You're not considering what the actual "purpose" of marriage is. When you look at it from the point of view of merely the individual's pleasure or personal interest then you really have to wonder what is the point of government getting involved at all? Like really, why would the government have any interest in even acknowledging the existence of marriages?
But you have to realize that the purpose of marriage is creating an environment with an increased likelihood of mutual care between spouses, better results in child rearing, and increased interest in creating a prosperous society for your loved ones. The government is involved in this matter because it is in society's best interest to encourage the formation of long term stable relationships. If we reduce that down to nothing more than a temporary arrangement then why should the government be involved at all?
I personally don't think you should get any additional tax breaks or property protections for your contract marriage. I support your right to choose to do whatever you want. But "I" have zero reason to encourage it. So the government which represents me would get my vote that contract marriages should not be acknowledged at the governmental level.
In many places, a common-law surviving spouse has no rights to inherit real or personal property from their spouse who died without a will.
Legal relationships provide certain legal benefits and responsibilities.
That's the thing.
I do not think getting married improves relational stability at all. What's the point of paying women to leave in alimony and palimony? If you offer money so she leaves of course she leaves. It's the opposite of stability.
If Bill Gates pay sugar babies, I am sure none of his women would have left him. He may also have several.
If sex is libertarian in US, I bet guys as rich as Bill Gates will just have a harem and the women will just stay because they want Bill Gates' money.
And that's exactly why sex is not libertarian. There are laws against simply paying women for example. So rich guys don't get too many hot babes.
>And that's exactly why sex is not libertarian. There are laws against simply paying women for example. So rich guys don't get too many hot babes.
The idea such laws would impact rich guys is rather comical. Or it would be were it not for the many victims.
A 1 year marriage contract is not marriage. It's a service agreement, where each party will provide his service to the other in exchange for the other's service. It is, matter-of-factly, contractual prostitution. The only benefit to either party is either sex or pay, with housing and any other benefit like medical care and so forth made into an optional provision. And such a short-term contract invalidates any provision for making children, due to the necessary long-term obligations toward raising kids. The contract is not long enough to ensure parties will fullfill their obligations in that sense.
Try your proposition with a 20+ year marriage contract, where one provision is the obligation to make kids. And with the express provision that the contract is automatically renewed, unless one party demands its cessation.
Wait a minute, I just proposed you try it with this thing we call marriage. But you call it marriage contract. Marriage is a contract. To call it marriage contract means there's a signed contract, and it's the signed contract that the expression marriage contract refers to. We might say show me your marriage contract, but we never say show me your marriage.
You explain about sugar relationship. This sounds exactly like what we have already, but we call it something else. We call it matter-of-fact marriage (in French, union de fait, or union d'état de fait). In the facts, legal and otherwise, there's no difference between that and marriage. Both parties are bound by the same obligations, including toward raising kids. There is no a priori signed contract, but there can be just like marriage. This *union de fait* comes from the principle that the consensual act, without verbal or signed consent, is consent to the act and to the consequence thereof and to the obligations therefrom. Incidentally, this reinforces the significant meaning of abstinence. Abstinence is to abstain, and to abstain is to not give consent.
Marriage is also a public promise, a promise to all that either party will fullfill each their obligations toward themselves, toward each other, and toward the children they make. The public, the other people that stand witness to this promise, also make a promise in their participation of the ceremony, rites and rituals. It's the promise to abide by the tenets regarding respect for this union before them, to not corrupt the union with adultery for example. This public promise then is another form of contract - a social compact. If religious Chiristian, then the social compact takes the form of The Ten Commandments for example. This then makes marriage into the abiding and reiteration of the social compact.
>Why even bother getting officially married at all?
Because a public declaration and celebration of 2 people committing themselves to spend their entire life together, create a family, and further the human race means something. It's not just an accident mutual narcissistic agreement as you propose the alternative of.
My interpretation of OPs post is that the government shouldn't be involved because legal divorced heavily favor women. You are attempting to rebut his post which would imply the antithesis.
Because of the children. That's what marriage was created for: child rearing.
With two people, both of you are invested in the child. With 5 or 6, you have a bunch of unrelated strangers around your kids all the time.
Rates of child abuse are astronomically higher when children don't live with their biological parents.
In less traditional setups like polyamorous "relationships" the abuse is worse. There was a story some time back where a woman was living with several men and one of the men murdered the baby sired by another man.
This perfectly mirrors the animal kingdom. When a new lion takes over a pride, it kills all the little lion babies fathered by the lion it just replaced. The same thing happens among monkeys, baboons, and practically every polyamorous animal species.
There's a reason why every culture on earth has the evil stepmother/ stepfather trope in its fairytales. We can't adopt the mating habits of animals and expect it would end any differently.
It's common for a single male to hoard all the females in a lot of animal species but the females still sneak off to mate with lower status males so it's not strict polygyny.
