Marriage is no longer sacred.

[MrHide-Patten]

Marriage became redundant as soon as anyone was allowed to do... unless you're gay.
That just blows my mind, we'll let stupid 20 something's throw all their chips in when they aren't even entirely sure and yet a couple can't get married even though they've been with one another for over a decade. Simply because they're both dudes/chicks.

Marriage should be a one time only deal. You get a divorce and want to marry your new girlfriend? Then too bloody bad, no insurance benefits for you.

 

[Phasmal]

Marriage should be a one time only deal. You get a divorce and want to marry your new girlfriend? Then too bloody bad, no insurance benefits for you.

Yeah! If your husband/wife cheats, its your fault and you should be punished after the fact!
Lets not even acknowledge abusive marriages!

Now you are just being silly.
You can treat your own marriage as sacred, but leave other peoples alone. It doesn't hurt you what other people do with their marriage.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Marriage should be a one time only deal. You get a divorce and want to marry your new girlfriend? Then too bloody bad, no insurance benefits for you.

Yeah! If your husband/wife cheats, its your fault and you should be punished after the fact!
Lets not even acknowledge abusive marriages!

Now you are just being silly.
You can treat your own marriage as sacred, but leave other peoples alone. It doesn't hurt you what other people do with their marriage.

Personally, I'm not married. The whole things sounds (to be frank) bat shit fucking stupid. Why must people validate a relationship through an outdated books say so (rehetorical question)?

I suppose in that sort of situation (abusive marriages, blahty blah), you'd have to figure who lost their marrying rights. I'd stop dicks from ruining any more marriages and generally from what I've seen, anyone who has been through a horrible marriage typically doesn't want another one.
The whole idea of marriage is an outdated concept, manogomy is great. The whole bullshit sorrounding it isn't.

 

[Phasmal]

I suppose in that sort of situation (abusive marriages, blahty blah), you'd have to figure who lost their marrying rights. I'd stop dicks from ruining any more marriages and generally from what I've seen, anyone who has been through a horrible marriage typically doesn't want another one.
The whole idea of marriage is an outdated concept, manogomy is great. The whole bullshit sorrounding it isn't.

Why should you `lose your marrying right`?
(And my mother survived an abusive marriage and is re-married, so generaly it doesn't stop you wanting marriage, it stops you wanting to be married to the person you were married to).

Like I said, marriage is a personal thing. It should not be up to anyone else if you should or should not be allowed to marry. If you personally think marriage is outdated, then thats cool, but you cant dictate who should get rights.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I suppose in that sort of situation (abusive marriages, blahty blah), you'd have to figure who lost their marrying rights. I'd stop dicks from ruining any more marriages and generally from what I've seen, anyone who has been through a horrible marriage typically doesn't want another one.
The whole idea of marriage is an outdated concept, manogomy is great. The whole bullshit sorrounding it isn't.

Why should you `lose your marrying right`?
(And my mother survived an abusive marriage and is re-married, so generaly it doesn't stop you wanting marriage, it stops you wanting to be married to the person you were married to).

Like I said, marriage is a personal thing. It should not be up to anyone else if you should or should not be allowed to marry. If you personally think marriage is outdated, then thats cool, but you cant dictate who should get rights.

By losing their rights, the abuser would lose their right to marry again, or would you rather they be allowed to continue the cycle with someone else?
The abused would be exempted, for as it's commonly joked as 'the last legal form of slavery'.

Frankly it's just people abusing it that is devaluing the idea. People marrying for someone's riches, or trading then in for a 'younger model' and kids in their teens jumping in boat too damn early.

 

[Phasmal]

By losing their rights, the abuser would lose their right to marry again, or would you rather they be allowed to continue the cycle with someone else?
The abused would be exempted, for as it's commonly joked as 'the last legal form of slavery'.

Frankly it's just people abusing it that is devaluing the idea. People marrying for someone's riches, or trading then in for a 'younger model' and kids in their teens jumping in boat too damn early.

An abuser does not need a marriage in order to abuse.

Your argument is basically: People do stupid things, so lets take their rights away.

