Does marriage as an institution need to be updated or is it fine how it is?

[laly520]

[Anonymous]

They have soo redefined Marriage, the meaningful institution no longer exist among most people today.

Yes it could be reformed but realistically today to most people "marriage" is about the feelings of the adult parties.

This definition is soo unrelated to the practical and original propose of marriage being about the protection of their children you might as well reintroduce the Marriage as something else.

That said the modern definition of "marriage" doesn't even make sense as a rational choice. Sorry but for thousands of years people didn't involuntarily bind themselfs to anther simply for their own sake. Certantly not for an unrealistic objective of maintaining good "Feelings".

They were forced together by this institution for the security of a innocent 3rd party to which BOTH of them were responsible we call Children.

You know the same children who have subsequently been abandoned if they were lucky enough to even be born in the first place.

[DJB72]

There's nothing wrong with marriage that kids being taught they aren't god and they're not actually entitled to anything they didn't work for - especially in a relationship - wouldn't fix.

Divorce is too easy to get. If it was only granted for abuse or adultery instead of boredom and "irreconcilable differences" (a bullshit excuse for not communicating) then things would be improved.

[monorprise]

@DJB72 What is the point of marriage to you is the first question that needs to be asked?

If like most westerns have been taught for nearly 100 years now the point is the feelings of the adult parties. Then there is no point to the institutional recondition much-less force of the union. As the same force is really only a threat to said feelings.

If however the point of marriage is the security of children an innocent 3rd party as it was originally for thousands of year. Then why do the liable adult parties have any right to unilaterally abandon said liability to the 3rd in divorce?

As for the subject of abuse and violence if it is a real problem is not the appropriate resolution criminal penalties? Any indiviual who legitimately can't be expected to control themselfs within the law to the point of harming others should not simply be set lose to do so elsewhere.

[DJB72]

Security for the spouses, not just the children. The ONLY reason I'd divorce my wife would be adultery. Unless she actually tries to kill me - I'd probably consider it then.

My marriage gives my son the security to grow up confidently.

[Nik1hil]

Honestly - the Institution of Marriage was perfect. We went ahead and gave Law power over marriage and fucked up the institution. With new laws marriage has become a broken institution.
You can update it however you like, but it will not work. There is no other possible working model, that can make a couple commit for a lifetime.

[HawkPerception]

I think that prenups should be mandatory and there should be some kind of consequences for divorce or separation that deter people from throwing in the towel so easily. People do not take those vows seriously nowadays and I do see it as a problem.

[monorprise]

A mandatory 'prenups' is no different than changing divorce law, as for consequences the state have already imposed a wide range of costly consequence as well as waiting periods and numerous other measures.

None of theses have worked. @HawkPerception

You can't save an compulsory institution that never existed for any justifiable reason among the parties.
Today most people's definition of marriage is about the unrealistic and frankly unhealthy goal of somehow protecting the feelings of the adult parties. If this was the goal there is no need for anyone else to be involved, much less force you together.

The only reason we ever forced people together and made it difficult for them to leave was the original propose of marriage had nothing to do with the feelings of the adults and everything to to do with the security of their children.
That was the original definition of marriage, that is why divorce was not allowed because that was walking out on your obligation to your children.
That is why the failure to produce children was the ONLY valid reasons to nullify a marriage.

[CheeseMonster]

Yes: it should be illegal to marry children across the board. Maybe have something like the Romeo Juliet exception for older teens (to marry each other), but that's it.

[Static_In_The_Attic]

If marriage is an institution I don’t want to get sent there.

[SixFootSexy]

"No fault" divorce has wrecked marriage. Also, alimony and child support laws. Why would anyone sign up for such a rigged game?

[ohsheeT]

This is a very good question but how would you update it

[exitseven]

I do not think it needs to be "updated" . I think people's attitudes towards marriage need to be adjusted.

[Still-alive]

I predict it'll be less prevalent within a generation or two. but thats not a planned thing or anything i just thing its a tradition that might go quietly because people will choose not do it.

[slatyb]

As an institution? It's basically a legal contract. It may need some amendment but nothing major.

[ProbablyClueless]

I'm not sure how it would be updated. Is there something specifically you had in mind?

[Bklynbadboy12]

It's definitely needs to be updated cause as of now it only serves the woman

[Anonymous]

The problem is that women who are not happy in their marriages will leave the marriage and drain their husbands' bank accounts.

[Kelly6]

@laly520 It needs to be updated

[Hulk30]

It definitely need's to be updated