Can we get rid of marriage?

[EGarrett]

Considering that most marriages end in messy divorces...and most people cheat on each other...can we finally admit that lifelong, monogamous marriage is against human nature?

Obviously this is a lot easier said than done, but perhaps we could phase marriage out in society. Granted, we'll still need laws to keep both parents caring for children, but our social and legal constructs of marriage just aren't working. Or are they?

[Kiless]

I'm very tempted to say yes. Although my first thought was about people suing ex-partners over all the divorce payments they paid out, if the marriage laws get ousted.

[Rob Lister]

The social construct of marriage generally works fine. It is, or has become, exactly that with which you wish to replace it. It's a legal contract with consideration given to both parties.

[Anti_Hypeman]

Yes I say, just so I dont have to hear another sotry about the high divorce rates. They never state how many of the mairrages in countries with lower divorce rates are happy ones. I dont see high divorce rates as a problem myself or anything the governement should be involved in.

Wait I changed my mind I want too keep it and legalize gay mairrage just to bug the fundies. I want to see if gay weddings really will bring about the end of all civilization like they say.

[tkingdoll]

If you get rid of marriage, people will still want to have a way of 'officially' cementing their love and/or legal rights. Eventually some bright spark will come up with an idea that looks and smells like that old thing 'marriage', but will be called 'flundlebar' instead.

Believe it or not, lots of people actually WANT to get married. That has nothing to do with whether or not the marriage actually lasts. Few people say "hey baby, I love you, but lets not get married in case we end up getting divorced".

[Moochie]

Marriage is a partnership between two or more people who understand each other intimately.

There is nothing else that compares.

It can be codified in law, but not all marriages are.

It's people that make a marriage. It is good people who make a good marriage.

The marriages that are doomed are the ones in which the people involved hold unreal expectations of each other.

This may or may not be because many people hold unreal expectations of themselves.

If you would like your marriage to last, drop all expectations of yourself and your partner, and look at the person in front of you with unclouded eyes.

M.

[casebro]

Aren't the stats that most people stay married, but those that don't, get married and divorced several times? Perhaps we should count "still married people" and "divorced people" instead of marriages and divorces. Accounting would be tougher....

Perhaps we could limit the number of marriages to two? Or divorces? "Sorry, you have used up all of the legal resources alloted to you. You'll have to stay married to this one."? Or like bankruptcy, only at multi- year intervals?

[Anti_Hypeman]

I have a grandma thats been married 11 times to 10 different people.

[IllegalArgument]

Considering that most marriages end in messy divorces...and most people cheat on each other...can we finally admit that lifelong, monogamous marriage is against human nature?


I dispute your assertion that most marriages end in divorce, that 50%+ rate people throw around, is as far I as I can find is an myth.

[Tmy]

Whats so bad about divorce? Its good for the economy!

[Freakshow]

Marriage is a partnership between two or more people who understand each other intimately.You don't know many married people, do you? :D

[Mycroft]

Considering that most marriages end in messy divorces...and most people cheat on each other...can we finally admit that lifelong, monogamous marriage is against human nature?

Obviously this is a lot easier said than done, but perhaps we could phase marriage out in society. Granted, we'll still need laws to keep both parents caring for children, but our social and legal constructs of marriage just aren't working. Or are they?


So because you don't like marriage, nobody should get married? That doesn't make sense.

[Walter Wayne]

Considering that most marriages end in messy divorces...and most people cheat on each other...can we finally admit that lifelong, monogamous marriage is against human nature?

...There are drives in people toward monogamous relationships and away from it. As always what we get is a balance between the two. So no, I won't admit monogamous marriage is against human nature, not anymore than non-monogamous relationships are anyways.

Walt

[shecky]

What exactly are the stats on divorce these days?

Is divorce a big deal with social conservatives these days? It's common enough among even them, failed and multiple marriages are hardly the scandal they may have once been.

[casebro]

So don't get married- just find a woman you hate, and buy her a house.

[Walter Wayne]

What exactly are the stats on divorce these days?

