volvoxvsmarla

People have already pointed out the legal and financial aspects. But I also want to address the philosophical aspect of your question, which I think you had in mind. And I think the answer I would give you is this one:

Marriage has the meaning that you assign to it.

I strongly believe that if we got rid of any legal and financial benefits of marriage, even if we made it explicitly illegal, there would still be a bunch (or even a lot) of people who would get married.

I would compare it to a house fire. If my house was burning (and there were no living beings in it) and I could save 5 things, what would I save? What would you save? I would take, for example, my favorite soft toy from when I was a kid, and my old box filled with diaries. Is this worth any money? No. Does it have any value? To me, it does. To you, it doesn't. Maybe you are a very rational person that isn't attached to anything (or to nothing material) and you would indeed make the smartest choices, saving your passport and documents and money. Maybe you would save a small gift that someone important has given you. Maybe you would save the first guitar you ever bought. You save whatever has value and meaning to you. And these things have solely the meaning and value that you have attached to it.

Likewise, people have different value and meaning attached to marriage. If you look at it from a rational, logical side - it has its legal and financial perks and benefits and if they weren't there, getting married would make no sense. But things don't have to make sense. The meaning we assign to rituals, things, concepts, aren't necessarily rational. They are, however, deeply personal.

So, as a side note, please beware of ridiculing people for their views on marriage or weddings, just like you wouldn't want to ridicule or belittle someone for other things that mean a lot to them. Always sharing the last piece of bread. Always giving a coin to a homeless person. Having a breakfast for 30 minutes every morning. A good night kiss on the nose from their partner. Drawing a dick in the first snow of the winter. Some things mean a lot to people even if they do not rationally make sense.

In the case of marriage, of course, some of the meaning comes from culture, history, and tradition. Marriage might have had different purposes than it has now, and surely the origins weren't that romantic. (Not saying, however, that marriage has to be romantic.) But it is there. It is important to some people simply because they have, at some point in their life, decided it is important for some reasons, rational or irrational, social, cultural, and hopefully personal too. To them, it makes sense, it has meaning, it has value. And whatever marriage or a wedding ceremony mean - you decide.

So the question you should be asking is not whether or not you should get married, it is what marriage means to you. Does it have any benefit or value in your eyes? Are the legal benefits enough for you to get married? What is your stance on divorce? Do you feel like you would get "closer together" with your partner? Would you feel it would make things harder to separate? There are a ton on questions like these that you can ask yourself, I hope you get the jist. There are not right or wrong answers. The only thing that is important is that the meaning you assign to marriage is (about) the same as the meaning your partner assigns to marriage. You can both not care about a spiritual meaning, but just get married for the benefits. You can both be a type of "whatever happens, we don't get divorced, til death do us part". You can be "we'll keep reevaluating whether we still belong together". You can also be "we get married because we have children and this is practical". Or "we get married because I am hot and you are rich and when one of us loses their asset we split". Or "we just want a fancy huge ass party to show our love in this very moment and celebrate it with our friends and whatever comes afterwards is secondary". It doesn't matter what your view is, it matters that you guys agree.

I actually do because we tried to swear less when we had a baby

Now it's hard to stop even if I am not around my baby or swear word hating spouse

His health issues have been in the news lately

His health issues have been in the news for like two decades. There's always another new article on how he has severe health problems and will die anytime soon. He's been terminally ill and dying since the millennium panic

I'm amazed no one has pointed out the possibility that this was staged by Putin himself as a prerequisite to enforce greater surveillance, military and police presence, claim opposition and Ukraine to be terrorists, and so on. This is, besides a malfunction, much more likely than a failed assassination attempt that went this badly, doesn't have a suspect, and got reported on.

Again - there is and must be a distinction between the blame, responsibility and guilt of an 18 year old uneducated soldier, nurse etc and a political leader. But this does not automatically absolve the former from all responsibility and guilt. You should and hopefully do focus on the latter's guilt and responsibility, as it is much larger than the others'. Focussing on the people who follow orders is not what I would advertise for and this isn't the intent, it is actually the exact opposite. By differentiating different aspects and kinds of guilt you have tools and language at hand to talk about it without putting everyone in the same boat.

It is not a black and white issue. Everyone got blood on their hands - you and me included - just in different amounts, in different ways.

Very honestly - I've still not read the book entirely and I have started because I felt some feeling of guilt myself for being a Russian living outside Russia. I think that's actually exactly what Jaspers, along with his students (the book is basically a dialectic lecture written down with results of work of his class from one semester), was trying to figure out. So I am not the best person to lecture you about that.

From as far as I have read these distinctions are exactly what allow people to talk about guilt, responsibility, trauma, the past, etc, without judging everyone by the same standards. Like, a criminal is judged by the court who defines for a crime they committed. A politician who took part in ordering crimes will be judged by the victor of a war. A soldier (just like a secretary) will be judged in dialogue with others and by his conscience for their individual actions, even if they were following orders. And a normal person who looked away or didn't actively do their best to stop the atrocities that happen in the world, well, this person's metaphysical guilt can basically only be judged by a metaphysical instance itself, be it God or another undefined transcendence. Basically all of us bear the latter.

They are very distinct and do not have the same repercussions. It is without doubt that political leaders have a much different, much more facetted responsibility for crimes committed. And we should focus on that. But this does not clean the people who followed their orders from all guilt, and their responsibility and crimes (against humanity) will be judged, just in a different way.

Edit: I've added a better phrased summary in my original comment above, since I have realized that translating German political philosophy isn't my strength exactly.

In the aftermath of World War II, Carl Jaspers formulated in Die Schuldfrage that there are four types of guilt (/responsibility). Criminal guilt, political guilt, moral guilt, and metaphysical guilt. It is a great distinction in general. Yes, political leaders bear a different kind of guilt for the actions than the soldiers, but acting on clearly morally wrong commands do not obliterate guilt from the soldiers. Just like everyone who basically didn't give their life in pursuit of the good and the right bears some metaphysical guilt for what is happening in the world.

Edit: I realized that, since I am neither an English native, nor very articulate in philosophy or politics, I would rather ask perplexity for a summary. So here it is: Karl Jaspers, in his work The Question of German Guilt, distinguishes four categories of guilt and assigns specific instances to each:

1. Criminal Guilt:

   Definition: Violations of objectively provable laws that are legally considered crimes.

   Instance: The court, which determines the facts and applies the laws in formal proceedings.

2. Political Guilt:

   Definition: Arises from the actions of statesmen and the shared responsibility of every citizen for the government of their state.

   Instance: The power and will of the victor, especially after a lost war, as in the case of Germany after World War II.

3. Moral Guilt:

   Definition: Refers to individual actions for which every person is morally responsible, even if carried out under orders.

   Instance: One’s own conscience and dialogue with others.

4. Metaphysical Guilt:

   Definition: A shared responsibility for all injustice in the world, based on human solidarity. It arises when one does not do everything possible to prevent injustice.

   Instance: God or transcendence.

Jaspers emphasizes that this differentiation is meant to avoid simplistic or generalized accusations of guilt. He rejects the idea of collective criminal or moral guilt for an entire people, arguing that guilt is always individual.

Jesus Christ no no no, I take it back, I take dying from a cold please

From my knowledge, here in Germany, there was a strong flu wave this winter. Basically everyone I know got a severe and long RTI, but I mostly know other parents of kindergarteners, so there is a big bias. However, it wasn't even localized to my area, my family is in another part of the country and similar story there.

I am subscribed to a kind of weekly questionnaire about RTI by Robert Koch Institute, there is also a report attached to it. I remember reading that there was, indeed, a stronger RTI and flu wave this year.

About a month ago I had the flu - the real flu - for the first time either in ages, or in my life, and I actually had gotten vaccinated in autumn, and man, I thought I was dying. For two weeks I couldn't do anything. Just looking at the stairs gave me endocarditis. I never run fevers and I was just popping painkillers to keep it under 40 degrees. That was nuts. So during and afterwards I mostly been thinking about three things: 1. I would have died for real if I didn't have some basic protection from the vaccine, 2. I want a vaccine against the common cold as well, and 3. Jesus Christ please I don't want to die from a stupid cold or flu, at least make it Covid, but that's such a lowball way to go

I'm not so sure what cardboard/paper you mean? If you mean something like the paper cups that coffee comes in, they also contain plastic. Dirty paper/cardboard can also not be recycled, so your pizza carton ends up in a landfill or burned. And what do you mean by foil? Genuinely curious.

In my area a lot of takeout places now offer reusable options for a deposit. Usually it is a cardboard with plastic lining container if it is one way. Except the Asian takeout places, they are all over the place from classic black plastic to aluminum containers to styropor to - circling back - the plastic carton stuff.

I am always amazed how everyone is so focused on billionaires only