Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SomewhatDamaged]

So your suggesting that all of these legal rights be attributed to people merely in De Facto relationships?

How many marriages are an utter farce? A marriage certificate does not validate a relationship.

How is any government supposed to determine the difference between someone who actually wants their spouse to have all of these rights and someone who has just been fucking/living with someone for a pre-determined amount of time (as happens quite frequently)?

If your in a marriage your are fucking/living with someone for a pre-determined amount of time So why shouldn't a non married but equally commited couple have those rights?

People would have to file some kind of form to register the seriousness and/or legitimacy of their relationship with the relevant authorities, hey, maybe they could call it a "marriage certificate" and maybe the process could be called "marriage". I know, pretty out there huh? Of course there would have to be witnesses as a document such as this could be easily forged. Maybe people could have some kind of "marriage ceremony" or "wedding ceremony" to reduced the likelihood of the union being contested or "annulled". We don't have to call it "marriage" if you don't like the ring of it, maybe we could call it "wiffle", but it would serve a very legitimate and important real-world purpose either way.

Your sarcasm would be better suited if your logic was watertight. You don't need to get married to legitamise your relationship, you could get a civil partnership. You can apply to all the relevant authorities to have your partner named as your sole benifactor/next of kin.

[peppamintdynamo]

So your suggesting that all of these legal rights be attributed to people merely in De Facto relationships?

How many marriages are an utter farce? A marriage certificate does not validate a relationship.

How is any government supposed to determine the difference between someone who actually wants their spouse to have all of these rights and someone who has just been fucking/living with someone for a pre-determined amount of time (as happens quite frequently)?

If your in a marriage your are fucking/living with someone for a pre-determined amount of time So why shouldn't a non married but equally commited couple have those rights?

People would have to file some kind of form to register the seriousness and/or legitimacy of their relationship with the relevant authorities, hey, maybe they could call it a "marriage certificate" and maybe the process could be called "marriage". I know, pretty out there huh? Of course there would have to be witnesses as a document such as this could be easily forged. Maybe people could have some kind of "marriage ceremony" or "wedding ceremony" to reduced the likelihood of the union being contested or "annulled". We don't have to call it "marriage" if you don't like the ring of it, maybe we could call it "wiffle", but it would serve a very legitimate and important real-world purpose either way.

Your sarcasm would be better suited if your logic was watertight. You don't need to get married to legitamise your relationship, you could get a civil partnership. You can apply to all the relevant authorities to have your partner named as your sole benifactor/next of kin.

So... you just hate the word marriage? Now you've totally lost me.

[SomewhatDamaged]

So... you just hate the word marriage? Now you've totally lost me.

No I think marriage is redundant & causes more trouble than it is worth. A relationship only needs to be legitamised by the two people involved in it.

[peppamintdynamo]

So... you just hate the word marriage? Now you've totally lost me.

No I think marriage is redundant & causes more trouble than it is worth. A relationship only needs to be legitamised by the two people involved in it.

But, what if they want to legitimize it with their family and friends present, and have a party that they happen to call a wedding in celebration of their love?

[SomewhatDamaged]

So... you just hate the word marriage? Now you've totally lost me.

No I think marriage is redundant & causes more trouble than it is worth. A relationship only needs to be legitamised by the two people involved in it.

But, what if they want to legitimize it with their family and friends present, and have a party that they happen to call a wedding in celebration of their love?

That can all be done without a wedding. They can have a party, say on the anniversary of when they first met or something. Hold a party, invite friends & family. All to celebrate their love around the people that matter to them. Doesn't need a wedding though.

[CeeGBee]

If I may be so bold as to offer a radical idea....

Pretty much all of the responses to this thread's underlying question are implicitly
prefaced with the qualifier: "In some cases....."

It's a truism that every relationship is different.  I happen to think that's a lot of romanticist
horse-hockey, but even if there are really only, say, 250 different types of potentially-marriable
couple, that still leaves a lot of different reasons to get married, to refrain from getting married,
or to do whichever than regret it later.

[imaginary friend]

every relationship is different.

the degree of variation, however, isn't all that great. people are people.

#@!

