# Marriage should be like a cellphone contract?



## long_done (Jun 5, 2014)

I've been thinking long and hard about marriage, and part of me wishes marriage could be like a cellphone contract. You sign up for a 3 year contract, and at the end of 3 years, you go month-to-month, and both parties (you and the partner) should intentionally agree for another 3 years, or the marriage ends.

Sounds harsh, I know, but I think there is a huge perception from many people (men and women) that once you get married, you don't have to keep trying to retain the other partner.

My soon-to-be-ex was a hottie when we met, going to the gym and keeping herself in great shape, dressing very sexy. Once we got married, she let herself go more and more over time. Soon she became severely overweight, despite not having to work, especially while our child was going to school full time. She chose to stay home and do crafts, make rubber band bracelets, and watching reality TV instead of going to the gym to get fit, or learn how to cook healthy foods. She preferred mac and cheese and ramen noodles, or just go out to grab food.

I became resentful over time, and hated that the marriage trapped us, and I had to be the bad guy to break the marriage. I love her family and friends, and they all love me, and think I'm such a great guy to stay with her despite her worsening physical condition. What a great martyr I have been... 

So to me, marriage should be a limited term contract, where both partners needs to try to retain each other or the contract will automatically void.

This might not be a popular view or politically acceptable, but seeing 50% + divorce rate, I truly think this should be the way marriage should be modified.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

But marriage IS a contract.



One that you sign and date that gets filed in court records. 

Paper.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

It's not all that hard to end a marriage as it is so it's not much different than a cell phone contract in that regard.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

I was thinking that, too, Ele.

For a fee, the contract can end.


----------



## long_done (Jun 5, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> It's not all that hard to end a marriage as it is so it's not much different than a cell phone contract in that regard.


True, but the default mentality in Marriage is that it will continue on forever, so people take it for granted.

By making the default assumption that marriage will end unless *both* partners actively agree to continue the marriage after a pre-set time, it will cause people to shift their thinking "I need to keep my partner interested in the relationship and not let him/her walk away"...which will ultimately improve the marriage and relationship.

So you have to keep wooing your spouse for life...that should be the default attitude.


----------



## Adeline (Jan 24, 2014)

or like that contract between Angela and Dwight on the Office where they sat down with a lawyer and came up with each of their clauses and Angela's was that he had to have sex with her anytime any where with a minimum amount of times per week or else she could sue him. I could go for that right now.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

long_done said:


> By making the default assumption that marriage will end unless *both* partners actively agree to continue the marriage after a pre-set time, it will cause people to shift their thinking "I need to keep my partner interested in the relationship and not let him/her walk away"...which will ultimately improve the marriage and relationship.


Or just don't get married so you don't have to worry about defaulting or renewing any kind of contract.


----------



## long_done (Jun 5, 2014)

Jellybeans said:


> Or just don't get married so you don't have to worry about renewing any kind of contract.


Agreed. Too bad most people get married because it's so romantic in the "heat of the moment" and end up regretting it... hence so many sad sad stories on TAM and else where.


----------



## Cosmos (May 4, 2012)

> I've been thinking long and hard about marriage, and part of me wishes marriage could be like a cellphone contract. You sign up for a 3 year contract, and at the end of 3 years, you go month-to-month, and both parties (you and the partner) should intentionally agree for another 3 years, or the marriage ends.
> 
> Sounds harsh, I know, but I think there is a huge perception from many people (men and women) that once you get married, you don't have to keep trying to retain the other partner.


Herein lies the problem, IMO. Whilst people want to feel secure in a marriage, they also need to feel loved, respected and desired. IMO, no matter how long we've been married we can't afford to sit back and take our marriage partners for granted. This isn't what they signed up for.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

The question you ask is very pertinent. Marriage rates are sinking. Divorce rate rose dramatically when no fault came into effect. Since they have levelled off but remain high. So many have figured out that marriage is not that good a deal.

Things that make marriage easier, e.g., birth control, are counter balanced by new problems, including Facebook reconnections with old partners, porn, economic recession, military deployments, etc.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

Are marriage rates really sinking? It seems people still get married all the time.

I do think divorce rates have gone up though...


