Marriage

Kiwi in IE

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0029.html

Well it has been three months now. OH and I got married in June! That's right, we have gone from being a 'co-habiting' couple with an 'illigitimate' child to being a 'proper' family; Married Daddy and Mammy with biological child all living in the same house. Wouldn't David Quinn be delighted with us! Although I suppose Little Kiwi's 'legitimacy' could still be called into question, given he was born 5 years before this ultra significant event took place.

Now when I read the above article I have a good mind to go back to the Registrar and ask for my €200 fee back! Clearly I did not get was I was supposed to be paying for!

We are no happier, richer or healthier! We are no less likely to become victims of violence, suffer from poverty, mental illness or poor health than we were in May! Nor are we any less likely to be unfaithful, and in fact our risk of divorce has increased, there was no risk at all before the ceremony took place! Little Kiwi's life not only hasn't changed dramatically as promised, but it hasn't changed at all! His potential for academic achievement, career prospects, risk of abuse, risk of developing a mental illness or addiction, risk of criminal behaviour, potential for successful relationships and potential future income are all completely unchanged since May!

Now what is going on? Is it because we didn't get married in a church? Or is this long list of wonderful benefits only bestowed on couples who have the magic marriage spell cast over them before they engage in hanky panky? I am quite baffled!

Oh well, I suppose at least neither of us will have to pay inheritance tax if the other dies, and OH has miraculously regained the status he had before we arrived in Ireland, as Little Kiwi's legal parent. Maybe all those benefits only apply to people like David Quinn who are 'good' Catholics!

kylith

Sorry, every time I see the word, I just think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbqv3MwwVd8

Kiwi in IE

lukesmom wrote: »

So why did you get married???

Last paragraph of OP!

Strangely enough we were able to make the decision between ourselves to commit to each other for life, without the magic spell, years ago.

robindch

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0029.html

Catholic Education wrote:

4. YOU WON'T GO BONKERS.

I present Popette.

magicbastarder

number 8 - getting divorced will knock 4 years off your child's life.
surely it's safer to not get married so? that would obviously preclude getting divorced.

magicbastarder

anyway, if she's so chuffed with the fact that science backs her up, why not follow science's lead and cite your sources?

Kiwi in IE

magicbastarder wrote: »

number 8 - getting divorced will knock 4 years off your child's life.
surely it's safer to not get married so? that would obviously preclude getting divorced.

My point exactly! We are now at a much higher risk of divorce than we were prior to the magic spell being cast!

smacl

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Last paragraph of OP!

Strangely enough we were able to make the decision between ourselves to commit to each other for life, without the magic spell, years ago.

Myself and herself were the same, 23 years together before getting married, on the advice of our solicitor for the benefit of the kids. Caused some confusion by times, as after that long we were still in the habit of referring to each other as girlfriend / boyfriend. At hotel once inquiring after my girlfriend I was politely reminded by one of the staff that I was actually there with my wife

Animord

:eek: Well I wasn't depressed and anxious before but I am now. As an unmarried woman I shall be staying in in future in case I get beaten up.

What a load of cr*p.

Turtwig

Animord wrote: »

:eek: Well I wasn't depressed and anxious before but I am now. As an unmarried woman I shall be staying in in future in case I get beaten up.

What a load of cr*p.

Don't worry the burly men of this forum will protect you!

Sarky

I'm more solid than burly.

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

I'm more solid than burly.

I always thought you were sublime, but if that's the case you can't be liquid can you?

Sarky

Alas, I'm as mortal as the rest of you. Just a little better looking. >_>

Kiwi in IE

Sarky wrote: »

Alas, I'm as mortal as the rest of you. Just a little better looking. >_>

Are you married Sarky? I am sure Catholic 'evidence' could be found to prove that marriage makes a person better looking also!

Sarky

My brother's still as f*ck-ugly as someone's husband as he was when he was just their boyfriend, but then that was a filthy godless civil marriage, so I guess the magic rituals were left out.

Animord

Jernal wrote: »

Don't worry the burly men of this forum will protect you!

This is good news. In future, when under threat, I shall shout "Touch me and I'll set the atheists on you"

The funny thing is that it may well work.

Animord

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Are you married Sarky? I am sure Catholic 'evidence' could be found to prove that marriage makes a person better looking also!

Be careful there. You're a short step away from saying married men are more attractive and we really can't be having that kind of carry on.

shruikan2553

Maybe an unmarried man is more likely to take part in domestic violence because there is something wrong with him and no woman wants to be married to a man that beasts her? They make it sound like that violence outside of the relationship is also less likely, a mugger will see your ring and apologise for wasting your time as he knows the wife has spent all the money.

