[oldshirt]

The original vows define most of it quite well.

verbal vows are one thing - but the legalities of lawful marriage are what gives the government some legal teeth to back it up.

Anyone can say anything. And they may even mean it at the time. But people can and do change their mind.

The legal contract of marriage is protect people's rights while in the marriage and to formally pass down assets and properties to rightful heirs in the event of death.

And it is also to provide some legally binding structure in dividing up the assets and properties and insure the continued care and provisioning of minor children in the event one decides to end the relationship.

Right now there is kind of a big push in the manosphere and red pill community discouraging men from marrying because since women initiate 80% of divorces and in a divorce he would presumably lose half of the stuff.

But without marriage, someone could potentially take ALL of it while he was at work and his only legal recourse would be to file a theft report and hope the police and courts actually do something about it. At least with a lawful marriage the courts will have to follow procedure in dividing assets and support of the children through legal channels.

Legal marriage isn't really there for when people are happy and loving and things are going well. Marriage is there for when people get sick, die or split up.

 

[oldshirt]

I have to disagree there. Most assets aren't going to be sitting around your house. Rental property, stock, bonds, bank accounts, crypto..........you get the point. If anything marriage gives the other person more financial access.

perhaps yes, perhaps no.

My point is that marriage provides a legally obligated means of asset division in the event of break up.

It's complex and contentious for sure, but in a marriage the two parties are legally required to come to the table and divide assets in a legally prescribed manner.

Some assets and properties will be considered marital and some will be considered personal. if you are not married to someone and you have a joint account (which is insane IMHO) there is nothing stopping that person from taking every last cent and hitting the road with her new BF. You can file a civil lawsuit and hope the jury sides with you, but there is otherwise no other legal recourse.

If she takes golf clubs and gun collection with her, you can file a theft report with the police and see if they so much as lift a finger to find her or get the stuff back.

If her name is on any of the other properties and assets, she can basically do with them as she pleases and your recourse will all be AFTER the fact and will all be contingent on how well you present your case to civil lawsuit in front of a civil trial jury.

In a legal marriage, the asset division is at least somewhat preemptive and you are going into it with the legally supported presumption of at least getting around half.

If someone runs off with everything without that preemptive assumption, you'll pay out the wazoo in hopes getting something back but run the risk of getting nothing.

 

[oldshirt]

I certainly don't believe that a legal, government recognized marriage guarantees any more commitment from either person, or success for the relationship.

I does not guarantee more happiness or more likelihood of success, but it does guarantee more work and more expense in leaving the relationship.

That can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective.

 

[oldshirt]

You just explained almost every reason I think government should have nothing to do with marriage.

At it's core, the primary role of government is to prevent Darwinism. It's for the children (some sarcasm, but a lot of truth to it)

Pregnant and nursing women and their offspring are in a very vulnerable position. It's difficult for a pregnant/nursing mother of infants to hunt animal protein and historically relied on the father to provide meat for a gestating or nursing baby.

Many males will do this if they are reasonably certain that the offspring is their own progeny. But some won't. Some will abandon putting both the mother's and the offsprings life at risk.

Many males will often not support the mother and offspring if he finds out the offspring is not his biological child, and if the biological father will not bring them meat or protect them from predators, then again their lives are in peril.

And finally, people wanted a system to where their tools, weaponry and property and assets were passed down to their rightful progeny and not up for grabs by the rest of the tribe or an invading tribe.

Thus the system of legally recognised mating, provisioning and protecting in sickness and health and legally recognised channels of passing down wealth was born.

Otherwise we resort back to Darwinism and whoever was the strongest and most vigorous on that particular day clubs the other other the head first and wins.

 

[oldshirt]

I believe that those who have made the effort to legally make a public committment in marriage will put more effort into keeping that marriage.

There are those that believe that And for some it may be true.

I think the narative in many of the religious communities is if you are committed until death or burn in hell, that people will put forth their best effort and find a way to make it work.

For some, that has probably worked out like that.

But for others it has likely created a tortured dungeon and created a living hell here on earth.

 

[oldshirt]

Well, it doesn't guarantee the most important part of a committed romantic partnership -- the commitment and emotional interest. Feelings that are given under duress and/or because my partner has no other choice are worthless to me.

Trapping someone in a relationship with me is the LAST thing I want to do. I only want someone who freely chooses to be with me.

And it does guarantee more work and expense to dissolve the legal contract, but it doesn't guarantee any more work or expense in physically and emotionally leaving the relationship. Anyone who feels a sense of security in that guarantee is clinging to a ghost.

I tend to see it that way as well personally.

But see my response to Diana on post # 21.

For some, the thought of going through the trouble and expense of a legal divorce might bring some to the negotiation table to work things out.

But for others it will just create a living hell on earth.

 

[oldshirt]

This is a false dichotomy. Those are not the only two possibilities.

