- Active Posts:
- 8,066 (8.86 per day)
- Most Active In:
- Recess (4903 posts)
- 25-November 10
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Aug 01 2012 10:39 PM
- Member Title:
- secretly a man
- Age Unknown
- Birthday Unknown
- Not Telling
- ... Here?
- Oh? Yes, I do have those. Oh, do I. ^_^
Posts I've Made
31 July 2012 - 12:52 AMWhy, how thoughtless of me - allow me to greet you all. Welcome to the forums, Crystal, Takai and Ashio - may you all have a splendid time here, even if all you do is lurk. ^_^
28 July 2012 - 11:00 PM
QuoteILikeBoys is an expert on good-looking boys.
My, Johnny, what are you implying? ^_^
27 July 2012 - 11:37 PMMichael does look good in blue, undoubtedly.
27 July 2012 - 11:35 PMMy, Wacko, it appears that we agree on almost every count, even if we deviate in detail. ^_^
26 July 2012 - 02:13 AM
QuoteDo civil partnerships still exist in Norway, given that gay people have been allowed to marry there since 2009?
Also, how do you ensure that more people remain together in their chosen union? I think it'd be too idealistic to imagine that all people could or would remain with their partners indefinitely, because people do change over time, and sometimes in contrary ways.
As an aside, it would seem to me that all legal unions (including marriages) are really civil unions, since they typically have to be registered with the government or the courts. Under that context, being 'married' in a church (i.e. a religious rite) would merely be one of the options available to those who wished to be united (that is, if the said church consents to perform the rite for the couple).
Indeed, they still exist. While partnerships were introduced as an alternative for homosexual couples, they still retain a function - both for gay, and also (I believe - although I have not checked this information lately) for straight couples who want an union without being, as it were, burdened by the title of "married". Besides, in legal matters, there is a trend for meaningless laws to be retained indefinitely, simply because there is never any call to either remove or use them. ^_^
I do not think it is possible that everyone will remain in union with one partner throughout their life. It would be ideal, of course, but ideals are so often flawed - rather, I believe that so many unions fail, not because the unions are unions, but because people are people and will always remain so. Divorce, or dissolution, or merely parting, will keep happening. I do not support the idea that marriages end because people change over time, though; it can be used so readily to excuse things. Of course people change over time, but it has been proved time and time again that people who spend time with each other will change to become more like the other - and keeping that in mind, even though there are exceptions to this rule, it is difficult to suggest that separation happens because people change.
Then again, if we are suggesting reasons, here are a few: First of all, there seems to be a tendency for people to meet, fall in love, and join together very quickly. This certainly does not happen in all cases and is not sufficient to explain more than a small number, but it is still worth the thought: Do we take marriage, or any other union, too lightly?
A second thought is this: In our society, we seem to be drawn to the ideal, perfect partner, and we look for this mystical, utopian being everywhere, and we find him - or her - even where he or she is not. Two people meet, fall in love, and enter a union, but then the pink mist of being in love fades, and they find themselves married to somebody who is not the one they were hoping for. And this is not unlikely to repeat, if it has already happened once. This begs the question: Is there such a thing as a perfect mate? Should we try to pursue them? Interestingly, arranged marriages seem to last far longer than those made entirely by free will (in the sense that both parts choose the other; not in the sense that either part in an arranged marriage is forced). This also seems to happen without any decrease in happiness, although this is of course very difficult to say for sure. Should we even look for that Perfect Other, or should we make the best of what we have? Of course, when saying this, I do not consider particular situations such as a union where one abuses the other, or the other cheats on the one.
An interesting theory I have heard, though, is that the use of contraceptive pills has an effect on the high rate of divorce. Pregnancy seems to change a woman's preference in men (or even women, for that matter, as far as I understand), meaning that a woman interested in - for the sake of argument - group A (the softspoken type) who gets pregnant will suddenly end up interested in, for instance, group B (who is louder and more opinionated). These are, of course, just silly examples - but this effect certainly seems to be real. Now, contraceptive pills are designed so that they fool the body into thinking it is pregnant; effectively, then, a girl who uses contraceptives is considered pregnant in several aspects: this includes the change in preference of men. Therefore, when she marries a man who was to her preference and goes off the pill so she can have children, she might find that her preference has changed, leaving her unhappy.
Indeed - in our system, partnership, PACS and marriage are all civil unions. There is also such a thing as a registrar; this is a secular, non-religious way of getting married. Even marriages performed by religious institutions have to be sanctioned by the state, and registered by government, as you say. They are all unions, although there are small variations in what the law allows couples to do. The difference, therefore, becomes more a difference in name than a difference in anything else.
I apologise; I would write more, but I have spent so much time typing and re-typing already. ^_^