Question of the Day #20: Marriage
TV's Mr. Neil Permalink
7 comments
Religious concept or not, is marriage a good idea? Are governments that sanction marriage obligated to adhere to the strict religious definition of marriage?
Post a Comment
7 Comments:
Yes, marriage is a good idea.
- sticking to one sexual partner reduces the risk for disease.
- in times of hardship, there's someone to lean on.
- in good times, it's more fun to share pleasure, and if you stick with the same partner, you have lots of fond memories together.
Doesn't have to be more complicated than this.
Marriage is not a religious concept - it is a legal one. It is a type of contract which provides certain benefits (tax-related, propery division on divorce, etc.) to the parties. Like everything else, these benefits may involve costs if the contract is voided through divorce. I would guess that one's opinion on this question is going to be shaped by one's personal experience quite a bit.
I think the gov shouldnt even recognize marriages one way or the other.
I think that 2 or more adults should be able to sign a legal contract joining their assents and providing legal benefits to all. john frank's idea of marriage works great for him and would probably work well for many, if not most people, but we are a society of individuals and should be able to choose for ourselves if marriage, or a civil union, or no contract at all is best for us. We should also be able to choose whether we enter into that contract with a member of the same sex, opposite sex, or even multiple individuals, provided that all individuals are consenting adults and given equal rights and status within the relationship.
I can understand a contract that combines the properties of two people, and that states an equal division when either of the two decides to break it off.
I also understand the ritual of announcing the love for one another.
The above two can be quite seperated and other contractual agreements can exist ofcourse, depending on the financial situations of the two.
I don't get the vows-part, where you would say to love the other until you die, because it's a silly and concequentially meaningless promise.
And:
Religious has nothing to do with anything.
The group of thieves and murderers that call themselves the government also has nothing to do with it. The question of whether they should or shouldn't do something is completely irrelevant because in no way will that affect their actions the slightest bit.
john frank--
You stated your opinion, but this is not the same as saying that it should be the law.
You may LIKE monogamous marriage, and that relationship style may work for you.
Love and feelings can't be legislated, and a piece of paper is no guarantee of success in any case.
I agree with mathyoo that people should be free to sign any type of contract defining their relationship however they see fit. The various parts of the civil marriage contract that should be separated from each other are:
1) power of attorney
2) joint ownership of assets
3) tax benefits
4) child rearing and custody
5) dissolution
6) sexual fidelity
...and others.
Having these all jumbled together, where only one style of relationship is considered legitimate, is a nightmare.
I would go a step further than mathyoo. I don't care if partners are all equal in the relationship. Anyone, who is a consenting adult, should be able to sign whatever binding contract they see fit. If that includes an unequal status in a partnership or group, so be it.
For example, someone may wish to enter into a binding contract as a submissive. They might see that as an ultimate act of love.
Marriage as currently constituted treats people like babies, and is an anachronism. In the future (say 50-100 years), it will be viewed the same way we now view slavery.
<< Home