Kiwi in IE

Sarky wrote: »

My brother's still as f*ck-ugly as someone's husband as he was when he was just their boyfriend, but then that was a filthy godless civil marriage, so I guess the magic rituals were left out.

I assume this is why none of the magic benefits have come our way. It is the only explanation for why we are not suddenly happier, healthier and richer after a ceremony that is supposed to provide same.

Thank goodness I not a single woman like you Animord! I would be too afraid to leave the house for fear of becoming a victim of violence. I am so thankful that as a married woman I am so much safer from this threat than you! In fact prior to having the magic spell cast, I was too frightened to go anywhere alone.:D

Apparently on the 28th of June this year, Little Kiwi's life expectancy also increased along with our own.

I Heart Internet

What's your point OP?

That you found an article on some obscure american website that you disagree with?

Civil marriage is just a contract. You either choose to enter into that contract or not. Accept the rights and responsibilities or not.

I remember being baffled a few years ago with the notion that long-term couples living together would be automatically given rights and responsibilites (in law) to each other. I just thought it was stupid. I was single at the time - I figured, if a couple want to get married - fine, if they don't, the state shouldn't go foisting rights and responsibilites on them just becasue they happen to share a roof.

Animord

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Thank goodness I not a single woman like you Animord! I would be too afraid to leave the house for fear of becoming a victim of violence. I am so thankful that as a married woman I am so much safer from this threat than you! In fact prior to having the magic spell cast, I was too frightened to go anywhere alone.:D

I have been out and about today and have interacted with a plumber, a roof-fixing person and two garage owners. I am horrified at the risks I have run.

You are soooo lucky Kiwi!

smacl

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I remember being baffled a few years ago with the notion that long-term couples living together would be automatically given rights and responsibilites (in law) to each other. I just thought it was stupid. I was single at the time - I figured, if a couple want to get married - fine, if they don't, the state shouldn't go foisting rights and responsibilites on them just becasue they happen to share a roof.

It's a fair point, and one I would have shared before having kids, buying houses, and taking on all the debts that go alongside. Being married in the eyes of the law becomes important at that point. More about life assurance than romance. Luckily, even after the dreaded marriage thing, myself, herself and the sprogs remain glorious co-conspirators through this short and twisted journey

Kiwi in IE

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What's your point OP?

That you found an article on some obscure american website that you disagree with?

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=288
http://www.ionainstitute.ie/assets/files/Child%20abuse%20by%20family%20type_web.pdf

Here is some less obscure 'literature' on the subject from closer to home, promising similar benefits.

My point is that we should have become richer, happier and healthier and we did not! According to these articles on the subject, the benefits to Little Kiwi should have been hugely significant, and I have not noticed the slightest change in his outcomes!

Sure we did it fTor the legal reasons, but we surely should still have been entitled to these wonderful benefits. It's a bit like buying your face cream at a time when a gift with purchase is advertised and not receiving the gift!

Kiwi in IE

I Heart Internet wrote: »

What's your point OP?

That you found an article on some obscure american website that you disagree with?

Civil marriage is just a contract. You either choose to enter into that contract or not. Accept the rights and responsibilities or not.

I remember being baffled a few years ago with the notion that long-term couples living together would be automatically given rights and responsibilites (in law) to each other. I just thought it was stupid. I was single at the time - I figured, if a couple want to get married - fine, if they don't, the state shouldn't go foisting rights and responsibilites on them just becasue they happen to share a roof.

Actually my real point, under the facade of irresistible facetiousness, is that this bigoted, outdated, patriarchal view of families, that certain groups (Iona & Friends) continue to attempt to foister on the whole of society, by presenting supposed 'proof of outcomes', are absolute, complete bollocks designed as a veiled attempt to promote bigotry toward family structures other than those which Christians approve of!

My child's future career prospects have improved and his risk of abusing substances has decreased because we got married? What a load of absolute horsesh*t!

I Heart Internet

smacl wrote: »

It's a fair point, and one I would have shared before having kids, buying houses, and taking on all the debts that go alongside. Being married in the eyes of the law becomes important at that point. More about life assurance than romance. Luckily, even after the dreaded marriage thing, myself, herself and the sprogs remain glorious co-conspirators through this short and twisted journey

Yeah. I think if you're married you have rights and responsibilities to your spouse. If you're a parent, you have rights and responsibilities to your child(ren). I don't think the two should be conflated. People are big enough to know if they want to get married or not and government should not assume anything. If a couple are together (unmarried) for 25 years and never spent a night apart, they should still have no legal bond foisted on them. If they had chosen to be married they would have been married.

