This came up in another topic. I think this could be an interesting discussion.
This came up in another topic. I think this could be an interesting discussion.
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.
I really fail to understand this. If marriage is a legal contract, how can it not be legally recognized, when by its very nature is defined by being a form of contract? I suppose you could always call them civil unions and have marriage as a religious term, but that is kind of stupid honestly. As Say said in the other thread, just call the spade a spade and be done with it.
The religious aspect was primarily introduced as means of sealing the contract (before the eyes of God or whoever), so really the religious aspect is largely irrelevant, especially since the religious aspect is NOT legally recognized, but the real marriage happens when signing the legal documents. The bold is definitely irrelevant to the religious aspect of marriage. Marriage often has a religious component, because religions themselves often developed a theology surrounding marriage.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?
Marriage at its base components is essentially just a legal contract that binds two individuals of different households into a state of shared living, property, and other rights such that they are treated as a single unit.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.
Re the Forever: Just have the "forever" part of the marriage contract be the default, but allow for the terms of marriage contracts to be negotiated. But as divorce is always an option, the temporary "5-Year Plans" of marriage seem a little unnecessary. Yes some spouses may have a hard time convincing themselves to get out of a marriage, but I somewhat fail how to see that would be different even with the "5-Year Plans" in place. One option is to require that married couples visit marriage counselors every so often, but that would be too much unnecessary bureaucracy.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
5-year marriages? What a PITA that would be. We already have to keep track of passport expiration dates, my husband's green card, etc. We don't need to worry about our marriage expiring. LOL. And what, go through the expense of getting married every 5 years? And it wouldn't save money for people getting divorced because the expense there is about who gets what and who gets custody of the children, not whether or not to stay married. Figuring out who gets what and who gets custody would happen regardless of whether you actually had to get divorced or whether your marriage just expired.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Last edited by Logos; 01-20-2008 at 01:25 AM.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
i've been procrastinating about posting in this thread. i do think this is a very important topic and i happen to have a lot of thoughts and feelings about it. i know this will be a very long post and am hoping that some will take the time to read it and respond.
historically, amongst other things, marriage was supposed to be the solution to a lack of compatibility. that is, the rules of marriage helped people to transcend problems connected to intertype relations. the strengths of a spiritually based marriage helped people to do this. societal patriarchy reinforced this and enabled it. the man was the leader of his household and the woman was supposed to follow his lead.
a couple of things happened over the last several hundred years and in the 20th century specifically which helped to change how marriage worked. first, with the industrial revolution, men became disconnected from their farms and families and were made to be cogs in the machine, subject to the will of the corporation. since the industrial revolution, most work has turned into this, with the exception of some entrepeneurship and the exceptionally wealthy. but basically, men's role has become somewhat undermined as things have played out over the last several hundred years, which enabled women to assume much greater "power" within the context of relationships, and in society than previously seen.
i put the word "power" in quotations, because in the larger scheme of things, how much power do any of us really have? but to get back on point.....
with the advent of birth control and the loosening of social restrictions on women, and because some men abused their power in their relationships with women (domestic violence, sexual abuse etc) women became more motivated to assess their relationships and became more powerful consumers in the game of relationships since they no longer depended upon men for survival; women could theoretically depend on themselves. a woman who could not depend on herself, could depend on the welfare state to provide state aid and to collect money from the father of her children so as to support them financially.
this was a costly trade-off in my opinion. would women rather deal with the state? or skillfully deal with their husbands? i kind of think of this as an Fi related dichotomy in a sense. because, in a game of survival, i would much rather have a partner by my side fighting with me than independently deal with big brother for my and my children's welfare. in a very obvious way, the power of the union of marriage has been undermined and the state has grown bigger and profited from it.