----------



## Adeline (Jan 24, 2014)

long_done said:


> Agreed. Too bad most people get married because it's so romantic in the "heat of the moment" and end up regretting it... hence so many sad sad stories on TAM and else where.


agreed. I have a sibling who is about to do this and has only known the guy for a few short months and getting married in a few short months, and I seem to be the only person in my family that is concerned! Sure, it could very well turn out fine. But how can you know someone in just a few months?! You can't... it's still the honeymoon stage.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

LongWalk said:


> Things that make marriage *easier*, e.g., birth control, are counter balanced by new problems, including Facebook reconnections with old partners, porn, economic recession, military deployments, etc.


Do you mean "harder"?


----------



## thatbpguy (Dec 24, 2012)

She seems unhappy about something. Perhaps you've done a piss poor job of finding out what that is, helping her and making a better marriage. Since eveybody loves you so much it would follow she does too. But something is wrong here and watch out for mirrors as they look back at you.


----------



## SamuraiJack (May 30, 2014)

Jellybeans said:


> I was thinking that, too, Ele.
> 
> For a fee, the contract can end.


Pretty much the way divorce works, right?

I think ours cost 300...I guess that was the fee for "early termination"...


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

SamuraiJack said:


> I think ours cost 300...I guess that was the fee for "early termination"...


:rofl: You are lucky you only had to pay a "small fee."


----------



## long_done (Jun 5, 2014)

thatbpguy said:


> She seems unhappy about something. Perhaps you've done a piss poor job of finding out what that is, helping her and making a better marriage. Since eveybody loves you so much it would follow she does too. But something is wrong here and watch out for mirrors as they look back at you.


Quite contrary, she is happy about everything... what's better than a sugar daddy who provides for everything while she has to do nothing??

This is why she is fighting the divorce, wanting to keep it going, staying in it while things stay the same. She sees nothing wrong...

Funny how people can psycho-analyze things to death when the facts are so obvious.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

long_done said:


> True, but the default mentality in Marriage is that it will continue on forever, so people take it for granted.
> 
> By making the default assumption that marriage will end unless *both* partners actively agree to continue the marriage after a pre-set time, it will cause people to shift their thinking "I need to keep my partner interested in the relationship and not let him/her walk away"...which will ultimately improve the marriage and relationship.
> 
> So you have to keep wooing your spouse for life...that should be the default attitude.


I don't know, have you ever noticed how people treat their cell phones?


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

long_done said:


> Quite contrary, she is happy about everything... what's better than a sugar daddy who provides for everything while she has to do nothing??
> 
> This is why she is fighting the divorce, wanting to keep it going, staying in it while things stay the same. She sees nothing wrong..


So divorce her if you feel that way...

You have a choice in the matter just as she does.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> I don't know, have you ever noticed how people treat their cell phones?


My cell phone is my best friend. Seriously, would not want to live without it. With that said, it's sad I had to sign a contract for it. Contracts make everything less romantic.

With that said, when it's buggy, I know when to leave well enough alone. Sometimes it can't be upgraded anymore. It has lived its life and our chapter is over. LOL.


----------



## long_done (Jun 5, 2014)

Jellybeans said:


> So divorce her if you feel that way...
> 
> You have a choice in the matter just as she does.


It's already in process.

The sad thing is if our marriage was a limited term renewable contract, she would not let herself go, because she would not have the comfort level and security of doing nothing while getting what she wants.


----------



## MaritimeGuy (Jul 28, 2012)

I've often thought marriage should be as complex as divorce. As in...you should both have to get legal representation and sit down and agree on every last detail. Ownership of assets, intentions with respect to children, responsibility sharing, obligations etc with provisions for termination should one party fail to uphold their end of the agreement. 

The very act of having to agree on these things may stop some potentially bad matches from getting married in the first place.


----------



## long_done (Jun 5, 2014)

MaritimeGuy said:


> I've often thought marriage should be as complex as divorce. As in...you should both have to get legal representation and sit down and agree on every last detail. Ownership of assets, intentions with respect to children, responsibility sharing, obligations etc with provisions for termination should one party fail to uphold their end of the agreement.
> 
> The very act of having to agree on these things may stop some potentially bad matches from getting married in the first place.


Holy cow Amen, Amen, Amen!!!

It's far too easy to get married, far too easy. Should be as hard or harder than divorce.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

> The marriage rate in the United States is continuing its decades-long downward slide, with fewer American women than ever getting married and others waiting longer to wed, according to a new report.
> 
> The marriage rate has fluctuated in the past, with dips in the 1930s and 1960s, but it has been in steady decline since the 1970s.
> 
> ...


source: Lifescience


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

Jellybeans said:


> My cell phone is my best friend. Seriously, would not want to live without it. With that said, it's sad I had to sign a contract for it. Contracts make everything less romantic.
> 
> With that said, when it's buggy, I know when to leave well enough alone. Sometimes it can't be upgraded anymore. It has lived its life and our chapter is over. LOL.


You don't "have" to sign a contract at all. You just think you do because when you sign the contract you get certain incentives - the same way so many think they "have" to get married (but in reality they do it because of the free incentives). I tend to think not signing up because of free incentives is more romantic, and further, to sign a contract when there is no justifiable reason is foolish. We are all suckers.


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Jellybeans said:


> Do you mean "harder"?


I meant easier. Birth control makes life a lot easier and marriage, too.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

MaritimeGuy said:


> I've often thought marriage should be as complex as divorce. As in...you should both have to get legal representation and sit down and agree on every last detail. Ownership of assets, intentions with respect to children, responsibility sharing, obligations etc with provisions for termination should one party fail to uphold their end of the agreement.
> 
> The very act of having to agree on these things may stop some potentially bad matches from getting married in the first place.


this is a great idea actually.

Would save so much destruction to families and children having their homes torn apart if legal marriages being entered into were subject to judicial ruling the way divorce decrees are.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Cell phone contracts let you trade up for a better model every now and then also.



Just sayin'


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

MaritimeGuy said:


> I've often thought marriage should be as complex as divorce. As in...you should both have to get legal representation and sit down and agree on every last detail. Ownership of assets, intentions with respect to children, responsibility sharing, obligations etc with provisions for termination should one party fail to uphold their end of the agreement.


That's called a pre-nup. 



Lon said:


> You don't "have" to sign a contract at all.


Which is why I said don't get married at all.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: Marriage should be like a cellphone contract?*



Fozzy said:


> Cell phone contracts let you trade up for a better model every now and then also.
> 
> 
> 
> Just sayin'


Well the contact is with the company, not the device... An upgrade in marriage could refer to a vacation, a makeover, a new car etc. Not switching to another provider.


----------



## firebelly1 (Jul 9, 2013)

I know several gay couples that have contracts that aren't legally binding but are, nevertheless, rules they've agreed to about their relationship. Typically it's because they are non-monogamous and still have some rules about who else they sleep with, but I've OFTEN thought it would have been great to have some sort of written understanding before I got married of:

- who does what household chores, how often, and to what standard
- how frequent sex should be at a minimum
- how discipline should be handled with the kids
- how the finances are handled, what our long-term financial goals are as a couple, etc. 

There was a couple I knew who'd been married for 40 years. When asked how they had managed to stay happily married for that long the husband responded "The contract is always up for renegotiation and we have always come to agreement." And he meant that there was an understanding that expectations can always change, they both needed to be willing to open up discussion on any particular expectation, and at any time either of them could decide to extinguish the "contract". OP has a good point.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: Marriage should be like a cellphone contract?*



Jellybeans said:


> Which is why I said don't get married at all.


Buy an off-contract phone


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

I like the 3 year contract idea. Probably the worst part of my divorce was feeling like I was the bad guy for doing what I felt I needed to do, simply because she wanted to keep the status quo. At least conceptually, I like the idea that there is no perpetual status quo - its predetermined that this will end, unless both parties are enticed to renew.

It seems a lot of people put far too little effort into "renewing", because they don't really have to. 

As a bonus, maybe it would be like professional athletes at the end of their contracts. In contract years, performance usually goes up so as to land the next contract.


----------



## Cosmos (May 4, 2012)

Jellybeans said:


> Or just don't get married so you don't have to worry about defaulting or renewing any kind of contract.


Exactly. And if you are going to get married, treat it like the contract that it is and let one another know exactly what your requirements / expectations are before signing on the dotted line.


