You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 10:40:00 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.  (Read 5767 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LustfulLord2011

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #25 on: November 05, 2011, 09:08:34 PM »
If you can't be bothered to truly devote yourself to someone... to give them all that you are, heart, mind, body and soul... and to accept the same from them, with deep gratitude and joy for the privilege... for the rest of your life... then you have no business getting married to them. That simple. Just my thought on the matter. It has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage", in my book (not sure I believe in such a concept). It's a simple matter of, you made vows to that person that shouldn't be broken. In cases such as adultery or abuse, well, that's different. But even if I were married to a woman who cheated on me, I would probably seek couples counseling before I settled on leaving her.

Offline Iniquitous

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #26 on: November 05, 2011, 11:39:44 PM »
What they need to do is outlaw divorce for idiotic reasons. Abuse, adultery and such should be the only reasons (with proof) that a couple should get divorced.

And who decides what is idiotic reasons? You? My mom? The government? The church? Which denomination? Wait… which religion? Does the religious beliefs of the couple come into play? Are you seeing the problem with this idea yet? How about this one - people change as they grow older. Fact of life. The person you are now is NOT who you will be five years, fifteen years, twenty five years from now. It stands to reason that if you change, so does the person you marry. Which means, sometimes two people who were once compatible, no longer are.

By putting in some crackpot law that says you can’t divorce except for reasons X,Y or Z, you are effectively trapping people into a situation that is unhealthy for one or both of them.


Quote
Marriage is for life. If you can't figure that out before hand, you're stupid enough to be called on it. Can't handle it? There's things called counseling, both marriage and singular to help you figure out your problems.

Again, no. I am sorry but I disagree here. Do you even know why marriages were created? Have you ever looked into history and researched it? It really wasn’t that long ago that people married simply for social/economic reasons.

Daddy Smallbucks has a pretty little daughter, quite a bit of land, but not a lot of social standing or ready cash. Meanwhile, his neighbor Daddy Wealthypants has a son (never mind that the son is twenty five years older than Smallbucks’ little girl) who is in need of a wife. Now Daddy Wealthypants has tons of ready cash, lots of social standing but not so much in the way of heirs or land. Solution? Marry the son to the daughter - viola! Everyone gets what they want (except the two forced to the altar to say ‘I Do‘). This is also known as arranged marriage. Still common in some countries around the world today.

Now, do you realize that marriage is still driven by the economic motivator? All you need to do is look at those denied the right of marriage (not saying I am against same sex marriages, do not presume I am. I personally believe there should be no restriction on who a person can say ‘I Do’ to) and you will hear, at some point, the fact that they want the same rights as hetero couples. (Joint fund of property, legal guardianship over any children, visitation rights to hospital/jail if one spouse, control over a spouse’s property, joint taxes, benefits, etc)

Let’s look at other reasons for the institution of marriage. It was viewed as a way for a man to be assured of the paternity of his children. That would be that little tidbit of the ceremony where they vow to forsake all others and cleave only unto each other. It was also viewed as a way to ensure less strife within villages/tribes.

It’s only been about two hundred years, maybe less, since the idea of marrying for love became popular in the West. And if you actually spend the time researching the subject of marriage, you will see that if our ancestors were alive now they’d think we’ve all lost our minds. Love did not equate into who they married, was not socially accepted and some societies even considered love to be a mental illness.

Now - with all of that said, I do not believe a piece of paper makes a marriage, nor the words of an ordained person spoken over the couple (le gasp! This coming from someone who is ordained and granted the ‘power’ by the state to perform weddings!). I believe, and tell others, that a marriage is a personal and private matter between two people. It is the conscious and willing decision to say ‘I Do’ every single minute of every single day that you are with that person. But I do not tell them that it has to be till the day one of them dies. Because, in the end. People change. Situations change. Nothing remains static. Love wanes, passion dies, arousal vanishes - it is a fact of life.

