Marriage, be strict, or be out of it.

[speeder]

I believe marriage laws there are two correct approaches:

One, is have no marriage laws at all and allow people create their own contracts in any way they wish, including contracts that result in one party being slave to other (if the "slave" party is voluntary).

I believe in such structure, eventually the most efficient forms of family structures would win agains the less efficient forms.

The second... is the one that was implemented in many societies that started as the former option: Have a very strict marriage structure: Men marry who they want, as long they don't dump women (giving them security), and women cannot leave the marriage (ensuring a men investment is not lost). Adultery is strictly forbidden and harshly punished.



When you have a structure that has laws, but they are sub-optimal, you end with stuff like ours society and its very low marriage and birth rates, high divorce rates, high single mother rates and so on.

I took Brazil 2010 census data, and found out that 50% of people born since 1968 live in homes without the father or stepfather. And the other 50% the men at home is not necessarily the father (the way they collected the data make impossible to know if the guy is father or stepfather).

It is kinda worrying a society like this, there are plenty of data that proves that having at least both parents at home is much better.

[1715270612]

1715270612

[1715270612]

1715270612

[1715270612]

1715270612

[myrkul]

inb4 flamewar.

That said, I'm a first option kinda guy, let people contract however they want (and in whatever arrangements they want).

[SaintDevil]

I believe marriage laws there are two correct approaches:

One, is have no marriage laws at all and allow people create their own contracts in any way they wish, including contracts that result in one party being slave to other (if the "slave" party is voluntary).

+1..definitely the first one.

Marriage seems so complicated, and here in US women wants to get married just so they can have money and do taxes together. 
We should have a choice what kind of marriage we want to have.

[vampire]

Not planning to marry anyway due to tax penalties. There will be a private agreement. I am not a fan of diamonds - trying to get away with a CZ. The difference will cover some of the gf's student loans.

[juggalodarkclow]

Was married once, followed example #3, wife left because I was unable to shower her with lavish gifts on a regular basis. Now my longtime GF and I are following example #1. No intentions of a "marriage", we have an adult partnership with children.

[SgtSpike]

Marriage is ultimately a religious act, brought over into the secular world.  I don't really care if people want to called themselves married or not - it makes no difference to me, and if it makes them happy, then all power to them.

[Richy_T]

Possibly one of the least excusable realms for government to be getting involved in.

[myrkul]

Possibly one of the least excusable realms for government to be getting involved in.

Especially if you know the history of how they got into it in the first place.

[Lethn]

If a woman ever asks me to marry I am going to smuggle myself into North Korea.

Yes you did read that right.

[vite]

I had an adult partnership with children, now the partner became my wife and now I am wishing she would leave me.

[RodeoX]

I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and a llama and a chair. 
No, WTF do I care who you want to love?

[420]

ANARCHIST ALL THE WAY! let people decide their contracts and let everyone else decide what contracts they honor

[Luno]

In the 16th century, Martin Luther declared marriage to be "a worldly thing . . . that belongs to the realm of government". So in Western Europe and in the U.S., most churches are providing a "blessing" service for couples, nothing holy about marriage.

[420]

Possibly one of the least excusable realms for government to be getting involved in.

Especially if you know the history of how they got into it in the first place.

whats the history, what luno said?

[Luno]

Martin Luther: "As it is not within my power not to be a man, so it is not my prerogative to be without a woman. Again, as it is not in your power not to be a woman, so it is not your prerogative to be without a man."
16th century marriage was a business between families combined with attraction between the sexes, so he was also in opposition to the celibacy oath of the Chatolic. He helped some nuns escape from a monestary and married one of them Katherine was 22 when he was 42!

Paulus also said something about marriage being for people who can not help themselves and give in to desires, not a matter for the church!

Here in Denmark, civil gay marriages have been allowed for 30 years and just 2 months ago, the Danish church has allowed the marriage to take place in our state churches. Opinions have been both for and against and some of the protesting priests have suggested that the marriage ritual was taken out entirely from church services.

[JoelKatz]

I believe marriage laws there are two correct approaches:

...

The second ... Have a very strict marriage structure: Men marry who they want, as long they don't dump women (giving them security), and women cannot leave the marriage (ensuring a men investment is not lost). Adultery is strictly forbidden and harshly punished.

This must be some uncommon sense of the word "correct" with which I was not previously familiar. That or your barking mad.

[mufa23]

Marriage is ultimately a religious act, brought over into the secular world.  I don't really care if people want to called themselves married or not - it makes no difference to me, and if it makes them happy, then all power to them.

This. It's only a contract to make your taxes a little less at the end of the year.

I'm sure this has been brought up before. Probably more so by the tinfoil hats. But have any of you guys wondered why they push the opinion like crazy? I kinda figured it was so the double digit IQ's would feel good about themselves at the end of the day for accomplishing something. While forget they are letting the government screw more stuff up while they aren't looking. Sort of like a distraction. In other words:

"Oh looky over here! Wooo gay marriage controversy. Like you hear the media shout everyday. But now you have the chance to make your vote count! Don't mind us over here while we totally not patriot act the shit out of you over here."

[majorddf]

Well, my wife and I got married because we wanted to be bound to each other, it is an expression of our commitment. There are no other benefits to be had (excepting ensuring that our assets pass to the other in death, not a given in UK law, even in a long term adult partnership).

But in terms of the actual rules, they are whatever you decide they are as a couple. Some people have open marriages for example.

As for religious, only if you make it so. On paper my wife is Hindu, myself Christian. In practice neither of us are religious.

Marriage does not hold its roots in religion anyway, the earliest recorded marriages where ancient Greek and ancient Roman and were nothing more than a promise, or an arrangement, often without ceremony.

In fact, some mainstream modern religions regard marriage as a secular affair.

[myrkul]

Possibly one of the least excusable realms for government to be getting involved in.

Especially if you know the history of how they got into it in the first place.

whats the history, what luno said?

Racism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license#United_States

In the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license. The requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism, however it is rare for the licensing process to be used in this manner today.

[hashman]

One thing that is amusing to me is people who say "marriage should just be between a man and a woman".

Well, unfortunately that is NOT legal marriage.  Legal marriage is a binding THREE party contract between two real persons and a fictitious person.   

While I respect ABOVE ALL your rights to do whatever the hell you believe in and want to do, to me personally this is an act of disrespect for the beautiful love between two people.  To me it is like saying that man, in creation of corporations such as the state, is a higher authority than nature (God if you prefer).  I also see it as implicitly saying and signing that we don't trust each other, don't really love each other, but rather are obeying the will of those men that claim to represent the corporate signer of the contract.   

So why am I here ranting?  Now that I've told you what I believe, I will confide that I am considering entering just such contract that I abhor, so that said third party corporate representatives will go a bit easy on us with their constant abuse brought on through mental illness and "allow" one of the real parties to work for a living inside some arbitrary borders. 

When in Rome do as the Romans do, as they say.. after all we can ignore the contract after receiving the "benefit", a signature is nothing really and we do as we believe is right.  Or am I just another coward afraid to stand for his convictions? 

Thanks for your comments  



         

[dank]

Everyone has a soul mate.

[Richy_T]

Everyone has a soul mate.

That's a lie. But there's quite a few people out there you can live with without wanting to kill them