Once we took the till death do us part out of it, it became useless.
I tend to agree, not that it should be abolished, but that the "til death do us part" part did lend a seriousness to it that wasn't to be taken lightly.
But then, in our laws, we are a merciful people in general, just like God is.
"till death do us part"
What if one of the marriage partners was beating the other until they were half-dead?
This happens quite frequently, actually.
Any voluntary agreement should be able to be voluntarily abolished.
There are some very happily married people in the world. Just because many don't honor their vows doesn't mean those who do should be denied the right to a happy marriage.
It shouldn't be abolished as a private contract, because this is an agreement that many people freely enter. However, I agree that the government should not define what it is or grant special rights based on it.
Is does have more functions than to forbid serial partnering. For example to allow economic unifying of a household (which it did even before Christianity) and to determine rights of inheritance.
That is what we have wills for, and wills are better than rules on intestate succession.
Marriage had a contract but the contract was vague, and technically divorce should have terminated the contract.
A will is better than marriage vague contract.
A prenuptial agreement or the like is better than a marriage contract.
so I don't agree.
Marriage today can be replaced by contract law.
It would be fairer and it would clear the divorce courts.
I disagree. My husband comes from a culture where divorce is not accepted and is still pretty rare, and based on his family, friends, and acquaintances, the ratio of successful to unsuccessful marriages is about the same as here. It's just that the unsuccessful ones are stuck with each other for life. In some cases that means being stuck with an emotionally or physically abusive spouse; in many cases, it means being stuck with an unfaithful one.
I agree. If the marriage clearly isn't going to work, then get a divorce.
The most specious argument for staying together in a loveless marriage is "for the children." Why would you want to show children two miserable adults who don't love each other as what they can expect from marriage when they reach adulthood?
In order to honor the commitment made to God, and in so doing it also provides a stabler, easier life for the children.
Something many people fail at.
Something I "failed" at, even though I had Biblical reason to exit the marriage. There are consequences to all our decisions, and sometimes our children end up having to live with our decisions too. That should not be, even though there is forgiveness.
No marriage then no divorce.
A breach of the contract and you are free.
Marriage is not necessary.
Marriage is in the eye of the beholder. In my eye, it has been a wonder to behold. Were I gifted again with she and the way we went, I should do it all again. It is itself that which pursuaded, at times, just one more day and then one day, I awoke to the morning of our 15,286 th day and she, who made the promise so long ago, smiled and another day was born.
It wasn't marriage that made it happen, it was your relationships.
contrary to your assumption, being married is sometimes the only incentive to going another day and sometimes another day is just enough. If it were too easy too leave, then we end the effort and go our way. The complications of ending a marriage are often times just enough inccentive to try a little longer. A little longer, sometimes is all thats needed.
I don't think it should be abolished. I think, though, with a more complicated society and and better understanding of, and respect for, human nature and emotional wellbeing; what "society" needs to do is step back, gain a better understanding of a lot of things associated with marriage, and hope people will better know how to select a spouse.
Having said that, I know someone who says she thinks they ought to take "til death do you part" out of the vows. She says that was OK when a lot of people died young, but today a lot of people live a really long time. (No wonder the divorce is higher now, eh?)
Again, no marriage means no divorce.
too many marriages don't last and after several marriages to different people and say each one had children.
What has marriage accomplished in those cases.
Hah! Alot easier when everyone died at 30!
I was married once. Once was enough for me. I'll stick with a girlfriend who isn't interested in marriage either. I fully agree marriage is obsolete and today a marriage has less than a 50% of success. The vows and promises are meaningless. Life is too short, why spend your life with someone you no longer get along (due to a various reason like abuse or infedility) with or love?
Marriage is not obsolete. The vows are not obsolete. What has happened is that few people understand a promise (vow) of any kind; few people today can honestly say that "their word is their bond". Without that ethical commitment to the promise, of course the marriage doesn't last.
On the other hand, with two people (it takes two) that do understand a promise and will try hard to keep it, marriage can and does result in something that others cannot understand. I love my wife, and she loves me, with a depth of feeling that neither of us could have imagined or understood 35 years ago.
It is unfortunate that so few couples have the dedication to stick it out - the rewards are unimaginably large to those that have not experienced them.
It seems to me that you made a good argument to abolish marriage.
so you mean like "It depends on what your definition of IS is"
It is unfortunate that so few couples have the dedication to stick it out - the rewards are unimaginably large to those that have not experienced them."
There are a few great marriages out there that are sucessful. Good for them. But unfortunately for every one successful marriage, there's 1.2 that ends in divorce. Dedication to something that isn't working is a waste of time. For those that don't work, it's like driving an old worn out station wagon that keeps falling apart and constantly needs fixing and doesn't get any better. It's easier to junk it and get another one.
Do you know why divorces are so expensive? Because they're worth it!
Most people don't have wills for most of their lives, and besides--providing for your spouse and kids is not something you can opt out of even if you do divorce. I think marraige serves a purpose under the law. That is why people who aren't religious still get married. That is why people go married before Christianity was even invented.
Now this is going to far in my opinion. I dont believe that a few gays wanting to get married is reason enough to abolish the entire divorce lawyer industry. That many lawyers with nothing to do would be disasterous.
This is bigger than gay marriages, it applies to the dismal marriage success. Fifty person of marriage are failing, and multiple marriages are common today.
As I said initially, it is the removal of for life, and the creation of the no fault divorce that makes marriage something that should be abolished, as it no longer represents its original intentions.
Trying to follow your logic here. Everything that encroaches upon a 50% failure rate should be abolished? I suppose that includes all relationships. We could abolish relationships. That would end the potential for divorce and a host of other problems. Damn, it might solve 50% of the problems in the world. While we are at it, lets abolish effort. We could eliminate failure all together. I am, of course assuming that it is failure you are trying to eliminate. Your on to something here. Lets abolish everything that poses the risk of failure (approaching your 50% standard) uh oh, we are going to have to abolish a lot of people. After all, we fail much more than we succeed. Seems to me you have a system which allows you to marry or not to marry. How does abolishing marriage improve upon your freedom or does everyones marriage bother you. Your choice to co habitate certainly doesn't bother me and I am not calling for its abolution. Of course, if we abolish choice we could diminish the prospect of failure. We could create the illusion of no failure. There's an improvement we could wallow in.
I'm not so sure. Things are bad, I think, but if we pulled marriage because it no longer seems to suit the majority, well, I kinda think things might get worse!
In what way would it be better? Just cause people aren't getting divorced wouldn't mean all the problems of broken homes would just disappear.
I don't know. I don't see anything wrong with the institution of marriage. The problems aren't the institution. The problem is a society that takes absolutely nothing seriously. The problem is kids growing up with fairy tales about love and not understanding basic truths because our society prefers pretty lies.
I don't think eliminating marriage would solve anything, or make anything better. Even if it doesn't last, that doesn't mean it wasn't worth it while it did.
Not abolished, unregulated. Free grouping of people should not be restricted. Especially by a government who only uses it as a means to levy taxes. To punish successfull families on one end of the spectrum and to prevent other people from becoming a part of a family on the other. By the way, I'm not speaking about the Homosexual marriage issue.
A marraige isn't a failure just because it ends. A lot of kids are raised very-well in two-parent households within a marriage that ultimately ends in divorce.
"Marriage should be abolished..."
How innovative is this idea....!
Even for plants and products, we are applying for patent-rights. "This is for that person... that is for this company" and so on. Marriage is just for social interaction of two persons, especially for reproduction of humanity. Without this what purpose has marriage? If we abolish marriage-system, then it will be free for all and we all should enter into stone-ages.. or even go to animal-life. A much more civilised innovative idea will be good.
Well well well, I thought you were a product of marriage. Or was there a hatching of eggs?
marriage should be open
one spouse shouldn't get upset if the other decides to fool around with their freinds/workmates/random people on the streets/ or all of the above...
by ib radmasters 5 years ago
The ultimate problem with two people wanting to have a loving long term relationship is MARRIAGE.Marriage is an implied vague and ambiguous contract that has been used forever. When the couple in the marriage decide to leave the marriage this implied marriage contract is useless. Divorce then...
by Sundeep Kataria 4 years ago
Disharmony in Marriage:Should the efforts be made to ADJUST or go for DIVORCE to save time & energy?
by Hilda 8 years ago
How does someone know if that person is the right one? Should one rush into marriage.
by The Filipina Digital Entrepreneur 2 years ago
Divorce is a proof that true love does not exist. Agree or Disagree?
by stacies29 2 years ago
I feel that some women are just scorned lovers who are out 4 revenge.
by lupine 5 years ago
Do you think a marriage should be over if the husband is cheating, and was caught?This is a married couple in their early 30's, married for 13 years. He was caught cheating a few years ago, and was forgiven by his wife, since he pleaded so much to her and swore it wouldn't happen again. Now he...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|