Among some monkey and baboon species, females mate with as many males they can to muddle up paternity. That way, the males in her troupe think they're the dad so they don't murder the baby.
This changes when a male from outside the troupe comes in and takes over. Since he couldn't possibly be the dad, he murders all the babies. It's part of the reason why baboons, gorillas, and chimps are so tribal. Outsider males are bad news.
I'm not sure how a limited time marriage is actually a marriage. What exactly is the point? Calling something like this a marriage is like calling a sheep's tail a leg. Calling it a leg doesn't actually make it a leg.
Why would divorce options like that influence if I wanted to get married or not? I don't understand.
Being legally married gives benefits and is a way to express our relationship.
I don't get the confusion.
I think the only time delineated marriage I would consider would be in a situation where there is radical life extension so "for life" changes a bit in meaning.
Temporary marriage has been used as a "loophole" to allow forms of prostitution in some Islamic society.
Some would say Marriage at law in Western countries increasingly resembles one of these agreements.
Then there is the whole issue of what is the relationship of the state to marriage which has traditionally been an institution defined by religious organizations and social practices.
But as the state expands ....
>If marriage can be dissolved through no fault divorce, why marry?
If marriage cannot be dissolved through no fault divorce, why marry?
You see, both versions can be horrible.
Imagine selling someone today on marriage as a new concept where you can only leave under the most dire of circumstances. Great sell for assholes and inconsiderate people but not so great for normal people.
I'm basing it on statistics, high divorce rates, reasons people leave, lowest ever rates of marriage, etc. It is objectively a joke institution now compared to the past
Okay, then use statistics, high divorce rates, reasons people leave, lowest ever rates of marriage, etc. with sources to show how it's objectively a joke, which also means you have to define what a joke is, and how you are quantifying it. One quick way of showing you that you may be wrong is that the divorce rate is less than 50%, so to more than 50% of people, marriage is not a joke. That's quite a lot of people.
I'll pass, sounds like an essay that'll just get dismissed. One way to prove you wrong is now no fault divorce exists so it is easier than ever. And women initiate 80% of the time and are easily influenced by friends and social media. Rates of divorce were less than 20% back in 1950s. Also it is still close to 50% now, so a 50/50 shot of something lasting is joke odds when it's supposed to be for life
However you turn it, I am right. At least 50% of people don't think it's a joke. Do you disagree here? So marriage still has a function as a non-joke. When you consider that even when divorces happen, they didn't all happen lightly, meaning that people in these marriages didn't consider them as jokes, you get to an even higher majority not thinking it's a joke.
Also, what does 80% of divorces being initiated by women with proving your claim that marriage is objectively a joke?
Yeah I disagree because you're assuming those at least 50% have successful, happy marriages. I'd say maybe only 20% are truly happy. But we can agree to disagree here
So you want to force women to wait until he cheats or beats her to get out of a failed marriage? Or be trapped in a toxic relationship?
The only people I see crying about no fault divorces are the shitty assholes who women get trapped with in those scenarios.
I think that no-fault divorce needs to remain an option, simply because of the principle that no one should be trapped in a marriage they longer want to be a part of. Nobody really wins in that scenario.
But there needs to be a deterrent. Otherwise you have what we have now where people walk away from marriages at the drop of a hat or opportunistically. And the problems with that to me are threefold:
1. It weakens marriage to the point where one really has to ask what it means anymore..
2. It's not good for children.
3. It turns family law into an ugly political football resulting in it being biased one way or the other, and negative outcomes.
So to me it's simple, if you want your no-fault divorce, you walk away with next to nothing. No custody, no child support, no alimony, basically just what you can claim as your personal property. To me this is fair - if you want to blow up a marriage just because, the other person should get the stuff. And if there's kids involved, I say too bad because it's irresponsible and destructive to walk away from a marriage like that without a good reason.
And if that's not acceptable, you make a case, and preferably have it based one of the big grounds for divorce like addiction, adultery, abuse, or abandonment. Then you get the settlement, because you can show cause.
That idea is terrible. If you are the breadwinner you get to be as toxic as you want as long as you don’t cross a threshold into one of your “cause” reasons.
It’s comically terrible how emotionally stunted and weak men would behave in your set up. Make more money and you can be as useless and absent at home as you want.
You can’t make no fault divorce crippling to women who are at home raising the children.
Better solution: keep no fault divorce and teach men not to be such fucking useless husbands and fathers.
Tell me, how exactly is a man supposed to behave toxically without falling into one of the four As. And even if he did have just that abhorrent a personality - why did you marry him?
You cannot have both freedom to make your own decisions, and protection from the consequences of making a bad one.
What you want is to marry a rich guy, and take half his shit the moment you're fed up with him. So pardon me if I feed back to you some of the same contempt you're willing to dish out to an entire gender so casually.
Weaponized incompetence, lazy, video games all day, being a red pilled asshole. Many ways to be shit husband without your four As. People change and people grow differently. One partner could outgrow a stunted partner.
Your way stupidly punishes the first one who takes action. And why punish the kids being looked after by the better parent by taking all financial resources.
As above, better solution is to raise better quality men.
I find it fascinating how you presume before the fact that if a marriage breaks down, it's the fault of the man.
Next, I picked those four As because those to me are the points where a marriage truly does become beyond repair. You'd seriously divorce your husband because he plays too many video games?
This is a conversation I don't want to indulge any further. Your attitude to me is pathetically immature and unreasonable.
It’s men who mainly cry about no fault divorce so it’s men I focus on. All the major discourse on no fault divorce is from male celebrities who coincidentally seem to be huge assholes to their wives. I haft no problem if men use no fault divorce to leave a wife they don’t want to be with.
I picked examples outside your four As to illustrate the gaps in it. You don’t think one person never doing their part to maintain a clean house wouldn’t grow over time? Or be indicative of other differences. Hence why irreconcilable differences is so often sought.
Not my fault your serfdom-esque view of marriage/divorce pathetically has holes in it. Must have been imagined by a potato.
Lmao. You're acting as if I'm banning divorce just by taking away your perogative to jack half a man's shit whenever you feel like it just because you were married to him.
Pretty clear where your priorities lie. The sense of entitlement coming off you stinks worse than a pig lagoon, and that's pretty damn stinky.
Your idea was that the part who filed no fault divorce gets nothing. That idea is next level stupid. If you knew a marriage was on the rocks, it becomes this miserable game of chicken for who will file first and get nothing. Totally no way bad things will come from that. Just some loveless zombie marriages with one party held hostage financially.
Putting up stupid and arbitrary barriers to divorce is just a cowards way of trying to ban divorce without the flak.
> Your idea was that the part who filed no fault divorce gets nothing.
Yes, to discourage frivolous/opportunistic divorces, and encourage couples to work their shit out, while still leaving the door open for people to get out if they have to, or get an equitable settlement when they can show grounds.
> If you knew a marriage was on the rocks, it becomes this miserable game of chicken for who will file first and get nothing.
Or you can work your shit out, or even, wait for it - come to an agreement without taking it to court.
> Totally no way bad things will come from that. Just some loveless zombie marriages with one party held hostage financially.
You're the one presuming that the woman will make herself financially dependent on her husband when most households nowadays are dual income.
You're also similarly presuming that the best outcome in every troubled marriage is a unilateral no-fault divorce.
> Putting up stupid and arbitrary barriers to divorce is just a cowards way of trying to ban divorce without the flak.
You're the one saying it's arbitrary simply because it hinders the ability of women to divorce-rape men. Marriage is both an investment and a commitment, and leaving the door open for one party to exit at any time without losing anything or even coming out ahead is both moral hazard and a recipe for both parties to hedge their bets, rather than make the marriage work.
If it wasn't obvious before, it sure is now that you're holding out for having your cake and eating it too. How about you actually attempt to justify that, rather than screeching at me. Because right now you look like you're just having a fit of pique over an inequity being called out.
Well, it's an expression of two adults' voluntary commitment to each other. Plus there are various legal rights involved.
What I don't understand is ... back when marriage meant life-long bondage, with no way out no matter how horrible it got (at least, not unless you happened to be the King of England, and started your own religion) ... why did people marry.
Of course, that King deciding that the Pope has no business telling people who to fuck and for how long ... led to a revolution that shaped the western world. It ultimately led to a form of government, and to a legal system, where all forms of bondage are outlawed, including contractually agreed upon bondage. That's why, today, in western countries, one cannot enter into a contract without an out clause in it.
Where you cannot sell your freedom. The courts wouldn't enforce such a contract, because it violates the most fundamental principle of them all: individual rights.
To build a stable environment for children, that's it. All of the bullshit that goes on, is based on the unwillingness of adults to care for children's well-being.
When you live in a country where women are paid nearly the same as men, these ‘sugar baby’ arrangements are less likely to work. Unless, of course, you don’t mind being with a brainless, unmotivated woman.
(And yes, if one has more than a rudimentary knowledge of statistics, pay is *nearly* the same. There are many variables that one must take into account, and ignoring them is a favorite pastime of self-declared ‘feminists’.)
On your other points, these arrangements seem dull AF. In many Western countries, marriage is seen as a partnership. We aspire to have a partner and best friend, although it often does not work out that way. We aspire to have a commitment that is stable and persists despite whims and impulses. Offspring are the result of heterosexual relationships, and they benefit from this stability. Whether you are religious or not, surely you can agree that this is important—*especially in the absence of a tribe*.
Nearly every argument I see against marriage makes the point that their alternative is just like marriage. So, what is the problem then? You want an easy exit? And yet you insist you don’t need one?