No.

People can learn from stupid things, and even if they do not, you dont have the right to take away rights.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

By losing their rights, the abuser would lose their right to marry again, or would you rather they be allowed to continue the cycle with someone else?
The abused would be exempted, for as it's commonly joked as 'the last legal form of slavery'.

Frankly it's just people abusing it that is devaluing the idea. People marrying for someone's riches, or trading then in for a 'younger model' and kids in their teens jumping in boat too damn early.

An abuser does not need a marriage in order to abuse.

Your argument is basically: People do stupid things, so lets take their rights away.

No.

People can learn from stupid things, and even if they do not, you dont have the right to take away rights.

As far as stupid things go 'forcing somebody to legally separate from me' is pretty damn high level of stupid.
People would think about their rights more if they actually bloody stopped to think about them. You don't look after something you don't deserve to have it, plain and simple.

 

[Phasmal]

As far as stupid things go 'forcing somebody to legally separate from me' is pretty damn high level of stupid.
People would think about their rights more if they actually bloody stopped to think about them. You don't look after something you don't deserve to have it, plain and simple.

Life is complicated.
You can start out completely in love and 100% wanting your marriage, but it can fade through time and circumstances. The last thing you would need then is a government person showing up on your door telling you they are taking your rights away.

You can grumble and gripe, but it is simply not a good idea when you get down to it. Divorce is there for a reason, the last thing we need is more reason for unhappy people to stay in unhappy marriages.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

As far as stupid things go 'forcing somebody to legally separate from me' is pretty damn high level of stupid.
People would think about their rights more if they actually bloody stopped to think about them. You don't look after something you don't deserve to have it, plain and simple.

Life is complicated.
You can start out completely in love and 100% wanting your marriage, but it can fade through time and circumstances. The last thing you would need then is a government person showing up on your door telling you they are taking your rights away.

You can grumble and gripe, but it is simply not a good idea when you get down to it. Divorce is there for a reason, the last thing we need is more reason for unhappy people to stay in unhappy marriages.

I get that, my parents are seperated (divorce without the court hearings). I can fathom that in that sort of circumstance that both parties would go off scot free, BUT, with idiots screwing up the system there should be laws in place to stop the careless crap.
Going back to my original post, it's fucked up that there are laws that gays arn't allowed to marry, yet we'll let Donald Trump (or some other bastard) do it as many times as he damn well pleases?

 

[Phasmal]

I get that, my parents are seperated (divorce without the court hearings). I can fathom that in that sort of circumstance that both parties would go off scot free, BUT, with idiots screwing up the system there should be laws in place to stop the careless crap.
Going back to my original post, it's fucked up that there are laws that gays arn't allowed to marry, yet we'll let Donald Trump (or some other bastard) do it as many times as he damn well pleases?

Well, yes that is fucked up. As you can probably gather, I think its stupid to deny some people rights.
There's no reason to stop people marrying just because you personally disagree with them.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I get that, my parents are seperated (divorce without the court hearings). I can fathom that in that sort of circumstance that both parties would go off scot free, BUT, with idiots screwing up the system there should be laws in place to stop the careless crap.
Going back to my original post, it's fucked up that there are laws that gays arn't allowed to marry, yet we'll let Donald Trump (or some other bastard) do it as many times as he damn well pleases?

Well, yes that is fucked up. As you can probably gather, I think its stupid to deny some people rights.
There's no reason to stop people marrying just because you personally disagree with them.

I'm from Australia, so "rights" are a very American idea.
Frankly I just think that if we gave idiots less rights to be idiots the world be a better place.

 

[Phasmal]

I get that, my parents are seperated (divorce without the court hearings). I can fathom that in that sort of circumstance that both parties would go off scot free, BUT, with idiots screwing up the system there should be laws in place to stop the careless crap.
Going back to my original post, it's fucked up that there are laws that gays arn't allowed to marry, yet we'll let Donald Trump (or some other bastard) do it as many times as he damn well pleases?

Well, yes that is fucked up. As you can probably gather, I think its stupid to deny some people rights.
There's no reason to stop people marrying just because you personally disagree with them.

