Feminism

[garbon]

Wait, on the one hand you don't think marriage is a good thing, and on the other, you are criticizing people for not taking their marriage vows seriously enough? 

Well yes when marriage becomes downgraded to a chance to have a party and for legal benefits then I'm not particularly a fan of it. The commitment part seems a bit odd if you're just saying "hey we're committing to each other for as long as we feel like being together." What useful information does such a commitment impart?

I sense an excluded middle here.

A "committment" can be serious even if it is conditional, right? There's a range between a one-night-stand on the one hand, and death do us part on the other?

How about "we are committed until something changes such that we really cannot go on together"?

I guess so, but sure feels like less it's less deserving of expensive wedding gifts...though sadly will probably last just along as those weddings of those who plan on staying together forever.

[merithyn]

I guess so, but sure feels like less it's less deserving of expensive wedding gifts...though sadly will probably last just along as those weddings of those who plan on staying together forever.

I vowed forever with my first husband, and it lasted five years. I vowed as long as I am able with Max, and we're on almost 8 years and going strong.

[Malthus]

I guess so, but sure feels like less it's less deserving of expensive wedding gifts...though sadly will probably last just along as those weddings of those who plan on staying together forever.

I'm not a big believer in expensive wedding hoopla in general. Our culture is a bit out of wack on that issue. In some cases, potlatch-like displays of conspicuous wealth seem to have become the point, not gathering together family and friends. Expectations of the gifts have inflated accordingly.

The original point of wedding gifts was to give the young couple the basic stuff they needed to set up a household - dishes, blankets, pots and pans. Nowadays, not so much.

In the Jewish community, the same process can be observed with bar/bat mitzvahs. One of my relations held a bat mitzvah for their daughter that was an embarrasing saturnalia of wealth - just as an example of the excess, they flew a candy-making artisan in from Japan to make candies on the spot at the party.

[Ed Anger]

I favored spending the cash on the reception. The ceremony, not so much. I hated that part.

[dps]

The original point of wedding gifts was to give the young couple the basic stuff they needed to set up a household - dishes, blankets, pots and pans. Nowadays, not so much.

Yeah, when my brother got married, he and his wife needed a lot of household stuff, because she was still living with her parents, and while he had lived on his own for a while, he had had a tiny apartment that came furnished, so he had very little of his own.

OTOH, aa and I specifically requested that we NOT get any kitchen stuff, since while I had been living with my mom for the past 4 years before aa and I hooked up, I had lived on my own for 15 years before that, and had all my stuff stored at my mom's.

[The Brain]

I guess so, but sure feels like less it's less deserving of expensive wedding gifts...though sadly will probably last just along as those weddings of those who plan on staying together forever.

I'm not a big believer in expensive wedding hoopla in general. Our culture is a bit out of wack on that issue. In some cases, potlatch-like displays of conspicuous wealth seem to have become the point, not gathering together family and friends. Expectations of the gifts have inflated accordingly.

The original point of wedding gifts was to give the young couple the basic stuff they needed to set up a household - dishes, blankets, pots and pans. Nowadays, not so much.

In the Jewish community, the same process can be observed with bar/bat mitzvahs. One of my relations held a bat mitzvah for their daughter that was an embarrasing saturnalia of wealth - just as an example of the excess, they flew a candy-making artisan in from Japan to make candies on the spot at the party.

You're Jewish AND stingy?

[garbon]

I guess so, but sure feels like less it's less deserving of expensive wedding gifts...though sadly will probably last just along as those weddings of those who plan on staying together forever.

I'm not a big believer in expensive wedding hoopla in general. Our culture is a bit out of wack on that issue. In some cases, potlatch-like displays of conspicuous wealth seem to have become the point, not gathering together family and friends. Expectations of the gifts have inflated accordingly.

The original point of wedding gifts was to give the young couple the basic stuff they needed to set up a household - dishes, blankets, pots and pans. Nowadays, not so much.

In the Jewish community, the same process can be observed with bar/bat mitzvahs. One of my relations held a bat mitzvah for their daughter that was an embarrasing saturnalia of wealth - just as an example of the excess, they flew a candy-making artisan in from Japan to make candies on the spot at the party.

You're Jewish AND stingy?

[Brazen]

I tell young friends thinking about getting married to go into it absolutely knowing it's going to be forever, but with practical (i.e. mainly financial)  precautions in place in case somehow it isn't.

[Ed Anger]

Like a bank account in the Cayman islands.

Edit: I'm suffering from Timmayosis bad spellinus

[Martinus]

Wait, on the one hand you don't think marriage is a good thing, and on the other, you are criticizing people for not taking their marriage vows seriously enough? 

How is this funny, especially to a lawyer? Believing in pacta sunt servanda does not mean you have to believe it is wise to enter into any particular contract, no?

garbon position is pretty clear to me. 

[Malthus]

Wait, on the one hand you don't think marriage is a good thing, and on the other, you are criticizing people for not taking their marriage vows seriously enough? 

How is this funny, especially to a lawyer? Believing in pacta sunt servanda does not mean you have to believe it is wise to enter into any particular contract, no?

garbon position is pretty clear to me. 

Well, for one, a lawyer ought to know that marriage isn't like "other contracts". Its terms are, in most countries, set by the specialized laws relating to family law (which allow for some private contracting in the form of pre-nups and the like) - thus, for legal purposes, the actual words of the vows exchanged are in fact totally irrelevant (all that matters is that you are "legally married") and you can't, in point of fact, be sued for failing to keep one's vowed promise of "until death do us part" because you sought a divorce, in a country where divorce is legal (these days, pretty well everywhere in the 1st world).

Though, as I said above, it would be amusing to try it on. 

[The Minsky Moment]

In any event, marriage vows as an oral agreement would not be enforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

[Barrister]

In any event, marriage vows as an oral agreement would not be enforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

However breach of promise to marry would appear to still be a valid cause of action, no matter how dusty and rarely-used it may be.

[The Minsky Moment]

However breach of promise to marry would appear to still be a valid cause of action, no matter how dusty and rarely-used it may be.

Still good in some US states; others have abolished by statute.

[Gups]

Abolished in the UK by statute much to the disgust of writers of farces.