TEMP Marriages??

[decodelighted]

That''s what one chick in Germany is campaigning for!

 

[Mara]

after reading this...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070920/ap_on_fe_st/odd_onion_assault;_ylt=Au5I8uqvK4B8eeiKifsgDqeek3QF

i thought...well that initial idea might have merit!!

 

[nytemist]

Deco I read that article this morning. I find it pretty interesting. I mean it certainly is not the ideal, since you''re supposedly entering marriage forever, but it seems a unique option for people not quite sure if they want to continue. I''ve read that seven years is the average before divorce, right?

BTW I do like the fact that she''s a biker chick!

 

[Sha]

Is this what marriage has come to? From a lifetime to seven years...?

I think we should still be striving for the ideal. It''s true it sometimes doesn''t work out... but is the answer to revise our expectations downwards?

Think of how a 7-year marriage would affect the children.. Marriage is about commitment. I think it would be sad if this is the modern version of it.

 

[Mara]

Date: 9/21/2007 2:29:42 PM
Author: Sha
Is this what marriage has come to? From a lifetime to seven years...?

I think we should still be striving for the ideal. It''s true it sometimes doesn''t work out... but is the answer to revise our expectations downwards?

Think of how a 7-year marriage would affect the children.. Marriage is about commitment. I think it would be sad if this is the modern version of it.

It''s an interesting perspective though...I mean where did the notion of ''forever'' come from? And is that right for today? Just because something was right 200 years ago does not mean it''s right today. I personally don''t always believe in accepting everything and questioning nothing.

While I don''t necessarily agree or disagree and am married, hopefully for forever, I can definitely recognize that there are a ton of couples who might be better suited to the 7 year marriage. And the article says you have the option to get remarried or stay married, but you also have the option to get out without having a divorce stigma attached to you. Who says it''s adjusting expectations DOWN? Maybe it''s just making things more realistic and level for today''s day and age.

As for it affecting the children, I would venture to say that if it was universally accepted and within 50 years was the ''norm''...there wouldn''t be adverse effects to any kids. Like if everyone was doing it, it wouldn''t be out of the ordinary to have a marriage dissolve in 7 years. Also in terms of it affecting the kids negatively, wouldn''t a divorce affect them just as negatively? Or fighting all the time staying in a loveless marriage? If the parents are happy at 7 years, they get remarried, and the kids certainly would find joy in that right?

I personally don''t view things like this in black and white, and while I still do like and believe in, the notion of forever in a marriage, people change all the time and I believe many divorces come from a few simple facts people can''t live with. People change and you can''t change them or yourself back or go back to a certain time when things were different. Also, on the same vein,people DON''T change... in fundamental ways that their spouse wishes they would. I think those 2 things are what cause the most divorces as people can either accept or not accept change or lack thereof and act accordingly.

So for me personally, if something like that DID happen and marriage was made 7 years, it wouldn''t affect me either way...because I would figure well if I get married and expect it to last forever, then if it doesn''t...it doesn''t and it it does...we just get remarried. It wouldn''t make me any less committed.

 

[lyra]

Yet another way to oppress women.

There are too many not-by-choice single parent (female) households as it is, and it seems women always get stuck bearing the financial responsibility and all the rest that goes with it when there is a divorce with children involved. Or if their husbands simply want to trade them in for a "younger model". Yeah, I'm showing my age (45!) probably, but I also have 2 daughters. I am definitely opposed. I like Dr. Phil's approach that you have to "earn" a divorce. Why get married in the first place. That's also a valid choice, not to get married at all. Grr.

ETA: JMO, I'm not debating anyone else's POV which is valid for them.

 

[kcoursolle]

Why bother getting married at all if people aren''t willing to make it last? Why don''t they just live together for as long as they would like instead?

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 9/21/2007 2:08:38 PM
Author: Mara
after reading this...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070920/ap_on_fe_st/odd_onion_assault;_ylt=Au5I8uqvK4B8eeiKifsgDqeek3QF

i thought...well that initial idea might have merit!!

Oh my goodness. What a crazy man!!!



Wow, I heard some statistic somewhere saying marriages only last 5 years. Maybe should change it from 7 to 5. That may be interesting if it happened; I just think that would make marriage some sort of joke. I think this lady just want some attention so she found a good way to get it!

 

[justjulia]

I can''t imagine what that would do to a child''s self esteem--gee, it''s year six and I wonder where I''ll be next year..? How can I keep my parents together?... Nuts.

 

[Mara]

Date: 9/21/2007 3:41:21 PM
Author: justjulia
I can't imagine what that would do to a child's self esteem--gee, it's year six and I wonder where I'll be next year..? How can I keep my parents together?... Nuts.

as opposed to what? not knowing that the parents are probably going to get divorced anyway next year? or just not *talking* about it? with the divorce rate at still over 50% last time i checked...honestly do people think that any kids are better off right now than with something like this? if chances are good parents are going to get divorced anyway (and so many do), this just lets them do it without a stigma attached. obviously 'forever' doesn't hold much weight now for many people right?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 9/21/2007 2:45:28 PM
Author: kcoursolle
Why bother getting married at all if people aren''t willing to make it last? Why don''t they just live together for as long as they would like instead?

Ditto! Temp marriage is ludicrous!

 

[justjulia]

Date: 9/21/2007 4:33:23 PM
Author: Mara

Date: 9/21/2007 3:41:21 PM

Author: justjulia

I can''t imagine what that would do to a child''s self esteem--gee, it''s year six and I wonder where I''ll be next year..? How can I keep my parents together?... Nuts.

as opposed to what? not knowing that the parents are probably going to get divorced anyway next year? or just not *talking* about it? with the divorce rate at still over 50% last time i checked...honestly do people think that any kids are better off right now than with something like this? if chances are good parents are going to get divorced anyway (and so many do), this just lets them do it without a stigma attached. obviously ''forever'' doesn''t hold much weight now for many people right?

So, for the sake of conjecture, are you saying that "stigma" is the only reason people get married in the first place? I think our celebrities today exemplify that "forever" is a joke. A marriage is only a reason to throw around a million dollars. Are we only looking for the next high?

Children throw a whole ''nother thing in there. I still believe that we have to have these "immortal" standards for the shear sake of hope. Hope. Hope. Hope.

 

[snlee]

Date: 9/21/2007 4:44:01 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 9/21/2007 2:45:28 PM
Author: kcoursolle
Why bother getting married at all if people aren''t willing to make it last? Why don''t they just live together for as long as they would like instead?

Ditto! Temp marriage is ludicrous!

Thritto! I agree!

 

[luckystar112]

So basically you won''t have a divorce on PAPER, but you''ll have to tell your next partner you''ve had several "practice marriages"?
Eh. I''d save the trouble and just not get married.
Just like annullments....having one doesn''t mean you were never married!

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 9/21/2007 2:08:38 PM
Author: Mara
after reading this...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070920/ap_on_fe_st/odd_onion_assault;_ylt=Au5I8uqvK4B8eeiKifsgDqeek3QF

i thought...well that initial idea might have merit!!

LOL!!!! Seriously. The things that make news today.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 9/21/2007 2:41:18 PM
Author: lyra
Yet another way to oppress women.

There are too many not-by-choice single parent (female) households as it is, and it seems women always get stuck bearing the financial responsibility and all the rest that goes with it when there is a divorce with children involved. Or if their husbands simply want to trade them in for a ''younger model''. Yeah, I''m showing my age (45!) probably, but I also have 2 daughters. I am definitely opposed. I like Dr. Phil''s approach that you have to ''earn'' a divorce. Why get married in the first place. That''s also a valid choice, not to get married at all. Grr.

ETA: JMO, I''m not debating anyone else''s POV which is valid for them.

You know that this is a woman''s proposition, right?

As for your post, you and I are complete opposites! hehe. I feel like men are oppressed more than women like to acknowledge. The sexism things is kind of reversing itself slowly, in my opinion. But that''s a topic for a rainy day!!!

 

[Mara]

julia no i don't think that stigma is why people get married but it is a reason that some do not get divorced. especially if you are a serious practicing catholic.

i agree that children in general is a whole other ball game but my point was that obviously people don't take marriage seriously NOW with the whole agreeing to forever and til death do us part thing so why is everyone so up in arms about the law just basically taking what people are doing anyway and making it only legally binding for 7 or 5 or whatever number of years.

i wanted to point out again that i do believe in forever, but i don't think that if the law was 7 years and then we'd just have to get remarried or check a box or something to stay together then it would really influence us. personally i don't care if the law would change or whatever as it doesn't govern the committment we made in our minds when we got married. at this point the state of marriage is not what it used to be 100 or 50 years ago...so i'm not surprised that people are trying to suggest changes quite honestly.

 

[Gypsy]

Date: 9/21/2007 5:43:12 PM
Author: luckystar112
So basically you won't have a divorce on PAPER, but you'll have to tell your next partner you've had several 'practice marriages'?
Eh. I'd save the trouble and just not get married.
Just like annullments....having one doesn't mean you were never married!

