I understand and support marriage-rights for all, but I don't think government should be in the marriage business. As long as they are, I agree, everyone should have equal access. What I am suffering with day to day though is marital status discrimination—like the fact that my girlfriend's company (CBS) won't cover opposite-sex domestic partners (health insurance) but is forced to cover same-sex domestic partners —which is needed, I understand because gay couples still can't legally marry in CA due to the 2008 passing of Prop (H)8. We've been trying to get coverage for me (through her) since 2004 with various H.R. people, and to no avail. There are 4-5 opposite-sex domestic couples *that we know about* that would benefit immediately if CBS would simply stop discriminating. Yes, I am naming names. I see no reason to protect them from their own discriminatory practices.
No company should have an interest in whether I am straight/gay, atheist/theist, single/married, child-free or a father. Why is a California company (or any company) allowed to discriminate on the basis of marriage? This is wrong on any metric, and the solution does not bear simply 'getting married'.
Marriage is not satisfactory because the discrimination inherent to a pro-marriage society attempts to force that very solution to the problem a pro-marriage (and anti-single/cohabiting) society created in the first place. I see the only solution as boycotting marriage and trying to fight to get equal treatment under the law. The pro-marriage status is residue from religiously-inspired edicts against cohabitation or 'living in sin', where only a couple decades ago an unmarried couple could not rent an apartment. or book a hotel room for 'moral' reasons—moreso for those in power who held strong pro-marriage ideals and were basically free to discriminate at-will (until these practices were challenged). Marriage has also been used as a way to discriminate against interracial-unions with miscegenation laws until these were challenged (with success) by Loving vs. Virginia in 1967.
The pro-marriage/anti-single agenda is just the tail-end of a time where being single or in an unmarried relationship is seen as acceptable—but it's not there yet. Even the Republican candidates in 2011 are *still* talking about 'pro-marriage' ideals, and this no-doubt is strongly-inspired by religious ideology.
Unmarried people now outnumber married people in America, but we still get treated quite badly or as if we don't matter. This is due in-part because plenty of progressive-minded people are still getting married, and activists for singles-rights are few and far between. Thankfully, the gay-rights proponents have been unwitting allies for a while now as they fight to get their rights as domestic couples, but opposite-sex domestic couples are still barely recognized. What I should also mention is that companies in CA can choose voluntarily to cover unmarried opposite-sexed domestic couples, but there's no state mandate to do so and other companies (such as CBS) choose to discriminate against us.
If we lived under Jim Crow laws during racial segregation I would not consider 'riding on the back of the bus' a solution either, or simply eating where in the 'white' or 'black' parts of the restaurant. Married couples should not enjoy a 'favored status' in society at all. Even with car insurance, felons in terrible marriages get a discount, where the upstanding non-criminal who chooses to be single suffers a higher rate. This is just wrong, and is probably why Massachusetts and the European Union no longer allow marital-status discrimination with regard to auto-insurance rates. It's also wrong to disallow unmarried domestic partners access to partners in the hospital, where married people are allowed access without question (even if they're in a bitter and contentious separation).
Marital-status discrimination is so endemic that people barely even notice or think about it—but that will change as fewer people validate marriage by getting married. Even the couple who is pro-marriage is still affected by discrimination against opposite-sex domestic partnership...what if they want a long engagement and want to cover a future-spouse on their healthcare plan? Are they simply out of luck? In many states, they are and many companies are still allowed to discriminate based on whether they want to 'encourage' marriage or not (such as CBS). I work in the game industry, and most companies opt to cover unmarried domestic partners—I know because I've checked, so those who don't cover unmarried domestic partners have made a choice to do so, and this discrimination won't stop until *we* who are employed by these companies (or affected by them) take a stand.
Government should not be in the business of recognizing what is basically a sexual relationship, especially while polyamory remains illegal in most states. The Browns featured in the show 'Sister Wives' were basically run out of Utah, a state with an overwhelmingly Mormon majority whose roots lie in polygamy! The hypocrisy is thick here.
Another angle to consider here is that the religious right see healthcare (and other) benefits as a real perk of marriage, and in-promoting marriage over 'living in sin', supporting any individual power to receive quality health-insurance undermines the reasons to get married and indirectly, religion itself.
This is not to put direct blame on people innocently getting married, but the effects are very real, and I refuse to apply a solution (marriage) caused by preferential treatment of one class of people (married) over another (unmarried or gay). My heterosexuality (which I have no control over) allows me to marry legally, but in my view, it's like being white and happily eating at 'white-only' restaurants during the Jim Crow era. I would rather boycott that restaurant entirely and spend my money at the all-inclusive establishments and eat with a clear-conscience.
No government is bigger than the one who invades the bedroom and 'validates' relationships while invalidating others—do you hear that, socially-regressive Republicans? Out best weapon against the injustices of 'marriage' is to simply refuse to participate while continually striving for true equality under the law.
--
Showing posts with label no marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label no marriage. Show all posts
Monday, December 12, 2011
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Marriage: Who Needs It?
I hope you're settled in with a cool drink or hot cuppa joe, coz this is a long one! This could probably be a book, because there's a lot to say.
The premise is simple and direct: Nobody needs to be married in this day and age, and the legal downsides of divorce are tremendous.
I decided a long time ago that I don't need to be married *ever*, and this was back in 1989 or so when I de-converted from Catholicism. While some of us in our society are deprived of the right I also boycott in protest. As an atheist, I don't want to feed-into the 'married' couple ideal set up by ancient religions which I don't believe in, and any religious prescription to get married is irrelevant to me.
The concept of marriage comes from an institution where women were seen as chattel property. They didn't always have the right to vote and were told to 'honor and obey' theirmasters husbands....and all of this was after the understanding that there was no sex before marriage. Talk about motivation.
Pledging lifelong allegiance to a person based on the transient-insanity of sexual desire at a young age (or any age) is not the wisest choice, especially considering the change humans go through and the penalties for 'failure'.
Divorce has historically been shunned or could get one excommunicated from one's social networking group (church) and what many believe is the path to 'salvation'. Worse, divorce in modern times often means huge lawyer fees, alimony payments to maintain the lifestyle of an ex-spouse (usually the female) for a lifestyle she couldn't maintain without the partner in the first-place. On top of all this is community property law in relevant states and ball-busting judges with agendas who basically can decide your fate with the bang of a gavel...but if you're not married (assuming no common-law marriage) then you don't have to worry about the legal entanglements of divorce.
Without marriage, you're free to leave if it suits you and it keeps partners on better behaviour, and there won't be divorce lawyers banging on your door (and your bank account) with all the legal recourse in the world to make you miserable.
Child-support is often alimony in disguise and rarely relates directly to what a child actually needs as additional income (look at what celebrities pay in child-support). Since child-support follows the child, marriage doesn't relate to children at all except in some traditional religious sense, but religion has no effect on those immune from its dictates.
Sure, some of you are screaming at the monitor, 'Get a pre-nup doofus!'. Now, ask yourselves, why do you need a contract to *undo* the horrible contract that comes with a marriage certificate? Talk about a red-flag. It's like going to a car dealer with a lawyer-drafted contract to counter-act the bad contract you're getting into at the dealership. The simple thing to do is avoid the bad-contract in the first place.
Simply put, divorce can be insanely expensive, and confers too much power to the female (usually) and a legal system which has no business in the affairs (literally) of consenting adults.
It's disconcerting to think that the government 'stamps approval' on some relationships, but other taxpaying, consenting adults cannot marry at all because they share the same gender. Likewise, if four women want to marry one guy, what business is it of the government's? Guys with tremendous resources (or a convenient harem-religion) always attract multiple partners (same with powerful women). If they're all consenting adults, it's none of our business.
Oddly, straight couples under the age of 62 cannot even become domestic partners in California, where I live, though they *used* to be able to before politicians removed that law and just left us the 'all or nothing' marriage option.
Sure, companies can *elect* to honor heterosexual domestic-partners with regard to health-coverage, but there is no state-mandate. If you're straight and under 62 in California, it's marriage or nothing. If you're gay, it's domestic partnership or nothing. The logical thing would be to allow both straight and gay couples to enter into marriage or a domestic partnership if they so choose.
It's all a big hot flaming and discriminatory mess and I want no part of it.
Societal conditioning prepares young girls for marriage at an early age, though that trend is probably changing in 2009. There is a reason newsstands are plastered in 'Bride' magazines, but rarely will you find a 'Groom' magazine. There is a reason women want marriage in the U.S. more than men...they have everything to gain, generally speaking, and little to lose, whereas men stand to lose a lot in the event of divorce.
As an atheist, I am not bound by the dictates of the church. I am free to ignore its prescriptions for celibacy before marriage and ignore the very idea of marriage itself. After all, who invented this idea? It's out-dated and simply unnecessary in a modern age.
Some will fall under the misconception (usually promoted by wannabe brides) that marriage=commitment. Wrong. Divorce rates speak for themselves. Over half of marriages end in divorce, even with couples who claim to be religious (since they are the majority in the first place). In fact, unmarried households now outnumber traditional, married households as reported by U.S. Today in 2006. This shows that the trend is going away from marriage simply because it just doesn't work, statistically-speaking, and there's a lot to lose if you're in the more than 50% who end up getting divorced.
Speaking of commitment, some women will use this buzzword to try and get a guy to marry them, and I guess some men might do that, but you'll most often hear this from women on talk-shows, in books, articles, etc. The idea is that if the man doesn't 'commit', then the woman should find someone else to 'commit' and marry her. What is the idea here, to find a spouse or find the *right* person who you want to spend time with? Why do people feel they need a label, a legal paper and an expensive ceremony to feel 'committed' to someone, all the while being willing to let a good person go if they won't sign a legal document? Sounds like extortion to me. Imagine pressuring your friends....'Hey man, be my friend for life or find another friend!'. The logic just doesn't make any kind of sense.
If a woman is willing to leave you, a man she wants to be with forever simply because you won't sign a contract to marry, then she doesn't really want to be with you forever. It's simple. You're easily replaced, and she is telling you that unless you sign this contract, you're going to be replaced by someone else she wants to be with 'forever'...someone who WILL sign on the dotted line.
Commitment is not on a legal document. It's in the mind and displayed in your behavior. Unless I am missing something, people don't go to the altar with the intent to get divorced in the forseeable future (except gold-diggers who nobody should unwittingly marry in the first place). Ostensibly, those who get married take their vows seriously enough, and would prefer to stay married. But, life isn't a fairytale. Some people cheat, they grow bored, they change (sometimes wildly so), they disagree about fundamental issues such as religion, kids, money, in-laws, or what kind of wedding cake to get.
Humans are dynamic creatures, and evolution didn't shape us (notably, males) for long-term monogamy. Women drop an egg a month, men generate billions of sperm a day. If monogamy happens, great, and those who enter into relationships should honor the physical well-being of their partners and not spread diseases they might catch in a tryst. The moment one cheats, it behooves that person to tell his/her partner and abstain from sex until then. It's one thing to change your mind, but it's another to expose an innocent party by way of undisclosed dalliances.
That said, humans change...it's guaranteed. Whether you will change together or not cannot be known and it's another reason not to try and put a 'forever' label on marriage.
Let's pretend for a second that 'marriage' is just the first of two-stages of arbitrary 'commitment' labels. What if there was another level called 'Flarriage'? Would the partner then be comparing and contrasting with her friends, annoyed that the hubs will marry her but not 'Flarry' her? It could get ridiculous. One of the reasons I think that women get annoyed when they're not married is that they see it as some sort of personal failure, as if they weren't 'good enough' to 'get' a guy to marry them. But, there's no competition. What matters is whether you enjoy spending time with the person and whether you want to mutually continue.
The analogy just demonstrates that the label 'marriage' is arbitrary, even if it's widely thought to be something more. With regard to real commitment, it's in your brain and your 'heart' so to speak, not on a legal document. In fact, the false-security of marriage might cause some people to cheat, simply because they feel more trapped than they otherwise would....and they feel trapped because in a very real legal sense, they are.
The reason people get cold feet, most notably men, is because they are about to sign a paper which assumes they'll be together forever in the eyes of the law and their church for those who are religious, but with a huge penalty for failure (divorce) leading to a serious financial hit which can last a lifetime. In California, an alimony award (usually to the female) will cost the male *for life* if the couple were married over 10 years. Yeah, cold-feet isn't just a worry about the open-bar tab after the reception. Imagine deciding you'd rather have a Mini-Cooper than a paid-off Honda, but you still have to pay for the Honda even when someone else is driving it!
Some marriage proponents (or those seeking company in their misery) will note the perks that come with the legal rat's-nest of matrimony. Yes, there are rights conferred to married people that are withheld from gay or unmarried straight couples, but this is discrimination and should be treated accordingly...even by people who are allowed to get married.
Take hospital visitation, for instance. The law allows family and spouses visitation rights whereas it's disallowed for unmarried partners. Domestic partners who are government-recognized have these and next-of-kin rights in some states, but straight-couples under 62 cannot even get domestic partnership status if they wanted to!
It's not up to the hospital to decide who should visit you. If you're conscious, you should have a list of people who are allowed to see you, and those who are blocked at the nurse's station. Some people may have a dear friend they'd love to see and family they never want to see. Simply because someone is a spouse or family-member has nothing to do with visitation, but those who aren't having government approved sexual relations suffer the abuse of discrimination, simply because they are not married or straight. This will change, but it's been an issue.
With regard to death benefits...anyone can set up a will or other legal means to protect the partner in the event of death and through life-insurance. You certainly don't need marriage for this.
In the old days, you could not get a hotel room with your girlfriend/boyfriend without being married. Those days are over. Common law marriage was an awful Draconian practice where the government would 'marry you anyway' if you lived with someone for 7-10 years, depending on your state. Thankfully, this ridiculous law is off the books in most states (including my home state of California).
The downsides of unmarried relationships are minimal nowadays, but the downsides of divorce remain colossal. If you're unmarried, you're there because you want to be...like your parents, your brother or sister, your dog or cat, and your job. In California, businesses generally hire you 'at will', meaning they can fire you anytime for any reason, and you can leave when you want. This is ideal, since the employer is not saddled with a sub-par employee and the employee can always pursue a better deal.
Relationships are no different. There are always options, and no legal paper will disguise that. A woman can find a better-looking, richer guy who cuddles more and is better in bed. A guy can find a hotter, younger woman who is a nympho and part-time chef and gets season passes to baseball games. Staying with someone 'at-will' is far more noble and freeing than being married, without the ever-looming threat of messy, expensive divorce. You're there because both of you find it mutually beneficial.
Here's another example. Think of anyone you ever broke up with. Things started well, right? But, when things went sour, you were glad you didn't marry them. Since over-half of marriages end in divorce, everyone who gets divorced probably wishes they were never married either...though that doesn't mean they wouldn't still have had a relationship. You never know if you 'should have gotten married' until it's too late, but if you never marry in the first place you won't set a legal bear-trap for yourself just because things changed in a manner you didn't predict.
Nobody needs marriage. It's unecessary in a modern time, and the downside of divorce is tremendous and could lead to financial ruin for some. What we're seeing is the slow dissolution of the marriage idea before our eyes, changing incrementally by generation. First, gay couples can't get married, then they can, then it's voted down, but we all know that eventually, gay-marriage will be common, unremarkable and available to any gay couple.
Social progress is slow and the religious conservatives continue to do their level best to oppress others through legislated social-retardation, but in the end social-progress wins....the religious could not keep slavery, they couldn't keep women from voting, they couldn't keep Jim Crow laws and segregation, they can't suppress evolution, astronomy or science at large, and they certainly won't be able to 'save' marriage or even religion itself once people realize they don't have to allow the church to think for them. As religion dies its slow death, marriage will die along with it.
I predict that in 10 years, maybe less....marriage will be seen as the old-fashioned, quaint yet hopelessly naive, outdated and unnecessary institution it is. Unmarried households already outnumber married households in the U.S.. The shift has already started.
Finally, here's the unassailable logic in its simplest form: If you're gonna get divorced you shouldn't have gotten married and if you're gonna stay together, you don't need marriage.
-Happily unmarried for 12 years.
-dB-
The premise is simple and direct: Nobody needs to be married in this day and age, and the legal downsides of divorce are tremendous.
I decided a long time ago that I don't need to be married *ever*, and this was back in 1989 or so when I de-converted from Catholicism. While some of us in our society are deprived of the right I also boycott in protest. As an atheist, I don't want to feed-into the 'married' couple ideal set up by ancient religions which I don't believe in, and any religious prescription to get married is irrelevant to me.
The concept of marriage comes from an institution where women were seen as chattel property. They didn't always have the right to vote and were told to 'honor and obey' their
Pledging lifelong allegiance to a person based on the transient-insanity of sexual desire at a young age (or any age) is not the wisest choice, especially considering the change humans go through and the penalties for 'failure'.
Divorce has historically been shunned or could get one excommunicated from one's social networking group (church) and what many believe is the path to 'salvation'. Worse, divorce in modern times often means huge lawyer fees, alimony payments to maintain the lifestyle of an ex-spouse (usually the female) for a lifestyle she couldn't maintain without the partner in the first-place. On top of all this is community property law in relevant states and ball-busting judges with agendas who basically can decide your fate with the bang of a gavel...but if you're not married (assuming no common-law marriage) then you don't have to worry about the legal entanglements of divorce.
Without marriage, you're free to leave if it suits you and it keeps partners on better behaviour, and there won't be divorce lawyers banging on your door (and your bank account) with all the legal recourse in the world to make you miserable.
Child-support is often alimony in disguise and rarely relates directly to what a child actually needs as additional income (look at what celebrities pay in child-support). Since child-support follows the child, marriage doesn't relate to children at all except in some traditional religious sense, but religion has no effect on those immune from its dictates.
Sure, some of you are screaming at the monitor, 'Get a pre-nup doofus!'. Now, ask yourselves, why do you need a contract to *undo* the horrible contract that comes with a marriage certificate? Talk about a red-flag. It's like going to a car dealer with a lawyer-drafted contract to counter-act the bad contract you're getting into at the dealership. The simple thing to do is avoid the bad-contract in the first place.
Simply put, divorce can be insanely expensive, and confers too much power to the female (usually) and a legal system which has no business in the affairs (literally) of consenting adults.
It's disconcerting to think that the government 'stamps approval' on some relationships, but other taxpaying, consenting adults cannot marry at all because they share the same gender. Likewise, if four women want to marry one guy, what business is it of the government's? Guys with tremendous resources (or a convenient harem-religion) always attract multiple partners (same with powerful women). If they're all consenting adults, it's none of our business.
Oddly, straight couples under the age of 62 cannot even become domestic partners in California, where I live, though they *used* to be able to before politicians removed that law and just left us the 'all or nothing' marriage option.
Sure, companies can *elect* to honor heterosexual domestic-partners with regard to health-coverage, but there is no state-mandate. If you're straight and under 62 in California, it's marriage or nothing. If you're gay, it's domestic partnership or nothing. The logical thing would be to allow both straight and gay couples to enter into marriage or a domestic partnership if they so choose.
It's all a big hot flaming and discriminatory mess and I want no part of it.
Societal conditioning prepares young girls for marriage at an early age, though that trend is probably changing in 2009. There is a reason newsstands are plastered in 'Bride' magazines, but rarely will you find a 'Groom' magazine. There is a reason women want marriage in the U.S. more than men...they have everything to gain, generally speaking, and little to lose, whereas men stand to lose a lot in the event of divorce.
As an atheist, I am not bound by the dictates of the church. I am free to ignore its prescriptions for celibacy before marriage and ignore the very idea of marriage itself. After all, who invented this idea? It's out-dated and simply unnecessary in a modern age.
Some will fall under the misconception (usually promoted by wannabe brides) that marriage=commitment. Wrong. Divorce rates speak for themselves. Over half of marriages end in divorce, even with couples who claim to be religious (since they are the majority in the first place). In fact, unmarried households now outnumber traditional, married households as reported by U.S. Today in 2006. This shows that the trend is going away from marriage simply because it just doesn't work, statistically-speaking, and there's a lot to lose if you're in the more than 50% who end up getting divorced.
Speaking of commitment, some women will use this buzzword to try and get a guy to marry them, and I guess some men might do that, but you'll most often hear this from women on talk-shows, in books, articles, etc. The idea is that if the man doesn't 'commit', then the woman should find someone else to 'commit' and marry her. What is the idea here, to find a spouse or find the *right* person who you want to spend time with? Why do people feel they need a label, a legal paper and an expensive ceremony to feel 'committed' to someone, all the while being willing to let a good person go if they won't sign a legal document? Sounds like extortion to me. Imagine pressuring your friends....'Hey man, be my friend for life or find another friend!'. The logic just doesn't make any kind of sense.
If a woman is willing to leave you, a man she wants to be with forever simply because you won't sign a contract to marry, then she doesn't really want to be with you forever. It's simple. You're easily replaced, and she is telling you that unless you sign this contract, you're going to be replaced by someone else she wants to be with 'forever'...someone who WILL sign on the dotted line.
Commitment is not on a legal document. It's in the mind and displayed in your behavior. Unless I am missing something, people don't go to the altar with the intent to get divorced in the forseeable future (except gold-diggers who nobody should unwittingly marry in the first place). Ostensibly, those who get married take their vows seriously enough, and would prefer to stay married. But, life isn't a fairytale. Some people cheat, they grow bored, they change (sometimes wildly so), they disagree about fundamental issues such as religion, kids, money, in-laws, or what kind of wedding cake to get.
Humans are dynamic creatures, and evolution didn't shape us (notably, males) for long-term monogamy. Women drop an egg a month, men generate billions of sperm a day. If monogamy happens, great, and those who enter into relationships should honor the physical well-being of their partners and not spread diseases they might catch in a tryst. The moment one cheats, it behooves that person to tell his/her partner and abstain from sex until then. It's one thing to change your mind, but it's another to expose an innocent party by way of undisclosed dalliances.
That said, humans change...it's guaranteed. Whether you will change together or not cannot be known and it's another reason not to try and put a 'forever' label on marriage.
Let's pretend for a second that 'marriage' is just the first of two-stages of arbitrary 'commitment' labels. What if there was another level called 'Flarriage'? Would the partner then be comparing and contrasting with her friends, annoyed that the hubs will marry her but not 'Flarry' her? It could get ridiculous. One of the reasons I think that women get annoyed when they're not married is that they see it as some sort of personal failure, as if they weren't 'good enough' to 'get' a guy to marry them. But, there's no competition. What matters is whether you enjoy spending time with the person and whether you want to mutually continue.
The analogy just demonstrates that the label 'marriage' is arbitrary, even if it's widely thought to be something more. With regard to real commitment, it's in your brain and your 'heart' so to speak, not on a legal document. In fact, the false-security of marriage might cause some people to cheat, simply because they feel more trapped than they otherwise would....and they feel trapped because in a very real legal sense, they are.
The reason people get cold feet, most notably men, is because they are about to sign a paper which assumes they'll be together forever in the eyes of the law and their church for those who are religious, but with a huge penalty for failure (divorce) leading to a serious financial hit which can last a lifetime. In California, an alimony award (usually to the female) will cost the male *for life* if the couple were married over 10 years. Yeah, cold-feet isn't just a worry about the open-bar tab after the reception. Imagine deciding you'd rather have a Mini-Cooper than a paid-off Honda, but you still have to pay for the Honda even when someone else is driving it!
Some marriage proponents (or those seeking company in their misery) will note the perks that come with the legal rat's-nest of matrimony. Yes, there are rights conferred to married people that are withheld from gay or unmarried straight couples, but this is discrimination and should be treated accordingly...even by people who are allowed to get married.
Take hospital visitation, for instance. The law allows family and spouses visitation rights whereas it's disallowed for unmarried partners. Domestic partners who are government-recognized have these and next-of-kin rights in some states, but straight-couples under 62 cannot even get domestic partnership status if they wanted to!
It's not up to the hospital to decide who should visit you. If you're conscious, you should have a list of people who are allowed to see you, and those who are blocked at the nurse's station. Some people may have a dear friend they'd love to see and family they never want to see. Simply because someone is a spouse or family-member has nothing to do with visitation, but those who aren't having government approved sexual relations suffer the abuse of discrimination, simply because they are not married or straight. This will change, but it's been an issue.
With regard to death benefits...anyone can set up a will or other legal means to protect the partner in the event of death and through life-insurance. You certainly don't need marriage for this.
In the old days, you could not get a hotel room with your girlfriend/boyfriend without being married. Those days are over. Common law marriage was an awful Draconian practice where the government would 'marry you anyway' if you lived with someone for 7-10 years, depending on your state. Thankfully, this ridiculous law is off the books in most states (including my home state of California).
The downsides of unmarried relationships are minimal nowadays, but the downsides of divorce remain colossal. If you're unmarried, you're there because you want to be...like your parents, your brother or sister, your dog or cat, and your job. In California, businesses generally hire you 'at will', meaning they can fire you anytime for any reason, and you can leave when you want. This is ideal, since the employer is not saddled with a sub-par employee and the employee can always pursue a better deal.
Relationships are no different. There are always options, and no legal paper will disguise that. A woman can find a better-looking, richer guy who cuddles more and is better in bed. A guy can find a hotter, younger woman who is a nympho and part-time chef and gets season passes to baseball games. Staying with someone 'at-will' is far more noble and freeing than being married, without the ever-looming threat of messy, expensive divorce. You're there because both of you find it mutually beneficial.
Here's another example. Think of anyone you ever broke up with. Things started well, right? But, when things went sour, you were glad you didn't marry them. Since over-half of marriages end in divorce, everyone who gets divorced probably wishes they were never married either...though that doesn't mean they wouldn't still have had a relationship. You never know if you 'should have gotten married' until it's too late, but if you never marry in the first place you won't set a legal bear-trap for yourself just because things changed in a manner you didn't predict.
Nobody needs marriage. It's unecessary in a modern time, and the downside of divorce is tremendous and could lead to financial ruin for some. What we're seeing is the slow dissolution of the marriage idea before our eyes, changing incrementally by generation. First, gay couples can't get married, then they can, then it's voted down, but we all know that eventually, gay-marriage will be common, unremarkable and available to any gay couple.
Social progress is slow and the religious conservatives continue to do their level best to oppress others through legislated social-retardation, but in the end social-progress wins....the religious could not keep slavery, they couldn't keep women from voting, they couldn't keep Jim Crow laws and segregation, they can't suppress evolution, astronomy or science at large, and they certainly won't be able to 'save' marriage or even religion itself once people realize they don't have to allow the church to think for them. As religion dies its slow death, marriage will die along with it.
I predict that in 10 years, maybe less....marriage will be seen as the old-fashioned, quaint yet hopelessly naive, outdated and unnecessary institution it is. Unmarried households already outnumber married households in the U.S.. The shift has already started.
Finally, here's the unassailable logic in its simplest form: If you're gonna get divorced you shouldn't have gotten married and if you're gonna stay together, you don't need marriage.
-Happily unmarried for 12 years.
-dB-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Atheist Angle RSS Feed