The pointlessness of marriage?

[nnmartin]

Does it ever occur to you that you might not know everything about what's going on with people in the world?

of course not.:flirt:

And why are you so keen to ban everything? I think the point I made about what function marriage actually serves within a society was valid, and yet you seem to have utterly ignored it altogether?

no banning here, just abolition - a different concept.

 

[LongGe123]

of course not.:flirt:
no banning here, just abolition - a different concept.

Another excellent dodge to another valid set of questions - ever considered going into politics?

Your basic arguments are SO flawed, but you don't seem to see it. It doesn't seem to matter to you that you haven't thought it through. Marriage HAS an essential function to many people within a modern society. It cannot just be absolished like you say.

 

[blackout]

nnmartin, you have not been clear about what kinds of legal options people would have
(replacing the ones put in place by legal marriage)
regarding things like hospital visitation and medical decisions and joint ownership of lives built in partnership/s.... etc.

 

[Kerr]

Marriage seems to be a pointless, outmoded idea and should be done away with.

Why do I think this?

This is because the conception of the marriage idea revolves around having children.

Young couples without children tend not too last very long as the biological purpose of love is not being fulfilled. This leads to infidelity and divorce.

So, if we allow divorce then why bother getting married in the first place?

If you are not likely to have children together then why get married in the first place?

The Natural function of love is procreation - it's other meanings are purely idealistic and we all see how this 'fades' away over time, unless of course there are children to perpetuate its substance.

So the proposal is to abolish marriage except for those that have children together, in which case the marriage can occur shortly after the first birth.

This seems like the most sensible option. (all other couples may have some kind of minor civil union type arrangement if necessary)

My parents got married when they where too old to have children. They had been together for maybe 30 years before that and honestly, I think they would be together until death no matter if they where married or not. But they got married, on the beach. I was there. If you cannot see beauty in two people who love each other and want to make that commitment, or at least formalize the commitment they have already made in their hearts, then I feel sorry for you.

 

[Nashitheki]

I see marriage itself as the outmoded concept here.

but in the case of childrearing it still makes sense as this was the original function of the arrangement anyway.

anything else is just a legal sham.

I really don't see the need for a lawful contract when it comes to love and child rearing, but here in America mainstream religion, law and monetary reasons tends to overly play in such. Here in some of the states law and religion dictates upon both love and family. The state where I live it is illegal to live unmarried with the person you love and such a couple falls under the prudish and often demeaning scrutiny of the Christian church which heavily sways our seemingly over zealous Christian governor and his administration. Fortunately such laws are not that heavily enforced, but the church is always attempting to mind other people's business. To me, unless such relationships invovle underage children or animals both law and mainstream religion should not regulate the loving bond between people.

 

[Adrift]

Just my 2 cents on the subject, though it is not entirely relevant to the current conversation...

I used to always think marriage was a huge pointless tradition for religious folk and people who needed to put their commitment into the form of an annoying contract. I thought it was going to be hilarious and stupid when my 21-year-old friend married her boyfriend just so he could get his green card.

But it was adorable. They took it seriously, and it turned really meaningful. Now I see marriage, though still kind of dumb in the legal sense, a really cute ceremony for a real couple to symbolize their love.

If I ever got married, it wouldn't be pointless and legal, it would be fun. I'd leave the government out of it =P

 

[LongGe123]

Just my 2 cents on the subject, though it is not entirely relevant to the current conversation...
I used to always think marriage was a huge pointless tradition for religious folk and people who needed to put their commitment into the form of an annoying contract. I thought it was going to be hilarious and stupid when my 21-year-old friend married her boyfriend just so he could get his green card.
But it was adorable. They took it seriously, and it turned really meaningful. Now I see marriage, though still kind of dumb in the legal sense, a really cute ceremony for a real couple to symbolize their love.
If I ever got married, it wouldn't be pointless and legal, it would be fun. I'd leave the government out of it =P

I see what you're saying, but I really think you've got it a bit backwards. I think it's a cute but kinda dumb ceremony - but the legal meaning is actually highly significant - it's so much more than just an "annoying contract" - see some of the previous posts and learn why!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So, if we allow divorce then why bother getting married in the first place?

Divorce is the reason for marriage.

The marriage contract allows for the equitable distribution of property in the event of separation.

The point of marriage is that people who are seriously connected to one another at least have the legal recourse to claim property held in common in the event of separation.

As long as people live together and share the ownership of property, we'll need marriage and divorce.

 

[nnmartin]

nnmartin, you have not been clear about what kinds of legal options people would have
(replacing the ones put in place by legal marriage)
regarding things like hospital visitation and medical decisions and joint ownership of lives built in partnership/s.... etc.

we will just leave it as a 'free-for-all' type arrangement like everything else.