----------



## firebelly1 (Jul 9, 2013)

But you're not really talking about marriage vs. no marriage. You're talking about the expectations we have of each other in a long-term relationship. You don't have to be married to have these issues.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I get an incentive to upgrade my phone to a newer and better model every couple of years, so if that is part of the deal, I'm for it!

Overall, though, I think a limited term contract with a requirement to opt IN to extend it is a great idea. It would do wonders to prevent taking each other for granted, and ensure some real effort is put into keeping the relationship healthy. And if that effort isn't made or some other unexpected issues comes to light, you have an easy out.


----------



## MaritimeGuy (Jul 28, 2012)

Part of the negotiation prior to getting married should be a divorce agreement. Essentially agree on how that would look when you're both co-operative rather than after the fact when one or both are hurt, angry, confused and feeling vindictive. Doesn't mean you're planning on getting divorced...just provides a framework should it happen.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

long_done said:


> True, but the default mentality in Marriage is that it will continue on forever, so people take it for granted.


Only the people who do! For my part, and that of my husband, we work hard at trying to please and support and love the other. Even then we have hard times. But given that degree of attention, we always have come out on top. So far.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

How about this, instead? Let's just get rid of civil marriage altogether?


----------



## jaharthur (May 25, 2012)

NobodySpecial said:


> How about this, instead? Let's just get rid of civil marriage altogether?


Why not preserve choices for people? If you don't like it, don't do it. Don't force your views on others.


----------



## MaritimeGuy (Jul 28, 2012)

I see marriage as a higher level of commitment. Essentially it says to me you're prepared to commit publicly to what you most likely already committed to privately. For that reason I think it's a good idea when there are going to be kids involved. 

For me though if there are no kids I don't think it's absolutely necessary to get married. It's just personal preference.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

MaritimeGuy said:


> I see marriage as a higher level of commitment. Essentially it says to me you're prepared to commit publicly to what you most likely already committed to privately. For that reason I think it's a good idea when there are going to be kids involved.
> 
> For me though if there are no kids I don't think it's absolutely necessary to get married. It's just personal preference.


I think most people that have a public ceremony give it very little thought, if any, that the entire point of swearing vows is to make it a matter of public record. They are essentially inviting the entire community to hold them accountable for upholding their committments, so I find it laughable when so many people that divorce or cheat tell everyone it's none of our business.


----------



## MaritimeGuy (Jul 28, 2012)

Lon said:


> I think most people that have a public ceremony give it very little thought, if any, that the entire point of swearing vows is to make it a matter of public record. They are essentially inviting the entire community to hold them accountable for upholding their committments, so I find it laughable when so many people that divorce or cheat tell everyone it's none of our business.


I agree that getting married doesn't bring any guarantee's. On the flip side though I think if someone's resistant to it that could mean they're not fully in...so to speak. Buyers beware when there's no kids. If there are going to be kids though I think it's important to know there is 100% commitment.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

Lon said:


> They are essentially inviting the entire community to hold them accountable for upholding their committments, so I find it laughable when so many people that divorce or cheat tell everyone it's none of our business.


Personally, I am not that invested in anyone else's marriage nor do I want to know their "business." If two people divorce or cheat that really has nothing to do with my life nor am I trying to get details about it. I have way too much other stuff to worry about.

Plus, those things happen every single day. It's hardly shocking when you hear about it.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: Marriage should be like a cellphone contract?*



Jellybeans said:


> Personally, I am not that invested in anyone else's marriage nor do I want to know their "business." If two people divorce or cheat that really has nothing to do with my life nor am I trying to get details about it. I have way too much other stuff to worry about.
> 
> Plus, those things happen every single day. It's hardly shocking when you hear about it.


 So then using that logic there is absolutely no purpose in having a public ceremony to make wedding vows to each other?


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

I never said anything about the ceremony. I was saying I have zero interest in the details of other peoples' divorces/cheating. 
It was in response to what you said about finding it laughable "when so many people that divorce or cheat tell everyone it's none of their business." It doesn't interest me.

If people want to get married and have ceremonies, have at it. It's not really my bag but to each their own.


