Org Mobile Site
Thread: Is Marriage an Outdated concept?
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."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.
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.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.
I'm not a fan of universal bastardry, among other things it is legally untidy.
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.
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.
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.but I don't agree with you.
I'm not a fan of universal bastardry, among other things it is legally untidy.
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.
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?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.
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.
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.why not just give the tax breaks to couples with children? There are plenty of married couples who never have kids.
I still believe in mariage. Personally, I found the decision whether to have or not have kids a much tougher and more difficult decision than the decision to get married or not. Everything is a choice in our modern day society, and if you really think things through, those choices aren't very easy to make.
Then again, I don't want to change the present for the past. Living in a society where getting married (and staying married, even if you hate each other) and having kids is more or less an obligation because of social pressure, doesn't seem better than what we have now.
Then again, I don't want to change the present for the past. Living in a society where getting married (and staying married, even if you hate each other) and having kids is more or less an obligation because of social pressure, doesn't seem better than what we have now.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Gah! You are going to make me turn into another Sasaki! Much as his contributions are important, one in the forum is enough! Already we're debating about how we are debating and not what we were meant to be debating about!
Sasaki should go in Belgian politics.Gah! You are going to make me turn into another Sasaki! Much as his contributions are important, one in the forum is enough! Already we're debating about how we are debating and not what we were meant to be debating about!
Originally Posted by Beskar:
There should be no state intervention in marriage. No tax breaks for married couples, and all that other nonsense either.
It should be about love and relationships, between two people. If they want to have a service or a commitment, they can go ahead. If they are homosexual and the church they are marrying in allows homosexual marriage, they can go in. "Marriage" is up to the people involved.
There should be no state intervention in marriage. No tax breaks for married couples, and all that other nonsense either.
It should be about love and relationships, between two people. If they want to have a service or a commitment, they can go ahead. If they are homosexual and the church they are marrying in allows homosexual marriage, they can go in. "Marriage" is up to the people involved.
Nonsense.
We don't live in Hollywood.
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. People who marry can benefit from that framework, people who decide to live together without marriage, decide not to have that framework and a minimal set of rules. That's part of the choice you make.
The "until dead" stuff, ooh's and aah's and rings and white dress, fancy cars, big party, that's the fairy tale marriage, which is all nice and romantic and all that, good for writers and poets and fluffy souls and to make movies that can be viewed around Valentine's day and Christmas, but let's not limit the concept marriage to that, please.
Also, apart from the legal marriage, you have the religious marriage. Those two should be viewed strictly seperated. The legal marriage has to follow the rules of our present day society (including equality); the religous marriage needs to follow the rules of whatever you believe in and nothing of that should be enforcable by law. For once, Belgium has got this right: if you want a religous marriage, you marry twice: once before the law, and once in the church (or whatever place of worship you wish). Those two marriages are strictly seperated, as it should be. For the law is for real, for the church is also for real, but it's a different aspect of reality.
Imo, "marriage" as the legal framework to organise a relationship and offer minimal protection for all parties involved, should indeed not be limited to two persons, and certainly not to hetero couples. As for marriage in your religion, meh, couldn't care less, as long as religion doesn't dictate what the legal marriage should be and as long none of what's in the "holy books" is enforceable by law, it's all fine by me.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
In the real world, human children have been raised by the extended family for milennia.
This is so true.In the real world, human children have been raised by the extended family for milennia.
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.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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Originally Posted by Andres:
I still believe in mariage. Personally, I found the decision whether to have or not have kids a much tougher and more difficult decision than the decision to get married or not. Everything is a choice in our modern day society, and if you really think things through, those choices aren't very easy to make.
I still believe in mariage. Personally, I found the decision whether to have or not have kids a much tougher and more difficult decision than the decision to get married or not. Everything is a choice in our modern day society, and if you really think things through, those choices aren't very easy to make.
Being married is no different on a relationship level than living with someone. My relationship with my wife changed when we moved in together. Nothing changed after the actual wedding.
Originally Posted by Andres:
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. People who marry can benefit from that framework, people who decide to live together without marriage, decide not to have that framework and a minimal set of rules. That's part of the choice you make.
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. People who marry can benefit from that framework, people who decide to live together without marriage, decide not to have that framework and a minimal set of rules. That's part of the choice you make.
Marriage takes care of a ton of otherwise annoying legal stuff with regard to finances, wills, mortgages, and similar stuff. If you want to do those same things without a legal marriage, it's far more work. Also, not everyone who is married gets a tax break. That system is largely for couples with a large income disparity between the two partners; that's a situation which is quickly decreasing in popularity.
