NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, I know, it's kind of old news.
For those of you who haven't heard, a little while back a German MP, Gabriele Pauli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriele_Pauli), suggested that marriages should come with an "expiry date" of 7 years (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/21/wmarriage121.xml).

Now, religious ceremonies aside, as those don't have any sort of legal validity anyway, why is that being made out as such a bad idea? I mean, looking simply at numbers, almost all over the Western world 40-55% of marriages end in divorce, with the resulting mud-fights in court about who gets what, who gets custody, etc.

If couples were forced right from the start to commit to terms on how they want to handle affairs once the marriage is over, and if marriages could then simply end without a fuss after a set time (and 7 years sound sensible), we would save a lot of money overall, as well as sparing the couple and the possible offspring the mental trauma of going through years of court procedures (I know what I'm talking about, I went through that as a teenager).
Also, the expiry date doesn't in any way imply that the couple has to separate after 7 years. If they're still happy together, there's nothing stopping them from marrying again, is there?

So what are the objections?

Didn't we already hash this out in a thread?

I can't think of a single objection to the idea. :)

Didn't we already hash this out in a thread?

I don't know... I didn't, I think.

Didn't we already hash this out in a thread?

Yes, every thread on NSG must be original - it's tradition :)

Yes, every thread on NSG must be original - it's tradition :)

Yes I am aware of that rule. ;) Just this particular story was already hashed out on here is all the point I was making. Damn am I starting to sound like FASS with this or what?

It's not a bad idea. However, there should be an option for couples who want to stay married to just simply renew their existing license before the expiry. It would be a pain in the ass to go through the whole procedure again.

Unless the government charges money to *renew* the marriage, i don't really see a problem with it, most legal contracts need to be renewed every so often, why not marriage ?

If the government does charge money to renew the marriage, it sounds like a cheap disguise for a moneymaking scheme tbh.

It's not a bad idea. However, there should be an option for couples who want to stay married to just simply renew their existing license before the expiry. It would be a pain in the ass to go through the whole procedure again.

Yep, totally agree there. But then again, my brother told me recently about his work mate who went to the register office with her boyfriend to find out what they'd need to do to get married. They were told all they needed was their birth certificates and/or ID cards, which they both had with them.
When she came to work the next day she told her boss to change the shift schedule cause she's now got her husband's family name..

So maybe it's not that much hassle after all.

I can't think of a single objection to the idea. :)
Nor can I.

What would happen to kids in the case of a non-renewal. Custody is determined during a divorce in this country. And what happens if it expires when one person is incapacitated? Not objections so much as questions. Mainly I worry about kids. Kids benefit from marriage more than adults.

Unless the government charges money to *renew* the marriage, i don't really see a problem with it, most legal contracts need to be renewed every so often, why not marriage ?

If the government does charge money to renew the marriage, it sounds like a cheap disguise for a moneymaking scheme tbh.

I think they do charge a little in Germany.... it seems to be between 70 and 150 Euros, depending on where you get married. I don't really see that as a massive money-making scheme ;)

Why is that being made out as such a bad idea? I mean, looking simply at numbers, almost all over the Western world 40-55% of marriages end in divorce, with the resulting mud-fights in court about who gets what, who gets custody, etc.

If couples were forced right from the start to commit to terms on how they want to handle affairs once the marriage is over, and if marriages could then simply end without a fuss after a set time (and 7 years sound sensible), we would save a lot of money overall, as well as sparing the couple and the possible offspring the mental trauma of going through years of court procedures.


I don't see how the demand "Let's have a contract/terms on how to handle things once it's over" implies an automatic time limitation on the marriage.

You can have such a contract/agreement with 'traditional' marriage already, quite apart from the fact that the latter already comes with such (implicit?) agreements. The problem is not that such things don't exist, but that an agreement regarding such matters that is made at the beginning of a marriage is in no way guaranteed to still sound right to the partners when the time comes when they want to split up - and I don't see that all of the sudden, divorcees cease to contest what they are allotted after a divorce only because they have different ways of agreeing to divorce procedures and a time limit to the marriage now.

