Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wallener · 06-01-2005, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IsItJustMe

Neither one. The idea that marriage exists outside of whether it is or is not legally recognized, that it is a relationship between two people which is sometimes sanctioned by a government and other times not.

It seems multiple things are being conflated. Two people can be in a very strong union regardless of their legal status. I am using "marriage" in the formal sense of the word, and a formal marriage does impose legal issues/benefits/restrictions on a union. This is especially true when children enter the picture.

Where I live any two consenting adults can be legally married. In addition, here a common-law marriage becomes the equivalent of a formal marriage after 6 months, so many of the issues go away.

Adora · 06-01-2005, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john proctor

In present society, should there be a penatly (besides getting "dumped") for cheating? Is there?

No, because it will just turn out like every other society with these kinds of laws, and the women will be the ones being punished moreso than the men.

Reign_Cryogen · 06-01-2005, 06:51 PM

Hmm.. Adora, would you mind elaborating a bit (on both parts)?

Reign_Cryogen · 06-01-2005, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaner

A union of individuals into a family doesn't affect only the immediate participants, it brings the weight of two extended families into the mix.

While your point is well-made in general, this begs the question a bit.

Vermin8 · 06-02-2005, 09:19 AM

I think marriage should be a private contractual arrangement between the parties involved. I don't see why the government has an interest.

My guess is that it used to be necessary to legally bind the male to the female so that she could bear and raise children and the father would be obligated to support her. Without his support she could not properly raise the child. This is also why pre-marital sex was forbidden - he must be bound before a child is produced so there will be no question as to his responsibility.

Now times are different. One parent can raise a child. Parents can also be legally bound to support a child even if they don't live in the same household (and the higher standard of living we enjoy means in most cases there can be 2 households without risking not being able to feed and clothe the child). Do people really want to live together for the rest of their llives? If they did, divorce would not be such a big industry.

Now marriage is primarily an emotional issue (I think John Proctor referred to that earlier) - which, IMO, should not be a state issue. Let couples "in love" (or, as I like to put it, in a state of hormonal disarray) work out between the two of them what their arrangement is (one size fits all couples does not work anymore) and should the contract be broken, take it to court.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-01-2005, 06:51 PM	#33
Reign_Cryogen Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Albany, New York, USA Posts: 2,058	Hmm.. Adora, would you mind elaborating a bit (on both parts)?

06-02-2005, 09:19 AM	#35
Vermin8 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: In traffic hell Posts: 422	I think marriage should be a private contractual arrangement between the parties involved. I don't see why the government has an interest. My guess is that it used to be necessary to legally bind the male to the female so that she could bear and raise children and the father would be obligated to support her. Without his support she could not properly raise the child. This is also why pre-marital sex was forbidden - he must be bound before a child is produced so there will be no question as to his responsibility. Now times are different. One parent can raise a child. Parents can also be legally bound to support a child even if they don't live in the same household (and the higher standard of living we enjoy means in most cases there can be 2 households without risking not being able to feed and clothe the child). Do people really want to live together for the rest of their llives? If they did, divorce would not be such a big industry. Now marriage is primarily an emotional issue (I think John Proctor referred to that earlier) - which, IMO, should not be a state issue. Let couples "in love" (or, as I like to put it, in a state of hormonal disarray) work out between the two of them what their arrangement is (one size fits all couples does not work anymore) and should the contract be broken, take it to court.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.