You commit to the marriage when you say “I do”. The idea that you cannot commit unless you have the right to sue your ex-spouse in a court of law for money seem preposterous to me on its face.
You commit to the marriage when you say “I do”. The idea that you cannot commit unless you have the right to sue your ex-spouse in a court of law for money seem preposterous to me on its face.
Not the right to sue; the right to be sued, which makes you less likely to become an ex-spouse, and more likely to become spouse to begin with.
There is no right to be sued, there is obligation to be subject to lawsuits, that’s not a right.
In any case, that doesn’t make much difference. So you cannot commit unless there is the big stick of a potential lawsuit hanging over your head? Um, I am sorry for you, then.
I have a feeling that there is some dual-level arguing going on. On the visible level there is talk about inability to commit and how the society took away your (personally, your) opportunity to commit yourself to marriage.
But there also seems to be a strong undercurrent of “the slutty proles are fucking around too much and fuck up the social system so, by Jove, we better get them under control”.
So you cannot commit unless there is the big stick of a potential lawsuit hanging over your head? Um, I am sorry for you, then.
Are you discarding the whole idea of contracts? “What do you need a contract for, can’t you people commit without a big stick of a potential lawsuit hanging over your head? I am sorry for you then.”
Even if a person is fully capable and willing to commit using his sense of duty, in the absence of perfect telepaths they may not able to efficiently signal said capacity and willingness.
Even if a person is fully capable and willing to commit using his sense of duty
Duty? We are talking about marriage, not about commercial contracts specifying supplies of cabbage.
Marriage is a bit different from signing a contract whereby the woman undertakes to cook, wash the floors, and be available in bed, and the man undertakes to earn some money, fix the plumbing, and screw the woman on a regular basis.
If you don’t trust the person you’re marrying to the extent that you want a legal threat hanging over him/her, that marriage is probably a bad idea.
And if you really really want to commit, go tattoo the name of your spouse on your forehead.
Duty? We are talking about marriage, not about commercial contracts about supplies of cabbage.
I’d expect the duty I have to my family to be of bigger importance than a commercial contract. For starters it tends to be a lifelong duty.
Marriage is a bit different from signing a contract whereby the woman undertakes to cook, wash the floors, and be available in bed, and the man undertakes to earn some money, fix the plumbing, and screw the woman on a regular basis.
Yes, it’s a contract to “have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part”.
Btw, I’m through with this discussion. Do you always seek to portray the people you are talking with as horrible monsters? Do you expect to actually convince me by talking to me as if I’m a monster, or is this just a status game to lower me in the eyes of whatever audience you are aiming at?|
Either way, keep your scorn or share it, but I’m out.
And if you really really want to commit, go tattoo the name of your spouse on your forehead
That might work, but facial tattoos are status-lowering in our society.
I’d expect the duty I have to my family to be of bigger importance than a commercial contract.
Does your duty to the family derive from the legal system of your country? Would your duty to your family change if some laws about who can sue whom for what changed?
Do you always seek to portray the people you are talking with as horrible monsters?
I didn’t mean to say anything about you personally. I used “you” in the sense of generic you.
But I am curious, which part did you find implying being a horrible monster?
Frankly, I don’t understand this mindset at all.
You commit to the marriage when you say “I do”. The idea that you cannot commit unless you have the right to sue your ex-spouse in a court of law for money seem preposterous to me on its face.
Not the right to sue; the right to be sued, which makes you less likely to become an ex-spouse, and more likely to become spouse to begin with.
There is no right to be sued, there is obligation to be subject to lawsuits, that’s not a right.
In any case, that doesn’t make much difference. So you cannot commit unless there is the big stick of a potential lawsuit hanging over your head? Um, I am sorry for you, then.
I have a feeling that there is some dual-level arguing going on. On the visible level there is talk about inability to commit and how the society took away your (personally, your) opportunity to commit yourself to marriage.
But there also seems to be a strong undercurrent of “the slutty proles are fucking around too much and fuck up the social system so, by Jove, we better get them under control”.
Are you discarding the whole idea of contracts? “What do you need a contract for, can’t you people commit without a big stick of a potential lawsuit hanging over your head? I am sorry for you then.”
Even if a person is fully capable and willing to commit using his sense of duty, in the absence of perfect telepaths they may not able to efficiently signal said capacity and willingness.
Duty? We are talking about marriage, not about commercial contracts specifying supplies of cabbage.
Marriage is a bit different from signing a contract whereby the woman undertakes to cook, wash the floors, and be available in bed, and the man undertakes to earn some money, fix the plumbing, and screw the woman on a regular basis.
If you don’t trust the person you’re marrying to the extent that you want a legal threat hanging over him/her, that marriage is probably a bad idea.
And if you really really want to commit, go tattoo the name of your spouse on your forehead.
I’d expect the duty I have to my family to be of bigger importance than a commercial contract. For starters it tends to be a lifelong duty.
Yes, it’s a contract to “have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part”.
Btw, I’m through with this discussion. Do you always seek to portray the people you are talking with as horrible monsters? Do you expect to actually convince me by talking to me as if I’m a monster, or is this just a status game to lower me in the eyes of whatever audience you are aiming at?|
Either way, keep your scorn or share it, but I’m out.
That might work, but facial tattoos are status-lowering in our society.
Does your duty to the family derive from the legal system of your country? Would your duty to your family change if some laws about who can sue whom for what changed?
I didn’t mean to say anything about you personally. I used “you” in the sense of generic you.
But I am curious, which part did you find implying being a horrible monster?