As a legal concept, yes. As an event that couples might consider symbolically important, I guess it still has value, but I see no reason why we need the legal side.

Reply 8

Fernand126

It's an important social institution to protect family. It is needed in the legal side because it ensures that, in case the couple starts to lose interest in one another, there are undeniable records that clearly say that, at some point in their lives, they compromised themselves with each other. So if they engage in a legal dispute for a child or something, there is evidence of their past.

Reply 9

DErasmus

**** off

liberals have already started ruining other institutions in their quest to destroy shared values and create a utopia of conflict where no one can agree with anyone.

Reply 10

donutaud15

I don't think so. Some people want a symbolic ceremony. The legal side of it is useful too I guess.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 11

StevieA

Original post by anarchism101

As a legal concept, yes. As an event that couples might consider symbolically important, I guess it still has value, but I see no reason why we need the legal side.

Try telling that to most women, then watch them run faster than Bolt in his prime. But I agree with you, men would love living in a world where the state doesn't completely destroy them in a divorce (financially and emotionally) or force them to pay for children when women hold 99% of all reproduction decisions. Anarchy all the way, brother.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 12

ilem

Original post by anarchism101

As a legal concept, yes. As an event that couples might consider symbolically important, I guess it still has value, but I see no reason why we need the legal side.

That's a great point. Fewer guys would be distrustful and sceptical of marriage if the possibility for financial ruin wasn't included in the package.

Reply 13

MindTheGaps

Marriage gives you and your spouse certain legal rights, which it makes sense that people in committed relationships would want to have. For example, if your wife/husband dies and you automatically inherit the family home, and you do not have to pay inheritance tax. How does the law tell who is in a committed relationship? Well they have to publicly sign a contract affirming that commitment to each other. We call this a marriage.

I can see how the ceremony and tradition could be seen as archaic, but the principle is certainly not.

Reply 14

Zorgotron

It's definitely not outdated and the alternatives simply aren't as good. Fact of the matter is that single-parenthood has become epidemic, relationships last only as long as people are interested and often people lose interest before having children, which in turn leads to low fertility in the population in general.

The more marriage has weakened, the more our sustainability has weakened - we now bring in immigrants from third world countries to have the children we can't be bothered to have. They don't call the future of Europe Eurabia for nothing.

Reply 15

anarchism101

Original post by ilem

That's a great point. Fewer guys would be distrustful and sceptical of marriage if the possibility for financial ruin wasn't included in the package.

Actually I would expect that whatever legal stuff is still necessary would be done by civil partnerships, which would be available to both straight and gay couples, and I'd anticipate wouldn't have the same historic/cultural baggage as marriage.