Comments on: What place does marriage have in the next decade?

By: steven m

steven m — Tue, 12 May 2009 02:15:59 +0000

Marriage in the past bound two people together forever with a contract with the Church. and the undertaking to raise any children with that church. At that time the church controlled everything, peoples lifes and their education from birth to death. The Church has lost alot of that control

You can Now get legally married, in a forest clearing by a witch or shaman, without a priest. Something the church stopped years ago under pain of death. Freedom of religion is important, one church no longer controls everyones lives with a iron sword.

Families still live together happily without ever involving the church until they are ready or they want to

By: the yorky bar kid.

the yorky bar kid. — Sun, 10 May 2009 14:39:27 +0000

bit like a mortgage you keep paying but never seem to get anywhere.

By: John T

John T — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:12:44 +0000

Marriage is an antiquated notion.

To look at the role of marriage in the next decade you should examine the roots of marriage in history. It used to be that marriage was about exchanging woman as property – dowry/betrothals – or as political/social manouvering.

In some parts of the world this is still true.

Marriage has been losing clout over the last century as women have gotten more rights and equality and therefore lost the status of ‘property.’

In Australia there are commonlaw protections for ‘de facto’ couples (living together for more than 12 months) which afford a lot of the legal protections of a married couple – in that sense it is legally outdated and barring the religious beliefs – socially outdated as well. As the number of people turning away from religion increases (Australian census figures show significant increases in the numbers of people declaring themselves atheists) so too will the importance and role of marriage decrease.

It’s always going to have a role based on the personal importance placed on marriage as an institution and/or the desire to have a big fat party.

By: Boopsie

Boopsie — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:15:01 +0000

There will always be a place for marriage in our society.

..it makes a person feel secure, ( Funny how a piece of paper can do that).
..and the only purpose it seems to serve is acceptance in a church going society ( church has a powerful function and acceptance and will for the most part for years to come.)

But, marriage does not need that peice of paper, it only needs commitment….True marriages can be had without that paper…

By: The Grit is Go

The Grit is Go — Mon, 04 May 2009 11:45:28 +0000

For those of us who still believe in the power of commitment (and what it says about us), marriage will remain unchanged. To me, marriage never was about the kids or sexual exclusivity (though those are certainly connected). It was and is about committing to one other person and working to have a deep, meaningful human connection with that person. To me, it still means working through the worst and the best of times. But . . . I fear I am in the minority on that one.

From what I see and hear others saying, I don’t think marriage serves a purpose beyond legal recognition of estate and finances. That kind of makes me sad.

But it has to be more than that. If you asked my *** friends who aren’t legally permitted to marry, I’m sure they would give a different perspective. I don’t say that to be political. I say it because I know one couple that longs for the legal right to marry simply because they want to be equal in society. That is their perspective, and it is clearly a different one than I can represent as a straight woman who has the legal right to marry.

EDIT: Oh, goodness, no. That’s not what I’m saying. But being legally bound certainly makes the commitment more tangible.