# What do you think about marriage?



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

In another thread, regarding a news story about a lost wedding band being returned 13 years after it was stolen, Dr. T remarked:



Dr T said:


> Not to put to fine a point on it, but that was about 10 years after the average Australian divorce...


which made me chuckle. I don't know what the actual stats are, but I suspect he's not far off the mark.

It is certainly true that most marriages don't last, and it is also abundantly clear that more and more people are choosing not to get married at all. 

How do you see marriage as an institution changing in the 21st century?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

In response to my question, I personally don't see any value in marriage at all, and will be happy to see it become a quaint old tradition that only a few people have any interest in.

Like many traditions, it had it's place in it's time; when women were property and contraception wasn't available, it was important for a man to let everyone in the community know that "this female is mine: do not touch!" But times have changed. In a modern context, anyone that could reasonably be considering getting intimate with someone else has ample opportunity to determine if they're in a committed relationship, and neither the church nor the state have any business in people's personal relationships, so I just don't see any point in marriage.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Good luck on getting responses to a public poll. I and many here, have gone on record before to never participate unless the poll is anonymous.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Good luck on getting responses to a public poll. I and many here, have gone on record before to never participate unless the poll is anonymous.


Fair enough. That shouldn't stop you from posting your opinion on the question.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Fair enough. That shouldn't stop you from posting your opinion on the question.


We are about to celebrate our 47th wedding anniversary in October. Does the word celebrate give you a clue?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

19th on Monday. 

It's amazing how successful things can be when people are truly COMMITTED to make it work.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Just celebrated our 16th a few weeks ago. Yes it is amazing, what happens when you commit to something like marriage, the benefits are huge.

I chose that it's maintaining it's importance but is evolving. The recognition of same sex marriages in no way threatens mine. In fact I'm happy that others can enjoy the same er, perks.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Been with the same girl for a little over 16 years. Never married but together nonetheless.

Why never married? No real reason, we just didn't feel the need to. Does it lessen our relationship? No would be my answer.

Am I against marriage? Absolutely not. To each their own.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

21 years and counting. Marriage has been very very good to me.

Those who argue against marriage I find tend to have a fear of commitment--Gene Simmons and Shannon Tweed excepted. I see nothing wrong with celebrating with family and friends the person you want to live the rest of your life with. As long as you're serious about that last bit anyway. The wedding makes everything official.

Not to dismiss any couples who are committed without an actual marriage, but I really enjoyed our wedding. It was one of the proudest days of my life next to having kids.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> Those who argue against marriage I find tend to have a fear of commitment


I have nothing against commitment, I just don't see what marriage has to do with it. 



> I see nothing wrong with celebrating with family and friends...


Neither do I, I just object to the government and other organizations wanting to get involved.



> The wedding makes everything official.


This is exactly the problem.

If you need officialdom to make the relationship work, it ain't gonna work. If you don't need officialdom, then why get married?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

It's really great that all you folks have had such stable relationships, but I don't see the role of marriage in any of that.

Let me ask you, if marriage as an institution didn't exist, would your relationships have been any different or less stable?

I've been in a committed relationship longer than anyone here except SINC. After 17 years, we were forced to get married by the US government, so we spent the $135 and got married*. So I've been on both sides of this and see no difference. Marriage is, as far as I can see, a multibillion dollar industry that serves no useful purpose in society.


{edit to add: we've thought about getting divorced, just to do our bit for the stats, but that would cost more money, and we're still annoyed at having had to spend the $135 on getting married in the first place, so we've just stayed married.}


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You know bryanc, with all due respect, and I have respect for you, it seems to me this thread is more about your apparent need to alter society to suit your beliefs than it is to discuss what we think about marriage. Marriage is what it is, and that is different to you than most others. Those who consider their marriage vows sacred are not lesser individuals by their belief, nor are they any threat to society. If those vows prevent one divorce with children left in the lurch, it is in fact a great benefit to society.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> it seems to me this thread is more about your apparent need to alter society to suit your beliefs than it is to discuss what we think about marriage.


Not at all. There are certainly those to whom marriage is important/sacred/whatever, and they're certainly entitled to their beliefs; I'm not trying to convince them they're wrong.

But I think there are a lot of people who are getting married because they're pressured by their families/society to do so, not because it's something they genuinely want to do, and I think it's valuable to discuss these things so that people know there are others out there who question the status quo.

It's certainly true that I'm an anti-tradtionalist; not only do I have no respect for marriages, I have similar disdain for graduation ceremonies, funerals, coming-of-age traditions, etc. But I won't begrudge others their enjoyment of these things as long as they're not inflicted on me.

Marriage is a rather extreme example: Firstly, it *is* inflicted on people who don't want to participate (like my wife and I). Secondly, it is denied to people who *do* want to participate. And thirdly, a whole parasitic industry has grown up to milk it for all it's worth, which to me makes it all the more distasteful - it's fuel for what I believe are very unhealthy facets of society (e.g. the narcissistic fashion industry, the hyper consumptive wedding industry, etc.).


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I've now been divorced for about twice as long as I was married. I've given a lot of thought to what marriage means to me, and honestly, the whole official commitment aspect of it isn't really what I think marriage is all about. 

The act of officially getting married and taking vows does not magically create commitment. Commitment is something you do every single day. Vows are something you make a thousand little choices every day to live up to. Saying it once, out loud, in front of people, does not make much of a difference compared to what you do every single day.

That said, I ultimately would like to get married again. 

To me, the act of getting married essentially the ritual of choosing a particular person to be your family, with all the rights and obligations and expectations that the word 'family' entails, and they do the same for you. It's the only time we get to choose who we are related to. To me, that's important.

Granted, I don't think ritual is necessary for all people, but I think it's nice to mark the importance of this choice.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Not at all.





bryanc said:


> Marriage is a rather extreme example: Firstly, it *is* inflicted on people who don't want to participate (like my wife and I). Secondly, it is denied to people who *do* want to participate. And thirdly, a whole parasitic industry has grown up to milk it for all it's worth, which to me makes it all the more distasteful - it's fuel for what I believe are very unhealthy facets of society (e.g. the narcissistic fashion industry, the hyper consumptive wedding industry, etc.).


Seems to me one statement completely opposes the other, so, like I said:


SINC said:


> it seems to me this thread is more about your apparent need to alter society to suit your beliefs than it is to discuss what we think about marriage.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I have no need to prevent people who want to get married from doing so, but I do feel opening the discussion such that people who might question the need for marriage don't feel inhibited is a valuable thing to do.

If you think that's trying to "change society to fit my beliefs" I guess that's fair, but in that case, all but the most conformist among us are similarly trying to change society.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> I don't think ritual is necessary for all people, but I think it's nice to mark the importance of this choice.


As I've indicated, I'm allergic to rituals  But I completely agree that, if you like that sort of thing, you should be free to enjoy it. That being said, I think the rituals of a wedding are almost tangential to the issue of marriage; what I really object to about marriage is the role of the government.

If people want to live together discretely, or if they want to have a quite ceremony with friends and family, or if they want to have a vulgar extravagant display of wealth, that's their business. Why get the government involved?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> If people want to live together discretely, or if they want to have a quite ceremony with friends and family, or if they want to have a vulgar extravagant display of wealth, that's their business. Why get the government involved?


Because we allot particular rights to family members on events such as the death or serious illness of a person (or in your case, changing countries), and an official marriage is an often helpful way to determining who is entitled to those rights and who is not.

We also protect people financially upon the dissolution of this type of relationship, and protect any children cared for by this type of relationship, and again, an official marriage is a helpful way of determining who holds some financial obligation and who does not. (It's a bit messier in some respects with co-habitation in Ontario, anyway.)

Government involvement is unnecessary for when things are going well. When things fall apart, however, a hopefully impartial 3rd party with some authority to make and enforce decisions is useful.


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

We are about to celebrate our 55th on the 31st of this month.
I'd have to say, if I had a choice to to it over again, I would in the blink of an eye, as long as it was with the same woman.
Never had one regret through tough times and good.

BTW if marriage is "loosing" its importance in society, maybe we just need to tighten it up a bit.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

More than one individual has lost a spouse with no will. Married and the survivors rights are protected and property is transferred smoothly to the survivor. Unmarried and even if the state or province recognizes common law, the estate can be tied up for years and the lawyers will end up taking a very big bite.

For that reason alone it is good to make things official. Beyond that just try moving to a different country with a common law marriage.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I have nothing against commitment, I just don't see what marriage has to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your argument works the other way just as well. Officialdom makes it a lot more important _not_ to bail out, especially in tough times, in sickness and in health, as they say. Unless you're afraid of commitment, why not get married? You seem to be a little hyper-critical of those who made the choice to live in a married state…without any clear reason for this apprehension. If you're going to live with the same person for the rest of your life anyway, it's a little hypocritical to judge people who made the same choice but decided to do it in the legally sanctioned method common in our society. 

In a nutshell, why _not_ get married? What are you afraid of?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bryanc said:


> As I've indicated, I'm allergic to rituals  But I completely agree that, if you like that sort of thing, you should be free to enjoy it. That being said, I think the rituals of a wedding are almost tangential to the issue of marriage; what I really object to about marriage is the role of the government.
> 
> If people want to live together discretely, or if they want to have a quite ceremony with friends and family, or if they want to have a vulgar extravagant display of wealth, that's their business. Why get the government involved?


Is there a limit to how many people could be a part of this arrangement? Lots of people frown on polygamy, for example, but with the system you propose, any number of people could live in a common-law multiple partner arrangement and there would be no legal repercussions whatsoever. Same with age limits or even species considerations.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

If you and the person you want to spend the rest of your life with are monogamists go for it.

If you aren't, be honest with yourself and find someone else who isn't either. Life will be better.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I'm married, but I *deeply* resent the fact that gay people in many parts of the world can't get married -- and even more so, that married people get certain rights/privileges/tax benefits/etc that non-married people do not get. That's just ridiculous.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Not married yet. I am in a long term committed relationship, I don't feel the _need_ but I will like to. I haven't yet as other things have taken priority.

I don't have the same view as most about marriage, I have a more of a pragmatic and practical viewpoint and do see an additional value in being married, not to be confused with getting married.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

bryanc said:


> ...
> After 17 years, we were forced to get married by the US government, so we spent the $135 and got married*....


Ummm... I might have missed this, by why were you forced to get married?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> In a nutshell, why _not_ get married? What are you afraid of?


bryanc noted that he IS married.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

sinc said:


> you know bryanc, with all due respect, and i have respect for you, it seems to me this thread is more about your apparent need to alter society to suit your beliefs than it is to discuss what we think about marriage. Marriage is what it is, and that is different to you than most others. Those who consider their marriage vows sacred are not lesser individuals by their belief, nor are they any threat to society. If those vows prevent one divorce with children left in the lurch, it is in fact a great benefit to society.


+1


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

sonal said:


> i've now been divorced for about twice as long as i was married. I've given a lot of thought to what marriage means to me, and honestly, the whole official commitment aspect of it isn't really what i think marriage is all about.
> 
> The act of officially getting married and taking vows does not magically create commitment. Commitment is something you do every single day. Vows are something you make a thousand little choices every day to live up to. Saying it once, out loud, in front of people, does not make much of a difference compared to what you do every single day.
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Live and let live. 

Few people in western society in this day and age are forced to get married. They may be cajoled into doing so but they aren't forced, if they aren't strong enough to stand up to their family pressure they have no one to blame but themselves.

For those who want to get married so be it... for those who don't so be it... it is no one else's business.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

I'm having a deja vu with this whole discussion. Is it me?

Oh, no, it's not me ... it's bryanc. 

My opinions haven't changed in almost exactly a year.

Is it your anniversary or something bryanc?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MLeh said:


> I'm having a deja vu with this whole discussion. Is it me?
> 
> Oh, no, it's not me ... it's bryanc.


I'd forgotten that discussion. I just skimmed it and it is a good thread. And you're right, we covered most of this topic.



> Is it your anniversary or something bryanc?


I dunno... I'd have to look it up; as I said before, my marriage means nothing to me (apart from the waste of an afternoon and $135).

It's getting close to the anniversary of our meeting (September 4, 1983), which does mean something to both of us, and is something that can be viewed as a 'landmark' as it was a qualitative event that changed our relationship, unlike our marriage, which was just an annoying afternoon of getting forms filled out by strangers.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> More than one individual has lost a spouse with no will.


Yes, it's certainly important to have a will, regardless of your marital status.



> Beyond that just try moving to a different country with a common law marriage.


That was the reason we had to get married.

Interestingly, we have three pairs of friends who moved from the US to Canada as common law couples with no problem whatsoever; this was part of the reason we didn't anticipate the grief the US INS gave us when we tried to enter the US as a common law couple.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MLeh said:


> I'm having a deja vu with this whole discussion. Is it me?
> 
> Oh, no, it's not me ... it's bryanc.


To be fair, I brought it up the last time. 



screature said:


> Few people in western society in this day and age are forced to get married. They maybe cajoled into doing so but they aren't forced, if they aren't strong enough to stand up to their family pressure they have no one to blame but themselves.


While true enough, I can't say that I was strong enough or knew myself well enough in my 20s to have done things much differently than I did. I suspect that's true for a lot of young people. 

Sitting here 10 years later, however, it's a different story. Though I would like to get married again, it's not a particularly strong desire, and financially speaking, it's easier for me to cohabitate since it simplifies things in the event of the relationship falling apart. Not an insurmountable issue, however.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> In a nutshell, why _not_ get married? What are you afraid of?


As has been mentioned, I'm certainly not _afraid_ of marriage (I've been married for over a decade), I just don't see any point to it.

Your position is a reversal of the "burden of proof". It's like saying "why not believe in God?" As the proponent of a position (i.e. that getting married is a good thing), it is incumbent on you to provide reason. As the skeptic (i.e. asking why people get married), I only need to refute the reason(s) provided.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

ertman said:


> Ummm... I might have missed this, by why were you forced to get married?


To appease the US government, who wouldn't let my common law partner of 17 years into the country unless we were legally married.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> To be fair, I brought it up the last time.


To be honest, while I'd completely forgotten about that thread and started this one because of Dr. T's posting, after a few posts it was starting to sound pretty familiar, and I was just thinking that I should probably check to see if I'd been over this topic here before.

I've certainly had this discussion with lots of people over the years, and my position has changed somewhat as a result. As I see it, there _are_ some reasonable (and even some rational) reasons to get married:

1) For the presents
2) For the tax breaks (in some jurisdictions)
3) Because of family/social pressure
4) For people with religious beliefs
5) To facilitate immigration

My wife and I were never sufficiently avaricious to be motivated by 1. 2 and 4 didn't apply, and we were able to resist 3. But we were ultimately defeated by 5.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bryanc said:


> As has been mentioned, I'm certainly not _afraid_ of marriage (I've been married for over a decade), I just don't see any point to it.
> 
> Your position is a reversal of the "burden of proof". It's like saying "why not believe in God?" As the proponent of a position (i.e. that getting married is a good thing), it is incumbent on you to provide reason. As the skeptic (i.e. asking why people get married), I only need to refute the reason(s) provided.


That's very convenient for you. You get to sit in your arm chair and bat away flies, while I have to actively go around the house and search for them with my fly swatted. Ok, perhaps the better question is: why does it bother you so much that other people like myself support marriage? Are you trying to convince me that I am wrong to like the married state or that you are right to resent it?

Also, I posed a question for you that I've not seen your reply for yet: what's the limit on the number of partners, age of partners, or even species limits if the concept of marriage means nothing? What's to stop a guy from impregnating every female he seed?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I would add a 6th: a desire to mark a milestone in a relationship, specifically, designating someone to be your family. Certainly, neither 1-5 apply to myself otherwise.

#3 is rather negatively stated. Not everyone feels pressured to conform to a familial or social norm, but rather, prefers being the norm and would feel pressured to do otherwise.



bryanc said:


> To be honest, while I'd completely forgotten about that thread and started this one because of Dr. T's posting, after a few posts it was starting to sound pretty familiar, and I was just thinking that I should probably check to see if I'd been over this topic here before.
> 
> I've certainly had this discussion with lots of people over the years, and my position has changed somewhat as a result. As I see it, there _are_ some reasonable (and even some rational) reasons to get married:
> 
> ...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> Ok, perhaps the better question is: why does it bother you so much that other people like myself support marriage?


It doesn't bother me at all. I'm just curious as to why.



> Are you trying to convince me that I am wrong to like the married state or that you are right to resent it?


I resent the interference of the government in my personal life. I'm not trying to convince you that you should, but I'm perplexed as to why you'd want to invite the government into your bedroom.



> Also, I posed a question for you that I've not seen your reply for yet: what's the limit on the number of partners, age of partners, or even species limits if the concept of marriage means nothing?


I didn't answer that because I don't see it as having any relevance to the topic at hand. If the government allowed interspecies marriages, would it influence your sexual proclivities?



> What's to stop a guy from impregnating every female he seed?


What's to stop a guy from doing that now? What was stopping that before we invented marriage? What's stopping people like me who don't believe in marriage?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> I would add a 6th: a desire to mark a milestone in a relationship, specifically, designating someone to be your family.


Okay, I didn't think of this because I don't see it as a significant step, but you're certainly right that many do.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

ehMax said:


> 19th on Monday.
> 
> It's amazing how successful things can be when people are truly COMMITTED to make it work.


Kudos, Mr. Mayor. I celebrated #16 last month and agree with your point about committment. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

MazterCBlazter said:


> There should be more options for legal relationships and marriages.
> 
> Homosexual people have had to fight for the right to get married. Still can't do it everywhere.
> 
> ...


Boy, those are some interesting assertions. My wife and I have been married 21 years now with two polite and talented kids to show for it, and they feel a pretty good sense of stability in their lives. When I compare that to the instability of the lives of so many of the kids I teach, I'd say this is a no-brainer: for most of these people, a good, solid, faithful marriage makes all the difference in the world. Too many people do not put their spouses or kids first ad it shows. What we definitely do NOT need is more of the pessimism and contempt for committed relationships that you describe in your post. Our marriage is solid, churched, and government-approved, no bloodsuckers involved. People with multiple partners do not have any advantage that I can see. Except maybe variety. And a variety of risks to go with.

Tell me, do you really think you'd be better off if your spouse or "significant other" did not have to be faithful to you and you to him/her? Does marriage really make things so much worse for you, or are you perhaps blowing off some steam due to your own experience?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Okay, I'm really going to try not to be too sarcastic here, but it's hard to resist when you lay out bait like this



fjnmusic said:


> Our marriage is solid, churched, and government-approved, no bloodsuckers involved.


{hint: many of us see the Church as the biggest bloodsucker of all time}



fjnmusic said:


> My wife and I have been married 21 years now with two polite and talented kids to show for it, and they feel a pretty good sense of stability in their lives.


Now that is something you can be proud of. But my question is, what did marriage have to do with it? If marriage didn't exist, would your relationship to your wife and kids be different? If so, why?



> for most of these people, a good, solid, faithful *relationship* makes all the difference in the world.


T,FTFY. No marriage necessary.



> Tell me, do you really think you'd be better off if your spouse or "significant other" did not have to be faithful to you and you to him/her?


