We Need to Legally Revise Marriage Contracts

[JimBowie1958]

No, this is not about me; I am happily married, Praise God.

But the concept of what a marriage is is a vestigial legal relic of Western European Christian cultures and it is time to revise those contracts to fit the intent of modern society, whose couples have a different set of desires in many cases than what would have been recognized in 1900.

If a person marries another American today, they dont necessarily know what they or their spouse will think about being married to them ten years afterwards. They may have changed in their beliefs or their partner may have. And some people wont to insure that they and their partners dont change at all.

We have prenuptial agreements that are varied in their effectiveness from state to state and who drew up the agreement. Most marriages do not have such agreements, IIRC, and to reduce confusion later, should be options in the marriage contract by standard contract guidelines.

I am thinking we have need for three basic contracts that may have variation on a couple of issues for each.

1. Open Marriage Contract. Both partners agree to allow their partner to have sexual relationships outside of the marriage. This contract could have multiple partners and is not exclusive. Their property is not communal unless amended to specify so. There is a default prenuptial agreement that each retains their own earned property as calculated by the percentage of property value they brought in plus how much they earned during the marriage. The would have a standard option to define the time frame in which they and their partners have to notify the other partners of extramarital activity.

2. Standard marriage contract that is found in most states today.

3. A Covenant Marriage is a permanent marriage contract as it used to be, in which all property is communal and the prenuptial agreement is that whoever is opting out of the marriage forfeits all accrued property within that marriage as penalty for leaving and violating the contract. The partner that commits adultery is considered to have opted out of the marriage by default, though the spouse may forgive the infidelity. I think most Christian churches would want to see their members take the Covenant Marriage contract as that most fits the New Testament view of marriage. And of course it can be amended by the couple to tweak it to their desire.

Anyway, this would make divorce and communication within a marriage far easier and simpler and less costly. It might help to restore some respect to the institution of marriage by the public.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Covenant Marriage Contact is based on the old Roman patrician contracts from 2000 years ago. They are not needed.

A simple civil union contract, much like those in France, would be a good model.

 

[Katzndogz]

You can really have any kind of marriage contract you want. Or none at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not if the contract does not meet state law.

 

[Silhouette]

And what do we write into the marriage contracts reflecting the third parties to it? 90% of the public feels it's important for a child to have both a mother and father. Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

That was an implicit enjoyment children had to the contract until last Summer. Gay marriage cruelly deprives all children involved to that contract of either a mother or father FOR LIFE. It is a life sentence of deprivation.

Any thoughts on how to address children's part in the marriage contract for over a thousand years?

 

[WorldWatcher]

And what do we write into the marriage contracts reflecting the third parties to it? 90% of the public feels it's important for a child to have both a mother and father. Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

That was an implicit enjoyment children had to the contract until last Summer. Gay marriage cruelly deprives all children involved to that contract of either a mother or father FOR LIFE. It is a life sentence of deprivation.

Any thoughts on how to address children's part in the marriage contract for over a thousand years?

Sure, you say children are part of the marriage contract, so:

1. Person's are not permitted to have children if already married. As it is unfair for a child to be born with no selection of the husband or wife in the marriage contract.

2. It's perfectly OK for children to be born to a man and woman who are not married. However, if the woman becomes pregnant - then the couple cannot marry until the child turns 18 and reaches the legal age of majority. At such time the child gets a vote on whether the parents can get married.​

(And yes, this is sarcasm based on Silhouette lying about her poll and what it means and her delusion that children are part of the marriage contract and therefore get to determine who the parents get to marry.)


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

Children are never part of a marriage contract.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There has never explicitly or implicitly a contract of children with their parents.

Try that in a normal school and failure will be the immediate result.

 

[mdk]

And what do we write into the marriage contracts reflecting the third parties to it? 90% of the public feels it's important for a child to have both a mother and father. Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

That was an implicit enjoyment children had to the contract until last Summer. Gay marriage cruelly deprives all children involved to that contract of either a mother or father FOR LIFE. It is a life sentence of deprivation.

Any thoughts on how to address children's part in the marriage contract for over a thousand years?

Children have never been an implicit part of a marriage contract in this nation. If they were, they could stop their parents from marrying and/or divorcing. You can lie to yourself about 'implicit enjoyment' and your moronic poll until the cows come home; however, the rest of the public isn't bound by your hapless bullshit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And what do we write into the marriage contracts reflecting the third parties to it? 90% of the public feels it's important for a child to have both a mother and father. Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

That was an implicit enjoyment children had to the contract until last Summer. Gay marriage cruelly deprives all children involved to that contract of either a mother or father FOR LIFE. It is a life sentence of deprivation.

Any thoughts on how to address children's part in the marriage contract for over a thousand years?

This is not addressing what to do with children, it is addressing the change in how society sees marriage. Anyone having a marriage that is not a traditionally defined marriage, needs a marriage contract that reflects that new nontraditional perspective on marriage.

I am open to other ideas too, and was hoping to get some.

What about having a Child Bearing Contract for those who see their marriage as primarily about the children they plan to raise? Or maybe call it ' 'Child Focused Marriage'? What would be a title you would like?

 

[JimBowie1958]

And what do we write into the marriage contracts reflecting the third parties to it? 90% of the public feels it's important for a child to have both a mother and father. Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

That was an implicit enjoyment children had to the contract until last Summer. Gay marriage cruelly deprives all children involved to that contract of either a mother or father FOR LIFE. It is a life sentence of deprivation.

Any thoughts on how to address children's part in the marriage contract for over a thousand years?

Sure, you say children are part of the marriage contract, so:

1. Person's are not permitted to have children if already married. As it is unfair for a child to be born with no selection of the husband or wife in the marriage contract.

2. It's perfectly OK for children to be born to a man and woman who are not married. However, if the woman becomes pregnant - then the couple cannot marry until the child turns 18 and reaches the legal age of majority. At such time the child gets a vote on whether the parents can get married.​

(And yes, this is sarcasm based on Silhouette lying about her poll and what it means and her delusion that children are part of the marriage contract and therefore get to determine who the parents get to marry.)


>>>>

Children are obviously part of a traditional family, and their interests should be a part of the consideration, IMO, but that is not what we now have today.

Marriage contracts need to be revised so that people have options and we do not continue to do damage to the security people expect from their marriage contracts.

Were I to have had such a choice I would have taken a 'Covenant Marriage' contract, but I feel fairly secure in my relationship, and that is on me for feeling that way as I am having a hard time with my business and feeling less worthy as an adult.

But we see the value in having more selections in other contracts and products in our society, so why not with marriage as well?

 

[JimBowie1958]

And what do we write into the marriage contracts reflecting the third parties to it? 90% of the public feels it's important for a child to have both a mother and father. Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

That was an implicit enjoyment children had to the contract until last Summer. Gay marriage cruelly deprives all children involved to that contract of either a mother or father FOR LIFE. It is a life sentence of deprivation.

Any thoughts on how to address children's part in the marriage contract for over a thousand years?

Children have never been an implicit part of a marriage contract in this nation. If they were, they could stop their parents from marrying and/or divorcing. You can lie to yourself about 'implicit enjoyment' and your moronic poll until the cows come home; however, the rest of the public isn't bound by your hapless bullshit.

Those Breeders are such a hassle, arent they?

roflmao

 

[EverCurious]

Meh I've always felt it doesn't matter either way. Personally even in my hetro-marriage I'd prefer to have a civil marriage than one idk "tainted" by religious rites. (I have issues with organized religions, though not it's believers - just the leaders/corrupters/controllers.)

 

[mdk]

And what do we write into the marriage contracts reflecting the third parties to it? 90% of the public feels it's important for a child to have both a mother and father. Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

That was an implicit enjoyment children had to the contract until last Summer. Gay marriage cruelly deprives all children involved to that contract of either a mother or father FOR LIFE. It is a life sentence of deprivation.

Any thoughts on how to address children's part in the marriage contract for over a thousand years?

Children have never been an implicit part of a marriage contract in this nation. If they were, they could stop their parents from marrying and/or divorcing. You can lie to yourself about 'implicit enjoyment' and your moronic poll until the cows come home; however, the rest of the public isn't bound by your hapless bullshit.

Those Breeders are such a hassle, arent they?

roflmao

Hassle? No, not really. Almost all of my friends are breeders. lol

 

[Fang]

The issue isn't outdated marriage contracts. The issue is with individuals making poor life choices. There isn't a contract that could account for all the stupid sh|t people do.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The issue isn't outdated marriage contracts. The issue is with individuals making poor life choices. There isn't a contract that could account for all the stupid sh|t people do.

Hey! IT is MY THREAD and I say it is about marriage contracts.

If you want to change the thread topic, go start another thread instead, mmk?

 

[Fang]

The issue isn't outdated marriage contracts. The issue is with individuals making poor life choices. There isn't a contract that could account for all the stupid sh|t people do.

Hey! IT is MY THREAD and I say it is about marriage contracts.

If you want to change the thread topic, go start another thread instead, mmk?

It's your party. Whatever you say.

 

[Silhouette]

There has never explicitly or implicitly a contract of children with their parents.
.

Perhaps not. But what there has been is an implied enjoyment for children from the contract of both a mother and father. In fact, that was the reason the contract was invented: for children to enjoy having both a mother and father. You cannot deprive children of a vital share or enjoyment of a contract without their having representation. And you cannot deprive children of a vital share or enjoyment of a contract if that enjoyment comprises a necessity, even if they themselves agree to the change. That change is still void.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No "perhaps" exists, Sil.

No contract, explicitly or implicitly, as you suggest will ever exist.

 

[Silhouette]

It in fact does exist. You can't spin-away a child's enjoyment of a contract, conspicuous for over a thousand years.