(This is, of course, speaking from the only mildly informed German perspective, where we have general basic automatic rules that come with marriage on how stuff is split up, and the option to draw up a contract detailing things further/differently pre-marriage).

Really, if "setting agreements" would solve the problem of post-divorce mess, then there's no reason why forcing marriage contracts shouldn't do the job as well. And just because a marriage ended on paper (e.g. after those 7 years), that by no means says that the divorce mess ends there and then, too.

Basically, I don't believe that this measure would help any of the problems it tries to address - the only benefit I see is that people who are mildly unhappy in their marriage but too apathetic to take the active measures to get out need to actually take active steps to preserve the marriage rather than the other way 'round.

Yes, I know, it's kind of old news.
For those of you who haven't heard, a little while back a German MP, Gabriele Pauli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriele_Pauli), suggested that marriages should come with an "expiry date" of 7 years (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/21/wmarriage121.xml).

Now, religious ceremonies aside, as those don't have any sort of legal validity anyway, why is that being made out as such a bad idea? I mean, looking simply at numbers, almost all over the Western world 40-55% of marriages end in divorce, with the resulting mud-fights in court about who gets what, who gets custody, etc.

If couples were forced right from the start to commit to terms on how they want to handle affairs once the marriage is over, and if marriages could then simply end without a fuss after a set time (and 7 years sound sensible), we would save a lot of money overall, as well as sparing the couple and the possible offspring the mental trauma of going through years of court procedures (I know what I'm talking about, I went through that as a teenager).
Also, the expiry date doesn't in any way imply that the couple has to separate after 7 years. If they're still happy together, there's nothing stopping them from marrying again, is there?

So what are the objections?


I can't even remember to renew my driver's license on time. I'm fucked. :(

What would happen to kids in the case of a non-renewal. Custody is determined during a divorce in this country. And what happens if it expires when one person is incapacitated? Not objections so much as questions. Mainly I worry about kids. Kids benefit from marriage more than adults.

That's one of the reasons why I would be in favour of the limited time marriage. If that became the norm, it would automatically mean that couples would need to decide beforehand what will happen once they separate. The numbers of dirty court divorces and fights involving using the kids to spy on one another should be drastically reduced.

I think they do charge a little in Germany.... it seems to be between 70 and 150 Euros, depending on where you get married. I don't really see that as a massive money-making scheme ;)

In the netherlands the marriage rates are based on time of day and day of week. (mondaymornings are (almost) free, wednesdays through friday are expensive, saturday is really expensive).
And i'm not objecting to a small fee, i just think its really annoying to have to pay the government extra for bloody everything. I already pay theyre salary through taxes ! :)

I can't even remember to renew my driver's license on time. I'm fucked. :(

No worries, I believe the plan includes letting people carry on their sexual relations even when the license accidentally expired.

No worries, I believe the plan includes letting people carry on their sexual relations even when the license accidentally expired.

Yay! :D

Because fucking without a valid license is a serious offense. *nod*

That's one of the reasons why I would be in favour of the limited time marriage. If that became the norm, it would automatically mean that couples would need to decide beforehand what will happen once they separate. The numbers of dirty court divorces and fights involving using the kids to spy on one another should be drastically reduced.

But what does a legally mandatory pre-marriage contract have to do with a time limitation? And where's the sense in such a contract made at a time where most realities of the marriage as it might be when the time of the divorce comes (such as money/wealth, kids etc) aren't (yet) there, will change dramatically and/or unforeseeably etc.?

Yay! :D

Because fucking without a valid license is a serious offense. *nod*

Absolutely. The first step in the right direction was when the Fucking License was detached from the Marriage License (though the anachronism "no sex before marriage" still prevails in Modern English), and with USAian sodomy laws being repealed left and right these days, I staunchly believe that the Fucking License will be obsolete soon, too.

But what does a legally mandatory pre-marriage contract have to do with a time limitation? And where's the sense in such a contract made at a time where most realities of the marriage as it might be when the time of the divorce comes (such as money/wealth, kids etc) aren't (yet) there, will change dramatically and/or unforeseeably etc.?

