Considering a Marriageless Society

[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.

Why do you feel it has to be a contract?

Because it is. Whatever your motivations for it are, you are each making certain commitments and promises to each other, ie verbal contracts. And every time that you discuss your marriage and marital issues with each other afterward, you are engaging in renegotiation of your contractual agreement.

 

[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.

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.

If you insist on not getting a legal recognition of your commitment, you're not all that committed.

It's not the legal recognition that's the contract, dear. The agreement to act as a marital unit is a verbal contract, made more binding by the fact of publicizing it, and made legally enforceable by registering its existence in the form of a marriage license. If one is shying away from taking on the enforceable aspect, it's because they don't feel truly bound by the verbal contract as is, and are trying to leave themselves a way out without legal penalty.

As for the "reasonable reasons" for legal sanction, I already listed some, which you clearly didn't read, or simply decided to dismiss out of hand. If you want to impose your simplistic "this is all about the big, evil government taking money" worldview, I can't say I'm interested enough to bother explaining reality to you.

 

[LuckyDan]

We would notice. Wills could be written, but that doesn't mean they would be in every case, so there would be legal issues regarding inheritance rights in cases where
no provisions were made regarding the estate.

The family unit is the primary group any individual belongs to. In the absence of marriage things get complicated fast, especiually regarding insurance coverage.

 

[Samson]

Society recognizes certain relationships because they have been found to be beneficial to society as a whole, and thus are encouraged.

Unfortunately, too many people today ALSO don't understand the concept of "commitment", either.

Cecile, I understand what you're saying, but it seems you have one foot in the past, and another in the present, "today:" Otherwise, how do you reconcile that "society recognises" the benefit of marriage, whilst at the same time, "too many people don't understand the concept of commitment;" i.e., Isn't "society" = "many people?"

And I agree with you in this respect: Marriage is a societial anachronism. There's a good reason that TODAY many people don't understant the concept of commitment. Because it has become socially irrelevant. Single mothers, divorcees, children without fathers, children with two mommies.....WHO CARES?

Whatever your motivations for it are, you are each making certain commitments and promises to each other, ie verbal contracts. And every time that you discuss your marriage and marital issues with each other afterward, you are engaging in renegotiation of your contractual agreement.

Balderdash. Unless all marital discussions take place under deposition on your planet?

Spouces on my planet lie to each other all the time.

 

[Samson]

We would notice. Wills could be written, but that doesn't mean they would be in every case, so there would be legal issues regarding inheritance rights in cases where
no provisions were made regarding the estate.

The family unit is the primary group any individual belongs to. In the absence of marriage things get complicated fast, especiually regarding insurance coverage.

Ridiculous. Wills are not written for many married couples, and insurance coverage is a fringe benefit. Employers would simply offer family plans to everyone, and everyone would pay a premium based on the number of individuals covered, regardless if one was identified as a "spouce."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Society recognizes certain relationships because they have been found to be beneficial to society as a whole, and thus are encouraged.

Unfortunately, too many people today ALSO don't understand the concept of "commitment", either.

Cecile, I understand what you're saying, but it seems you have one foot in the past, and another in the present, "today:" Otherwise, how do you reconcile that "society recognises" the benefit of marriage, whilst at the same time, "too many people don't understand the concept of commitment;" i.e., Isn't "society" = "many people?"

Society has a historical memory, via tradition, that individuals do not. And as it happens, studies have been done to rediscover those reasons that we have forgotten, and they show that, in fact, society does benefit from marriage, although perhaps not as much now that individuals have lost the concept of lifelong commitment. But that means we individuals need to relearn what marriage truly should be, not that we should abandon it completely.

And I agree with you in this respect: Marriage is a societial anachronism. There's a good reason that TODAY many people don't understant the concept of commitment. Because it has become socially irrelevant. Single mothers, divorcees, children without fathers, children with two mommies.....WHO CARES?

I disagree. Marriage is something many people have forgotten how to do properly, much like good manners or the art of conversation. That doesn't make those things societally irrelevant or unimportant. That makes them skills we need to recover, because they are still useful. Those people who DO have those skills make much more progress in life than others do. And marriage is the same way. Those people who do understand what marriage is and how to do it right get much more out of life than those who don't.

Whatever your motivations for it are, you are each making certain commitments and promises to each other, ie verbal contracts. And every time that you discuss your marriage and marital issues with each other afterward, you are engaging in renegotiation of your contractual agreement.

Balderdash. Unless all marital discussions take place under deposition on your planet?

Spouces on my planet lie to each other all the time.

You need to understand that "contract" does not necessarily refer to a wordy piece of paper with notarized signatures on the end. Even the law recognizes the concept of "verbal contracts", because you can sue someone for breach of contract without that piece of paper.

And sure spouses lie to each other. And people renege on written contracts. And both of them are breaches of contract. If you breach your marital contract with your spouse via lies badly enough, will your spouse not, in essence, sue you for breach of contract by way of divorce court?