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.For a Socialist you're not big on ordering society, are you?
Originally Posted by :
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.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
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.
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.
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?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.
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.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
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".
This is incorrect. Assets which were wholey and seperately owned prior to marriage remain the property of the original owner, as do all separately earned assets during the marriage which are strictly segregated without any intermingling of any kind. The property that is split is property which is gained during the marriage and handled as joint property during the marriage.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".
Originally Posted by :
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.
This is not ridiculous at all. If both partners in a marriage agree that one partner is going to stop working, for whatever reason, and be supported by the other, then the non-working partner's earning potential is greatly impacted. Regardless of previous experience, a person will have a lot of difficulty getting back into the job market after 10 years of unemployment. Alimony is intended to compensate for this penalty to the non-working person's earning potential.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.
Originally Posted by :
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.
Yes, the system exists, but it's heavily under-utilized. For whatever reason, people simply do not take care of their own legal arrangements. Over half of all US citizens die intestate. Without the marriage inheritence provisions, there would be even more serious difficulties with estates in this country than there already are.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.
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.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.
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.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
How would it be unfair?
Mr. A and Mr. B marry. They adopt two children. B quits his job as a highly paid engineer to take care of the children and the tasks that need to be done in the house (cleaning, cooking, ironing, etc.) while A keeps working as a lawyer. After 10 years, A, who works from 7.00 am 'til 9.00 pm six days a week, which he can do, because B takes care of all the rest, is a partner in a major law firm and drives a Jaguar. He bought a villa with swimming pool on his name, where he and the family lives. Now that the kids are a bit older, B started to work part time as a low civil servant, since he couldn't find a job equal to his degree, because of his unemployment during 10 years. He drives a 10 year old Citroën; it's all he needs to go shopping, since he can go to work on foot. A has obligations, stocks, money, a grand total of 500.000 € in savings; and a second residence, a 1.000.000 € villa in Southern France, on his name. Three years later, A decides he wants to start a relationship with Louise, a hot 20 year old shemale he hired a week ago as his secretary. A and B divorce.How would it be unfair?
In your perfect and simple world, A will leave with the Jaguar, the money, the real estate. B, who has sacrificied himself so that A could develop his career, will have nothing but a 13 year old Citroën that needs to be replaced.
Fair or not?
Originally Posted by Andres:
Mr. A and Mr. B marry. They adopt two children. B quits his job as a highly paid engineer to take care of the children and the tasks that need to be done in the house (cleaning, cooking, ironing, etc.) while A keeps working as a lawyer. After 10 years, A, who works from 7.00 am 'til 9.00 pm six days a week, which he can do, because B takes care of all the rest, is a partner in a major law firm and drives a Jaguar. He bought a villa with swimming pool on his name, where he and the family lives. Now that the kids are a bit older, B started to work part time as a low civil servant, since he couldn't find a job equal to his degree, because of his unemployment during 10 years. He drives a 10 year old Citroën; it's all he needs to go shopping, since he can go to work on foot. A has obligations, stocks, money, a grand total of 500.000 € in savings; and a second residence, a 1.000.000 € villa in Southern France, on his name. Three years later, A decides he wants to start a relationship with Louise, a hot 20 year old shemale he hired a week ago as his secretary. A and B divorce.
In your perfect and simple world, A will leave with the Jaguar, the money, the real estate. B, who has sacrificied himself so that A could develop his career, will have nothing but a 13 year old Citroën that needs to be replaced.
Fair or not?
Unfortunately, I was operating in a more common real world environment, where both Mr. A and Mr. B are both in employment in order to make ends meet, so there isn't such a disparity, or is that just revealing my working class roots where both my parents had to work, my friends parents having to work, even having second jobs.Mr. A and Mr. B marry. They adopt two children. B quits his job as a highly paid engineer to take care of the children and the tasks that need to be done in the house (cleaning, cooking, ironing, etc.) while A keeps working as a lawyer. After 10 years, A, who works from 7.00 am 'til 9.00 pm six days a week, which he can do, because B takes care of all the rest, is a partner in a major law firm and drives a Jaguar. He bought a villa with swimming pool on his name, where he and the family lives. Now that the kids are a bit older, B started to work part time as a low civil servant, since he couldn't find a job equal to his degree, because of his unemployment during 10 years. He drives a 10 year old Citroën; it's all he needs to go shopping, since he can go to work on foot. A has obligations, stocks, money, a grand total of 500.000 € in savings; and a second residence, a 1.000.000 € villa in Southern France, on his name. Three years later, A decides he wants to start a relationship with Louise, a hot 20 year old shemale he hired a week ago as his secretary. A and B divorce.
