Can you give a consequentialist argument for or against the abolition of marriage as a legal institution?

For and against marriage:

For: It makes it simpler to make contracts involving marriage. For example, your company paying for health care for your spouse. This way, the contract only has to specify marriage, rather than having a copy of a document defining marriage.

Against: It seems silly to assume every couple would want the same rights. Some might want to share property. Some might not. If they just made contracts saying how they wanted to do it, or used a standard contract that was close enough, this would work better. It's implicitly prejudice against couples that can't get married. There will be legal trouble if they change it to allow polygamy, since, for example, some people will insist on getting health care for all their spouses. It's unlikely to include bestiality, since it wouldn't actually change any rights. It results in unfair tax policy. I consider it a bad idea for the government to get involved with anything without a good reason.

Personally, I'm against it existing as a legal institution.

I also thought that marriage discriminates against polyamorous people and promotes monogamy as the only acceptable relationship style. How practical could it be to allow people to marry 2 or more people and have all of their partners receive benefits? Why should their romantic partners receive benefits that close platonic friends don't? I also thought that the tax breaks they don't receive could go toward social welfare programs and things like education, school funding, parks etc. but I don't know how much of a difference that would make.

I'm not 100% convinced but I'm leaning towards your anti-marriage as a legal contract argument.

They wouldn't let them all receive benefits. They'd make it so they'd have to pick a spouse, or start charging them for extra spouses.

I suspect the reason for the benefits is that they'd likely get their spouse benefits anyway, and due to a weird quirk in economics, this is one of a few markets where the less choice you have the better. Basically, if you could choose whether or not to get health insurance, the healthiest people would be paying more than their share, and want to leave, until pretty much the entire market is gone. Also, their work can choose their pay, so the health care doesn't really have to be free. And married people work better.

I also thought that the tax breaks they don't receive could go toward social welfare programs and things like education, school funding, parks etc. but I don't know how much of a difference that would make.

Or they could just make taxes generally lower, so taxes stay the same on average.

Ubuntu wrote:I also thought that marriage discriminates against polyamorous people and promotes monogamy as the only acceptable relationship style.

And against anyone who wants to assign rights to someone who isn't a romantic partner, eg a close friend, or even someone you closely share a code of ethics with.