On Marriage

[The Parkus Empire]

Marriage makes someone your family. All the griping about how gays need marriage without even knowing what is, smdh

Wut

I mean your spouse is close family, even closer than your parents. That's what marriage means, that's the whole basis of the "hospital visits" people said were so important

[The Parkus Empire]

You don't fucking disown them

Why would no longer being married mean you're disowning them?

Marriage makes them family, divorce unmakes them family

[Internationalist Bastard]

Wut

I mean your spouse is close family, even closer than your parents. That's what marriage means, that's the whole basis of the "hospital visits" people said were so important

Yeah I got that
The bringing in the gays part

[Cannot think of a name]

I am intrigued by this idea. However, marriages that involve children seem like it would be one of those things that the more you try to account for difficulties the more you over complicate the process.

I realize that this will make me sound like an anti-same sex marriage advocate-I'm not-but perhaps there could be a half step. Because I could see a window in which I am with and committed to someone enough to want the legal protections that come with marriage but not especially into the whole 'til death do us part' bit. So rather than a 'consolation prize' for same sex couples maybe we can look at the idea of 'civil unions' for couples who want visitation rights for the person they're seeing without all the obligations of marriage or whatever that might be, something that can be easily dissolved. Maybe it would require a distinction between personal and shared property, something in the agreement that deals with that when the term is up.

Ultimately this is kind of a complicated way to make something marginally less complicated, but as a thought exercise but I'm into it.

[Alanis Star]

Thanks but I'm not interested.

Same thing, really. Having a wife is going to be a big step for me (I may or may not get married, but that's for the future). So... having kids is definitely out of the question.

Valentine can't be tied down with kids.

[Infected Mushroom]

So I had a weird dream the other night and while I was unpacking it I came upon a thought that I'd like to share.

Modern marriage should have yearly terms instead of being for life.

My reasoning for this is simple, the world has changed enough in Western countries that marriage for life no longer makes any sense. 100 years ago you were about as formed at the age of 16 as you would ever be, for the vast majority of people. You knew how to farm if you were a farmer or you had a job at the local factory if you were urban. Your partner was the same. That was your life and that was it.

These days it's normal if not expected for people to have multiple jobs during their life time. To move around the city, country, even the world. A life time marriage contract is shackling people together who now have far more options as the years progress than our ancestors did. It's perfectly possible to love someone dearly but an opportunity to move away for a new job would mean forcing them to leave their own, which they may also love.

Was I eating too much cheese before I went to bed that night or do I have a point? Why or why not?

then you might as well get rid of marriage altogether

it can't be marriage at all if it needs to be renewed every year, "I propose to you that we get married... for a year anyways"

there is little difference between a marriage and a casual relationship in that event

[Fartsniffage]

So I had a weird dream the other night and while I was unpacking it I came upon a thought that I'd like to share.

Modern marriage should have yearly terms instead of being for life.

My reasoning for this is simple, the world has changed enough in Western countries that marriage for life no longer makes any sense. 100 years ago you were about as formed at the age of 16 as you would ever be, for the vast majority of people. You knew how to farm if you were a farmer or you had a job at the local factory if you were urban. Your partner was the same. That was your life and that was it.

These days it's normal if not expected for people to have multiple jobs during their life time. To move around the city, country, even the world. A life time marriage contract is shackling people together who now have far more options as the years progress than our ancestors did. It's perfectly possible to love someone dearly but an opportunity to move away for a new job would mean forcing them to leave their own, which they may also love.

Was I eating too much cheese before I went to bed that night or do I have a point? Why or why not?

then you might as well get rid of marriage altogether

it can't be marriage at all if it needs to be renewed every year, "I propose to you that we get married... for a year anyways"

there is little difference between a marriage and a casual relationship in that event

It doesn't have to be for just one year.

A seven year marriage contract would make a lot of sense.

[Internationalist Bastard]

then you might as well get rid of marriage altogether

it can't be marriage at all if it needs to be renewed every year, "I propose to you that we get married... for a year anyways"

there is little difference between a marriage and a casual relationship in that event

It doesn't have to be for just one year.

A seven year marriage contract would make a lot of sense.

I mean that’s how Our Lady Andraste did it

[Fartsniffage]

I am intrigued by this idea. However, marriages that involve children seem like it would be one of those things that the more you try to account for difficulties the more you over complicate the process.

I realize that this will make me sound like an anti-same sex marriage advocate-I'm not-but perhaps there could be a half step. Because I could see a window in which I am with and committed to someone enough to want the legal protections that come with marriage but not especially into the whole 'til death do us part' bit. So rather than a 'consolation prize' for same sex couples maybe we can look at the idea of 'civil unions' for couples who want visitation rights for the person they're seeing without all the obligations of marriage or whatever that might be, something that can be easily dissolved. Maybe it would require a distinction between personal and shared property, something in the agreement that deals with that when the term is up.

