It’s a divisive issue.
What would replace it? What would the world be like then?
Although this an open-ended thread, I would like to avoid the we would have orgies in the street type response.
You know what causes even more division? Language. Let’s abolish language!
Or you know what would be even better would be abolishing the respiratory system. That’d get rid of both marriage and language.
If you’d rather discuss something remotely plausible or desirable, however, ask for this thread to be closed.
No. Many people want it, it doesn’t hurt other people for them to have it, so we should let those who want to marry, marry. It’s ultimately just a formalization of the human tendency to pair bond after all; eliminate legal marriage and you’ll just have people create their own extralegal customs.
Marriage is like pitching. Just because most people are bad at it doesn’t mean it’s not a useful and beautiful thing when done well.
I think the poster really meant, “lets reinstall marriage” as something without the historical baggage.
Which is also a terrible idea, but not for the reasons being responded to so far on this thread.
It’s better to marry than to burn.
But it’s close.
Order and structure in essential to build a society which indirectly depends on the nature and behavior of the constituent individuals. To be honest a “marriage” in the social sense, is a public declaration of the companionship between a couple. It will now form the ground basis on which their family is going to be established (i.e: kids and their kids and so on). So now we have a traceable ancestry for an individual.
This; from a genetic point of view is pretty useful if you wish to determine offspring, inheritance of genetic diseases, etc.
Now plunging further into the question… let’s assume a free mating, open society… what will happen is that human society will now begin to look more like other animal societies where the male is attempting to mate with as many females as possible. There will then be territorial divisions and (possibly) more violence as each male is trying to supersede the other male through show of strength to steal and mate with females.
This again will have a consequence on the general gene pool as now, more “brawny” males will have a chance to propagate than “brainy” males. (Unless of course the females choose “brainier” men than “brawnier” men… then the selective pressures will move towards that direction)…
There’s more in my head that I can rant on about… but it WILL change the social structure which will begin to affect the very gene pool of the human species.
Note: May seem a bit far fetched… but not too much if you give it a good thought.
What does marriage have to do with “orgies in the street”? Persons who believe in fidelity in their marriage are not going to street-fucks, persons who are likely to participate in such events either do not get married, or they have arrangements with their partners that allows them this hobby. And it is none of my business how any other couple deals with personal matters.
People like to pair-bond. It seems we have been doing that since well before any official “marriages” existed. We will most likely continue to do so if the institution is eliminated.
I can see the logic in seperating the sacrament of “Holy Matrimony” from the civil recognition of marriage, much as a baptism record is not a birth certificate. But that is more a question of how a given couple wishes to celebrate or confirm their marriage than a redefinition of the institution.
I’m OK with this, because I believe that the abolition of the nuclear family would be beneficial to society in the long run.
How so. I am not disagreeing with you, but bare assertions are rather a poor way to put forth an argument.
I wouldn’t mind divorcing the religious practice of “marriage” from the civil practice of “domestic partnership,” or whatever term people would prefer to use for the latter. There is no reason other than historical intertia for the government to be involved in the religious element, but there is certainly compelling reason for state-recognized partnerships.
edit: e.g., the power to make medical decisions for one’s incapacitated spouse, fifth amendment protection, or the ramifications with respect to raising hildren together.
I’ve never understood this one, actually. If a person of sound mind wants to legally authorize another person control of future medical decisions should the need arise, why does it matter to the government whether that person is a spouse or just a close friend?
It shouldn’t. However, it is convenient for all parties to include that right in the marriage contract, rather than negotiating each individual partnership. Individual authorizations can also be challenged by other kin while spousal rights rarely are.
Only for bigots, who would be more than happy to blame a certain segment of the population for causing the “destruction” of marriage, just like they predicted.
So… thanks, but no thanks.
I personally think it would be somewhat easier to add a line to the current law that says “these people can get married, too”, rather than abolish a legal device that is incorporated into thousands of laws and replace it with something different. I’ll also note that adding a line to the current law DOES NOT affect my personal marriage rights, while abolishing marriage would presumably affect my marriage rights quite severely.
Marriage predates religion, it predates government. It is part of human nature, it existed back in the stone age, and very likely predates modern humans. There are no human societies anywhere in the world at any time that did not have marriage.
Our human social structure is different than chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans or gibbons. Different human cultures have different rules and idealized concepts about what marriage is and should be, but they all deal with preexisting human nature. There used to be this idea that there was no such thing as human nature, and we could redesign society however we liked, since human beings were a blank slate. But it’s pretty obvious that humans are not blank slates. You can’t just sweep away existing human behaviors by fiat without courting disaster.
So what exactly would it mean to “abolish” marriage? Do you mean that governments wouldn’t acknowledge that two people are married? What exactly would be the benefit of that? It turns out that humans live together, they have children together, they buy property together, they love each other, they get sick and care for each other.
Refusing to acknowledge that people exist in a family is simply silly, because the family and the marriage exists whether you acknowledge that it exists or not. It is formed by the people who form it, not by a government official or by a priest. And this is why opposition to gay marriage is silly, because gay people already marry each other whether we acknowledge their marriages or not.
Times change and with it society changes. For instance with DNA tests it is pretty easy to determine a child’s mother or father.
Also, this is an era of relatively easy communication. The internet has made it much easier for like-minded people to meet if they wanted to.
Abolishing marriage may simply mean that couples would turn to 5 year contracts or other socially approved forms. It’s also possible that marriage isn’t outdated.
However, statistics do show that in CA only approximately half the adult population is married now. This could be a trend.
It’s your topic-what are your thoughts on the matter?
I agree with Lemur. “Marriage” in the sense of two people bonding themselves together in a longterm relationship centered around family seems what humans universally gravitate towards. Even though sexually we are all over the map, when it comes to relationships, we seem to prefer pair bonding. So I don’t even know what abolishing marriage would even look like. Even if you got the government out of it, it is unlikely our language would change. Folks would still feel the need to distinguish seriously committed relationships that involve children and living together from typical boyfriend/girlfriend relationships.
Does not logically follow that therefore marriage should be abolished.
Does not logically follow that therefore marriage should be abolished.
Does not logically follow that therefore marriage should be abolished.
Does not logically follow that therefore marriage should be abolished.
None of these statements is at all relevant to whether or not marriage should be abolished. So what if fewer people choose to marry legally? It’s not hurting anybody, and it benefits a lot of people who do engage in it, in countless ways.
If it were abolished, people would still pair off. If marriage was magically removed from the law books, people would reinvent it to approximate what they had before. So why abolish it in the first place?