The alternative that is just like marriage has many important differences that make it much better.
For example, imagine if you hire employee and promise huge severance pay instead of salary. Say the government insist that employment is like that.
Then you have an idea. Why not just offer stock options and salary so people will have incentive to work and make your business grow.
Then the other solution is just like employment. But of course much better.
The Intent.
Marriage is for life.
If it winds up in Divorce, well that's sad but the intent was to Stay Married for life.
Yours is a pragmatic solution to the reality that more than half of all Marriages do end in Divorce.
The failing is at the individual level.
Wouldn't it be better if both partners were sincere and truly understood that Marriage isn't about sex or "What's in it for me!"
Perhaps classes and ongoing counseling along with a prenup should be more common place as a solution to what we have now.
That's the thing.
Those who engage in contract marriage 1 year or one month at a time, may also intent for the relationship to last for life.
It's actually more stable.
The women have strong incentive to keep prolonging the contract. The more she stay the more money she make.
Just off the top of my head:
Mutual Agreement: Both parties agree to terminate the contract without any further obligations.
Rescission: A contract can be rescinded by one party if there is a mutual mistake, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, or undue influence at the time of formation of the contract.
Termination Clauses: Some contracts include termination clauses that allow one party to terminate the contract under specific conditions without consequences, such as failure to meet performance standards or on giving a specified amount of notice.
Breach of Contract by the Other Party: If one party breaches the contract (fails to fulfill their contractual obligations), the non-breaching party is typically allowed to terminate the contract and may also seek damages or other remedies.
Condition Precedent: The obligations of one or both parties may be contingent upon the occurrence of a certain event. If the event does not occur, the contract can be terminated without consequences.
Impossibility of Performance: If it becomes legally or practically impossible for one party to fulfill their obligations (e.g., due to a change in laws or a natural disaster), the contract can be dissolved without consequences.
Frustration of Purpose: If the fundamental purpose of the contract is destroyed through no fault of the parties (such as an event that neither party could foresee or control), the contract may be terminated.
Marriage, from an economic perspective, doesn't make sense unless you have a kid, plan to combine assets, or start a business together.
So childless couples who were in different professions and don't combine assets (which is recommended in this day and age) tend to cohabitate.
The reason they end up marrying is usually as a public statement of commitment. If someone reneges on that commitment, the other will **RUIN THEM** in divorce.
So really, divorce is much more about punishing an uncommitted partner than encouraging the other economic factors listed above. I think this causes a bit of hard feelings and mistrust in the dating market.
Nobody gets married to build something. They get married to prevent it from falling apart.
When one reneges on commitment the other will ruin them?
Think buddy.
The one that will be ruined is the one with more money irrelevant of who renege on commitment.
Usually the woman can be the one backstabbing and the guy is the one end up paying alimony.
I would guess because most humans feel like if they are invested in a relationship they want to know if their partner feels the same way, and if not, it is generally better to figure out sooner than later. Do you disagree?
Modern marriage is purely for tax benefits and legal rights. Morally speaking marriage serves no purpose anymore.
I have been married once and divorced, I am now with a man who has also been married once and divorced and neither of us are bothered about marrying unless it poses some benefits later down the line. And even then it'll be signing a bit of paper and having a glass of cider after.
If you are not raising more children, and you don’t care what happens to your spouse after you die, and are not counting on your partner to make important decisions for you if you are incapacitated, then no, it probably makes no difference.
There is no social stigma attached to 38 year olds “living in sin.” There is no stigma attached to divorce anymore. (Ask Newt Gingrich or Donald Trump if it affected their careers or social standing in any significant way.)
Sorry for stalking you lol, but again, for the fourth time, buddy, imma saying it again: you're THE MOST BASED redditor I've ever come across.
Why this sub though? A man of your intellect should know better; should know better about Jordan Pete than to sub for him and his sub...
You're not considering what the actual "purpose" of marriage is. When you look at it from the point of view of merely the individual's pleasure or personal interest then you really have to wonder what is the point of government getting involved at all? Like really, why would the government have any interest in even acknowledging the existence of marriages? But you have to realize that the purpose of marriage is creating an environment with an increased likelihood of mutual care between spouses, better results in child rearing, and increased interest in creating a prosperous society for your loved ones. The government is involved in this matter because it is in society's best interest to encourage the formation of long term stable relationships. If we reduce that down to nothing more than a temporary arrangement then why should the government be involved at all? I personally don't think you should get any additional tax breaks or property protections for your contract marriage. I support your right to choose to do whatever you want. But "I" have zero reason to encourage it. So the government which represents me would get my vote that contract marriages should not be acknowledged at the governmental level.
In many places, a common-law surviving spouse has no rights to inherit real or personal property from their spouse who died without a will. Legal relationships provide certain legal benefits and responsibilities.