If there's no time limitation, what basis would a mandatory pre-marriage contract have? The problem with the perception of marriage today is that it should last forever, so most people feel no necessity for such an arrangement. Actually, many would regard it as insulting even to suggest something like this, as it would express the possibility that the marriage might in fact not last eternally.

What would happen to kids in the case of a non-renewal. Custody is determined during a divorce in this country. And what happens if it expires when one person is incapacitated? Not objections so much as questions. Mainly I worry about kids. Kids benefit from marriage more than adults.

Explain to me how I benefited from having married parents who were in a marriage that was breaking down? How did that work in my favour? Obviously it didn't. In fact, it was better once my parents were divorced.

As for deciding custody at the 7-year expiration point, unless both parties agree otherwise or a court decision is handed down, the custody is joint and the child(ren) spend(s) equal time with each parent.

Absolutely. The first step in the right direction was when the Fucking License was detached from the Marriage License (though the anachronism "no sex before marriage" still prevails in Modern English), and with USAian sodomy laws being repealed left and right these days, I staunchly believe that the Fucking License will be obsolete soon, too.

Good, because the renewal fees are killing me. Though to be honest, I kind of like the visual inspections. :)

If there's no time limitation, what basis would a mandatory pre-marriage contract have? The problem with the perception of marriage today is that it should last forever, so most people feel no necessity for such an arrangement. Actually, many would regard it as insulting even to suggest something like this, as it would express the possibility that the marriage might in fact not last eternally.

Maybe it's because you are an OldHag, and I'm a YoungGrasshopper, but I feel that marriage contracts are well enough established and that such delusional views of marriage as something "forever" is on its way out enough to allow most young couples today to contemplate such a contract.

What basis it would have? Well, umm, to avoid such divorce mess as we talked about; both the statistics about divorce rates and the gruesome stories of gory divorces are well-spread enough to warrant couples considering it, I think.

Good, because the renewal fees are killing me. Though to be honest, I kind of like the visual inspections. :)

Oh, I thought with a police officer's marriage, you get a discount of sorts on the fees, and a regular inspection with the tool of your choice.

Oh, I thought with a police officer's marriage, you get a discount of sorts on the fees, and a regular inspection with the tool of your choice.


Only the military gets a discount, and as I said, I like the inspections. :)

Maybe it's because you are an OldHag, and I'm a YoungGrasshopper, but I feel that marriage contracts are well enough established and that such delusional views of marriage as something "forever" is on its way out enough to allow most young couples today to contemplate such a contract.

What basis it would have? Well, umm, to avoid such divorce mess as we talked about; both the statistics about divorce rates and the gruesome stories of gory divorces are well-spread enough to warrant couples considering it, I think.



But then, considering most marriages fail one way or another, what is objectable to adjust the legal situation to reality and make marriages limited?

There's a reason prenups involving kids don't hold up. Too much can and does change. At the time of marriage, a couple might have one idea of how custody should be handled. Take the unhealthy family dynamic out of it, and it can still be a problem. What if one spouse unexpectedly does up making more? What if the person who decided they's have primary custody changes their mind for personal or other reasons? Many divorces get ugly. Many custody battles get ugly, even among people with healthy relationships. And that's not including the unhealthy ones or when you discover something down the road about the person you married.

Kry, nothing to do with that. Financially, ect. You are trying to debate something completely irrelevant to a contract.

If there's no time limitation, what basis would a mandatory pre-marriage contract have? The problem with the perception of marriage today is that it should last forever, so most people feel no necessity for such an arrangement. Actually, many would regard it as insulting even to suggest something like this, as it would express the possibility that the marriage might in fact not last eternally.

Call me a hopeless romantic if you like, but I don't see the idea of marriage lasting forever as a problem. What makes you see it so?

Kry, nothing to do with that. Financially, ect. You are trying to debate something completely irrelevant to a contract.

