Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

having been amused,angered and saddened by some of the views expressed in the article you can read here,I was wondering what people's views are on the subject in general. Now, I'm not married-- been engaged once a long time ago and it didn't work out as such, possibly for the best upon reflection-- but generally I'm quite pro the institution. I don't have a problem with same sex couples having the same legal entitlements as heterosexual couples, but neither do I think couples ( or indeed individuals) who don't marry should come in for disapproval or a hard time.

Last I read the marriage rate in the UK has dipped a fair bit in the past few decades, but has actually risen slightly in the past few years, is that similar in the other countries represented on here ?

I'm all for a committed relationship, but I feel the concept of a religious marriage is somewhat outdated.

This is why unless my wife to be happens to be a committed Christian, I will not be Married in a Church. I will not make my vows to a God I do not believe in. To do so would surely make a mockery of the whole service, and worse, make me a bare faced liar!

Civil Ceremonies, where I make my vow to my partner and my partner alone make much more sense to me, and are just as legally binding!

This belief is reflected in The Industrial Vagina in her description of marriage as a type of prostitution; a legal transaction that has traditionally guaranteed sexual access to women's bodies in return for subsistence. "Prostitution and marriage have always been related," says Jeffreys. "What is shocking is that today marriage is becoming more fashionable amongst some young women". She writes that even in the case of employed, well-paid professional women "the right of men to women's bodies for sexual use has not gone but remains an assumption at the basis of heterosexual relationships".

What about the rights of women to MY body? That's what I'm talking about.

Giggedygiggedygoo!

The usual feminist claptrap. And here's another!

100% of Male Violence Is Perpetrated By Males. Therefore, All Males Are Violent.

Okay, so I pinched that from 'The Modern Parents' in Viz, but I think it illustrates the point. Marriage is what you make of it. And indeed, it is generally accepted that people in Marriages have less sex than those not.

I pretty much concur with your views with regards to being "churched", it would be too hypocritical of me and I'd much prefer a non religious ceremony. Although from experience it seems to me that what the man wants with regards to the whole wedding drama usually takes a far second place.

In regards to same sex marriages.

If marriage was just something religious groups did for you after you got your marriage license I could understand the bans on gay marriage. It would hold no real meaning then, just like the institution itself. It really doesn't mean anything anymore. People bail on their marriages all the time now. It's not homosexuals getting married that is destroying marriage, it's people getting married and then immediately getting divorced. Marriage also has implied legal rights attached to it. Gays can adopt children, they can own households together, but for some reason we won't let them get married?

Don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay married.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Giggedygiggedygoo!

The usual feminist claptrap. And here's another!

100% of Male Violence Is Perpetrated By Males. Therefore, All Males Are Violent.

Okay, so I pinched that from 'The Modern Parents' in Viz, but I think it illustrates the point. Marriage is what you make of it. And indeed, it is generally accepted that people in Marriages have less sex than those not.

Generally, married couples have sex more frequently than single people.

Unmarried cohabiting couples (straight or gay) have sex more frequently than married couples.

Marriage is a sacred institution, steeped in religious rite and meaning.

We have a seperation of church and state in the US.

Therefore, marriage should not be the business of the state.

Binding civil unions should be the business of the state, be they between roommates or soulmates. The part of marriage that is the legal compact should implicitly be the business of the state, and not of any particular denomination or sect.

I'd say it *used* to be a of Religious Significance. However, this is the opinion of someone in the UK, a country less noted for it's Religious fervour than the US. This seriously isn't meant to be a snide remark, I just couldn't think of an appropriately inoffensive way of putting it, so I just wrote some suitable verbs and put in this disclaimer!

Vallahalan42nd:I'm with you on that one. As long as a civil union provides exactly the same legal rights as a marrige, I'm down with that.
Civic unions should be open to everyone out of fairness, though I can see the argument for the benefits being an incentive for people to have kids in a stable environment.

I wouldn't get married unless the lady in question was pretty set on it. I'm not religious so it would be a bit meaningless.

I think the idea of a couple standing in front of all their friends and family and telling everyone how much they love each other is a wonderful thing. That they happen to be putting on free booze for the rest of us is a nice bonus. So yeah, I like marriage.

When it comes to gay marriage, it's worth remembering that marriage was originally a civil institution, designed to formalise inheritance among those lucky enough to have stuff. Religion came into it later. I don't see any reason it should be any different now, a civil institution that establishes a formal relationship that a church can choose to bless if it wants to.

What has to stop is the idea that gay folk can have one kind of marriage and straight folk another kind and that somehow makes things fair. Seperate but equal is a lie.

malfred wrote:Generally, married couples have sex more frequently than single people.

Unmarried cohabiting couples (straight or gay) have sex more frequently than married couples.

Is that controlled for the length of the relationship? Because generally the longer the relationship the less sex, and also the greater chance you're married.

Valhallan42nd wrote:Marriage is a sacred institution, steeped in religious rite and meaning.

We have a seperation of church and state in the US.

Therefore, marriage should not be the business of the state.

Binding civil unions should be the business of the state, be they between roommates or soulmates. The part of marriage that is the legal compact should implicitly be the business of the state, and not of any particular denomination or sect.

My views exactly.

Well, that boggles my mind a bit, Fraz. We're usually on opposite sides of the spectrum.

If I see Four Horsemen, I'll let you know.

I think that gays should have the right to be married. I think it's unfair that only straight men have to suffer.

My wife and I were married in a religious ceremony. We're not that church-going right now, but it suits us. YMMV.

I do think the US government should issue a civil union to all couples, not just straight ones. If you want married, go find a church.

I've known a number of women who live with their significant other, but don't get married. I think it's usually because they have poor self-esteem, he doesn't want to get married, and they don't want to lose the relationship. A marriage provides some legal protection to both parties, that they otherwise don't have, unless they would draft up a contract. For example, he buys a house. She pays half the mortgage. In two years, they break-up and she moves out. She has nothing to show for using her money to pay half the mortgage. If they were married, she would be entitled to half the property. I don't say this as women should get half of everything in a divorce - I don't think that. But, if she's paid half the bills, then it's fair to have half the value when the relationship ends. When my parents divorced, my father took out a second mortgage, to pay my mother half the equity of the home. That was it, no alimony, nothing else - just half the value of the home.

sebster wrote:

malfred wrote:Generally, married couples have sex more frequently than single people.

Unmarried cohabiting couples (straight or gay) have sex more frequently than married couples.

Is that controlled for the length of the relationship? Because generally the longer the relationship the less sex, and also the greater chance you're married.

Not sure. I also don't know if they're averaging overall or if they're basing it on age groups and
whatnot.

That article made me very, very sad. Second Wave Feminism is the devil itself.

Hard to respect a thought project when it blames its own failure on the ingrained nature of male oppression, and not on any flaw inside the project itself.

Marriage as it used to be, was essentially a form of prostitution. The wife got a reasonable amount of economic security, in return the husband got legal access to her body. Of course, women were often forced into marriage because society denied them other ways of supporting themselves.

That was how things worked in Victorian times or earlier, and we have moved on from there.

The law on rape within marriage was revised in 1994 in the UK. The laws on rights to work and similar economic factors had been revised in the 70s. Things are by no means equal but they are much better than they were.

There is still a discrepancy whereby husbands can cash in their pension schemes to benefit themselves alone. If the husband dies first, the wife gets no more pension. This seems unfair, since women usually do the bulk of child-rearing duties and this restricts their ability to earn a pension for themselves.


In the UK, marriage is a legal contract enacted by a state official -- the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

If people want a religious service they can do it, but no religious marriages performed in the UK have any legal validity except Church of England. This is because a Church of England legally counts as a Register Office.

Thus the new "Civil Union" for gay couples is a marriage in all but name. Lots of people call it gay marriage anyway.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I don't think an unstable heterosexual couple provides a better home environment than a stable homosexual couple. I don't believe sexuality can be 'taught' within the home.

Valhallan42nd wrote:Marriage is a sacred institution, steeped in religious rite and meaning.

We have a seperation of church and state in the US.

Therefore, marriage should not be the business of the state.

Binding civil unions should be the business of the state, be they between roommates or soulmates. The part of marriage that is the legal compact should implicitly be the business of the state, and not of any particular denomination or sect.

Actually this is a misconception based on religions. Marriage was a legal institution long before it was ever a religious ceremony. It is a legal contract by definition, not a religious one. It wasn't until monotheism became the "it" thing(Hebrews) that it was really a religious institution.

As such, I believe in marriage by state as much or more than marriage by religion(I was married in the church, BTW).

Can yu support that statement Platuan? I'd posit that historically there was not a difference.

Well, that Marriage for Love is a genuinely rather modern invention would seem to lend some credence to his statement.

Before, although it was not unheard of for genuine emotion to be involved, weddings were strategic unions more than ones of emotion.

im not sure on all states in the US, but i know that Texas has a law that basically states that if you cohabitate with someone for 10 years or more, then you have a civil union... now, incest is still illegal in texas, but under this law, if you lived with your opposite gendered sibling for 10 years as roomies, then suddenly you have a civil union, and now fall under different tax laws... im not sure about how much that affects homosexual couples, but i do find it funny that Texas essentially allows incest, as most people view civil unions to be State run Marriages.

*It doesn't
*You're factually in error.

i didnt believe it when i first heard it, however a JAG officer who basically specialized in divorce/marriage related cases (the military obviously has a high divorce rate, and so has accordingly higher number of civil lawyers) and he personally showed me this law... its not something i would think is enforced to much, as im sure that many people would be "forced" to move, or marry someone else, while still keeping the same living arrangements.

but my real opinion on marriage is that folks are getting married too soon, and thus getting divorced more, which in turn brings about more broken homes. and to me, the "problems" with society isnt purely to blame on things like video games, as many congressmen seem to think, but rather the result of too many boys, and young men growing up without a true father figure, and so they dont get taught the discipline needed in life, i see this all too often in younger soldiers who cannot keep their rank, as they cant keep their mouth closed at the right time, or have a myriad other problems with authority.


beyond that, i could give 2 skaven rear ends about where/how you get married, just so long as you "know" what you are getting into, and are prepared as much as can be for that choice.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:im not sure on all states in the US, but i know that Texas has a law that basically states that if you cohabitate with someone for 10 years or more, then you have a civil union... now, incest is still illegal in texas, but under this law, if you lived with your opposite gendered sibling for 10 years as roomies, then suddenly you have a civil union, and now fall under different tax laws... im not sure about how much that affects homosexual couples, but i do find it funny that Texas essentially allows incest, as most people view civil unions to be State run Marriages.

No, I don't believe that at all. You'd have to show me some pretty convincing evidence before I'd believe there was a law that made that little sense. Sounds suspiciously like an urban legend, a particularly hurtful urban legend.

u dont particularly see how such a law, if ever enforced would be hurtful, as the folks involved would suddenly get all the benefits as a couple who was married by more... public? means.

it was one of many questions i had asked a JAG lawyer about prior to getting married in the first place, because both my wife and i come from different states, and IF we were to get a divorce while in the military, there are many different ways of dealing with that, usually whatever state you are currently in, or if both parties agree to it, one of the home of record states.

Though, to me, this sort of law sounds like many of the outdated laws that have simply been left untouched since their creation (those oddball, and downright weird laws are off topic, and i shall not mention them)

There is an old common law statute, but it basically says if you hold yourself out as married to someone then the law considers you married. Has nothing to do with how long you have lived with someone or incest or other nonsense.

the ten year thing may have come from his explanation of it to me, so on that ground i stand corrected. i also have a horrible memory as to the exact wording of anything people say, i do however remember the gist of almost everything told to me, hence i probably confused myself somewhere down the road.


but my old fashioned opinion on the state of society today stands

A lot of states have a common law statue from the 'olden times'. If a couple lives together for X years and says they're married, they're married. But, it's usually 7-10 years, not just a couple years. And it still doesn't always hold up in court well if challenged. It works alright for survivorship issues, spousal priviledge, and doctor/patient confidentiality. But if there's a 'common law divorce', it has a lot less weight than a 'normal divorce'.

Some states also have statues that if you're married X years, all assets become shared instead of separate. iirc, Tom Cruise divorced Nicole Kidman at like 9 years 9 months, and California's statute kicked in at 10 years. So, in three months, he would have had to give her half in a divorce, but because of the timing, he didn't. I'm sure she walked away with a big chunk of change, but I'm also sure it wasn't half.

The opposite is true in the UK.

While people often think they gain "common law spouse" status by living together for a long time, it is actually rubbish and there is absolutely no division of assets or any other legal rights or privileges that accrue.

The sole exception is that if a woman shacked up with a man gives birth, and gives permission to the man, he can register the child and will thereby get some paternal rights.