3 ms·

No, you're quite right; I wasn't taken for a sucker. I think they ended because of the legal implications of marriage; I think the relationships would have surv

No, you're quite right; I wasn't taken for a sucker. I think they ended because of the legal implications of marriage; I think the relationships would have survived, if there hadn't been contracts. In fact, they've both survived; I'm now friends with both exes. But the contracts caused us all a lot of damage. [Edit] I'm all for people having the same rights regardless of who their partner is. I'm fine with "equal marriage" in that sense; at the same time, I want to say "Don't do it!" It's like saying everyone should have the same right to walk into the path of an express train. It's good for some people, apparently; it looks to me that a subset of religious-minded people have relationships that marriage contracts don't screw up.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
em-bee 3y ago
the contracts caused us all a lot of damage could you elaborate on that, if it is possible to do so without revealing personal details? maybe in contrast what you see as a difference in the relationships of religious minded people? the only thing i can think of is open relationships without a commitment to each other. but even there i don't think that the contract itself would be the problem but different expectations of each partner. the problem of the contract is that it wouldn't be aligned with those expectations. marriage is for people who want to commit to each other. divorce happens when that commitment is no longer a priority.