Considering a Marriageless Society

[Samson]

Rather than struggle with the issue of "Gay Marriage," why don't we consider the issue of the necessity for ANY "legal marriage."

Let's consider our society without ANY legal marriage. Couples would, of course have children, and would be held responsible for them, no less than they are today. Wills would be written, etc.

But there would be no legal mechanism for a "marriage" or "divorce."

Would we notice?

 

[Oddball]

I been saying for years, the cure for this "problem" is the end of statutory marriages.

But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

[Samson]

I been saying for years, the cure for this "problem" is the end of statutory marriages.

But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

***Shit that was a fast response***

Damn, Dude, are you watching me type these?

 

[Oddball]

You should see del sharp shoot spambots!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

i picked the 2nd option although Im not truly sure either way.

Im not a fan of marriage....putting a contract on something like love is always a bad idea IMO.

 

[uscitizen]

The contract often outlasts the love.

 

[Anguille]

The contract often outlasts the love.

Sometimes it precedes it.

 

[uscitizen]

Why not just make marriage License's be required to be renewed just like every other license?

Have learners permits as well?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Why not just make marriage License's be required to be renewed just like every other license?

Have learners permits as well?

Pilgrim: Oh man my wife, i mean girlfriend, is going to kick my ass!!!!!!
Friend: Why is that?
Pilgrim: I forgot to renew the liscense and now we are no longer husband and wife


Oh i can see it now...

 

[Samson]

The contract often outlasts the love.

Sometimes it precedes it.

Only "sometimes?"

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The contract often outlasts the love.

Sometimes it precedes it.

Only "sometimes?"

I showed the GF this thread...now i'm an asshole

 

[Samson]

Sometimes it precedes it.

Only "sometimes?"

I showed the GF this thread...now i'm an asshole

I bet no wimmins will show this thread to their BF.

BTW: Poll shows people believe no one would notice 2:1

 

[Anguille]

Only "sometimes?"

I showed the GF this thread...now i'm an asshole

I bet no wimmins will show this thread to their BF.

BTW: Poll shows people believe no one would notice 2:1

I'd show it to mine except that he's really sick and tired of hearing all about what this one said to that one. I can't even mention USMB any more.

The name, dilloduck, just puts him into an instant rage.

 

[Samson]

I showed the GF this thread...now i'm an asshole

I bet no wimmins will show this thread to their BF.

BTW: Poll shows people believe no one would notice 2:1

I'd show it to mine except that he's really sick and tired of hearing all about what this one said to that one. I can't even mention USMB any more.

The name, dilloduck, just puts him into an instant rage.

Yes, well, that's perfectly understandable.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Rather than struggle with the issue of "Gay Marriage," why don't we consider the issue of the necessity for ANY "legal marriage."

Let's consider our society without ANY legal marriage. Couples would, of course have children, and would be held responsible for them, no less than they are today. Wills would be written, etc.

But there would be no legal mechanism for a "marriage" or "divorce."

Would we notice?

Yes. Society recognizes certain relationships because they have been found to be beneficial to society as a whole, and thus are encouraged. Also, legal sanction for marriage exists in some cases to recognize realities that marriage imposes on life. For example, the judicial system recognizes the relationship between a husband and wife and the way that it intertwines their existences by recognizes spousal privilege, the ability to keep confidential communications between them the same way that communication with a doctor or priest is confidential.

 

[Cecilie1200]

i picked the 2nd option although Im not truly sure either way.

Im not a fan of marriage....putting a contract on something like love is always a bad idea IMO.

I see it the opposite: making a contract based on love is a bad idea. Marriage doesn't have to be romantic hearts and flowers, but it DOES have to be a contract.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The contract often outlasts the love.

Sometimes it precedes it.

I think the "outlasting" part is kind of the point. What people today think of as "love" is fleeting and doesn't last. The contractual commitment is there to hold things together and allow real love to develop. Unfortunately, too many people today ALSO don't understand the concept of "commitment", either.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I showed the GF this thread...now i'm an asshole

I bet no wimmins will show this thread to their BF.

BTW: Poll shows people believe no one would notice 2:1

I'd show it to mine except that he's really sick and tired of hearing all about what this one said to that one. I can't even mention USMB any more.

The name, dilloduck, just puts him into an instant rage.

At least yours doesn't think you have a crush on every forum member of the opposite sex.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

i picked the 2nd option although Im not truly sure either way.

Im not a fan of marriage....putting a contract on something like love is always a bad idea IMO.

I see it the opposite: making a contract based on love is a bad idea. Marriage doesn't have to be romantic hearts and flowers, but it DOES have to be a contract.

Why do you feel it has to be a contract?

 

[Bern80]

Rather than struggle with the issue of "Gay Marriage," why don't we consider the issue of the necessity for ANY "legal marriage."

Let's consider our society without ANY legal marriage. Couples would, of course have children, and would be held responsible for them, no less than they are today. Wills would be written, etc.

But there would be no legal mechanism for a "marriage" or "divorce."

Would we notice?

Yes. Society recognizes certain relationships because they have been found to be beneficial to society as a whole, and thus are encouraged. Also, legal sanction for marriage exists in some cases to recognize realities that marriage imposes on life. For example, the judicial system recognizes the relationship between a husband and wife and the way that it intertwines their existences by recognizes spousal privilege, the ability to keep confidential communications between them the same way that communication with a doctor or priest is confidential.

My belief is marriage in the legal sense was invented simply as a means of collecting taxes. There is no reasonable reason for marriage to be recognized legally. If you need some type of contract to stay commited to someone you probably aren't all that committed.