Turn on thread page Beta

Divorce is the symptom, MARRIAGE is the problem watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thread linked below is titled The divorce rate in England is disgusting

    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1171089

    Divorce rates, while declining marginally in the UK still has a high ratio (no citation, but I think it's around 1 our of 4 marriages end in divorce?)

    So why not make it harder for people to get married? Then only people who are more sure to stay together should be able to get married, not anyone with enough vodka and within walking distance to the register (registrar?).

    Cohabiting couples now share the same (or most?) of the rights of married couples (eg adoption rights, 'family' status on hospital visitations, will) so people can still be together, but then the institution of marriage would be strengthened. It's a bit contradictory to 'save the sanctity' of marriage by having tons of disgruntled and unhappy couples and even dangerous for people in abusive relationships. So why not make marriage available only to people who are certain of what they are getting into and in it for the long-run, and people who want to be together can but live together for awhile. And if they want and they've matured together, get married. Then divorce and marriage rates would reflect the number of couples who actually DO want to be husband and wife 'till death do us part.'

    Divorce laws should not be tightened up- people should still be able to leave marriages if they feel that it's not working. Life is short, why make it miserable and have a hostile environment for the kids. With more laws regulating the kind of people who can get married, then there would be less divorce, and marriage would finally have that dignity everyone assume it has. On that note, discuss.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I assume that people who do get married think they will be in it for the long run. Doubt anybody gets married thinking its going to break down.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    It wouldn't make much difference to the whole children thing.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    How would you distinguish who was fit for marriage and who was not?

    My parents had stable jobs, didn't abuse me/each other, had no debts, they were a perfectly normal married couple. They got divorced. How could any one predict that in advance??

    I don't see how you could implement it at all.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    its all well and good saying only those that are sure should be allowed to get married but lets face it none of us know whats round the corner

    you might be head over heels with your partner and think you are going to be together till death do us part but then one of the couple cheats, its happens, things can go wrong even with those that are sure

    im sure i want to spend the rest of my life with my bf and i cant wait for us to get married but neither of us know whats round the corner
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah probably not. It probably wont do away with divorce by using tougher marriage laws/requirements, and probably harder to implement if anyone would actually get round to defining criteria and all, but it's just a shame that people take divorce rates so much as an indicator of society's morality when it's so easy to get into a marriage, something that's usually seen as a long term, if not life commitment. And I'm not saying this would eradicate divorce, just strengthen marriage. People would still be able to get divorced just as easily, but with more regulation on who can get married then the odds of you sticking it out would be much higher than lets say a 16 and preggers girl marrying her boyfriend. (Btw, WHY would anyone do that?)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Amirahaha)
    Cohabiting couples now share the same (or most?) of the rights of married couples (eg adoption rights, 'family' status on hospital visitations, will) so people can still be together, but then the institution of marriage would be strengthened.

    No they dont, they never have, probably never will.
    Offline

    15
    Yeah this isn't the Simpons where a drunk Flanders and even more drunk Homer got married to hookers [?] in Vegas in a casino :hmpf:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    people do tend to rush into marriage a bit these days. You need to at least live with someone for a few years before you start thinking about it.

    As for people who get married before even having sex... :facepalm2:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Marriage is one of the biggest problem in society today.
    I'm totally against it, I'd rather die than get married :dry: all those delusional moronic idiots that say 'it cements our love for eachother' are talking rubbish, if they're really in love then the need for a legal binding contract on some piece of paper is irrelevant.

    What it really is, is a profitable, marketable scheme. An excuse for the women to have a day dedicated to them, and for the governments to 'unionize' society...and the conservatives aren't helping by offering tax breaks to married couples, add another bullcrap reason for people to marry why don't you :facepalm:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For the people who DO want to get married. There's a reason why homosexual couples want to get married.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    OP...................marry me! :bl:

    Nah, you basically just said everything I think about marriage. The whole caboodle is an ancient sham and it's only purpose is to give the women their Big Day Out (or Big Pay Out if the man is a celebrity or rich). I don't see how marriage is the ultimate symbol of love and committment at all. Either you're going to stay loyal and faithful or you're not. A piece of paper isn't going to change that, as esteemed gentlemen such as Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods and John Terry have proven......
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Playboy King)
    Marriage is one of the biggest problem in society today.
    I'm totally against it, I'd rather die than get married :dry: all those delusional moronic idiots that say 'it cements our love for eachother' are talking rubbish, if they're really in love then the need for a legal binding contract on some piece of paper is irrelevant.

    What it really is, is a profitable, marketable scheme. An excuse for the women to have a day dedicated to them, and for the governments to 'unionize' society...and the conservatives aren't helping by offering tax breaks to married couples, add another bullcrap reason for people to marry why don't you :facepalm:
    Marriage isn't really that popular now, I highly doubt it's one of the biggest problems in society today. And those 'delusional moronic idiots' have a higher chance of getting divorced, so they should be denied getting married- at least temporarily. Marriage should be when people decide to share their lives together where a life long commitment is more than a possibility- it's what they truly want and are prepared to work to get that. (On the other hand, things happen and people DO change, so they should be able to divorce).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I had a thought about marriage earlier. Disregarding the religious and cultural status it gives you, what legal benefits does marriage give you? I know there are tax breaks being proposed, but what is there currently? As far as I can see, marriage seems like an insurance policy. It gives you a legal tool to stop your partner screwing you over. I mean if you're dependent on your partners earnings (for the sake of argument lets say this is something you have both agreed to) and you're not married, they can just go back on their agreement and leave you with nothing. Well there's probably some legal action you can take in certain circumstances, but presumably it's something that's much easier to do if you're married.

    So wouldn't that mean that getting a legal marriage is actually the opposite of a sign of trust? It's insurance against it all going wrong. I might be totally wrong about this, I have very little idea of what the legal status of being marriage gives you.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Marriage is the symptom, monogamy is the problem. More people who are prone to cheating need to own up and be honest and just be single, or be in an open relationship, BOOM problem solved. Why Footballers don't do this is beyond me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't believe high divorce rates are a problem. It's a sign that people don't feel pressured into staying in relationships that aren't working. I don't think 'society' should dictate what individual couples should do. People change. It's a fact. When they get married they believe that their relationship will last. Many people ignored the simple truth that people can't see into the future.

    In the case of children I find that people are continuously being told these days about the importance of married parents on a child's welfare, which I agree with, if the couple are happy. However, I believe it is much more damaging for a person to be living in an environment where the parents are conflicting and abusive to eachother, than for them to be in a peaceful household minus one parent. It's a lesser of two evils, in my opinion.

    Aside from that, in my own experience, I don't think I'd be able to have any kind of relationship with my father if he hadn't left. He was an agry man, and I spent my early childhood tiptoeing around him and trying not to cause an argument between him and my mother. I was happy when it ended.

    Not all cases are like this, but I wanted to point out the adverse effects that staying together can have.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude Where's My Username)
    OP...................marry me! :bl:

    Nah, you basically just said everything I think about marriage. The whole caboodle is an ancient sham and it's only purpose is to give the women their Big Day Out (or Big Pay Out if the man is a celebrity or rich). I don't see how marriage is the ultimate symbol of love and committment at all. Either you're going to stay loyal and faithful or you're not. A piece of paper isn't going to change that, as esteemed gentlemen such as Bill Clinton, Tiger Woods and John Terry have proven......
    Weddings are heavily commercialized, but I think if it was ever going to happen to me it'd be more about having a massive get together of friends and family rather than a public display of smugness and superiority (whoa that rhymed!) I blame Vogue for making weddings into that expensive flowery white frothy mess.

    And about being loyal and faithful, I guess I'm a lot more open minded about marriage and couples than I thought. I always think that if it's cool with each other and the kids aren't harmed, you can be whatever you want with each other. Like swinging couples, open relationship couples, polygamy, polyandry, or anything really. I never really categorize married couples as monogamous heterosexual and with kids. The only thing I'd object to is when couples deceive each other.

    And btw, green smiling dinosaur? Tempting proposal. Very tempting.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    I had a thought about marriage earlier. Disregarding the religious and cultural status it gives you, what legal benefits does marriage give you? I know there are tax breaks being proposed, but what is there currently? As far as I can see, marriage seems like an insurance policy. It gives you a legal tool to stop your partner screwing you over. I mean if you're dependent on your partners earnings (for the sake of argument lets say this is something you have both agreed to) and you're not married, they can just go back on their agreement and leave you with nothing. Well there's probably some legal action you can take in certain circumstances, but presumably it's something that's much easier to do if you're married.

    So wouldn't that mean that getting a legal marriage is actually the opposite of a sign of trust? It's insurance against it all going wrong. I might be totally wrong about this, I have very little idea of what the legal status of being marriage gives you.
    Other than tax breaks and exemptions, being married gives you the same rights as blood-related family members. In other words, visitation rights in hospital, inheritance rights (without the presence of a will), better ability in getting a mortgage, easier adoption process, things about organ donation (something about only able to get organs from immediate family or something). And something like if your partner is under police custody or in a horrible accident and they contact your next of kin. Without you being the legal spouse, you wont automatically be notified. Legally, you're not family. And if your partner has a kid from another partner (so the same way as you being stepdad, think Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie) and your partner dies, you won't get custody without a lengthy legal battle. There's probably more, but I'm not too sure. Need Google.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'd say Divorce is the product, MARRIAGE is the problem. Society does not place so much emphasis on marriage security any more.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with the concept - that it would be helpful in lowering the divorce rates if only couples who were quite sure they were going to last forever got married. Although it's not something you can really implement or enforce. It'd be very difficult to find some kind of objective criterion which determined whether a couple was allowed to get married or not.

    The best you can really do is try to stress to your children that they should be thinking more with their brain, and less with their heart/genitals when choosing a marriage partner.
    And also that they shouldn't just run to the divorce courts as soon as something goes wrong, but see if they can work things out, or come to some sort of compromise.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.