Miko-san930
No-Soup-Fo-YOU
In some cases the married couple honestly hate eachother. Id hate to leagaly have to stay with someone i wanted to kill! How two people can hate eacother like that after marrying i dont know but it happens.
Sanguina Cruenta
This hearkens back to the idea of handfastings and Celtic practices. Commonly in Wiccan practice, one "marries" for a year-and-a-day. It's like a trial period. After this point, the couple can decide to renew their vows for another year-and-a-day, or make the joining permanent.
This sort of thing suggests that the vows made are more serious than a wedding without, shall we say, a trial period. It means that they're thinking "when I say forever, I want to mean it". This doesn't mean that they will be together forever, but that they want to make sure that they can live together in that sort of bond first.
I see nothing wrong with the idea. You'd get the same rights as a married couple, rather than a de facto. This is important to some people. I think a handfasting or other non-legal ceremony would be good enough, but there are legal issues that might make a legal ceremony the more preferable option.
I think that the problems would be related to the idea of it being a limited-time thing, suggesting perhaps that "when this time is over, we will break up". I don't think that that's what the guy means as such. I think, though, that five and seven years are too long and defeat the very purpose of the idea. After three years, you should be sure, one way or the other. Or at least, sure enough.
This doesn't mean that there won't be problems later on. And that's fine. But if you don't know after three years whether you want to make a permanent commitment to a person, if you don't know whether you love them that much, why extend it for seven years? I'm not saying break up, but, well, you know what I mean.
This sort of thing suggests that the vows made are more serious than a wedding without, shall we say, a trial period. It means that they're thinking "when I say forever, I want to mean it". This doesn't mean that they will be together forever, but that they want to make sure that they can live together in that sort of bond first.
I see nothing wrong with the idea. You'd get the same rights as a married couple, rather than a de facto. This is important to some people. I think a handfasting or other non-legal ceremony would be good enough, but there are legal issues that might make a legal ceremony the more preferable option.
I think that the problems would be related to the idea of it being a limited-time thing, suggesting perhaps that "when this time is over, we will break up". I don't think that that's what the guy means as such. I think, though, that five and seven years are too long and defeat the very purpose of the idea. After three years, you should be sure, one way or the other. Or at least, sure enough.
This doesn't mean that there won't be problems later on. And that's fine. But if you don't know after three years whether you want to make a permanent commitment to a person, if you don't know whether you love them that much, why extend it for seven years? I'm not saying break up, but, well, you know what I mean.
In this and the one about abusive relationships that is what divorce is for!!!!
To the second quote you do realize that that is what dating and living with them are for. (Still no doing it!) I've been dating my guy for almost 3 years now and he has loved me for 6 years so this whole thing is still wrong, in the bible your only suppose to be intimate with one person, other than that its wrong!
And as for this stupid diploma thing it goes against all my morals and against my (In white for those of u who will freak!) religion Do you realize that this will spread STDs! It means you sleep around for how ever long you want then move on! OMG as for the part of trying to find the right one! B** S***! Ok cuz you might as well date! (No sleeping around) Jeesh! OMG those of ya'll for this are DUMB!!! Please just think, your sleeping with all the others they slept with!!!
Think about it this way, people do not have the same morals as you, people do not have the same religion as you, and nobody said you'd be FORCED to do one of these contract marriages, I'm pretty sure they'd want both party's consent before doing something as controversial as that. And if you put something up for debate do not call everyone who disagrees with you dumb, that is not the point of a debate. The point of a debate is to show all sides of an argument to help an unbiased party form an opinion on the matter.
