Should marriage be legally recognized?

[Joy]

This came up in another topic. I think this could be an interesting discussion.

[Joy]

I'm stuck between "I don't know" and "Probably not". In theory I'm against the idea of marriage being legally recognized, but I'm not sure what the actual affects that would have.

On one hand, marriage is a religious and cultural practice and it's ridiculous to legally bind someone to you for those reasons. Then again, some people need that shit in order to have a sense of security in their lives... which I'm fundamentally against, but whatever. Who am I to tell them what to believe or feel?

On the other hand, relationships are partnerships, and it makes sense for them to be legally recognized to protect both people in the case the partnership dissolves. I could see the existence of a common law marriage making sense for this reason as well... And in cases where there's a law suit or insurance settlement, marriage ensures that one's partner will be protected. It is also practical for when one partner dies.

[FDG]

Definitely, but there should be no distinguish. A man should be able to marry an horse, a woman should be able to marry a kitten, etc

[Joy]

Definitely, but there should be no distinguish. A man should be able to marry an horse, a woman should be able to marry a kitten, etc

<3

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Joy]

eh, the more I think about it, the more I think that marriage should exist... though I don't think there should be an illusion that it should or will last forever (until death, whatever) attached to the concept. I'm not saying that people shouldn't promise that, but the promise should be separate from the legal entity they create when they register their relationship with the government.

[Exodus]

Definitely, but there should be no distinguish. A man should be able to marry an horse, a woman should be able to marry a kitten, etc

But people will never let that happen--all the more reason to just get rid of it.

[Joy]

On the other hand, relationships are partnerships, and it makes sense for them to be legally recognized to protect both people in the case the partnership dissolves. I could see the existence of a common law marriage making sense for this reason as well... And in cases where there's a law suit or insurance settlement, marriage ensures that one's partner will be protected. It is also practical for when one partner dies.

Yes. Especially if for instance one partner does not earn a wage for instance. The legality of the marriage allows them equal benefit and protects them from investing in a relationship that should it dissolve leaves them with nothing.

But see... I hate thinking about that because of the tradition and cultural influences on this practice. I so want to say, "People shouldn't be dependent on someone else like that," but I obviously do not actually believe that. I'm not sure why I have such an immediate almost emotional reaction to the idea... probably because I was raised to believe that good wives stay home with the kids. This means that my issue isn't with this type of relationship, it's with gender roles.

[Creepy-bg]

absolutelyYes... it's one of the few human institutions that we actually got right. I agree that there should be no distinguishment either between different sexed/same sexed couples (although marrying a hourse might be taking it a bit far ) While I don't think that governments or whatever should be involved in this, I do think that we, as a society need to figure out/ work on restoring it to a more lifelong thing. Not that divorce should ever be banned, when it comes to that it's best I think for all involved to be able to part ways. It's just that the increasing standard of multiple marriages durring a lifetime is perpetuating the breakdown and loss of meaning of the instituion. Which as I said, I think has been and can continue to be a very wholesom stabalizing factor in society.

[FDG]

Definitely, but there should be no distinguish. A man should be able to marry an horse, a woman should be able to marry a kitten, etc

But people will never let that happen--all the more reason to just get rid of it.

People? Who gives a shit? Only two people are involved, I doubt that people will go around bothering them

[Joy]

Definitely, but there should be no distinguish. A man should be able to marry an horse, a woman should be able to marry a kitten, etc

But people will never let that happen--all the more reason to just get rid of it.

People? Who gives a shit? Only two people are involved, I doubt that people will go around bothering them

to be clear, I'm not saying it's okay for people to have sex with animals

[Joy]

absolutelyYes... it's one of the few human institutions that we actually got right. I agree that there should be no distinguishment either between different sexed/same sexed couples (although marrying a hourse might be taking it a bit far ) While I don't think that governments or whatever should be involved in this, I do think that we, as a society need to figure out/ work on restoring it to a more lifelong thing. Not that divorce should ever be banned, when it comes to that it's best I think for all involved to be able to part ways. It's just that the increasing standard of multiple marriages durring a lifetime is perpetuating the breakdown and loss of meaning of the instituion. Which as I said, I think has been and can continue to be a very wholesom stabalizing factor in society.

So how do you feel about convenience marriages? Marriages where people are getting married for the benefits of marriage but don't actually consider eachother spouses in a traditional sense?

