4 ms·

Good for them. More people need to reject this archaic sexist tradition. Legal enforcement of the fantasy notion of "true love for life" is damn near barbaric

Good for them. More people need to reject this archaic sexist tradition. Legal enforcement of the fantasy notion of "true love for life" is damn near barbaric. If you and your partner can swing it, more power to you, but social pressure on others to place themselves into legally binding situations revolving around this notion is something that need to die. In the west (at least the states) these are legally binding arrangements that are heavily biased against males, but if women are rejecting that in Asia then all the better.

aik 15y ago
Just curious -- how does this mindset handle having kids that grow up in a loving and positive environment?
- r00fus 15y ago
  Do what they do in other civilized countries like France... allow non-marriage unions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacte_civil_de_solidarité http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacte_civil_de_solidarité The union isn't just for same-sex couples, but also for non-standard families like say siblings w.o parents and such... it would be perfect as it eschews traditional mores and keeps the good part of marriages.
  - aik 15y ago
    Sorry let me explain -- I'm not talking about a lack of marriage, but lack of a stable union. The incentive to "give up" is so much stronger when you can just leave when (not "if") life's ubiquitous unpredictable and uncontrollable difficulties arise. So naturally there's a much greater chance of not having that positive environment...
    - r00fus 15y ago
      And what I'm saying is that the PACS (the french civil union) is actually a very strong contract, just not bound up with traditional titles and roles like {husband=breadwinner,wife=homemaker}. In fact today, over 95% of civil unions in France are heterosexual couples: "Although originally intended for same-sex couples, currently in France the majority of couples taking advantage of its law are now heterosexual couples who for one reason or another choose civil union rather than marriage, and that more heterosexual couples are opting for civil union rather than marriage. In fact, this trend was already in place in 2000, with 75% of unions between heterosexual couples (42% the previous years) and 95% in 2009." If these folks didn't have the stability of an enforceable social contract (and tax benefits), most probably wouldn't marry either.
- xsmasher 15y ago
  Is marriage a requirement or a guarantor of a loving and positive environment?
  - aik 15y ago
    Sorry let me explain -- I'm not talking about a lack of marriage, but lack of a stable union. The incentive to "give up" is so much stronger when you can just leave when (not "if") life's ubiquitous unpredictable and uncontrollable difficulties arise. So naturally there's a much greater chance of not having that positive environment...
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  It is an unrelated topic.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    Let me clarify- you are saying that children are unrelated to marriage?
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      You know full well what I am saying. The concept of legally binding marriage and a "loving and positive environment" are fundamentally unrelated. Little Johnny doesn't know or care if the government sanctions his parental figures' relationship. In fact, the only case in which Little Johnny might become aware of the governments involvement is when the resulting legal/social/economic pressure causes a dramatic deterioration of this "loving and positive environment".
      - sliverstorm 15y ago
        I suggest you extrapolate just a tad more next time. I may have a good guess at what you are saying, but that doesn't mean you don't need to say it.
sliverstorm 15y ago
Whether or not marriage as an institution is biased against males or females (honestly, it seems to be biased against both) I am always astounded by people who see no value whatsoever in marriage. America is practically founded on capitalism. How can you understand specialization & its benefits, and not see how marriage (well, used to) makes use of it? Yes, if marriage was just about pretending "True Love is real, and the world is full of roses and daisies!" it would be a ridiculous sham. But as I have come to see it, it is more about facing the world as a "team". In larger groups (that is to say, extended family, all composed of marriage links), perhaps even as a "tribe"... think about that. (Not to mention, kids are a thing we kind of need as a species, and I think most everyone is familiar with the plight of single parents)
- bbq 15y ago
  "But as I have come to see it, it is more about facing the world as a "team". In larger groups (that is to say, extended family, all composed of marriage links), perhaps even as a "tribe"... think about that." I agree! Why do those links have to be marital? I'm not sure they have to be. Which is why the we need to be more open.
  - janees 15y ago
    because, marital/blood link are more stronger than open/causal links.
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      janees' grammar is terrible, but he's not entirely wrong. We like to think we are above 'foolish' things like being related to people, but as my grandparents have put it, my brothers will always be my brothers. That is one thing that cannot change- and somehow, that is special. Call me base, call me old-fashioned, but I have come to feel that blood ties are not as imaginary as I used to believe.
      - rcthompson 15y ago
bbq 15y ago
Like everything else, it's good to have diversity. Like you say, it is too socially and possibly legally costly to discuss openly other arrangements. The pressures need to relax to allow other lifestyles blossom. It's not about being able to talk about it on the Internet or with friends. Imagine the hacker who has a business and unusual lifestyle. Can she be open with it without fear of judgment from investors and the community? I like to think she can, but I'm not so sure. Even if so, does that hold on a more general level?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
mrphoebs 15y ago
I think "true love for life" is a very american possibly western fairy tale. In asia it's more like "a partnership in the ups and downs of life" and is centered on creating a solid foundation to raise a happy and prosperous family.
nazgulnarsil 15y ago
this happens largely because contract law is ignored by judges whenever contracts violate their ideals. activist judges are a very serious issue that has huge costs for society. corporations are resorting to third party arbitration because enforcement of contracts by the prevailing legal system is not reliable.
- johnny22 15y ago
  activists judges are a serious issue?
  - nazgulnarsil 15y ago
    yes, unreliable enforcement of contract terms discourages investment.

