Temporary marriage, it's about time

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of temporary marriage licenses proposed by lawmakers in Mexico City. Participants explore the implications of such a system, questioning the traditional notion of lifelong marriage and discussing the potential benefits and drawbacks of a temporary commitment. The conversation touches on personal experiences, societal norms, and the emotional and practical aspects of marriage.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express enthusiasm for temporary marriage, suggesting it could reduce the stress of divorce and allow couples to opt out if they are unhappy.
  • Others argue that temporary marriage makes sense only if permanent marriage is banned, questioning the realism of entering a marriage with the expectation of divorce.
  • A few participants propose that a trial period before marriage could help couples understand each other better and reduce the likelihood of divorce.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for increased divorce rates due to the option of temporary marriage, with some suggesting it could lead to a more casual approach to relationships.
  • Several participants share personal anecdotes about their own relationships and family histories, reflecting on the varying lengths of engagement and marriage.
  • Some participants question the societal benefits associated with marriage, suggesting that if marriage is seen as temporary, it undermines the traditional values associated with it.
  • There is mention of studies regarding cohabitation and divorce rates, with mixed interpretations of their implications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the merits or drawbacks of temporary marriage. There are multiple competing views, with some supporting the idea while others express skepticism or concern about its implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference personal experiences and societal norms, indicating that their views are influenced by individual circumstances and cultural backgrounds. The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of marriage and the expectations surrounding it, which may not be universally applicable.

  • #31
mege said:
"Will you be my wife... for a year?"
:smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Evo, I meant in no way to insinuate that women are leeches. I just think that the idea of a temporary or specialized marriage would not fly with the fairy tale image that we are led to believe exists in marriage.
 
  • #33
Wouldn't it be simple enough to prepare a prenup that essentually reads like the Mexico version, or at least has the same basic effect?
 
  • #34
Wouldn't some change in the divorce law (to make it not expensive) do the purpose?
 
  • #35
Evo said:
Why do people assume that women are needy leeches?

Its not that women are needy leeches but that there is a not entirely unearned reputation for women to respond rather emotionally to things that could be construed as an insult.
 
  • #36
I just started to wonder if marriage (understand as a legal contract) in its current form isn't oppressive. I mean both sides agree to something, like in - say - employment contract. But most similar contracts can be relatively easily ended, and/or they contain a clause that defines how the contract can be ended. Marriage is different. If not for the fact that it is traditionally this way, I wonder if such an oppressive contract would be enforceable (I am walking on a thin ice here, could be my English fails me and what I wrote doesn't correctly express what I mean).

Oh, and Turbo and Jimmy - count us (Marzena and me) in the temp married group. We long ago told each other we don't have to force ourselves into being together till we die. But as long as it works... :smile:
 
  • #37
I was heartened to read of the success stories in response to this horrific idea.
 
  • #38
Borek said:
I just started to wonder if marriage (understand as a legal contract) in its current form isn't oppressive. I mean both sides agree to something, like in - say - employment contract. But most similar contracts can be relatively easily ended, and/or they contain a clause that defines how the contract can be ended. Marriage is different. If not for the fact that it is traditionally this way, I wonder if such an oppressive contract would be enforceable (I am walking on a thin ice here, could be my English fails me and what I wrote doesn't correctly express what I mean).

Oh, and Turbo and Jimmy - count us (Marzena and me) in the temp married group. We long ago told each other we don't have to force ourselves into being together till we die. But as long as it works... :smile:

They've generally changed marriage to make it easier to get a divorce in most places. Its still a bit of a pain I guess if you have to actually track someone down and have them sign papers. You can have similar problems with other sorts of contracts as well. The major issue with dissolving any contract is making sure that there is an equitable end. Perhaps the major stumbling block in ease of divorce is that such situations are generally difficult to end equitably especially when children are involved. A no fault divorce where there are no children, no alimony is to be paid, and there is no disagreement regarding the splitting of finances or property should be rather straight forward and simple. All of those elements are the things that make it difficult, not so much the contract itself.
 
  • #39
Proton Soup said:
how about a 1 year contract that automatically switches over to month-to-month after the year?
I can imagine that conversation.

"Dear, it's that time of the month again".

BTW, my wife and I also opted for the long term contract. 15 years next year. :!)
 
  • #40
Astronuc said:
I believe there are such studies. I heard about one, long ago, that seemed to indicate that cohabitation did not improve the probability of staying together, i.e., the divorce rate was about the same or higher for cohabitants.