I have never heard your definition of government before and I doubt you have historical evidence to support it. Many people have written about government. One common descriptions of government is that a government is about who is legally allowed to use force . Funny thing is people that are given power to use force fight to keep that power. And throughout history governments have caused more problems and killed more people than any other institution. Of course it is always done for a good cause (sarcasm).

You also cover the idea that marriage is a contract (or at least that inheritance is). In the USA marriage is considered contract law. So in light of that people should have to hire layers and bash out the nuances of the contract before they can get married and the state should have no right to change that contract with out the participates agreeing to the change.

Better yet, just keep goverment out of marriage and let people decide what marriage is to them.

One of the wisest people I have ever known was my mom. She used to basically say the same thing, that it should be a lot harder to get married on the front end to make it less destructive to get out on the back end.

I can't say that I disagree with that principle.

In terms of the use of force, that is still supporting what I said about Darwinism. It is turning the power over to the larger collective rather than the strongest individual.

We hand over the power to divide assets to the collective (aka the elected government rule) rather than the strongest individual taking what he/she wants.

 

[oldshirt]

Yet so many leave a marriage for very selfish reasons rather than keep promises made.

That depends on how you want to look at it. I really don't believe that legions of people are leaving marriages simply because they don't have anything better to do.

What you consider selfish to you may be something critical to them.

We live long lives and forever is a long time. Things change over decades. I don't think society has the right to hold people in marriage against their will because others do not think their reason for leaving is good enough.

 

[oldshirt]

Where did I say they left because they have nothing better to do? Please don't put words into my mouth.
People have no staying power or perseverance. They will leave because they are bored. Or they want to 'find themselves'. Or because they want to date others. Usually very selfish reasons.

Is that really any different than what I said?

I wasn't putting words in your mouth because you've done a fine job of that yourself. Are you or are you not saying that you don't find a lot of other people's reasons for divorcing valid?

 

[oldshirt]

I think most of us know others who divorced for selfish reasons. I certainly do. And yes, you did put words into my mouth.
People have far less of a sense of responsibility or committment. No staying power. No putting others first. Its all about me me me.

I think the options available today shows that people never had that much staying power or perseverance. Previous generations simply didn't have the choices we have today.

What Al Bundy said.

In previous generations people were often simply stuck no matter how miserable they were. For most people divorce simply wasn't financially feasible. The upper classes always had divorce (or just lopped off their heads if you were the king of England) but the masses couldn't afford to.

And the social and religious persecution were such that people were simply trapped in all but the most dire and life threatening circumstances.

It's not that recent generations are less moral or less responsible. Its that they have seen the folly and harm of your system and have rejected it and declared that system the greater evil and that it is less moral and less responsible, They are rejecting a system where people are trapped in a union against their will and are unable to get out of it.

 

[oldshirt]

I would say that
previous generations had much more staying power and perseverance generally. Not just in Marriage. Much more of a sense of keeping promises made and of taking responsibilites seriously.

Or are they simply smarter and can step out of a building that they can see is burning down around them.

 

[oldshirt]

Would you think a marriage less valid if it was not for life? Given the rises in life expectancy, especially compared to what we used to have, could not life be an excessive expectation? I'm not sure if you've ever read Heinlein, but one of the things in his future universe is that people live at least a couple of centuries. And they have term marriages, where the couple is only married for a given number of years. Does that make their marriage any less valid?

A work colleague and I had a similar discussion awhile back on whether divorce necessarily means failure of the marriage.

If my wife were leave today, yes I would be sad and I would mourn the loss of the relationship and mourn the loss of the future I had expected.

But would it have been a "failure?" Or as you put it, would it have been invalid or less valid?

To invalid I would say no, not at all. It accomplished many of the things marriages are meant to do. We created a home of love and support, we raised children. We supported each other in sickness and in health, supported each others careers, I can go on and on. Those things would not be null and void if we divorced.

Would it be less valid??? Well, that's more debatable. It would have been nice if it had continued forever and forever was our original intent so in that sense we would have fallen short.

But the reason for the divorce would also have to be taken into account. If we simply no longer like each other and no longer wish to be together, then staying together because we said we wanted to 26 years ago, really doesn't make any sense NOW does it.

Unlike @Diana7 , I do not believe most people divorce for no reason or for frivolous reasons. Divorce is hard and costly and always comes with a degree of sadness and consternation. I don't think people actually take it lightly and I do not believe the reasons she thinks are frivolous actually are frivolous. If someone does not like someone and does not want to be with them, I think that is a valid reason.

If the other person still likes them and still wants to be with them, yes they are going to be very sad initially. But in the end, do we really want to be with someone that doesn't like us and doesn't want to be with us??

I would rather someone leave me that did not like me and did not want to be with me, vs having that person feel forced and obligated to stay with because the said they'd stay with me decades ago back when they did like me.

I may have tears in my eyes as I sign my name on the divorce papers. But I'd rather do that and wipe the tears and move on vs being stuck with someone that didn't want to be with me because they weren't allowed to leave.

 

[oldshirt]

Combined with it seems the fire grows hotter faster today, with social media communication immediately available as at least one accelerant.

Truth.