Is Marriage an out dated institution?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I'm arguing that people shouldn't feel pressured into marriage if they're in a long-term relationship. I'm arguing that privileges granted by marriage should be eliminated. I'm arguing that people should be free to set whatever terms they want to their relationships through a contract that doesn't necessarily have to deal with the topic of "love" and that doesn't have to be limited by the "template" of marriage.

Essentially I would like seeing marriage disappear and be replaced by either nothing or contracts with custom terms.

So you want marriage to be gone and fuck over millions of couples or replace it with...marriage and not call it marriage?

Whut?

Why would it do that?

If a piece of paper is what's holding your relationship together then it's bound to fail eventually.

E: Why do you need the state to certify your love and commitment.. I just fail to see its place there.

[Mavorpen]

So you want marriage to be gone and fuck over millions of couples or replace it with...marriage and not call it marriage?

Whut?

If a piece of paper is what's holding your relationship together then it's bound to fail eventually.

It's a good thing that it doesn't, then.

Really, I'm ashamed to have ever held this lazily constructed and "edgy" belief when I was a teenager.

[Mavorpen]

E: Why do you need the state to certify your love and commitment.. I just fail to see its place there.

You don't. That's the fucking point. No one says you have to. You're whining over absolutely nothing and pretending as though you're presenting something in depth and revolutionary.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

What exactly do you think marriage is? It's a contract. What exactly are you arguing?

I'm arguing that people shouldn't feel pressured into marriage if they're in a long-term relationship. I'm arguing that privileges granted by marriage should be eliminated. I'm arguing that people should be free to set whatever terms they want to their relationships through a contract that doesn't necessarily have to deal with the topic of "love" and that doesn't have to be limited by the "template" of marriage.

Essentially I would like seeing marriage disappear and be replaced by either nothing or contracts with custom terms.

And what's so wrong about options? If others wish to marry, who are you exactly to say they can't? Why should the option disappear? Do you not understand that marriage is, essentially, a contract?

[Divitaen]

So you want marriage to be gone and fuck over millions of couples or replace it with...marriage and not call it marriage?

Whut?

Why would it do that?

If a piece of paper is what's holding your relationship together then it's bound to fail eventually.

E: Why do you need the state to certify your love and commitment.. I just fail to see its place there.

Because its not just a 'piece of paper'. People who enter marriage are protected in their committment legally by the state in a way co-habitation and other 'contracts' that you are proposing don't. Leaving a marriage is infinitely harder than leaving a 'contract' that you are proposing, because you subject yourself to legal consequences once you file for divorce. The purpose of this is to create an institution for two consenting adults who wish to enter long-term committment to do so consensually, and the two of them seal that committed relationship by entering a legal institution whereby they willingly subject themselves to consequences if they leave, just to show how much they love the other partner and how far they're willing to go to settle down with him or her. It's much, much more than a 'piece of paper' and I'm sure a lot of married couples would disagree with you on that.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

We can either pretend that marriage is not a way of institutionalizing a certain moral goal (the traditional family) or that it does not have a special status as a contract in our societies and governments. Pretending isn't good either way.

[Mavorpen]

We can either pretend that marriage is not a way of institutionalizing a certain moral goal (the traditional family) or that it does not have a special status as a contract in our societies and governments. Pretending isn't good either way.

I choose neither because I'm an adult that doesn't try to go against the "man" in downright stupid ways.

[Divitaen]

We can either pretend that marriage is not a way of institutionalizing a certain moral goal (the traditional family) or that it does not have a special status as a contract in our societies and governments. Pretending isn't good either way.

http://www.foryourmarriage.org/what-are-the-social-benefits-of-marriage/
http://www.familyfacts.org/briefs/1/the-benefits-of-marriage
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/not-just-romance-marriage-has-wide-ranging-social-benefits

If marriage is so useless as you claim and no different from random 'contracts', why do studies consistently show married couples performing better on health, social satisfaction, socio-economic status, domestic violence issues and parenting compared to those in domestic partnerships or co-habitation?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

We can either pretend that marriage is not a way of institutionalizing a certain moral goal (the traditional family) or that it does not have a special status as a contract in our societies and governments. Pretending isn't good either way.

I choose neither because I'm an adult that doesn't try to go against the "man" in downright stupid ways.

oh wow, what a great argument.

[Mavorpen]

I choose neither because I'm an adult that doesn't try to go against the "man" in downright stupid ways.

oh wow, what a great argument.

I don't think you know what an argument is. That wasn't one. And I didn't pretend it was.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

We can either pretend that marriage is not a way of institutionalizing a certain moral goal (the traditional family) or that it does not have a special status as a contract in our societies and governments. Pretending isn't good either way.

With the legalization of same sex unions it is moot to say marriage is about institutionalizing a certain moral goal. It isn't. Marriage is, simply, a contract entered by two consenting adults who wish to unite under protections of law.