Is divorce a big deal with social conservatives these days? It's common enough among even them, failed and multiple marriages are hardly the scandal they may have once been.
This site (http://www.cfc-efc.ca/docs/vanif/00005_en.htm) claims the divorce rate in the US is 44%, and in Canada it is about a third.

Not exactly sure how they came up with that number. One can get weird results if one compares current marriage rate to the current divorce rate, since a declining marriage rate can lead to inflated numbers.

In Canada, divorce rates had been going up slowly. This increased with reform of the divorce laws in 1961 and again in 1985 with no-fault divorce and peaked in number in 1987.

Walt

[EGarrett]

So because you don't like marriage, nobody should get married? That doesn't make sense.Strawmen rarely do. =)

There are drives in people toward monogamous relationships and away from it. As always what we get is a balance between the two. So no, I won't admit monogamous marriage is against human nature, not anymore than non-monogamous relationships are anyways.Perhaps it'd be better to stop pretending marriage is a lifelong bond? People seem to lose interest in each other in reliable steps starting around a year after their first infatuation. Probably instinctive. I'd be interested to see how things would work if you had to renew your marriage every 7 years or it would expire by itself.

[BS Investigator]

I don't really see the point of marriage.

[clarsct]

In Heinlein's novels, they had 'contracts' that would last for X amount of hours/years..etc. It's not a bad idea. 'revolving door marriages'

But what the real bugger would be would be the legal battles for the property. We'd have to either have a forced prenup, or some other drastic law changes.

And, of course, there are kids to consider.

[Walter Wayne]

Strawmen rarely do. =)

Perhaps it'd be better to stop pretending marriage is a lifelong bond? People seem to lose interest in each other in reliable steps starting around a year after their first infatuation. Probably instinctive. I'd be interested to see how things would work if you had to renew your marriage every 7 years or it would expire by itself.I suspect it would largely stay the same. If you made it past the seven years, you'd probably renew at 14. And the renewel at 7 might depend on how things are going that month.

A good no-fault divorce system means the primary things that will keep a bad marriage going are social pressure, kids and dependence (financial or otherwise). What I think would increase divorce rates would be a defined disolution method which includes things like finance and such. Not necessarily easy and practical to accomplish.

I think most of the impediments to divorce are not legal ones, with the exception of the uncertainity of what will happen to family assets and children.

Walt

P.S. According to the site I mentioned in my first post, divorces peak in the fifth year.

[Walter Wayne]

...

Obviously this is a lot easier said than done, but perhaps we could phase marriage out in society. Granted, we'll still need laws to keep both parents caring for children, but our social and legal constructs of marriage just aren't working. Or are they?I'll answer your second question. Missed it before.

Depends how you define working. I would say if the marriages that stay together do so because the people are good for each other and divorce comes promptly when the marriage stop working, then the institution is working whatever the percentages.

We don't know exactly what kept couples of the past together. Many have argued social pressure and the womans financial dependence kept bad marriages from breaking up. If so then it is arguable that marriage is working better today than in the 1920s when divorce rates were 40-50 times lower.

Walt

[ysabella]

My understanding of the "half of marriages end in divorce" statistic is, the real statistic is that in a given year, there are X marriages and X/2 divorces. But that isn't really the same thing as half of marriages ending in divorce, because it ignores the pool of existing marriages.

[Anti_Hypeman]

The curch of the SubGenius will temporarily marry anybody or anything for that matter. http://www.subgenius.com/marriage.html

You can get married for 10 minutes if you want to, I usually only need 3.

[Earthborn]

In Heinlein's novels, they had 'contracts' that would last for X amount of hours/years..etc. It's not a bad idea. 'revolving door marriages'Who knew that Iran (http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/tmpmrig.htm) was such a progressive country?

[ysabella]

Yeah, I've also seen it spelled as seegeh. In the book Nine Parts of Desire (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385475772/), the author (an Australian) describes getting asked if she wanted to have a little seegeh by some guy, because she had her chador wrapped around the wrong way - apparently, a secret signal that a gal is looking for some action like that. These temporary contracts can go up to 99 years.

[Luke T.]