“Marriage is an institution that brings together two people under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive and most transient of passions. They are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do they part.”  ~ George Bernard Shaw



« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 11:44:08 PM by Iniquitous Opheliac »

Offline meikle

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #27 on: November 05, 2011, 11:58:37 PM »
What they need to do is outlaw divorce for idiotic reasons. Abuse, adultery and such should be the only reasons (with proof) that a couple should get divorced.
Why?
Quote
Marriage is for life.
Why?

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2011, 07:24:02 AM »
Quote from: Kalypso
What they need to do is outlaw divorce for idiotic reasons. Abuse, adultery and such should be the only reasons (with proof) that a couple should get divorced.


And who decides what is idiotic reasons? You? My mom? The government? The church? Which denomination? Wait… which religion? Does the religious beliefs of the couple come into play? Are you seeing the problem with this idea yet? How about this one - people change as they grow older. Fact of life. The person you are now is NOT who you will be five years, fifteen years, twenty five years from now. It stands to reason that if you change, so does the person you marry. Which means, sometimes two people who were once compatible, no longer are.

By putting in some crackpot law that says you can’t divorce except for reasons X,Y or Z, you are effectively trapping people into a situation that is unhealthy for one or both of them.
Not to mention pretty much nothing actually changes. If a couple wants to get divorced,  but your law is put in place to prevent them, it's not going to magically change their feelings for each other. They'll find other solutions to their dissatisfaction, such as....abuse, or adultery.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2011, 07:25:09 AM by TheGlyphstone »

Offline Florence

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #29 on: November 06, 2011, 09:42:31 AM »
What they need to do is outlaw divorce for idiotic reasons. Abuse, adultery and such should be the only reasons (with proof) that a couple should get divorced.

Kim's excuses that she needs to "follow her heart" (how the hell does she follow her heart when she so obviously doesn't have one?!) and do what's best for her is a piss poor reason to divorce.

Marriage is for life. If you can't figure that out before hand, you're stupid enough to be called on it. Can't handle it? There's things called counseling, both marriage and singular to help you figure out your problems.

Torch, thanks for putting this up. I'm very glad to know that not everyone follows the destruction of the human race called reality television these days and can stand up for what's right. :)

I see this post has already been picked to pieces, but I guess I feel the compulsive need to throw my opinion in too. People's feelings change. We like to think they don't, that we know how we'll feel for the rest of time, but sadly we are but mere mortals. The person you truly love enough to devote your life to right now, in 10-20 years, you may feel apathy at best or hatred at worst from. I think "I don't love them any more" is a sufficient reason for divorce, and to say that you need to be able to know that you'll never, ever not feel that way towards a person before you propose to them is simply unreasonable. You're basically asking them to predict the future, so more or less, psychics, prophets and characters from the tv series Heroes, are the only people who will be able to get married.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2011, 12:31:59 PM »
If divorce is made illegal, only outlaws won't have in-laws.

*flees*

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2011, 01:26:47 PM »
If divorce is made illegal, only outlaws won't have in-laws.

*flees*

*fweeeeeet*


Offline SRT4NightRider

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #32 on: November 07, 2011, 08:09:28 AM »
So the whole thing is a complete waste of time with the media. My girlfriend made me watch it with her (easiest way to get her to go to sporting events with me). One that that stuck out to me was the fact that she was worried about the brand (her name) instead of her marriage. You could see the writing on the wall and I got into an arguement with my girlfriend about that. I know that our society has changed a bit but when you are worried about a brand instead of your marriage, you know it is going to fail.

But hey, just more fun to make of her and the stupidity that she is.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #33 on: November 08, 2011, 08:48:06 AM »
I would do two things.

One bring back Common Law Marriage if you live together as a couple a certain period of time say two years OR at any point have a child together regardless your married legally under the law (no legal paperwork or declaration by the couple it would be assumed and legally in effect for all purposes) unless the pregnancy was from incest or rape or your a minor under the age of legal consentual marriage.

Two bring back fault divorce as in you cannot divorce without a reason and a wronged party who would get the favor of the law when the divorce is filed - adultery, abandonment, abuse and the like. And I would make annulments impossible unless there was fraud such as a married man shacking up with another woman and getting her pregnant (he would be married under Common Law, that is bigamy so a crime - same if the woman did that).

