Marriage

Post Reply New Topic

If they must, then the can of worms should
be tackled. There is nothing preventing
FOUR plumbers from forming a partnership.
Why impose arbitrary mores on the concept
of what kinds of partnerships can be formed
as a 'marriage'? Why not simply allow the same
business rules to apply - perhaps with pre-formed
contracts? Why give it this whole special status,
AND link it to something which has religious
significance?

Marriage entails obligations and duties - relationships should really have the freedom to define themselves. It's so medieval.

Marriage is a tradition, for one thing. People like their traditions. Plus it allows the couple a positive framework for thinking about and planning their lives ahead and how to make the relationship work. Not to mention that there are numerous legal and financial benefits. My husband and I like being married. Its also secure. You can't just break up or anything like that, for one thing. Of course I think a lot of people are rather silly about not allowing certain things. Why not allow gay marriage? I don't think marriage should have anything to do with gender. And let people adopt. And I'm all for legalizing polygammy if thats what makes those people happy. I once read an article that I thought was interesting. The article advocated having marriage certificates that expired after a certain number of years. You start out with a one year certificate. Then maybe do a three year one, then a five, etc. No more divorce that way, just go your separate ways when the certificate expires. No one in my family has ever gotten divorced, but I do know people who have been divorced and I guess the rate is pretty high, but its not as high as it used to be. Everyone wants to be married forever.

It's just a nonsense thing so the government can stick their nose in your personal lives. It's left over from agrarian times so that the man was somewhat assured his heir was actually his. We'd be better off sticking to pre-domestic partnership contracts and let it go through the courts like any partnership dissolution. Actually, by law it has nothing to do with religion, although religious folks like to think it does. It's simple a domestic partnership contract pre-determined by the government that does not really suit most current marriages and their dynamics. It doesn't protect you from anything. Your spouse can cheat and they can walk away with all the money before breaking up with you. They could take everything and sell it, then walk off with the money. In order to get anything enforced, you have to file with the court, then they have a hearing to decide what's what. It's still just a civil finding and they can counter sue forever if they want.

You are clearly not a sociologist or a historian Sopho.

Marriage is the work horse of the family and the family is the foundation of society, the primary socialiser. Indeed, a statement of such commitment or even the idea of it is structures to maintain a value system needed as a basis for teaching cooperation, compromise and responsibility to others to the next generation.
A simple partnership does not teach these things to the same degree as is needed in most cases to maintain the value consensus within society, this then cause’s degradation.

Honestly people- its just common sense. I'm not religious at all, but humans like many other mammals need reliable packs and marriage for humans ensure this. Just getting together where someone else is much more free (and likely)to 'run-off' does not ensure such responsibility or stability and neither does it teach it.
A marriage is a social obligation that is enforced by the norms of society also, whereas 'cheating' in a partnership is not so much looked down upon.

Marriage itself as a concept may have different implications when taken into cultural, religious or historical context - but regardless of these, it is still an effective model of encouraging social cohesion.

Actually there were more years of having multiple wives than years having just one and even in those times some religions still subscribe(d) to multiple wives. That's why history and society as some kind of concrete guideline is ridiculous and never holds up. Legally, it is a civil domestic partnership and nothing more. What's more, legally it never was anything more than that. It's a way to set up property rights and inheritence and that's it. It's the people outside the legal system who want to muddle it all up with the made up ideas of what it should be. The whole thing, including the legal view is nothing more than a manmade construct - in other words, it's all made up and has no intrinsic value at all.

The idea that is simply a natural connection is false. Very few mammals stick with the same partner for life. There is actually a natural urge to do the opposite. Sociologist and psychologists have studies this. Bonobos are closest to humans genetically.