[Creepy-bg]

On the other hand, relationships are partnerships, and it makes sense for them to be legally recognized to protect both people in the case the partnership dissolves. I could see the existence of a common law marriage making sense for this reason as well... And in cases where there's a law suit or insurance settlement, marriage ensures that one's partner will be protected. It is also practical for when one partner dies.

Yes. Especially if for instance one partner does not earn a wage for instance. The legality of the marriage allows them equal benefit and protects them from investing in a relationship that should it dissolve leaves them with nothing.

But see... I hate thinking about that because of the tradition and cultural influences on this practice. I so want to say, "People shouldn't be dependent on someone else like that," but I obviously do not actually believe that. I'm not sure why I have such an immediate almost emotional reaction to the idea... probably because I was raised to believe that good wives stay home with the kids. This means that my issue isn't with this type of relationship, it's with gender roles.

There's nothing wrong at all with people going at life that way, if you don't want to dependant or trapped or whatever than no problem. I just think we need to work on helping people realize that beforehand so they don't commit to something lifelong then have to break that commitment. Perhaps they could come up with something new, something like a partial 5 or 10 year marraige. You would then be able to have all the same legal benifits but at the end of the contract would either renew it or part ways... I don't know... it sounds complicated...

[Creepy-bg]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So how do you feel about convenience marriages? Marriages where people are getting married for the benefits of marriage but don't actually consider eachother spouses in a traditional sense?

[Joy]

On the other hand, relationships are partnerships, and it makes sense for them to be legally recognized to protect both people in the case the partnership dissolves. I could see the existence of a common law marriage making sense for this reason as well... And in cases where there's a law suit or insurance settlement, marriage ensures that one's partner will be protected. It is also practical for when one partner dies.

Yes. Especially if for instance one partner does not earn a wage for instance. The legality of the marriage allows them equal benefit and protects them from investing in a relationship that should it dissolve leaves them with nothing.

But see... I hate thinking about that because of the tradition and cultural influences on this practice. I so want to say, "People shouldn't be dependent on someone else like that," but I obviously do not actually believe that. I'm not sure why I have such an immediate almost emotional reaction to the idea... probably because I was raised to believe that good wives stay home with the kids. This means that my issue isn't with this type of relationship, it's with gender roles.

There's nothing wrong at all with people going at life that way, if you don't want to dependant or trapped or whatever than no problem. I just think we need to work on helping people realize that beforehand so they don't commit to something lifelong then have to break that commitment. Perhaps they could come up with something new, something like a partial 5 or 10 year marraige. You would then be able to have all the same legal benifits but at the end of the contract would either renew it or part ways... I don't know... it sounds complicated...

Why not just take out the "forever" part all together? Business partnerships don't have timetables like that. If people want to promise that for personal or religious reasons, it could be a separate thing from the legal entity they've formed.

[FDG]

Definitely, but there should be no distinguish. A man should be able to marry an horse, a woman should be able to marry a kitten, etc

But people will never let that happen--all the more reason to just get rid of it.

People? Who gives a shit? Only two people are involved, I doubt that people will go around bothering them

to be clear, I'm not saying it's okay for people to have sex with animals

Well, if they want to, why not? Unless the animal feels bad for it

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-bg]

Why not just take out the "forever" part all together? Business partnerships don't have timetables like that. If people want to promise that for personal or religious reasons, it could be a separate thing from the legal entity they've formed.

all I can say is that for me, something like that seems to be further breaking down one of the things that holds humanity together. The "forever" part is very important to alot of people and I don't see why it should be taken away to satisfy those who don't agree with it. I'd much rather see the partial thing adopted so that people of your opinion could have what their seeking out of a marraige and those who see it my way could have what their seeking.

I realise it must seem like a small thing... just one word after all, but it's important I think.

[Subteigh]

I'm for marriages (but only for lovey-dovey ideological reasons - not religious ones :wink: ). The state is unable to distinguish between marriages for love and marriages for financial convenience...so I think there should be a way for people to make a union easily without all the legal complications of divorce etc., but not necessarily call it a marriage. Such unions would be like buisness partnerships but on a subsistence\household level rather than for making profit. This would benefit society - at the moment, some people get married for financial reasons, while others lose out because they see marriage as 'sacred' (which I sorta do too, in a cheesy way).

