|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2011 17:43:57 GMT -5
Truthfully, the more I think about this, the more I think it's a great idea. Legal recognition and such is entirely separate from the meaning of marriage. There was a time where marriage was done and had nothing to do with the law or government. I've long wanted to see govt back out of the marriage business. If they could stick to treating it as a contract, with defined terms, clauses, etc, you'd have a lot more to think about than rushing into a commitment that maybe you're not ready for. And the contract should include terms for divorce in it. Divorce proceedings would be easier to get through, less messy, etc... but you may have less divorces to begin with as people either let contracts expire or didn't deal with the hassle involved. And those (like me) that view marriage as a sacred covenant and vow for life, well, that meaning isn't gone. The only thing different is how the govt views things. There should still be a "for life" option, even so. When I get married to whoever's right for me I want to love that person forever and forever. And I want kids. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie (swordlilly) on Nov 7, 2011 18:01:50 GMT -5
There should still be a "for life" option, even so. When I get married to whoever's right for me I want to love that person forever and forever. And I want kids. Sae, did you read the article? Or Dju's response to your post? I only wouldn't have a problem with it if people who were serious about lifelong love had the option to not have an expiration date. There is, i think they mention it on the article. There is the "Forever after" option! The two-year time frame is just a minimum. People have the option to make it as long as they want, including for life. The enormity and weight of these vows has already lost some of its importance, what with the high divorce rate of silly people rushing in to get married without considering that marriage constitutes a lifelong commitment to be with each other 'until death do us part'. To have an expiration date for marriage is, in my opinion, only encouraging that kind of idiotic non-commitment. Not everyone who gets divorced were "silly people rushing in to get married" without fully considering the consequences. Just sayin'.  Personally I suspect that I'm demisexual, so I actually share your feelings with regard to what I want in a marriage: lifelong commitment, stability, comfort, safety. The less upheavals the better, for me. But I know too that there are people who experience love differently, who can fall passionately in love and then fall out of love, and they don't have any more choice in the way they experience love than we do. For them the idea of lifelong commitment is not reassuring, but can be kind of suffocating. So about the main question of this thread, I can see why some people would want an expiry date. That date could be treated as a milestone, an opportunity for honest reflection, like Huntress pointed out; setting such a date doesn't have to be signing up for automatic failure or anything like that. (Which also challenges accepted norms: Why should a short-term companionship be considered a failure if both people had good times together and then simply got bored or fell out of love and wanted to experience something different? It's their life, it's their choice.) If by the expiry date, the marriage really isn't working out, then the process of dividing up property etc. would be a lot less messy, less long, and less expensive. Legal recognition and such is entirely separate from the meaning of marriage. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Nov 7, 2011 18:13:04 GMT -5
Truthfully, the more I think about this, the more I think it's a great idea. Legal recognition and such is entirely separate from the meaning of marriage. There was a time where marriage was done and had nothing to do with the law or government. I've long wanted to see govt back out of the marriage business. If they could stick to treating it as a contract, with defined terms, clauses, etc, you'd have a lot more to think about than rushing into a commitment that maybe you're not ready for. And the contract should include terms for divorce in it. Divorce proceedings would be easier to get through, less messy, etc... but you may have less divorces to begin with as people either let contracts expire or didn't deal with the hassle involved. And those (like me) that view marriage as a sacred covenant and vow for life, well, that meaning isn't gone. The only thing different is how the govt views things. There should still be a "for life" option, even so. When I get married to whoever's right for me I want to love that person forever and forever. And I want kids. But there is a for life option, I sort of posted that before... ^-^;; |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2011 18:15:53 GMT -5
There should still be a "for life" option, even so. When I get married to whoever's right for me I want to love that person forever and forever. And I want kids. Sae, did you read the article? Or Dju's response to your post? I thought Stal hadn't read the response or even thought about that. I was trying to bring it up to him. (If you already figured, sorry Stal) About love...I sort of consider it this way: you can fall in love with more than one person, in that you truly believe you love them because you care very deeply about them. But your first or second experience will probably turn out to be just a very close friend (which sometimes it takes giving romance a try to figure out). But if you keep trying you will find your true love who is right for you, and you find out that this is the real thing. And when that happens for me, then I'll marry. I believe true love can last forever. Of course, I've never been in a real relationship. There was a boy who I really liked when I was in 7th grade (he was really nice). Unfortunately, he didn't like me like that. Still, I'll keep my eyes out for the "spark". I think when I find that special someone it'll hit me like lightning. |
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Nov 7, 2011 18:24:28 GMT -5
Sae, did you read the article? Or Dju's response to your post? I thought Stal hadn't read the response or even thought about that. I was trying to bring it up to him. (If you already figured, sorry Stal) About love...I sort of consider it this way: you can fall in love with more than one person, in that you truly believe you love them because you care very deeply about them. But your first or second experience will probably turn out to be just a very close friend (which sometimes it takes giving romance a try to figure out). But if you keep trying you will find your true love who is right for you, and you find out that this is the real thing. And when that happens for me, then I'll marry. I believe true love can last forever. Of course, I've never been in a real relationship. There was a boy who I really liked when I was in 7th grade (he was really nice). Unfortunately, he didn't like me like that. Still, I'll keep my eyes out for the "spark". I think when I find that special someone it'll hit me like lightning. My parents are married for 25 years and rarely have fights, they really fit for each other and when they argue it's quite funny since my dad, some minutes later (or a 24 hours in serious cases) comes snuggling behind my mom, so I believe in long lasting love as well! I mean, every couple have their crisis but hey, love isn't that easy to break! Actually, my dad snuggles my mom so much that mostly THAT'S the reason why they fight! Love is weird.  On the other hand, I'm starting to think this expiration day option is interesting for couples that want to try it out, like a test drive! That will make them see what marriage is about and perhaps take it more seriously! But still, divorce now days is as well ridiculous. Britney Spears once got married and her marriage only lasted 55 hours. I mean, whut. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Nov 7, 2011 22:13:15 GMT -5
Sae, did you read the article? Or Dju's response to your post? I thought Stal hadn't read the response or even thought about that. I was trying to bring it up to him. (If you already figured, sorry Stal) That doesn't make any sense, though. Nothing I said was taking away from a lifelong commitment. I even stated that even I see marriage as a sacred covenant. Not one to be broken. And referred to the minimal amount of time--what I wrote had every intention of including a 'till death term of contract. So yes. I really don't think this impacts how people could take marriage much. Though I find it sad that marriages are in such a state that terms would even be an option. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Nov 8, 2011 0:47:18 GMT -5
What is the problem that this would be trying to fix?
"Divorce is messy".
Of course... as far as I've heard, it's devastating for the couple and it often deprives kids of a parent which they like. And there's the mess of trying to split the family possessions.
But how would an expired marriage be less messy than a divorce? If the two people were living together, then decided to split up, I can't imagine that it would be less devastating whether it was decided through action (filing a divorce) or inaction (letting the marriage contract expire).
And I think there would still be disputes about possessions and possibly children. You can't anticipate everything that might happen in a contract. "I bought that vase on my credit card, so it's mine." "You bought it as a gift for me, remember?" "...No?!"
I don't see how this is better than a divorce. Especially when some people already have prenuptial agreements before they marry. If this option is meant to replace divorce, I don't see how it's much of an improvement.
Also, I see this as a way for mistrust to creep into a marriage. A partner could worry that the other partner might not quite love them enough to renew the marriage next time it comes around... and there would be no court to oversee it. On the day the marriage contract is due to expire, a partner can just up and leave, take all their stuff, take half the kids, and run off to another part of the country. And all of that would be legal, no questions asked, no investigation as to the motive of that person. Is that... fair??
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Nov 8, 2011 1:25:03 GMT -5
At least in my view, the only thing it helps with is actual court proceedings. Not the actual fall out from lack of renewal. As I said, I view marriage as a sacred vow--one for life. I despise divorce in all but a few cases.
I just have no issue with the legal and necessary government involvement treating it as a contract between two parties and handling it as it could be there. It's a really logical way to do it and would mitigate the messiness of proceedings. Not entirely eliminate, but it would do something.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jewels of Neopia on Nov 8, 2011 14:27:49 GMT -5
As a universal idea, no I don't like the idea of it generally, but I can see where Mexico City was coming from:
80 percent! With a two year contract, its like a marriage pre-run- if they don't last two years, they never made it to the marriage big leagues. If we're talking strictly court proceedings here, it's kind of like a more serious pre-nup arrangement. Their odds are against the marriage lasting, so I can see why logically they're rethinking the system. Discussing the issues before hand, to try and prevent more hardship later.
But for the rest of us, I should hope we've got better odds, and I'd rather emphasize the lasting commitment part, not pick some date to rethink and renew the marriage. But I think the idea is interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie (swordlilly) on Nov 8, 2011 15:26:46 GMT -5
But how would an expired marriage be less messy than a divorce? If the two people were living together, then decided to split up, I can't imagine that it would be less devastating whether it was decided through action (filing a divorce) or inaction (letting the marriage contract expire). There's a big difference between deciding through action and deciding through inaction. As I understand it, after people are married for some time, they get used to living together. If they fall into unhealthy patterns, then they definitely need to take some action to improve their marriage if they want to stay together. Having to actively renew the marriage when a specific date rolls round would be an opportunity for them to assess the situation and break out of their unhealthy patterns. Whereas not making an effort to stay together = letting the marriage expire there and then, which is better than letting it fester into a potentially much more complicated divorce. So yeah, I can see that argument. Also, I see this as a way for mistrust to creep into a marriage. A partner could worry that the other partner might not quite love them enough to renew the marriage next time it comes around... and there would be no court to oversee it. Well, if I was planning on marrying someone, and he said something like, "All I'm ready to commit to at this point is a two-year marriage. I'm not sure I want to be with you for all of my life," then I would know that his personality and mine were different. Better to find out before getting married in the first place than to find out years later that we're incompatible romantically. Whereas if everyone regardless of how they experience love is expected to sign onto a contract for life, then some people are bound to lie when they say, "till death do us part." And they can't avoid lying, because legally they're supposed to say that. =/ So I can see this as a way to force people to be honest ("How many years do we really want to sign on for?") and to reduce mistrust in the long term. As a universal idea, no I don't like the idea of it generally, but I can see where Mexico City was coming from: 80 percent! With a two year contract, its like a marriage pre-run- if they don't last two years, they never made it to the marriage big leagues. If we're talking strictly court proceedings here, it's kind of like a more serious pre-nup arrangement. Their odds are against the marriage lasting, so I can see why logically they're rethinking the system. Discussing the issues before hand, to try and prevent more hardship later. But for the rest of us, I should hope we've got better odds, and I'd rather emphasize the lasting commitment part, not pick some date to rethink and renew the marriage. But I think the idea is interesting. XD Yes, you're right, this is still a very local issue and some of us were getting all excited thinking about potential universal applications. I don't know if this system would be a good fit for places other than Mexico City. It does seem appealing to me personally though. Maybe it's just because of my age range or my peer group, but I feel like I'm in the definite minority when it comes to romantic attachments. I don't experience "sparks." I don't find anyone "hot" just by looking at them. When I fall in love, which is extremely rare, I fall seriously in love for a long, long time, and I don't "get over it" quickly. So I want to be with someone eventually who experiences love just the way that I do. I don't want to be with someone who appears to love me back in the same way but who really is just pressured by society to lie to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Nov 11, 2011 13:11:15 GMT -5
Whereas if everyone regardless of how they experience love is expected to sign onto a contract for life, then some people are bound to lie when they say, "till death do us part." And they can't avoid lying, because legally they're supposed to say that. =/ I'm pretty sure "Til death do us part" is part of the marriage vows said during the ceremony, and you don't have to say those at all. A lot of couples write their own vows. That's not on the legal marriage license, at least no license I've ever seen. So, if you want to avoid lying, write your own vows and don't say "til death do us part" in it. |
|
|
|
Post by Kai on Nov 22, 2011 22:54:50 GMT -5
I think this is straight up dumb. If you've dated someone for three+ years, and you get along and truly love each other, then you shouldn't have to be in a binding contract in order to have a marriage. What is this? It's like in the dark ages when people arranged marriages for business such as gaining land and what not  |
|
Personally I suspect that I'm demisexual, so I actually share your feelings with regard to what I want in a marriage: lifelong commitment, stability, comfort, safety. The less upheavals the better, for me. But I know too that there are people who experience love differently, who can fall passionately in love and then fall out of love, and they don't have any more choice in the way they experience love than we do. For them the idea of lifelong commitment is not reassuring, but can be kind of suffocating.
