Should the concept of marriage be abandoned?

Given how few people take the concept of marriage/unions anymore, maybe the whole idea should be abandoned?

Britney Spears would be a poster child for this cause. She treats the concept as if it was a game of Pac-Man(tm)...

So would specific politicians. Most of which happen to be right-wing; thank you Newt, Bob, and Ronald... amongst others.

visit my dying wife in the hospital?

the hospital won't admit her in the first place :-(

I want to be with someone throughout my life. I want that stability and support.

marriage should be recognized for what it is: a legal contract. Religious organizations should have no ability to create legal relationships. In some countries (e.g., France) churches are prohibited from conducting marriage ceremonies until after a legal marriage has been established.

Marriage is NOT and should never be a state institution.

Marriage (common law marriage) predates church-sanctioned
and state sanctioned marriage, in that order, by thousands
of years. It predates the existence of church or state,
also in that order.

Thank you for not importing French state-capitalism to the US.

in every state in this country. It is not unusual to find specific terms specified in state statutes. Oklahoma law states:

§43 1. Marriage defined.
"Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of parties legally competent of contracting and of entering into it is necessary, and the marriage relation shall only be entered into, maintained or abrogated as provided by law."

Likewise, common law marriage is a ***legal*** relationship. Just like traditional marriage, the dissolution of a common law marriage requires the entry of a divorce decree within a court having jurisdiction over the parties. And the states that recognize common law marriage state specific criteria for doing so in their statutes. Cohabiting even for extended periods of time does not necessarily create a common law marriage relationship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage
http://www.unmarried.org/common.html

The mere existence of a contract does not make something a "state institution." A contract does however create and define the rights and duties of the contracting parties. Marriage is a contract. And the existence (or lack thereof) of a marriage contract can and often does have significant legal impact in many diverse areas of existence.

Committed relationships and marriage are not the same thing. Marriage is something very different from a personal relationship between two people. The marriage contract has numerous legal implications. Discussion of the subject would benefit from that recognition. It would also benefit from the recognition that church sanctions are irrelevant to the creation of a legal contract.

What the French have done is to recognize that marriage is a legal relationship which must exist before any religious organization can sanction the marriage. In France, it is a crime for clergy to marry a couple that has not already had their marriage recognized civilly. The French have made the legal distinctions that we seem incapable of comprehending and including in our own national discussion.

...who enter into such contracts in good faith, but who are abandoned or abused by a spouse.

I'm not sure how some people are able to accept the idea that their partners are screwing around. That's the general problem I have with the being-single trend these days.

In addition to the emotional weight of living that way, just about every person I know that was open about multiple sex partners ended up contracting some kind of STD.

Lower the cost of housing.

or convince Americans to be as tolerant of intergenerational households (zero tolerance) as they are of unwed couples (very tolerant) so people won't feel ashamed to live with their relatives.

:thumbsup:

Additionally:

I've no problem with unwed couples. But if marriage is such a posh and wonderful thing, how come so many can get away with treating it as nothing (once again, the Britster comes to mind...) Nor do I of multigenerational households.

Our media has the most problem with single (not dating or partnered-in-any-way) people. See, the fact we are older and single means we're not good enough, invalidated, or any number of unsavory excuses.

living in families of more than 2. We're monogamous among ourselves, and quite happy/healthy, thank you...

:scratchinghead:

:scratchingheadtoo:
:)

I'd bet you just did. :shrug: Hard to 'abandon' a concept/idea/thought.

:blush:

And people think I've been acting weird lately... nobody supplants the LCR folks in that department. (notice how I did not stoop so low as to use the phrase "...tops the LCR folks..."

legal-who owns what, financial protections including health care, inheritance, etc
social-being a committed couple in your community (whatever that might be)
religious-sanctified by your church/god/etc
emotional-committing to each other to work as partners even when you get bored

Which concept of these or others I haven't thought of?

up in the context of marriage. Inheritance rights, marital deductions, etc.

The "hypno is a homophobic" accusations are baseless.

I don't think the anyone has a right to tell anyone else whether or not they should get married. I also don't believe the government has any business treating people differently based on what kind of relationship they have. I thought I was clear. You feeling defensive or something?

I am feeling defensive.

And my choice of OP wording wasn't probably the best either.

It's not telling who can marry whom, but how about the people understanding what the words they speak mean?

Throwaway marriages are not marriages at all. I believe it trashes the concept, especially when both parties vow to help each other, be faithful, and the rest of the song and dance. There are just reasons for divorce, but the integrity of the people is as much an issue. K-fed isn't a winner, but the media shouldn't keep up with Britney Spears' life anymore. She alone is watering down the meaning of marriage and hollywood treats her as a star. And when George Michael keeps getting busted for public sex acts, nobody hears what Kenny Goss (his ex-partner-to-be) has to say about it (Kenny wasn't fond of it). But we always hear about George Michael's bizarre belief that what he does is our "culture". Yes, as a bi man I am soooo proud to call sex in public bathrooms my "culture" (NOT).