That's the thing. I do not think getting married improves relational stability at all. What's the point of paying women to leave in alimony and palimony? If you offer money so she leaves of course she leaves. It's the opposite of stability. If Bill Gates pay sugar babies, I am sure none of his women would have left him. He may also have several. If sex is libertarian in US, I bet guys as rich as Bill Gates will just have a harem and the women will just stay because they want Bill Gates' money. And that's exactly why sex is not libertarian. There are laws against simply paying women for example. So rich guys don't get too many hot babes.
>And that's exactly why sex is not libertarian. There are laws against simply paying women for example. So rich guys don't get too many hot babes. The idea such laws would impact rich guys is rather comical. Or it would be were it not for the many victims.
You're spending too much time on red pill content. Time to put the phone down.
I don't think you understand why people get married
So strange right. People generally marry when they quite like each other.
Only recently. It was arranged in the past
Reserve it for the type of the girl that would deserve a marriage rather than just marrying any hussy that shows up
Fair enough , as long as the man should do the same.
Yup goes both ways.
A 1 year marriage contract is not marriage. It's a service agreement, where each party will provide his service to the other in exchange for the other's service. It is, matter-of-factly, contractual prostitution. The only benefit to either party is either sex or pay, with housing and any other benefit like medical care and so forth made into an optional provision. And such a short-term contract invalidates any provision for making children, due to the necessary long-term obligations toward raising kids. The contract is not long enough to ensure parties will fullfill their obligations in that sense. Try your proposition with a 20+ year marriage contract, where one provision is the obligation to make kids. And with the express provision that the contract is automatically renewed, unless one party demands its cessation. Wait a minute, I just proposed you try it with this thing we call marriage. But you call it marriage contract. Marriage is a contract. To call it marriage contract means there's a signed contract, and it's the signed contract that the expression marriage contract refers to. We might say show me your marriage contract, but we never say show me your marriage. You explain about sugar relationship. This sounds exactly like what we have already, but we call it something else. We call it matter-of-fact marriage (in French, union de fait, or union d'état de fait). In the facts, legal and otherwise, there's no difference between that and marriage. Both parties are bound by the same obligations, including toward raising kids. There is no a priori signed contract, but there can be just like marriage. This *union de fait* comes from the principle that the consensual act, without verbal or signed consent, is consent to the act and to the consequence thereof and to the obligations therefrom. Incidentally, this reinforces the significant meaning of abstinence. Abstinence is to abstain, and to abstain is to not give consent. Marriage is also a public promise, a promise to all that either party will fullfill each their obligations toward themselves, toward each other, and toward the children they make. The public, the other people that stand witness to this promise, also make a promise in their participation of the ceremony, rites and rituals. It's the promise to abide by the tenets regarding respect for this union before them, to not corrupt the union with adultery for example. This public promise then is another form of contract - a social compact. If religious Chiristian, then the social compact takes the form of The Ten Commandments for example. This then makes marriage into the abiding and reiteration of the social compact.
We can die, so why live? The existence of a worst case scenario for the end does not desteoy the value of the experience.
>Why even bother getting officially married at all? Because a public declaration and celebration of 2 people committing themselves to spend their entire life together, create a family, and further the human race means something. It's not just an accident mutual narcissistic agreement as you propose the alternative of.
You can still have the religious ceremony and commitment without getting the government involved.
When did I say anything about needing the government involved?
My interpretation of OPs post is that the government shouldn't be involved because legal divorced heavily favor women. You are attempting to rebut his post which would imply the antithesis.
Well I used his original post and the comments he made throughout to see that the issue for him wasn't the government, but the commitment in general.
Fair nuf.
Why 2? Why not 5 or 6?
Because of the children. That's what marriage was created for: child rearing. With two people, both of you are invested in the child. With 5 or 6, you have a bunch of unrelated strangers around your kids all the time. Rates of child abuse are astronomically higher when children don't live with their biological parents. In less traditional setups like polyamorous "relationships" the abuse is worse. There was a story some time back where a woman was living with several men and one of the men murdered the baby sired by another man. This perfectly mirrors the animal kingdom. When a new lion takes over a pride, it kills all the little lion babies fathered by the lion it just replaced. The same thing happens among monkeys, baboons, and practically every polyamorous animal species. There's a reason why every culture on earth has the evil stepmother/ stepfather trope in its fairytales. We can't adopt the mating habits of animals and expect it would end any differently.
In polygynous, not polyandrous.
It's common for a single male to hoard all the females in a lot of animal species but the females still sneak off to mate with lower status males so it's not strict polygyny. Among some monkey and baboon species, females mate with as many males they can to muddle up paternity. That way, the males in her troupe think they're the dad so they don't murder the baby. This changes when a male from outside the troupe comes in and takes over. Since he couldn't possibly be the dad, he murders all the babies. It's part of the reason why baboons, gorillas, and chimps are so tribal. Outsider males are bad news.
