NationStates Jolt Archive

Marriage – Why Bother?

It seems to me, that with more and more legal systems granting couples who dwell together the same legal rights as those who are married, and also now granting the same parental rights to those couples who have children together, live together, but are not married – what’s the point in getting hitched?

Ok, so I imagine many of you will understandably take the Religious route on this and some of you will talk about the true commitment, but it seems that the act of living together and sharing all of the financial responsibilities is commitment enough these days.

It’s something that can be argued from both sides really, there are those that say
“But we live together, and we already share everything, so why should we get married”
And then there’s the “But we live together, and we already share everything, so why shouldn’t we get married”

Or should every woman take the opportunity to be a princess, just for one day? :)

I fully agreed with Mstreeted in that marriage should be abolished.

It violates our rights and tries to enforse a patrachical society on everyone. Engels basically disproved the entire notion of the so-called Christian family in his famous work The Origin of Family.

Or should every woman take the opportunity to be a princess, just for one day? :)
Gag. You had me up until this point.

Don't see much need for marriage, myself, but my partner is very attached to the idea. If things work out with us I'll probably go along with marriage to make him happy, as it will make pretty much no difference to me.

I fully agreed with Mstreeted in that marriage should be abolished.

It violates our rights and tries to enforse a patrachical society on everyone. Engels basically disproved the entire notion of the so-called Christian family in his famous work The Origin of Family.

May i just clarify that I'm FOR marriage - but I'm questionin it's necessity in today's society :)

If you are talking about common law marriages (http://www.unmarried.org/common.html)(couples whom don't have the "marriage license" but live together and get legal benifits) that actually is a marriage, so it's not like they are unmarried but getting the legal stuff for free.


My cynical view today, is that having a legal marriage makes things a hell of a lot easier when you divorce. ;)

Imagine trying to weed through money, kids and belongings after a 10 year relationship (heck even a 2 year relationship) who bought what, what belongs to who......it all gets smushed up pretty quickly.

Divorce is easier it says "all of this belongs to you both, lets split it up"

May i just clarify that I'm FOR marriage - but I'm questionin it's necessity in today's society :)


Are you a progressive or a regressive?

True freedom would mean freedom from marriage, societal constraints, and from financial concerns. We need to allow free development for all.

I find it financially unimportant but the symbolism of it is appealing.

If you are talking about common law marriages (http://www.unmarried.org/common.html)(couples whom don't have the "marriage license" but live together and get legal benifits) that actually is a marriage, so it's not like they are unmarried but getting the legal stuff for free.


My cynical view today, is that having a legal marriage makes things a hell of a lot easier when you divorce. ;)

Imagine trying to weed through money, kids and belongings after a 10 year relationship (heck even a 2 year relationship) who bought what, what belongs to who......it all gets smushed up pretty quickly.

Divorce is easier it says "all of this belongs to you both, lets split it up"

my understanding is that if you've been living together for that length of time you'd have to go through all that anyway... I could be wrong - it's not unheard of :D

my understanding is that if you've been living together for that length of time you'd have to go through all that anyway... I could be wrong - it's not unheard of :D
which means you entered a common law marriage, which is a legal marriage. (did you not read the cool linky I provided?)

i did not cuz i'm lazy

muwahaha

i see it more as a commitment and emotional thing - an official bond or tie to stay together come what may - more than anything else.

yes, for practical reasons now there's little difference between just living together and being married, but on that emotional level there's far more to being married :)

i see it more as a commitment and emotional thing - an official bond or tie to stay together come what may - more than anything else.

yes, for practical reasons now there's little difference between just living together and being married, but on that emotional level there's far more to being married :)

At least you agree with me that marriage should be made illegal or at least discouraged. Since parents are too stupid to teach their children correctly, we need to use the public schools to teach kids.

Ultimately we need social progress, in order to get progress vote Democrat/NDP/Liberal Democrat in the next election.

At least you agree with me that marriage should be made illegal or at least discouraged. Since parents are too stupid to teach their children correctly, we need to use the public schools to teach kids.