I still fail to understand why marriage should disappear. I fail to see why it should not be left as an option for those who want to marry.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm arguing that people shouldn't feel pressured into marriage if they're in a long-term relationship. I'm arguing that privileges granted by marriage should be eliminated. I'm arguing that people should be free to set whatever terms they want to their relationships through a contract that doesn't necessarily have to deal with the topic of "love" and that doesn't have to be limited by the "template" of marriage.

Essentially I would like seeing marriage disappear and be replaced by either nothing or contracts with custom terms.

And what's so wrong about options? If others wish to marry, who are you exactly to say they can't? Why should the option disappear? Do you not understand that marriage is, essentially, a contract?

It is, in essence, a contract, but it is so much more than that.

In my opinion, when you enter a marriage, it's a moment when not only two individuals decide to cohabitate, share their assets, and affirm their love in front of a judge or a priest. It is also the union of two distinct families through the bonds of the people who marry as well as their assets.

But in my case, I also am of the opinion that if you're going to marry at least be able to tolerate the husband/wife's family; otherwise, don't.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Regarding married couples being taxed vs. single people being taxed: the married couple is taxed as a single economic entity, while single people are also taxed as single economic entities. The difference is that, generally speaking, married couples behave as a single economic unit. Sometimes this comes as a substantial benefit to them. Sometimes it comes as a substantial penalty. Sometimes it doesn't make a difference.

In certain income brackets and situations, married couples have some advantages, tax wise. In certain income brackets and situations, single people have some advantages where taxes are concerned. And sometimes, it's pretty much equal. It all depends.

Heck, it's not even that hard.

For tax purposes on every tax return you can choose to file jointly or separately. And that changes how each tax return is treated.

[Norstal]

We can either pretend that marriage is not a way of institutionalizing a certain moral goal (the traditional family) or that it does not have a special status as a contract in our societies and governments. Pretending isn't good either way.

http://www.foryourmarriage.org/what-are-the-social-benefits-of-marriage/
http://www.familyfacts.org/briefs/1/the-benefits-of-marriage
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/not-just-romance-marriage-has-wide-ranging-social-benefits

If marriage is so useless as you claim and no different from random 'contracts', why do studies consistently show married couples performing better on health, social satisfaction, socio-economic status, domestic violence issues and parenting compared to those in domestic partnerships or co-habitation?

Some of that is being compared to singles. I think it's important to note that this guy you're replying to doesn't care about couples marrying, he just doesn't want it to be on paper for god knows what reasons. Apparently he never heard of things like inheritance, succession, identification, etc. et nauseam.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Why would it do that?

If a piece of paper is what's holding your relationship together then it's bound to fail eventually.

E: Why do you need the state to certify your love and commitment.. I just fail to see its place there.

Because its not just a 'piece of paper'. People who enter marriage are protected in their committment legally by the state in a way co-habitation and other 'contracts' that you are proposing don't. Leaving a marriage is infinitely harder than leaving a 'contract' that you are proposing, because you subject yourself to legal consequences once you file for divorce. The purpose of this is to create an institution for two consenting adults who wish to enter long-term committment to do so consensually, and the two of them seal that committed relationship by entering a legal institution whereby they willingly subject themselves to consequences if they leave, just to show how much they love the other partner and how far they're willing to go to settle down with him or her. It's much, much more than a 'piece of paper' and I'm sure a lot of married couples would disagree with you on that.

I don't know about you but being asked or required by a would-be partner to enter this contract whereby I or her face legal consequences by leaving the relationship would be the polar opposite of showing "love and commitment". Admitting that you may require legal or financial benefits later on in order not to leave the relationship would be a major turn-off.

[Mavorpen]

And what's so wrong about options? If others wish to marry, who are you exactly to say they can't? Why should the option disappear? Do you not understand that marriage is, essentially, a contract?

It is, in essence, a contract, but it is so much more than that.

In my opinion, when you enter a marriage, it's a moment when not only two individuals decide to cohabitate, share their assets, and affirm their love in front of a judge or a priest. It is also the union of two distinct families through the bonds of the people who marry as well as their assets.

But in my case, I also am of the opinion that if you're going to marry at least be able to tolerate the husband/wife's family; otherwise, don't.

And I disagree on a personal level. Marriage for me is none of that. If I were to get married it would be for the legal benefits.

And I don't mind that you disagree and that for you marriage is more than that. I have no right to shove my view of marriage down your throat because of silly edginess.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What exactly do you think marriage is? It's a contract. What exactly are you arguing?

I'm arguing that people shouldn't feel pressured into marriage if they're in a long-term relationship. I'm arguing that privileges granted by marriage should be eliminated. I'm arguing that people should be free to set whatever terms they want to their relationships through a contract that doesn't necessarily have to deal with the topic of "love" and that doesn't have to be limited by the "template" of marriage.

Essentially I would like seeing marriage disappear and be replaced by either nothing or contracts with custom terms.

