Flopper
Diamond Member
- Mar 23, 2010
- 31,679
- 8,800
Well marriage is not going back to just a religious rite which makes that line discussing a waste of time.What constitutional problems? If marriage went back to where it was as a religious rite, then the Constitution has nothing to do with it. Furthermore there are a lot of people like myself who never wanted to be married so I never got married. I have lived with a woman and children on several occasions. The only way for us to get marital benefits would have been for us to get married, and those women (like myself) objected to any kind of marriage religious or otherwise.
Unless you are planning to have children to carry out your name, marriage to me is stupid. How does that conversation go anyway? "Honey, I love you, and you love me. We have this great thing going, and the only possible way to make it better is getting government involved in our relationship!"
So a social contract replacing government marriage preserves marriage for normal people and gives anti-marry people like myself the ability to have the government benefits married people get.
There are of course advantages and disadvantages to marriage. When children come into picture, marriage is much more important. Medical research has convincingly showed that children who are raised by their married, biological parents enjoy better physical, cognitive, and emotional outcomes, on average, than children who are raised in other circumstances.
On the legal front, however, breaking up can be a lot easier for unmarried couples than going through a divorce. However, if there are children and the parents can't resolve their disputes, things can be very messy because the codified divorce procedures that apply to married couples do not apply to unmarried folks.