• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Do we really "need" marriage?

Achán hiNidráne

Illuminator
Achán hiNidráne
Joined
Jun 23, 2004
Messages
3,974
The recent yelling and screaming here in the states over gay unions along with my sister's upcoming nuptials has got me thinking about the institution of marriage in a larger sense of the word. Leaving aside the legal questions of a contract between husband and wife, do we REALLY need marriage to create happy, stable families?

It seems to me, that if a couple really desires to settle down and have some kids, they shouldn't need cosmic approval from some divine being to do so. If you "love" each other enough to do spend the rest of your lives (or at least a significant portion of said life) together, why bog it down with religious babble? Just get together, buy a home or rent an apartment, and call yourself "married" if you wish. No church, no marriage license, no expensive reception, no drunken relatives embarrassing the hell out of you; just you, and your SO, enjoying each other and creating the families that the Bible-beaters deems so important to our civilization.

Why should we need anything more elaborate or wasteful?
 
Here in New Zealand we have recently passed legislation that allows legal recognition on a par with marriage to couples both hetero and homo. These "Civil Unions" are equivalent to marriage in terms of property rights and so on but don't require any sign-off from God or his functionaries.

Even as a straight male, I personally think this is brilliant. If in the distant future I should find someone that I want to spend the rest of my life with, I'm glad to know I can avoid the religious fol-de-rol that marriage implies.
 
In Scotland, "If a man and a woman who are free to marry each other cohabit as husband and wife in Scotland for a considerable time and are generally regarded as being husband and wife they are presumed to have consented to be married, even if only tacitly"
See here
 
Spoken like a true male.

Unfortunately, you would have to overcome centuries of tradition and expectations, religious conditioning, holdovers from the days when women were considered property, territorial issues, etc. Not to mention the combined interests of wedding coordinators, caterers, and wedding photographers who have a vested interest in maintaining the tradition of marriage.

The point (in the USA for heterosexual couples) is that such an easy out already exists: the civil ceremony. Grab a few witnesses and head out to the justice of the peace. Get hitched, get the forms signed, and you're done.

Unfortunately, the husband will have to deal with the wife's bitter comments later on that she was robbed of the big event she always wanted (I've seen this happen several times, so I suspect it is more likely than not).

As a former wedding photographer, I've seen the absolute HELL the parents have put the bride through. My theory is that the bride always cries after the ceremony because they're tears of relief.

There are legal considerations regarding the union that a ceremony ties up and settles nicely. Just moving in together leaves too many possibilities hanging. From the standpoint that an organized society is a good thing, I think there should be some official "event", no matter how small, to define the start of the marriage as a legal entity, even if it is just "sign here: press hard, three copies."

Beanbag
 
Beanbag said:

Unfortunately, the husband will have to deal with the wife's bitter comments later on that she was robbed of the big event she always wanted (I've seen this happen several times, so I suspect it is more likely than not).
Click to expand...

To digress for a mo, the one piece of advice I'd give any couple planning to go the whole hog is to decide beforehand what important tasks you want the brides mum involved in and ask her to help with those, keep her occupied and feeling involved.

There are some good civil venues. One close friend got married in Park Circus registry office in Glasgow. Wonderful building and a nice ceremony.
 
"And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband." ~ Revelation 21:2
 
My best friend recently got married, and I was the maid of honor.

They wanted to elope, and avoid a big ceremony, but neither family would permit it. Their parents insisted on tradition.

The legal aspects of marriage seem rather silly to me. My friend's new husband now pays less for their total car insurance than he paid for himself before - apparently married men are that much calmer and more responsible than bachelors.

I think our society would be better off if it were more difficult to get married. Say, six month waiting period, mandatory blood test for STD's, mandatory pre-nup.

That way foolish young people couldn't run off to Las Vegas and be involved in divorce proceedings a week later. And if daddy is holding a shotgun, all the more reason to question your motives in getting married.
 
I've been happily married since 1993. That being said...

I am bitterly against the institution of marriage. I've observed my friends undergo the ceremony, and only a short time later, they're all divorced or separated.

I am completely against government involvement in marriage. Strictly speaking, marriage ought to be a spiritual/religious ceremony alone, governed by the church under which one is married. What I am for is a non-specific adult cohabitation contract which can be applied to two or more adults sharing resources and responsibilities, with no regard to gender or other relationship issues. Does this mean I support incestual marriage? No. This means I support being able to enter into a government-supported mutual support document for, say, a young man and his invalid aunt, or an aging father and his adult daughter, that would allow the older person the use of benefits from the younger family member's insurance plan; taxation and welfare benefits; etc. It means I support two college roommates being allowed to share resources and benefits without having to 'get married' to do it. And it means that if two people want to share benefits, they'll also have to share responsibilities, such as taxation, legal connection, etc. I also support two or more adults having a government-supported contract in regards to the raising of children, regardless of gender. I see absolutely no reason a child cannot be raised by a brother and sister (I am NOT inferring that it is THEIR child; maybe she was involved, got pregnant, and her bf ran off; and her very responsible brother has a job and wants to take care of his neice), or by two men, or by three adults, or whatever.

