So... if marriage didn't exist in modern times...

[KeithP]

Except that marriage was invented by religion for religious purposes?

Only if you believe in a particular religion. 🙂 The concept of marriage predates recorded history. As far as I know, just about all known societies have/had some form of a marriage contract.

-KeithP

 

[waggy]

Only if you believe in a particular religion. 🙂 The concept of marriage predates recorded history. As far as I know, just about all known societies have/had some form of a marriage contract.

-KeithP

yeap.

marriage is far older then most religions. i always laugh when people say that religion started marriage. It may have brought the idea of god and the church into it but that's it.

 

[skace]

Lol at the ignorance of people who think marriage is a religious invention. For folks who believe, religion certainly plays a big part in their marriage but, marriage is a solution to a social problem not religious.

Everything in religion is created for the sake of social problems? Why do you think Jesus is a walking guide on how to live your life?

 

[jjzelinski]

Whether attributed to religion or socioeconomic bartering, it's a relic of another era.

 

[Ausm]

All I know is I would have a hell of alot more money if Marriage wasn't recognized as a legal union 😉

 

[jonks]

and people who decide that they're right for each other just live together for the rest of their lives normally without the need of external validation of their relationship...

Seems more legit. Gives the gays less to fight about as well.

And if one partner dies intestate, how should his assets be distributed? At what point does the other partner become someone who should partake in the assets, after living together one year? 5 years? Should they be guaranteed a portion or should one partner be able to completely divest the other in their will without prior notice leaving the survivor destitute? Who should have the right to determine how to handle the remains and prepare burial services, the deceased's parents? the children, if any? What if there is some contestation as to who is actually the deceased's life partner?

and that's only problems arising when one partner dies. During the relationship how do you establish hospital visitation rights? how do you apply the legal privilege of spousal immunity to unmarried couples? How does the exention of third party discretionary benefits that normally apply to spouses apply in this no-marriage world?

and most important of all, just think of the devastation this would wreak upon the wedding industry!

Marriage isn't just about raising children, it provides a workable framework for fundamental problems we have with recognizing the legitimacy of relationships and children, property distribution, legal issues, societal issues, etc. With one simple contract we establish hundreds of rights and obligations which clarify hundreds of otherwise ambiguous questions. There's nothing wrong with the institution of marriage per se, merely the particular exclusivity currently prevalent, but which seems to be trending toward equilibrium.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Everything in religion is created for the sake of social problems? Why do you think Jesus is a walking guide on how to live your life?

I don't recall ever saying "everything in religion is created for the sake of social problems." I do recall saying society affects religion as much as religion affects society. Jesus was a walking guide, now, the Holy Spirit does most of the guiding. In either case, having questions about marriage in no way refutes the tenants of Christian faith and I would remind you that there are many other religions besides Christianity.

 

[Ichigo]

And if one partner dies intestate, how should his assets be distributed? At what point does the other partner become someone who should partake in the assets, after living together one year? 5 years? Should they be guaranteed a portion or should one partner be able to completely divest the other in their will without prior notice leaving the survivor destitute? Who should have the right to determine how to handle the remains and prepare burial services, the deceased's parents? the children, if any? What if there is some contestation as to who is actually the deceased's life partner?

and that's only problems arising when one partner dies. During the relationship how do you establish hospital visitation rights? how do you apply the legal privilege of spousal immunity to unmarried couples? How does the exention of third party discretionary benefits that normally apply to spouses apply in this no-marriage world?

and most important of all, just think of the devastation this would wreak upon the wedding industry!

Marriage isn't just about raising children, it provides a workable framework for fundamental problems we have with recognizing the legitimacy of relationships and children, property distribution, legal issues, societal issues, etc. With one simple contract we establish hundreds of rights and obligations which clarify hundreds of otherwise ambiguous questions. There's nothing wrong with the institution of marriage per se, merely the particular exclusivity currently prevalent, but which seems to be trending toward equilibrium.