How about instead of getting rid of marriage, we get rid of divorce? People might actually think twice and beyond their crotch before getting married.

[Walter Wayne]

I disagree Luke. People will still think with their crotch, and have no way to remedy the situation afterwards.

[gnome]

Gotta agree with WW on that one Luke... though, my personal thought is... the only legal aspect of a marriage ought to pertain to the contractual matters--and then allow it between any two people. The religious and emotional significance has no business being legally codified. Leave it to the couple's church, family, or just each other.

Regarding the OP--if you don't like marriage, don't get married. No need to stop other people. Feel free to convince them to see things your way, of course.

[The Don]

How about instead of getting rid of marriage, we get rid of divorce? People might actually think twice and beyond their crotch before getting married.
People in abusive relationships may disagree. For example, if one parent sexually molests a child, the other parent may wish to terminate the marriage.

[Luke T.]

Hey, I'm in my third marriage. :)

I was my second wife's fifth husband, and we got married on her 28th birthday. Last I heard, she was on number 7. Probably in the double digits by now.

That would not be so bad if it weren't for the kids. Her daughter told me right at the get-go, "I don't have to listen to you since you won't be around for very long." Nine years old when she said that, and she was right. She and her brother both had multiple emotional problems.

I said "get rid of divorce" as the extreme answer to "get rid of marriage". The actual answer to this problem is somewhere in the middle. I really don't see why there shouldn't be a few obstacles to getting married and to getting divorced. Marriage is a serious matter that shouldn't be taken lightly. It is something that should be earned. You are, after all, taking on the responsibility of another human being. And possibly the creation and raising of other human beings. That's as serious as it gets.

[Ian Osborne]

That would not be so bad if it weren't for the kids. Her daughter told me right at the get-go, "I don't have to listen to you since you won't be around for very long." Nine years old when she said that, and she was right. She and her brother both had multiple emotional problems.

Um, why did you marry her then? :(

I've been with my partner for 17 years, and we're not married, though extremely unlikely to separate. I guess we've found what works for us. I agree that easy marriage and easy divorce makes a nonsense of the institution, though surely placing obstacles in the way of weddings would just lead to more cohabitation? And would this be a good thing or a bad thing?

[Luke T.]

Um, why did you marry her then? :(

I've asked myself that question hundreds of times. Still no answer.

Sex was a big part of it. As was alcohol. And just plain old everyday batsh*t insanity.

But the end result was that I came to appreciate that marriage really should be more sanctified than it currently is.

[Freakshow]

I've asked myself that question hundreds of times. Still no answer.

Sex was a big part of it. As was alcohol. Am I to understand that you were drunk and having sex during the actual ceremony? :D

[Jas]

Who cares?

I don't. What's the point?

And if I'm spending that much money on a dress, it's definitely not going to look like an over-iced cake.

[corplinx]

As a practicing atheist with a fondness for tradition, I find I enjoy my marriage and wish more people could find someone who makes them enjoy this nice institution the way I enjoy mine.

Hedonism is highly overrated.

[Ziggurat]

Obviously this is a lot easier said than done, but perhaps we could phase marriage out in society. Granted, we'll still need laws to keep both parents caring for children, but our social and legal constructs of marriage just aren't working. Or are they?

From a detached perspective, just looking at results, the important question/problem of marriage comes down to how to raise children. Society needs to have and raise children in order to survive, rather obviously. And so far, the best way to do that, to make functioning, productive members of society, is to raise children within a marriage. Children of two-parent families, on average, do pretty well. Children of single-parent families, on average, have a much rougher time of it (that there are some exceptions is irrelevant here). So in that sense, marriage DOES work, and the problem is instead what to do about its absence. There are two obvious basic approaches to this problem:

(1) Can we minimize the number one-parent families (preferably by making them two-parent families)?
(2) Can we minimize the disadvantages that come with single-parent families?