----------



## MaritimeGuy (Jul 28, 2012)

People who get married multiple times...in particular celebrities make me scratch my head. At what point do you figure out you're just not good at it? :scratchhead:


----------



## anotherguy (Dec 14, 2011)

long_done said:


> ..So to me, marriage should be a limited term contract, where both partners needs to try to retain each other or the contract will automatically void...


well... if you want to talk about it in terms of an actual (hypothetical) document - you could argue that is what it is already. Once someone stops trying, that is sort of like breaking the contract. Im not fully convinced off this though. People are imperfect - we all go through tough spots. 

I might argue this is cowardly (to be harsh). It basically says that you are 'automatically' not even going to bother to try and save it. That once one side feels the other person is not trying, thats it, done, outa there.

As I think about it, the idea that marriage should be like a cellphone contract? No, sorry. Why bother iin the first place.

For me, one of foundations of marriage is comittment. Part of what makes it work is the intrinsic belief that you both are on the same team and both want it to succeed. I see your point when you might counter by saying 'but what if that doesnt happen'? Doesnt change my opinion - *starting out* with that lack of confidence, that lack of commitment, that lack of willingness to do the hard work of sustaining the relationship when times get tough - that turns the entire enterperprise into a fraud for me. Part of our jobs is to pick up and help the other.

Rolling contract? Automatically Void? No.

Perhaps symantics. We celebrate our anniversary every year and though we dont renew our vows, I have no doubt that it is something like reminding ourselves about why we are married and refreshing in our minds that we are still a team. Perhaps we are renewing our contract but in not such cold terms or under threat of termination.

perhaps easy to say for someone that has never been burned. Some may say its 'naive' to think that way, but I say if one has been forced into thinking in terms of how long before you are getting out because of someone elses failure - I say that is missing the point entirely. At least how I see it.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: Marriage should be like a cellphone contract?*



Jellybeans said:


> I never said anything about the ceremony. I was saying I have zero interest in the details of other peoples' divorces/cheating.
> It was in response to what you said about finding it laughable "when so many people that divorce or cheat tell everyone it's none of their business." It doesn't interest me.
> 
> If people want to get married and have ceremonies, have at it. It's not really my bag but to each their own.


Well if they haven't made vows or had a marriage ceremony they can't divorce or cheat on their partners. They can still lie and deceive and screw around, and I don't really care all that much either... But when it comes to marriage that is why so many on this site staunchly defend its sanctity.


----------



## pb76no (Nov 1, 2012)

When I read the OP and the analogy, my initial response would be:

If you got a new cell phone contract and over time the service degraded, more & more calls got dropped, the battery on the phone never lasted the day, etc., etc., etc., wouldn't you:

1) Call & complain
2) Demand better service
3) Not accept excuses

If you go into a relationship expecting things to stay the same, not expecting both sides to put in effort, then perhaps month-to-month is your best bet.


----------



## anotherguy (Dec 14, 2011)

Lon said:


> Well if they haven't made vows or had a marriage ceremony they can't divorce or cheat on their partners. They can still lie and deceive and screw around, and I don't really care all that much either... But when it comes to marriage that is why so many on this site staunchly defend its sanctity.


I disagree that just because you havent had a ceremony or made vows that you cant cheat. There are certainly people that are in serious relationships without these rituals and 'cheating' is undeniably still a thing than can happen.


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

anotherguy said:


> I disagree that just because you havent had a ceremony or made vows that you cant cheat. There are certainly people that are in serious relationships without these rituals and 'cheating' is undeniably still a thing than can happen.


well you can cheat on anything that has rules (be they implied or explicit). In the case of having sex with someone else, whether it is cheating or not depends on the rules both have put in place. I meant specifically extra-marital sex.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

EleGirl said:


> I don't know, have you ever noticed how people treat their cell phones?



Much better than my wife, thank you for asking 

After 28 years of marriage I'm ready for a "prepaid" arrangement :rofl:


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

Maybe the arrangement to have is a contract that is like the marriage we want, i.e., demanding, without legal marriage because that is a contract without penalty for failure.

That contract could include penalties for cheating. It could also include inheritance and child rearing. In the event of complaint, the parties could agree on mediation other than family court.

_Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


----------



## soulseer (Jul 26, 2013)

MaritimeGuy said:


> I've often thought marriage should be as complex as divorce. As in...you should both have to get legal representation and sit down and agree on every last detail. Ownership of assets, intentions with respect to children, responsibility sharing, obligations etc with provisions for termination should one party fail to uphold their end of the agreement.
> 
> The very act of having to agree on these things may stop some potentially bad matches from getting married in the first place.