[FDG]

Definitely the forever part must be there. Otherwise, there is the simple solution of not getting married.

[Joy]

FDG, I haven't seen humans having sex with animals, but I imagine it would be rather uncomfortable most of the time, to say the least

Diana, I totally agree.

bionicgoat, I don't think people know at the beginning whether or not the relationship will last... and I don't think they should have to. I suppose there's already something like what you're talking about in place though, in the form of prenups. Anyways.... I'm not saying that there shouldn't be religious or cultural marriages that are intended to be "forever", but I don't see why the legal agreement should be, outside of cultural and religious reasons.

[Joy]

Definitely the forever part must be there. Otherwise, there is the simple solution of not getting married.

This doesn't make sense if you're taking into consideration the reasons for marriage I mentioned in my post, or Diana or Subterranean in theres. (btw, I very much agree with you, Subterranean, except I don't think there's any realistic way of simplifying divorce, particularly because children are often involved)

[FDG]

Definitely the forever part must be there. Otherwise, there is the simple solution of not getting married.

This doesn't make sense if you're taking into consideration the reasons for marriage I mentioned in my post, or Diana or Subterranean in theres. (btw, I very much agree with you, Subterranean)

You simply divorce with all the consequences that Diana mentioned. Not saying that nobody should divorce, just that if it is marriage, then AT LEAST SOME idealism should be imprinted. Otherwise, just invent another form of contract with the clause "can be broken for x y z reasons", which is not marriage.

[Joy]

Definitely the forever part must be there. Otherwise, there is the simple solution of not getting married.

This doesn't make sense if you're taking into consideration the reasons for marriage I mentioned in my post, or Diana or Subterranean in theres. (btw, I very much agree with you, Subterranean)

You simply divorce with all the consequences that Diana mentioned. Not saying that nobody should divorce, just that if it is marriage, then AT LEAST SOME idealism should be imprinted. Otherwise, just invent another form of contract with the clause "can be broken for x y z reasons", which is not marriage.

Predetermined reasons? I dunno about that... As far as the contract, that's a good idea... I'm actually looking into setting up a family limited partnership, but I don't know if general partners are supposed to be related or married... I think they are.

[FDG]

Definitely the forever part must be there. Otherwise, there is the simple solution of not getting married.

This doesn't make sense if you're taking into consideration the reasons for marriage I mentioned in my post, or Diana or Subterranean in theres. (btw, I very much agree with you, Subterranean)

You simply divorce with all the consequences that Diana mentioned. Not saying that nobody should divorce, just that if it is marriage, then AT LEAST SOME idealism should be imprinted. Otherwise, just invent another form of contract with the clause "can be broken for x y z reasons", which is not marriage.

Predetermined reasons? I dunno about that... As far as the contract, that's a good idea... I'm actually looking into setting up a family limited partnership, but I don't know if general partners are supposed to be related or married... I think they are.

Supposed to? If you make a contract then you do what you want. Although I don't know how precisely the u.s. law works in that matter.

[Joy]

It's not simply a contract, it's a legal entity. lol I love talking about legal entities.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Khamelion]

If you love someone enough to marry them, the legal binding shouldn't bother you, unless you really don't want to be with the person.


Marriage...is personal IMO. I don't know how else to describe how I feel about it. I will get married, because I like the idea of having and keeping one partner that I love and care for.

If you don't feel you can make the commitment, don't do it. I probably will be very comfortable with the commitment. I've already found someone who I most likely will marry in the future so my perceptions is also biased.


Legalities help in some cases, such as health insurence and such.

[Logos]

I really do not understand this question. Marriage is a legal institution. So the question is analagous to "Should this legal institution be legally recognized?" Well if it is a legal institution than it should be recognized legally. Marriage is the legal partnership of two (non-traditionally, or more) people. Marriage has always come with its own array of legal benefits, even if they were not recognized as such. One of marriage's common purposes was a way to bind families. The religious aspect of marriage was a way to seal the deal so to speak such that the binding of the contract was made possible by a supernatural judge. Do you have to be married to be in love? No. Do you have to live together in order to be married? No. What separates a couple in love who are living together from a married couple? Legal benefits.

