Is it normal i feel we should change the definition of marriage?

36% Normal
7 Comments

A marriage is a type of contract, usually between a male and a female (interchangeable, to be fair and equal).
The traditional definition for a marriage stipulates that this is a contract for life.
In reality, however, most marriages end up in failure (divorce or separation) within 5 years. This is often a messy situation. I think that most everyone thinks that this won't happen to them, yet it does happen to most.
So here's the basic idea:
A marriage contract could be negotiated for a specified period of time (6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, longer, you decide and agree). This would be renewable or if things don't work out, each partner goes their separate ways. Each partner would keep track of their assets, similar to a prenuptial agreement. Then, in the event that the marriage doesn't work out, one would only have to wait out the expiry of the contract.
The complicating factor in this is, if a child is brought into the marriage. This would be handled separately. A marriage would not be a license for childbirth. This would be procured separately if a child is desired by both partners. In this event, then the marriage would be automatically extended to a length of 16 years, 9 months to 18 years, 9 months. Each parent would need to be committed to providing a sound female and male role model for the child. In sour (impossible) relationships, a parent would then be obligated to provide a suitable role model replacement for the child.
Please add your thoughts and comments.
Should we change the legal definition of marriage?

Voting Results
36% Normal
Based on 14 votes (5 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 7 )
  • ccjigsaw
    11 years ago

    I definitely disagree.. why not just.. not get married?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    4
    4
  • q25t
    11 years ago

    This is...interesting.

    I don't think we should go and change the definition of marriage itself, but the idea has enough merit to simply give it another name.

    Although many marriages fail, I think if an option like this existed, it would be very popular among many people.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • prasatko
    11 years ago

    Good idea. I am not sure about the part about children in the last paragraph, but it is a difficult problem in every case where the relationship does not work well (marriage or not). But I really like the idea of redefining marriage. You are right, it has already lost its original meaning, so when people changed everything about marriage, why not to change also the name or title for it?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • robbieforgotpw
    11 years ago

    Texxxtttttt wallssssss suck

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • smootht3r3z1
    11 years ago

    More red tape? Oh god...

    I don't need a "This would be simple in an idealistic fashion,", but god no. More complications.

    I go with, don't get married. Or divorce when you want to.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      Complicated?

      Which deity are you speaking of?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • Justsomejerk
    11 years ago

    Logically it seems like a good idea, although in the heat of this emotional commitment no woman is going to take kindly to me saying "sure, I'll marry you for 3 years". They want to feel they are loved infinitely.

    There should be a contract signed when having a child agreeing to be a "parent" for 18 years. People will have children without licence though and I can't think of a deterrent that would t put the child at a further disadvantage.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0