^^ Very True!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

For me, marriage is SOOOOO much more than the contract. DH and I are going through a rough patch right now. And the most important thing to me is not to remain in the contractual arrangement. But to get back to where I made him happy. Where he made me happy. And to be really good together for us and for the kids.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

LongWalk said:


> Maybe the arrangement to have is a contract that is like the marriage we want, i.e., demanding, without legal marriage because that is a contract without penalty for failure.
> 
> That contract could include penalties for cheating. It could also include inheritance and child rearing. In the event of complaint, the parties could agree on mediation other than family court.
> 
> _Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


I, for one, do not want my tax dollars going to figuring out who was or was not "wrong" in someone else' relationship.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Marriage _is_ a contract that has very far reaching implications and a lot of "fine print", on many different levels.
In fact ,the marriage contract is one of the most complicated contract one could ever sign.

Intimacy,
Social,
Reproductive,
Financial,

And the list goes on.
Why would anyone want to sign away their entire life to such a contract with so many nebulous clauses intrigues me.
_But I'm happily married.._
I did some research anyway and the answers will shock you.
The historical and sociological context behind the contract is *quite interesting.*


----------



## LongWalk (Apr 4, 2013)

The marriage contract is fine. What people don't like are the rules around divorce.

The vows spoken in churches have absolutely zero legal meaning. At one time family law punished those who failed to live up to them. Now there is zero enforcement. I am not suggesting that the courts be clogged up with people trying to prove that nothing happened in a sexless marriage and or that infidelity did.

We need to educate young people about relationships. There are a lot of illusions that hurt the chances of successful marriages.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Because what anyone REALLY wants is a relationship into which they are being enFORCED. Because that is all kinds of fun.


----------



## long_done (Jun 5, 2014)

LongWalk said:


> The marriage contract is fine. What people don't like are the rules around divorce.
> 
> The vows spoken in churches have absolutely zero legal meaning. At one time family law punished those who failed to live up to them. Now there is zero enforcement. I am not suggesting that the courts be clogged up with people trying to prove that nothing happened in a sexless marriage and or that infidelity did.
> 
> We need to educate young people about relationships. There are a lot of illusions that hurt the chances of successful marriages.


This is what's so hard to understand - we educate our kids on reading, writing, math. But they get zero formal education on something they all will go through - relationships with a significant partner. We assume kids will just "get it".


----------



## Lon (Jun 6, 2011)

*Re: Re: Marriage should be like a cellphone contract?*



Caribbean Man said:


> Marriage _is_ a contract that has very far reaching implications and a lot of "fine print", on many different levels.
> In fact ,the marriage contract is one of the most complicated contract one could ever sign.
> 
> Intimacy,
> ...


Because like a cellphone contract it is really easy to enter into a even if you gloss over the fine print. The only difference is it has no teeth like a cellphone contract does. The fine print for termination is nowhere to be found, because it is supposedly a permanent everlasting agreement so there is no reason to even bother negotiating termination (which is naive considering how many marriages end in divorce, and the amount of destruction that causes).


----------



## MaritimeGuy (Jul 28, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Marriage _is_ a contract that has very far reaching implications and a lot of "fine print", on many different levels.
> In fact ,the marriage contract is one of the most complicated contract one could ever sign.
> 
> Intimacy,
> ...


Hence my suggestiong that all this 'fine print' should be negotiated beforehand. I think often times people enter into marriage making assumptions that they are on the same page as their partner for various issues never having fully explored them. It's only later on they learn their partner has a different expectation than they do.

The Catholic church does a kind of rudimentary attempt at this with marriage classes however some important stuff only gets talked about in abstract terms. Smart couples could use the topics though as a framework for having good discussions once they get home. 

Maybe obtaining a marriage license should require actually taking a test. If a couples responses are too far apart on too many issues they can't get the license.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> It's not all that hard to end a marriage as it is so it's not much different than a cell phone contract in that regard.


Not really, it benefits one party more than than the other.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

I think this would be a really good idea. If both parties aren't satisfied, you get to walk without any penalty or financial responsibility to the other. Had that been the case, I would have taken the "three year walk" along time ago.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

It's called not getting married.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8 (Feb 15, 2012)

Jellybeans said:


> It's called not getting married.