Then why say you worry about kids and that the marriage benefits them when it's purely contractual?

But then, considering most marriages fail one way or another, what is objectable to adjust the legal situation to reality and make marriages limited?

Do most marriages fail? I though the quoted percentage was 45-50% I make that just under, to just about half.

Hmmm, want the government to stay out of your bed?

Then this expiry date is also their way of crawling into yours.

Do most marriages fail? I though the quoted percentage was 45-50% I make that just under, to just about half.

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsWorld.shtml I was quoting the middle range, actually.

Hmmm, want the government to stay out of your bed?

Then this expiry date is also their way of crawling into yours.

How so?

Also, the expiry date doesn't in any way imply that the couple has to separate after 7 years. If they're still happy together, there's nothing stopping them from marrying again, is there?

So what are the objections?
I wouldn't object to that kind of deal. I think I would actually prefer it to our current "till death do us part" type of marriage, because it would mean that every 7 years my partner would have a chance to break things off if s/he wasn't satisfied. I would like that. I would like knowing that my partner was consciously choosing to stay married to me, and that they were specifically considering it every so often to make sure it was still what they wanted.

I can't even remember to renew my driver's license on time. I'm fucked. :(

That is actually a reasonable argument against. It is almost sterotypical that men cannot remember their weddingdate. What would the conseqences of forgetting to "renew your vows" be ? Or being unable to renew them due to being abroad, in a coma and so on ? Schiavo scenarios are coming to mind...

Kry, kids benefit from it financially. The argument you bring up is am entirely different one. Let's face it, most people who have kids with two incomes can't afford them. After a divorce, there's now two of everything which cuts further into the money that is available for the children.

What you are talking about is two unhealthy individuals who are incapable of making good choices bringing another life into their bullshit. Which is a debate about poor choices, not about the contract of marriage.

The whole marriage contract thing is over-rated, in Germany anyway. I know. I've worked for a divorce lawyer as a trainee lawyer. In Germany, laws on contractual fairness in marriage contracts are so strict that if there's even the slightest imbalance or unforeseen modification as to the spouses' financial and work situation, the contract may be subject to modification or nullification as well.

So, when Gabriele Pauli (not an MP, but the former executive head of the county I live in in Bavaria) declared marriages should automatically end after 7 years (but be renewable free of charge, I believe) she never gave the post-marital distributory problems much thought. Judging from her own divorce(s) - at least one, maybe two, I'm not sure - she should have known that one can hardly get anything really clearly settled beforehand by way of a marriage contract in Germany.

One thing which under German Law, the spouses cannot determine by themselves at all is custody - custody must be decided in court based on the well-being of the child in question.

That being said, I think that with the 7-year-term in mind, we could construct marriage as a mutual subscription contract which is automatically renewed unless cancelled half a year ahead of the end of the contractual period. That way, both spouses could sort everything out, given sufficient notice. Language-wise, we'd avoid calling it a divorce, plus we would adapt to the fact that marriage is largely seen as a timely contract nowadays anyway.

Also, instead of traditionally celebrating silver weddings (after 25 years of marriage) and gold weddings (after 50 years of marriage), we could have huge renewal parties every 7 years, thereby boosting the economy, especially the catering and private functions sector. Hallmark could have a new range of "You've made it past your term" - greeting cards. Designers could create latex gloves in honor of Gabriele Pauli (for all non-Germans: Mrs Pauli caused quite the scandal last year when she allowed Vanity Fair to photograph her wearing latex gloves and a really wacky wig).:D

Call me a hopeless romantic if you like, but I don't see the idea of marriage lasting forever as a problem. What makes you see it so?

The fact that appart from my grandparents' marriages (which had better ended decades ago for the sake of the mental sanity of all involved), I can't say I've ever seen a single marriage that lasted "forever". Not in my family, not in my circle of friends, not with any acquaintances, nowhere.

Call me a hopeless romantic if you like, but I don't see the idea of marriage lasting forever as a problem. What makes you see it so?
Because it doesn't.

