(May 23, 2012 at 5:46 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: In my experience marriage tends to be nothing more than a legally binding contract that takes away some of the danger and the passion from the relationship.
If you love someone is it really needed that you make it a formal legal statement? No, of course not. Its simply a tradition, one I consider to be overrated and outdated regardless of who its to or how many people it involves.
Make of that what you will.

At your age, I am not surprised at your attitude, as the practicalities of the matter are far over the horizon for you. When you get to the age where you have to think about the legal issues affected by incapacitation and death, the legal benefits afforded by marriage become more apparent.

(May 23, 2012 at 6:42 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: At your age, I am not surprised at your attitude, as the practicalities of the matter are far over the horizon for you. When you get to the age where you have to think about the legal issues affected by incapacitation and death, the benefits of the legal benefits afforded by marriage become more apparent.

...and that's where I disagree with the legal institution of marriage. A state should not have the right to incentivise certain types of relationship by enforcing legal restrictions based on partnership status. It's simple interference with the aim of social control.

Anyone/any number of people should be free to commit to whomsoever they choose in whatever 'marital' construct they see fit as long as all parties are consenting & uncoerced. Matters of will, testament, decision-making etc. should be based on standard, free legal agreements (similar to tenancy contracts) which are freely available, binding when completed according to due process (witnesses etc.) and subject to change, without state interference, according to the will of the parties involved.

(May 23, 2012 at 7:11 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: ...and that's where I disagree with the legal institution of marriage. A state should not have the right to incentivise certain types of relationship by enforcing legal restrictions based on partnership status. It's simple interference with the aim of social control.

In principle, I have no argument with this. In practice, we live within the constraints of existing law until such time that it changes.

(May 23, 2012 at 6:42 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(May 23, 2012 at 5:46 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: In my experience marriage tends to be nothing more than a legally binding contract that takes away some of the danger and the passion from the relationship.
If you love someone is it really needed that you make it a formal legal statement? No, of course not. Its simply a tradition, one I consider to be overrated and outdated regardless of who its to or how many people it involves.
Make of that what you will.

At your age, I am not surprised at your attitude, as the practicalities of the matter are far over the horizon for you. When you get to the age where you have to think about the legal issues affected by incapacitation and death, the legal benefits afforded by marriage become more apparent.

My mother married my father and got pregnant with me to gain a husband to support her and gain a father for my brother. In that case it was used like a holding pin. Neither of them appear content with each other and our family has never been what you would call happy.
My brother is ten years married with four kids and legally bound to a woman he despises. She does nothing. In that case marriage and the prospect of having a family was used to trap my brother like a love stricken animal. Hes since been utterly broken, his body and his mind have been systematically destroyed. He takes care of them by himself while she lazes on the couch and his backs slipped 4 discs through hard labor attempting to support them. If he attempted to divorce her he would likely lose his children, this means they are both legally and financially joined irrevocably.
My ex attempted to do the same to me, she was afraid I'd gain a backbone and see her for what she is. Her fears were justified, I had a lucky escape which I likely owe to my brothers example. She would of used my low self-esteem and fear of being alone to trap me.
My point is that my experience of marriage is at best negative. It made me responsible for keeping an unhappy family together, it lost me my brother and it would of claimed the rest of my life. I know good things can come from it, I just don't think it can ever come close to competing with the bad.

Bottom-line?
If you love someone, tell them and create a will. Don't shackle yourself to them.

Sie sagten sie seien die Knödelmiliz...

(May 23, 2012 at 8:11 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Sie sagten sie seien die Knödelmiliz...

Also was meinst du dabei?

(May 23, 2012 at 8:25 pm)Hovik Wrote:

(May 23, 2012 at 8:11 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Sie sagten sie seien die Knödelmiliz...

Also was meinst du dabei?

Weißt du nicht den Song?
Die Knödelmiliz...Google it mal.

What happens between consenting adults is none of my business, much less the government's.

(May 23, 2012 at 7:21 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: In principle, I have no argument with this. In practice, we live within the constraints of existing law until such time that it changes.

I know what you mean and I'm sure that plenty of people also feel the pressure of such constraints. That's one of my problems with legal marriage: it forces people into certain decisions.

That said, in the UK, if you can afford the legal fees, you can have documents drawn up which do everything that legal marriage does, granting the named parties all the rights & responsibilities afforded to married couples. You don't get the tax breaks though (which is my point about 'incentivisation' or 'bribery' as it might be considered). There's no need for marriage which makes the legal institution thoroughly unethical because its only unique property is to create discrimination against certain types of relationship.

(May 22, 2012 at 9:20 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Well, that's the only thing you'll ever agree on, friend. Obviously the sating of your carnal desires does not constitute a real marriage.

I think he was being tongue-in-cheek about that.

(May 22, 2012 at 9:20 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Besides, how do you hope to actually feed and clothe them all, and feed and clothe the children that you might get from them?
Polygamy is a zero-sum game, if you do not live in a society where this type of marriage is the norm.

Quote:In a three person marriage in America, odds are at least two would be working full-time, and there would probably not be 50% more children. Economically, it could be advantageous.

[quote='kılıç_mehmet' pid='289109' dateline='1337692857']
They don't. I can tell you from personal experience that women do not wish to be involved in such a "marriage". Therefore it's usually done by forcing the old wife into accepting the new wife. Even if you don't force her, she simply accepts, as she can't really do anything else if she refuses.

No one here supports making such an arrangement legal. The only way an additional partner could be accepted is if all parties consent to an altered marriage contract.

[quote='kılıç_mehmet' pid='289109' dateline='1337692857']
Similarly, a woman who is afraid of losing her husband might consent to it without approving it.

A good marriage contract will provide for an equitable separation and provision for children.

(May 22, 2012 at 9:20 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Marriage is a public affair. I would certainly not care if a man had a wife, and a mistress on the top of that wife, and they casually get together to have fun, if they are into that sort of thing, but marriage is certainly something beyond than just having sex, isn't it? It's about being able to live together, and being able to raise a family together.

And if you believe you can, it's not the government's business to keep you from trying.

(May 22, 2012 at 9:20 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Today's standards in the modern world are in conjunction with monogamous marriage. Polygamy may exist outside of marriage, and even there, many people would disagree with such a thing.

It does seem odd that one can be married in all but name to two or more people, as long as you don't try to legally formalize it.

All that said, I suspect if it were legal it would not be popular, given the logistics. I don't see how me thinking it's not a good idea for most people leads to the conclusion that it should be illegal though.