Given that infidelity within marriages is rampant, how is marriage relevant to this? If sexual fidelity is fundamental to your relationship (as it is for most, but not all couples), that is true regardless of your marital status. What legal papers you have or public proclamations you may have made are of no relevance.



> Does marriage really make things so much worse for you, or are you perhaps blowing off some steam due to your own experience?


Just $135 and a wasted afternoon worse. Not a big deal, but, as I said, I don't like the government sticking their noses into my personal life. Seems like an invasion of privacy to me.

P.S. I answered your questions, fjnmusic. Are you going to answer mine?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> That's very convenient for you. You get to sit in your arm chair and bat away flies, while I have to actively go around the house and search for them with my fly swatted.


The burden of proof lies with the proponent of a position. 

In this case, I'm defending the null hypothesis; that there is no need for marriage. As a proponent of marriage, the burden of proof is with you.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Okay, I'm really going to try not to be too sarcastic here, but it's hard to resist when you lay out bait like this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry, can't remember the question. 

Your problem seems to me to have more to do with authority and someone telling you what you can or can't do than it does with marriage per se. Oppositional Defiant much?

$135 is pretty small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. A couple of tanks of gas, depending on the vehicle.I really can't see AT ALL how it's an invasion of your privacy to have your marriage documented. This way, no one else is going to be able to claim your benefits at tax time. Seems more like an advantage.

As far as the wedding itself go, to me they are more than just words on paper. To me they are a declaration, a public declaration, of the fact that you are committing yourself to the live the rest of your life with one person, for better or for worse. That's a pretty strong statement and a huge responsibility. I have no control over those who regard that commitment capriciously, but I know what I vowed and I have stayed true. Divorce statistics are sad, and frankly, I don't see a lot of difference between a polygamist and a guy who screws around with many women on the side. Maybe the difference is disclosure, in which case the polygamists are actually living the more honourable life.

Yes, a marriage certificate is not a prerequisite to fidelity, but it's an awfully good incentive if you believe in the sanctity of marriage. I'm born and raised RC but I think of myself more as a lapsed Catholic and my wife is fine with that. The marriage ceremony itself cost us $50 donation to the priest, $50 donation to the music group, and that's it for the church's "bloodsucking." I don't disagree that the church takes in far too much money in other ways, but our wedding was not one of them. The wedding certificate from the government was somewhere in the range of the cost of a dog license, less than a hunting license anyway (according to wifey), so that was not a huge expense. Now if you're talking about the people on TV who pay upwards of $10,000 for a wedding dress, let alone all the other wedding accoutrements, I have no quarrel there. Weddings do not have to be grotesquely expensive, although too many are, and a fool and his money are soon parted.

I'm not sure about how to answer your other questions, because I'm not sure what you want to hear. Asking would your relationship and your family unit still be strong without the actual marriage is like asking if you would have still found your wallet and keys if you hadn't prayed for them. Maybe, but it never hurts to take out some insurance. It's hard to have an informed opinion about how your life would have turned out had you chosen a different path. If you'd impregnated some other woman, would your kids have looked different? I presume so. So that argument sort of lives in a vacuum.

If you still resent having spent that $135 because you were "forced" to get married, and your wife agrees with you, why not just spend a little more to have it annulled or get divorced and see if it makes you both happier to live in an unmarried state.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> The burden of proof lies with the proponent of a position.
> 
> In this case, *I'm defending the null hypothesis*; that there is no need for marriage. As a proponent of marriage, the burden of proof is with you.


Your so called "null" position still means you are a proponent of a position i.e. "marriage is not necessary". You are clearly a proponent of being against marriage which still requires proof to defend your position when the societal norm is marriage across the vast majority of human experience and society.

You are in the clear minority... Marriage as a social institution has existed for thousands of years... The question is why do *you* feel the need to "correct" the societal norm... 

To satisfy your own sense of philosophical superiority perhaps... "Me doth think he protests too much."

You're not happy that for political or governmental reasons you were forced to be married... which you were not, it was simply the "easiest" solution for your given situation which you obviously didn't oppose too strongly or otherwise you would not have done so...either truly stand by your convictions or do not... by the very fact that you gave into the societal "norm" points to your own hypocrisy.

If you are so adamantly against marriage, get a divorce and continue to live with your partner but do not continue to stand on your pulpit preaching to the "lowly" and "misguided" who disagree with you from your false and hypocritical high horse.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> Your problem seems to me to have more to do with authority and someone telling you what you can or can't do than it does with marriage per se. Oppositional Defiant much?


Fair cop. 



> $135 is pretty small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. A couple of tanks of gas, depending on the vehicle.


It is indeed; which is why I'm more concerned with the principle.



> I really can't see AT ALL how it's an invasion of your privacy to have your marriage documented.


Erm... try re-reading your sentence above and thinking about it.

How would you feel about it if the government wanted to document your sexual preferences? Or your first kiss? Or any other aspect of your personal life.

If you want to share that with your friends and family, I that's your business, but why would you want to share it with the government?



> As far as the wedding itself go, to me they are more than just words on paper. To me they are a declaration, a public declaration, of the fact that you are committing yourself to the live the rest of your life with one person, for better or for worse. That's a pretty strong statement and a huge responsibility.


I suppose so, for those who like these sorts of exhibitions. Personally, I think the decades of living together, the little acts of kindness, and the patience and communication necessary to work out the inevitable friction is far more impressive than any public declaration. But whatever floats your boat.



> Yes, a marriage certificate is not a prerequisite to fidelity, but it's an awfully good incentive if you believe in the sanctity of marriage.


Which, in your mind, is the more impressive; the married couple who are true to their vows and legal obligations, or the unmarried couple who behave exactly the same way *without* the need for any legal or social constraints?



> I'm not sure about how to answer your other questions, because I'm not sure what you want to hear. Asking would your relationship and your family unit still be strong without the actual marriage is like asking if you would have still found your wallet and keys if you hadn't prayed for them.


And then looking at the statistics and finding that atheists or members of other religions find lost wallets and keys with the same frequency... i.e. that there is no evidence that prayer has any effect.

Given that my wife and I were happy for 17 years before we got married, and have been happy for another 13 years since, I would conclude that marriage had no effect (apart from costing us $135 and sacrificing our privacy).



> Maybe, but it never hurts to take out some insurance.


Let me introduce you to Pascal's Wager.



> If you still resent having spent that $135 because you were "forced" to get married, and your wife agrees with you, why not just spend a little more to have it annulled or get divorced and see if it makes you both happier to live in an unmarried state.


Why spend good money after bad? The marriage means nothing to either of us, so why spend money on it?


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Marriage is part of the 'social contract' of society. It is a formalized method of denoting relationships. Even if there is no formal marriage ceremony, there is a social construct of the relationship which indicates that, in our society_ the way it has developed_ monogamy is the desired goal. Having a wedding merely makes it easier for people who are not formally associated with the couple to know that there is a relationship - husband, wife, child(ren), and of less importance, in-laws.

I suggest you read some Rousseau, and find learn about the differences between individual rights and societal rights. Marriage is necessary in our society because without it there would be conflict in males vying for apparently available females, and the right to have sex with the most desirable females (with the ultimate goal, bred in our genes, of propagating our own genes, contraception notwithstanding). Sex/relationships is the human goal, procreation is the genetic one. 

Marriage is a method of conflict avoidance, because it makes the relationship obvious to everyone, and contravening that social convention has negative societal effects on the participants.

Should the goal of society change from knowing one's parentage and offspring (apparently the ultimate goal of formalized relationships where procreation is a result) and formalization of other relationships, then the societally accepted norm might change. In many sub-cultures this may have already occurred. ("baby-daddy" anyone?) However, the instances of rage on various afternoon talk shows when a male is confronted with DNA evidence that the child isn't actually his indicates that the in-bred desire to propagate one's own genes means that marriage, or some sort of formalized construct of relationship, will continue to be necessary for the smooth operation of society. The form in which it takes (government paper, jumping over a stick) is less important than the recognition afforded by society at large.

But what about people who are not going to procreate? Marriage is less important for them as individuals, except that society has deemed the state of marriage to be desirable. Majority rules. Sucks, doesn't it? But ... that's what society is. Majority. 

Commitment is necessary (or at least desirable) for child rearing. Commitment and trust are necessary ingredients for long term planning and sucess of relationships, with or without children. It is certainly possible to have commitment and trust without formalization via marriage, but in society, it's best to have these things open - 'they have made commitment to each other - don't mess with them' is what a marriage says.

If society changes (and it will, because the only constant is change), eventually we _may_ come to a point of socialized child rearing where paternity/maternity, and commitment to raising one's own genetic offspring are no longer relevant. But we're not at that stage.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> If 2 people want a committed traditional marriage church relationship all the power to them. It makes some people happy. It makes far more divorced and miserable if they stay together. I do not approve of the church. I do not need it's approval. I want it to stay out of my affairs.
> 
> Without the institution of marriage 80% of women would be with 20% of the men. Survival of the fittest and most desirable. The genetics of the human race would improve. Marriage only waters down and weakens the human race.
> 
> ...


What a sick and twisted analysis... surely we have evolved beyond the cave. Perhaps not in your case... but most of the rest of us have.

Quite frankly I am disgusted by your post.









BTW... Your signature is telling of your arrogance and sense of self importance.



> My critics are they who lack the courage to go out of their own comfort zones.


More barfing...


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

MazterCBlazter said:


> ....
> Without the institution of marriage 80% of women would be with 20% of the men. Survival of the fittest and most desirable. The genetics of the human race would improve. Marriage only waters down and weakens the human race.....


Desirable does not equal fittest, and marriage in itself cannot water down the human race. I know people that weaken the human race and they are not married.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

ertman said:


> Desirable does not equal fittest, and marriage in itself cannot water down the human race. I know people that weaken the human race and they are not married.


True dat. Some of the fittest people I know are not all that blessed with intelligence, nor much of a sense of humour. But man, can they pump iron!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Agreed with both Screature and fjn's take on our resident Ehmacer who apparently lives exclusively in his own discomfort zone.

_______________________________________

I have read this whole thread in bemusement. BryanC appears to have a big problem with marriage but can't exactly summon the science to explain why. He's trying to sound dispassionate and objective on the matter but it rings false.

I also think you like to trail out some bait into the waters, right Bryan? All in good fun. Really, I don't know why you spend so much energy resenting the fact that you allegedly had to get married. Please get over it and find the grace to continue in abiding silence over the matter - might do you some good.

I say do what you want to do. I'm coming up on my first anniversary and I'm delighted to observe said date. Never been married before and I'm 51. What does that mean? Danged if I know. I have no science for it, you see. I have no interest in defending marriage to people who have their knickers in a knot over the very concept. There are other battles far worthier, methinks.

Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

MazterCBlazter said:


> ....
> 
> I Cheated On My Husband To Secure Better Genes For My Children


I don't really see that she is trying to improve the gene pool. She could be just making shallower. This still doesn't state how she is a good contributor, its not just the men that can weaken genes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^

Happy anniversary Max, and may your next 46 to catch me be as fulfilling as ours has been. Life is grand when you can get by your hang-ups, something we learned that day, on October 8, of 1965.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Thank you, Sinc! And to paraphrase Neil Young, _long may you and your wife run._


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Whew... some people here really seem to be upset by my questioning of the status quo.

I'm not trying to dismantle society... since when did asking questions about why we do things the way we do turn into such a crime?

Now, on to the one interesting post since I last checked this thread...



MLeh said:


> Marriage is necessary in our society because without it there would be conflict in males vying for apparently available females, and the right to have sex with the most desirable females (with the ultimate goal, bred in our genes, of propagating our own genes, contraception notwithstanding). Sex/relationships is the human goal, procreation is the genetic one.


I agree with all this, with the caveat that this is the way our society developed (past tense) and I would hope that many (if not most) of us are beyond this by now.

It is no longer necessary for a woman to be married for her to be able to let potential suitors know that she is not interested or that she is already in a committed relationship. I.e. this argument for the necessity of marriage is obsolete.



> Marriage is a method of conflict avoidance, because it makes the relationship obvious to everyone, and contravening that social convention has negative societal effects on the participants.


This is no longer true; we have many new social conventions for communicating sexual availability/unavailability. I do agree completely with your analysis of the original purposes of marriage, I simply contend that, like buggy whips, they no longer serve any purpose. Marriage is a vestigial tradition.



> Should the goal of society change from knowing one's parentage and offspring (apparently the ultimate goal of formalized relationships where procreation is a result) and formalization of other relationships, then the societally accepted norm might change.


Surely you aren't suggesting that marriage is necessary (or even sufficient) to establish paternity?!?



> .... some sort of formalized construct of relationship, will continue to be necessary for the smooth operation of society.


I think the high divorce rate and many happy unmarried couples are existence proof that this is not true.



> Majority rules. Sucks, doesn't it? But ... that's what society is. Majority.


But society is hardly homogeneous; societies change, and change occurs because minorities may do things differently and these differences sometimes catch on. This conversation is an example; a few decades ago, the number of people outraged by my questioning of the sanctity of marriage would've been far greater. Clearly there are still many who take that view, but it seems that a significant proportion of the people here are at least willing to entertain the idea that the social institution of marriage is changing, and even a few who see it becoming unimportant.



> Commitment is necessary (or at least desirable) for child rearing. Commitment and trust are necessary ingredients for long term planning and sucess of relationships, with or without children. It is certainly possible to have commitment and trust without formalization via marriage, but in society, it's best to have these things open - 'they have made commitment to each other - don't mess with them' is what a marriage says.


I have no argument regarding the importance of commitment; I simply contend (and you apparently agree) that marriage is not necessary for this. I would go further and argue that marriage is of no value whatsoever here; your argument that it's best to have these things "open" is well taken, but my position is that the government need have no role in this... I have never heard of a common-law couple having trouble getting people to understand that they aren't "on the market."



> If society changes (and it will, because the only constant is change), eventually we _may_ come to a point of socialized child rearing where paternity/maternity, and commitment to raising one's own genetic offspring are no longer relevant. But we're not at that stage.


I'm not sure how you got here from couples not getting married. I'm not suggesting that people stop forming committed relationships and raising their children together; I'm just suggesting that marriage isn't necessary for this process.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> I have read this whole thread in bemusement. BryanC appears to have a big problem with marriage but can't exactly summon the science to explain why. He's trying to sound dispassionate and objective on the matter but it rings false.


Text is a tough medium, but I won't take all the blame for such a wild mis-reading of my position. I bring up marriage as a topic, not because of any deep resentment or personal issues; as I've said my marriage was at worst a waste of an afternoon and a few dollars. It was a minor annoyance, but it is an example of an unnecessary governmental intrusion into the private lives of citizens, and so I suggest we might be better off without it. This is merely a suggestion for discussion; I find it surprising that it has caused so much rancour. Indeed, I think the emotional reaction is indication of the irrational defence of this outdated institution. But don't worry; the scary atheists aren't going to be outlawing marriages anytime soon 



> Please get over it and find the grace to continue in abiding silence over the matter - might do you some good.


Oh _please_. You tell me to shut up because I dare question your sacred social institutions on an internet discussion forum, and then have the gall to to suggest this would be good "grace"?!?

tptptptp



> There are other battles far worthier, methinks.


Well by all means, start a thread about them. God forbid you have to examine your assumptions or social conventions on my account.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Your so called "null" position still means you are a proponent of a position i.e. "marriage is not necessary". You are clearly a proponent of being against marriage which still requires proof to defend your position when the societal norm is marriage across the vast majority of human experience and society.


Social norms have nothing to do with logic. I am arguing against the contention that marriage is necessary/desirable. The fact that it is a position of negation means that it is not a proposition.



> You are in the clear minority...


Again, the popularity of a position has nothing to do with it's logical validity.



> The question is why do *you* feel the need to "correct" the societal norm.


As I've said from the outset, I don't. If you want to get married, fill yer boots. I'm certainly not stopping anyone. I'm just asking why? Perhaps you could explain why this upsets you so?



> You're not happy that for political or governmental reasons you were forced to be married.


Yep... not loosing sleep over it, but it was annoying and I'm wont to wonder why we put up with it.



> it was simply the "easiest" solution for your given situation which you obviously didn't oppose too strongly or otherwise you would not have done so.


It certainly seemed the least objectionable course of action at the time; but why shouldn't I be aggrieved that we were coerced into conforming to a social structure which we find uncomfortable for no good reason.



> either truly stand by your convictions or do not.


Life is not black and white. We balanced the costs and benefits and chose the lesser evil. I was certainly not considering sacrificing my academic career over something as trivial as having to get married.



> by the very fact that you gave into the societal "norm" points to your own hypocrisy.


The fact that you can't discuss this in a civilized manner points to the fact that you're a jerk.



> If you are so adamantly against marriage, get a divorce


I've said over and over that it's not a big deal to me. I just don't see any point in it. Given that the marriage is meaningless to us, why would we go to any effort to get divorced?



> do not continue to stand on your pulpit preaching to the "lowly" and "misguided" who disagree with you from your false and hypocritical high horse.


If you can't have a civilized discussion without degenerating into this sort of thing, feel free to ignore me.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

My daughter hates sauce on her food. Any sauce. Not even ketchup. When people ask her, why don't you like sauce? She responds with, well, why DO you like sauce? That's what this argument reminds me of. I don't need to defend why I believe in marriage and you don't have to defend why you don't. It's a preference, perhaps even a conviction, but so far you've done a p!sspoor job of persuading me to accept your contention that marriage is meaningless. In fact, I think you've helped me become even more entrenched in my beliefs.

One more thing BryanC; would you consider yourself to be someone who likes to argue for the sake of arguing?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> One more thing BryanC; would you consider yourself to be someone who likes to argue for the sake of arguing?


I don't know that bryanc would, but I would consider bryanc someone who likes to argue for the sake of arguing.

Certainly, he does like to throw out provocative statements to generate discussion.... I remember him saying something to that effect at one time, though I don't have a post handy.

And bryan, as for "text is a tough medium", you've been a lot of online discussions for a long time now... surely by now you know how to express yourself accurately? I have to assume that you do, and that how you present yourself is exactly how you mean to present yourself, or else, you are simply unwilling to make the effort to express what you mean. 

People's beliefs about marriage are personal and often deeply held. You cannot reasonably expect to have a discussion about this without it becoming personal for most people, and I would suggest that it is a failing on your part if you are surprised that people express deep feelings about this topic... particularly since this is not the first time this has come up on this board. I don't know if you actually intend to be disingenuous, but it hardly suits you.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> My daughter hates sauce on her food. Any sauce. Not even ketchup. When people ask her, why don't you like sauce? She responds with, well, why DO you like sauce? That's what this argument reminds me of.


Perhaps if your daughter lived in a society where she was expected to have sauce on her food, considered peculiar for not having sauce on her food, not allowed into specific political jurisdictions unless she had sauce on her food, taxed differently due to her sauce-free food, and continuously asked, "when are you going to start putting sauce on her food like a normal adult?" she'd have a good point.



> I don't need to defend why I believe in marriage and you don't have to defend why you don't. It's a preference, perhaps even a conviction


Certainly. And if it had no legal ramifications, that'd be the end of it.



> One more thing BryanC; would you consider yourself to be someone who likes to argue for the sake of arguing?


