Why shouldn't we abolish marriage?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

For someone who doesn't think a subject is worth attention you sure do follow this thread closely.

Hmmm. Something about this subject must have touched a nerve. That wasn't my intent.

I don't know what it is for Spirit, but for me it is the countering of a choice-reducing activism. The content is not so important.

[Lauxa]

@Still Growing,

By sharing insurance benefits, I mean my husband has the option through his company to add me to his health insurance plan and to take out life insurance for me.

The biggest problem I see with G.I.M. is that gov't gets to say who you can marry (no polygamous or, in some cases, homosexual marriages). However, if you are going to allow the gov't the power to decide which corporate contracts to honor then I don't see how that solves the problem. Prenups are a legitimate way to modify the marriage contract within the current system. For instance, a church could require everyone it marries to sign additional prenups and I'd bet there are some pretty standard prenups you can by from lawfirms.

The 50% divorce rate I don't see as a problem. You claim it is a problem because of the cost of judges, etc. People have pointed out that (1) there will still be legal costs when people dissolve contracts and (2) there are ways of reducing these costs without privatising marriage. We could have a debate (and have been) about how to reduce costs associated with marriage and maybe a private system would emerge as the best idea. That requires things like researching the actual costs and doing cultural comparisons.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Lauxa

The biggest problem I see with G.I.M. is that gov't gets to say who you can marry (no polygamous or, in some cases, homosexual marriages).

I agree, Lauxa. And I think a more effective solution -- a MoreChoice solution, is making G.I.M. available for any consenting adult(s).

Removing it completely because it's not currently available to everyone sounds like a harried mom's reaction to kids squabbling over a toy -- not really the best answer for adult situations, in my view.

[Lauxa]

Originally Posted by Angela

I agree, Lauxa. And I think a more effective solution -- a MoreChoice solution, is making G.I.M. available for any consenting adult(s).

Removing it completely because it's not currently available to everyone sounds like a harried mom's reaction to kids squabbling over a toy -- not really the best answer for adult situations, in my view.

Angela,

It seems like more gov't regulation leads to less choices, not more.

I'm not sure the toy analogy fits. It's not like the current marriages would be revoked, just no new ones would be issued by the gov't. They would still be issued by churches/corporations. So maybe it would be more like mom doesn't give the kids any new toys but instead they get money to buy what they like and can afford.

As long as mom is giving the kids toys instead of money they have less choice as to what they will get. Of course, the kids COULD reject the toys from mom, get money from somewhere else, and get what they really want.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Lauxa

Of course, the kids COULD reject the toys from mom, get money from somewhere else, and get what they really want.

Exactly. You don't have to go through all the trouble of abolishing Mom. You could just grow up.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Its really subjective Spirit. An idea can be great however that doesn't mean they can really be implemented.

Then, with all due respect, it is not a great idea. Ideas that cannot be implemented are lousy IMO.

Even if certain ideas were more efficient or did improve things it doesn't mean people would be ready for them.

True. Some ideas are too early. But when times are ready, they will be implemented if they are great. E.g. the whole computer concept is centuries old, but the technology wasn't yet available. Social changes usually don't need technology, but shifts in mindsets.

...
To create change you have to have a mass awareness of a problem first before people are ready to focus on creating real solutions. If public opinion is not seeing a need then people aren't conditioned.

I do feel resistance when you speak about conditioning. Where is the choice, the freedom?

...
But thanks for throwing in one last "thats your job" and another "snarky wink".

For someone who doesn't think a subject is worth attention you sure do follow this thread closely.

Hmmm. Something about this subject must have touched a nerve. That wasn't my intent.

Why do you need to make this so personal? I respond to what you write, that is all. My nerves aren't touched so much. Are you sure you are not projecting something here? You claiming to know what I think amuses me greatly. It's a mix of misplaced certainty and misinterpretation.

I do admit I am fascinated by you claiming that your idea is a great idea. Where do you get that certainty?

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Lauxa

...
That requires things like researching the actual costs and doing cultural comparisons.

Still waiting for those actual costs and the actual benefits here .

The current system has some problems but nothing as major as Still Growing states, in my opinion. People are free to marry or not marry, and if some useless limitations (no gay marriage or poly marriage) would be removed, it would be near perfect.

Whatever system we could change it in to, there will always be legal hassles both in starting and in ending formal relationships.

[Still Growing]

Here's my response:

CHOICES: Right now you have less choices because you only have one form of marriage. If the gov't didn't give the outlines for the institution then you would have an evolution of marriage. The catholic church could choose people to go to counselling for X hours. Gay people could get married. Certain marriage corporations could have uber contracts for the wealthy. Etc, Etc.

INSURANCE: Gov'ts set tones. If your insurance company required a marriage certificate upon starting coverage you could provide it from wherever you got married. Insurance companies don't cover spouses or children for free so I doubt they'd cry foul.

ALLOWING GOV'T TO DECIDE: The government wouldn't have to decide which marriages to recognize or not. Its not for them to decide; its for the individual to decide.

LEGAL COSTS: Giving church's more authority on who they choose to give marriage contracts to would reduce divorces for their followers. Private organizations who advertised for the lowest divorced rates would have programs to reduce divorces. Private organizations would also do a better job at implementing better marriage contracts that have arbitration clauses. So why doesn't the gov't create better marriage contracts now you ask? Because one size MUST FIT ALL currently. This reduces the ability to evolve the system.

VALIDITY OF AN IDEA: Spirit says that ideas are only good if they are implementable. In the world of immediate gratification she is right. I think, however that debating the complex problems are the most fruitful.

Time is not fixed and every idea starts with the recognition of a problem. Because the masses are not yet aware that there is a problem doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist. Truly great ideas come from recognizing a problem that others do not see (just yet).

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

...
In the world of immediate gratification she is right.
...

I'll take this as a compliment but the women in my life are quite convinced I'm a man. Who am I to oppose them?