The Institution of Marriage

FreshHat said:
"Marriage is a fine institution ... but who wants to live in an institution?"

Groucho Marx
Click to expand...

Agreed, I think we are wasting too much time and money marrying and divorcing people. If people want to continue to marry because of religious reasons that is one thing. However it they are not religious, why marry?

And while we are at it, why is a wedding ceremony such a big deal for a lot of women...crying over dresses, etc. I think it has a lot to do with the Jones's. But most people are not the Jones and are not really very romantic in their private lives.

What I think people too often forget is that romance is a way of life. It is not an event. And it is a way of life too often lacking in our modern lives. We are in love with the notion of romance rather than romance itself.
 
Liebling said:
Why is it that gay marriage opponents incite the "Institution of Marriage" fallacy all of the time? We hear words like "sanctity" and "honor" and "immoral", and yet... We have a right to divorce.

Divorce goes against the "Institution of Marriage" more than anyone wanting to be married does. There is no sanctity, honor or morality about divorce. And the result of divorce is the ending of the such a union.

So why is it that people aren't trying to outlaw divorce to protect the sanctity of marriage?
Click to expand...

Because people are hypocrites. Nothing left to say about that.
 
joepistole said:
Agreed, I think we are wasting too much time and money marrying and divorcing people. If people want to continue to marry because of religious reasons that is one thing. However it they are not religious, why marry?

And while we are at it, why is a wedding ceremony such a big deal for a lot of women...crying over dresses, etc. I think it has a lot to do with the Jones's. But most people are not the Jones and are not really very romantic in their private lives.

What I think people too often forget is that romance is a way of life. It is not an event. And it is a way of life too often lacking in our modern lives. We are in love with the notion of romance rather than romance itself.
Click to expand...


Well, in this country, marriage is a part of our system of laws and government. A spouse has the right not to testify against the other in a court of law, but a partner does not have that right. They take social security from our checks, and provide help to spouses should one or the other pass away based on the amount you paid in, but only if you are married. Inheritance laws, medical decisions, family court, they are all based on a system of marriage and parental right and if you do not have the right to marry the partner of your choosing, you lose rights to inheritance, social security, healthcare, medical choices... So it's not all about romance, and this keeps getting derailed really on people's opinions about marriage itself.

There are tons of ways that our system of laws make not being able to be married to a spouse of your choosing, a denied right.

All the people who seem to be in "defense of marriage" are so for an emotional reason and not on the basis of facts and logic, nor are they interested in fair and equal rights under our current system of laws for ALL people. But the hypocrisy comes when we say that we want to protect marriage, but we still want to allow divorce.

Do you think that disallowing divorce would make people think twice about getting married to begin with?

What would happen to our system of laws if you couldn't get divorced?

Should our system of laws not recognize marriage at all?
 
Liebling said:
Well, in this country, marriage is a part of our system of laws and government. A spouse has the right not to testify against the other in a court of law, but a partner does not have that right. They take social security from our checks, and provide help to spouses should one or the other pass away based on the amount you paid in, but only if you are married. Inheritance laws, medical decisions, family court, they are all based on a system of marriage and parental right and if you do not have the right to marry the partner of your choosing, you lose rights to inheritance, social security, healthcare, medical choices... So it's not all about romance, and this keeps getting derailed really on people's opinions about marriage itself.

There are tons of ways that our system of laws make not being able to be married to a spouse of your choosing, a denied right.

All the people who seem to be in "defense of marriage" are so for an emotional reason and not on the basis of facts and logic, nor are they interested in fair and equal rights under our current system of laws for ALL people. But the hypocrisy comes when we say that we want to protect marriage, but we still want to allow divorce.

Do you think that disallowing divorce would make people think twice about getting married to begin with?

What would happen to our system of laws if you couldn't get divorced?

Should our system of laws not recognize marriage at all?
Click to expand...

No I don't think that disallowing divorce would make people think twice about getting married. When people get married they are all in love and have all the hormones floating around in their bloodstream. So they are not real go at making rational decisions about their relationship as a general rule - especially younger couples.

I would not be bent out of shape if marriage was no longer recognized by legal statutes. It might make people a little more responsible in their decision making, and might even reduce the divorce rate. There was a time when marriage law was necesary to protect women...back when they were without much legal standing compared to their husbands. But those days have long come and gone.
 
joepistole said:
And while we are at it, why is a wedding ceremony such a big deal for a lot of women...crying over dresses, etc. I think it has a lot to do with the Jones's.
Click to expand...

