugly that even if he proposed to himself he’d still be turned down?
Not by law, only by private contract.
There are also locations that are limited to singles. I do not see you protesting that.
“Depending on your situation,” you may also have to pay more as part of a married couple. Since you have been posting on this board for seven years and I never saw you protest the marriage penalty for Federal taxes, I will have to chalk this up to more hypocrisy on your part.
The “Jim Crow” comparison is so far over the top that I am just shy of issuing a Warning for trolling.
Would you like this thread moved to The Game Room as a joke or to The BBQ Pit as a rant, because it is clearly not a Great Debate.
(Or, to save you further embarrassment, I could close it for you.)
[ /Moderating ]
I agree, the government proved that marriage is not about love, it is about taxes.
The whole DOMA suit was based on a married same sex couple wanting a tax break ($363,000 of fed estate taxes, it was nothing about love) and the supreme court ruled that married people of the same sex should be able to pay less taxes than people who are not married.
so if marriage is an equal right and married people pay less taxes, then single people should be able to get married without a partner and be able to pay less taxes as well.
I think the OP doesn’t go far enough. If single people should be able to marry, why not zero-people? Let’s end this discrimination against the nonexistent.
Well, if I’m a narcissist shouldn’t I be able to get legal recognition of my love like everyone else?! 
There’s a lot of snark in this thread, but I see where the OP is coming from. If it were the case that the state benefits for married couples were significant, then I would be protesting right alongside the OP. And it’s not hard to show that the glib retort “well, you can always get married”, is flawed.
It just so happens that in the US at least, the benefits are not so huge. Indeed it’s debatable whether singles or couples get the better deal overall.
I feel like I’m reading a Terry Pratchett novel.
I am not against SSM. And this isn’t a gotcha in that sense. My point is that government shouldn’t be in the business of marriage. There shouldn’t be any penalties or benefits. Marriage should be a religious/private institution.
I’ve heard from proponents of SSM that there are 1100 federal benefits to marriage that same-sex couples aren’t allowed. Is that figure accurate? I don’t know ask a SSM activist.
My answer is to remove all benefits from everyone rather than have Washington dictate to it’s mewling subjects how marriage is going to be defined for everyone from now on.
I challenge anyone to give me a compelling reason why a single person should not be able to be considered married in a legal sense.
- Would it hurt anyone?
- Would it cause society to collapse if Washington redefined marriage to include singles?
Eleven hundred federal benefits for being married?
Name one.
I’m Canadian, but income splitting as a pensioner is all I can come up with. Apart from that, I got nothin’.
Because it never works out. In five years you’ll be taking separate vacations (which usually turns out to be fatal).
I’d rather it not be closed or moved. I apologize if it seems I’m trolling. I am trying to make a point.
I’m not against SSM.
I don’t think that Washington should be in the business of defining marriage. This is an example of a slippery slope that is more “possible” than polygamy/polyandry that I most often hear because there is no reason to deny a person marriage just because they’re single. As stupid as that sounds I feel it is correct.
I should have phrased it like this to begin with. But the thought occurred to me yesterday when I had very little time I wanted to post before I had to go. I didn’t have time to collect my thoughts and write a more compelling/less inflammatory OP I wish I had waited. I haven’t been able to return until now.
Could you provide us a definition of “marriage” that would allow a single person to join with…nobody? A marriage is a joining, so who or what is this hypothetical single person joining with?
That was the figure I heard thrown out by SSM activists.
Anyway, just being able to say you’re legally married is in itself a benefit.
In what way?