Ultimately we need social progress, in order to get progress vote Democrat/NDP/Liberal Democrat in the next election.
Amen, reverend.
At any rate, all of the old standards are degrading. It's saddening.

Marriage – Why Bother?

It seems to me, that with more and more legal systems granting couples who dwell together the same legal rights as those who are married, and also now granting the same parental rights to those couples who have children together, live together, but are not married – what’s the point in getting hitched?

Ok, so I imagine many of you will understandably take the Religious route on this and some of you will talk about the true commitment, but it seems that the act of living together and sharing all of the financial responsibilities is commitment enough these days.

It’s something that can be argued from both sides really, there are those that say
“But we live together, and we already share everything, so why should we get married”
And then there’s the “But we live together, and we already share everything, so why shouldn’t we get married”

Or should every woman take the opportunity to be a princess, just for one day? :)

In a common law marriage ( as in sharing the same roof 6 months and a day ), one marries for rich or richer.

In religious marriage, one marries for richer or poorer.

If one prefers the common law marriage, something might be inferred about the nature of that one... :P

:fluffle:

In a common law marriage ( as in sharing the same roof 6 months and a day ), one marries for rich or richer.

In religious marriage, one marries for richer or poorer.

If one prefers the common law marriage, something might be inferred about the nature of that one... :P

:fluffle:
Golddigger! ;)

Amen, reverend.
At any rate, all of the old standards are degrading. It's saddening.

Finally, someone who has advanced thinking, and it comes from a Jesuit priest. It is refreshing when you meet someone who realizes the problems with the Catholic Church.

Do you know when the Catholic Church will start to recongize marriage equality?

Finally, someone who has advanced thinking, and it comes from a Jesuit priest. It is refreshing when you meet someone who realizes the problems with the Catholic Church.

Do you know when the Catholic Church will start to recongize marriage equality?


The same day YOU learn to submit unto the Will of God. :p

Finally, someone who has advanced thinking, and it comes from a Jesuit priest. It is refreshing when you meet someone who realizes the problems with the Catholic Church.

Do you know when the Catholic Church will start to recongize marriage equality?
Not Catholic...agnostic. I love irony.

In a common law marriage ( as in sharing the same roof 6 months and a day ), one marries for rich or richer.

In religious marriage, one marries for richer or poorer.

If one prefers the common law marriage, something might be inferred about the nature of that one... :P

:fluffle:

that's a bit of a generalisation - you cant assume someone is only in a common law marriage for money

:rolleyes:

that's a bit of a generalisation - you cant assume someone is only in a common law marriage for money

:rolleyes:

The thing is that very few people go out to claim they actually ARE in a Common Law marriage - unless they want to get a divorce from it.

And we've got (2006-1867) years of Case Law as evidence for that statement.

:fluffle: besides - would a proper lass really wish to miss the chance to be a Princess?

why d'ya think i'm pro marriage? .. i want the dress and tiara damn it

It's true that it's a terrible hassle. But it does make a distinction between people who live together for the heck of it and people who want to provide legally and financially for each other in the event that something bad happens. That's why gay couples should have the exact same marital rights, there's really no reason not to give it to them.

It's true that it's a terrible hassle. But it does make a distinction between people who live together for the heck of it and people who want to provide legally and financially for each other in the event that something bad happens. That's why gay couples should have the exact same marital rights, there's really no reason not to give it to them.

living together long enough means in the eyes of the law you ARE leagally and financially supporting each other

Are you a progressive or a regressive?

True freedom would mean freedom from marriage, societal constraints, and from financial concerns. We need to allow free development for all.

True freedom would also mean the freedom to marry. And freedom does not mean that you have no financial concerns. Freedom != paradise.

You may think that making a committment to someone for the rest of your life is "patriarchal", but some of us would like to do so.

At least you agree with me that marriage should be made illegal or at least discouraged. Since parents are too stupid to teach their children correctly, we need to use the public schools to teach kids.

Huh? :confused: When does he say anything remotely along the lines of wanting marriage illegal or discouraged?

living together long enough means in the eyes of the law you ARE leagally and financially supporting each other

*nods* true.
I must dash...
:fluffle: for Mssie!