Well, depending on what you mean by 'arguing.' I derive no pleasure from acrimony, but I do enjoy the exchange of ideas, the testing of logical constructs, and the speculation and testing of hypotheses. So, yes, as long as the participants are not getting emotional and irrational about it, I like arguing.


{edit to add: and, in the sauce argument, the burden of proof would be on the proponents of sauce; it'd be up to them to provide reasons for liking sauce, not up to her to provide reasons for not wanting it.}


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> And bryan, as for "text is a tough medium", you've been a lot of online discussions for a long time now... surely by now you know how to express yourself accurately?


I certainly make an effort to do so, which is why, after having been so abundantly clear and consistent in my position, I take umbrage at being called a hypocrite.



> People's beliefs about marriage are personal and often deeply held. You cannot reasonably expect to have a discussion about this without it becoming personal for most people, and I would suggest that it is a failing on your part if you are surprised that people express deep feelings about this topic.


Why not? I have deep feelings about many things, but have no difficulty discussing them rationally, and no difficulty respecting other's differing beliefs. It's not difficult. That's the whole point of discussion forums, isn't it?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Why not? I have deep feelings about many things, but have no difficulty discussing them rationally, and no difficulty respecting other's differing beliefs. It's not difficult. That's the whole point of discussion forums, isn't it?


You have a very funny way of showing respect for other people's differing beliefs.

I believe your provocative style leads to far more acrimony than you may intend. As many people, myself included, do not prefer to discuss topics from a coldly rational point of view, to assume that people will only choose argue from logos is unreasonable.

In any case, when you take on an issue that is deeply emotional for many people, it's seems rather silly to ignore or dismiss the emotional aspects of it by saying "that's just irrational". It makes the discussion rather narrow, and eliminates a rather large aspect of the human condition.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Well, depending on what you mean by 'arguing.' I derive no pleasure from acrimony, but I do enjoy the exchange of ideas, the testing of logical constructs, and the speculation and testing of hypotheses. So, yes, as long as the participants are not getting emotional and irrational about it, I like arguing.


Fair enough. So long as you realize it does not make for a very easy conversation.




bryanc said:


> {edit to add: and, in the sauce argument, the burden of proof would be on the proponents of sauce; it'd be up to them to provide reasons for liking sauce, not up to her to provide reasons for not wanting it.}


Agreed. So in this analogy, is it the ones who represent the status quo (marriage) here or the ones who want to challenge the status quo (anti-marriage) that are most similar to the person who feels they do not have to defend why they do not like sauce?


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Here is my take on this thread and a little about marriage itself.

I understand point about marriage not being necessary to have a long committed relationship. Specifically getting married does not actually change anything, as being married or not does not change the relationship.

I also find the arguments saying that marriage is necessary for longterm relationships as being ignorant of the fact of what a marriage is. Its a legal contract between two people, nothing more nothing less. If people derive more meaning from getting married, thats good for them, but in the end marriage is just legally documenting a longterm committed relationship.

I also find the opponents to marriage arguments just as ignorant. If you find no value in people getting married, thats fine, but trying to force others to your view is just as bad as people forcing their meaning of marriage upon you.

Also getting married for legal reasons, such as immigration makes sense, otherwise don't get married and allow for the partner to take their chances in regular immigration, and then it wouldn't be a big deal. Since nations wish to control immigration into their countries, they have to draw the line somewhere, and they decided to allow marriage as an exception. There are probably several reasons for the government to document your marriage, whether for immigration purposes, or for legal proof in the case of dissolution of the relationship, but for the most part they probably wouldn't care.

Personally, I will get married. I do not really care about getting married, but I would like to be married. I don't care for the extravagance of getting married, but I will find some additional value in being married. For the most part this will be the legal value of marriage, but will in all likelihood find some intangible value in being married, but it would change nothing in my relationship, and would be no happier either way.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sonal said:


> You have a very funny way of showing respect for other people's differing beliefs.
> 
> I believe your provocative style leads to far more acrimony than you may intend. As many people, myself included, do not prefer to discuss topics from a coldly rational point of view, to assume that people will only choose argue from logos is unreasonable.
> 
> In any case, when you take on an issue that is deeply emotional for many people, it's seems rather silly to ignore or dismiss the emotional aspects of it by saying "that's just irrational". It makes the discussion rather narrow, and eliminates a rather large aspect of the human condition.


What Sonal said, BryanC. I do believe you deliberately sharpen the edge of your arguments because that approach increases the likelihood of your getting another round of sparring partners for your entertainment. And though you are apparently quite happy to discount the emotional quality of people's arguments for (or against) marriage, I don't find that very rational... I choose that word carefully, in consideration of your oft-demonstrated reverence for that term.

Finally, if you do not like the tone of some of your respondents, please remember that you started the thread. It's very silly of you to take umbrage when you were the one who started the fire.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Now, on to the one interesting post since I last checked this thread...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Glad you read what I wrote, sorry you don't see the big picture.

You're stuck on the process of 'getting married'. Look at BIG PICTURE, bryanc. You're getting caught up in mechanisms and not seeing the overall.

Besides which, you perceive 'government' as some third party. As 'them'. The government is not 'them', it's 'us'. Government is society, making rules. Again, the majority thing. 

It's been fun trying to make you see beyond yourself, but ... I'm going to go do something more constructive now.

(Really, read some Rousseau. Please. "SINCE no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men.")


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> You have a very funny way of showing respect for other people's differing beliefs.


How is attempting to have a rational discussion about sociology disrespectful?



> As many people, myself included, do not prefer to discuss topics from a coldly rational point of view, to assume that people will only choose argue from logos is unreasonable.


Really? I'm not aware of any other way to argue. If your position is held on the basis of emotion, faith, aesthetics, or other irrational foundations, it is unassailable. There's we might have a brief discussion, but there's nothing to be learned. It would be like the sauce argument; some people like it, and some people don't. End of story.

Fortunately, in general, our society rarely makes laws about what amounts to personal preferences. Unfortunately, our society has made laws about marriage, and that is one of my primary bones of contention.



> In any case, when you take on an issue that is deeply emotional for many people, it's seems rather silly to ignore or dismiss the emotional aspects of it by saying "that's just irrational". It makes the discussion rather narrow, and eliminates a rather large aspect of the human condition.


Perhaps, but it narrows the scope to something that is worth discussing. As I've said from the outset, if someone *wants* to get married, I have no problem with that. What I object to is the social and legal pressure on those who would prefer not to participate in what many increasingly see as an antiquated and somewhat distasteful tradition.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> So in this analogy, is it the ones who represent the status quo (marriage) here or the ones who want to challenge the status quo (anti-marriage) that are most similar to the person who feels they do not have to defend why they do not like sauce?


The status quo is of no relevance. The proponent, wether it be sauce, god(s), marriage, global warming, or a law, has the burden of proof.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

ertman said:


> I understand point about marriage not being necessary to have a long committed relationship. Specifically getting married does not actually change anything, as being married or not does not change the relationship.
> 
> I also find the arguments saying that marriage is necessary for longterm relationships as being ignorant of the fact of what a marriage is. Its a legal contract between two people, nothing more nothing less. If people derive more meaning from getting married, thats good for them, but in the end marriage is just legally documenting a longterm committed relationship.


Good up to here.



> I also find the opponents to marriage arguments just as ignorant. If you find no value in people getting married, thats fine, but trying to force others to your view is just as bad as people forcing their meaning of marriage upon you.


This is where you go off the rails. I have never argued that anyone should not get married, and have never tried to force my view on anyone. I have argued that most of the 'reasons' for getting married are not logically valid. And I have argued that the State has no business documenting or otherwise tracking citizens private lives. That is all.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> It's very silly of you to take umbrage when you were the one who started the fire.


While it's true that many people have strong emotional/irrational feelings about this issue, there calling me a hypocrite when I have remained honest and consistent throughout the discussion is just rude.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Okay, to summarize, on the off chance that anyone wants to pursue this further:

I have no issue with people who choose to get married; some people like ceremonies and some people don't. That's purely a matter of taste.

But given that the high divorce rate and increasing numbers of couples choosing not to get married makes marital status a useless predictor of the existence of a committed relationship (i.e. there are many married couples who are not really in a committed relationship, and there are many committed couples who are not married), and furthermore, that there is no good reason for the State* to be documenting or otherwise monitoring the private lives of citizens, I contend that marriage no longer serves an essential social function.

* and yes, Sonal, I get it. The government is us. But just as, unless I choose to provide you with information about my personal life it is none of your business, unless I choose to provide the State with this information, it is none of theirs. There is no need for the government to keep track of who is sleeping with who.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Really? I'm not aware of any other way to argue. If your position is held on the basis of emotion, faith, aesthetics, or other irrational foundations, it is unassailable. There's we might have a brief discussion, but there's nothing to be learned. It would be like the sauce argument; some people like it, and some people don't. End of story.
> 
> Fortunately, in general, our society rarely makes laws about what amounts to personal preferences. Unfortunately, our society has made laws about marriage, and that is one of my primary bones of contention.
> 
> Perhaps, but it narrows the scope to something that is worth discussing. As I've said from the outset, if someone *wants* to get married, I have no problem with that. What I object to is the social and legal pressure on those who would prefer not to participate in what many increasingly see as an antiquated and somewhat distasteful tradition.


First, this is not an argument forum, it is a discussion forum. And even if it were an argument forum, you can argue from logos, pathos or ethos. 

Second, there is much to discuss in the emotional realm. Why do you like sauce? What does sauce mean to you? How did you come to this view on sauce? Etc. On another forum I participate in, we get into similar discussions frequently, and they are hardly brief. That you are unwilling to see this or value it with discussion does not mean that there is nothing to discuss.

Third, our society does not make laws about marriages, so much as they make laws about families, and marriage is one way of defining who is family and who is not. Imagine you were trying to move countries with your child instead of your partner.

Fourth, your determination of what is and what is not worth discussing here is a good example of how you AREN'T respectful of other people's views on this subject.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> * and yes, Sonal, I get it. The government is us. But just as, unless I choose to provide you with information about my personal life it is none of your business, unless I choose to provide the State with this information, it is none of theirs. There is no need for the government to keep track of who is sleeping with who.


That was MLeh, not me.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> That was MLeh, not me.


You're right, sorry.



> you can argue from logos, pathos or ethos.


Only the first makes any sense to me, so I don't use the others.



> Second, there is much to discuss in the emotional realm. Why do you like sauce? What does sauce mean to you? How did you come to this view on sauce? Etc.


Because the answers to these questions are not constrained by logic, they can be different for each individual, and therefore all answers are valid. Where all answers are valid, it seems to me that there is nothing to be learned.

I discuss ideas in forms like this because I like to test my thinking against other's who's intellectual capabilities I respect. If I find that my arguments are unable to withstand valid criticism, I am forced to re-examine and change my beliefs. This is how I learn and mature as a person. It is my hope that others benefit similarly from my criticizing their positions.



> That you are unwilling to see this or value it with discussion does not mean that there is nothing to discuss.


Nope. It just means I don't get much out of that kind of discussion.



> Third, our society does not make laws about marriages, so much as they make laws about families, and marriage is one way of defining who is family and who is not. Imagine you were trying to move countries with your child instead of your partner.


I did... don't see the problem. Many common-law couples cross borders without difficulty.



> Fourth, your determination of what is and what is not worth discussing here is a good example of how you AREN'T respectful of other people's views on this subject.


Like marriage, or sauce, I don't expect everyone else to share my tastes, and I'm surprised that people are offended that I have different tastes. I'm not constraining anyone with respect to what they choose to do or discuss; I'm simply choosing for myself what I find worthwhile. How is that disrespectful?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> ...The fact that you can't discuss this in a civilized manner points to the fact that you're a jerk.


Uhhm where was I being uncivilized, the fact that you got married even though you do not believe in it is an act of hypocrisy by definition. It is a simple fact.



bryanc said:


> If you can't have a civilized discussion without degenerating into this sort of thing, feel free to ignore me.


Time and again you have taken this sort of approach... basically talking down to people, you do it with religion you do it with marriage and most other topics, perhaps you aren't even aware of it.

You start a thread asking people what they think of marriage and then when they respond you take on the position of basically telling them why they are misguided if they disagree with your point of view. You sir are the one who displays a lack of civility by not simply accepting that other people do not believe in the same things that you do with feeling the need to not very subtly belittle those beliefs.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The issue in my view with marriage is not the personal commitment but the poor legislation and execution of the legal partnership both regarding children and property.

The body of law is mostly inadequate compared to say corporate laws with minority rights protection and in particular the execution in the courts is a horror show even the purveyors admit to.

Different judge every time and a get em out the door attitude that drags things out for years.

Personal contracts between people both written and unwritten will forever be part of the socialization of H Sapiens - we make living deals with partners.....and will continue to do so.

Legislation like common-in-law rights certainly helps the vulnerable when a partnership breaks.

I have no use for the term marriage in law - too much baggage and it should be off the statues in favour of a asexual civil partnership code with strong protection for kids.......and an effective way to execute in a timely manner.

This dragging out is unacceptable and too much lies at the feet of graspy lawyers.

In my view only lawyers committed to a fair outcome ( non-adversial )( yes they exist ) 
Peel Halton Regions' Collaborative Family Law Website - Lawyers in Brampton
for both parties should be allowed in family court. It's way too important to the kids to allow the sharks to feed on families in stress from break up.

So the institution can be assigned to the dustbin and to those hankering for "the good old days" which weren't.
Let couples choose their own handfast ceremonies and cover them all with a civil partnership code that is fair and can be executed when needed.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

bryanc said:


> * and yes, Sonal, I get it. The government is us. But just as, unless I choose to provide you with information about my personal life it is none of your business, unless I choose to provide the State with this information, it is none of theirs. There is no need for the government to keep track of who is sleeping with who.


That would be 'whom'. Who's sleeping with whom.

Anyway, according to what you've said, the government of the USA made you get married so that both of you could go into their country. Their country, their rules. You did have a choice. Your choice was to not go into their country. I fail to see why you're yelling at us for your choice. You seem to have this real resentment for having to do something that you feel is irrelevant that society deems necessary.

Marriage is relevant because we choose to make it so. The government of the USA has chosen 'legal marriage' as a criteria for people to bring spouses into the country who would not otherwise qualify for admittance into their country. It's a way to control immigration (and mostly illegal immigration of those who cannot otherwise enter the country). Get over it. 

If you choose not to make marriage relevant in your own life, so be it. But yelling the loudest (or writing the most) doesn't make a minority opinion 'right', or other people's opinions 'wrong'. Because: There is no such thing as a right _opinion_. Thank you for sharing your opinion on marriage. We have shared ours.

Shall I anticipate a deja-vu in August 2012?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> things that you do with feeling the need to not very subtly belittle those beliefs.


many "_beliefs_" need belittling. veritably beg for it.......are you afraid of critical dialogue?
Term "_rational understanding_" a foreign one??

sacred cows exist in India - _belief_ devoid of reason is about as sensible.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> You have a very funny way of showing respect for other people's differing beliefs.
> 
> I believe your provocative style leads to far more acrimony than you may intend. As many people, myself included, do not prefer to discuss topics from a coldly rational point of view, to assume that people will only choose argue from logos is unreasonable.
> 
> In any case, when you take on an issue that is deeply emotional for many people, it's seems rather silly to ignore or dismiss the emotional aspects of it by saying "that's just irrational". It makes the discussion rather narrow, and eliminates a rather large aspect of the human condition.


Excellent post Sonal.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> many "_beliefs_" need belittling. veritably beg for it.......are you afraid of critical dialogue?
> Term "_rational understanding_" a foreign one??
> 
> sacred cows exist in India - _belief_ devoid of reason is about as sensible.


Context dear MacDoc, context... if you can't see it then I can't help you.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MLeh said:


> Anyway, according to what you've said, the government of the USA made you get married so that both of you could go into their country. Their country, their rules. You did have a choice. Your choice was to not go into their country. I fail to see why you're yelling at us for your choice. You seem to have this real resentment for having to do something that you feel is irrelevant that society deems necessary.


As I've said, my personal anecdote is of little relevance to this discussion. I used it as a trivial example of how society coerces people who don't want to participate in the institution of marriage into doing so. But that's tangential to the main argument, which is that marriage as an institution has lost importance.



> Marriage is relevant because we choose to make it so.


And many of us choose not to. Therefore it is less relevant than it once was.

Moreover, the reasons for it's (admittedly significant and legitimate) importance in primitive cultures do not pertain to our culture. Therefore I contend it should be removed from our legal system... obviously individuals who wish to continue the tradition are free to do so, but it shouldn't be inflicted on those of us who do not.



> But yelling the loudest (or writing the most) doesn't make a minority opinion 'right', or other people's opinions 'wrong'.


No, logic and evidence makes an opinion right. I have provided my logic and evidence.

It seems that the logic and evidence supporting marriage is that "some of us like it, and we've been doing it this way for a long time" which is fine, but it isn't very compelling logically.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> You're right, sorry.
> 
> Only the first makes any sense to me, so I don't use the others.


You actually use arguments from ethos a lot in other threads. 



bryanc said:


> Because the answers to these questions are not constrained by logic, they can be different for each individual, and therefore all answers are valid. Where all answers are valid, it seems to me that there is nothing to be learned.


In this, we disagree. I find there is much to be learned when all answers are valid.

As a purely practical matter, I also find that more people are forthcoming with their views if their beliefs are not dismissed as being invalid, and similarly that people are more open learning about or trying to understand to a different view if they believe their views are being heard respectfully and not being dismissed by the listener.



bryanc said:


> I discuss ideas in forms like this because I like to test my thinking against other's who's intellectual capabilities I respect. If I find that my arguments are unable to withstand valid criticism, I am forced to re-examine and change my beliefs. This is how I learn and mature as a person. It is my hope that others benefit similarly from my criticizing their positions.
> 
> Nope. It just means I don't get much out of that kind of discussion.


But most people here are not testing out their thinking, and this is not necessarily how most people (myself included) learn or mature as people. 

That you do not get much out of that kind of discussion does not mean that other people don't get much out of that kind of discussion. 

If you choose to argue or discuss in one particular manner, that's up to you, but you shouldn't be so surprised that other people don't discuss or argue in that way, and in fact, many other people don't even _like_ to discuss matters that are often very personal to them in this way.



bryanc said:


> I did... don't see the problem. Many common-law couples cross borders without difficulty.


That is my point. It's relatively easy to prove that your own child is related to you. It is somewhat more complicated to prove that your partner is someone on whom you wish to confer the rights and obligations of being family. A government marriage simplifies that. 

If I have 2 tenants who live together, no written lease, how do I know if they are roommates or partners? For the most part, this does not matter at all to me, but if one of them tries to throw the other out, how do I know who has a right to stay in that apartment and who does not? If one gives me written instructions or demands of some sort that affects both of them, how do I know that this one speaks for both of them or not? If they are family, I can make reasonable assumptions about their mutual rights. If they are not family, I make different assumptions. If it's unclear, then it gets complicated.... what if it's a messy break-up and one person says they are partners and the other does not? What if one person is saying that they are partners to receive a specific benefit from me, but in fact they are not? 

So long as we confer particular rights and obligations based on familial relationships, there will be a need for government involvement in relationships. 



bryanc said:


> Like marriage, or sauce, I don't expect everyone else to share my tastes, and I'm surprised that people are offended that I have different tastes. I'm not constraining anyone with respect to what they choose to do or discuss; I'm simply choosing for myself what I find worthwhile. How is that disrespectful?