I Heart Internet

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Actually my real point, under the facade of irresistible facetiousness, is that this bigoted, outdated, patriarchal view of families, that certain groups (Iona & Friends) continue to attempt to foister on the whole of society, by presenting supposed 'proof of outcomes', are absolute, complete bollocks designed as a veiled attempt to promote bigotry toward family structures other than those which Christians approve of!

I don't see why saying that marriage is a good thing should be regarded as "bigoted", "outdated" or "patriarchal". Recommending a course of action to someone (marriage) need not be bigoted, it may simply be good advice. I'm always wary of people claiming something is "outdated", assuming that all traditional things are bad and new things are good is as mad as the reverse of that. And patriarchal? Women get married too, you know. It's a team effort! Or should be anyway.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

My child's future career prospects have improved and his risk of abusing substances has decreased because we got married? What a load of absolute horsesh*t!

I believe these claims are based on statistical analysis rather than an analysis of your particular situation! I don't know if they include any verifiable statistics in their articles though.

Pherekydes

I Heart Internet wrote: »

If a couple are together (unmarried) for 25 years and never spent a night apart, they should still have no legal bond foisted on them. If they had chosen to be married they would have been married.

Interestingly, we got married after 20 years together. When we got together we couldn't marry because divorce wasn't legal in this country. So, historically, some people could only "live in sin" because they had no other option. So the state was putting their children's lives at risk by not allowing their parents marry because they wouldn't allow divorce!

All very confusing.

But it's all fine now. The kids got their bonus four years, and we're wealthy beyond our wildest dreams!

And don't mention the sex...

Kiwi in IE

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yeah. I think if you're married you have rights and responsibilities to your spouse. If you're a parent, you have rights and responsibilities to your child(ren). I don't think the two should be conflated. People are big enough to know if they want to get married or not and government should not assume anything. If a couple are together (unmarried) for 25 years and never spent a night apart, they should still have no legal bond foisted on them. If they had chosen to be married they would have been married.

Sounds great in theory. Should be all about choice. So where do a couple who want the full legal rights afforded by marriage but legally are not entitled to it because they are gay stand?

Anyway, aside from how marriage v's cohabiting is viewed in law, do you agree that the outcomes in health, socio economic status, relationship status, ability to function in society and life expectancy are significantly more positive for the members of a family where the adults are married as opposed to cohabiting, because of the marital status? Or would you agree that it is bollocks propaganda to keep the 'Christian ideal' of what is a 'perfect' and socially acceptable family alive?

smacl

To quote Groucho Marx, Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution? I believe that any couple, straight or gay, of any religious persuasion or lack thereof, should enjoy the same rights under the law when it comes to things like inheritance and guardianship. Unfortunately, this isn't the case in this country, so marriage becomes a necessary evil (for those of us who are straight at least). Ideally, we wouldn't have got married, but as is so often the case, pragmatism trumps idealism.

I Heart Internet

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Sounds great in theory. Should be all about choice. So where do a couple who want the full legal rights afforded by marriage but legally are not entitled to it because they are gay stand?

Straightforward answer to your question (bearing in mind this has probably been debated to death elsewhere) is that I don't think marriage should be redefined to include two people of the same sex. But I suspect that it will be, and perhaps quite quite soon. I think civil partnerships should be designed to give any and all legal rights and protections that marriage grants.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Anyway, aside from how marriage v's cohabiting is viewed in law, do you agree that the outcomes in health, socio economic status, relationship status, ability to function in society and life expectancy are significantly more positive for the members of a family where the adults are married as opposed to cohabiting, because of the marital status? Or would you agree that it is bollocks propaganda to keep the 'Christian ideal' of what is a 'perfect' and socially acceptable family alive?

I really don't know the answer to that question. I'm not a sociologist and I think that reports of "studies" you typically hear about can often be one sided nonsense.

My gut tells me that the inherent stability of marriage (due to the deliberate effort to get married) is likely to have positive effects on aspects of family life. So i don't think it's all bull****, no.

You're accusing people of making claims about marriage to support their own views but you seem to be playing a very similar game i.e. claiming that mariage is, effectively, pointless. Which, conveniently allows you to comfortably claim that it is "outdated", "bigoted", etc

Kiwi in IE

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I don't see why saying that marriage is a good thing should be regarded as "bigoted", "outdated" or "patriarchal". Recommending a course of action to someone (marriage) need not be bigoted, it may simply be good advice. I'm always wary of people claiming something is "outdated", assuming that all traditional things are bad and new things are good is as mad as the reverse of that. And patriarchal? Women get married too, you know. It's a team effort! Or should be anyway.