aik 15y ago

Just curious -- how does this mindset handle having kids that grow up in a loving and positive environment?

r00fus 15y ago
Do what they do in other civilized countries like France... allow non-marriage unions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacte_civil_de_solidarité http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacte_civil_de_solidarité The union isn't just for same-sex couples, but also for non-standard families like say siblings w.o parents and such... it would be perfect as it eschews traditional mores and keeps the good part of marriages.
- aik 15y ago
  Sorry let me explain -- I'm not talking about a lack of marriage, but lack of a stable union. The incentive to "give up" is so much stronger when you can just leave when (not "if") life's ubiquitous unpredictable and uncontrollable difficulties arise. So naturally there's a much greater chance of not having that positive environment...
  - r00fus 15y ago
    And what I'm saying is that the PACS (the french civil union) is actually a very strong contract, just not bound up with traditional titles and roles like {husband=breadwinner,wife=homemaker}. In fact today, over 95% of civil unions in France are heterosexual couples: "Although originally intended for same-sex couples, currently in France the majority of couples taking advantage of its law are now heterosexual couples who for one reason or another choose civil union rather than marriage, and that more heterosexual couples are opting for civil union rather than marriage. In fact, this trend was already in place in 2000, with 75% of unions between heterosexual couples (42% the previous years) and 95% in 2009." If these folks didn't have the stability of an enforceable social contract (and tax benefits), most probably wouldn't marry either.
xsmasher 15y ago
Is marriage a requirement or a guarantor of a loving and positive environment?
- aik 15y ago
  Sorry let me explain -- I'm not talking about a lack of marriage, but lack of a stable union. The incentive to "give up" is so much stronger when you can just leave when (not "if") life's ubiquitous unpredictable and uncontrollable difficulties arise. So naturally there's a much greater chance of not having that positive environment...
burgerbrain 15y ago
It is an unrelated topic.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Let me clarify- you are saying that children are unrelated to marriage?
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    You know full well what I am saying. The concept of legally binding marriage and a "loving and positive environment" are fundamentally unrelated. Little Johnny doesn't know or care if the government sanctions his parental figures' relationship. In fact, the only case in which Little Johnny might become aware of the governments involvement is when the resulting legal/social/economic pressure causes a dramatic deterioration of this "loving and positive environment".
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      I suggest you extrapolate just a tad more next time. I may have a good guess at what you are saying, but that doesn't mean you don't need to say it.

sliverstorm 15y ago

Whether or not marriage as an institution is biased against males or females (honestly, it seems to be biased against both) I am always astounded by people who see no value whatsoever in marriage. America is practically founded on capitalism. How can you understand specialization & its benefits, and not see how marriage (well, used to) makes use of it? Yes, if marriage was just about pretending "True Love is real, and the world is full of roses and daisies!" it would be a ridiculous sham. But as I have come to see it, it is more about facing the world as a "team". In larger groups (that is to say, extended family, all composed of marriage links), perhaps even as a "tribe"... think about that. (Not to mention, kids are a thing we kind of need as a species, and I think most everyone is familiar with the plight of single parents)

bbq 15y ago
"But as I have come to see it, it is more about facing the world as a "team". In larger groups (that is to say, extended family, all composed of marriage links), perhaps even as a "tribe"... think about that." I agree! Why do those links have to be marital? I'm not sure they have to be. Which is why the we need to be more open.
- janees 15y ago
  because, marital/blood link are more stronger than open/causal links.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    janees' grammar is terrible, but he's not entirely wrong. We like to think we are above 'foolish' things like being related to people, but as my grandparents have put it, my brothers will always be my brothers. That is one thing that cannot change- and somehow, that is special. Call me base, call me old-fashioned, but I have come to feel that blood ties are not as imaginary as I used to believe.
    - rcthompson 15y ago

bbq 15y ago

Like everything else, it's good to have diversity. Like you say, it is too socially and possibly legally costly to discuss openly other arrangements. The pressures need to relax to allow other lifestyles blossom. It's not about being able to talk about it on the Internet or with friends. Imagine the hacker who has a business and unusual lifestyle. Can she be open with it without fear of judgment from investors and the community? I like to think she can, but I'm not so sure. Even if so, does that hold on a more general level?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

mrphoebs 15y ago

I think "true love for life" is a very american possibly western fairy tale. In asia it's more like "a partnership in the ups and downs of life" and is centered on creating a solid foundation to raise a happy and prosperous family.

nazgulnarsil 15y ago

this happens largely because contract law is ignored by judges whenever contracts violate their ideals. activist judges are a very serious issue that has huge costs for society. corporations are resorting to third party arbitration because enforcement of contracts by the prevailing legal system is not reliable.

johnny22 15y ago
activists judges are a serious issue?
- nazgulnarsil 15y ago
  yes, unreliable enforcement of contract terms discourages investment.