It's a celebration why wouldn't noe be excited about it. I remember all of my classmates being excited about our high school graduation, I mean we don't need a graduation ceremony, all you have to do just finish you're last class and then you never come back. Wedding's like high school graduations are halmark moments in one's life that are celebrated with a large ceremony in American culture at least, what's wrong with being excited about a day that's about you and others being happy for you?
 
CutsieMarie89 said:
It's a celebration why wouldn't noe be excited about it. I remember all of my classmates being excited about our high school graduation, I mean we don't need a graduation ceremony, all you have to do just finish you're last class and then you never come back. Wedding's like high school graduations are halmark moments in one's life that are celebrated with a large ceremony in American culture at least, what's wrong with being excited about a day that's about you and others being happy for you?
Click to expand...

Nothing is wrong with it if that is what you want and it makes you happy. But it should be remembered it is only a wedding and if something goes wrong, there is no need to freek out.
 
Liebling said:
Why is it that gay marriage opponents incite the "Institution of Marriage" fallacy all of the time? We hear words like "sanctity" and "honor" and "immoral", and yet... We have a right to divorce.

Divorce goes against the "Institution of Marriage" more than anyone wanting to be married does. There is no sanctity, honor or morality about divorce. And the result of divorce is the ending of the such a union.

So why is it that people aren't trying to outlaw divorce to protect the sanctity of marriage?
Click to expand...

People get married because they want to, people get divorced because they want to. I think this is very good to have as a policy.
 
John99 said:
People get married because they want to, people get divorced because they want to. I think this is very good to have as a policy.
Click to expand...

That is fine as long as those doing it pay for it. But I don't really see the advantage of legal marriage. I can see plenty of disadvantages and a burden on the legal system. I think the legal system is probably not the best place to resolve marital issues.
 
joepistole said:
That is fine as long as those doing it pay for it. But I don't really see the advantage of legal marriage. I can see plenty of disadvantages and a burden on the legal system.
Click to expand...

I cant see why or how.

I think the legal system is probably not the best place to resolve marital issues.
Click to expand...

When a relationship is over it is VERY rare occurrence when both parties agree it should end. This is why there is a need for third parties to get, at least, somewhat involved. I know when i was younger it was difficult and hard to accept, but now i just say 'this person no longer wants to be with me' and that is basically it.
 
John99 said:
People get married because they want to, people get divorced because they want to. I think this is very good to have as a policy.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Instant gratification is the problem in this society. We never learn to work together and to resolve conflicts. If you can't do it between two people, how can you ever think you can handle it on a global scale?

I know a ton of people who had arranged marriages that have lasted a very long time. You learn to work together.

Marriages that work, by and large, are a business partnership. I am not saying that love and romance are dead, or that they aren't important, but that if you base your relationship on love alone... you are acrewed. I think divorce is a very bad idea, but with careful consideration... marriages can be worked out to the mutual benefit of both parties.

----------------------------------------------------------------

No conservative or religious anti-gay marriage people going to chime in on this? I'll ask again;

If you oppose gay marriage because it will destroy the institution of marriage... why don't you oppose divorce?
 
Liebling said:
Why is it that gay marriage opponents incite the "Institution of Marriage" fallacy all of the time? We hear words like "sanctity" and "honor" and "immoral", and yet... We have a right to divorce.

Divorce goes against the "Institution of Marriage" more than anyone wanting to be married does. There is no sanctity, honor or morality about divorce. And the result of divorce is the ending of the such a union.

So why is it that people aren't trying to outlaw divorce to protect the sanctity of marriage?
Click to expand...


couldnt agree more as marriage was around before religion was so "its a religous act" shouldnt be used, and honestly why does it matter? its not going to affect me weather 2 men or 2 woman get married i really dont see the problem with it.
 
joepistole said:
That is fine as long as those doing it pay for it. But I don't really see the advantage of legal marriage. I can see plenty of disadvantages and a burden on the legal system. I think the legal system is probably not the best place to resolve marital issues.
Click to expand...
Most of the burdens placed on the legal system center around resolving who gets the children or jointly-owned property when the couple splits up. It's not clear to me how things would be any better if "marriage" per se was eliminated. Couples who loved each other would still want to live together, have children, and jointly own property. When they split up, they will still need a system to determine who gets what.
 
Liebling said:
----------------------------------------------------------------

No conservative or religious anti-gay marriage people going to chime in on this? I'll ask again;

If you oppose gay marriage because it will destroy the institution of marriage... why don't you oppose divorce?
Click to expand...

"Because divorce is between a man and a woman but I don't approve of divorce either." That's what my conservative friend from school said. Which I think boils down to "one grosses me out the other doesn't".
 
joepistole said:
No I don't think that disallowing divorce would make people think twice about getting married. When people get married they are all in love and have all the hormones floating around in their bloodstream. So they are not real go at making rational decisions about their relationship as a general rule - especially younger couples.

I would not be bent out of shape if marriage was no longer recognized by legal statutes. It might make people a little more responsible in their decision making, and might even reduce the divorce rate. There was a time when marriage law was necesary to protect women...back when they were without much legal standing compared to their husbands. But those days have long come and gone.
Click to expand...

umm actually partnerships (in whatever form)

a) improve life expectancy of the people involved
b) inprove QUALITIY of life of the people involved
c) lessen the burden on the tax system
d) lessen the amount of housing required
e) lessen the number of years people require surported accomidation

ect ect

Goverments have a massive finantial insentive to pair people up and keep them paired up.

For instance if defacto laws were unrecognised then i would be eligable for Auststudy to help pay to surport myself while i study. However my partner earns to much and there for the goverment gives me diddly squat. As a trade off she is there for able to claim me as a dependent spouse and gets a tax break for that. In the end the higher amount of income tax free doesnt in anyway shape or form equate to the amount of Auststudy i would be reciving if single.

For the state to appoint guardians for every person who hasnt filled out an enduring power of guardianship form and who becomes even temporaraly mentally incapacitated would put a HUGE burden on the courts. Because of spouse provisions in the various acts its much cheeper and easier and its quite likly that spouses have a better understanding of a persons desires (for instance if they find themselves in a persistant vegitative state) than the Office of the Public Advocate does.

Who do you think will be a better guardian for a spouses children? CPS or a loving spouse?

If a spouse is unreachable then why should it go to court for nessary medical decisions to be made rather than getting that permission from a partner or spouse?

Why shouldnt a partner or spouse be entitled the super that person has accrewed if they die and why shouldnt they be entitled to sue an employer if the person is killed in a work place acident (ect)

Tax law is only a VERY small part of legislation which deals with partners and spouses. For the most part now De factos are recognised exactly the same as marriage here
 
Nasor said:
Most of the burdens placed on the legal system center around resolving who gets the children or jointly-owned property when the couple splits up. It's not clear to me how things would be any better if "marriage" per se was eliminated. Couples who loved each other would still want to live together, have children, and jointly own property. When they split up, they will still need a system to determine who gets what.
Click to expand...
Marriage as a ceremony would then have to be supplanted by civil union as a contract. Basically, the equivalent of having a prenuptial agreement without the nuptials.

Many people argue that prenuptial agreements should be legally required anyway. Most people don't really object to the idea of having one, it's just that neither spouse wants to be the one to suggest it.

In this era when (in America) the average marriage only lasts fifteen years, it's kind of idiotic to have absolutely no legal agreement in place to guide the termination. People end up handing one-fourth of their assets to an attorney, and dissipating another one-fourth in liquidation, just because they can't agree on how to divide them fairly.

And for the goddess's sake, the most important thing in any marriage is the children. The bitter court battles that take place over custody are an embarrassment to our entire culture. Maybe it would be a little premature to sign a custody and support agreement when you get married, but you sure as hell should be required to sign one before each child is born! If not, then I say you have automatically given up your right to participate in the decision, and you've left it up to the children and their court-appointed advocates to decide.
 
Liebling said:
I disagree.

Instant gratification is the problem in this society. We never learn to work together and to resolve conflicts. If you can't do it between two people, how can you ever think you can handle it on a global scale?

I know a ton of people who had arranged marriages that have lasted a very long time. You learn to work together.

Marriages that work, by and large, are a business partnership. I am not saying that love and romance are dead, or that they aren't important, but that if you base your relationship on love alone... you are acrewed. I think divorce is a very bad idea, but with careful consideration... marriages can be worked out to the mutual benefit of both parties.

----------------------------------------------------------------

No conservative or religious anti-gay marriage people going to chime in on this? I'll ask again;

If you oppose gay marriage because it will destroy the institution of marriage... why don't you oppose divorce?
Click to expand...

I too disagree with too much emphasis on instant gratification, but I don't think people should be forced to stay together.
 
Liebling said:
Why is it that gay marriage opponents incite the "Institution of Marriage" fallacy all of the time? We hear words like "sanctity" and "honor" and "immoral", and yet... We have a right to divorce.

Divorce goes against the "Institution of Marriage" more than anyone wanting to be married does. There is no sanctity, honor or morality about divorce. And the result of divorce is the ending of the such a union.

So why is it that people aren't trying to outlaw divorce to protect the sanctity of marriage?
Click to expand...

I do not support divorce, although often someone gets married to someone who is verbally or physically abusive without knowing it would be that way. Remarriage is a different question. Many religions are against homosexual marriage because they believe God told them it is wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top