5 ms·

Just legally speaking there's benefits: taxes, you can be on your spouse's health insurance, can visit them in the hospital, investments/inheritance, social sec

by Jemmeh 9y ago

Just legally speaking there's benefits: taxes, you can be on your spouse's health insurance, can visit them in the hospital, investments/inheritance, social security benefits, etc. I could definitely make an argument that a lot of those benefits could be done away with though. For example different methods of taxing people, healthcare not being tied to people's jobs/universal healthcare, etc.

fosk 9y ago
This is correct. Why can't we, as a society, move away from marriage as it is today but still implement rights between two individuals who love each other in a different, more modern, way?
- grzm 9y ago
  Define your goal. In this case what exactly is meant by "different, more modern way"? How is the better than the current situation? How is it worse? How do we get there from here? Also note that marriage today isn't the same globally, nor is it the same as it was 2000 years ago. It does and is changing.
  - fosk 9y ago
    My goal is having two individuals loving each other, protected during their relationships with some rights (ie, if she/he is injured at the hospital I am recognized the right to go see her/him), that are able to move away freely from each other without feeling stuck in a contract. Some of this couples will last forever, some will realize they are not meant for each other and they can walk away without ruining their or their partner's life. Maybe some of them will ultimately be more happy with their lives and meet other people who they really love. The current legal form of marriage formalizes love in a contract that doesn't take into account the fact that love can disappears one day for no reason, but assumes marriage is here to stay. Or to be more accurate, it does take that into account with a very expensive trigger called "divorce". Therefore the divorce is putting a price to my lack of love, and makes the decision to quit harder. By doing so the decision of staying together, which should be governed by love, is determined by cost, effectively negating the whole purpose of a marriage. Unless it's purpose keeping two individuals together no matter what, even if there's no love. Maybe it made sense in the medieval era, not in our century.
    - olau 9y ago
      I have not been through a divorce, but if you can settle things amicably, I fail to see why a divorce should be expensive. What's difficult is splitting things up. Not just the things but also children and the place you live. You have to work out a solution with someone you'll probably have a mixed bag of feelings for and against. You can argue that people would be better off in the split without having signed a contract with a set of rules to follow if they can't agree. But I'm not sure you'd be right. Another thing is that I understand you're providing an argument, but I think the idea that love is the only thing keeping people together in a relationship is incorrect, it's much, much more complicated than that.
      - Balgair 9y ago
        The main issue is children. Divorces, when childless and penniless, are typically very quick and comparatively easy. When there is a lot of money and a poorly written pre-nup or no pre-nup at all, things get very messy very quickly and can drag out for years. However, that is still just a bunch of squabbling over dollars, guest bedrooms, and pink-slips. Judges and society really do not care about that stuff all too much and the laws are somewhat straightforward, though time consuming. However, when there are children involved, the Judges don't really give a damn about the parents, usually. It is all about the kids, because they are (rightfully to me at least) the core issue. There are many ways to look at this, but I think the 'evolutionary' approach is the most useful one. Societies that put the next generation above all others tend to be the ones that survive, it seems. Sometimes this is at the cost of the parents' happiness. Sometimes, this results in a particular child being less happy, or downright suicidal, in the end. But if you look at the society to be in competition with other societies, you can see why this tactic is 'best'. Is this the right or wrong way for individual people? In an evolutionary approach, who cares? That said, the environment in which societies are 'living' in is in drastic change currently and we should expect to see some drastic changes to societies, including how children are treated and how the next generation propagates in the society space.
        amag 9y ago
        But when children are involved, does it really matter whether it's called a divorce or just a break-up? From the child's perspective, their safe, loving world with two parents living together is now drastically ripped apart. Their pain doesn't decrease just because mom and dad only broke up.
- northwest65 9y ago
  We already have; do you not have defacto relationships or civil unions with comparable rights as married couples in your country?
  - fosk 9y ago
    In a society that offers both, why would anybody choose marriage over a civil union?
    - northwest65 9y ago
      The reverse could also be asked.
      - amiga-workbench 9y ago
        There are no religious associations with the practise, that's important for me personally.
        northwest65 9y ago
        Fair enough. I'm a non-believer so I simply give that aspect no import.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      If they're the same, what difference does it make what name you put on it? But if they're different... well, my perception is that by "marriage" you mean something permanent, and by "civil union" you mean something at least potentially temporary. When we got married, "temporary" wasn't an option. We wanted to make something permanent, something we weren't going to back out of. That was our intention then, and it's our intention now. Why? Well, maybe I could put it this way. When you find an amazing place with really inexpensive rent, how long of a lease do you want to sign?
      - fosk 9y ago
        No. Two people can and should be together forever if that's what they want. It can be permanent even without a traditional marriage. > We wanted to make something permanent, something we weren't going to back out of. Couldn't the same statement be made without signing a piece of paper? Isn't mutual love, understanding, affection, protection between each other enough to make this statement? What are we afraid of? That without marriage maybe one day some of this love, affection and protection will go away? But if it's really strong, aren't we going to find again mutual understanding with our partner and fix it anyways, with or without a marriage? And if that piece of paper is really the only thing holding two people together, shouldn't they re-consider that maybe they are not meant for each other and there is another person out there who is waiting for them? > When you find an amazing place with really inexpensive rent, how long of a lease do you want to sign? If I told you that this place could be yours forever even without signing a lease, you could just move in and enjoy it for the rest of your life for how long as you wanted, why would you sign the lease anyways?