Ditto.

Can you image the proposal,

"Will you marry me?"
"Forever?"
"Um... no just for the next seven years or so, I'm not really sure I can commit to more than that."
"I thought you loved me!"
"I do, and I WILL, for the next seven years. There's an option for renewal, if you're a good wife I'll keep you!!"

And the vows?

"Do you promise to love, honor, and respect each other for the next seven years, with the option to renew at the seven year expiration term of this arrangement."

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 9/21/2007 5:52:30 PM
Author: Gypsy

Date: 9/21/2007 5:43:12 PM
Author: luckystar112
So basically you won''t have a divorce on PAPER, but you''ll have to tell your next partner you''ve had several ''practice marriages''?
Eh. I''d save the trouble and just not get married.
Just like annullments....having one doesn''t mean you were never married!

Ditto.

Can you image the proposal,

''Will you marry me?''
''Forever?''
''Um... no just for the next seven years or so, I''m not really sure I can commit to more than that.''
''I thought you loved me!''
''I do, and I WILL, for the next seven years. There''s an option for renewal, if you''re a good wife I''ll keep you!!''

And the vows?

''Do you promise to love, honor, and respect each other for the next seven years, with the option to renew at the seven year expiration term of this arrangement.''

LOL, Gypsy!

What do you think Deco, out of curiosity??

 

[Mara]

deco dropped a bombshell and then went MIA!!! out with you woman! i wanna know what

means.

 

[Steel]

Everybody is entitled to a point of view.

Here is mine...

I got married for a number of reasons; a not insignificant reason was the perpetuity of our union.

I haven’t read the links posted but I heard this on the news today and felt it was another ‘attack’ on what I believe to be the sanctity of my marriage. I feel that the concept of marriage is metamorphosing and I don’t like it. My keenest explanation is that it is like joining a club, investing everything and the board of management change the clubs’ activities. I’m already a member to a concept and now people want to change the rules. Don’t involve me.

If the folks that be decide to amend the intrinsic values of civil union, may they do so until they are blue in the face. But don’t call it marriage. Perhaps call it the ‘indefinite, non conclusive, impermanent, possible joining but more likely to be passing meeting of two (or more) persons during an intended (or incidental) 7 year period’.

Leave my marriage alone.

Now, should the concept in contention be divorce rather than marriage that is a different kettle of fish. Amend the divorce rules as much as you like. People make mistakes. People change. People can be very mean. A spouse should not have to continue an abusive union. Any reasonable measures undertaken by the legislature to ensure that spouses are protected (including the dissolution of said marriage) is viewed by me to be as imperative as measures to uphold the current concept of marriage.

Some may feel my views are polar opposites of each other, that is due to my poor explanation. Keep marriage as it is. But allow that the civil union be dissolved in individual and unique on a case by case basis- as circumstances require. If you want an interim commitment, create one, but keep your mitts off my marriage.

 

[TravelingGal]

I do believe marriage is about commitment and forever.

I don't think that everyone does, even though they don't admit it.

For some, it's already a "let's see if this works out...if it doesn't, it doesn't" kind of thing from the get-go.

For some, it's about planning fairy tale weddings and getting married because everyone else is doing it and it's the thing to do.

And the list goes on and on.

And although on the whole, I see where Mara is coming from and agree to a point, I wouldn't vote for someone who wants to make marriage easier to get out of...

I'd vote for the person who wanted to make marriage harder to get INTO.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

I think the actual numbers were-In divorces where no children had been conceived the most frequent (or average I am not sure?) number of years they had been married was 3

And that in divorce cases where the couple had conceived one or more children the vast majority of them (or average? but I think majority) had been married for 7 years.


Thereby meaning that couples that are going to get divorced usually do it after 3, unless they have children and then they do it after 7--that was my understanding anyway.

____________---

oh, as an interesting side note, though I am not a Christiana, as I recall the bible does say that in the end days people will call marriage evil. So.......... maybe "Temporary Marriages" is one step closer to that happening? I can just see the day when a couple gets married for one night in order to make "moral" premarital sex, or in the case of bigamy, even adultery. .... I wait in anticipation to see what develops!

(so long as my Fiance always loves me anyway, and never calls our marriage off, or, god forbid, calls it evil!

and honestly I have made myself sad just typing it up...)

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 9/21/2007 6:25:18 PM
Author: TravelingGal
I do believe marriage is about commitment and forever.

I don''t think that everyone does, even though they don''t admit it.