Like it or not, marriage doesn't last forever. I think it's problematic if people believe marriage lasts forever when it doesn't. Marriage is complicated enough without people adding extra delusions to the mix.

The fact that appart from my grandparents' marriages (which had better ended decades ago for the sake of the mental sanity of all involved), I can't say I've ever seen a single marriage that lasted "forever". Not in my family, not in my circle of friends, not with any acquaintances, nowhere.
What's funny is that my own parents are still happily married (the first and only marriage for both of them) after 30+ years, yet I still think it's stupid for people to assume marriage will last forever, or even for a lifetime.

The fact that appart from my grandparents' marriages (which had better ended decades ago for the sake of the mental sanity of all involved), I can't say I've ever seen a single marriage that lasted "forever". Not in my family, not in my circle of friends, not with any acquaintances, nowhere.

Ahhhh our old friend subjective personal experiance then huh! Well then I can see why you would say this. I get my POV from the same really, growing up in a large family us kids always know that my mum and dad where only together for the kids(not nesicirly the right choice in my book), and that they would get divorced once we all grew up.

I guess I made sure that when I got married it would not end like that.

The way I see it, in my romantic way, is if you do not think it will last for ever then just say no. However as somebody has already pointed out, who really goes into marriage believing it won't last forever?

What's funny is that my own parents are still happily married (the first and only marriage for both of them) after 30+ years, yet I still think it's stupid for people to assume marriage will last forever, or even for a lifetime.

Well, I'm romantic enough to think it can, despite never having seen one that really did. So I'm not entirely rational after all ;)
I think it's admirable to try and make it last as long as possible, and to be happy with it. But I think it might be helpful if there wasn't so much social pressure that you HAVE to make it last.

I remember many years ago my mother telling me the following :
Imagine you're in a warm, comfortable room. There's everything in this room that you could possibly ever want, books, TV, CDs, Internet, everything. It's done up beautifully, in your favourite colours, the furniture is beautiful and incredibly comfortable. You look outside, and it's rainy and windy and cold. All you really want to do is stay in this room forever.
That's what a good relationship would be like.
Now, marriage would be like sombody locking the door from outside and telling you that you're no longer allowed to go outside, ever.

I think that is the kind of pressure that ought to be taken out of the whole arrangement...

How so?

Regulating a contract between two persons to share their intimacies. Isn't it obvious? First this, then, they can tell you with who you can or can't have a wedlock with.

Oh yeah,... if you think that this is an alarmist opinion, then just disregard it.

Because it doesn't.

Like it or not, marriage doesn't last forever. I think it's problematic if people believe marriage lasts forever when it doesn't. Marriage is complicated enough without people adding extra delusions to the mix.

Yet some do. I don't think the idea of marriage lasting is delusional at all. As I have just asked Cabra, who really goes into marriage thinking it won't last forever.

I would have said that believing that your marriage will last is the norm for people who decide to do it.

Regulating a contract between two persons to share their intimacies. Isn't it obvious? First this, then, they can tell you with who you can or can't have a wedlock with.

Oh yeah,... if you think that this is an alarmist opinion, then just disregard it.

Not sure what you mean by "alarmist". ;)
I don't see this as any sort of additional regulation, on the contrary. At the moment, the regulation is that if you do marry, it's to be forever. In the changed scenario, the regulation says that the marriage will last for 7 years, to be renewed after that if requested.

Yet some do. I don't think the idea of marriage lasting is delusional at all. As I have just asked Cabra, who really goes into marriage thinking it won't last forever.

I would have said that believing that your marriage will last is the norm for people who decide to do it.

And yet barely half of them do. Might as well face realities...

Not sure what you mean by "alarmist". ;)
I don't see this as any sort of additional regulation, on the contrary. At the moment, the regulation is that if you do marry, it's to be forever. In the changed scenario, the regulation says that the marriage will last for 7 years, to be renewed after that if requested.

Alarmist as in,... well, the extreme example would be a conspiracy "OH NOES, THE BIG BROTHER ALIEN GOVERNMENT IS WATCHING" theorist.

The "renew every 7 years" deal for me is somewhat too controlling, I don't even want to imagine what hell it'd be like to manage your income/estate taxes if you forgot to renew the license.:p

And let's put ourselves in the perspective of the government, wouldn't it also requires infrastructure and resources to manage the new database? In the old deal, you got married, your marriage certificate is then archived, only to be requested if you wish to dissolve the marriage.

And yet barely half of them do. Might as well face realities...

Heh I have faced all sorts realities. No it's not denial, romanticism I'll admit to. Yet half of all marriages do not fail.

I guess then that you see marriage as a contract, with leagly binding perks? I don't see it like that, I didn't get married because of tax breaks(which are now non existent anyhoo), but as a commitment to stay with my wife until we die.

I don't have anything against this plan, I just don't get it. why if you do not believe your marriage will last would you just not get married instead?

Well, it sounds reasonable - not as a replacement for the existing form of marriage, but as a new option that couples could select.

In fact, there's no reason for the "magic number" of 7 years. Couples should be allowed to choose any time limit, or no time limit at all (the way it's currently done). If they want to have a marriage that needs to be renewed every 14 years, 2 months and 21 days, why not?

Heh I have faced all sorts realities. No it's not denial, romanticism I'll admit to. Yet half of all marriages do not fail.

I guess then that you see marriage as a contract, with leagly binding perks? I don't see it like that, I didn't get married because of tax breaks(which are now non existent anyhoo), but as a commitment to stay with my wife until we die.

I don't have anything against this plan, I just don't get it. why if you do not believe your marriage will last would you just not get married instead?

I thought I had stated that I excluded religious marriages from this, as they've no legal binding anyway?
So you can have any sort of religious ceremony you like, and that can be for as long as you like, but the legally binding secular contract will be limited.

I thought I had stated that I excluded religious marriages from this, as they've no legal binding anyway?
So you can have any sort of religious ceremony you like, and that can be for as long as you like, but the legally binding secular contract will be limited.

Huh who said anything about religion?

Huh who said anything about religion?

Well, a secular one is simply a civil contract already... :confused:

I can't even remember to renew my driver's license on time. I'm fucked. :(

That's what you have a wife for, remember?

Well, a secular one is simply a civil contract already... :confused:

I really don't see the difference though. I mean in motive for getting married? Although I am religious my wife is not, so we had a civil ceremony.

I don't think that we had different ideas about marriage when we done, nor do I believe we do so now.

Marriage to me, is simply about committing yourself to one person for life. Do you not see it this way?

Kry, kids benefit from it financially. The argument you bring up is am entirely different one. Let's face it, most people who have kids with two incomes can't afford them. After a divorce, there's now two of everything which cuts further into the money that is available for the children.

What you are talking about is two unhealthy individuals who are incapable of making good choices bringing another life into their bullshit. Which is a debate about poor choices, not about the contract of marriage.

They don't benefit financially because either way, the money is not coming to them. Often parents will take short cuts in the younger years and buy cheaper goods because of the incredible level of wear and tear children exert on their goods.

And divorce didn't cut down on the financial independence of my parents who were able to pay for everything.

How is marriage exactly 'financially' beneficial when there are people who take out crippling mortgages, spend beyond their means and fail to adequately budget based on their income and rely on credit?

Further, there is more money that gets sunk into the marriage. With two income, people figure they have more spending power, even if they don't.

Besides, marriage doesn't protect income from the problems that might plague the economy. It doesn't protect it from gambling or other costly addictions.

Kids benefit more from divorced parents, especially when at least one remarries because then the support is increased.

I really don't see the difference though. I mean in motive for getting married? Although I am religious my wife is not, so we had a civil ceremony.

I don't think that we had different ideas about marriage when we done, nor do I believe we do so now.

Marriage to me, is simply about committing yourself to one person for life. Do you not see it this way?

No, not really. I think the committment is one thing, and marriage is an additional decision. You can easily have the committment without the marriage, after all.

Everyone's ignoring my post just because the forum software put it higher than it should have... :(

Kids benefit more from divorced parents, especially when at least one remarries because then the support is increased.
Unless you have numbers on this (which I'd be happy to check out) I don't think it's fair to assume that.

For one thing, divorce itself is often costly. It costs money, but it also costs time...time which could be spent at work earning money (if nothing else). It costs energy for most people, and this saps their energy for other activities. It also often requires doubling of some expenses, like how if Dad moves out he's going to have to pay a whole other gas bill so now there are two gas bills being paid where once there was only one.

Of course, divorce sometimes can improve matters for individuals, economically speaking. My grandmother got a higher degree and a career after her divorce, so she went from Housewife (income = $0) to Working Woman (income > $0). Her husband would not have condoned this.

Also, folks have to remember not to compare happily married couples to divorced couples. The correct comparison would be between divorced couples and couples who are unhappily married but choose to remain married. That's a big difference, as any child of a divorce could tell you. A fuckton of energy, both physical an emotional, gets squandered when a couple is unhappily married. Many times the whole (that is, the married relationship) is less than the two parts would be on their own, because they're bogging each other down.

I think it really depends on the couple in question.

They don't benefit financially because either way, the money is not coming to them. Often parents will take short cuts in the younger years and buy cheaper goods because of the incredible level of wear and tear children exert on their goods.
Which has nothing to do with this topic. Now you are trying to argue child rearing?

And divorce didn't cut down on the financial independence of my parents who were able to pay for everything.
Nice anecdote. Not seeing what that has to do with anything.


How is marriage exactly 'financially' beneficial when there are people who take out crippling mortgages, spend beyond their means and fail to adequately budget based on their income and rely on credit?
And you are throwing in yet another argument. So because some poeple are idiots when it comes to money (and yes, those people deserve to be homeless), then that has to do with your point how? This has nothing to do with anything again.

Further, there is more money that gets sunk into the marriage. With two income, people figure they have more spending power, even if they don't.
Once again, you are talking financial irresponsibility and ignoring the argument at hand.

Besides, marriage doesn't protect income from the problems that might plague the economy. It doesn't protect it from gambling or other costly addictions.
Not the point. Are you capable of staying on topic?

Kids benefit more from divorced parents, especially when at least one remarries because then the support is increased.
And there you bring marriage into the picture. You are assuming the person can get remmaried, and will get remmaried to someone with the same or greater earning power.

Okay, here's some simple math. Joe makes $50K and Sally makes $50k for an annual income of $100k. They both pay $12k/year for mortgage ($1,000/mo). Let's just ignore the other expenses. Now they get divorced. So, Joe keeps the house and now pays the full $1,000/mo himself vs $500 when they were sharing everything 50/50. Sally moves into a decent apartment so that's $600. Now they are both spending $19,200 on housing vs $12,000. And that's just one expense you now have to double.

No, not really. I think the committment is one thing, and marriage is an additional decision. You can easily have the committment without the marriage, after all.

Yes you can, i'll not argue that one. Like I said I think either you view marriage as a contract, or you view it as a romantic ideal. I'm obviously in the latter camp.

Well, it sounds reasonable - not as a replacement for the existing form of marriage, but as a new option that couples could select.

In fact, there's no reason for the "magic number" of 7 years. Couples should be allowed to choose any time limit, or no time limit at all (the way it's currently done). If they want to have a marriage that needs to be renewed every 14 years, 2 months and 21 days, why not?

And of course in some Pagan marriages it last for a year and a day.

Yes you can, i'll not argue that one. Like I said I think either you view marriage as a contract, or you view it as a romantic ideal. I'm obviously in the latter camp.

If it's a romantic ideal then why bother with a legal marriage at all? It'd be cheaper and easier to just have your own meaningful but not legally binding ceremony.

If it's a romantic ideal then why bother with a legal marriage at all? It'd be cheaper and easier to just have your own meaningful but not legally binding ceremony.

*shrug* Why not indeed. Although my own marriage only cost me £37, so it need not be expensive.

Or why not just not get married?