Is MARRIAGE becoming an OUTDATED institution?

[bigguns7]

has marriage really failed to solve many of our society's domestic problems? after all.. think back to the 30's-60's when the divorce rate was MUCH lower.. how many social problems were around back then? as a matter of fact.. couldn't it be said that it was the degradation of the perceived importance of marriage in society that has led society to where it is??

Well said decem, and not a hint of insult towards Christians. Are you feeling alright?

 

[musclebrains]

John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration of Independence one said "Consider all morality in general is conformity to a law."

Laws against murder, rape, stealing, child pornography, kidnaping, etc. are all laws that are legislating morality. These laws forbid people to murder, rape, steal, exploit children, kidnap, etc.

I know what you are thinking. "Just because you legislate morality does not mean people will obey the law." That is true, but just because everyone does not obey the morality of the law, thou shall not murder, does not mean we eliminate the laws on murder. If that were the case we would have no laws and everyone would do what was right in his own eyes.

People can choose to have children out of wed-lock.. that is their choice, but why does that mean marriage laws should be ablolished, because at the end of the day, most people still believe in it.

All societies tend to legislate the moral values of the dominant culture, yes. More enlightened societies, like the comparatively progressive ones of the European Union, change their laws when these moral principles, which are by def cultural-bound, change. If you want to argue that there is a set of essentialist moral principles that the state ought to be enforcing, I can't argue with you because I don't believe that applies in this case. Your choice of the expression "children out of wedlock" itself presupposes a moral transgression, I think.

And, yes, I agree that most people believe in the marriage laws and that they aren't going to be abolished. I dont' think that's what Ryan was advocating. He was advocating leveling the playing field by giving individuals the same advantages that the state grants married people to reward their compliance with the domininant culture's values.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

He was advocating leveling the playing field by giving individuals the same advantages that the state grants married people to reward their compliance with the domininant culture's values.

Hmmm That's interesting.. Now you are treading in some very dangerous territory.. Suppose that we appealed to whim of every group who did not follow the domininant culture's values?

Comon, child abuse isn't so bad... why should I be punished for hitting my kid with a belt... Lets descriminalized child abuse..

That mother took my crack, he deserved to pumped full of lead..
Lets repeal murder laws... because that guy deserved it IMO.

Man, that girl wanted sex, you should have seen the dress she was wearing... Lets relax rape laws...


You cant always give people what they want... People sometimes want things that are BAD for them.. go figure.

Thats why we have laws, and further thats why we have legislation that supports those laws...

Hey, if you dont like the group you hang out with,leave.. Im sure the europeans would love to have you.

 

[Bikini Mod]

People can choose to have children out of wed-lock.. that is their choice, but why does that mean marriage laws should be ablolished, because at the end of the day, most people still believe in it.

Yes, there was also a time when MOST people believed that it was perfectly acceptable to LITERALLY OWN ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. Wasn't all that long ago. Remember? It was called slavery.

I agree w/Musclebrains in that I don't think that Ryan is advocating abolishing laws that support marriage.

As for what Musclebrains stated about mediation and lawyers, etc making divorce MORE DIFFICULT in that they ACTUALLY ADD FUEL to what often times is already the smoldering ashes of a once loving relationship or actually CREATE ADVERSITY where none was present, it is SAD BUT TRUE. In my state there is no such thing as "no fault" divorce (with the exception of a couple living separately with no sex between them for 18 months). This means that THE ENTIRE FAMILY must either A) "make up stuff" or portray already painful events in a fashion that is derogatory enough to the other side that THEIR side is looked upon more favorably (for custody issues) or B) LIVE IN LIMBO until the time period is up AND THEN begin the divorce proceedings. Either way IT IS HELL.

It has been OVER A YEAR since I TOLD my ex that we were over, but because I did not have the backbone to file the ppwrk (I was VERY SHORT on backbone for most of my life.) it made it very easy for events to become skewed and have all the drama dragged out.

We did try mediation back in December. After one session, after my ex left the building the mediator (who my ex suggested that came VERY HIGHLY recommended TO HIM... I liked her as well) told me that though it was her job to try and remain partial she could CLEARLY SEE that he was trying to screw me and our children but that she could not LEGALLY say this as it would compromise her impartiality. If the courts and my ex's lawyer would only be as "fair" as this mediator (who neither of us went back to see as I could tell from our first session that it would only be a waste of time and money as my ex is STILL desperately trying to get out of what the law will decide ANYWAY - I get HALF. Yes HALF - I will get no more. THE LAW IS THE LAW.) they would have layed the smack down on him and all of this would have been over AT LEAST six months ago. My children and I would no longer be in fear or limbo and my ex would have no choice but to move on.

See, I still say that my ex is NOT a bad guy. He isn't AT ALL. And my marriage was NOT a bad thing. I am today BECAUSE of who I married, and for THAT I AM QUITE THANKFUL!... but it was over a long time ago and no amount of work could have repaired the damage that was done early last year.

If the courts and the lawyers weren't so consumed with MAKING MONEY - TO HELL WITH WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CHILDREN - I believe that EVERYONE would view marriage as well as divorce in a much different light.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

Bikini

You obviously thought marriage was right at one time or another..

 

[RyanH]

Not long ago the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that illegitimate children are entitled to the same inheritance rights that children of marital couples are entitled to---for decades illegitimate children were denied inheritance simply because their parents were not married.

Contrast that, with a decision by the Supreme Court a few years ago (a California case) where Justice Scalia writing for the majority refused to recognize custody rights for a child born from an adulterous affair since the mother was still married to her husband at the time of the affair. Instead, the mother and her husband were entitled to custody of the child, whereas the natural father did not receive any custodial rights. Justice Scalia wrote that to reward custody to anyone besides the marital couple would not further the interest of the family-----that's still the law of our land, fortunately many state legislatures have changed their laws in response to that decision---but not all states have done so.

Also, it has been very common in our courts to wage war on homosexual unions. There are many court cases on the books where companions of many years are denied any inheritance rights, instead the desceased's disapproving family often ends up with everything (EVEN IN THE FACE OF A TESTATOR'S INTENT LEAVING EVERYTHING TO HIS COMPANION).

These are the unjustices I'm speaking of, I am in no way advocating the abolishment of marriage, only equal and fair treatment for everyone.

Good points MB, Louisiana also recently made it harder for its citizens to obtain a divorce. These types of unions are called covenant marriages, but in reality they can become prison sentences to two bickering, belligerant spouses.

 

[Steroid_Virgin]

It all comes back to fear of commitment... ahhh this sounds like more of the old 70's free love... what ever makes me feel good...

In order to recieve any benefit (i.e. tax breaks, health care) , it would have to be legal relationship.. to be legal it would have to be legally binding, there would have to be some kind of public record kept ates

there would something else besides marriage, but it would be the same thing.. (a legal union).

this is really just a semantic battle that is flavored anti-religion.. you can call it anything thing else, but thats all it is.

 

[Bikini Mod]

Bikini

You obviously thought marriage was right at one time or another..

And I still do. I am not ANTI-MARRIAGE AT ALL. I am only saying what Ryan H is saying. That non-legally married but no less committed relationships should have the same priviliges that unions that a piece of paper has "legitimized".

When I was younger I did very much feel the need to have my relationship accepted and legitimized in society by that piece of paper. Had I to do it all over again, perhaps I would not have been in such a rush to "grow up". I wanted more than anything to have my relationship w/my ex viewed as a full-on committed adult relationship because that is how I VIEWED IT and TREATED IT until it was irrepairably damaged.

Now I am nearly fourteen years older and no longer feel the need to have ANYTHING I do validated or legitimized by anyone but ME and MY GIRLS. However, I would NEVER live under the same roof with another man unless we WERE LEGALLY MARRIED. Kind of puts me in a bind, does it not? It isn't for society, but for the sake of my children. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think it proper FOR ME to live with a man unless we are married.... Stipulations such as this can and are commonly put in a divorce decree when there are children involved.

I do have friends who have children that were never married. My children DO KNOW EXACTLY HOW A BABY IS MADE. As a matter of fact my 8 year old had a bit of a quandry as she thought that if I married a man than that meant that I would DEFINITELY have another baby because THEY KNOW that sex is a part of marriage (They are not old enough to separate adult sex from sex within a marriage... when the time is proper, I will explain this to them also as I do NOT want my daughters to feel the need to "fall in love" with ANY GUY because they feel the need to justify sex with love.). I enlightened her that couples can do things to prevent pregnancy and still have sex. She was quite surprize and relieved. heheheheee

 

[decem]

i didn't see anywhere in ryan's post where he mentioned the mandatory mediation laws.. which i am absolutely against..

musclebrains.. great posts man.. but you did step around my question.. i'm somewhat ignorant to the laws.. but from what i've seen and understand.. a single parent gets the same if not more govt assistance... whether through tax breaks or programs (wic..etc).. you have a legal background.. could you please shed light on this.. are married parents getting that much more assistance or breaks? why should an unwed, single parent receive MORE assistance?

more of my vies.. gay companions should absolutely be entitled to inheritance.. should be allowed to marry.. should be allowed to adopt.. and covenant marriages suck..




bigguns.. i figured i'd drop that gig for awhile.. i only do it to piss off dgreenhill anyway..

 

[naturally anabolic]

i still would like to know how the institution of marriage is recognized by the government when marriage was a religious ceremony to begin with and they are supposed to seperate church and state... that has never made sense to me.....but my views are as follows:

i do not believe you need a priest,judge,law-based individual or any other person to tell you that you are married...it just pisses me off that telling someone on a piece of paper that you and another person are wed...i dunno it makes the exprience seem cheap and lessens the value of it to me.
In conclusion i think all rewards that are granted to legally married couples be shared with all individuals within a long term relationship regardless of any other criteria, to live in a free society you can't chose one person's views as all right and another person's views to be all wrong.