You present your views in a sometimes offensive manner--the disrespect is in dismissing another person's views as invalid, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of discussion. 

I'm not offended in your views on marriage, nor am I offended that you do not find it worthwhile. But I do find that you are extremely dismissive of those who do find it worthwhile, and that very disrespectful.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Another excellent post Sonal.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

bryanc said:


> As I've said, my personal anecdote is of little relevance to this discussion. I used it as a trivial example of how society coerces people who don't want to participate in the institution of marriage into doing so. But that's tangential to the main argument, which is that marriage as an institution has lost importance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good lord you're dense.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bryanc said:


> The status quo is of no relevance. The proponent, wether it be sauce, god(s), marriage, global warming, or a law, has the burden of proof.


Wrong, actually. The proponent (you, in this case) is proposing changing something that already exists and has existed for thousands of years. The status quo existed long before you did, worldwide and in many forms, and your view is the sauce. You offer no rationale about why marriage itself should change or be eliminated apart from the fact that you personally do not like it. That's like peeing on everyone else's lunches at a picnic because you didn't like the kind of sandwich you got.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> You actually use arguments from ethos a lot in other threads.


Perhaps I don't know what you mean by 'ethos.' Could you expand on this?



> But most people here are not testing out their thinking, and this is not necessarily how most people (myself included) learn or mature as people.


I don't think anyone feels compelled to participate in this discussion. I certainly don't mean to pressure anyone into a debate in which they don't want to participate. 



> If you choose to argue or discuss in one particular manner, that's up to you, but you shouldn't be so surprised that other people don't discuss or argue in that way, and in fact, many other people don't even _like_ to discuss matters that are often very personal to them in this way.


Again, why would someone engage in this discussion if that's how they felt?



> That is my point. It's relatively easy to prove that your own child is related to you. It is somewhat more complicated to prove that your partner is someone on whom you wish to confer the rights and obligations of being family. A government marriage simplifies that.


Except it clearly doesn't. A government marriage clearly does not mean that two people have any commitment whatsoever. Nor does lack of a government marriage mean that such commitment is absent. It clearly doesn't mean anything, which is my main point. 



> If I have 2 tenants who live together, no written lease, how do I know if they are roommates or partners?


I would argue that, unless you have a romantic interest in one or both of them, it's none of your business.



> if one of them tries to throw the other out, how do I know who has a right to stay in that apartment and who does not?


How is this simplified if they are married?



> So long as we confer particular rights and obligations based on familial relationships, there will be a need for government involvement in relationships.


I would argue that for childless couples, this is best handled through a legal will, and that once children are present, the relationship is defined by biology (unless explicitly legally defined otherwise (surrogates, etc.)). 



> You present your views in a sometimes offensive manner--the disrespect is in dismissing another person's views as invalid, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of discussion.


I hereby apologize if anyone finds my manner offensive. That is not my intent. I am simply endeavouring to be clear. 



> But I do find that you are extremely dismissive of those who do find it worthwhile, and that very disrespectful.


I don't think this is fair. I have been very consistent in my position that, for those who enjoy or otherwise value marriage, I think that's great. My argument from the outset has been that the importance of marriage in society is diminishing, and I think that's a good thing. Furthermore, I've argued that governments should play no role in this aspect of people's personal lives. 

For this, I'm accused of hypocrisy and being dense.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> Wrong, actually. The proponent (you, in this case) is proposing changing something that already exists and has existed for thousands of years.


I suggest a remedial course in logic. Ironic given your choice of avatar.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

"Because the answers to these questions are not constrained by logic, they can be different for each individual, and therefore all answers are valid. Where all answers are valid, it seems to me that there is nothing to be learned." — bryanc

Well, that pretty much sums it up then. This would suggest that there must be winners or losers in your "conversations" or else there is no point in having them. This would also explain why several ehMac members with very interesting things to say stopped contributing several pages ago. Respect for one another is what you are not bringing to the table here, my friend.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bryanc said:


> In another thread, regarding a news story about a lost wedding band being returned 13 years after it was stolen, Dr. T remarked:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I call "bait and switch." The very first post you set up was for a poll about how marriage might change in the future. But if you were really looking for people to respond to this question, you undermined by replying to your own question about why you think marriage is meaningless. So the last hundred responses or so have all focussed on this very narrow part of your original question, mostly because you set it up that way—to argue about why you dislike marriage and point out why others are mistaken if they support it. This is not logic at all; it is clear manipulation.

People who voted in this poll from the few choices presented probably did not think they were going to have to defend their beliefs. That assumption would be illogical based on the construct of the poll. A more likely result would have been for people to discuss possibilities about how marriage could change in the future, things like time limits on marriages before vows must be renewed, for example, or marriage laws being modified to allow for inter-species marriages when the aliens finally arrive. But instead we have ten pages of responses to this one contention you hold: marriages suck.

It is pretty obvious to me and to Sonal and I imagine to many others that you're arguments are not based on logic at all, but rather emotion due to your own personal experience. If you had not been "coerced" into marriage, as you say, to your wife (lucky her, says my wife) you probably would have no reason for even presenting this "poll" in the first place. Therefore, it is logical to assume that your reasons for starting this argument are purely emotional ones, masquerading under the guise of logic.

On this, both my avatar and me are in agreement.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

As much as I enjoyed the 'peeing on the picnic' analogy used earlier, I really think this is more akin to a two year old asking why he has to go to bed, whilst vehemently denying that he's tired, while getting more and more cranky.

So ... again, bryanc, thank you for sharing your _opinion_ with us regarding government and marriages. 

I will state, once again: There is no such thing as a wrong opinion. You're entitled to yours. However, in society today apparently you hold a minority opinion. If you wish to sway the majority of opinions to your side, then I would suggest a tack (or even tact) slightly different than approaching the discussion as a win/lose (where you must win and everyone else who doesn't share your opinion must lose) proposition. 

Moreover, in having a rational discussion, it is useful to be able to have empathy for the other opinion. You're stuck with knowing your opinion (marriage for you is useless, and you resent the intrusion of 'government' into your private life), but you cannot, will not, or chose not to listen to the myriad of reasons, both individual and corporate (or societal), for having a convention such as marriage available to individuals who wish to easily proclaim to the world "I choose to spend my life with this person".

I will quote, once again, Rousseau. "Since no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men." In other words, the majority of public opinion forms the basis for rules in our society. It's THAT simple. You're making it personal, which when discussing society, is not logical. What is best for the one is not necessarily the best for all.

The reasons behind marriage are myriad, both modern and historical. Read the previous posts. 

The needs of the many are greater than the needs of the few. Or the one. Or you.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

"The needs of the many are greater than the needs of the few. Or the one."

I believe my avatar said something like that in The Wrath of Khan.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> This would suggest that there must be winners or losers in your "conversations" or else there is no point in having them.


It's not a zero-sum game. Aspects of one's thinking on a topic can be changed, while simultaneously strengthening other aspects of your thinking on the same topic. Earlier in the thread, I itemized 5 rational reasons in support of marriage, and I believe it was Sonal who added a 6th. That has changed my thinking on the subject. As it happens none of these reasons apply to me, but I'm perfectly willing to accept that they may apply to others.



> Respect for one another is what you are not bringing to the table here, my friend.


You do me a disservice. I explicitly set up the options in the poll to respect other viewpoints, and I have been very clear throughout that if people have their personal/emotional/irrational reasons for wanting to get married, that's fine with me; that's not what I'm arguing against. It's the government/socially mandated importance of marriage that I'm arguing against. And furthermore, I'm just arguing this position; I'm not saying you have to agree, but if you don't I'd like to know why. If you don't want to argue, then don't. There's no need to get upset about it.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> "The needs of the many are greater than the needs of the few. Or the one."
> 
> I believe my avatar said something like that in The Wrath of Khan.


Well, the actor playing the character of Spock did. Which I why I used it. 

Didn't know avatars could speak ... (If mine could, it would be making a crunching slurping noise.)


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> I call "bait and switch." The very first post you set up was for a poll about how marriage might change in the future. But if you were really looking for people to respond to this question, you undermined by replying to your own question about why you think marriage is meaningless. So the last hundred responses or so have all focussed on this very narrow part of your original question, mostly because you set it up that way—to argue about why you dislike marriage and point out why others are mistaken if they support it. This is not logic at all; it is clear manipulation.


So I'm not allowed to explain my reasons for the selection I made in my own poll?

I didn't define how the discussion would go; I asked for people's opinions, provided mine, and my reasoning for mine. Other's provided their reasoning and I explained why I disagree (to the extent that I do... there's not much point in talking about why we agree).



> People who voted in this poll from the few choices presented probably did not think they were going to have to defend their beliefs.


They certainly don't have to if they don't want to.



> That assumption would be illogical based on the construct of the poll. A more likely result would have been for people to discuss possibilities about how marriage could change in the future, things like time limits on marriages before vows must be renewed, for example, or marriage laws being modified to allow for inter-species marriages when the aliens finally arrive.


That sounds like an interesting discussion; I'd be interested in what you think might happen and, more importantly, your reasons for thinking this. And I'd be similarly surprised if you got all bent out of shape if I disagreed and explained why.



> But instead we have ten pages of responses to this one contention you hold: marriages suck.


This is what people have chosen to discuss, and that is not my position. My position is that marriages are unnecessary and should not be part of our legal system.



> It is pretty obvious to me and to Sonal and I imagine to many others that you're arguments are not based on logic at all, but rather emotion due to your own personal experience. If you had not been "coerced" into marriage, as you say, to your wife (lucky her, says my wife) you probably would have no reason for even presenting this "poll" in the first place. Therefore, it is logical to assume that your reasons for starting this argument are purely emotional ones, masquerading under the guise of logic.
> 
> On this, both my avatar and me are in agreement.


You and your fictional friend are completely wrong. I had this opinion of marriage long before I got married*, which is why I use the example of having been coerced by the US government into getting married as evidence of people who don't want to get married being pressured to do so.

{edit to add: * actually, that's not quite true, my opposition to marriage used to be somewhat stronger, but my position has softened as the result of discussions like these. }


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MLeh said:


> I will state, once again: There is no such thing as a wrong opinion.


That depends on the topic about which the opinion is held. If I have the opinion that hydrogen is heavier than oxygen, I'm wrong.

On this topic, there is obviously far more room for disagreement, which is why it's interesting to discuss.



> ....different than approaching the discussion as a win/lose (where you must win and everyone else who doesn't share your opinion must lose) proposition.


That is not the terminology I used, and it is not how I think of these sorts of discussions. In order for an interesting point to be made, or for me to reconsider my position, some valid logical reasoning or evidence must be presented. But there is no reason that everyone participating can't "win" in that we can all learn from the process. It seems to me this is only going to happen if people provide a rational basis for their positions. 



> Moreover, in having a rational discussion, it is useful to be able to have empathy for the other opinion. You're stuck with knowing your opinion (marriage for you is useless, and you resent the intrusion of 'government' into your private life), but you cannot, will not, or chose not to listen to the myriad of reasons, both individual and corporate (or societal), for having a convention such as marriage available to individuals who wish to easily proclaim to the world "I choose to spend my life with this person".


On the contrary, I have accepted at least half a dozen good reasons for this.



> I will quote, once again, Rousseau. "Since no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men." In other words, the majority of public opinion forms the basis for rules in our society. It's THAT simple. You're making it personal, which when discussing society, is not logical.


I understand this. In fact this is largely the point of this discussion. I'm suggesting our conventions with regard to marriage are antiquated. The fact that they're old, well-established conventions doesn't mean they are optimal for our current society, and I have provided reason and evidence that marriage is becoming increasingly irrelevant to support this argument.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I understand this. In fact this is largely the point of this discussion. I'm suggesting our conventions with regard to marriage are antiquated. The fact that they're old, well-established conventions doesn't mean they are optimal for our current society, and I have provided reason and evidence that marriage is becoming increasingly irrelevant to support this argument.


You've provided reason and evidence that marriage is irrelevant to you, but not to society.

You have to acknowledge the humans make decisions based upon emotions, and that emotions are part of the DNA. You can't separate rational and emotional reasoning so easily, because the brain is wired for 'self justification', so that what we perceive as rational reasons, others may perceive as emotional responses. 

Marriages (and 'weddings') are fraught with emotional & rational connotations, both individually and societally. These connotations are comfortable, known, and definable. There are expectations that go with the whole package. These expectations (eg: fidelity, longevity) are part of the emotional baggage that go with the whole concept of marriage. 

If we don't call them 'marriages', then they will still exist, but with some other name: common law, civil unions, whatever. There will be a re-defined expectation that goes with each denominator.

There is no 'optimal', there is only what works best for the majority for a civilized society.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MLeh said:


> You've provided reason and evidence that marriage is irrelevant to you, but not to society.


Hmm... okay, I haven't convinced you. Obviously it's irrelevant to me, but that's irrelevant 

The point I'm trying to make is that the institution of marriage was invented to serve a variety of sociological and emotional purposes (largely, to provide priests with power over the reproductive agenda of the tribe -- you can marry her (right race, right religion), but not her (wrong race/religion/social caste, etc)), but that these purposes are either idiosyncratic personal preferences which need no formal recognition in our legal system, or are entirely obsolete.



> You have to acknowledge the humans make decisions based upon emotions


Yep... usually bad ones 

But this isn't what I'm interested in discussing... As I've said over and over, if you want to get married, or have some ceremony where you sacrifice 3 1/2 jars of tomato sauce to the spaghetti monster, that's fine with me. It's just none of the government's business.



> If we don't call them 'marriages', then they will still exist, but with some other name: common law, civil unions, whatever. There will be a re-defined expectation that goes with each denominator.


Of course they will, and I have no quarrel with that. I just don't see any need for the government to participate or document these irrational behaviours any more than they document people's favourite music.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

bryanc said:


> But this isn't what I'm interested in discussing... As I've said over and over, if you want to get married, or have some ceremony where you sacrifice 3 1/2 jars of tomato sauce to the spaghetti monster, that's fine with me. It's just none of the government's business.
> 
> 
> I just don't see any need for the government to participate or document these irrational behaviours any more than they document people's favourite music.


In your specific case, perhaps the government of the USA felt (or feels) that the formal, public, commitment of "marriage" means that you have a lesser chance be a drain on the social support infrastructure should you be unable to work (due to whatever) in your chosen country of residence at the time.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MLeh said:


> In your specific case, perhaps the government of the USA felt (or feels) that the formal, public, commitment of "marriage" means that you have a lesser chance be a drain on the social support infrastructure should you be unable to work (due to whatever) in your chosen country of residence at the time.


Presumably that was the justification for that specific event. Is there good evidence to support this public policy? I think not. But this isn't the US... and this forum explicitly exists to discuss Canadian issues, so to bring the issue home, should Canada implement this sort of policy (we currently don't, as is evidenced by the abundance of common law partners (and their children) we allow into Canada on various types of visas - my Ph.D. supervisor was one of several examples I was aware of when refused entry to the US).

Given that we have established that marriage is of essentially no predictive value when assaying the long-term stability of a relationship, I would argue no. Further, I would argue that the government has no business trying to assay the stability of our relationships, so this is a fool's errand; they should be focusing their limited resources on aspects of societies to which they can contribute.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

bryanc said:


> Good up to here.


I agree, good up to here.



bryanc said:


> This is where you go off the rails. I have never argued that anyone should not get married, and have never tried to force my view on anyone. I have argued that most of the 'reasons' for getting married are not logically valid. And I have argued that the State has no business documenting or otherwise tracking citizens private lives. That is all.


I think you have left the rails quite a few pages ago. You agree _only_ if I state the an opinion that you can agree with and ignore any logical rationality with arguments you disagree with. I also don't believe I had quoted you or mentioned you specifically as being the opponent, but rather an aggregate of opinions.

So to address specifically what offends you....

1) Yes, you have try and force your view on others. For example, you keep arguing about how the reasons for getting married are not logically valid, and refusing to accept that the illogical reasons are good enough. If it was all about logical rationality, there would never be ceremonies for getting married.

2) The State does have business in documenting marriages between people. Part of this is for the legal protection of the individuals involved (can be mitigated through legal documents such as wills), and a good example of another is to enforce national immigration policies (can be mitigate through normal immigration). If you choose to not to get married and you are not held by the limitations or need of the legal requirements, than you do not need to get married or have the state record it, and it won't. If you do need or are limited by these legal requirements, and choose to still not get married, there are other available options. For the immigration example, one could take a chance and apply for immigration, but take the risk of being denied. Whether you agree with the immigration policies or not, it is a logical and rational reason to get married, as is the legal requirement.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Why is anyone interested in continuing this "debate" with someone who clearly isn't in the least bit interested in opposing view points and respecting them for what they are... "logic" is bryanc's only perspective on anything despite the fact that there are a multitude of reasons why people do things beside logic.. he just doesn't get it nor does he want to try and get it as for him "logic" is the only reason why any one would do anything...

I wonder if he has sex just because it feels good, even if procreation is the only "logical" reason to have sex????.....

Perhaps he is like Any Warhol and wishes he was a machine... at least Andy only wished that for himself and not everyone else....


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Perhaps I don't know what you mean by 'ethos.' Could you expand on this?


A loose definition would be 'credibility.' Particularly in scientific discussion, you are very quick to try to convince or dismiss arguments based on either your credibility as a scientist, or based on the scientific credibility of other people. An appeal purely from logos does not take into account who is presenting the information, or in what manner or form (i.e., weblog vs. peer-reviewed journal) it is being presented.

You can argue that it's only logical to take into account someone's credibility, but it's really somewhat arbitrary. I only have your word for it that you are a scientist, and that you are presenting your arguments truthfully--there's no reason I couldn't start from the assumption that you are lying about your profession, that you are pretending to be someone else, or even that you are a bona fide scientist who is simply ***king with everyone here for the heck of it. (I don't actually think that, by the way.) 



bryanc said:


> I don't think anyone feels compelled to participate in this discussion. I certainly don't mean to pressure anyone into a debate in which they don't want to participate.
> 
> Again, why would someone engage in this discussion if that's how they felt?


You see this as a debate. I see this as a sharing of ideas, i.e., to present them, discuss them, but not necessarily argue their validity or invalidity. 

And frankly, very few people don't enjoy sharing their opinion when asked for it. That doesn't mean they want to debate or defend their opinion. 



bryanc said:


> Except it clearly doesn't. A government marriage clearly does not mean that two people have any commitment whatsoever. Nor does lack of a government marriage mean that such commitment is absent. It clearly doesn't mean anything, which is my main point.


I never said anything about commitment. Being related by blood does not mean commitment either, but we still grant rights and privileges to family members in the event of such things such as death, sickness, immigration, etc. 

A government marriage indicates that two people have agreed to clearly designate the other as family, and therefore the government is permitted to assign the rights and privileges that are normally given to close family members to those people. A divorce means that the government is not longer permitted to do so. In the absence of a legal marriage, the government is forced to guess.

