Is Marriage an Outdated concept?

**Beskar** · 12-12-2010, 20:08

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

"Typical example is two" is for one reason: children have two parents.

Marriage is a social institution all about children. It's about a stable environment for raising your progeny and protecting them.

All this guff about homosexuals and "straight" couples wanting to have their choice of "marriage" or "civil partnership is complete rubbish.

Two men together will never be married in the same way as a man and a woman.

Or you could read what I said, get rid of state intervention, then no one will care about homosexual marriage or whatever other than churches and people petitioning them for wanting to get 'married'. Keep it in the churches and let them decide.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 12-12-2010, 20:12

Originally Posted by Beskar

Or you could read what I said, get rid of state intervention, then no one will care about homosexual marriage or whatever other than churches and people petitioning them for wanting to get 'married'. Keep it in the churches and let them decide.

but I don't agree with you.

I'm not a fan of universal bastardry, among other things it is legally untidy.

**miotas** · 12-13-2010, 06:30

Legally untidy? What does that even mean? There are litteraly no situations in life where I have had to put on a form that I am an "illegetimate" child. Very few people care anymore whether a person's parents were married when they were born.

EDIT
Oh, and I also think that marriage should be private. If the tax breaks have something to do with raising children then why not just give the tax breaks to couples with children? There are plenty of married couples who never have kids.

**naut** · 12-13-2010, 11:08

Originally Posted by miotas

why not just give the tax breaks to couples with children? There are plenty of married couples who never have kids.

They do do that, at least in Australia, not sure overseas. But, here defacto relationships that reach a certain time-scale (generally longer than 2 years) are counted as being "married" from a tax perspective.

**Beskar** · 12-13-2010, 06:55

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

but I don't agree with you.

I'm not a fan of universal bastardry, among other things it is legally untidy.

Weird, since according to my suggestion, you can have marriage exactly as you (your church) want it without anyone telling you anything differently.

That homosexual couple said they had a 'marriage' at some random church? You can turn around and go "You are not married according to my beliefs". Your marriages can have the certificates and be certified by your church/sect. It could mean something, especially as you are before god making your vows, it means something to you, opposed to all these others who were just 'married' else where.

Since you are married, your kids wouldn't be bastards (at least by definition) anyway.

Also, it isn't legally untidy. I don't see how it is in the slightest and if anything, it makes things legally more tidy, as there are less loophoops, tax evasion, and all those wonderful things.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 12-13-2010, 11:00

Originally Posted by Beskar

Weird, since according to my suggestion, you can have marriage exactly as you (your church) want it without anyone telling you anything differently.

That homosexual couple said they had a 'marriage' at some random church? You can turn around and go "You are not married according to my beliefs". Your marriages can have the certificates and be certified by your church/sect. It could mean something, especially as you are before god making your vows, it means something to you, opposed to all these others who were just 'married' else where.

Since you are married, your kids wouldn't be bastards (at least by definition) anyway.

Also, it isn't legally untidy. I don't see how it is in the slightest and if anything, it makes things legally more tidy, as there are less loophoops, tax evasion, and all those wonderful things.

For a Socialist you're not big on ordering society, are you?

People should be married before they have children, and they should stay married after. That is not my belief, it is my conviction, and i believe it should be legislated for in the same way as racism is legislated for.

**miotas** · 12-13-2010, 12:16

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

People should be married before they have children, and they should stay married after. That is not my belief, it is my conviction, and i believe it should be legislated for in the same way as racism is legislated for.

I think that a couple should only have a child if they are in a relationship that is both stable and long term, but I don't see what that has to do with marriage. There are plenty of marriages that meet only one or neither condition and plenty of non-married relationships that do meet those conditions.

**rory_20_uk** · 12-13-2010, 12:34

Past performance does not predict future performance.

Having a child changes things and what seemed to be a stable long term relationship can suddenly come to an abrupt end without warning.

Of course Marriage isn't going to magically fix or break this.

**Louis VI the Fat** · 12-13-2010, 12:37

Weddings are romantic!

I'm going to marry with lots of flowers, a string quartet, and a gorgeous dress (the wife, me I'll wear a suit). I'll do the design of everything myself, except for the dress, which must remain a surprise.

Then I'm going to have children. Two daughters. They're going to wear cute little dresses every day. My own living barbiedolls. A different pair of shoes every day. Twice daily! No, another complete outfit for every activity altogether!

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 12-13-2010, 15:56

Originally Posted by miotas

I think that a couple should only have a child if they are in a relationship that is both stable and long term, but I don't see what that has to do with marriage. There are plenty of marriages that meet only one or neither condition and plenty of non-married relationships that do meet those conditions.

Now, I agree with this... and I am a realist, I genuinely think people should stay together for life, but this should not be forced on them.

Where I get confused is why you wouldn't marry. I just can't fathom that, if you love each other and you plan on staying together, getting married makes that more likely to work out, and gives you both protection if, heaven forfend, things do go South.

**Beskar** · 12-13-2010, 15:00

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

For a Socialist you're not big on ordering society, are you?

I am not authoritarian. I highly prefer people to operate independently within a framework, opposed to me having to tell them anything, as if it comes to them by natural instinct.

People living together share more than love. They share bank accounts, possessions, they take each other into account when making career choices, there are many interferences speaking on the level of finances and possessions. There has to be a framework and legal protection for that

Easy. Whoever has their name on it, owns it. If it is shared (and if it is, it would already been within its own contract), then it is shared. Pretty simple using already existing arrangements and contracts.

**Andres** · 12-13-2010, 15:08

Originally Posted by Beskar

Easy. Whoever has their name on it, owns it. If it is shared (and if it is, it would already been within its own contract), then it is shared. Pretty simple using already existing arrangements and contracts.

That would lead to an awful lot of very unfair situations in many marriages if that would be the rule. It would also lead to constant discussions between the couple whereas a legal framework would take that burden away. If you don't like the legal framework, you can make a good prenuptial agreement in which you organise everything, to avoid the burden of having to discuss and see who pays what/owns what for each and every single transaction.

The real world is not a simple place.

**Beskar** · 12-13-2010, 15:37

Originally Posted by Andres

That would lead to an awful lot of very unfair situations in many marriages if that would be the rule. It would also lead to constant discussions between the couple whereas a legal framework would take that burden away. If you don't like the legal framework, you can make a good prenuptial agreement in which you organise everything, to avoid the burden of having to discuss and see who pays what/owns what for each and every single transaction.

The real world is not a simple place.

How would it be unfair?

Let's say me and you got 'married', you owned a house and I owned a car. Since we got married, I now own half of your house, and you own half of my car and all this other nonsense. It should be if we ended up divorced, you should keep your house and I keep the car. Me being entitled to half of your house and a percentage of your savings accounts, etc etc, is totally uncalled for and "unfair".

If we had a shared account for example and wanted to end that, then obviously money should be split, but then that is the risks of the shared account. Having me raid your private accounts and make arguments like "Andres makes more than me, I am adjusted to having him around, give me his money please" is totally ridiculous.

For other examples by TinCow, Wills already exist (so no need for marriage), Custody of Children already exist on the birth certificate (Mother and Father, etc), Mortgages? If the mortgage is shared, then it is split, if the mortgage is in the name of one person, then that one person is responsible for it. So all the legal work is already there anyway.