by Jemmeh 9y ago

fosk 9y ago

This is correct. Why can't we, as a society, move away from marriage as it is today but still implement rights between two individuals who love each other in a different, more modern, way?

grzm 9y ago
Define your goal. In this case what exactly is meant by "different, more modern way"? How is the better than the current situation? How is it worse? How do we get there from here? Also note that marriage today isn't the same globally, nor is it the same as it was 2000 years ago. It does and is changing.
- fosk 9y ago
  My goal is having two individuals loving each other, protected during their relationships with some rights (ie, if she/he is injured at the hospital I am recognized the right to go see her/him), that are able to move away freely from each other without feeling stuck in a contract. Some of this couples will last forever, some will realize they are not meant for each other and they can walk away without ruining their or their partner's life. Maybe some of them will ultimately be more happy with their lives and meet other people who they really love. The current legal form of marriage formalizes love in a contract that doesn't take into account the fact that love can disappears one day for no reason, but assumes marriage is here to stay. Or to be more accurate, it does take that into account with a very expensive trigger called "divorce". Therefore the divorce is putting a price to my lack of love, and makes the decision to quit harder. By doing so the decision of staying together, which should be governed by love, is determined by cost, effectively negating the whole purpose of a marriage. Unless it's purpose keeping two individuals together no matter what, even if there's no love. Maybe it made sense in the medieval era, not in our century.
  - olau 9y ago
    I have not been through a divorce, but if you can settle things amicably, I fail to see why a divorce should be expensive. What's difficult is splitting things up. Not just the things but also children and the place you live. You have to work out a solution with someone you'll probably have a mixed bag of feelings for and against. You can argue that people would be better off in the split without having signed a contract with a set of rules to follow if they can't agree. But I'm not sure you'd be right. Another thing is that I understand you're providing an argument, but I think the idea that love is the only thing keeping people together in a relationship is incorrect, it's much, much more complicated than that.
    - Balgair 9y ago
      The main issue is children. Divorces, when childless and penniless, are typically very quick and comparatively easy. When there is a lot of money and a poorly written pre-nup or no pre-nup at all, things get very messy very quickly and can drag out for years. However, that is still just a bunch of squabbling over dollars, guest bedrooms, and pink-slips. Judges and society really do not care about that stuff all too much and the laws are somewhat straightforward, though time consuming. However, when there are children involved, the Judges don't really give a damn about the parents, usually. It is all about the kids, because they are (rightfully to me at least) the core issue. There are many ways to look at this, but I think the 'evolutionary' approach is the most useful one. Societies that put the next generation above all others tend to be the ones that survive, it seems. Sometimes this is at the cost of the parents' happiness. Sometimes, this results in a particular child being less happy, or downright suicidal, in the end. But if you look at the society to be in competition with other societies, you can see why this tactic is 'best'. Is this the right or wrong way for individual people? In an evolutionary approach, who cares? That said, the environment in which societies are 'living' in is in drastic change currently and we should expect to see some drastic changes to societies, including how children are treated and how the next generation propagates in the society space.
      - amag 9y ago
        But when children are involved, does it really matter whether it's called a divorce or just a break-up? From the child's perspective, their safe, loving world with two parents living together is now drastically ripped apart. Their pain doesn't decrease just because mom and dad only broke up.
northwest65 9y ago
We already have; do you not have defacto relationships or civil unions with comparable rights as married couples in your country?
- fosk 9y ago
  In a society that offers both, why would anybody choose marriage over a civil union?
  - northwest65 9y ago
    The reverse could also be asked.
    - amiga-workbench 9y ago
      There are no religious associations with the practise, that's important for me personally.
      - northwest65 9y ago
        Fair enough. I'm a non-believer so I simply give that aspect no import.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    If they're the same, what difference does it make what name you put on it? But if they're different... well, my perception is that by "marriage" you mean something permanent, and by "civil union" you mean something at least potentially temporary. When we got married, "temporary" wasn't an option. We wanted to make something permanent, something we weren't going to back out of. That was our intention then, and it's our intention now. Why? Well, maybe I could put it this way. When you find an amazing place with really inexpensive rent, how long of a lease do you want to sign?
    - fosk 9y ago
      No. Two people can and should be together forever if that's what they want. It can be permanent even without a traditional marriage. > We wanted to make something permanent, something we weren't going to back out of. Couldn't the same statement be made without signing a piece of paper? Isn't mutual love, understanding, affection, protection between each other enough to make this statement? What are we afraid of? That without marriage maybe one day some of this love, affection and protection will go away? But if it's really strong, aren't we going to find again mutual understanding with our partner and fix it anyways, with or without a marriage? And if that piece of paper is really the only thing holding two people together, shouldn't they re-consider that maybe they are not meant for each other and there is another person out there who is waiting for them? > When you find an amazing place with really inexpensive rent, how long of a lease do you want to sign? If I told you that this place could be yours forever even without signing a lease, you could just move in and enjoy it for the rest of your life for how long as you wanted, why would you sign the lease anyways?