Saying marriage is a good thing is different from attempting to undermine all alternative family structures other than Man, Wife and biological offspring, and proselytising that they are inferior, and that members of such unholy unions are more likely to have poor outcomes in almost area of life.

I Heart Internet

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Saying marriage is a good thing is different from attempting to undermine all alternative family structures other than Man, Wife and biological offspring, and proselytising that they are inferior, and that members of such unholy unions are more likely to have poor outcomes in almost area of life.

Why the religious phrasing. Civil marriage is marriage and has zero religious connotations.

Kiwi in IE

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Why the religious phrasing. Civil marriage is marriage and has zero religious connotations.

I must have been mistaken that there was any religious motivation in the promotion of the 'ideal' family from the Catholic Education Resouce Centre and the Iona Institute.

I Heart Internet

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I must have been mistaken that there was any religious motivation in the promotion of the 'ideal' family from the Catholic Education Resouce Centre and the Iona Institute.

But they are your words, not theirs...unholy, etc.

I thought the conversation had broadened to a discussion of the genuine merits and demerits of marriage. But you seem stuck on proving that religious organisations are wrong...this is the forum for it alright I suppose!

Kiwi in IE

I Heart Internet wrote: »

But they are your words, not theirs...unholy, etc.

I thought the conversation had broadened to a discussion of the genuine merits and demerits of marriage. But you seem stuck on proving that religious organisations are wrong...this is the forum for it alright I suppose!

That any competent person thinks that they are right about anything much at all astounds me!

Bannasidhe

I Heart Internet wrote: »

But they are your words, not theirs...unholy, etc.

I thought the conversation had broadened to a discussion of the genuine merits and demerits of marriage. But you seem stuck on proving that religious organisations are wrong...this is the forum for it alright I suppose!

I shall have to abstain as I and my long term monogamous partner are not allowed to get married as people like you who on the one hand extol the virtues of marriage do not believe the word marriage should be 'redefined'.

I don't know how I am going to break it to my son that he will never be wealthy, healthy, successful and wise

Kiwi in IE

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/assets/files/Child%20abuse%20by%20family%20type_web.pdf

Read this bollocks!

"We must protect marriage because the children of unmarried people are more likely to be abused".

Children, who due to social circumstances, are particularly vulnerable, are more likely to be abused! Parents marital status is irrelevant.

Not allowing your child to interact with the RCC at any level would have significantly decreased their risk of abuse in previous decades!

I Heart Internet

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Not allowing your child to interact with the RCC at any level would have significantly decreased their risk of abuse in previous decades!

And round-and-round we go. Discussions about anything in society eventually come around to this. Marriage is pointless, because priests abused kids. Enlightening.

magicbastarder

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Read this bollocks!

i think IHI is getting at the point that any discussion about the merits (or lack of) of marriage get derailed by interjections about religious opinions of it.

there is a debate to be had about the benefits of marriage which doesn't need to take religious arguments into account.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

And round-and-round we go. Discussions about anything in society eventually come around to this. Marriage is pointless, because priests abused kids. Enlightening.

Thats not what she said,
Read it again, reducing the RCC contact with kids would have reduced abuse cases in decades past.

This is factually correct unless you are disputing it and you think priests would have abused kids even if they didn't have contact with them.

Kiwi in IE

I Heart Internet wrote: »

And round-and-round we go. Discussions about anything in society eventually come around to this. Marriage is pointless, because priests abused kids. Enlightening.

I think you have managed to misinterpret my posts the entire way through the thread, concluding with the above!

Hotblack Desiato

magicbastarder wrote: »

there is a debate to be had about the benefits of marriage which doesn't need to take religious arguments into account.

Probably. E.g. compare separation and divorce rates between religious and civil marriages.

Would be hard to correct for the (at least some) people who aren't just doing a catholic wedding because it's a nice place and the mammies will approve, but who actually believe all the crap about how separation and divorce are evil and you must stay together for life no matter how horrible your lives have become. That'd skew the stats a bit...

Brian Shanahan

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0029.html

A little something about the author of that article.

Animord

ninja900 wrote: »

Probably. E.g. compare separation and divorce rates between religious and civil marriages.

Would be hard to correct for the (at least some) people who aren't just doing a catholic wedding because it's a nice place and the mammies will approve, but who actually believe all the crap about how separation and divorce are evil and you must stay together for life no matter how horrible your lives have become. That'd skew the stats a bit...

If you had the figures broken down into age groups that might give a better indication, though it might take another 10 years or so to get more realistic figures.

gaynorvader

I think what would be a good step forward is to remove marriage completely from law and replace it with civil partnership. Leave marriage to the religions and if they want the legal benefits of a civil partnership, they can have one of those too. Then they can be free to exclude whomever they like.