*nods* true.
I must dash...
:fluffle: for Mssie!

i'm just so fluffable :fluffle:

At least you agree with me that marriage should be made illegal or at least discouraged.
where on earth did i say that???

You may think that making a committment to someone for the rest of your life is "patriarchal", but some of us would like to do so.

So long as your children attend public school, I suppose the government can tolerate marriage. But what about the right to have sex?

where on earth did i say that???
You didn't. He's assuming.

i'm just so fluffable :fluffle:


*nods slowly and enjoying*
:fluffle:
YEEHAW!

So long as your children attend public school, I suppose the government can tolerate marriage. But what about the right to have sex?
If they take that away, I'm doomed to virginity. Not fun.

*nods slowly and enjoying*
:fluffle:
YEEHAW!

Yeehaw?... images of cowboy hats spring to mind
:fluffle:
i must dash too...t'ra for now :)
:fluffle:

Ah! Fluffles! :eek:

living together long enough means in the eyes of the law you ARE leagally and financially supporting each other

No, I mean if somebody dies or gets really sick and they need the next of kin.

It's true that it's a terrible hassle. But it does make a distinction between people who live together for the heck of it and people who want to provide legally and financially for each other in the event that something bad happens.
No it doesn't. Many people get married "for the heck of it," and many people who cohabitate take there relationships extremely seriously.

No it doesn't. Many people get married "for the heck of it," and many people who cohabitate take there relationships extremely seriously.
Indeed true, and this is more true today than ever before.

I could care less either way. If I was in a relationship and my significant other wanted to get married, fine. If not, doesn't worry me either. If the relationship wouldn't hold together without a piece of paper anyway, it wouldn't be much of one, so I don't see why it's absolutely necessary.

I'm against marriage, and procreation.

I fully agreed with Mstreeted in that marriage should be abolished.

It violates our rights and tries to enforse a patrachical society on everyone. Engels basically disproved the entire notion of the so-called Christian family in his famous work The Origin of Family.


I don't see how that works. Nobody forces you to get married, you either want to or you do not want to. Leave it as it is it's still a choice, like having kids, do it or don't do it, but for fucks sake don't make laws about it.

I'm against marriage, and procreation.I'm largely against the latter, and am fairly ambivalent about marriage. If I were ever to do it, it would merely be symbolic cementing of our relationship to the outside world. Not that the outside world would be invited to the ceremony, however; I despise big, white weddings.

I don't see how that works. Nobody forces you to get married, you either want to or you do not want to. Leave it as it is it's still a choice, like having kids, do it or don't do it, but for fucks sake don't make laws about it.
Quite true, at least in most of the world. Where marriage is forced, however, it's something else entirely.

I'm largely against the latter, and am fairly ambivalent about marriage. If I were ever to do it, it would merely be symbolic cementing of our relationship to the outside world. Not that the outside world would be invited to the ceremony, however; I despise big, white weddings.


Actually, I like weddings. Great place to get drunk and dance with in-laws. Nothing quite like dancing with a sister-in-law. Kinda 'thrilling' if you think about it. :p

Actually, I like weddings. Great place to get drunk and dance with in-laws. Nothing quite like dancing with a sister-in-law. Kinda 'thrilling' if you think about it. :p
Hate weddings. Can't drink, and in a dress. Not fun.

Eh, I will only do a small wedding in front of immediate family members and close friends.

So long as your children attend public school, I suppose the government can tolerate marriage.

Huh? What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

But what about the right to have sex?

What about it?

Hmmm, would it be bad taste for someone to invite their exs to a wedding?

Hmmm, would it be bad taste for someone to invite their exs to a wedding?

Depends. If you are now friends with said ex, why not? I've been invited to an ex's wedding.

Depends. If you are now friends with said ex, why not? I've been invited to an ex's wedding.

Yea, my gf is still friends with her ex, and eh I used to be bothered by it, but he has his own gf now, so it's all good. Plus she said that she thinks it's just best if they're just friends (him and her). I can get jealous sometimes lol