Your views on MARRIAGE

[Minimalist]

[Jenny A]

Honestly, at this point, I don't see much of a point in codifying marriage at all. It's pretty much based on a fundamentally patriarchal view of women, and, now that we're moving away from that, what's really left? Essentially a commitment for two people to stay together no matter what (or at least until they realise they aren't suited to each other).

And what is the point in formalising that, let alone having the government need to recognise that?

Actually, it isn't anymore.  There is no legal difference between husband and wife in most state.   It's really is just the economic and legal union of two people's interests.   It's especially useful concerning children, medical care, splitting up and old age.

[AFTT47]

In theory, yes. I say theory because I haven't given the practical legal details any thought. It might require such a complex set of rules as to be unworkable.

I tend to agree with KUSA that the whole concept of marriage is a bit dated but people still seem to want it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Write a contract stating that property, deeds, and assets are shared communally upon dissolution, and treat it as a private corporation.

I don't have any use for marriage myself, I ain't marriage material -- I'm an outside cat, not fit to be tied. Stay the fuck out of my private life and I will stay the fuck out of yours. Get up in my business, and I'll be the asshole you wish you hadn't met that day.

What's so difficult about that?

[Catholic_Lady]

Go back and study the property rights segment of my reply. 

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass who sleeps with whom but trying to start the slippery-slope argument to bestiality is absurd.  It's none of my business.  And its none of yours.  Or that silly church's.

Lol, I didn't realize this had anything to do with bestiality... 

And I agree anyone should be allowed to choose to sleep with anyone. The question was specifically whether they should be allowed to get married.

[Pyrrho]

I addressed this in another thread so I will just quote myself:

Yeah, I agree. I guess there could be rules for a "custom marriage" or something. Are people who are into multiple partners actually likely to all want to get married? I have no idea.

It would be a complicated matter, and would also likely involve greater instability, with the more people involved, the more likely there would be a dissolution of the marriage.  To keep this simple, let us consider the difference between 2 people getting married, and 3 people getting married.  With 2 people getting married, there is only one relationship, the relationship between person 1 and 2.  So for the marriage to hold, all that matters is the one relationship.  But with a 3 person marriage, there is the relationship between person 1 and person 2, and the relationship between person 1 and person 3, and the relationship between person 2 and person 3.  So there are three relationships to maintain, instead of only one.  So even without children, it has much more going on, with a greater likelihood of instability, due to having three times as many relationships that need to work in order for the marriage to last.  (With a fourth person, you would add in 3 more relationships, for a total of 6 relationships, as the fourth person would have a relationship with each of the three added to what is already there.  So you can see that each addition dramatically impacts the complexity of what is going on.)

And with children, things get very complex very quickly.  Who is responsible for which children, and how much responsibility does each person have?  Suppose one of the three stays home to take care of the children, and the other two work.  That might be a very practical arrangement, as long as it lasts.  Now, suppose that one of them leaves the relationship.  This is going to screw up the balance of income versus child care, and everyone is going to be very significantly affected.  Now, for the adults, it was their choice, so too bad for them, they made their bed, so they must lie in it.  But the children did not agree to this arrangement, and we have allowed for the instability by allowing the marriage in the first place.  And the children are all affected by this, regardless of which people in particular are the parents, so that even a marriage partner who is childless is still a part of the totality that affects all of the children.

Figuring out the law of that would probably be a nightmare (and a source of great job security for lawyers dealing with the fallout if polygamy were allowed).

So there may be practical reasons to reject polygamy, though one would want to look into the matter in much more detail than I have here.

So my gut instinct is to say "no," it should not be allowed for people to legally be married to more than one person at a time.  I won't change my mind until I hear of a detailed explanation for how the law would deal with such things, and even then, I would have to be okay with whatever story I am being told.  My guess is, it is going to be too problematic to be practical.

Of course, who people have sex with is a separate issue, and if a group of people want to live together, that, too, is a separate issue.

[Catholic_Lady]

Thanks for the responses, everyone!

[ignoramus]

CL, you're basically asking us a legal question?
Or do you also mean religious interpretation of it?

As many have reiterated, it's more a contract these days.
I got married by registry....
I'm not all that into the big woggy celebrations which usually follow such events.

[Catholic_Lady]

CL, you're basically asking us a legal question?
Or do you also mean religious interpretation of it?

As many have reiterated, it's more a contract these days.
I got married by registry....
I'm not all that into the big woggy celebrations which usually follow such events.

Legal question.

[The Valkyrie]

Oh, and my views on marriage for me:

NO! Keep it away!

ICK!!