|
Unless you have been married that is hardly a valid opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: but there are more cons than pros
Mileage may wary.
|
|
|
|
|
There's a biological aspect as well. If there wasn't we wouldn't see animals mating for life.
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly being capable of traveling to any nation, including the fundamentalist hellholes, without risking death penalty for sleeping with my significant other is quite the asdvantage.
Adding the economical (lower taxes) and logistical benefits (possibility of taking care of each other business, from booking medical visits to managing household contracts) it really becomes useful.
GCS d--(d+) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
It feels like more of a social notion since most human cultures/societies have marriage institutions.
|
|
|
|
|
You'd be surprised how varied they are across the world. Both in their structure and the rights/obligations of the parties.
|
|
|
|
|
No I realize that, and I'd sometime I'd love to study some of those differences and similarities someday. I just object to the notion that marriage is merely a religious institution. A bit pedantic perhaps, but if it's something common across humanity, those similarities and differences should reveal something about humanity.
Anthropology is one topic I wish I knew more about
|
|
|
|
|
I wasn't planning on getting married, ever 
It's a weird social construct that adds nothing when you're happy in love, but adds a lot of trouble when that love has gone 
On a side note, I think raising or burning a flag, or a politician apologizing for slavery or WWII or whatever (anything they didn't personally do or had any influence on), a minute of silence and that sort of symbolic statements are all weird social constructs that I really don't get.
They're symbolic and change absolutely nothing to what has already passed.
Marriage, in that sense, is purely symbolic and does nothing except give you some tax benefits and arrange for your heritage that you could also get from a cohabitation contract.
|
|
|
|
|
We need a good symbolic debugger for people that are married !
|
|
|
|
|
I think those debuggers are called "relationship therapists" and "divorce lawyers".
Their invoices are far from symbolic though
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: It's a weird social construct that adds nothing
Oh yes it does, at least in the country I live.
Basically, it is a contract (between m/f, f/f, m/m) that regulates one and the other. E.g. something important like pension fund or inheritance matters.
Ok, you are young but the older you get, things like this becomes more important
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
It's a contract whose terms are subject to political whim. If the times comes to break it, the rules may have changed since it was originally entered into. Pass.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, and since it's ONLY a contract (to me at least), it's absurd so many people are against same sex marriage.
That's because to those people it's more, it's some holy ritual that ultimately changes nothing to your current reality.
I get the contract, but beyond that I'm at a loss.
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot to mention, here where I live: Church and state marriages are strictly separated and for legal aspects only state marriages/contracts count. And therefore also gender is no issue for a state marriage.
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
0x01AA wrote: And therefore also gender is no issue for a state marriage.
Not officially anyway
I think The Netherlands was the first country to legalize same sex marriage, but only after it was forbidden for centuries(?).
They can marry now, but they can also be beaten up because, well, they are attracted to the same sex.
It's not legal to beat them up, but it still happens 
I also think civil servants are allowed to refuse a same sex marriage and another civil servant will do it instead.
Not sure if that's legal, but I know it happens.
I think we have the same system as well, by the way.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: They can marry now, but they can also be beaten up because, well, they are attracted to the same sex.
It's not legal to beat them up, but it still happens
Q: How do gay men fight?
A: They trade blows.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: It's a weird social construct that adds nothing
Depending on where you live it might add a lot of economic and social stability.
I understand that in Japan it's common practise among gay couples, since gay marriages isn't recognized, that one adopts the other.
This gives them the legal right to inherit each other.
|
|
|
|
|
I've heard of adult adoption also being used to obtain citizenship for the adoptee.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: Depending on where you live it might add a lot of economic and social stability.
Exactly, it's an economic contract.
In the Netherlands I believe you can obtain the same with a cohabitation contract.
Beyond the economic contract I don't get it.
You know, the standard girl's dream, big day, rituals, rings, through sickness and health, blah blah... Until the divorce anyway.
In the Netherlands you can get married for free at the city hall on Monday.
In, out, always prenub, and have that contract dealt with.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: You know, the standard girl's dream, big day, rituals, rings, through sickness and health, blah blah... Until the divorce anyway.
I guess that was never my sister's thing. She got married in my folk's backyard in the presence of them, myself, and a priest. And yeah, today she's divorced. Lasted a whole, I think, 6 years.
She'd never admit it, but to me it's this simple: She spent 11 years with her first boyfriend, then when it became clear, as she was reaching her mid-30s, that she wasn't ever going to change his mind about not having kids, she got hitched to the first poor SOB who came along, got the kid she wanted, divorced him, he served his purpose, wham, bam, thank you sir, and they're now divorced. I actually feel more sorry for the guy than her, but at least she let him off easy, financially. By all legal rights she could've made his life a whole lot more difficult.
Yet another way to convince me I've done the right thing. I want nothing to do with that sort of crap, and I've seen it all but too often.
|
|
|
|
|
I absolutely do not want children, so I guess I'm good 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: tax benefits
Ding ding ding ding ding!!
That's how I've come to view marriage. And considering the risks (more than 50% nowadays end up in divorce), I'd rather continue doing my own thing, thank-you-very-much.
And when people tell me that's a sad way to look at things, I say keep that sympathy for those who were taken to the cleaners in a nasty divorce process. I can cite enough examples to make anyone weep.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been with my missus for about 35 years and raised two kids. Neither of us saw any advantage in getting married as here in NZ there's no tax, social or whatever benefit and there certainly been no disadvantages.
It does not change the way we behavior, respect or treat each other. We just saw marriage as a meaningless religious symbolic bureaucracy.
A Fine is a Tax for doing something wrong
A Tax is a Fine for doing something good.
|
|
|
|
|
RossMW wrote: here in NZ there's no tax, social or whatever benefit
How it should be! 
RossMW wrote: We just saw marriage as a meaningless religious symbolic bureaucracy.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you get along with your best friend ALL the time?
Marriage is like that, you can get out of sorts with your partner but there is enough love and friendship to get past differences and make up. The bond grows stronger through these situations.
Been married for 32 years to my best friend and I wouldn't change any of it except for the times I've been an idiot and hurt her.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