So maybe my ultimate gripe goes to the media.

You have every right to point out how they corrupt the concept and to complain about it, but I don't think anyone but the people involved get to say who does and who doesn't do it. That was my point.

I intend to establish a permanent domestic, sexual, emotional, financial, and legal partnership with one person, should we find that our situations and each other make such a partnership viable.

People should be allowed to have civil unions with whoever they want, and whether the relationship is sexual or not is nobody's damn business.

I'm not talking about preferences.

I'm talking about taking time to consider the vows and then living by them.

There are just reasons for divorce.

But it is all too easy to make excuses for it as well and that isn't right either.

And as I've said before, I have no issues regarding civil unions. I've been for them all along.

I'm talking about the meanings behind the words.

Remember those two elderly sisters who lived together and wanted a civil union? I was thinking about situations like that.

Marriage means nothing to me, and I've never figured out why it's such a huge deal to people. I guess it's just one of those subjects about which most people are totally irrational, much like religion.

My wife and I married 25+ years ago to gain the tax-breaks, etc, and to "prove" our love for each other. A very brief and private ceremony with the chaplain of the hospital at the time. She was still a Catholic and divorced, I was also a divorced ex-Catholic, I think the chaplain was a Presbyterian or some other Prod. My wife went through some nonsense, years later, for the Church to give us a pass and she could start taking communion again. She's since given up on Mother Church and become a United Methodist and a sceptic. I remain an agnostic.

That said, we stayed together long enough, to discover that we actually do love each other. Maybe, because we did marry and stuck it out through the rough times because we are married.

But, I believe that the state endowed privileges and benefits are unfair because they discriminate against those who choose not to marry, choose not to have kids, or choose to live alone. I don't think it should be a function of the state to encourage "marriage" or any other brand of relationship.

Your last paragraph sez it all :toast:

needs to be abandoned.

We need to make a clear distinction between CIVIL MARRIAGE, which is a contract that joins two people legally and RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE, which is a ceremony that joins two people spiritually.

Our government should not be making decisions about who can and cannot be married based upon religious beliefs and prejudices. Saying that two people of the same sex should not be allowed to enter into a contract of marriage makes no sense because those same two people can enter into any other legal contract without a problem. They can buy a house together, rent a car together, open a business together and even adopt a child together ... but they can't become legally joined and responsible for one another??? A person in a same-sex relationship had every legal right that every other American had ... until they got together with the other person in that relationship. Then suddenly, they were no longer worthy of those rights! Why? Why did they suddenly become less American in the eyes of the law? What changed about them? What law did they break? What threat do they suddenly pose to the rest of the country? Of course, the answer is ... nothing changed, which means that the government has no business denying them their rights. Keep religion in church; keep fairness and common sense in government.

The "concept" of marriage is not the problem; the "concept" of "religion in government" is.

Politicians love to intermix the two, often to confuse an already dimwitted and fickle, whim-laden public.

Especially when they talk to voters of "gay marriage" yet save all the contextual information for the papers they type up, which includes every variant of "civil union" ever imagined or to-be-imagined. Variants that are irrelevant and obvious spin when compared to what came out of their mouths: "gay" + "MARRIAGE" as a religious institution.

They have a right to their religion. But they are wrongfully skewing it for the sake of their religion. That is unconstitutional.

I just wish more people who get married stick it out unless there is verbal or physical abuse. Too many leave for the slightest of reasons and that isn't right either. It's still their decision, but that doesn't mean I can't say "If marriage is about honoring each other, why do so many not these days?"

Why do marriages fail, apart from the just reasons of getting away from an abusive degenerate bastard?

Hubby and I've been married 18 years. I like the concept of how we define it. We're best friends who tell each other everything. We put each other and our marriage first...over our kids. We're better that way. The sex is good. No complaints...well, other than when he's home he watches Nascar. :)

Seriously, no, I don't think so. Some people like it and should have it if they want it. It's too bad the RW think they can tell me what my marriage is supposed to be. If I followed their rule book, hubby and I wouldn't have made it past year one.

even if we choose to ignore it.

marriage is a beautiful concept and a good marriage provides a stable home for children. I don't know why marriage is not more valued in our society. Honestly, if the freepers cared about the "sanctity" of marriage, I think they would have turned their eyes to the divorce rate rather than gay marriage.

It's an outdated relic of a patriarchal and misogynistic past that would be better left behind.