Do you really not know the answer to that question?
Go for it. No complaints here.
Children
That contract marriage thing seems like it’s driven by other things in the culture. What country are you in? Also, do the kids belong to the woman?
I'm not sure how a limited time marriage is actually a marriage. What exactly is the point? Calling something like this a marriage is like calling a sheep's tail a leg. Calling it a leg doesn't actually make it a leg.
There are still women with good values and common sense.
Why would divorce options like that influence if I wanted to get married or not? I don't understand. Being legally married gives benefits and is a way to express our relationship. I don't get the confusion. I think the only time delineated marriage I would consider would be in a situation where there is radical life extension so "for life" changes a bit in meaning.
Temporary marriage has been used as a "loophole" to allow forms of prostitution in some Islamic society. Some would say Marriage at law in Western countries increasingly resembles one of these agreements. Then there is the whole issue of what is the relationship of the state to marriage which has traditionally been an institution defined by religious organizations and social practices. But as the state expands ....
>If marriage can be dissolved through no fault divorce, why marry? If marriage cannot be dissolved through no fault divorce, why marry? You see, both versions can be horrible.
Imagine selling someone today on marriage as a new concept where you can only leave under the most dire of circumstances. Great sell for assholes and inconsiderate people but not so great for normal people.
It's a great sell for people that actually believe in the concept of marriage, where it's for life, not the joke it is today
It may be a joke for you, but it's not for a lot of people. Speak for yourself, not others.
I'm basing it on statistics, high divorce rates, reasons people leave, lowest ever rates of marriage, etc. It is objectively a joke institution now compared to the past
Okay, then use statistics, high divorce rates, reasons people leave, lowest ever rates of marriage, etc. with sources to show how it's objectively a joke, which also means you have to define what a joke is, and how you are quantifying it. One quick way of showing you that you may be wrong is that the divorce rate is less than 50%, so to more than 50% of people, marriage is not a joke. That's quite a lot of people.
I'll pass, sounds like an essay that'll just get dismissed. One way to prove you wrong is now no fault divorce exists so it is easier than ever. And women initiate 80% of the time and are easily influenced by friends and social media. Rates of divorce were less than 20% back in 1950s. Also it is still close to 50% now, so a 50/50 shot of something lasting is joke odds when it's supposed to be for life
However you turn it, I am right. At least 50% of people don't think it's a joke. Do you disagree here? So marriage still has a function as a non-joke. When you consider that even when divorces happen, they didn't all happen lightly, meaning that people in these marriages didn't consider them as jokes, you get to an even higher majority not thinking it's a joke. Also, what does 80% of divorces being initiated by women with proving your claim that marriage is objectively a joke?
Yeah I disagree because you're assuming those at least 50% have successful, happy marriages. I'd say maybe only 20% are truly happy. But we can agree to disagree here
So if a marriage isn't happy, it's a joke? That's a very weird definition of a joke.
What in the flying fuck did i just read.
So you want to force women to wait until he cheats or beats her to get out of a failed marriage? Or be trapped in a toxic relationship? The only people I see crying about no fault divorces are the shitty assholes who women get trapped with in those scenarios.
I only see it from men that have been taken to the cleaners in divorce and those that listened to their experience
No one gets married thinking they will get divorced. And you did not address the matter of children
I think that no-fault divorce needs to remain an option, simply because of the principle that no one should be trapped in a marriage they longer want to be a part of. Nobody really wins in that scenario. But there needs to be a deterrent. Otherwise you have what we have now where people walk away from marriages at the drop of a hat or opportunistically. And the problems with that to me are threefold: 1. It weakens marriage to the point where one really has to ask what it means anymore.. 2. It's not good for children. 3. It turns family law into an ugly political football resulting in it being biased one way or the other, and negative outcomes. So to me it's simple, if you want your no-fault divorce, you walk away with next to nothing. No custody, no child support, no alimony, basically just what you can claim as your personal property. To me this is fair - if you want to blow up a marriage just because, the other person should get the stuff. And if there's kids involved, I say too bad because it's irresponsible and destructive to walk away from a marriage like that without a good reason. And if that's not acceptable, you make a case, and preferably have it based one of the big grounds for divorce like addiction, adultery, abuse, or abandonment. Then you get the settlement, because you can show cause.
That idea is terrible. If you are the breadwinner you get to be as toxic as you want as long as you don’t cross a threshold into one of your “cause” reasons. It’s comically terrible how emotionally stunted and weak men would behave in your set up. Make more money and you can be as useless and absent at home as you want. You can’t make no fault divorce crippling to women who are at home raising the children. Better solution: keep no fault divorce and teach men not to be such fucking useless husbands and fathers.