Yes, people would undoubtably abuse the system. But people abuse EVERY system. Meanwhile, the actual 'marriage' nonsense can stay right where it belongs: in the Church, in the Temple, in the Mosque.
 
Beanbag said:
Unfortunately, the husband will have to deal with the wife's bitter comments later on that she was robbed of the big event she always wanted.
Click to expand...

I blame Hollywood.

And I'm also against the constitution of marriage. I mean, what could be less romantic than a signed contract that you're not leaving the person you love?
 
This is another one of those issues I guess I just don't understand. I mean, I can't figure why any rational person (hetero or homo) would deem it necessary to be married. But then I'm not married, and like not having kids, I guess I just can't understand how beautiful it is until I go through it myself. Of course, many of the people who say that to me are the most miserable people I know. Married folks are piss poor salesmen when it comes to their "sacred" institution.

"Sure, Phil. We hate each other and the kids are in therapy. We're about to enter an ugly, expensive divorce procedure, and we both have stress-related health problems, but marriage is a beautiful thing."

Yeah, right.

You see, the thing is, I'm super happy living the way that I live now. I'm not married. I date, and spend time with women I truly like and occasionally I spend time with women I love. When I feel like I can commit to a long term relationship, I do. And you know what, a piece of paper from the government or a blessing by some yahoo in robes isn't going to affect the strength of that commitment or the emotions behind it one lick. It comes from my brain and my heart and from the brain and heart of my companion. The rest of the world can go to hell where my romantic pursuits are concerned. It's nobody's goddamn business.

Yeah, I know there are legal ramifications. The state doesn't recognize blah blah blah. My insurance is blah blah blah. Her retirement is blah blah blah. A child should be born into a blah blah blah blah. The kids need a blah blah blah blah BLAH BLAH BLAH!!! I'm so sick of hearing that crap. If you're incapable of adapting to the smallest of life's pitfalls in some other way, you're not competent enough to be in an institution that's supposed to be for life. So please shut your apologetic cake hole.

And if you're a woman (or a man for that matter) and you just feel you need a ceremony, because you've been conditioned like some weird Pavlovian wedding dog, damn it have yourself a ceremony. Have a week-long party for chrissake. How in hell would a license and a pronouncement from some authoritative jag off make make your party more fun or strengthen the love between you and your partner? It can't.

The short of it is, marriage is an antiquated remnant of a agro-religious era that should have gone the way of the dinosaurs a long time ago.
 
Phil said:

The short of it is, marriage is an antiquated remnant of a agro-religious era that should have gone the way of the dinosaurs a long time ago.
Click to expand...

This makes sense.

Phil said:
Yeah, I know there are legal ramifications. The state doesn't recognize blah blah blah. My insurance is blah blah blah. Her retirement is blah blah blah. A child should be born into a blah blah blah blah. The kids need a blah blah blah blah BLAH BLAH BLAH!!! I'm so sick of hearing that crap. If you're incapable of adapting to the smallest of life's pitfalls in some other way, you're not competent enough to be in an institution that's supposed to be for life. So please shut your apologetic cake hole.
Click to expand...

And this is bullsh!t.

If the love of your life is lying in a hospital bed and you can't visit him because you're not married, you'll know the importance of that stupid scrap of paper

It shouldn't matter, but it does.
 
Originally posted by Ryokan
I mean, what could be less romantic than a signed contract that you're not leaving the person you love?
Click to expand...
Knowing that the person who supposedly loves you is unwilling to sign such a contract?

(Just playing devil's advocate ... )
 
Yes, indeed...why have principles, and societal reinforcement of those principles.

Heck, why have a society at all, let alone one whose foundations are built upon such principles....I'm sure the children will understand....and "F" them if they don't.
 
csense said:
Yes, indeed...why have principles, and societal reinforcement of those principles.

Heck, why have a society at all, let alone one whose foundations are built upon such principles....I'm sure the children will understand....and "F" them if they don't.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone was recommending some sort of anarchic, amoral free-for-all.

Though that might be fun, too.
 
csense said:
Yes, indeed...why have principles, and societal reinforcement of those principles.

Heck, why have a society at all, let alone one whose foundations are built upon such principles....I'm sure the children will understand....and "F" them if they don't.
Click to expand...
Oh damn! You're so right. Since society's foundations are built on some principles, they obviously must be the best. What was I thinking? There's no such thing as trial and error or societal evolution. Just like houses were once and ever shall be built on foundations of dirt. We can't improve on that, can we? I forgot that wise universal truth: The first way = the best way.



Oh, and, "Won't somebody please think of the children?!?!"
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
Think of....marrying...the children? Didn't we outlaw that?
Click to expand...

Everybody is somebody's child.

Which argument did not get me a discount ticket to "Revenge of the Sith", but I tried. It might have helped had I not been ten years older than the kid selling the tickets. Punk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom