new marriage idea

[Ricwilly]

i can't agree with you more... i've sometimes felt that people should have to pass a test just to be able to be in public. then again, i'm an egotistical bastard.

seriously though... wouldn't it be great if we could abandon the whole age principal and have milestones be achievable by intellect rather than chronology. maybe then people would take a more serious interest in their education. can't scoot through high school with a "C" unless you don't wanna drive 'til you're 30.

Ahhhh, I never finished high school. Hmmm, maybe why I didn't get a drivers license till I was 28.

 

[SweetErika]

I once went to a church wedding that lasted all of 12 minutes. It took me longer than that to get to the church.

My in-laws ceremony was exactly 11. It had to be 11 minutes or less or the bride's father wouldn't attend because that's exactly how long he thought he could handle being in a church as an Atheist in August.

This is the same guy who hit an undercover cop car and proceeded to argue with the Police Chief and cop over who was at fault. Additionally, he fought with the doctor who told him he needed to stop the bacon and eggs for breakfast after a quadruple bypass...it took him 86 years to clog up the arteries, and he'd be long dead in another 86 years. Of course he also said he decided he would die at 92, but he was wrong about that one (turning 94 soon).

 

[Quoll]

no... i'm certain it wasn't cher. i DO think it was a musician or singer though. christ this is makin' me nuts.

One possibility.
Willy Nelson said "Next time I want to get married, Im going out and find the prettiest girl with the ugliest personality and offer to buy her a house for a little sex. I'll get the benifits of marriage and it will cost less and save time."

 

[Quoll]

Ahhhh, I never finished high school. Hmmm, maybe why I didn't get a drivers license till I was 28.

Oooh I `ve got you beat on that one, never finished high school, didn`t get my licence until I was 38.

 

[australwind]

How long were you driving around without any licence at all, Quoll?

 

[Quoll]

How long were you driving around without any licence at all, Quoll?

Never really did, certainly not when I lived in the city, and only the odd bit of motorcycle riding out in the backblocks up here. Helps if you have a very patient wife.
Not that I wouldn`t have if an emergency had arisen though.

 

[australwind]

Did you have a licence for the bike?


There are certain advantages to inner city living and public transport is one of them...


As for the topic this thread is meant to be about......I live in what could best be described as a contractual arrangement....built around the purchase of property....whilst we're still speaking to each other, we have virtually independent lives although, it wasn't always that way.

We have no need to part company at this point as neither of us need to have change the financial status. Each of us is free to expand our horizons, so to speak, and do so. It's not everyone's idea of a satisfactory arrangement but it works for us.

 

[EJFan]

It's not everyone's idea of a satisfactory arrangement but it works for us.

and this is all that really matters, isn't it.

i know a couple who were divorced and still lived together for quite a while afterwards.... when he finally left the house, he only moved down the street and they still have a very solid friendship.

i was talking to the guy who i was originally discussing this with and told him about the goings on in the thread here (he's married, i'm not). basically we decided that the "renewable contract" idea isn't unromantic, society just suggests to us that it is. the way we figure it, love is love and law is law... and prudence is prudence.

 

[australwind]

I like the idea of pairbonding.....for the purposes of procreation........some animal speices have really got it sorted!

I object to the interests of church and state being put before the interests of those involved, but our society has evolved to this point and if we want to see it change then its up to us to make it change.....

It also gives me the shits that money always seems to enter into the equation..........

This is a union based on love, one would hope, not shoring up the bottom lines. The next option will see us forming companies and taking out shareholdings and the "dissolution" of the marriage will become like a hostile takover bid!

 

[Eilan]

It also gives me the shits that money always seems to enter into the equation..........

Marriage as an economic transaction certainly isn't a new idea, particularly when a woman was (still is?) considered property to be passed from father to husband. It's entirely possible to view marriage for the sake of love as a relatively "new" or "modern" concept.

 

[Ricwilly]

Oooh I `ve got you beat on that one, never finished high school, didn`t get my licence until I was 38.

My Brother

 

[Ezzy]

Something to think about true! but, why not by pass the legal marriage part and just live togeather than? Theese days you can still have children and give them either family name. I am pro Marriage, but this might be a good idea. However it may save on legal costs I think there would still be hurt feelings!

But in the 14 states that have common law statutes on their books it would be as costly as any legal separation or divorce.

This is an idea I have seen before covered in various Si-Fi books, I can't think of one title to pull out about it, maybe the Heinlein books, like "Friday" or "Time enough for love" etc.

If the tax code and the legal code gave the same "rights" under the law as married people, any contractual marriage should be as valid (IMO).

