To wonder why the sham of marriage is still a thing

[munkynutts]

Genuinely.

Just take a look at MN, chockablock full of people who are on their second or third marriages - not judging, just a fact.

Most people couldn't give a fuck about the religious aspect. Most people in this country struggle to even make it to a Christmas service, but suddenly find their soulful side when it comes to marriage?

As well as the rise of one person having multiple marriages over the course of their life, weddings are becoming way more OTT and flamboyant too and we see how many threads there are on here about weddings and gift dilemmas. Once upon a time nee couples did actually need a toaster, now guests are expected to chip in so they can have an experience?!

It just seems to me that the days of sticking around in a relationship that doesn't work for you are long gone, for better or worse (better IMO).

So shouldn't we just cut this wedding crap and have civil partnerships for everyone? Because if you dont believe in god and dont believe in one true love to stick with come what may, then really, whats the fucking point other than to have a Princess Day? Wouldnt it be better to jist buy a nice dress, go down to town hall for civil partnership and then have a few close friends down the pub, rather than expecting guests to fork out for what is essentially a sham?

Then we have divorce and all the complication and entanglement that brings. I mean, just is it worth it?

@Eltonjohnssyrup
Yes, I was about to say to @HermionesRightHook after her resppnse about marriage and protection: it seems to me that the biggest importance of marriage then is about protecting women financially because of the inevitable (?) sacrifices women often end up making re having children.
So I wonder then if we had a better system re maternity leave, childcare, in other words if having a family were much more equal, would marriage still be seen as desireable?

Marriage was not a religious thing. What an odd point of view. And now it's a thing for legal protection, nothing more.

Why are you pontificating from a position of ignorance? No one is going to consider your opinion valid if you don’t know what you’re talking about.

OK in that case I don't understand. So what exactly is the difference between a civil partnership and marriage at a registry

Only same sex couples can have a civil partnership

It was only introduced because the government were too chicken to allow gay couples to marry

If you're gay you can now have a civil partnership or a marriage

If you're heterosexual you can have a marriage

A marriage can be a civil ceremony conducted by a registrar which must be free from any religious references at all

Or it can be a religious ceremony conducted by a licenced minister who is registered as an officiant

There are other religious marriages which are ceremonial only and need to be accompanied by a civil marriage to be legally recognised

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/comparison-of-civil-partnership-and-marriage-for-same-sex-couples

Ok i have a confession to make. I didnt actually realise that marriage wasnt necessarily religious.

So, what you're saying is, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about?

You're a bit dim aren't you OP to start a provocative discussion from a POV where you don't actually have the slightest understanding of the subject in question?

There's this thing called Google. You might want to try it sometimes.

So the threads about using bog roll as sanitary towels and being a ‘tramp’ didn’t get enough biters, eh OP?

You’ve actually no idea what your talking about have you? Why start a thread about it if you have no knowledge of what your slagging off?

I do think a lot of church weddings and christening are a sham, they want the venue and party rather than having any interest in religion. It all seems to be about the "princess" day itself with little thought as to the reason for the marriage hence why so many fail to work.

I also think that vows are sacred yet so many seem to think that a second/third subsequent wedding is fine which shows it's not about the vows.

I know many couples who married for love after a simple ceremony and are still together. The last five big weddings I've been too, the couples have all split. Too much emphasis on the perfect day and not enough on ensuring it was the right person or working at the relationship.

Not really sure why someone would care so much about other people's marriages to be honest.

@bananafish81
So if marriages are free from any religious aspect, then why didnt the government just let gay couples marry?

So your the poster with the sanitary towel thread? Well that explains a lot.....

.

Erm, I like being married (only marriage) and am very happily so. Surely it's the choice of the individual? So what's it got to do with you?

Currently over 70% of marriages don't happen in churches. For most people, religion has nothing to do with their marriage, and besides, some of those who get married in their family church are really following a tradition. One of my friends was married in a church that has been hosting weddings, funeral and christenings for her family for over 200 years. That's one heck of a tradition to continue.

only 1 in 3 marriages end in divorce, so 2/3 of couples make it to "till death do us part". For those who don't, a divorce gives a much fairer framework to break up than trying to convince your exP who now hates you to not leave you with next to nothing.

Wouldnt it be better to jist buy a nice dress, go down to town hall for civil partnership and then have a few close friends down the pub

Other than the civil partnership part, because ours was actually a wedding, this was pretty much what we did.

Having read your subsequent posts, you have no idea what you're talking about anyway.

a series of contracts?

Marriage provides all sorts of legal protections that 'contracts' aren't always able to cover.

For example, it won't give a spouse rights to inherit their spouse's half of the estate tax free ...

I would love civil partnerships for straight people. DP and I want to get married for tax reasons exclusively; we CBA with the actual married bit.

But yes, marriage ceremonies don't have to be religious.

Marriage isn't a religious institution. It transcends religious barriers and is almost universal in one form or another to human civilisation. It is a moral and legal institution that predates modern religion.

Marriage and weddings are different things .

OP - civil partnership was a half way point because of homophobic people being shouty about marriage being between men and woman only. Took 10 years for everyone to realise the sky wouldn't fall in, then just very practically put in a exeption that churches wouldn't have to perform same sex marriages if they didn't want to, solving all the objections from religious groups.

So if marriages are free from any religious aspect, then why didnt the government just let gay couples marry?

Because the homophobic religious lobby banged on about the institution of marriage being sacred and saying that legalising gay marriage would mean vicars would be forced to marry same sex couples

Have you ever read the news? Have you been living under a rock for the last few years?

Your last post really indicates that you should educate yourself before posting drivel.

So I wonder then if we had a better system re maternity leave, childcare, in other words if having a family were much more equal, would marriage still be seen as desirable?

Well that assumes that all things being equal all women would want to pursue a career and would be happy to always put it before their children. A lot of women don't want to do that and then refer to stay home or be part time or work in something which is flexible. Marriage recognises that and doesn't see it as a fault worthy of punishment.

AfunaMbatata Sun 26-Nov-17 12:56:13
You be chatting nonsense.

=============

I like this SO much. I've not seen your posts before Afuna but I'll keep a look out for you.