Ultimately this is kind of a complicated way to make something marginally less complicated, but as a thought exercise but I'm into it.

This. Or something like this.

If people want to jump in with both feet then great. But maybe a shallower pool available to those who are a bit afraid of the deep water.

[The Parkus Empire]

I mean your spouse is close family, even closer than your parents. That's what marriage means, that's the whole basis of the "hospital visits" people said were so important

Yeah I got that
The bringing in the gays part

I mean liberals who demanded so loudly for gay marriage, often don't even know what marriage is. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, a serious responsibility. Divorce is a perversion, a wrong, an evil. Making perversion the norm and responsibility the exception, as the OP advocates, stems from a complete absence of distinction

[Fartsniffage]

Yeah I got that
The bringing in the gays part

I mean liberals who demanded so loudly for gay marriage, often don't even know what marriage is. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, a serious responsibility. Divorce is a perversion, a wrong, an evil. Making perversion the norm and responsibility the exception, as the OP advocates, stems from a complete absence of distinction

Divorce is already pretty much the norm.

[Cannot think of a name]

Yeah I got that
The bringing in the gays part

I mean liberals who demanded so loudly for gay marriage, often don't even know what marriage is.

Really, because I feel like we had to explain the over hundred rights and privilages that came with marriage to social conservatives who didn't actually understand what marriage entailed in modern society and a whole lot to self styled libertarians who didn't understand the massive legal ramifications of marriage. I guess we remember that debate differently.

[The Parkus Empire]

I mean liberals who demanded so loudly for gay marriage, often don't even know what marriage is. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, a serious responsibility. Divorce is a perversion, a wrong, an evil. Making perversion the norm and responsibility the exception, as the OP advocates, stems from a complete absence of distinction

Divorce is already pretty much the norm.

Average, you mean

[Internationalist Bastard]

Yeah I got that
The bringing in the gays part

I mean liberals who demanded so loudly for gay marriage, often don't even know what marriage is. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, a serious responsibility. Divorce is a perversion, a wrong, an evil. Making perversion the norm and responsibility the exception, as the OP advocates, stems from a complete absence of distinction

Divorce is normal
Abrahamics, like many normal things, declared it wasn’t

[Unit 23]

"Ops", said Moses, before he declared anything.

[Mujahidah]

I mean liberals who demanded so loudly for gay marriage, often don't even know what marriage is. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, a serious responsibility. Divorce is a perversion, a wrong, an evil. Making perversion the norm and responsibility the exception, as the OP advocates, stems from a complete absence of distinction

Divorce is normal
Abrahamics, like many normal things, declared it wasn’t

No only Christians.

"Divorce" exists as a concept in both Judaism (AFAIK) and Islam, albeit not in the unlimited capacity that it exists in Western legal systems.

[Fartsniffage]

Divorce is already pretty much the norm.

Average, you mean

What's the difference? I'f it's a thing that happens pretty much 50% of the time then it's pretty much the norm.

[The Parkus Empire]

I mean liberals who demanded so loudly for gay marriage, often don't even know what marriage is. Marriage is a lifelong commitment, a serious responsibility. Divorce is a perversion, a wrong, an evil. Making perversion the norm and responsibility the exception, as the OP advocates, stems from a complete absence of distinction

Divorce is normal
Abrahamics, like many normal things, declared it wasn’t

No, it's deviant. So is cheating on your wife, also declared deviant. Disowning your family is NOT normal.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Divorce is normal
Abrahamics, like many normal things, declared it wasn’t

No only Christians.

"Divorce" exists as a concept in both Judaism (AFAIK) and Islam, albeit not in the unlimited capacity that it exists in Western legal systems.

Even better

[Unit 23]

Deviance? Really?

[United Muscovite Nations]

No, marriage should be for life and indissoluble.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Divorce is normal
Abrahamics, like many normal things, declared it wasn’t

No, it's deviant. So is cheating on your wife, also declared deviant. Disowning your family is NOT normal.

Sure it is watch
My parents are dead and I don’t care
See easy

[The Parkus Empire]

Average, you mean

What's the difference? I'f it's a thing that happens pretty much 50% of the time then it's pretty much the norm.

A norm is a model or standard (as in "standards" not as in "average"). Deviation from the norm is deviancy

[Fartsniffage]

No, marriage should be for life and indissoluble.

Defend that statement without using religion.

[Fartsniffage]

What's the difference? I'f it's a thing that happens pretty much 50% of the time then it's pretty much the norm.

A norm is a model or standard (as in "standards" not as in "average"). Deviation from the norm is deviancy

Ah. You're making things up. Good for you.