In your perfect and simple world, A will leave with the Jaguar, the money, the real estate. B, who has sacrificied himself so that A could develop his career, will have nothing but a 13 year old Citroën that needs to be replaced.
Fair or not?
In such a situation, Mr. B wouldn't give up his job as an engineer and they both either share responsibilities, or since they are both high fliers, they can hire a nanny to deal with those things while kids are at a very young age, and later when they are at school, nanny isn't needed. Even if Mr B and Mr A were working class, there would be the parents/parents-in-law.
I will be honest, in such a situation you described, it is very tricky. Obviously, if Mr. B continued raising the children, Mr. A would have to cater for them, and also help out Mr. B in the form of assistance. Similar example even if the kids were shared between them. In many ways, Mr. B was very foolish in giving up his career.
Marraige is not outdated just perverted by government. Government should not recognise marriage or reward it or penalize it. Simple as that.
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
Marraige is not outdated just perverted by government. Government should not recognise marriage or reward it or penalize it. Simple as that.
So basically what I advocated?Marraige is not outdated just perverted by government. Government should not recognise marriage or reward it or penalize it. Simple as that.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
So basically what I advocated?
If i had bothered to read it instead of just spouting off without examining the entire thread, yes... So basically what I advocated?
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
Marraige is not outdated just perverted by government. Government should not recognise marriage or reward it or penalize it. Simple as that.
I agree with getting rid of rewards and penalties, however I do think it is useful for the government to recognize it due to the legal implications. There are many aspects of the law which discuss what happens with a person's assets and body when they can no longer make decisions for themselves. All of these laws have 'default' rules which specificy a certain person as the guardian/beneficiary. These defaults change depending on whether a person is single (parents or children, depending on circumstances) or married (spouse). Without some kind of formal acknowledgment of a relationship by the government, a very large number of spouses would lose those roles. Marriage is a nice and easy for a person to say 'I want this person to have legal power to inherit my assets and make certain medical decisions about my life.' Society as a whole would be worse off without that aspect of it. Limiting govermental involvement in marriage to just this aspect would also not prejudice those who did not get married, because they can still accomplish the exact same thing... they just have to do more work themselves to get the same result.Marraige is not outdated just perverted by government. Government should not recognise marriage or reward it or penalize it. Simple as that.
A man isn't complete until he is married, then he is finished.
Good one Drone!!!
Zsa Zsa Gabor? Misses the in love bit though.
A female "deciding" to stop working and tend to the kids have noone to blame but themselves if they find themselves in poverty should the marriage break up.
It's their choice to stop working, and they of course know that it may make them rather poor. So I don't really care...
It's their choice to stop working, and they of course know that it may make them rather poor. So I don't really care...
Some women do seem to think that they can get married and then immediately decide to go part time or stop altogether, safe in the knowledge that they'll get what hubbie is earning from working 12 hour days when commuting is added in. And any future earnings potentially lost can also be reclaimed from hubbie!
In some relationships both might decide that this is best. Some men, if faced with the long term implications might rethink their dear wife's "sacrifice" of her career and think that in fact she can continue to do some work as opposed to be elevated to the "women who do lunch" category.
In some relationships both might decide that this is best. Some men, if faced with the long term implications might rethink their dear wife's "sacrifice" of her career and think that in fact she can continue to do some work as opposed to be elevated to the "women who do lunch" category.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Some women do seem to think that they can get married and then immediately decide to go part time or stop altogether, safe in the knowledge that they'll get what hubbie is earning from working 12 hour days when commuting is added in. And any future earnings potentially lost can also be reclaimed from hubbie!
In some relationships both might decide that this is best. Some men, if faced with the long term implications might rethink their dear wife's "sacrifice" of her career and think that in fact she can continue to do some work as opposed to be elevated to the "women who do lunch" category.
Then there are those who are married for a couple of years and get millions from the divorce.Some women do seem to think that they can get married and then immediately decide to go part time or stop altogether, safe in the knowledge that they'll get what hubbie is earning from working 12 hour days when commuting is added in. And any future earnings potentially lost can also be reclaimed from hubbie!
In some relationships both might decide that this is best. Some men, if faced with the long term implications might rethink their dear wife's "sacrifice" of her career and think that in fact she can continue to do some work as opposed to be elevated to the "women who do lunch" category.
It is truly insane. If I were Paul I'd have had Heather put down.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO