Article: What if Marriage were Temporary?

I think that there is a real reason why marriage in almost all the traditional societies was enforced social obligation; it wasn't until around the middle ages in Europe that the idea of making a personal choice about who your spouse would be came onto the scene.

In europe it's around the end of the middle ages that regular people started getting married. Before that, most people (peasants) would be what in the Uk we call "common law married", which is essentially people considering themselves a family without ever formalizing anything in front of anyone. Only monarchs and other people of power would ever get married, and that was always for political or economical reasons, sometimes (often) resulting in some degree of inbreeding, something that remains common in parts of the world today.

So would this be like a contract for living together with a clause that if everything works out there is an option to convert to a long term contact.

When would the prenup go into affect?

I can see why the guys would like this.

Would the lawyers like this?

I like the idea of government not being at all involved with marriage. That would solve a lot of other issues, as well.. and as far as people marrying close relatives.. if they want to do that, why should anyone else really care so much..?

Anyway.. I like the point Jestor made of being better the next time after a relationship goes bad. I think that it's strange to think (and expect!) that one person can be another person's everything. I also think it's strange that you can imagine you will know what you want in 10-20 years and be able to make promises regarding it. I imagine some people might be able to do just that.. I'm not so sure I'm one of them.

I think that people try to fit relationships into boxes - an image of what marriage is that they try to adhere to.. and I think that might be a big reason why so many don't last. Some people try to fit "triangle" relationships into square boxes that are too small. Bad analogy, but that's all I've got. Open communication, honesty, and trust are important. Just because someone has one type of relationship doesn't mean that's how all relationships are or should be. Also, understanding that the other person is human and will make mistakes along the way..

I like the idea of letting someone be who they are and loving them because of it. In which case I also believe that it is entirely possible to love several people very deeply and meaningfully - and you'll probably learn so much more about yourself if you "can" do it. I despise jealousy and think that people severely limit themselves.. and each other.

In other words, I think I like the idea of temporary marriages.. but more than that, I like the idea of personalized marriages... and ones that the government aren't involved in.

Oh and - Hi Tripp!

if marriage is temporary, the promise should not be eternal until death us part.

Reliah wrote: I like the idea of government not being at all involved with marriage.

Your idea of what a marriage could be is like a flower that opens after winter, just like the old ways, as it was once .. Love it

I think when your talking about marriage you should spend some time reflection on what commitment and commited means.

Rickie The Grey wrote: I think when your talking about marriage you should spend some time reflection on what commitment and commited means.

Maybe I should, maybe I should not, what is the meaning of ''until death parts us'' If it is Temporary, as the thread suggest..

What is the meaning of eternity if it is mortal? Does this mean Eternity is the same as Mortality philosophically?


Second, you ask me that I should spend time to search the meaning of commitment and committed, you ask me to seek out what it is, that binds us to a certain something.. You ask me what binding is, but how can I seek for an answer that is different for everybody, and expect that you can understand my experience on the subject?

My way of how I see it: The force binds us all, so why should I bind myself again? If I marry I will do it with the force, not without is, because without the force you can not represent an binding, even love is force that represents some degree of binding..

The message is not an offensive one, still admire your opinion

That "you" was rhetorical and reflection is ment a personal thing for the individual to find answers in themselves for themselves. If going into a "marriage" tempoary or otherwise commitment is something to think about and share with the other half so you're on the same page.

No offense taken. Admire... :blush: You're too kind.

Rickie The Grey wrote: That "you" was rhetorical and reflection is ment a personal thing for the individual to find answers in themselves for themselves. If going into a "marriage" tempoary or otherwise commitment is something to think about and share with the other half so you're on the same page.

No offense taken. Admire... :blush: You're too kind.

How a language barrier can extract.. truly wonderful, You're too kind to, seeking answers in myself.. you speak book volumes of wisdom I will remember when I get the opportunity of marriage.

I remember reading that the 50% divorce rate in the US wasn't an accurate statement. I didn't do a lot of research on the matter but I did use the all knowing google and this was the first link that came up.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm

Reliah wrote:
Oh and - Hi Tripp!

And... Hi Reliah!!! You're the best!

The bottom line is that marriage is still what it's always been: a commitment between two people who choose to remain faithful to each other. And they don't need to feel doomed because of scary statistics — least of all ones that are urban myths.

Thank you very much.