It's hard to accomplish (1) with government programs, at least if you're not willing to get draconian (we're certainly not and I don't advocate that either). On the surface, it might appear that (2) is easier to accomplish, by things like welfare benefits, etc. to single parents. The problem is, programs which accomplish (2) are sometimes counterproductive for (1), and so while you may make life easier for a given single parent and child, you may be creating many more people in such an arrangement, which can do more harm than good in the long run. Unintended consequences and all that. Here's a nice essay on that topic, and the harm that can propogate from misplaced good intentions:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_oh_to_be.html

At the end of the day, I don't think this is a problem that CAN be solved by government. But marriage, in some form, is here to stay, because there is still no better way to have and raise children in society.

[EGarrett]

At the end of the day, I don't think this is a problem that CAN be solved by government. But marriage, in some form, is here to stay, because there is still no better way to have and raise children in society.Your entire post was excellent. I just wanted to respond to this part.

Why do people have to be married in order to raise children together? The only tangible benefit I see is tax breaks and those sort of thing, but you can already declare as dependents etc, so we could probably cover the same thing by expanding that.

Otherwise, how does marriage contribute to the child-raising? If it's there just to keep the parents together, then isn't the issue more with the maturity and responsibility of the people and not with the need for marriage?

Every child has a mother and a father (unless they're some weird test tube baby or something), the question is just, do the mother and the father take care of the child. If we can get people to accept that responsibility, how would we still need marriage for that purpose?

[jjramsey]

Why do people have to be married in order to raise children together?

There's a lot to unpack in that question right there. By "marriage," do you mean the act of a couple committing themselves to living together, which has often been what marriage was (and in states that allow common-law marriage, still is), or the legal recognition of that act?

[HeyLeroy]

If you get rid of marriage, people will still want to have a way of 'officially' cementing their love and/or legal rights. Eventually some bright spark will come up with an idea that looks and smells like that old thing 'marriage', but will be called 'flundlebar' instead.

Believe it or not, lots of people actually WANT to get married. That has nothing to do with whether or not the marriage actually lasts. Few people say "hey baby, I love you, but lets not get married in case we end up getting divorced".

:clap:

tkingdoll, will you flundlebar me? (Assuming you're a female type person)

[Darat]

Considering that most marriages end in messy divorces...and most people cheat on each other...can we finally admit that lifelong, monogamous marriage is against human nature?

...snip...


I didn't think most marriages did end in divorce? I thought it was (for the UK) something like 2 out of 3 marriages don't end with divorce?

[clarsct]

:clap:

tkingdoll, will you flundlebar me? (Assuming you're a female type person)

Oh, she is QUITE female...what? Didn't you order the Skepchicks calendar?

[Ed]

I wonder where in recorded history marriage in some form or another was not in existance? It is sort of funny to see trendy movements to alter millenia old things. (note: millenia = hyperbole)

[Ziggurat]

Why do people have to be married in order to raise children together? The only tangible benefit I see is tax breaks and those sort of thing, but you can already declare as dependents etc, so we could probably cover the same thing by expanding that.

Otherwise, how does marriage contribute to the child-raising? If it's there just to keep the parents together, then isn't the issue more with the maturity and responsibility of the people and not with the need for marriage?

Yes, maturity and responsibility are the main determinants for how well a couple will do, and the main tangible benefit is tax breaks etc. But there are intangibles which matter as well. People respond to expectations - not always by meeting those expectations, of course, but that sort of thing DOES matter to people's behavior. For a whole lot of people, making your intentions to stay together explicit and public WILL increase the likelyhood of doing that. As I once heard it phrased, it's harder to keep a promise you don't make. And you can call that promise flundlebar if you want, but the essence is still the same. Making that promise, and making it publicly, increases a couple's confidence in each other to stay together, and that makes the likelyhood of doing so greater.

Every child has a mother and a father (unless they're some weird test tube baby or something), the question is just, do the mother and the father take care of the child. If we can get people to accept that responsibility, how would we still need marriage for that purpose?

If we could get all parents to accept responsibility for their kids, then no, we would not need marriage. But we cannot. Marriage is part of how society encourages people to do precisely that, and the numbers for prospects of children (performance in school, drug use, crime, future employment) of married and unmarried couples indicates pretty conclusively that it helps. I'm sure lots of people would be interested in a better alternative to get parents to take responsibility, but I've never heard of one.