[stallionbreaker]

So... you just hate the word marriage? Now you've totally lost me.

No I think marriage is redundant & causes more trouble than it is worth. A relationship only needs to be legitamised by the two people involved in it.

But, what if they want to legitimize it with their family and friends present, and have a party that they happen to call a wedding in celebration of their love?

That can all be done without a wedding. They can have a party, say on the anniversary of when they first met or something. Hold a party, invite friends & family. All to celebrate their love around the people that matter to them. Doesn't need a wedding though.

Somewhatty, can you define "wedding" for me? Because what you describe sounds an awful lot like a wedding to me, and therefore I don't think I'm understanding you correctly.

Personally, I think our culture would benefit greatly from separating the legal from the emotional in the case of marriage/coupling. Legal benefits as granted through civil partnerships, marriage and weddings as deemed appropriate by the individual couples and their religious/cultural traditions. I don't think marriage is necessary to have a strong partnership that lasts the rest of your lives, but I do understand the urge to be officially joined in front of your family and friends when you are sure this is the one who matches you that well.

[SomewhatDamaged]

Somewhatty, can you define "wedding" for me? Because what you describe sounds an awful lot like a wedding to me, and therefore I don't think I'm understanding you correctly.

In the context of what I am trying to say (badly) A "wedding" is a legal or religious ceremony that takes the intimacy of two people declaring their feelings to each other away from them & makes them sign a legally binding contract which in the event of breakup causes a lot more stress & heartache than is needed.
 It may sound cynical & those that know me may say it's because I made an utter balls up of mine. It's not. I just don't see any benifits from marriage, only negatives. If I am with someone, I would hope my partner knew every day EXACTLY how I felt about them (if they didn't I would be doing something wrong) & if they did know, they wouldn't need a piece of paper to know I was completely commited to them.

[stallionbreaker]

Thank you. That makes sense, and I agree with you. I also haven't made "an utter balls up" of any marriage, so there's some credibility to add to your statement perhaps?

[Rob]

The contract took nothing away from the feelings between my wife and me.

The paper is not to prove our commitment to eachother, rather it is to signify our partnership to the society in which we operate legally.

[jumpcut]

The contract took nothing away from the feelings between my wife and me.

The paper is not to prove our commitment to eachother, rather it is to signify our partnership to the society in which we operate legally.

That was very well stated.

[Agonistes]

i think i am a hypocrite on the subject, given more thought.  like whatty, i'd like it if a relationship could just......'be.'  but, the hets have it, and as long as they can do it, i want it too.  so, i am a hypocrite.

[Andy Pants]

So your suggesting that all of these legal rights be attributed to people merely in De Facto relationships?

How many marriages are an utter farce? A marriage certificate does not validate a relationship.

So what?

How is any government supposed to determine the difference between someone who actually wants their spouse to have all of these rights and someone who has just been fucking/living with someone for a pre-determined amount of time (as happens quite frequently)?

If your in a marriage your are fucking/living with someone for a pre-determined amount of time So why shouldn't a non married but equally commited couple have those rights?

Because governments are incapable of measuring commitment and handing out rights to couples accordingly.

People would have to file some kind of form to register the seriousness and/or legitimacy of their relationship with the relevant authorities, hey, maybe they could call it a "marriage certificate" and maybe the process could be called "marriage". I know, pretty out there huh? Of course there would have to be witnesses as a document such as this could be easily forged. Maybe people could have some kind of "marriage ceremony" or "wedding ceremony" to reduced the likelihood of the union being contested or "annulled". We don't have to call it "marriage" if you don't like the ring of it, maybe we could call it "wiffle", but it would serve a very legitimate and important real-world purpose either way.

Your sarcasm would be better suited if your logic was watertight. You don't need to get married to legitamise your relationship, you could get a civil partnership. You can apply to all the relevant authorities to have your partner named as your sole benifactor/next of kin.

You could do all of those things, or you could just get married. Of course if you did the former you still wouldn't have access to many of the rights married couples have.

[SomewhatDamaged]

 I have nothing against people that want to get married. It is a personal choice. All I am trying to say is that to defend marriage for legal reasons or benefits & rights is not what marriage is or should be about.