I'm from Australia, so "rights" are a very American idea.
Frankly I just think that if we gave idiots less rights to be idiots the world be a better place.

I'm from the UK.
I'm sure thats what homophobes think about keeping gays from marrying, point is, its not up to you.

 

[Fappy]

I always thought that marriages should be a separate entity from legal partnerships, but that's just me.

As a counter point to your argument check out the Catholic church... we don't take kindly to divorce >.>

 

[Fappy]

I get that, my parents are seperated (divorce without the court hearings). I can fathom that in that sort of circumstance that both parties would go off scot free, BUT, with idiots screwing up the system there should be laws in place to stop the careless crap.
Going back to my original post, it's fucked up that there are laws that gays arn't allowed to marry, yet we'll let Donald Trump (or some other bastard) do it as many times as he damn well pleases?

Well, yes that is fucked up. As you can probably gather, I think its stupid to deny some people rights.
There's no reason to stop people marrying just because you personally disagree with them.

I'm from Australia, so "rights" are a very American idea.
Frankly I just think that if we gave idiots less rights to be idiots the world be a better place.

I'm from the UK.
I'm sure thats what homophobes think about keeping gays from marrying, point is, its not up to you.

I'm from 'Merica and I endorse this sentiment.

 

[BabySinclair]

The entire "sanctity" bit is only found in Western near East cultures for the most part. This is because of the heavy influence structural religion had on shaping those societies. In many traditional (pre-western contact) societies, "marriage" was just what you did while the kids grew up to a certain age and then once they did it was time to find a new "spouse". During the time together it wasn't all that uncommon for either member of the relationship to have "extra-marital" sex. Hell, the Karma Sutra has an entire section of how to have an affair and get away with it. Before the British it was expected that people are going have sex outside of the marriage and the proper thing to do is to not pop kids out or get caught with the wrong partner.

And since I haven't bothered to read the other few pages in their entirety and I'm pretty sure this has come up... There is no definitive evidence that proves that H. sapien is{not} monogamous. Monogamy is purely a cultural response and depending on the environment/economy of any different culture polyandry, polygamy, and monogamy are are valid expresions of different ways of raising kids.

That said, I am an engaged American male and not planning on finding another woman, it has nothing to do with the sacred and all to do with the tax/legal benefits and cultural norms. I plan to have a long term relationship and those are very useful, for those not certain of the length of their relationship then cohabitation without marriage may be the best course of action.

 

[Montezuma's Lawyer]

It never was sacred, it has always been about business, end of story.

 

[Limecake]

The great majority of marriages work because the great majority of people are biologically, emotionally, and culturally wired for it. Childless marriages allow those who don't want children to still participate in a common societal event, but for obvious reasons, they're not the common model for the majority of the population, because if the majority does not reproduce, your society and its attendant civilization is dead. You don't get to throw out the necessity of reproduction and attendant child-rearing by calling it a "model" and declaring all models fundamentally fungible, that's like calling both profit and loss "cash flow" and running your business into the ground because it wasn't making you happy(though it was making your employees a living and you and your stockholders a profit.

most marriages don't work though, as soon as the divorce rate reached 50% the whole notion of 'Marriage being the cornerstone of our society' went out the window. Furthermore we aren't wired biologically to be with one person the rest of our lives.

From a Biological stand-point staying with one partner your entire sexual life is crazy. Very few animals or insects stay with one partner and the ones that do usually have a good reason for it (usually the male partner is killed or genitals become fused together)

evolution has hard-wired into our brains that we need to continue the species, The idea that one person will be the perfect match for you emotionally and genetically is false. We want to produce the best offspring possible so we're always looking for someone who is a good match, only society views marriage as important.

 

[Phasmal]

I may be misinterpreting you, you seem to be suggesting that the humanity-specific notion of finding self-actualizing purpose in life should be superseded by the woman's historically traditional place of subservient child-guardian so that the man can do all the resource-gathering.

Replace 'historically-traditional' with 'biologically-wired,' and yes.

Sorry, you think women are biologically wired to be subservient baby machines?