 

[australwind]

Heinlen often has alarming insights and comments about many of the issues confronting our society.....it's interesting to read his work from the perspective of examining those issues, rather than just as rolicking good tales of SciFi adventure.......Pity that he's not with us any longer ...would love to hear his take on some of today's little headaches........


Try "Glory Road" .....it i'll have the feminists in an uproar!

 

[silverwhisper]

quoll: bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! :>

dragon_gurl: nice to see you over here, btw. :>

eilan: marrying for love is indeed a pretty new concept when viewed against human history, AFAICT. in medieval times it was scorned: marriage was much too big a deal to allow something as foolish as love enter into it. it was used to seal alliances. a prince of england abdicated the throne to marry a commoner and that was a huge, huge deal after all.

me personally, i happen to think that's a fine change. :>

ed

 

[Eilan]

marrying for love is indeed a pretty new concept when viewed against human history, AFAICT. in medieval times it was scorned: marriage was much too big a deal to allow something as foolish as love enter into it. it was used to seal alliances. a prince of england abdicated the throne to marry a commoner and that was a huge, huge deal after all.

IF love entered the equation at all, it would be well after the fact.

And, of course, we have to consider that marriage was also about the production of male heirs. Just think of the queens who lost their heads in past centuries because nobody knew that the FATHER determined the sex of the child.

Along the "economic transaction" lines, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that dowries are outlawed in India, though the practice still seems to be pretty common.

 

[silverwhisper]

i've heard indian friends speak of dowries quite recently so if they've been outlawed, it's in name only. :>

ed

 

[Eilan]

i've heard indian friends speak of dowries quite recently so if they've been outlawed, it's in name only. :>

ed

The impression that I've gotten is that it's no longer legal, but the authorities tend to look the other way, for the most part. I'm (obviously) not 100% positive about that.

 

[Ezzy]

Along the "economic transaction" lines, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that dowries are outlawed in India, though the practice still seems to be pretty common.

Don't forget many other nations have dowry traditions, some are reversed as a "Bride price," many you don't even think of as dowerys’ such as the Italian one of pinning money on the brides dress by the guests, (was a method of spreading the cost over all the relatives of the family instead of just the parents)...one reason few Italians marry in naturists camps "ouch," piercing fans might go for this though.

 

[sexualgentleman]

Marriage should work like a lease on an apartment. You sign for two years with an option to renew!

 

[bisexplicit]

Not sure if it has been mentioned yet at all...
But, actually, love is pretty much an invention of our culture, and not "natural." So, a bonded pairing based on love...well, its really a fallacy. Not to mention, there are very few primates who are monogamous, in fact, thats a rarity - most likely we're "naturally" polygamous.

Despite all that, I prefer the idea of marrying one person and being with them forever.

 

[Eilan]

Don't forget many other nations have dowry traditions, some are reversed as a "Bride price," many you don't even think of as dowerys’ such as the Italian one of pinning money on the brides dress by the guests, (was a method of spreading the cost over all the relatives of the family instead of just the parents)...one reason few Italians marry in naturists camps "ouch," piercing fans might go for this though.

If I had to depend on a dowry from my family, I'd still be single!

 

[sexualgentleman]

Don't misunderstand my statement.....I have been married twice and still beleive in marriage. I am still a hopeless romantic. Still looking for that speial someone!

 

[SexyWoman]

I completely believe in marriage. I just found this thread, very different from the others.

 

[australwind]

I don't disbelieve in marriage...I just don't believe it is the right place for some people.....myself included.

I have what would be best described as an economic alliance....no question of children entering into it, no question of a formalised marriage ceremony of any description either...my daughter from a previous marriage is my responsibility and there will be no more.

It suits both of us....I am yet to discover the joys of a union based on mutual love....and at my stage in life, I think the prospects of that are highly unlikely!

What we need as a sociaety to be able to do, is to recognise that there are more ways than one to skin a cat!

We need to be able to cater for all types of unions without fear or favour...

 

[EJFan]

Not sure if it has been mentioned yet at all...
But, actually, love is pretty much an invention of our culture, and not "natural." So, a bonded pairing based on love...well, its really a fallacy. Not to mention, there are very few primates who are monogamous, in fact, thats a rarity - most likely we're "naturally" polygamous.

Despite all that, I prefer the idea of marrying one person and being with them forever.

wise beyond your years, bi.

i think that at least MEN are polygamous. purely from an evolutionary standpoint i think women tend to be more monogamous... which, if you protract that logic out enough, you have to reach the conclusion that women who are polyamorous/polygamous are more highly evolved?