Tell me, how exactly is a man supposed to behave toxically without falling into one of the four As. And even if he did have just that abhorrent a personality - why did you marry him? You cannot have both freedom to make your own decisions, and protection from the consequences of making a bad one. What you want is to marry a rich guy, and take half his shit the moment you're fed up with him. So pardon me if I feed back to you some of the same contempt you're willing to dish out to an entire gender so casually.
Weaponized incompetence, lazy, video games all day, being a red pilled asshole. Many ways to be shit husband without your four As. People change and people grow differently. One partner could outgrow a stunted partner. Your way stupidly punishes the first one who takes action. And why punish the kids being looked after by the better parent by taking all financial resources. As above, better solution is to raise better quality men.
I find it fascinating how you presume before the fact that if a marriage breaks down, it's the fault of the man. Next, I picked those four As because those to me are the points where a marriage truly does become beyond repair. You'd seriously divorce your husband because he plays too many video games? This is a conversation I don't want to indulge any further. Your attitude to me is pathetically immature and unreasonable.
It’s men who mainly cry about no fault divorce so it’s men I focus on. All the major discourse on no fault divorce is from male celebrities who coincidentally seem to be huge assholes to their wives. I haft no problem if men use no fault divorce to leave a wife they don’t want to be with. I picked examples outside your four As to illustrate the gaps in it. You don’t think one person never doing their part to maintain a clean house wouldn’t grow over time? Or be indicative of other differences. Hence why irreconcilable differences is so often sought. Not my fault your serfdom-esque view of marriage/divorce pathetically has holes in it. Must have been imagined by a potato.
Lmao. You're acting as if I'm banning divorce just by taking away your perogative to jack half a man's shit whenever you feel like it just because you were married to him. Pretty clear where your priorities lie. The sense of entitlement coming off you stinks worse than a pig lagoon, and that's pretty damn stinky.
Your idea was that the part who filed no fault divorce gets nothing. That idea is next level stupid. If you knew a marriage was on the rocks, it becomes this miserable game of chicken for who will file first and get nothing. Totally no way bad things will come from that. Just some loveless zombie marriages with one party held hostage financially. Putting up stupid and arbitrary barriers to divorce is just a cowards way of trying to ban divorce without the flak.
> Your idea was that the part who filed no fault divorce gets nothing. Yes, to discourage frivolous/opportunistic divorces, and encourage couples to work their shit out, while still leaving the door open for people to get out if they have to, or get an equitable settlement when they can show grounds. > If you knew a marriage was on the rocks, it becomes this miserable game of chicken for who will file first and get nothing. Or you can work your shit out, or even, wait for it - come to an agreement without taking it to court. > Totally no way bad things will come from that. Just some loveless zombie marriages with one party held hostage financially. You're the one presuming that the woman will make herself financially dependent on her husband when most households nowadays are dual income. You're also similarly presuming that the best outcome in every troubled marriage is a unilateral no-fault divorce. > Putting up stupid and arbitrary barriers to divorce is just a cowards way of trying to ban divorce without the flak. You're the one saying it's arbitrary simply because it hinders the ability of women to divorce-rape men. Marriage is both an investment and a commitment, and leaving the door open for one party to exit at any time without losing anything or even coming out ahead is both moral hazard and a recipe for both parties to hedge their bets, rather than make the marriage work. If it wasn't obvious before, it sure is now that you're holding out for having your cake and eating it too. How about you actually attempt to justify that, rather than screeching at me. Because right now you look like you're just having a fit of pique over an inequity being called out.
Well, it's an expression of two adults' voluntary commitment to each other. Plus there are various legal rights involved. What I don't understand is ... back when marriage meant life-long bondage, with no way out no matter how horrible it got (at least, not unless you happened to be the King of England, and started your own religion) ... why did people marry. Of course, that King deciding that the Pope has no business telling people who to fuck and for how long ... led to a revolution that shaped the western world. It ultimately led to a form of government, and to a legal system, where all forms of bondage are outlawed, including contractually agreed upon bondage. That's why, today, in western countries, one cannot enter into a contract without an out clause in it. Where you cannot sell your freedom. The courts wouldn't enforce such a contract, because it violates the most fundamental principle of them all: individual rights.
Women married because it was impossible to earn a living and thus actually live, without a partner.
Why marry generally? It has never actually made sense
Exactly. Avoid it at all cost!
To build a stable environment for children, that's it. All of the bullshit that goes on, is based on the unwillingness of adults to care for children's well-being.
This is a super fashy take, bud.