Lastly allow gays to marry there is no reason they should not be able to and apply the same laws to them.


Offline meikle

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #34 on: November 08, 2011, 08:54:07 AM »
Is there any benefit to telling people that they're not allowed to get a divorce beyond the ego-stroke of knowing that you used the law to force someone to be unhappy?

Offline TorchTopic starter

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #35 on: November 08, 2011, 09:01:03 AM »
Is there any benefit to telling people that they're not allowed to get a divorce beyond the ego-stroke of knowing that you used the law to force someone to be unhappy?

That depends. There is a great deal of debate currently that no-fault divorce laws allow marriages to be dissolved too easily. This can be detrimental especially in cases where there are children involved. In general, most children fare better across the board when they are living in two parent homes. They fare better economically, socially, educationally.

The number one indicator that a child will grow up in poverty is divorce. So yes, there is some truth to the old adage of "staying together for the kids".


Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #36 on: November 08, 2011, 12:46:08 PM »
The number one indicator that a child will grow up in poverty is divorce. So yes, there is some truth to the old adage of "staying together for the kids".

Although psychologically, if a child is in a house that is 'ready for divorce' of the not-very-friendly sort, that can cause all sorts of emotional trauma. 

Offline RubySlippers

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #37 on: November 08, 2011, 12:54:19 PM »
I didn't say stay together no matter what but I find its to easy to get divorced marriage is business its two people forming a economic unit and with the intent of sharing assets at the base, which is good for having children in and brings other benefits long term (for gay couples and those that can't have children). But its not something one should enter into without some serious thought and once in getting out of it should demand some reason that makes sense.

Its odd I did some research in cultures with arranged marriages and where the couple are adults and can refuse the partners chosen, divorce is rare and most marriages seem pretty content. They make the case as parents of young people its not just feelings but the need for the couple to be economically stable, be a good match and have the full support of the families to be most successful love will come later.

Even when I got together with my significant other we asked both families to support us and for their blessing, before we moved in together and became lovers proper. I trusted my parents and wanted their support and said if they refused to support me then it would be no to being a couple like that it meant that much to me. I had the same demand for her family. Those ties to me are important to me and the support vital to a good relationship since it makes things also easier especially if not a conventional couple.

But if a marriage has serious issues then naturally divorce may be better did I say that it should be illegal, no, just require fault.

Offline TorchTopic starter

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #38 on: November 08, 2011, 12:55:34 PM »
Although psychologically, if a child is in a house that is 'ready for divorce' of the not-very-friendly sort, that can cause all sorts of emotional trauma.

No disagreement here. There are no easy answers and no easy solutions on such a complicated issue.

Is staying in an unhappy marriage better or worse than living a poverty level existence? (rhetorical question, just throwing it out there).

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #39 on: November 08, 2011, 03:18:01 PM »
No disagreement here. There are no easy answers and no easy solutions on such a complicated issue.

Nope.  That's why I can't get behind any of the broad-brush suggestions I keep hearing.

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #40 on: November 08, 2011, 03:21:07 PM »
Nope.  That's why I can't get behind any of the broad-brush suggestions I keep hearing.

Well, so much for my plan to pass a law that makes unhappiness illegal. ;D

Offline meikle

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #41 on: November 08, 2011, 06:15:31 PM »
No disagreement here. There are no easy answers and no easy solutions on such a complicated issue.

Is staying in an unhappy marriage better or worse than living a poverty level existence? (rhetorical question, just throwing it out there).
Is it correlation or causation?  Are people who live near the poverty line more likely to get divorced in the first place?

