[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.

 

[Cletus]

I will be attending two weddings this summer.

One is my daughter's, where she will take a secular vow (she is an atheist), stand up in front of her friends and family, and become a traditional male/female monogamous couple. The government will recognize this marriage as legitimate.

The other is a thruple made up of (I think) two non-binary individuals and a third whose particulars I don't recall at the time. That ceremony will be the same as my daughter's but it will lack the blessing of the local government.

I will consider all five people married, since that is what they call it themselves. Works for me as they are all consenting adults who are publicly stating their intent and doing so in front of those who would nominally hold them accountable.

 

[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.

 

[LisaDiane]

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.

I see what you mean. I suppose that's possible, but I can't say for sure (to my understanding) if that happens because people who are willing to marry are more committed in general, or if it's the actual bind of legal marriage that forces them to commit.

 

[LisaDiane]

We will have to agree to disagree.

That's fine with me...as long as @maquiscat agrees with me!!

 

[Cletus]

I see what you mean. I suppose that's possible, but I can't say for sure (to my understanding) if that happens because people who are willing to marry are more committed in general, or if it's the actual bind of legal marriage that forces them to commit.

Someone with an excellent grasp of the difference between correlation and causation.

 

[Al_Bundy]

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.

I guess it would depend on which side of the fence you're sitting as to whether the fact marriage grants rights to assets is a good or bad thing. As you pointed out, a non-married couple have to give access to accounts. In marriage, the other person has a claim regardless. For me that's not a perk.

Probably depends on where a person is at in life too, in my 20s all my worldly possessions actually were located at my crappy apartment.

 

[leftfield]

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.

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.

 

[Diana7]

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.

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

 

[leftfield]

Wait. You think it should be that there is no legal recognition and if someone looses all their worldly goods, as described, then too bad so sad, go whine to the police?

If someone other than your spouse steals all your worldly possessions what are you going to do? If someone steals your life what are you going to do then?

If government is your answer; you probably have a poor question.

 

[Diana7]

That's fine with me...as long as @maquiscat agrees with me!!

If that makes you happy!

 

[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.

 

[Talker67]

it really is impossible to say. there are so many variations of "mariages", and so many variations in the two people married, to draw too many obvious conclusions.

I suppose at least ONE of the spouses has to be pretty accepting and non confrontational, or it does not last too long.

It helps if you live within your financial means, so there is not the stress of bill collectors pounding on the door.

but that is all i've got. I have seen marriages where the two were like peas in a pod, and other marriages where the two were complete opposites.

there are some couples in politics where one is a staunch republican, and the other is a staunch democrat! I wonder how THEY cope with that, especially in an election year. i am thinking kellyanne conway, for example

 

[Diana7]

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.

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.

 

[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?

 

[Diana7]

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?

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.

 

[Al_Bundy]

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.

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.

 

[LATERILUS79]

By this I am not asking what makes it successful or anything like that. What I want to know is what makes it an actual marriage?

Is it being registered with the government? And yes, to receive the legal benefits you do have to be registered. But do those legal benefits make the relationship a marriage? Can you have a marriage without that piece of paper (virtual as it might be nowadays).

Is it only a marriage if one had a ceremony done by a cleric of one's chosen deity? Or does only your own deity count, and theirs doesn't? Can atheist be married outside of government recognition?

What are the criteria that makes any given relationship the status of marriage?

Or are there various types of marriages that each have their own criteria?

My preference is that no government be involved in marriage..... at all.

Marriage is a vow to one or more people depending on how one sees things. Obviously, the various religions and traditions will fill in those vows for you and for the most part, those work very well for me. I promise to give myself to you and only you through good and bad for the remainder of my life. Then, I expected my spouse to give to me the same thing.

While traditional works for me, I think universally there should simply be some vows said. A solemn promise you intend to keep with one person if you are monogamous or to multiple people if you are poly. Regardless, a promise one intends to keep for life. I mean, if the stakes aren't high, then what's the point? I think the high stakes (assuming one takes them seriously) forces someone to work hard to make the marriage work.

 

[Diana7]

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.

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.