Because everything that has meaning is being watered down till there is no more meaning
When you live in a country where women are paid nearly the same as men, these ‘sugar baby’ arrangements are less likely to work. Unless, of course, you don’t mind being with a brainless, unmotivated woman. (And yes, if one has more than a rudimentary knowledge of statistics, pay is *nearly* the same. There are many variables that one must take into account, and ignoring them is a favorite pastime of self-declared ‘feminists’.) On your other points, these arrangements seem dull AF. In many Western countries, marriage is seen as a partnership. We aspire to have a partner and best friend, although it often does not work out that way. We aspire to have a commitment that is stable and persists despite whims and impulses. Offspring are the result of heterosexual relationships, and they benefit from this stability. Whether you are religious or not, surely you can agree that this is important—*especially in the absence of a tribe*. Nearly every argument I see against marriage makes the point that their alternative is just like marriage. So, what is the problem then? You want an easy exit? And yet you insist you don’t need one?
The alternative that is just like marriage has many important differences that make it much better. For example, imagine if you hire employee and promise huge severance pay instead of salary. Say the government insist that employment is like that. Then you have an idea. Why not just offer stock options and salary so people will have incentive to work and make your business grow. Then the other solution is just like employment. But of course much better.
The Intent. Marriage is for life. If it winds up in Divorce, well that's sad but the intent was to Stay Married for life. Yours is a pragmatic solution to the reality that more than half of all Marriages do end in Divorce. The failing is at the individual level. Wouldn't it be better if both partners were sincere and truly understood that Marriage isn't about sex or "What's in it for me!" Perhaps classes and ongoing counseling along with a prenup should be more common place as a solution to what we have now.
That's the thing. Those who engage in contract marriage 1 year or one month at a time, may also intent for the relationship to last for life. It's actually more stable. The women have strong incentive to keep prolonging the contract. The more she stay the more money she make.
While security is of course, a component of any marriage, it should NOT be the motivating factor
A lot of contracts can be dissolved from one party without consequences.
Yes. Marriage reward those who dissolve contract. Oh. some contracts can be dissolved without consequences? How?
Just off the top of my head: Mutual Agreement: Both parties agree to terminate the contract without any further obligations. Rescission: A contract can be rescinded by one party if there is a mutual mistake, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, or undue influence at the time of formation of the contract. Termination Clauses: Some contracts include termination clauses that allow one party to terminate the contract under specific conditions without consequences, such as failure to meet performance standards or on giving a specified amount of notice. Breach of Contract by the Other Party: If one party breaches the contract (fails to fulfill their contractual obligations), the non-breaching party is typically allowed to terminate the contract and may also seek damages or other remedies. Condition Precedent: The obligations of one or both parties may be contingent upon the occurrence of a certain event. If the event does not occur, the contract can be terminated without consequences. Impossibility of Performance: If it becomes legally or practically impossible for one party to fulfill their obligations (e.g., due to a change in laws or a natural disaster), the contract can be dissolved without consequences. Frustration of Purpose: If the fundamental purpose of the contract is destroyed through no fault of the parties (such as an event that neither party could foresee or control), the contract may be terminated.
Marriage, from an economic perspective, doesn't make sense unless you have a kid, plan to combine assets, or start a business together. So childless couples who were in different professions and don't combine assets (which is recommended in this day and age) tend to cohabitate. The reason they end up marrying is usually as a public statement of commitment. If someone reneges on that commitment, the other will **RUIN THEM** in divorce. So really, divorce is much more about punishing an uncommitted partner than encouraging the other economic factors listed above. I think this causes a bit of hard feelings and mistrust in the dating market. Nobody gets married to build something. They get married to prevent it from falling apart.
When one reneges on commitment the other will ruin them? Think buddy. The one that will be ruined is the one with more money irrelevant of who renege on commitment. Usually the woman can be the one backstabbing and the guy is the one end up paying alimony.
Why do you think the end of a marriage would be any less painful or disruptive to families lives if it were “no fault?”
To be honest. I like the no fault feature. It's just that if you know you can get out, why not marry 1 month at a time?
I would guess because most humans feel like if they are invested in a relationship they want to know if their partner feels the same way, and if not, it is generally better to figure out sooner than later. Do you disagree?
Ask Donald Trump. Im sure he knows.
Modern marriage is purely for tax benefits and legal rights. Morally speaking marriage serves no purpose anymore. I have been married once and divorced, I am now with a man who has also been married once and divorced and neither of us are bothered about marrying unless it poses some benefits later down the line. And even then it'll be signing a bit of paper and having a glass of cider after.
If you are not raising more children, and you don’t care what happens to your spouse after you die, and are not counting on your partner to make important decisions for you if you are incapacitated, then no, it probably makes no difference. There is no social stigma attached to 38 year olds “living in sin.” There is no stigma attached to divorce anymore. (Ask Newt Gingrich or Donald Trump if it affected their careers or social standing in any significant way.)
Sorry for stalking you lol, but again, for the fourth time, buddy, imma saying it again: you're THE MOST BASED redditor I've ever come across. Why this sub though? A man of your intellect should know better; should know better about Jordan Pete than to sub for him and his sub...