True Libertarianism - that's what you want, right?

 

[blackout]

we will just leave it as a 'free-for-all' type arrangement like everything else.

True Libertarianism - that's what you want, right?

What I wanted was an actual answer to my question actually.

You want to micro-manage everyone and everything,
but then when it comes to the resulting specifics
your answer is .... everyone just does whatever they want?

Does that mean any old person can make your medical decisions for you when you can't?
The doctor, the nurse, your neighbor, the guy in the bed next to yours.....
your blacksheep kid who wants your 'stuff'?
(because he thinks he can 'free load' it before anyone else in the 'free for all' can get to it?)
or maybe they flip a coin, or cast lots to see who will decide?
Or will hospitals be required to follow certain legal documents that individuals(ie, their patients)
have drawn up with other individuals?
When a household splits, will there be a particular division of the court
to help fairly divide assets and deal with unreasonable members of the family equation,
who would hold other members of the X-family hostage to their economic 'control tactics"?

Will your utopia of 'fairness' avail everyone equality of free legal and judicial assistance?
Will everyone have fair and equal representation by law and, all legal adults,
the ability to draw up and disolve legal documents between one another, without discrimination?
Regardless of race, religion, gender, relationship or orientation, education or economic ability (to pay for said assistance)?

If you're going to dismantle a thing/system that handles other things,
then you need to decide how exactly you are going to handle those other things,
once said system is abolished.

So if by 'free for all' you ACTUALLY mean freedom for all,
then I can only assume that people will be able to custom design their own family units,
and have access to legal procedures and assistance/representation
so that their interpersonal contracts will be recognized/upheld by society/others
unless and until such time as any contracted party
wants to change their arrangements legally.

You certainly can't have a "family court"
if people can't define their families.

What, a 'domestic affairs' court maybe then?
Still, individuals need to be able to handle and define the details of their domestic affairs legally.
People still need to be afforded personal life protections under the law.


(...and by 'people', I mean EVERYONE. Not just heterosexuals, those of strictly monogamous orientation, and the affluent.)

 

[blackout]

I'm thinking a court of 'interpersonal law'
would possibly make for a more practical approach
to interpersonal contract making
as regards the personal lives
of all members of society.

Our "business" partnership models are currently
far more open to diversity of partnership possibilities
than our personal business (personal life) models.

LEGAL marriage, as it stands in our country today,
is a 'One size fits all" arrangement,
that certainly does NOT fit all,
and is purposely DESIGNED not to fit
anyone who has not been 'designed' to 'wear it'.

It's as if some 'reward', some benefits are dangled your way
for conforming yourself to 'the outfit'.
(even though said 'benefits' may not outweigh the 'cons' in the end)

I'm no fan of legal marriage as it stands.

It in no way embraces equality of rights
or freedom for all.

 

[nnmartin]

What I wanted was an actual answer to my question actually.

So if by 'free for all' you ACTUALLY mean freedom for all,
then I can only assume that people will be able to custom design their own family units,
and have access to legal procedures and assistance/representation
so that their interpersonal contracts will be recognized/upheld by society/others
unless and until such time as any contracted party
wants to change their arrangements legally.

I was being ironic.

Most people here seem to advocate Libertarianism so I am giving it to you.

No laws, no planning, no marriage - everyone just does whatever the hell they like.

Let's see what mess we end up in!

 

[blackout]

I was being ironic.

Most people here seem to advocate Libertarianism so I am giving it to you.

No laws, no planning, no marriage - everyone just does whatever the hell they like.

Let's see what mess we end up in!

This thread is about YOUR make believe world though,
and still you have not answered or even addressed any of my questions.
I didn't ask you what libertarians would do.
You said YOU wanted to get rid of marriage.
I asked YOU some very specific questions,
in regards to the ensuing details
of YOUR abolition of marriage.
Surely you have some answers.
Apparently you feel you have the answers for everyone...
and everything....
Don't be shy. Share them all, why not?

 

[nnmartin]

I imagine a will of some sort could be drawn up to share any inheritances etc.

visiting rights by registered partner, that kind of thing.

anything else?

 

[blackout]

I imagine a will of some sort could be drawn up to share any inheritances etc.

visiting rights by registered partner, that kind of thing.

anything else?

Maybe start by reading post #90 again?


So please go into this 'registered partner' thing a bit more.

 

[Kathryn]

It is true for the majority of people, but like all things, there will always be exceptions.

My brother and his wife can't have kids - and they knew that when they got married, because she has a serious health condition. I guess they are an exception too.

Wow, lots of exceptions.