That takes us back to people learning how to do marriage right. Rule number one: never breach the contract.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We would notice. Wills could be written, but that doesn't mean they would be in every case, so there would be legal issues regarding inheritance rights in cases where
no provisions were made regarding the estate.

The family unit is the primary group any individual belongs to. In the absence of marriage things get complicated fast, especiually regarding insurance coverage.

Ridiculous. Wills are not written for many married couples, and insurance coverage is a fringe benefit. Employers would simply offer family plans to everyone, and everyone would pay a premium based on the number of individuals covered, regardless if one was identified as a "spouce."

Wills SHOULD be written for married couples, because anyone who thinks, "Oh, we're married, that'll take care of all the inheritance stuff" is a dumbass.

And I doubt that employers want to take on paying THEIR input into insurance for anyone the employee cares to list, for whatever reason, and THEN change every time they turn around because of "serial monogamy". If I were the employer, I'd suddenly find it much easier to not offer insurance.

 

[Samson]

We would notice. Wills could be written, but that doesn't mean they would be in every case, so there would be legal issues regarding inheritance rights in cases where
no provisions were made regarding the estate.

The family unit is the primary group any individual belongs to. In the absence of marriage things get complicated fast, especiually regarding insurance coverage.

Ridiculous. Wills are not written for many married couples, and insurance coverage is a fringe benefit. Employers would simply offer family plans to everyone, and everyone would pay a premium based on the number of individuals covered, regardless if one was identified as a "spouce."

Wills SHOULD be written for married couples, because anyone who thinks, "Oh, we're married, that'll take care of all the inheritance stuff" is a dumbass.

And I doubt that employers want to take on paying THEIR input into insurance for anyone the employee cares to list, for whatever reason, and THEN change every time they turn around because of "serial monogamy". If I were the employer, I'd suddenly find it much easier to not offer insurance.

Well, of course, the fringe benefit of employer paid insurance would begin to be as much an anachronism as marriage already is.

Wills can, and SHOULD, be written for EVERYONE, regardless of their marital status.

 

[Samson]

Society recognizes certain relationships because they have been found to be beneficial to society as a whole, and thus are encouraged.

Cecile, I understand what you're saying, but it seems you have one foot in the past, and another in the present, "today:" Otherwise, how do you reconcile that "society recognises" the benefit of marriage, whilst at the same time, "too many people don't understand the concept of commitment;" i.e., Isn't "society" = "many people?"

Society has a historical memory, via tradition, that individuals do not. And as it happens, studies have been done to rediscover those reasons that we have forgotten, and they show that, in fact, society does benefit from marriage, although perhaps not as much now that individuals have lost the concept of lifelong commitment. But that means we individuals need to relearn what marriage truly should be, not that we should abandon it completely.



I disagree. Marriage is something many people have forgotten how to do properly, much like good manners or the art of conversation. That doesn't make those things societally irrelevant or unimportant. That makes them skills we need to recover, because they are still useful. Those people who DO have those skills make much more progress in life than others do. And marriage is the same way. Those people who do understand what marriage is and how to do it right get much more out of life than those who don't.

Whatever your motivations for it are, you are each making certain commitments and promises to each other, ie verbal contracts. And every time that you discuss your marriage and marital issues with each other afterward, you are engaging in renegotiation of your contractual agreement.

Balderdash. Unless all marital discussions take place under deposition on your planet?

Spouces on my planet lie to each other all the time.

You need to understand that "contract" does not necessarily refer to a wordy piece of paper with notarized signatures on the end. Even the law recognizes the concept of "verbal contracts", because you can sue someone for breach of contract without that piece of paper.

And sure spouses lie to each other. And people renege on written contracts. And both of them are breaches of contract. If you breach your marital contract with your spouse via lies badly enough, will your spouse not, in essence, sue you for breach of contract by way of divorce court?

That takes us back to people learning how to do marriage right. Rule number one: never breach the contract.

Meh, if you're convinced that society can ignore AND value marriage at the same time because of some mish-mash called "historical memory," that I can only guess is hidden among a "social subconscious," then go right ahead.

I'll stick with the evidence.

Marriage is becomming MUCH less socially relevant for a very simple reason: too many people consider it irrelevant. Why? Because we don't need it (by definition, irrelevant), but the reason we don't need it is that our values have evolved (or are evolving) so that, for example, single mothers are not shunned.

As far as the import of marriage being in any way a "contract," I'm certain that with divorce rates over 50%, the validity of any such agreement is tentative at best.

 

[Cuyo]

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?

I always felt "Civil Unions" and "Marriage/Wedding" should be separated. What is a marriage in the eyes of the law? Nothing more than a partnership among individuals in the "Business" of life. So lets have the "Wedding" take place at whatever institution you seek it from, and the "Civil Union" part comes from the State. I think the "Civil Union" should be allowed among any people who want to treat their personal finances as a partnership, shouldn't necessarily have to be a sexual relationship, right? Two life long friends, brothers, mother/daughter, whatever?
Partnership is to Business as Marriage is to Personal Life. You can start a business with anyone you want, why not a partnership in private affairs? Just my $.02