Edit: I guess it's pretty obvious that in cases where both parents work, losing one of the parents leads to a loss of income that probably averages 50% (or more than 50%, depending.)  Mah bad.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2011, 06:21:24 PM by meikle »

Offline Jude

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #42 on: November 08, 2011, 07:14:30 PM »
Actually, I saw a YouTube video by a woman on this very topic, and I actually think that her solution bears some consideration, at least. Separate the legal and the spiritual/emotional components of marriage. Make marriage a purely personal thing, to be administered by the various churches and religious sects, in accordance with their customs, but make civil unions a separate proceeding, and more importantly, the part that provides all of the legal protections... and make them available to anybody, and administered by the state. This way, homosexual couples as well have access to all of the same protections and privileges that married couples now enjoy, while those who believe in the sanctity of marriage can rest secure in the fact that marriage has become a spiritual institution again. I am not sure whether I agree with her ideas or not, but they are interesting, and certainly food for thought.
We don't really need civil unions if we stop recognizing marriage.  Tearing down a governmental institution that rewards you for living a certain way only to replace it with another is missing the point.  No one should get special benefits for any personal decisions they make from the government.  I don't want to give married people lower taxes whether they're gay, straight, or pansexual.  Married people have enough benefits already; we need to stop this kind of social engineering dead in its tracks.

Offline Caela

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #43 on: November 08, 2011, 08:45:10 PM »
I would do two things.

One bring back Common Law Marriage if you live together as a couple a certain period of time say two years OR at any point have a child together regardless your married legally under the law (no legal paperwork or declaration by the couple it would be assumed and legally in effect for all purposes) unless the pregnancy was from incest or rape or your a minor under the age of legal consentual marriage.

Two bring back fault divorce as in you cannot divorce without a reason and a wronged party who would get the favor of the law when the divorce is filed - adultery, abandonment, abuse and the like. And I would make annulments impossible unless there was fraud such as a married man shacking up with another woman and getting her pregnant (he would be married under Common Law, that is bigamy so a crime - same if the woman did that).

Lastly allow gays to marry there is no reason they should not be able to and apply the same laws to them.

I have a problem with the bolded portion here. There are plenty of people who have children that don't want to be married to the person they got pregnant by/with. They weren't necessarily careless (though most often they were) but even if they were there's no saying they'd be good married.

I'll use myself as an example. I was sleeping with someone casually, just a friendly thing, nothing serious and I ended up pregnant. My own fault, I was careless and left the purse (and the condoms in it) downstairs after a few drinks one night. Nine months later I was a single mother because he had no interest in being a father. Now I am lucky enough that I make enough money to support the two of us fairly comfortably and have a lot of family around who are willing to help out with things like babysitting and picking her up from daycare for me since I work 12 hour shifts and the daycare closes before I get out of work.

By your Common Law standards I'd be married to a man that didn't want to be a father and would have to go through the struggle to divorce him even though there was no real "fault" involved. That would be a lot of time, stress, and upheaval in my daughters life that neither of us would have needed. Not to mention it would have given him rights to MY child. Rights he doesn't actually have right now because there is no father's name on her birth certificate so if he wanted rights to her he now has to go through the time and expense of proving he's her father.

I have no problem with Common Law marriages for people who live together for a certain length of time, I think it used to be 7 years in my state, to protect those involved from losing everything if the other just decides to split one day but don't think you should automatically be married just because you got pregnant.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #44 on: November 09, 2011, 08:35:58 AM »
I have a problem with the bolded portion here. There are plenty of people who have children that don't want to be married to the person they got pregnant by/with. They weren't necessarily careless (though most often they were) but even if they were there's no saying they'd be good married.

I'll use myself as an example. I was sleeping with someone casually, just a friendly thing, nothing serious and I ended up pregnant. My own fault, I was careless and left the purse (and the condoms in it) downstairs after a few drinks one night. Nine months later I was a single mother because he had no interest in being a father. Now I am lucky enough that I make enough money to support the two of us fairly comfortably and have a lot of family around who are willing to help out with things like babysitting and picking her up from daycare for me since I work 12 hour shifts and the daycare closes before I get out of work.

By your Common Law standards I'd be married to a man that didn't want to be a father and would have to go through the struggle to divorce him even though there was no real "fault" involved. That would be a lot of time, stress, and upheaval in my daughters life that neither of us would have needed. Not to mention it would have given him rights to MY child. Rights he doesn't actually have right now because there is no father's name on her birth certificate so if he wanted rights to her he now has to go through the time and expense of proving he's her father.

I have no problem with Common Law marriages for people who live together for a certain length of time, I think it used to be 7 years in my state, to protect those involved from losing everything if the other just decides to split one day but don't think you should automatically be married just because you got pregnant.

If you have sex there is a chance of a child, use birth control all you want but once you have a child verifiable to the man your married in my book. What about your daughter she has no father and your putting the pressure on the man for your choice to have a child under my guidelines the state would have to do a DNA test, that preserves his right. What about the rights to funds from the father and his rights to his child? What about the childs rights your refusing money she is due for her upbringing being uncaring of her rights to things she needs from the other parent?

And I would make divorce a high bar did he commit adultery, physical abuse or abandonment as in over a period of time refused to support you or the child say 7 years. You could still get child support but I figure 7 years is enough time for you both to get counseling and other measures to form the marriage and give the husband time to bond with the child.

Naturally I also will note you marry or he marries or has another child I would treat it as BIGAMY and apply criminal charges as appropriate so the parents use protection or keep their pants on.

Marriage and having children is a big deal to me and should have consequences and not be easy to get out of once made by living together or having a child.


Offline Zakharra

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #45 on: November 09, 2011, 10:15:48 AM »
  Ruby, your reasoning makes marriage more like a punishment than something people would want to have. It also smacks heavily of religious reasoning. What if the two people decide they don't want to be married anymore? They can end up hating each other. But if it doesn't get physically abusive and they don't have other lovers, they cannot get a divorce by your reasoning.

 Yes it is too easy to get a divorce, but you  make it very very hard to get one. You go too far the other way in restricting marriages. Especially with your common law marriages.  That is just plain wrong, the way you want them and very bad for all parties.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #46 on: November 09, 2011, 10:23:25 AM »
Telling two people they have to be married is just as bad as telling two people they can't be.

Offline Zakharra

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #47 on: November 09, 2011, 11:43:34 AM »
 It makes it extremely easy to entrap someone into a marriage they don't want. 

 Ruby, what about fathers that don't want to be?  Who are willing to sign away their parental rights?   Why should having a baby automatically mean you are married?  That's a damned cruel thing to do. Especially if it was just a fling for one night of a short time.

 Telling people to keep it in their pants won't work either. That has never worked.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2011, 12:05:47 PM by Zakharra »

Offline Steven Auldous

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #48 on: November 09, 2011, 12:40:25 PM »
So why does anyone have to tell anyone else what they should/ should not do?  Or can/ can't do for that matter?  Why cant marriage be an option to all people?  Benefits shouldnt be contingent on a piece of paper.  If I choose to insure another person, i should be able to.  If I want to leave my possessions to a specific person when I slip the mortal coil, why not?  What business is it of anyone's who I care for (either platonicly or more intimately) as long as /I/ am the one who is happy?

Offline Iniquitous

Re: The sanctity of marriage? Good question.
« Reply #49 on: November 09, 2011, 01:39:51 PM »
Ok, so if things were done Ruby’s way, I’d be forced into marriage with the man that raped me because I ended up pregnant from it. And I would have to seek counseling with him to make the marriage work.

Excuse me. What the fuck?!

Yeah, that would be interesting counseling sessions. “Ok, so let’s discuss the reasons why this marriage is not working.” “He raped me, got me pregnant and now I want to castrate him while he sleeps.” In all honesty, we’d never make it to a counseling session cause I’d be in jail for being the next Lorena Bobbit. And unlike her, I wouldn’t throw his penis into a field, I’d put the bitch in a blender and hit puree. End result, I’d have my ‘divorce’.

Fact of the matter is very simple. You do not have the right to tell people who they can marry, can’t marry, that they have to marry or stay married. It is not a marriage of you, the man and the woman. Nor it is a marriage of the government and the couple. End of story right there.