For some, it''s already a ''let''s see if this works out...if it doesn''t, it doesn''t'' kind of thing from the get-go.

For some, it''s about planning fairy tale weddings and getting married because everyone else is doing it and it''s the thing to do.

And the list goes on and on.

And although on the whole, I see where Mara is coming from and agree to a point, I wouldn''t vote for someone who wants to make marriage easier to get out of...

I''d vote for the person who wanted to make marriage harder to get INTO.

Agreed!!!!!

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 9/21/2007 6:35:56 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 9/21/2007 6:25:18 PM
Author: TravelingGal
I do believe marriage is about commitment and forever.

I don't think that everyone does, even though they don't admit it.

For some, it's already a 'let's see if this works out...if it doesn't, it doesn't' kind of thing from the get-go.

For some, it's about planning fairy tale weddings and getting married because everyone else is doing it and it's the thing to do.

And the list goes on and on.

And although on the whole, I see where Mara is coming from and agree to a point, I wouldn't vote for someone who wants to make marriage easier to get out of...

I'd vote for the person who wanted to make marriage harder to get INTO.

Agreed!!!!!

Ditto here too! There are so many who do "let's see if it works out." I think when you have that mentality then it probably won't.

 

[decodelighted]

HA!! Sorry! Didn''t mean to "drop the bomb & run".

What do *I* think? I''m not sure, actually. There''s a kind of crazy practicality to it. And the idea of REcommitting periodically appeals to me.

But I also agree that going INTO something with an "escape clause" or "expiration date" seems ... um ... doomed.

I''m feeling a bit circumspect about the topic cuz my best friend is going through a divorce (at the 10 year mark) ... and TODAY I got a STRONG hint that my closest co-worker might also be heading there as well (also at just over 10 yrs). I mentioned before that 10% of the people who attended our wedding LAST OCTOBER have separated. That percentage may have increased today. IN THE LAST YEAR!! I think I''m a bit shaken by it ...

 

[Sha]

Date: 9/21/2007 2:37:49 PM
Author: Mara

Date: 9/21/2007 2:29:42 PM

Author: Sha

Is this what marriage has come to? From a lifetime to seven years...?


I think we should still be striving for the ideal. It''s true it sometimes doesn''t work out... but is the answer to revise our expectations downwards?


Think of how a 7-year marriage would affect the children.. Marriage is about commitment. I think it would be sad if this is the modern version of it.

It''s an interesting perspective though...I mean where did the notion of ''forever'' come from? And is that right for today? Just because something was right 200 years ago does not mean it''s right today. I personally don''t always believe in accepting everything and questioning nothing.


While I don''t necessarily agree or disagree and am married, hopefully for forever, I can definitely recognize that there are a ton of couples who might be better suited to the 7 year marriage. And the article says you have the option to get remarried or stay married, but you also have the option to get out without having a divorce stigma attached to you. Who says it''s adjusting expectations DOWN? Maybe it''s just making things more realistic and level for today''s day and age.


As for it affecting the children, I would venture to say that if it was universally accepted and within 50 years was the ''norm''...there wouldn''t be adverse effects to any kids. Like if everyone was doing it, it wouldn''t be out of the ordinary to have a marriage dissolve in 7 years. Also in terms of it affecting the kids negatively, wouldn''t a divorce affect them just as negatively? Or fighting all the time staying in a loveless marriage? If the parents are happy at 7 years, they get remarried, and the kids certainly would find joy in that right?


I personally don''t view things like this in black and white, and while I still do like and believe in, the notion of forever in a marriage, people change all the time and I believe many divorces come from a few simple facts people can''t live with. People change and you can''t change them or yourself back or go back to a certain time when things were different. Also, on the same vein,people DON''T change... in fundamental ways that their spouse wishes they would. I think those 2 things are what cause the most divorces as people can either accept or not accept change or lack thereof and act accordingly.


So for me personally, if something like that DID happen and marriage was made 7 years, it wouldn''t affect me either way...because I would figure well if I get married and expect it to last forever, then if it doesn''t...it doesn''t and it it does...we just get remarried. It wouldn''t make me any less committed.

The concept of ''forever'' has always been an integral part of Marriage, at least the sacred institution as I know it. It''s meant to be a commitment "till death do us part". For eternity. That''s what ''forever'' means, and still means. It''s not a notion that someoone decided to ''stick'' into the sacrament books. From what I know, It''s always been an essential part of it.