[Creepy-bg]

FDG, I haven't seen humans having sex with animals, but I imagine it would be rather uncomfortable most of the time, to say the least

Diana, I totally agree.

bionicgoat, I don't think people know at the beginning whether or not the relationship will last... and I don't think they should have to.

I do. If two people get married then in my mind they should know that it's going to last. Now it may not, things happen... people are far from perfect. And that's fine. But if your not even sure that the relationship is going to last- at the altar, or in the midst of the ceremony- your obviously not ready to get married.

It's probably my upbringing... my parents have been married their whole lives, something like 50 years now I think. All of my brothers who have gotten married are as comitted in their marriages as well and most likely will be the same as my parents. Both of the ones who are married took their time and were absolutely sure before committing to it. I think both were with their girlfriends for over 10 years before finally knowing they could commit for life. If I ever, god willing, scrape up a life of my own I'm sure I'll do the same.

[Khamelion]

There are ways of MAKING it last...unless someone is just plain unhappy.

[Creepy-bg]

As far as I'm concerned the man I married died in that car accident. I continued with the legal marriage for three years after that. When you have zero intimacy (not just physically, but more importantly emotionally - just being able to talk, have a real conversation, to connect, understand each other) when that's gone what are you salvaging?

When your children's well-being becomes an issue at his hands, the forever part doesn't matter. I believe in keeping my word, and I don't consider it a light or easy thing to end a marriage, my goodness if people only knew the kind of turmoil I've been through over this. But there's something greater and more important than marriage. Life. My kids' lives, and my life. I feel like the breaking of those legal bonds are actual physical bonds being broken, like I'm finally going to be free for the first time in ten years.

<3 Diana it must've been tough, it's good you could do it though

[Joy]

my parents have been married their whole lives, something like 50 years now I think

Sorry... okay, yes I see your point... in some people's minds, they have to believe that things will always be the way they currently are. Seems illogical to me. There's no way one could possibly know what the future will bring, and I don't see why they should pretend to in order to take advantages of the legal benefits of having a partner. But to each his own.

[Joy]

There are ways of MAKING it last...unless someone is just plain unhappy.

Why else would they leave? And why should anyone be expected to MAKE it last if it is no longer logical to do so?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Joy]

in some people's minds, they have to believe that things will always be the way they currently are.

I'll throw some socionics into the discussion. Static Ij.

I thought about that... but I don't know. There are a lot of other factors involved, such as Fe expectations and Fi security and whatnot. I would think that a static type wouldn't "have to believe", they just would believe. Different people probably do it for different reasons, as far as that is concerned.

[Khamelion]

There are ways of MAKING it last...unless someone is just plain unhappy.

Why else would they leave? And why should anyone be expected to MAKE it last if it is no longer logical to do so?

Well, sometimes people just want to give up because they are going through rough times. Also, even if someone is unhappy, there are ways of getting past that, for instance, talking about why they are unhappy with their partner and seeing if things can change. Maybe a partner has gotten into a funk, and therefore the other is being neglected. The neglected could bring it to their partners attention and MAYBE the partner may snap out of it...I mean anything could happen, there are countless senarios.

I wouldn't EXPECT them to make it last...I'd expect them to try before giving up though...relationships should be easy enough, but they DO need work...people are not perfect.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Exodus]

Definitely, but there should be no distinguish. A man should be able to marry an horse, a woman should be able to marry a kitten, etc

But people will never let that happen--all the more reason to just get rid of it.

People? Who gives a shit? Only two people are involved, I doubt that people will go around bothering them

I mean voters, at least in the U.S. There is strong opposition to gay marriage here, in case you didn't know. Animal marriage--forget about it.

I say this institution is more political trouble than it's worth.

[Creepy-bg]

my parents have been married their whole lives, something like 50 years now I think

Sorry... okay, yes I see your point... in some people's minds, they have to believe that things will always be the way they currently are. Seems illogical to me. There's no way one could possibly know what the future will bring, and I don't see why they should pretend to in order to take advantages of the legal benefits of having a partner. But to each his own.

Oh Jesus... I don't even have a reply for that one.... instead of fixating on all the different ways that first statement is just so compleatly off the mark I'll just end by pointing out that once again you've reduced something that to me is a spiritual/humanitarian matter into cold dead legalities and $$ signs.

I am now going to go eat a corndog, smoke a cigarrete, and try my utmost not to weep for your soul :wink: