Your Views on Marriage

[Kiju]

To Pegghead:

Yes, I know, that's not the point I'm tryin' to make.

The point is, marriage has become a necessary thing (glorified, you might say) to most people. Mainly because of the legal benefits, but because for some reason people have gotten it in their heads that in order to love someone for the rest of their life, they need to get married. I don't share this view. I believe love runs deeper than just marriage. If you love someone, and they love you back, it shouldn't be known just because of a religious procession, and a ring on the finger.

 

[VanityGirl]

Don't do it!

Frankly the few benefits you get, which many you shouldn't as they are nothing more then governmental social engineering, do not out weigh the world of pain you will be in if your marriage fails. Given the shockingly high rate of failure chance is not on your side at all hence you could easily find yourself being broken by a legal system that hasn't been renovated in this matter for centuries.

All for a bit of paper that says your in love... as if you need the permission of a religious or government structure for that!

Yes, but wouldn't you feel the same crushing sadness if your partner left you? According to many people on this thread, if you love someone, you don't have to get married.
So you saying that getting married would not outweigh the pain you'd be in if your marraige fails is a bogus statement.

If you date someone for 10 years, but never marry, then you break up, wouldn't the pain be theoretically the same as if you'd been married?

 

[Nieroshai]

Marriage was originally an economical institution as well as a religious institution, but the days of women as property are over so the religious aspects remain. It is impractical to consider marriage as for religion only, but it's a stupid quirk in our culture that we cannot visualize legal joining of 2 or more people as a civil union and the joining specifically by a religious figure by the standards of said religion as a (insert belief here) marriage. The marriage itself should have no legal connotations, and the couple should also have to get a civil union as well. For example, my future marriage will be a Christian marriage but by the previously named standard I would have to get a civil union.
To sum that up: civil unions should be for any reason, but legally equal; marriage should be a religious title with no particular legal weight. Even man-woman marriages would need to be civil unions first.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I personally would rather keep the law out of my personal relationships...but that's just me.

 

[Sigel]

I was never a fan of marriage and still not a fan even though I am married. I think it is a pointless ritual that society forces upon us. My husband and I got married for purely legal reasons. We have known each other and have been friends for over ten years, and we get along great. We both still live are own lives and have different friends and basically just hang out with each other once or twice a week.

I personally think people get married because they think they have to more that they actually want to.

 

[Sven und EIN HUND]

Well....If people want it written upon a piece of paper that their love is impenetrable and forever sealed then that's their perogative. It provides a lot of complications and when you consider the benefits of NOT having a marriage and settling down with the special someone whom your heart desires in a peaceful setting not bound by any laws but those you choose as a couple to abide your relationship by, the choice is obvious.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Yes, but wouldn't you feel the same crushing sadness if your partner left you? According to many people on this thread, if you love someone, you don't have to get married.
So you saying that getting married would not outweigh the pain you'd be in if your marraige fails is a bogus statement.

If you date someone for 10 years, but never marry, then you break up, wouldn't the pain be theoretically the same as if you'd been married?

You would feel it, we assume unless you where the one who broke it off or you left on a mutual agreement that it had ended, and then have the 'pleasure' of being screwed over by the system as well.

 

[heyheysg]

Here's the truth

If you get married, THE GIRL WINS

If you get laid, YOU WIN

So a win win would be, you get married and still have sex

a win lose would be, married without sex (kids/headaches/stress)
or booty calls.

a lose lose would be a relationship with no marriage and no sex

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

To sum that up: civil unions should be for any reason, but legally equal; marriage should be a religious title with no particular legal weight. Even man-woman marriages would need to be civil unions first.

I would say we should just go one step further and eliminate all government and legal aspects of marriage. After all government shouldn't have a say in how we live our lives if we are not breaking any laws. On top of this I feel the majority of governmental programs concerning marriage are designed simply to give a group of old men, who often are caught cheating on their wives, a way to say how WE should be living our lives.

As for legal it wouldn't be that hard either to put other systems in place, hell in most of the civilised world they already are in place. Defacto laws ensure all the legal benefits of marriage exist for people who have done nothing more then lived together for a long period of time. Wills and other such documents easily cover the rest of the requirements.

So government supported marriage for legal purposes isn't required at all. Eliminate it would make a lot of beurocrap vanish, simplify many systems in need over overhauling anyway and make it so the government has less power to dictate how we should or should not live.

 

[Iskenator67]

Marriage is a mans way of saying "I surrender, you got me. Now your going to do some shit I want you to do." I file it in the same category as love. Pointless.

 

[Nieroshai]

To sum that up: civil unions should be for any reason, but legally equal; marriage should be a religious title with no particular legal weight. Even man-woman marriages would need to be civil unions first.

I would say we should just go one step further and eliminate all government and legal aspects of marriage. After all government shouldn't have a say in how we live our lives if we are not breaking any laws. On top of this I feel the majority of governmental programs concerning marriage are designed simply to give a group of old men, who often are caught cheating on their wives, a way to say how WE should be living our lives.

As for legal it wouldn't be that hard either to put other systems in place, hell in most of the civilised world they already are in place. Defacto laws ensure all the legal benefits of marriage exist for people who have done nothing more then lived together for a long period of time. Wills and other such documents easily cover the rest of the requirements.

So government supported marriage for legal purposes isn't required at all. Eliminate it would make a lot of beurocrap vanish, simplify many systems in need over overhauling anyway and make it so the government has less power to dictate how we should or should not live.

True: the other route could be no special treatment whatsoever for couples, and marriage being completely just a concept. Most people would rather do it the other way because people would rather have the spousal benefits of health care and property. Couples don't need assistance, but no one I know would rather give up a privilege than share it, so it would be nigh-impossible to enact.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

True: the other route could be no special treatment whatsoever for couples, and marriage being completely just a concept. Most people would rather do it the other way because people would rather have the spousal benefits of health care and property. Couples don't need assistance, but no one I know would rather give up a privilege than share it, so it would be nigh-impossible to enact.

Sadly so. They are rewarded by living the 'right way' as dictated by the government and would hate to give up that reward. There are many cases where marriages have failed but the two involve bite their tongue and continue to live miserably with each other. Simply because the loss of government support would ensure they have a more difficult time, particularly if one of the couple is the 'stay at home' type.

Many of the others are blinded to the fact that they are even being manipulated. They are blind to how it is used to punish those that don't live like them. Some even, the 'family value' crowd, support the system with tyrant like glee. These are all things we would have to overcome. We would have to show the newer system doesn't erode government support where needed, that it will put individual benefits above collective groups and put a foot down firmly on those who believe they should be able to dictate the way others live.

Sadly, I know what has to be done but I am at a loss how we spread the word enough to get rid of government backed marriage.

 

[WlknCntrdiction]

Reading back my responses to this thread NEARLY 6 YEARS AGO (this is my first post back since then on this site) is painful, but a huge lesson in growth for me.

I was vehemently against marriage, but now, having being in a relationship for over 3 years, and growing with my missus (who is my wife to be now) my views have massively changed, I don't even recognise the person who made my previous comments.

I couldn't imagine not getting married to this woman, and vice versa.

Where I said that marriage was just a piece of paper, and that you don't need to say that you love someone in front of friends and family, I've actually done a complete U-turn on.

Someone already made the point earlier, but that's the point of the wedding, you say to everyone in your life and hers, that she is your wife, the only person you'll ever be with.
I've not had any women come on to me or anything like that, but my fiancée has had loads of guys chat her up, and she drops me into the conversation very quickly to deter them.
I know that for some people, getting with a taken person is a challenge, but when it comes to saying "I'm married, I have a wife" commands a lot more respect than "I have a girlfriend".

"I'm married" says automatically "I made a conscious decision to love and be with this person for the rest of my life".

I'm not married yet (getting married this year), but I'm looking forward to married life, and growing together with this woman.

I was 19, and quite naive, when I made my previous comments, but now, at 25 (nearly 26) I've had the experience, there's no way I could go back to the selfish thinking that I had, it's not just about me anymore.

[color=ff0000]MOD EDIT: Due to the time away from this site of this poster, I have given a verbal warning rather than an official one out of the blue, and locked the thread to prevent further necroing.[/color]