this has all resulted in the nature of long term relationships/marriages being entirely redefined. a marriage could last....or not, since if it doesn't work out, you can get divorced if you want. and the result of divorce is the redistribution of the finances that it takes to operate 2 households rather than one. who benefits from this? the legal system and lawyers, landlords and real estate agents. the couple's financial power is essentially divided. many women ended up on the short end of the stick with this (when the husband worked and had a lot of money to pay a high priced lawyer) and many working men ended up with a hefty child support bill, and living in an efficiency apartment or with their new girlfriend.
the trouble right now is that both partners in a couple usually have to work these days. you can no longer lead a middle class lifestyle on one person's income, like my mom and dad did. granted - we did not live lavishly, but we lived. i could not maintain a similar lifestyle for myself and my children on one income alone.
the emotional issue is that most of us, when we get married, continue to expect "until death do us part"; and we have this expectation clearly - otherwise why would we have gotten married? this expectation can lead to denial of the severity of problems when they occur and denial of the context we are living in these days. our cultural context does not support marriage. we live in a context that supports divorce, a context that supports robbing couples of the power of their union. and an individual couple's denial serves as a block to correctly identifying and solving marital problems. so when you get divorced, the Bible is right, two who have become one, are essentially ripped apart, and if you have kids, it completely turns your life upside down.
there's nothing quite like a divorce to help you realize just how much big brother has all us by the balls.
i'm kind of getting down on "business" in a sense...we certainly all have choices about the way we live our lives - the goods we purchase, where we live, what we choose to do for work and honestly i'd rather live here than anywhere else. america is the leading edge of the evolution of the human species.
but my questions are: where is all of this going? how does a society of weakened families function effectively? does our weakened status inhibit our ability to handle outside threats? are we living in a transitional time where all of these questions are getting worked out and some good solution will come from it? or are we headed for some sure holocaustic disaster as outlined in Revelations? when young men have no fathers to show them how to be men...how does this affect the overall culture? aren't such men simply incarcerated or given mental health medications when they cannot behave? what price do we pay for incarcerating our men?
the topic of marriage in a sense is a very Ni topic. how will all this play out over time and what the hell does it all mean.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
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
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Originally Posted by FDG
<3
.
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.
But people will never let that happen--all the more reason to just get rid of it.Originally Posted by FDG
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.Originally Posted by Diana
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.
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.
People? Who gives a shit? Only two people are involved, I doubt that people will go around bothering themOriginally Posted by thehotelambush
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
People think it should be legal and yet so many disrespect such a law.
*sigh*
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Originally Posted by FDG
to be clear, I'm not saying it's okay for people to have sex with animals
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?Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
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...Originally Posted by Joy
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Originally Posted by Joy
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.Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
Well, if they want to, why not? Unless the animal feels bad for itOriginally Posted by Joy
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
.
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.Originally Posted by Joy
I realise it must seem like a small thing... just one word after all, but it's important I think.
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).
Wikisocion
Socionics Links
Enneagram Links
A Socionics Test
Other Socionics Tests
Socionics Test Rating Project
Socionics types and Music Preference
Personality Traits of American Cities / Counties
Interesting Psychology Articles
Personality Traits Correlations
A Biased Reading List
Google Scholar Alerts
Type movie suggestions
Random Pictures Thread
Interesting Articles Thread
Best Countries To Emigrate To, Possibly
Definitely the forever part must be there. Otherwise, there is the simple solution of not getting married.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
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.
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)Originally Posted by FDG
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.Originally Posted by Joy
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
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.Originally Posted by FDG
![]()
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.Originally Posted by Joy
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
It's not simply a contract, it's a legal entity. lol I love talking about legal entities.
.
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.
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
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.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
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.Originally Posted by Joy
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.
There are ways of MAKING it last...unless someone is just plain unhappy.
SEE Unknown Subtype
6w7 sx/so
[21:29] hitta: idealism is just the gap between the thought of death
[21:29] hitta: and not dying
.
<3 Diana it must've been tough, it's good you could do it thoughOriginally Posted by Diana
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.
Why else would they leave? And why should anyone be expected to MAKE it last if it is no longer logical to do so?Originally Posted by Clover