Actually, a great example of this Stieg Larsson. (The guy who wrote The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, etc.) He chose not to marry his lifelong partner because it would have possibly endangered her life. He left a will, but after his death it was found to be invalid. Consequently, his estate, the copyrights to his books, the copyrights to his future (unpublished, but partially written or planned) works in the same series, etc., are in the hands of his father and brother from whom he was estranged--according to his partner. There's a legal battle in place over this. 



bryanc said:


> I would argue that, unless you have a romantic interest in one or both of them, it's none of your business.
> 
> How is this simplified if they are married?


Normally, it's none of my business and I don't even want to know. However, if they are family, I can make reasonable assumptions they are co-tenants with equal rights to the tenancy and can act accordingly. If they aren't, I have to make guesses, and if I get conflicting information from the two tenants, this takes a long time to sort out. 

My argument here, essentially, is that the government's involvement in marriage is a convenience for them. If you do not wish to participate in this convenience, you don't have to, but it gives the government more room to screw things up or decide things in a manner that you may not approve of, but may have no ability to counteract.



bryanc said:


> I don't think this is fair. I have been very consistent in my position that, for those who enjoy or otherwise value marriage, I think that's great. My argument from the outset has been that the importance of marriage in society is diminishing, and I think that's a good thing. Furthermore, I've argued that governments should play no role in this aspect of people's personal lives.


I believe you are misunderstanding me, so I will endeavour to make things clearer. 

I don't care what you think about marriage. I have no personal issue with your views. I understand perfectly well that you are not at all opposed to the fact that other people choose to marry, and you would be happy if all those who wanted to marry could marry, and all those that didn't want to marry didn't have to for any reason.

I do think, however, that you are dismissive of people's arguments as to why they choose to do so, and that to ask people for their views and then dismiss those views as irrational, irrelevant or invalid is very disrespectful to those people. 

There are other ways of disagreeing that are not so disrespectful. 

My issue is not that you disagree or do not find these arguments worthy, but it's the manner in which you express this shows very little respect.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Actually, bryanc's version of logic is very much rooted in emotion. Otherwise, he wouldn't be so easily offended when someone calls him a hypocrite.

Also, when you REALLY want to solicit the opinions of others in an objective, non-confrontational way, you don't start off by revealing your own biases in your opening statement. In fact, you try to keep your biases as hidden as possible so as not to skew the results. That would be simply logical. To further argue with the responders because you don't like their answers; well, this would be the antithesis of a non-biased, objective survey where the results could be analyzed logically. 

The only trend I see from this discussion is that the intent of the original survey question has all but disappeared from the discussion, and that people have many prejudices when it comes to discussions about marriage, both pro and con.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

screature said:


> Why is anyone interested in continuing this "debate" with someone who clearly isn't in the least bit interested in opposing view points and respecting them for what they are... "logic" is bryanc's only perspective on anything despite the fact that the are a multitude of reasons why people do things beside logic.. he just doesn't get it nor does he want to try and get it as for him "logic" is the only reason why any one would do anything...
> 
> I wonder if he has sex just because it feels good, even if procreation is the only "logical" reason to have sex????.....
> 
> Perhaps he is like Andy Warhol and wishes he was a machine... at least Andy only wished that for himself and not everyone else....


Well, he's feeling superior, and I'm secure in the knowledge that he's just making an idiot of himself in public by 'not getting it'. So, I have no vested interest in actually 'winning' the discussion. It's just an exercise in trying to expand his brain and thinking processes a little bit.

I find it amusing to see where he agrees with me on some specific items, but completely fails to see the big picture. (Like agreeing that 'we' are the government, but then not getting that the interests of society at large might be integrated with creating known, stable systems of socialization and interaction, and these systems are enacted via 'rules'.)

I certainly don't take it personally, which is where most people get upset. Just consider him to be the poster child of 'motivated through self-interest only', and carry on.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Actually, bryanc's version of logic is very much rooted in emotion. Otherwise, he wouldn't be so easily offended when someone calls him a hypocrite.


Well, I'd also say that if he indeed got married against his will 17 years ago, has chosen not to get a divorce due to not wishing to throw good money after bad, and the meaningless legal marriage has not adversely affected his life or relationship thereafter, the reasonable thing to do after all this time is to just *let it go.*


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Sonal said:


> Well, I'd also say that if he indeed got married against his will 17 years ago, has chosen not to get a divorce due to not wishing to throw good money after bad, and the meaningless legal marriage has not adversely affected his life or relationship thereafter, the reasonable thing to do after all this time is to just *let it go.*


Indeed. Fascinating. I applaud the logic you have used in arriving at this conclusion.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Incidentally, there are a lot of statistical problems with that we have a high divorce rate and that it's increasing... it depends on how you measure the rates. collect the data, and most people misinterpret the statistics.

Robert Hughes: What is the real divorce rate in the US?
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/29/opinion/29wolfers.html


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MLeh said:


> Well, he's feeling superior, and I'm secure in the knowledge that he's just making an idiot of himself in public by 'not getting it'. So, I have no vested interest in actually 'winning' the discussion. It's just an exercise in trying to expand his brain and thinking processes a little bit.
> 
> I find it amusing to see where he agrees with me on some specific items, but completely fails to see the big picture. (Like agreeing that 'we' are the government, but then not getting that the interests of society at large might be integrated with creating known, stable systems of socialization and interaction, and these systems are enacted via 'rules'.)
> 
> *I certainly don't take it personally, which is where most people get upset. Just consider him to be the poster child of 'motivated through self-interest only', and carry on.*


I don't take it personally either beyond his desire to diminish the intellect/opinions of those who oppose his view point, especially after he started a thread asking for the opinions of others only to then attempt to belittle them according to his own Weltanschauung/world view/opinion/personal perspective... that I find offensive, especially when he tries to make his subjective experience an objective view point defended by "logic" for that which is not necessarily strictly logical in the first place.

It must be slow days at the university....

In all honesty my post was not meant to be critical of those who continue to engage with him but was meant as a rhetorical question.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Once bryanc told us about humanity's terrible carbon footprint, then admitted he had a pet dog, I realized logic is only a limited tool for him.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

Well played, sir.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Personally, I don't know why one would bother discussing issues around marriage, after all academics should have no business in the nation's bedrooms ............................................ or was that government.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

The fact that this thread still has legs seems testimony to how strong people's feelings about it still are - even in this day and age.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Max said:


> The fact that this thread still has legs seems testimony to how strong people's feelings about it still are - even in this day and age.


Some statistics show (depending on how and what you measure) that the divorce rate has been* falling *for the last 25 years.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bryanc said:


> The point I'm trying to make is that the institution of marriage was invented to serve a variety of sociological and emotional purposes (largely, to provide priests with power over the reproductive agenda of the tribe -- you can marry her (right race, right religion), but not her (wrong race/religion/social caste, etc)), but that these purposes are either idiosyncratic personal preferences which need no formal recognition in our legal system, or are entirely obsolete...


OK, here's a point I find interesting and would like to hear more about. Subsets of the total population certainly like to have their own tribe proliferate in reproductive terms, as though we are not all of the same species, and many religions have rules about marrying "outside of the faith." This is really more of a religious argument than a governmental one, though I suppose the two are historically well-connected. I can also see cases where polygamy rights could be granted in the future if enough people started watching Big Love, but given the last couple of seasons, the reverse could also be true. I am intrigued by the changing of age limits, gender limits, and even species limits (humans and aliens, for example) with respect to marriage in the future, however. Will it be expanded to include a union between two consenting sentient beings at some point? Maybe as long as their offspring vow to donate to the right church or political organization...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Been thinking along much the same lines, however fantastical it often seems, at least on the surface.

We witnessed a major change in terms of gender roles when the pill came on the scene. I think that was merely the beginning of a long series of alterations and attendant challenges to societal norms and what we consider to be "natural."

If medical technology and genetics continues to progress along the same arc it's been on for many years now, I expect it will one day become commonplace for individuals to switch genders, or even to 'mix' genders. If people think marriage is having a tough time of it now, it's going to be facing even more challenges in the future. That said, I don't seriously expect it as an institution to become extinct. It operates on too many levels, not all of which are readily apparent. As has been noted in this thread, marriage confers intangible benefits. You can't measure that stuff, sadly. Such a claim won't work for our friend bryanc, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that a significant subset of society believes in those intangible benefits nonetheless.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> The fact that this thread still has legs seems testimony to how strong people's feelings about it still are - even in this day and age.


I somewhat agree... but truth be told I think if you look at the majority of the posts you will see that they are not based on a discussion about the value of marriage or what people feel about the institution of marriage. The majority of the posts directly address the "aggressive" and dismissive nature of bryanc's posts... trying to tell him he needs to listen to others whether he agrees with them or not. Those constitute the majority of the exchanges here.

If bryanc were willing to listen to others and simply state his view point and then politely agree to disagree this thread would probably have half the posts it does now.... 

Or maybe it would have the same number but with posts that actually refer to the subject matter rather than bryanc's manner when speaking to others in a public forum.

IMO the majority of posters have simply expressed "live and let live".... it seems bryanc is the only one with an agenda or a bone to pick.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I dunno that bryanc is the only one with a bone to pick; I can't agree to that. I don't know anyone without an agenda. Surely some merely mask theirs more skillfully than others.

As much as his provocative style contributes to the thread, I also think that there's plenty of discussion about the state of marriage in our culture. It's a good thread, inasmuch as we get to air our views on this contentious topic.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> I dunno that bryanc is the only one with a bone to pick; I can't agree to that. I don't know anyone without an agenda. Surely some merely mask theirs more skillfully than others.
> 
> As much as his provocative style contributes to the thread, I also think that there's plenty of discussion about the state of marriage in our culture. It's a good thread, inasmuch as we get to air our views on this contentious topic.


Ok true enough... but he started the thread with a bone to pick... 

Some people's agenda relate only to them or their relatively small sphere of influence, i.e. their children and even then they try to remain as neutral as possible, I know many people like this.

I think the thread had/has potential despite the authors superior tone.

I really don't see much contention aside from those who have a problem with bryanc's demeanour.

I have my own view points regarding marriage which are extremely personal and have absolutely nothing to do with the greater society surrounding me and I may be interested in discussing them if it weren't for bryanc determining the validity or logic of those views, as such I have only expressed the most neutral viewpoint that I can truly offer that cannot logically be denied by bryanc... "live and let live'.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> Ok true enough... but he started the thread with a bone to pick...
> 
> Some people's agenda relate only to them or their relatively small sphere of influence, i.e. their children and even then they try to remain as neutral as possible, I know many people like this.
> 
> ...


Who knows? That may change too. We humans always have room for growth. It's only logical that when faced with persuasive arguments from others, one is indeed wise to throw in the towel now and again. Call it the "HP Principle."


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I wonder if polygamy is the next battleground for legal marriage.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Screature: I'm gonna take a wild guess that not everyone who has participated in this thread is in favour of, say, gay marriage. So I think contentiousness exists, we're just not talking about it. People have different ideas about fidelity, monogamy, passion, what the marriage pact entails. I think our differences seethe beneath the surface. We like to be polite about sharing our opinions, but that also means we tend to paper over our differences from time to time. I almost think it's a national trait.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Sonal said:


> I wonder if polygamy is the next battleground for legal marriage.


Probably. Beyond that, there's not much left that consists of consenting adults, except marrying a relative. Yeah, I think society will accept polygamy before that.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Polygamy equally applied? To men as well as to women? I won't hold my breath. That's going to take awhile, methinks.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

hayesk said:


> Probably. Beyond that, there's not much left that consists of consenting adults, except marrying a relative. Yeah, I think society will accept polygamy before that.


Cousin marriage is actually legal almost everywhere in the Western world EXCEPT some US states.

Facts about cousin marriage | Cousin Marriage Resources

Polygamy will be a tough one (and yes, Max, I assume equality for all genders in that) but I think those arguments will again challenge and possibly redefine our collective notions of marriage and family.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Hey Sonal: Just so we're clear, I'm all for said equality in polygamous marriages. Just a guess here but I expect there's more widespread opposition to it (regarding one wife with multiple husbands) than for the other case. Double standards, yeah.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Hey Sonal: Just so we're clear, I'm all for said equality in polygamous marriages. Just a guess here but I expect there's more widespread opposition to it (regarding one wife with multiple husbands) than for the other case. Double standards, yeah.


So we're clear, I'm uncomfortable with the whole idea of polyamory/polygamy, though I have absolutely no logical reason for it.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Max said:


> Hey Sonal: Just so we're clear, I'm all for said equality in polygamous marriages. Just a guess here but I expect there's more widespread opposition to it (regarding one wife with multiple husbands) than for the other case. Double standards, yeah.


There's an episode of Raising Hope that dealt with that very topic—one wife with multiple husbands. Friggin' hilarious!





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sonal - polyamory - thanks for supplying the correct term.

I dunno.... my discomfort with it resides in the notion that, if one is but one of many partners all sharing a single wife/husband, one must be prepared to share in the doling out of affections, attention, gifts (both symbolic and substantial, etc.). In effect, one is likely engaged in a series of competitions with co-wives/husbands. Like Tina Turner sang:_ what's love got to do with it?_

Polygamy often seems to be yet another means of symbolically and literally expressing one's degree of power and influence within a greater society. At the base level, it's a status thing. Don't know about polyamory; are their well-documented instances of it in matriarchal cultures? I'm not well versed in this stuff. Heck - in my view, it's hard enough to work one-on-one with a single partner, never mind juggling a harem!


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

MLeh said:


> Marriage is part of the 'social contract' of society. It is a formalized method of denoting relationships. Even if there is no formal marriage ceremony, there is a social construct of the relationship which indicates that, in our society_ the way it has developed_ monogamy is the desired goal. Having a wedding merely makes it easier for people who are not formally associated with the couple to know that there is a relationship - husband, wife, child(ren), and of less importance, in-laws.
> 
> I suggest you read some Rousseau, and find learn about the differences between individual rights and societal rights. Marriage is necessary in our society because without it there would be conflict in males vying for apparently available females, and the right to have sex with the most desirable females (with the ultimate goal, bred in our genes, of propagating our own genes, contraception notwithstanding). Sex/relationships is the human goal, procreation is the genetic one.
> 
> ...


Just had to point out that this is a great response.

My wife and I (2 years last Sunday) made the biggest commitment of all to remain true to ourselves and make ourselves happy first. The inevitable result is, since we happen to both be monogamists first and foremost, that we'd want to pledge to spend our lives together and every day we renew that choice. We've both been hurt in the past (and just as importantly, each broke our share of hearts) so we know our boundaries. And the point of retaining ANY of the legal/traditional conventions had a great deal to do with societal norms but we had already discussed this in advance and knew we could do those things (things that would make certain grandparents happy) in a way that reinforced our own world beliefs. So I find it funny that while the underlying issue is whether the institution of marriage itself is at question the motivations are always the most important part. I'm relatively certain that had I never once attended a wedding before in my life, our wedding ceremony wouldn't have looked much different (with perhaps the exception of exchanging rings but I'll be honest we always liked the simple elegance of it, symbolism aside, so we did it anyway).

And the $140 to get married legally? We're planning to have kids or adopt, and because my wife is keeping her last name and we travel a lot, we looked at it as a convenience tax. Less hassle at borders.

Also we were considering not getting married until it became legal across Canada and the US for same sex couples to marry but after a few conversations decided that there may be better ways to show our support for the cause. Happily there seems to be some progress on this front.

Anyways I'm rambling, I more or less just wanted to play devils advocate in saying that answering to societal pressures and staying true to your own spiritual/secular values may not be as difficult as most people think. Many don't or aren't given the opportunity to discover this for themselves.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> A government marriage indicates that two people have agreed to clearly designate the other as family, and therefore the government is permitted to assign the rights and privileges that are normally given to close family members to those people. A divorce means that the government is not longer permitted to do so. In the absence of a legal marriage, the government is forced to guess.
> 
> Actually, a great example of this Stieg Larsson. (The guy who wrote The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, etc.) He chose not to marry his lifelong partner because it would have possibly endangered her life. He left a will, but after his death it was found to be invalid. Consequently, his estate, the copyrights to his books, the copyrights to his future (unpublished, but partially written or planned) works in the same series, etc., are in the hands of his father and brother from whom he was estranged--according to his partner. There's a legal battle in place over this.


This is a good argument against my contention that government has no business in people's private lives. Perhaps this is what MLeh was trying to get at, but I didn't get it.


On the topic of ethos


> A loose definition would be 'credibility.' Particularly in scientific discussion, you are very quick to try to convince or dismiss arguments based on either your credibility as a scientist, or based on the scientific credibility of other people. An appeal purely from logos does not take into account who is presenting the information, or in what manner or form (i.e., weblog vs. peer-reviewed journal) it is being presented.
> 
> You can argue that it's only logical to take into account someone's credibility, but it's really somewhat arbitrary.


The only time I argue that one should accept the judgements of authorities on the subject is when the topic is of a nature that requires special expertise that the participants in the discussion lack. This is not because I think we should just believe what authorities say (far from it), but rather, that unless you have the necessary expertise to analyze the data yourself, it is foolish to disagree with those who do have that expertise.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> OK, here's a point I find interesting and would like to hear more about. Subsets of the total population certainly like to have their own tribe proliferate in reproductive terms, as though we are not all of the same species, and many religions have rules about marrying "outside of the faith." This is really more of a religious argument than a governmental one, though I suppose the two are historically well-connected.


Yes, they certainly are well connected historically. And this makes up the majority of my antipathy to marriage; I do not like the idea of my personal relationships being dictated/documented/monitored or even of interest to the authorities, be they governments or churches. While I can't imagine why someone would want to having their personal relationships made public, I've never objected to those who choose to do so.

The case that Sonal (and MLeh?) have made clear to me, is that by making your relationship public, you facilitate the ability of strangers to make correct judgements regarding how you might want them to behave with respect to your spouse in the event that you are unable to communicate that yourself. I had thought of this problem, and thought it was adequately addressed by a will, but apparently not. I will have to think about this some more to see if there may be a better solution than public marriages.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> marriage confers intangible benefits. You can't measure that stuff, sadly. Such a claim won't work for our friend bryanc, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that a significant subset of society believes in those intangible benefits nonetheless.


On the contrary, I'm well aware of the fact that most people like marriages (and other ritualized behaviour, like graduation ceremonies, etc.), and I've never argued that anyone who wants to shouldn't get married. I've argued that the ritual serves no rational purpose, and that the value it has to some people does not pertain to others, and therefore that what remaining social/governmental pressures on people to get married should be eliminated.

I think the current point of argument is "does the convenience of providing the government with information about your personal relationships justify the loss of privacy?" I'm still inclined to say no, but I have to admit it's not a straight forward question.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

bryanc said:


> On the contrary, I'm well aware of the fact that most people like marriages (and other ritualized behaviour, like graduation ceremonies, etc.), and I've never argued that anyone who wants to shouldn't get married. I've argued that the ritual serves no rational purpose, and that the value it has to some people does not pertain to others, and therefore that what remaining social/governmental pressures on people to get married should be eliminated.


Do _all_ rites of passage serve no rational purpose in your world, bryanc? Astonishing.

Viewing things solely through the lens of a narrowly-defined yet elusive and ambiguous "rationality" strikes me as odd and sadly limiting.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> Do _all_ rites of passage serve no rational purpose in your world, bryanc? Astonishing.


I can't think of any that have any value to me whatsoever. I sometimes participate because I'm asked to by the people to whom these silly rituals mean something, and I value their happiness (I've been best man at several weddings, and have sat through a few interminable graduation ceremonies, funerals, and other formal occasions), but I certainly wouldn't consider doing any of these sorts of things for myself.

I'm thinking that my distaste for formal attire is probably related to this (I don't even own a tie).


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Ahh, that helps clarify things. I am the same in that regard. I have no use for suits, even if they are impeccably tailored. Just doesn't feel right.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I can't think of any that have any value to me whatsoever. I sometimes participate because I'm asked to by the people to whom these silly rituals mean something, and I value their happiness (I've been best man at several weddings, and have sat through a few interminable graduation ceremonies, funerals, and other formal occasions), but I certainly wouldn't consider doing any of these sorts of things for myself.
> 
> I'm thinking that my distaste for formal attire is probably related to this (I don't even own a tie).


I've stayed out of this discussion but plan on going back and reading the thread from the beginning. Must say though that your overall tone is quite disrespectful of anyone else's point of view. For the most part you sound like a jaded, bitter old man who missed out on many of life's great pleasures. 

I'm not trying to be inflammatory or derail the discussion but I would personally find it hard to contribute when your primary response seems to be "You're silly for bothering with any of this nonsense.".


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macified said:


> For the most part you sound like a jaded, bitter old man who missed out on many of life's great pleasures.


I certainly don't think of myself as bitter or jaded (I get to play and explore ideas of my own creation in the lab, and get paid for it - what could be more fun?), and I'm 46 this year, so I don't think I'm old. Pleasures are in the mind, and, while I admit I've made mistakes and missed opportunities, I certainly don't regret not having a wedding or going to any of my graduation ceremonies; I'd rather chew foil.

My argument has always been with the legal & social pressure on people to conform who would choose otherwise, not against those who choose to conform.

It seems that many here take my augments against the social norm as a personal affront. That was never my intention, and I have already apologized if I had that effect. But I'm starting to get the impression that some people here are rather inflexible in their backing of the status quo. It shouldn't be such an emotional trauma to consider allowing other people not to participate in your social customs.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Macified said:


> I've stayed out of this discussion but plan on going back and reading the thread from the beginning. Must say though that your overall tone is quite disrespectful of anyone else's point of view. For the most part you sound like a jaded, bitter old man who missed out on many of life's great pleasures.
> 
> I'm not trying to be inflammatory or derail the discussion but I would personally find it hard to contribute when your primary response seems to be "You're silly for bothering with any of this nonsense.".


He's actually softened his position quite a bit over the ensuing pages. Thinking less about 'own self needs' and more about 'society's needs'. I hope so, anyway. That's been _my_ goal.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

bryanc said:


> But I'm starting to get the impression that some people here are rather inflexible in their backing of the status quo. It shouldn't be such an emotional trauma to consider allowing other people not to participate in your social customs.


Irony of ironies, that's precisely the impression I've been gleaning from reading your own posts.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MLeh said:


> He's actually softened his position quite a bit over the ensuing pages. Thinking less about 'own self needs' and more about 'society's needs'. I hope so, anyway. That's been _my_ goal.


It's always about balancing the desires/needs of the individual with the desires/needs of society. On many topics, I see the current balance as being unreasonably biased towards the individual (e.g. gun control), and am therefore in favour of more government control. On this topic I see the current situation as being unreasonably biased towards too much government/societal intervention, and I have tried to articulate why. The thread got unfortunately derailed by people arguing about their emotional investment in their marriage rituals, and mistakenly interpreting my personal lack of interest/desire for that sort of thing as an attack on their personal preferences. I couldn't care less if everyone on earth wants to have big weddings with clowns and face painting for the kids; as I said at the beginning, whatever floats your boat. I just object to the government getting involved, and the social pressure on those who choose not to conform.

With respect to this latter point, I've been making the case that the value of traditional marriages - to government and society (again, personal enjoyment or lack thereof is entirely tangential to the argument) - is actually very small*, and largely addressed by other processes and conventions in modern society.

Here's what I'm thinking of as an alternative: Two consenting adults, Snert and Norf, are in a committed relationship, but don't want to get married because they're very private people and don't want to invite the government, the Church, or even their extended families into their relationship. So they download a form off the web, sit down at their kitchen table and they each sign two copies. Each then takes one of those copies and puts it in their safe deposit box or in some other safe place and they carry on with their lives. Should something untoward happen, such as Snert getting in a car accident and being unconscious in the hospital, Norf can pull out this paper and use it as legal evidence of being Snert's partner.

So we've got something with the advantages of a marriage certificate, but without the drawbacks of involving the government in the process. The issue of forged documents is an obvious problem, but that issue exists with the current system. I suggest reciprocal PGP encrypted hashes on each form, so that one person can't generate a document that pairs with another, but other solutions are welcome.


{*edit to clarify: I started with the position that this value was non-existent, but I've been convinced that there is some small value}


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> Irony of ironies, that's precisely the impression I've been gleaning from reading your own posts.


Wait... you've got the impression that I'm opposed to letting people do what they want with their personal lives without government or social interference?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

No need to signal confusion, friend. But to spell it out more clearly for you: I get the impression that you are rather inflexible with your own viewpoints and that encountering opposing ones tends to make you irritable and impatient.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> I get the impression that you are rather inflexible with your own viewpoints and that encountering opposing ones tends to make you irritable and impatient.


On the contrary, I think I'm very flexible in my views, I just need to be provided with compelling evidence or reason to change them. What has made me irritable were the aspersions cast against my integrity (disagreeing with something, being coerced by government agents into doing it anyway, and then expressing displeasure about it is hardly hypocrisy), and intelligence (disagreeing with and finding faults with poorly constructed arguments is not dense). On the whole, I think I've been very patient, and have been rewarded with a few novel insights. And there is still some hope that more will come.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Bryanc - it's not an affront that you have or voice your opinions. Just the constant labeling of altering views or the "rituals" as silly and pointless. 

I'm quite happy to read and consider altering views.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Max said:


> No need to signal confusion, friend. But to spell it out more clearly for you: I get the impression that you are rather inflexible with your own viewpoints and that encountering opposing ones tends to make you irritable and impatient.


I tend to agree. Personally I love it when people disagree with my viewpoints. Makes the discussion much more entertaining. 

Truth be told emotion and religious beliefs play a very strong roll in determining a nations rules on marriage. Like it or not this is how and why the rules were established and is the probably only mechanism that will ultimately lead to change.

That said Bryanc; if you want the same legal rights that officially married couples have, where did you ever get the idea that the state can or should be kept in ignorance of your relationship. If you do not care about things like the spouse inheriting property should you die without a will, or being able to move with your spouse to a nation where only one of you is a citizen, or one working partner carrying the other on their health insurance; then by all means keep your relationship anonymous. Otherwise you cannot expect to receive the official benefits of a relationship if the officials are unaware that the relationship exists.


----------



## Kleles (Jul 21, 2009)

A "proposal":

Marriage, as a legal construct, should be only be available to those couples who are raising a child or children.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macified said:


> Just the constant labeling of altering views or the "rituals" as silly and pointless.


Okay, I've just gone back over every posting I've made in this thread, because I really don't understand why everyone's dumping on me about being disrespectful. In no instance have I denigrated other individuals or their views. I have said very clearly that *I* find marriage rituals silly and pointless, and that *I* don't want anything to do with them. But I've also said very clearly that I have no problem with anyone who likes that sort of thing going right ahead.

I've tried to be very clear that my argument is against the governmental involvement and the societal pressure to conform. Furthermore, I've expressed my interest in moving on with the discussion about how marriage as an institution is likely to change in the future, but it seems that everyone would rather continue to argue about why I should respect their rituals more.

Several people here have gotten quite personal about it, criticizing me for being hypocritical, dense, uninterested in other opinions (why would I start this topic if I weren't interested in other opinions?!?), disrespectful, arrogant, illogical, prejudiced, superior, idiotic, selfish, offensive, and various other things.

I realize that my opinions are divergent from the norm, and I've been clear that I'm willing to consider arguments against them, or simply to agree to disagree. Having re-read what I've posted here, I'm starting to wonder if ehMac is really the tolerant place I thought it was. Perhaps people could start responding to what I've actually said, rather than what they think I've said?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Kleles said:


> A "proposal":
> 
> Marriage, as a legal construct, should be only be available to those couples who are raising a child or children.


Interesting idea. But it doesn't address the issue of the individual being denied access to or roles in decisions about their unconscious spouse in the hospital.

I think the only remaining legitimate role for governmental tracking of relationships is to facilitate the transference of legal rights to the spouse when one is incapacitated. Obviously, this is a situation to be avoided, but I can see that there needs to be a mechanism to handle it. The reciprocally signed documents that I proposed earlier would seem to address this issue.

If governments got out of the marriage business completely, these documents could be signed between any consenting adults (regardless of race, sexual preference, etc.), and retained for these rare circumstances in which the legal rights and responsibilities for an incapacitated person become ambiguous.

It solves the problem of 'gay marriages' because there would be no more legal definition of marriage, so no one would be excluded. Churches can carry on being discriminatory as they choose, of course. And people who want to have public or private ceremonies surrounding the signing of these documents would be free to do so. Indeed, for most people nothing would change. But for people who eschew public proclamations of their personal relationships, and governmental oversight of their sexual habits would be free to keep these documents to themselves unless and until circumstances arose which required documentation of the relationship. It seems to me to be a better system.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I'm thinking that my distaste for formal attire is probably related to this (I don't even own a tie).


See, that's just that the weddings you've gone to have been formal. Honestly, I think most people are VERY uncreative in their approach to a wedding.... there are so many ways to make it fun. 



bryanc said:


> I just object to the government getting involved, and the social pressure on those who choose not to conform.
> 
> With respect to this latter point, I've been making the case that the value of traditional marriages - to government and society (again, personal enjoyment or lack thereof is entirely tangential to the argument) - is actually very small*, and largely addressed by other processes and conventions in modern society.
> 
> ...


I'm not convinced that societal pressure is that much of an issue these days, and it's certainly declining, particularly since more and more people are marrying later in life, when the whole "what will mom and dad say?" issue calms down some, and the idea of living together is not really shocking anymore.... 

But as for your example of Snert and Norf, because of the ways in which marriages are registered, it's much, much more difficult to fake that you are married to one another.

Besides, what if Snert and Norf are both unable to communicate their wishes, and their respective families who hate each other try to pull apart their assets, their children, their life's work, etc. on some basis? Perhaps later on someone re-asserts Snert and Norf's wishes, but it becomes a mess to deal with. 

I don't know if you've ever dealt with anything involving inheritances, but to me it seems that nothing rips apart a family faster than arguing over someone's will.

I like whoever it was that called a marriage license fee a 'convenience tax'.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> if you want the same legal rights that officially married couples have, where did you ever get the idea that the state can or should be kept in ignorance of your relationship.


As far as I'm aware, in Canada there is very little legal distinction between married and common-law couples.

As we've been discussing, the only circumstances in which legal documentation of a relationship needs to be available are when one of the people is incapacitated or otherwise unable to communicate their wishes. I agree that we need to have a mechanism whereby the legitimate spouse of someone who's died, or is in a coma, or has gone missing, is able to prove their legal relationship. However, hopefully for most of us, such a situation will never arise, and having privately signed and reciprocally encrypted documents stored away would address this sort of problem without requiring any government oversight.



> If you do not care about things like the spouse inheriting property should you die without a will, or being able to move with your spouse to a nation where only one of you is a citizen, or one working partner carrying the other on their health insurance


All of these issues are adequately addressed by our current common-law system.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Perhaps the fact that everyone else seems to see something that you don't see, indicates that it's another one of these societal norms that the rest of us conform to which you have chosen to ignore.

Regardless, as a practical matter, if many people in this community find your manner of communicating about these things disrespectful, and if you wish to act respectfully, you may want to consider modifying the way in which you communicate whether you agree with the community or not.... or alternatively, not concern yourself with whether or not you are perceived as being disrespectful and carry on as you were.

As I have stated, it's not so much what you have said, as it is the manner in which you say it. I can say "I don't agree with you" or I can tell you to f*** off, but I'm sure you can appreciate that there's a difference in manner. One or two people, myself included, have tried to point out where your manner of communicating connotes disrespect, but if you don't see it, I don't know that there's much else anyone can do to try to explain.



bryanc said:


> Okay, I've just gone back over every posting I've made in this thread, because I really don't understand why everyone's dumping on me about being disrespectful. In no instance have I denigrated other individuals or their views. I have said very clearly that *I* find marriage rituals silly and pointless, and that *I* don't want anything to do with them. But I've also said very clearly that I have no problem with anyone who likes that sort of thing going right ahead.
> 
> I've tried to be very clear that my argument is against the governmental involvement and the societal pressure to conform. Furthermore, I've expressed my interest in moving on with the discussion about how marriage as an institution is likely to change in the future, but it seems that everyone would rather continue to argue about why I should respect their rituals more.
> 
> ...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> See, that's just that the weddings you've gone to have been formal. Honestly, I think most people are VERY uncreative in their approach to a wedding.... there are so many ways to make it fun.


Actually, a couple of our friends 'got married' while we were all on a 10 day ocean kayaking trip... broke out a bottle of champagne around the campfire and asked us to witness their vows. Much nicer than any of the churchy things I've been forced to endure. But, come to think of it, I don't think they ever got officially married.



> But as for your example of Snert and Norf, because of the ways in which marriages are registered, it's much, much more difficult to fake that you are married to one another.


I certainly agree that whatever mechanism we use, it's got to be reasonably difficult to fake; hence my suggestion of reciprocally encrypted PGP hashes. But these are details of implementation that aren't really part of the philosophical issue.



> Besides, what if Snert and Norf are both unable to communicate their wishes, and their respective families who hate each other try to pull apart their assets, their children, their life's work, etc. on some basis? Perhaps later on someone re-asserts Snert and Norf's wishes, but it becomes a mess to deal with.


This is a problem regardless of marital status. And I certainly agree that a will is something everyone should have, and keep up to date.



> I like whoever it was that called a marriage license fee a 'convenience tax'.


I agree. And I'll actually say that I don't think the $135 is too much to pay for that. I guess I'm just arguing that the loss of privacy seems unnecessary.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> As far as I'm aware, in Canada there is very little legal distinction between married and common-law couples.
> 
> <<SNIP>>
> 
> All of these issues are adequately addressed by our current common-law system.


Clearly they aren't adequately addressed by the common-law system, or else you would not have needed to get married.  

And there are some very important differences in rights between a common-law and married couple when it comes to relationship breakdown (i.e., divorce, common-law divorce, etc.) where the lower net worth partner comes out much more poorly in a common-law relationship vs marriage... at least in Ontario, anyway. 

Pre-nuptial and co-habitation agreements do counteract some of this, but these are very open to legal challenge--it's not that uncommon for these to be overturned.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Perhaps the fact that everyone else seems to see something that you don't see, indicates that it's another one of these societal norms that the rest of us conform to which you have chosen to ignore.


Which is why I went back over all my posts looking for this 'disrespectful' behaviour. I don't see it.

I think what's happening is that people aren't reading what I write. When I write "I don't think marriages should be necessary" people seem to be reading "I think you're stupid to have gotten married." If I had written anything like the latter, people would be entirely justified in their criticisms of me. But that's not what I said.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Which is why I went back over all my posts looking for this 'disrespectful' behaviour. I don't see it.
> 
> I think what's happening is that people aren't reading what I write. When I write "I don't think marriages should be necessary" people seem to be reading "I think you're stupid to have gotten married." If I had written anything like the latter, people would be entirely justified in their criticisms of me. But that's not what I said.


Actually, I think it's more the frequent use of the word 'irrational'. (Which I think I mentioned.) 

While I believe I understand what you intended to mean, the result is dismissive.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Clearly they aren't adequately addressed by the common-law system, or else you would not have needed to get married.


It was the US (actually State of Washington) government that required us to get married. If we'd been going the other way (from the US to Canada), or to other, more civilized countries (like the UK or EU) it wouldn't have been a problem.



> And there are some very important differences in rights between a common-law and married couple when it comes to relationship breakdown


This is where I think we can make some socially beneficial progress, which is why I wanted to discuss where people think marriage is going.

Regardless of some people's affection for these old traditions, as we've discussed already, legal marriage is no longer either necessary or sufficient to assay the level of commitment in a relationship (if it ever was), and no longer necessary or sufficient to protect children. Therefore our legal system is having to adapt. 

Given that this adaptation is necessary and inevitable, I contend that the legal concept of marriage is broken and needs to be either dramatically updated or (better) discarded entirely. I would suggest that the legal system view people as civil partners or not, and that distinction should be made by either the voluntary assertion of the partners when such legal circumstances arise, or by the production of reciprocally signed documents if one or both partners are unavailable. Simple, cheap, and requiring of no government oversight.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Actually, I think it's more the frequent use of the word 'irrational'.


So you think that, because I view marriage (and lots of other things, including things I participate in and enjoy) as irrational, that this is somehow disrespectful?

It's irrational that we keep pets, let alone get upset when they die. It's irrational that we like to lie in the sun and drink beer. It's irrational that we like music. Hell, most of the best things in life are irrational.

I don't disrespect the irrational, I just don't want to be governed by irrational laws.


----------



## ertman (Jan 15, 2008)

Kleles said:


> A "proposal":
> 
> Marriage, as a legal construct, should be only be available to those couples who are raising a child or children.


Why?

Disclosure: I disagree with this statement, as I find it repugnant, but would be willing to hear how it makes sense.

Also, by this definition it means that a child must be born before marriage.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bryanc said:


> It was the US (actually State of Washington) government that required us to get married. If we'd been going the other way (from the US to Canada), or to other, more civilized countries (like the UK or EU) it wouldn't have been a problem.


The only way it would not have been a problem coming to Canada is if the non-Canadian qualified under some sort of special status. For example sponsored job qualifications that were impossible to find Canadians to fill. (MDs don't count unless they are coming from the US, from other countries they may end up working as cab drivers.) Canada has so many potential immigrants that common law partners would find themselves getting very low priority consideration from the immigration czars. If the CL partner had serious medical problems they would certainly be disqualified.

Common Law in many US States is either not recognized at all or must be very clearly proven to be recognized. This will probably become even more common as BO is pretty much following the Shrub trail across the board and I see no reason for him to make an exception here.

Given the tendency for the UK to imprison a poor person for stealing a pack of bubble gum whilst letting the banksters who stole $TrillionS off scot free, I am intrigued by your belief they are more civilized. Must be all those spy cams that turn your crank.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yeah, I'd like to hear more on this. As one-half of a middle-aged couple with no kids, I want to hear the justification.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> It was the US (actually State of Washington) government that required us to get married. If we'd been going the other way (from the US to Canada), or to other, more civilized countries (like the UK or EU) it wouldn't have been a problem.


It still depends. I have friends who had always been in a long distance relationship due to various immigration issues... between then they had something like 7 different immigration status in various countries that they have various statuses in (US, Canada, England, France and India.) Got very complicated to figure out who could bring in who where, who could work where, in which country they should have their kid, etc. 



bryanc said:


> This is where I think we can make some socially beneficial progress, which is why I wanted to discuss where people think marriage is going.
> 
> Regardless of some people's affection for these old traditions, as we've discussed already, legal marriage is no longer either necessary or sufficient to assay the level of commitment in a relationship (if it ever was), and no longer necessary or sufficient to protect children. Therefore our legal system is having to adapt.
> 
> Given that this adaptation is necessary and inevitable, I contend that the legal concept of marriage is broken and needs to be either dramatically updated or (better) discarded entirely. I would suggest that the legal system view people as civil partners or not, and that distinction should be made by either the voluntary assertion of the partners when such legal circumstances arise, or by the production of reciprocally signed documents if one or both partners are unavailable. Simple, cheap, and requiring of no government oversight.


Those reciprocally signed documents are all well and good while people respect each other, but if it's a bitter divorce (and there are a lot of those) then I don't think it's even possible to create a legal system in which people do not start challenging those agreements.

We don't need much, if anything, by way of laws or a legal system while there are no problems, but the moment there ARE problems....

The issue with common-law relationships (and why it gets messy) is trying to determine at what point it become a marriage-like partnership. Because there are some people who see no difference in these relationships, and other people who *do* see a difference, at least for themselves personally. (It gets awkward when two people from these opposing views start living together... one sees it as marriage-like while the other sees it as cheaper rent and more convenient sex.) 

So at what point are you entitled to the same rights? The day you start living together? A year in? The day you open a joint bank account instead of managing everything separately? Depending whose on the lease or deed? 

If a couple was living together without marriage for 2 years, and then it broke apart, and then one person claims that they were common-law and the other person claims that they were just roommates, what then? Sure, they could both sign something, but one could argue duress, one could argue abuse, one could say, sure, that's what they intended at the time but the relationship broke down quickly thereafter and they've been sleeping in separate rooms for the past 18 months, one could say that they slept in separate rooms because of a snoring problem, one could make up a lot of stuff that starts to quickly muddy the waters. Who do you believe?

Heck, I have two tenants who live together who have an on-again, off-again relationship over the past 15 years or so. (I actually don't want to know any of this, but one of them is chatty and rambles.) Are they roommates or partners? Makes little difference for me, but what happens between them if one of them decides to move out and wants to split assets? (This came up as a worry for one of them in one of the many chatty rambles.)

In Ontario, there is a difference in rights to spousal support, equalization of family assets and rights to the marital home for common law couples. (Child support is the same regardless of the relationship of the parents.) If a common law couple can show that their relationship functioned as a marriage, then they may be entitled to those rights, but if it's a bitter divorce, it can get confusing quickly.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

ertman said:


> Why?
> 
> Disclosure: I disagree with this statement, as I find it repugnant, but would be willing to hear how it makes sense.
> 
> *Also, by this definition it means that a child must be born before marriage.*


My thought exactly.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

eMacMan said:


> The only way it would not have been a problem coming to Canada is if the non-Canadian qualified under some sort of special status.


I know of at least half a dozen common law couples who immigrated to Canada from the US. I don't know the details of their immigration processes; they never came up. In all cases, one of the couple was taking an academic appointment. In some cases the other half of the couple had a job lined up when they came, in other cases not.



> For example sponsored job qualifications that were impossible to find Canadians to fill. (MDs don't count unless they are coming from the US, from other countries they may end up working as cab drivers.) Canada has so many potential immigrants that common law partners would find themselves getting very low priority consideration from the immigration czars.


Having been on several hiring committees, I think this is something that doesn't really affect academics very much. It's pretty easy for a University to argue that whoever they're offering a job to is unique in their expertise, and therefore no comparable candidate could be found within Canada.



> Given the tendency for the UK to imprison a poor person for stealing a pack of bubble gum whilst letting the banksters who stole $TrillionS off scot free, I am intrigued by your belief they are more civilized.


With respect to this issue, I think most Western European countries have a much more reasonable attitude. There are other issues on which we're way ahead of them.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> So you think that, because I view marriage (and lots of other things, including things I participate in and enjoy) as irrational, that this is somehow disrespectful?
> 
> It's irrational that we keep pets, let alone get upset when they die. It's irrational that we like to lie in the sun and drink beer. It's irrational that we like music. Hell, most of the best things in life are irrational.
> 
> I don't disrespect the irrational, I just don't want to be governed by irrational laws.


Not so much because you view it as irrational, so much as you a) use the word irrational, and b) chose not to seriously discuss the irrational even though its the irrational aspects of marriage that are probably of most importance to people who chose to get married, and will probably be one of those most important considerations as we continue to evolve or legally redefine what the role of marriage in society. 

As I said, I understand what you intended to mean*, but I think you could choose a more respectful way of phrasing this--if you are interested in being perceived as respectful. (And no one says you have to be.)

*I understand that you are using the word 'irrational' in its most technical, denotative meaning, but how we make meaning from words involves much more than simple technical denotation.

But frankly, from a strictly legal/government point of view, marriage is not so irrational. It's essentially a means of indicating to the government to whom you wish to confer certain familial rights. Perhaps the tradition of only allowing you to confer rights to one person at a time is not necessarily rational, but in some sense it is pragmatic, because if two people have the same rights but completely different views, who breaks the tie? 

The real question of the irrationality of marriage is then:
1) All the non-legal stuff that people have brought up regarding commitment, etc., but there is no reason why you have to be governed by that. 

(Note that there is a very small governmental role in this, in that adultery is still on the books as grounds for divorce, but it's very rarely used in practice, even when that is the issue, because it's legally messy compared to the more common 'separation of one year'.... in law, however, your grounds for divorce have NO bearing on your financial arrangements, at least not in Ontario.)

2) Why do we as a society confer rights _by default_ to family members versus some other arbitrary person?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Those reciprocally signed documents are all well and good while people respect each other, but if it's a bitter divorce (and there are a lot of those) then I don't think it's even possible to create a legal system in which people do not start challenging those agreements.


I don't think we disagree here, especially with regard to the fact that the current system does not work.



> The issue with common-law relationships (and why it gets messy) is trying to determine at what point it become a marriage-like partnership.


Indeed. In fact I think I can argue that the fact that the legal system has this problem at all is compelling evidence in support of my original contention; that the institution of marriage has lost it's meaning. Maybe not for some people, but from a legal and sociological point of view, it no longer functions. So now our legal system is trying to cope with this problem with legal hacks like 'common-law marriages.'

I think the solution is to firstly, severely narrow the legal circumstances under which couples are treated differently than individuals. Secondly, in all possible cases where couples must be treated differently than individuals, allow that distinction to be made by private means, such as personal wills or other documents (such as my suggested 'commitment' documents). And finally, when such documents are contested, let them be contested by the same methods we use for other private disputes.

We don't need governments to keep track of contracts between corporations, and when those corporations disagree about their contractual obligations, they hire lawyers and duke it out in court. I don't see why individuals need to have their personal lives overseen by the government any more than corporations do.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bryanc said:


> ...I don't see why individuals need to have their personal lives overseen by the government any more than corporations do.


But somehow still manage to believe the UK with its gadzillions of surveillance cameras is more civilized.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Okay, I think the acrimony came from the fact that I was not interested in discussing people's irrational reasons for getting married. I apologize if I was dismissive or disrespectful, I'm simply do not share those feelings and am not interested in discussing them (unless someone can make a good case that they need to be considered with respect to how we consider marriage legally).



Sonal said:


> ..from a strictly legal/government point of view, marriage is not so irrational. It's essentially a means of indicating to the government to whom you wish to confer certain familial rights.


Okay, I agree with that. But I would argue that the circumstances under which the government needs to know that are A) fortunately rare, and B) easily handled by personal documents (like contracts between businesses) that need not be disclosed to anyone until and unless a dispute arises.



> (Note that there is a very small governmental role in this, in that adultery is still on the books as grounds for divorce, but it's very rarely used in practice, even when that is the issue, because it's legally messy compared to the more common 'separation of one year'.... in law, however, your grounds for divorce have NO bearing on your financial arrangements, at least not in Ontario.)


This is something I think should be removed from the legal code. Sex between consenting adults is of no legal concern. If individuals choose to make it an issue personally, that's their business, but the government should not have any concept of (let alone laws pertaining to) sexual fidelity.



> 2) Why do we as a society confer rights _by default_ to family members versus some other arbitrary person?


I think that's just biology.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> We don't need governments to keep track of contracts between corporations, and when those corporations disagree about their contractual obligations, they hire lawyers and duke it out in court. I don't see why individuals need to have their personal lives overseen by the government any more than corporations do.


Because the law assume that corporations have better access to good legal advice than the average individual, and the government takes on a role in (attempting to) protect citizens from the unscrupulous.

Commercial leases, for example, are straight leases. Residential leases, however, are governed by a legal Act, and (at least in Ontario) no residential lease can supersede the Act. Two businesses can screw each other over, but the law tries to protect citizens from that... however imperfectly.

People make some dumb, dumb choices in relationships. I would hate to see people rush into a relationship, agree to a bunch of completely unfair stuff in the midst of that heady rush, and then get completely screwed over with no recourse should the relationship end. The Divorce Act, in theory, is supposed to ensure some kind of fairness between both parties. It may not succeed, but that is its intent.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Commercial leases, for example, are straight leases. Residential leases, however, are governed by a legal Act, and (at least in Ontario) no residential lease can supersede the Act. Two businesses can screw each other over, but the law tries to protect citizens from that... however imperfectly.


I respect and agree with this role for government. But do you, as a landlord, have to provide the government with copies of leases you've signed with tenants? Obviously, you have them on hand if a dispute arises, and I'm not arguing that governments shouldn't make laws about how disputes are resolved. I'm just saying that, rather than trying (and failing) to track all the 'committed' relationships, governments should stay out of it unless and until a dispute arises.



> The Divorce Act, in theory, is supposed to ensure some kind of fairness between both parties. It may not succeed, but that is its intent.


I don't think the system of personal 'commitment contracts' I'm proposing would make messy disputes any less messy, but it would make people (like me) who don't feel the government has any place in their relationships happier and I don't think it would make anything worse. It would also be cheaper and more egalitarian. I think it's a good idea.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I respect and agree with this role for government. But do you, as a landlord, have to provide the government with copies of leases you've signed with tenants? Obviously, you have them on hand if a dispute arises, and I'm not arguing that governments shouldn't make laws about how disputes are resolved. I'm just saying that, rather than trying (and failing) to track all the 'committed' relationships, governments should stay out of it unless and until a dispute arises.


No, but it's fairly easy to track who lives at a particular address compared to who wishes to confer familial right upon who... and in fact, you are supposed to tell the government where you are living and when you move somewhere permanently. (Updating drivers licenses, postal mail, etc.) So no, I don't need to tell the government that, the tenant is supposed to tell the government that. (I only need to inform the government that I own the property, and report taxes on any rental income collected.)



bryanc said:


> I don't think the system of personal 'commitment contracts' I'm proposing would make messy disputes any less messy, but it would make people (like me) who don't feel the government has any place in their relationships happier and I don't think it would make anything worse. It would also be cheaper and more egalitarian. I think it's a good idea.


See, I think it would make things worse, in that you give two parties more gray area in which to argue and challenge. In my experience, agreements that are governed by a particular Act tend to be more cut-and-dry than things that are governed by contracts between two parties. This makes the administration of these agreements simpler, and dispute resolution cheaper and faster. 

It may be cheaper in that it avoids the initial registration fee, but a challenge of these contracts would be more expensive. More gray area = more lawyers = more money. 

In my first marriage, I had a marriage contract. (Like a pre-nup, only it was done after we got married.) It took much longer and cost many times more than the divorce--which was straightforward and DIY, and in fact most of the issues of the expensive marriage contract didn't even apply so it's not like the money was 'pre-spent' on the contract. 

(As a side note, am I the only divorced person participating on this thread? Somehow I find that interesting.)

I don't know bryan. I know you don't want to throw good money after bad, but if this is such an important issue to you, it seems odd that you have a price tag on it. (Especially since, as I recall, it's not that expensive to get a divorce in New Brunswick.... I'd looked up the fees for you last time, and it's a lot cheaper than in Ontario.)


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bryanc said:


> So you think that, because I view marriage (and lots of other things, including things I participate in and enjoy) as irrational, that this is somehow disrespectful?
> 
> It's irrational that we keep pets, let alone get upset when they die. It's irrational that we like to lie in the sun and drink beer. It's irrational that we like music. Hell, most of the best things in life are irrational.
> 
> I don't disrespect the irrational, I just don't want to be governed by irrational laws.


Okay. This point I like. :clap:

However, I must disagree with bryanc's frequent and misguided use of the term "irrational" so often. What is "irrational" to you may be not at al irrational to me, provided there are sound reasons for my choices. The benefits that marriage confers over non-married couples are an entirely rational reason to get married if, for example, they give the partners a greater sense of security or the feeling of being part of a team. It is far from irrational that we like music, since you can analyze music also in terms of sound waves, many of which we find pleasing to our bio-rhythms. The need for companionship, even in the form of pets, is far from irrational if that companionship keeps us calmer or helps to make us better people. 

I think you misunderstand the term "irrational" Bryan, and just because you disagree with someone's reasons for believing something does not make them irrational. It just makes you rather limited in your ability to understand. No offense.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> I know you don't want to throw good money after bad, but if this is such an important issue to you, it seems odd that you have a price tag on it.


Don't confuse "interesting" with "important." As I've tried to make clear (and have been clearly misunderstood) I have no emotional investment in this issue at all.

We have toyed with the idea of getting divorced just to contribute to the statistics (sort of like 'another two votes against marriage.'). If we did, I guess that would add one to the number of divorcees participating in this thread 

I agree that it is interesting, given the statistical probability that many ehMaccers are divorced, that more divorcees are not participating. That certainly casts doubt on the randomness of the sample in the poll 




> See, I think it would make things worse, in that you give two parties more gray area in which to argue and challenge.


An interesting point. You may be right, but I don't think the changes I propose would have any impact one way or the other because these grey areas already exist, and are already well-exploited by the divorce lawyers.


----------



## MLeh (Dec 23, 2005)

Here in BC we pay Medical Service plan premiums. For whatever reason, the monthly rates are $60.50 for one person, $109.00 for a family of two and $121.00 for a family of three or more.

When a person dies, if they are married (or in an acknowledged common-law or civil relationship), the surviving spouse gets a CPP survivor benefit, even if they never contributed to the plan.

There are other 'benefits' conferred by government (or 'the authoritarian side of society) on those in acknowledged relationships.

So, even if you don't want the government involved in your relationship, if you want the government _benefits_ of being in a relationship, you're going to have to tell them your relationship status at some point (be it married, common law or 'other'). 

So, this brings back the question of 'why should people in publicly acknowledged (or at least acknowledged to the government) relationships have benefits' that single people don't get? And it goes back to the 'civil society' aspect. You get rewarded for playing by the rules because it makes for a more 'civil' civilization. Our society has developed in a way which values 'family' and denotes benefits from these associations, and the rules reflect that development of our society. (I'm sure there is a study somewhere out there that shows that married men live longer than their single counterparts, with less usage of medical facilities, which means that men being married is overall beneficial to the cost of medical care in our society. I believe the studies show that being married is actually a detriment to women, but then ... we're not in charge yet, are we?) It is believed that having children will also generally overall benefit society in the long term, so this activity is generally encouraged.

Just sayin' ... that's the way it developed.


----------



## Mythtaken (Mar 22, 2011)

I just discovered this discussion. Interesting stuff. Interesting too how it has "evolved" from a poll about what we think of (the concept? the institution?) of marriage to why government should keep out of marriage.

I'm not clear on how the government is so involved in people's relationships. It seems to me it isn't any more involved than it is in any other aspect of our lives. Whether you choose the current state of marriage or a "commitment contract", "pair bonding" or some other vehicle to indicate one person's emotional and financial attachment to another, there are certain practicalities that require some level of government involvement. 

There are tax implications to being in a committed relationship and/or family unit. There are custodial and financial implications when partners set up a home or family together. There are legal constraints on who(or what) you can pair with, and government agencies set up to provide assistive and protective services if you or your partner becomes abusive. 

As long as we maintain a society that we expect to provide for our welfare and the welfare of our families, there will have to be some sort of record keeping as to who is paired with whom and any subsequent family ties. The government is the logical maintainer of such information.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Don't confuse "interesting" with "important." As I've tried to make clear (and have been clearly misunderstood) I have no emotional investment in this issue at all.


Oh. My mistake then, since it actually seems like you do. Could just be my interpretation of the vigour you put into this argument.

Interestingly (or not) while you remember to the penny how much your marriage license cost, I remember to the penny how much my divorce cost. ($447.00... marriage license was something around the same cost as yours.)

As for stats, well, I posted some links belong about how the oft-quoted 50% of all marriages end in divorce is actually a case of badly used and badly understood statistics. If I recall, it's more like 20% or 30%, depending on how you measure.



bryanc said:


> An interesting point. You may be right, but I don't think the changes I propose would have any impact one way or the other because these grey areas already exist, and are already well-exploited by the divorce lawyers.


In the US (where laws vary by state and are sometimes bizarre) possibly. Their process for divorce is very different though, in that you have to file first and separate later--leads to a lot more litigation (IMO) since you are doing everything in the heat of the moment. In Canada, what's typical is that you separate for at least a year and then file... all the division of stuff is typically done by that point. If I recall, I had to state what we'd done to settle everything on the divorce application, which was that we had a separation agreement, which I paid some online place $300 to prepare for us, and that was only because his mortgage company wanted proof that I wasn't seeking spousal support.

There actually isn't a lot of grey area in divorce in Ontario (I keep using Ontario because it varies by province) and most divorces in Canada are in fact uncontested.... people work something out eventually between themselves and are done with it. Child support is based on a table with very little room for argument. Spousal support (if needed) is based on a set of advisory guidelines which cut down on a lot of the arguing. The marital home is a 50-50 split regardless of who owned it or who paid the mortgage. You can argue about who owned what asset at the time of marriage and at the time of separation, and what the value was, but for most people is not so complex or difficult.

Divorce lawyers don't make much money out of exploiting these things so much as they make money out of someone's desire to punish another party by contesting the heck out of everything just because emotion takes over and logic goes out the window. (As my dad says, you can sue anyone for anything.... doesn't mean that there's a basis for it.) 

Or they make money on contesting pre-nups, since if a pre-nup contravenes the Act, it can be contested on that basis. The Act itself is difficult to contest, because it's the Act, and a lot of case law has gone into streamlining the enforcement of this Act as much as possible.

But there *is* a lot of grey area in something like what you propose, because it's just a contract. A contract has to be pretty detailed to cover every possible issue, especially over something as lengthy and complex as a romantic partnership. That gives you a lot of area to argue with.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> There actually isn't a lot of grey area in divorce...


I bow to your superior expertise.


> But there *is* a lot of grey area in something like what you propose, because it's just a contract.


Why could the extant divorce/separation mechanisms not be applied to couples who have privately signed commitment contracts in exactly the way it is currently applied to couples who have registered their contracts with the government?

Remember, I'm not proposing people change the way they form relationships, just how those relationships are tracked by the government.

Given that a significant (if not the vast majority) of relationships are never contested, this would have exactly zero effect on them. The only difference I can see is that, should one of my proposed privately committed relationships break down in a messy way that led to legal dispute, the individual(s) would have to produce their own documentation, rather than relying on the government to certify that they had made a commitment to each other.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

It seems, like most things: abortion, financial bailouts, gay equality, voting Liberal ..... that we are polarised.... or we have unreconcilable differences of opinion. Personally, I always thought the marriage contract should be treated as "mistake" in contract law, rather than the adversarial format we see so often today.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I bow to your superior expertise.
> 
> Why could the extant divorce/separation mechanisms not be applied to couples who have privately signed commitment contracts in exactly the way it is currently applied to couples who have registered their contracts with the government?


Because when it's registered with the government, it's registered with an impartial third-party who can say "I don't give a crap what your mutual beefs are with each other, you're legally married, you get governed by the Act, the law is the law, so shaddup."

But when it's just a contract between two individuals, it becomes a he-said/she-said. (Change genders in that expression as you wish.) That is always a mess. A private contract between two people is in essence saying "We do not want to be governed by the Act" so then there is NO impartial 3rd party to shut them down. One person sues the other person and then they bicker endlessly over who followed the contract, who didn't follow the contract, what was the spirit of the contract, what was the intent of the contract, etc.

It gets further complicated if someone decides that the Act is more favourable to them than the contract, and so they will then try to argue that their relationship is essentially the same as a legal marriage and consequently, they want to be governed by the Act. (This is why cohabitation gets messy today.)



bryanc said:


> Remember, I'm not proposing people change the way they form relationships, just how those relationships are tracked by the government.
> 
> Given that a significant (if not the vast majority) of relationships are never contested, this would have exactly zero effect on them. The only difference I can see is that, should one of my proposed privately committed relationships break down in a messy way that led to legal dispute, the individual(s) would have to produce their own documentation, rather than relying on the government to certify that they had made a commitment to each other.


The thing is, it's the tracking by government that makes things simple. You remove that, and you get a mess.

The reason, IMO, that so few divorces are granted uncontested is the typical process in Canada results in fewer contested divorces. The two parties have to separate for 1 year to get a divorce, which in most cases means one person has to move out even though under the law both people have equal right to say in the marital home no matter who actually owns it--so therefore, what happens to most people's largest asset (the house) and what happens with most people's biggest emotional issue (the children) tends to get sorted out before you are anywhere near eligible to file. 

Similarly, when you are living for at least a year away from the object of your irritation, most people start to cool down some and want to get things sorted out so they can move on with their lives. 

Consequently, when you are at the point where you can actually file, for most people it's just paperwork by then. (To the point where some people don't actually get around to filing until they really have to, i.e., they want to marry someone else.) So by the time the actual divorce application is filed, the issues are settled and there's nothing to contest because it was all done in the midst of the separation. 

(This is in contrast to US divorce, where you usually file for divorce first, and THEN sort out everything while everyone is still pissed off... tends to get more litigious that way.)

And all of this is because if you are married under the law, you need the government to legally sever the relationship... and the government has a process for doing this, which tries (however imperfectly) to ensure some kind of fairness and reduce court-time wasted on acrimony. 

But if you want to end a common-law relationship, you just move out and take what's yours. That's it. There's no particular process to be followed. If you think things were unfair (or if you're just mad and what to cause havoc) you have to fight for it, because the government has no involvement in this and therefore doesn't guide the process in any particular way.

I post on another forum that discussing (among other things) divorce, and most people there are from the US... in comparison, I would say we have a very good system for dissolving marriages in Canada.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I have to say, Sonal, I really appreciate your input on this topic; you've certainly caused me to change my thinking.



Sonal said:


> But if you want to end a common-law relationship, you just move out and take what's yours. That's it.


This is rather what I was thinking would happen in the the case of most (if not all) of the relationships where people don't get the government involved. How would my private relationships be different than this.



> in comparison, I would say we have a very good system for dissolving marriages in Canada.


It certainly sounds like it.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

41st on Monday. We sometimes feel freakish because most of our close relatives and those we know are on (at least) their second marriage. As someone already said, to each their own thing. _Our_ thing is marriage.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I have to say, Sonal, I really appreciate your input on this topic; you've certainly caused me to change my thinking.
> 
> This is rather what I was thinking would happen in the the case of most (if not all) of the relationships where people don't get the government involved. How would my private relationships be different than this.


I've enjoyed the discussion as well.

The benefit (or detriment) of having the government involved in dissolving relationships that were intended to be of some permanence, is that the government, however imperfectly, tries to ensure some sort of fairness in the division of the family assets--the assumption being that both partners were working together for the financial benefit (or detriment) of the family unit. Obviously, there are many more benefits and differing priorities beyond finances, but ultimately the only tool the government can really use is moving money around.

Sure, moving out and never coming back generally ends most relationships, but what it doesn't necessarily end are the financial and household living arrangements made by both partners. And that is where the arguments begin.

If the government is involved in legally defining the relationship (as marriage) then the government is involved in legally splitting it up and trying to ensure some kind of fairness. 

But if the government is not involved, then you are on your own. If you are the lower asset partner, that usually means that you are screwed. If you stayed out of the workforce for years based on some arrangement you have with your partner, and then your partner decides to end things and take everything that was theirs, you end up with zip. You can try to fight for it, by trying to invoke the Act, or maybe suing on the basis of some prior contract you signed with them, but that's expensive and messy.

The way things are set up in Ontario (and likely similar in other provinces), if both people are working and acquiring assets (or debts) at approximately the same rate, then they more or less come out of things equally--in theory, no one gets screwed over regardless of why the marriage failed. But if one partner stays home and (presumably) takes care of the household, any children, etc., while the other partner works and earns income, gains assets and otherwise stays highly employable, then the *goal* of the law is to ensure financial fairness between both parties for whatever loss or gain that occurred over the marriage. (Whether or not it accomplishes this in all or the majority of cases is another story.) Parties are free to come to a different arrangement if they choose to, but the law sets out relatively impartial guidelines so that if they can't come to an agreement, it gets decided for them. 

Note that Canada (I think it's federal, might just be Provincial) makes no distinction between common law and married couples on the issue of child support--the idea being that from the point of view of the child, it makes no difference at all. 

But there are distinctions for spousal support and division of joint assets, particularly the family home--it's just less clear if people intend to have a marriage-like relationship if they aren't actually married. 

In a lot of ways, there's nothing stopping people from keeping government out of it and doing a bunch of contracts between themselves... but these things are not bullet-proof, and the only way to get the rights that are given to married couples is to argue that your common-law relationship is just like a marriage--the person who stands to lose the most from this will likely argue vigorously that this was not the case, and frankly, it's difficult to prove. 

As I said, call it a convenience tax. If nothing bad ever happens, then sure, it may seem like a waste of money, but if something does, it makes it much easier to assert your rights. Laws are not intended to govern the good times so much as mitigate the bad times. 

Personally, I think prior to getting married, everyone should be required to have a pre-nup of some kind, or at least go through that discussion. It just forces people to disclose their finances, understand their rights should things fall apart, and lets people make decisions about how they would want to treat the other while they are still feeling loving and kindly to each other. It completely scares me to see how many people (and still very often women) who have no clue about the financial situation of their partner, and then get stuck in a bad deal if things go south.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Personally, I think prior to getting married, everyone should be required to have a pre-nup of some kind, or at least go through that discussion. It just forces people to disclose their finances, understand their rights should things fall apart, and lets people make decisions about how they would want to treat the other while they are still feeling loving and kindly to each other. It completely scares me to see how many people (and still very often women) who have no clue about the financial situation of their partner, and then get stuck in a bad deal if things go south.


The only problem that I see with this is that things change over time. Failure to update said contracts (for financial reasons or otherwise) could put either or both party in an untenable position. For instance, lets say that before marriage one spouse is in a superior income position and agrees (in the loving mood) to support their spouse to a certain level in the event of a divorce. Time moves on and the other spouse takes a superior income position, even to the point that the first spouse retires and lives as a homemaker. Things get ugly and a divorce is tabled but the non-working and income dependent spouse is the one who has agreed to support. I'm sure that there are ways to write certain fall-backs into the initial contract but, in the potential ugliness of divorce, it would be easy to take advantage and twist things with the support of contract. This may be a moot scenario given my limited experience with this type of contract.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macified said:


> The only problem that I see with this is that things change over time. Failure to update said contracts (for financial reasons or otherwise) could put either or both party in an untenable position. For instance, lets say that before marriage one spouse is in a superior income position and agrees (in the loving mood) to support their spouse to a certain level in the event of a divorce. Time moves on and the other spouse takes a superior income position, even to the point that the first spouse retires and lives as a homemaker. Things get ugly and a divorce is tabled but the non-working and income dependent spouse is the one who has agreed to support. I'm sure that there are ways to write certain fall-backs into the initial contract but, in the potential ugliness of divorce, it would be easy to take advantage and twist things with the support of contract. This may be a moot scenario given my limited experience with this type of contract.


I agree with. Things change, people come in with one idea of what their married life will be and then later end up with a different idea. (Again, it's another reason why pre-nups get challenged.)

But when you legally get married, you legally join finances. This entitles you to some legal financial protections (well, for the lower income partner) if you split up. And yet, so many people still get married not having a clue about what their partner's finances are.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Not sure if this was mentioned already, but one of the biggest hold outs on marriage, Gene Simmons, is getting married to his girlfriend of 28 years, Canadian Shannon Tweed.


----------



## Reignman (Sep 1, 2011)

What an ironic and timely thread. I have been down in NC on a business trip this week and one of my southern co-workers brought up the fact that she thought "all you Canadians are whacked when it comes to religion, relationships and children."

I asked her to explain what she meant and she says "Well, everyone up there seems to be spiritual yet nobody gets married. Everyone just lives together and that is just not right. I can't imagine bringing a child into a relationship where there is no commitment."

I tried to explain to her that: 1) married or common law, the same legal benefits apply in our country. 2) Does having a piece of paper really signify that the relationship is "committed"? (I've been in a common law relationship for nearly 10 yrs and we are 100% committed to each other) and 3) Wouldn't it make more sense to have a child when you are 100% committed spiritually and emotionally rather than when a piece of paper says you are or must be?

Granted, in the end, it all comes down to personal choices and belief systems. If someone is raised to believe that the sanctity of marriage is important in the eye of God, then so be it. If someone loves another 100% every day, treats each other with utmost respect and lives "spiritually" (meaning doing right each day and not just feeling spiritual by going to church on a Sunday) then that is absolutely fine as well.

Me personally, I don't need a marriage certificate to tell me, my partner or our families/friends that we are committed and love each other. Our actions each and every day solidify that and that is what makes us happy.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

bryanc said:


> In another thread, regarding a news story about a lost wedding band being returned 13 years after it was stolen, Dr. T remarked:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, in my limited circles of friends and acquaintances and co-workers in Australia, in my work spells there over the past 40+ years (mostly WA and Queensland, a few months in NSW, SA, ACT), I would have to admit that fewer and fewer people there actually get married. My guess at a divorce statistic was based on a small sample, 1970s era marriages in Australia known to me. 

PS I have been happily married for about 29 years. (I sure hope my wife does not read this, as she might get upset at a lackadaisical calculation that might be implied by the use of the word "about".)

Anecdotally, I know people in their 40s and even 60s who have gotten married this year. They must see something significant in it, doncha thin?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Reignman said:


> ...she thought "all you Canadians are whacked when it comes to religion, relationships and children."
> 
> I asked her to explain what she meant and she says "Well, everyone up there seems to be spiritual yet nobody gets married. Everyone just lives together and that is just not right. I can't imagine bringing a child into a relationship where there is no commitment."
> 
> ...


Thanks for the post Reignman. You've summed up my position fairly well. Apart from the spirituality thing (I have no use for spirituality whatsoever), I'd strongly prefer to keep personal relationships personal.

Sonal has made a very good case for the government playing some role, because it becomes the legal system's problem when relationships break down, and having some sort of defined public contract demarcating the exact circumstances under which the relationship became committed (and therefore resources and responsibilities became shared) simplifies the legal wrangling if, when a couple decides to go their separate ways, there is dispute over who gets what.

I find this very ironic, because it was my initial contention that marriage had no function apart from the symbolic/emotional functions those who ascribe special meaning to rituals give it for themselves, and Sonal has successfully convinced me that it *does* have a function; which is to facilitate the acrimonious dissolution of a relationship.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bryanc said:


> ...it was my initial contention that marriage had no function apart from the symbolic/emotional functions those who ascribe special meaning to rituals give it for themselves, and Sonal has successfully convinced me that it *does* have a function; which is to facilitate the acrimonious dissolution of a relationship.


This is a strange justification for marriage: to make divorce easier. Many of us who are married, especially married for a long time, find much more fulfillment being married than you give credit for, Bryan, and I suspect it may have something to day with your contention that you have no use for spirituality whatsoever. Religion waxes and wanes in importance for me, but I have always been drawn to spiritual things. Maybe it's the mystery or the romance or the sacramentality of it that just doesn't click for you, and I don't think anyone is going to convince you why being married is a good thing on a personal level. To each their own. But I know being married to a woman that I love and raising two fine kids and a couple of pets made a big difference in my life. I wouldn't want it any other way. Sometimes there are benefits to traditions, and sometimes there are benefits to being an iconoclast.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> This is a strange justification for marriage: to make divorce easier. Many of us who are married, especially married for a long time, find much more fulfillment being married than you give credit for, Bryan, and I suspect it may have something to day with your contention that you have no use for spirituality whatsoever. Religion waxes and wanes in importance for me, but I have always been drawn to spiritual things. Maybe it's the mystery or the romance or the sacramentality of it that just doesn't click for you, and I don't think anyone is going to convince you why being married is a good thing on a personal level. To each their own. But I know being married to a woman that I love and raising two fine kids and a couple of pets made a big difference in my life. I wouldn't want it any other way. Sometimes there are benefits to traditions, and sometimes there are benefits to being an iconoclast.


Not to speak for bryanc, but it's not so much a justification for marriage as it is a justification for government involvement in marriage--particularly for someone who does not place any particular value on ritual. 

But there's nothing to suggest that bryanc's relationship does not function exactly the same way yours does, or that anything changed in that relationship when he and his partner married to ease immigration issues. Given the length of his relationship with his partner, there's no reason to believe that he's not entirely fulfilled by the relationship, but the fact that they are legally married or not has pretty much nothing to do with his fulfillment.

For myself, I like the ritual, I like the wedding (provided it's not a boring party) but I don't particularly need it--and financially, it makes better sense for me (in most cases) not to get married. My boyfriend is more traditional, however, and has never been married--it's much more important to him.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> This is a strange justification for marriage: to make divorce easier.


Yes, it certainly surprised me, but Sonal and others have made a good case. Never having been even remotely concerned about the issue of separation myself, I'd never thought about it, and therefore never considered this potentially beneficial aspect of making one's relationship public and registering it with the government. Ironic, isn't it? Marriage is only useful if it doesn't work.



> I know being married to a woman that I love and raising two fine kids and a couple of pets made a big difference in my life.


Good for you (really). I also have a great appreciation for my long term relationship, family and pets. I simply have no appreciation for the governmental involvement in those things. But, just like dog licences are there to protect the dogs from bad owners, Sonal has convinced me that marriage licences are there to protect people from bad relationships.



> Many of us who are married, especially married for a long time, find much more fulfillment being married than you give credit for


Arguably, because I don't share these beliefs or emotions, I can't give them the same kind of value you do. But I've said from the outset that my contention is not that certain individuals don't enjoy the public formalization of their sexual relationships, but rather that I don't personally like that sort of thing, and I object to being pressured to participate in it, as I didn't see any value in it _for me or others, who, like me, don't want to get married._

The argument that I've been forced to accept is that this public declaration _does_ serve a purpose *if the relationship breaks down in an acrimonious way* in that it facilitates the legal process of dividing the assets.



> I suspect it may have something to day with your contention that you have no use for spirituality whatsoever.


This is not a contention; it is a fact.

I may (and do) contend that 'spirituality' and other forms of magical thinking are serious problems, and that society would be far better off if people would learn to think rationally rather than with their limbic systems, but my stating that *I* have no use for spirituality is simply an observation of fact. On the contrary, _you_ may contend that I _ought_ to value spirituality, and that might be an interesting discussion (although I think it would boil down to a semantic argument over what is meant by 'spirituality.')



> Maybe it's the mystery


I like mysteries... I like to solve them.



> or the romance or the sacramentality of it that just doesn't click for you


You're probably right here, as I don't really understand what either of these words mean. 'Romance' has always seemed to me to be an odd way of looking at the anxiety resulting from not quite understanding what's going on in a relationship, and 'sacramentality' is completely beyond my comprehension. I just don't understand rituals, I guess.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> ...[good stuff]...


Your post hadn't appeared when I replied or I probably wouldn't have needed to.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Your post hadn't appeared when I replied or I probably wouldn't have needed to.


No worries.

The odd part is that I've had this discussion (but on the reverse side) with my boyfriend. After much discussion, his reasoning for marriage essentially comes down to "I prefer being conventional."


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> his reasoning for marriage essentially comes down to "I prefer being conventional."


I've never had a problem with people choosing to get married, and, having had this conversation with lots of people over the years, I've heard lots of 'reasons' for getting married. Until this discussion with you, these reasons have largely been along the same vein as "I prefer to be conventional" (with a smattering of "think of all the _loot_ you'll be missing out on if you don't get married!*" and "what'll you name the kids?!?"). The argument you've made for marriage is the first rational one I've heard that I can't easily refute.
:clap:

The irony is that your argument can be summarized as "the legal institution of marriage has a functional role only when the relationship breaks down."

* this is an actual quote.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

A role nonetheless. Historically I suppose you could argue that the marriage as a legal pact had more ramifications for building business and national affiliations - even empires. Nowadays? Not so much.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I've never had a problem with people choosing to get married, and, having had this conversation with lots of people over the years, I've heard lots of 'reasons' for getting married. Until this discussion with you, these reasons have largely been along the same vein as "I prefer to be conventional" (with a smattering of "think of all the _loot_ you'll be missing out on if you don't get married!*" and "what'll you name the kids?!?"). The argument you've made for marriage is the first rational one I've heard that I can't easily refute.
> :clap:
> 
> The irony is that your argument can be summarized as "the legal institution of marriage has a functional role only when the relationship breaks down."
> ...


I had a dissect a lot of his supposedly high-minded reasoning on society and commitment until he could admit the bare truth.  And like you, I have no problem with that, even though I'm much more ambivalent on the issue. 

The thing I find with laws is that for the most part, they are not particularly necessary until there is a problem between people. If everyone were calm and reasonable and honest and fair all the time, there would not be much need for laws or government involvement--that was certainly true in my divorce, since my ex-husband and I were both able to put most of the emotion aside and just try to sort it out as simply and fairly as possible, which I think we were able to do. Very little would have changed had we been legally married or not. But that was a highly unusual situation.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Max said:


> A role nonetheless. Historically I suppose you could argue that the marriage as a legal pact had more ramifications for building business and national affiliations - even empires. Nowadays? Not so much.


Absolutely it used to. The Hundred Years War was in many ways started based on issues on marriage, infidelity and heredity. 

Was thinking about some of this the other day, since in my business it used to be very common for investors to put the real estate assets in the wife's name--tax advantages, etc. I don't see myself ever doing anything similar.


----------