Are we saying now that we can ''chuck'' away the concept of forever like we do everything else? Dispose of the parts that seem not to be working for us anymore? To me, that''s like saying, okay,.. everybody cheats... adultery is rampant... let''s take out the "forsaking all others" part of marriage too! After all, it doesn''t work in today''s world!! Why not??

I think that marriage is meant to help us strive towards the ideal of sacrifice, commitment and love. Just because it doesn''t work in many instances, doesn''t mean we should stop striving for the ideal, and pin our benchmarks lower. How does that help us to be greater than the selfish humans we typically are?

I don''t think that marital commitment was ever meant to be "I''ll commit for seven years, and see whether I still like you then." There are times in marriage when you''ll be happy and unhappy, fulfilled and unfulfilled. But committment means sticking with it through "thick and thin", in "good times and bad". Not "I''m fallen out of love with you so I''m leaving!". Sadly, that''s what modern day marriage has become.

My parents have a good marriage but I know they''ve had moments when they were angry at each other, maybe unfulfilled. But they''re still together after 33 years. To me, that means something. THAT''s commitment. They''ve set a good example for us of what "sticking to it" means, instead of bailing when things got rough.

And I still think that''s the best environment to raise a family in. From reading the article, it sounded like the campaigner wanted all marriages to expire in 7 years, not just those who applied for it. I could be wrong.. To me that''s very different from an unexpected divorce that happens after 7 years. To me, with the 7 year marriage, you''re basically guaranteeing instability from the start.

 

[Sha]

Date: 9/21/2007 6:26:09 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards

____________---


oh, as an interesting side note, though I am not a Christiana, as I recall the bible does say that in the end days people will call marriage evil. So.......... maybe ''Temporary Marriages'' is one step closer to that happening? )

Interesting.. I think I''ve heard that before. I think that probably will happen.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 9/21/2007 6:53:38 PM
Author: decodelighted
HA!! Sorry! Didn''t mean to ''drop the bomb & run''.

What do *I* think? I''m not sure, actually. There''s a kind of crazy practicality to it. And the idea of REcommitting periodically appeals to me.

But I also agree that going INTO something with an ''escape clause'' or ''expiration date'' seems ... um ... doomed.

I''m feeling a bit circumspect about the topic cuz my best friend is going through a divorce (at the 10 year mark) ... and TODAY I got a STRONG hint that my closest co-worker might also be heading there as well (also at just over 10 yrs). I mentioned before that 10% of the people who attended our wedding LAST OCTOBER have separated. That percentage may have increased today. IN THE LAST YEAR!! I think I''m a bit shaken by it ...

Aw Deco, I am sorry to hear about your best friend. The was news just the other day that the thread of divorce is always there, no matter how long one is married. It''s a continual commitment and effort.

But I have faith you will make it. Even though the most level headed person can certainly "lose it" when it comes to her own relationship, I believe you are grounded enough to see the sense in things and humble enough to see that pride can choke and kill. You''ll be fine!

And I''ll be congratulating you on your one year anniversary soon! Only...oh...about 40 or 50 more to go?

 

[perry]

And here I thought you were referencing the practices in Iran on Temporary Marriage. There, if you are of marrigable age and meet someone you like... and feel a little amorous... You can get married for the weekend (or the week) so that you may have a nice weekend together - and if pregnancy occurs you are legally covered.

Many of the younger generation get married every weekend or so... so they can have sex; and there are people who have been married dozens of times now. All nice and legal. No sex out of wedlock.


But, back to the real subject under discussion.

I agree with the concept that marriage should be enetered with the deep understanding that it is a lifelong committment. I understand that it may not always work out.

I am deeply disturbed by the pattern of "we''ll give it a try" that has existed since at least the 60''s (I belive this was one of the fallouts of the Hippie generation).

The very reason I never got married in my 20''s and 30''s was the very fact that the gals I was interested in had the idea that they''d be willing to give marriage a try...

If you do not have the committment to make it work... how is it ever going to really work?

But... and this is a big BUT...

But, I also believe that the state should have little to say about marriage. I cannot speak for all religions - but to me and in the several religions that I am most familiar with.... Marriage is between two people and their god (or even potentially between more than two people).

I also agree that the best culture is with a stable family structure (and that could be a group family as in other cultures).

The state only got involved to track people for taxes and other "IMPORTANT" administrative stuff (none of which is really important if you think about it). Courts can distrubute inheritances quite fine without having a "marriage license" in front of them (in fact they do it now regardless of what marriage license actually exist).

Thus, I also think that the state should not have any say on how long a marriage last - and I am a supporter of the concept that the state get out of the marriage license business all together.

Perry