I don't know. If my best buddy dies, I don't get his shit unless it's in a will. "Leaving the survivor destitute" is sort of weird. I thought working to make a living was the prevailing thought in these parts. Seems contradictory to this sense of entitlement.

Your last paragraph actually makes a lot of sense, though.

People (not necessarily you) don't need to get defensive. This is just a thread on ATOT and I'm just curious.

 

[Zebo]

I would be a lot less obedient and civil. In fact I think women are best thing that can happen to men.

 

[zerocool84]

I would be a lot less obedient and civil. In fact I think women are best thing that can happen to men.

If you need a woman to make you a better person then there are bigger problems in your life.

 

[MichaelD]

I'd argue that the legal downsides to marriage(primarily what happens in the inevitable divorce) outweigh the legal benefits by a very large margin.

I agree with this statement. We men are just stupid. Here's a brief history of stupid men.

1. In the 1950's men thought that if they weren't married by 20, it was really bad. So they all got married by 20 and were miserable by 22.
2. In the 1960's men thought it better to play around a whole lot more...and wound up married by 25 and miserable by 27.
3. In the 1970's all men were stoned and in love so they wound up married by 27 and miserable by 30.
4. In the 1980's men were "career minded and out for me!" until they started banging the receiptionist and wound up married by 30 and miserable by 33.

See the pattern here? Men are getting married later and later and only DELAYING the misery. To quote an old song or a hundered old songs "Love is not enough." Is there more than love? I don't know. I don't think so, though. When you wait until later in life to get married, it's not all about sex anymore (SACRILEGE! BURN HIMMMM!) I know, I know, but it's true. So you meet this woman and she's great and the sex is good enough and you're happy when you're with her. Then you get married. And it's great for a year. Then the nagging starts. And the infringement upon your "me time" which according to her should be "US time" because "Why'd we get married if you want to watch your movies and play your games with out me?

To which I reply "Because I'm a stupid man, that's why." 🙁

Hello. My name is Michael, and I'm a stupid man.

 

[jonks]

I don't know. If my best buddy dies, I don't get his shit unless it's in a will.

I'm not sure what the relation is here. Is your best buddy the one you've dedicated your life to, have sexual relations with, raise children with, own a home with, etc, per the OP's hypothetical? We're talking about marital type relationships without contract of actual marriage. Your relationship with your buddy isn't affected regardless of whether marriage exists or not.

"Leaving the survivor destitute" is sort of weird. I thought working to make a living was the prevailing thought in these parts. Seems contradictory to this sense of entitlement.

So in the non-marriage world, if a man "partners" with a woman, and he plays breadwinner, and she stays home and raises their 3 kids, and he dies, but in his will completely divests her of any bequest, giving it all to his friend Roy instead, you're ok with that because the "partner" getting anything would be fulfilling a false sense of entitlement? In almost all jurisdictions I'm aware of, the law prevents one spouse from completely divesting the other of assets via a will. Usually the survivor is granted 1/3 or 1/2 automatically but there are varying formulations. Without the official recognition of their marriage, the partner would get nothing. In the alternate case of the decedent dying intestate (without a will), how do we know how much to give to his life-partner, what if there is a dispute as to who his partner is, does it all just go to his kids, etc. Courts around the country, at the request of the decedent's family, routinely strike down wills which leave large bequests to suriving partners in homosexual relationships under the claim of "undue influence". Can you imagine being in a relationship for 40 years and then after your partner dies a court rules that you have no standing to receive anything because your relationship has been decreed a sham? That remains the reality for many gay couples today.

So again, marriage is a relatively simple contract that clarifies the will of the parties with regard to hundreds of legal and societal issues, and its status as a religious institution is far secondary, or tertiary, to its necessity in a modern society with complex property rights.

Now if you want to give all couples the ability to procure the benefits of marriage but simply call it civil unions, that's fine, as long as that's the only state sanctioned contract that applies to everyone equally. The name isn't important, so long as it's the only name. There is no beneficial purpose to maintainting two identical institutions which grant the exact same rights.