Nobody, absolutely nobody ever has felt pressured to marry even if they are in a long-term relationship. That's something the couple has to decide on their own, and it has always been like that.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

And what's so wrong about options? If others wish to marry, who are you exactly to say they can't? Why should the option disappear? Do you not understand that marriage is, essentially, a contract?

It is, in essence, a contract, but it is so much more than that.

In my opinion, when you enter a marriage, it's a moment when not only two individuals decide to cohabitate, share their assets, and affirm their love in front of a judge or a priest. It is also the union of two distinct families through the bonds of the people who marry as well as their assets.

But in my case, I also am of the opinion that if you're going to marry at least be able to tolerate the husband/wife's family; otherwise, don't.

What I mean is that essentially, and although more complex when you factor in love and familial bonds, marriage is a contract.

[Neutraligon]

And who will pay for said contracts?

who do you think.

Answer the question. If you do what you are planning and the individual must pay for the contracts, you are making "marriage" only available to the rich.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I'm arguing that people shouldn't feel pressured into marriage if they're in a long-term relationship. I'm arguing that privileges granted by marriage should be eliminated. I'm arguing that people should be free to set whatever terms they want to their relationships through a contract that doesn't necessarily have to deal with the topic of "love" and that doesn't have to be limited by the "template" of marriage.

Essentially I would like seeing marriage disappear and be replaced by either nothing or contracts with custom terms.

Nobody, absolutely nobody ever has felt pressured to marry even if they are in a long-term relationship. That's something the couple has to decide on their own, and it has always been like that.

you wanna bet on that? I'm not just talking about external pressure but more about pressure from the partner.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It is, in essence, a contract, but it is so much more than that.

In my opinion, when you enter a marriage, it's a moment when not only two individuals decide to cohabitate, share their assets, and affirm their love in front of a judge or a priest. It is also the union of two distinct families through the bonds of the people who marry as well as their assets.

But in my case, I also am of the opinion that if you're going to marry at least be able to tolerate the husband/wife's family; otherwise, don't.

And I disagree on a personal level. Marriage for me is none of that. If I were to get married it would be for the legal benefits.

And I don't mind that you disagree and that for you marriage is more than that. I have no right to shove my view of marriage down your throat because of silly edginess.

And I appreciate that.

I mean I don't see marriage ceremonies as a way to get legal benefits. But then again I come from a more conservative background so the idea of marriage being an institution that not only joins two people but also two families was firmly shoved up my ass since I was a kid, taking classes on the Romans did not help that notion .

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

who do you think.

Answer the question. If you do what you are planning and the individual must pay for the contracts, you are making "marriage" only available to the rich.

and this is the exact point i'm trying to make. assuming you do not want all contracts to be free then why should marriage be the special snowflake of the bunch?

[Divitaen]

Because its not just a 'piece of paper'. People who enter marriage are protected in their committment legally by the state in a way co-habitation and other 'contracts' that you are proposing don't. Leaving a marriage is infinitely harder than leaving a 'contract' that you are proposing, because you subject yourself to legal consequences once you file for divorce. The purpose of this is to create an institution for two consenting adults who wish to enter long-term committment to do so consensually, and the two of them seal that committed relationship by entering a legal institution whereby they willingly subject themselves to consequences if they leave, just to show how much they love the other partner and how far they're willing to go to settle down with him or her. It's much, much more than a 'piece of paper' and I'm sure a lot of married couples would disagree with you on that.

I don't know about you but being asked or required by a would-be partner to enter this contract whereby I or her face legal consequences by leaving the relationship would be the polar opposite of showing "love and commitment". Admitting that you may require legal or financial benefits later on in order not to leave the relationship would be a major turn-off.

No, not at all. It's a matter of trust. If you enter a marriage, you are telling your partner that you're so very sure you want to enter a committed, long-term relationship with that person that you would willingly and voluntarily subject yourself to legal consequences if you choose to abrogate or terminate the relationship, and your partner makes the same promise. It is a way of having your committment logged down in the law to make it official in society, and a way of 'sealing the deal' on your relationship. That's why married couples get additional benefits like inheritance, social security, hospital visitation, and they can file for taxes as a single entity.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Nobody, absolutely nobody ever has felt pressured to marry even if they are in a long-term relationship. That's something the couple has to decide on their own, and it has always been like that.

you wanna bet on that? I'm not just talking about external pressure but more about pressure from the partner.

And again, that's something the couple should be aware of.

There's probably some cases where people have felt pressured to marry. But in general I don't think the vast majority of people who marry feel pressured to marry.

[Mavorpen]

Nobody, absolutely nobody ever has felt pressured to marry even if they are in a long-term relationship. That's something the couple has to decide on their own, and it has always been like that.

you wanna bet on that? I'm not just talking about external pressure but more about pressure from the partner.

So we should get rid of colleges and universities, right? I mean, the pressure people get to go to college is so horrible!