That's outdated data, according to this USA Today article:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-07-28-cohabitation-research_N.htm

•The odds of divorce among women who married their only cohabiting partner were 28% lower than among women who never cohabited before marriage, according to sociologist Daniel Lichter of Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.

• Divorce rates for those who cohabit more than once are more than twice as high as for women who cohabited only with their eventual husbands, says Lichter's study, to be published in the Journal of Marriage and Family in December.

Anyway, marriage sounds like an idiotic thing to do in the current state. I cannot think of a single reason why I should predict that I'll want to be with the same woman (or any woman at all) 10, 20, 30, 40, or even 50 years from now. If I want to break up with my girlfriend, I should be legally allowed to without asking for the government's permission first.

In fact, I don't really see what business the government has being in my personal relationships anyway.
 
  • #41
Jack21222 said:
Anyway, marriage sounds like an idiotic thing to do in the current state. I cannot think of a single reason why I should predict that I'll want to be with the same woman (or any woman at all) 10, 20, 30, 40, or even 50 years from now. If I want to break up with my girlfriend, I should be legally allowed to without asking for the government's permission first.

In fact, I don't really see what business the government has being in my personal relationships anyway.

The best reason is legal. As a married couple you get legal protection for various things and rights and responsibilities recognised by the state. For example if one of you dies but doesn't have a will the possessions automatically go to the partner, you get rights of medical responsibility i.e. is it right to pull the plug now and you are legally protected if your partner tries to leave you and take all the money e.g if you left your job and raised a kid for ten years your bread-winning partner could leave at any point and leave you up **** creek without a paddle.
 
  • #42
Jack21222 said:
In fact, I don't really see what business the government has being in my personal relationships anyway.
Contract enforcement - and the legal aspect of marriage, which may involve real property, financial assets, debt obligations, and perhaps children, and the rights of the other person.
 
  • #43
So I was walking past Our Lady of the Evening church when I saw Scarlet LeFevre standing in her fishnet stockings with one foot on the street lamp. She called over to me and asked "Hey sailor, how'd you like to get married for 15 minutes?" I had to decline as my current wife was with me at the time. I winked at her and said, I still have a half hour left on this one, perhaps some other time.
 
  • #44
Astronuc said:
Contract enforcement - and the legal aspect of marriage, which may involve real property, financial assets, debt obligations, and perhaps children, and the rights of the other person.

I'm 100% certain that there are laws dealing with all of this even without marriage.
 
  • #45
Jack21222 said:
I'm 100% certain that there are laws dealing with all of this even without marriage.
For different relationships, such as business (proprietorships, partnerships, corporations, etc) and commerce.
 
  • #46
So you could be married to five guys in 10 years, ten guys in 20 years, twenty guys in 40 years...freaking BRILLIANT:biggrin::devil::devil:
 
  • #47
Jack21222 said:
In fact, I don't really see what business the government has being in my personal relationships anyway.

I remember reading that marriage as we know evolved somewhere in feudal times as a way of introducing kind of order in the society - married man were more "manageable" from the point of view of their lord. That in turn meant that society became stronger in economical terms, big advantage when you are surrounded by more or less hostile rivals. But I don't remember the source, so I can't tell how true it is. Times have changed, but marriage kept its form till now.
 
  • #48
Borek said:
I remember reading that marriage as we know evolved somewhere in feudal times as a way of introducing kind of order in the society - married man were more "manageable" from the point of view of their lord. That in turn meant that society became stronger in economical terms, big advantage when you are surrounded by more or less hostile rivals. But I don't remember the source, so I can't tell how true it is. Times have changed, but marriage kept its form till now.

Not to mention it's an extremely effective way of deciding who owns a woman. If she is unmarried it is her father, if he is dead then it is her closest and most senior male relative. If she is married she belongs to her husband. Simples, and totally abhorrent.
 
  • #49
Ryan_m_b said:
Not to mention it's an extremely effective way of deciding who owns a woman. If she is unmarried it is her father, if he is dead then it is her closest and most senior male relative. If she is married she belongs to her husband. Simples, and totally abhorrent.
I agree it's abhorrent, but my wife says otherwise. She thinks owning me is a great idea.
 
  • #50
If a woman has two admirers, she may get two marriage proposals. I can imagine the resulting bidding wars already.

Suitor A: I bid 3 years of marriage, and I will give 50% of assets, and I will relinquish all child custody if we don't renew the marriage.

Suitor B: No, I bid 5 years of marriage, and 75% of assets are yours and I will keep the kids if we don't renew.

Woman: Sold, to Suitor B!
 
  • #51
I have a couple of friends/former co-workers who are 'way ahead of Mexico in the temporary marriage business. One is a woman who has either been married or cohabitated with at least 5-6 guys over the years. The other is a guy who always manages to marry young women (on 5th marriage) and currently has a 4-year-old son by a twenty-something woman.
 
  • #52
QuarkCharmer said:
Evo, I meant in no way to insinuate that women are leeches. I just think that the idea of a temporary or specialized marriage would not fly with the fairy tale image that we are led to believe exists in marriage.
That's another very important point about why marriages fail, it's the fairytale aspect.
 
  • #53
Evo said:
That's another very important point about why marriages fail, it's the fairytale aspect.
So true! When my second-cousin got married, the bride's parents' family spared no expense. They rented a large facility for the reception, with a restaurant-quality kitchen, staffed with cooks and servers. Sit-down multi-course meal with plenty of wait-staff and an open bar. My great-aunt was allowed to invite 30 people. The bride's mother invited over 300. The bride never sat down all afternoon, since she had to dance with all her male relatives and family friends (huge Italian family), and they gave her 50s and 100s. She was beautiful, as were the bridesmaids and their gowns (surprise!) and the wedding ceremony was traditional Roman Catholic in a beautiful old church.

I think the marriage lasted about a year. She alleged spousal abuse, probably as a way to smooth things over with her family, since divorce was a real no-no in the 60's.
 
  • #54
This thread is sad. I have only been married 12 years now, but I feel that the shared hope of a permanent connection is beautiful and helps make my marriage more fulfilling. Even if it falls apart later (God forbid), I wouldn't want to make what we have today any less by starting with the idea of a temporary convenience for tax purposes.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
Interestingly, in Islam you actually have the concept of temporary marriages. They can last anything between less than a day or more than a year. Though sometimes people state this is just a manner for Islam to legalize prostitution.

Then again, some people jokingly refer to marriage as a legalized form of prostitution. But, heck, guess they didn't get it.

Under most communist regimes, women's emancipation and a simple manner out of marriage are also common. One of the thing which surprised me about Hungary is that they have child support, for example, but no women's support (equality of the sexes/worker classes I imagine.)

Personally, I think it's about time to take the whole concept of marriage out of the legal system.
 
  • #56
maybe the fairytale marriages should include a reduction in rights for the princess brides. or grooms, i suppose. even the queen of england needs a mate, eh?
 
  • #57
MarcoD said:
Interestingly, in Islam you actually have the concept of temporary marriages. They can last anything between less than a day or more than a year. Though sometimes people state this is just a manner for Islam to legalize prostitution.

Then again, some people jokingly refer to marriage as a legalized form of prostitution. But, heck, guess they didn't get it.

Under most communist regimes, women's emancipation and a simple manner out of marriage are also common. One of the thing which surprised me about Hungary is that they have child support, for example, but no women's support (equality of the sexes/worker classes I imagine.)

Personally, I think it's about time to take the whole concept of marriage out of the legal system.

Actually, this is just practiced in Shia Islam. The majority of Muslims (sunni) stay away from that. It is legal prostitution because the man has to give dowry. What some men do is "marry" the bride for an hour, pay the dowry and consume the marriage, then they move on with their lives. It is widely practiced in Iran along with sex-reassignment surgery.
 
  • #58
CheckMate said:
Actually, this is just practiced in Shia Islam. The majority of Muslims (sunni) stay away from that. It is legal prostitution because the man has to give dowry. What some men do is "marry" the bride for an hour, pay the dowry and consume the marriage, then they move on with their lives. It is widely practiced in Iran along with sex-reassignment surgery.
The proposed change in Mexico would be a two year minimum, since IIRC ~50% of marriages end in divorce within that time frame.
 
  • #59
Evo said:
The proposed change in Mexico would be a two year minimum, since IIRC ~50% of marriages end in divorce within that time frame.
Wow! Is that a valid statistic for Mexico?
 
  • #60
turbo said:
Wow! Is that a valid statistic for Mexico?
Don't know what the actual statistics are, but this is what the article said
Around half of Mexico City marriages end in divorce, usually in the first two years.
Don't know the exact numbers for the first two years.