That's a really good idea too.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's a really good idea too.


What can I say? I'm a rocket scientist.


----------



## WillinTampa (Jun 18, 2014)

Cell phone contracts are too convoluted...

...I'd say a work permit would be better.


----------



## long_done (Jun 5, 2014)

Jellybeans said:


> It's called not getting married.


Sadly religion sometimes forces one to get married.

For instance my STBXW became pregnant prior to our marriage. Her family being catholic would never have allowed us to be together raising the child without being married. 

At the time I did not wish to raise the kids apart so we got married. It seemed to be the lesser of the two evils. Society and religion sometimes forces us to do things we don't really wish to do.


----------



## missthelove2013 (Sep 23, 2013)

your preaching to the choir...
till death do you part is a long frickin time...long time...

5 year terms...renewal optional...to be married seperate savings accounts must be maintained in case of non-renewal...if you own a house BEFORE marriage, the spouse can NEVER take it or get a piece, if you move into spouses house, keep yours just in case...lol


----------



## changedbeliefs (Jun 13, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> For me, marriage is SOOOOO much more than the contract. DH and I are going through a rough patch right now. And the most important thing to me is not to remain in the contractual arrangement. But to get back to where I made him happy. Where he made me happy. And to be really good together for us and for the kids.


This touches on something that I have thought a lot about recently. The 'contract' of marriage brings about obligation, and removes choice. Think about what it would be like if there was no ring, no marriage license, no "til death do us part" vows spoken. What if, every day, none of that existed, and instead, you knew your partner was still there for you BY CHOICE. Further, what if - due to that fact - each person continued to work just as hard as they did during the courtship? I know that (usually!) the act of committing yourself to marriage is by choice, is voluntary, but it's like above aspect contradicts that, and is certainly confirmed by phrases like "ball and chain" and other such slang. Lastly, the 'stigma of divorce' becomes one more complication, a grey area, as to why someone remains married. What if there were truly no binding arrangements, no negative connotations to splitting up, a simple: let's stay together for as long as we both continue to want it. That's what we did when we dated people: sure, we'd stick it out through SOME conflict, a few arguments here and there, but if they got to be too much, we'd say, "ok, I'm done," and that was it, you knew (at least) one person was no longer freely committed. Imagine some of the conflicts and arguments and disputes and incompatibilities you've experienced over the years with your spouse. If they were, instead, a "long term significant other" and not a spouse, would you have stayed? I would imagine most people probably think, "yes, because I said I would," but I find that philosophically confusing. Because you made the decision one day - and I guess part of this is my own opinion/belief that NONE of us really know what we're getting into when we make that decision - to say you'd stick it out through anything? That's really what it is, you're saying, I'll be with you forever, and stick it out through anything, better or worse, etc... It just leaves no allowance for, I guess, "humanity" is the word? Which is, sometimes people just do no get along, they're never perfectly alike, and their differences won't always be symbiotic, or compatible, or tolerable, dare I say. You go into marriage and say, "I'll put up with whatever happens, whatever you do, whatever you're like, whatever comes our way, for the rest of our lives," which leaves a universe of possibilities! It just seems so unreasonable to expect, yet we view a divorce as such a failure.


----------



## firebelly1 (Jul 9, 2013)

changedbeliefs said:


> What if, every day, none of that existed, and instead, you knew your partner was still there for you BY CHOICE. Further, what if - due to that fact - each person continued to work just as hard as they did during the courtship?


I've been contemplating this lately too. Had a date who said "there should be no 'allowed to' in a marriage" and I agreed wholeheartedly. Wouldn't it be better if we only stayed together because we wanted to and not out of obligation? Sounds ideal. 

But what relationship does anyone have in their lives that they always feel like they want to stay? Do you stay in your job because you feel like you love your boss and coworkers and want to stay? Do you get along with all your family members all the time? If you had a family member who you didn't like very much ask you to help them in times of need, would you? I think most of us would simply because THEY ARE FAMILY. 

And underlying all of that is that there are advantages for us to maintain social ties even when we don't feel like it. There are advantages to our society and to the lives of your children if you have some sort of sense of obligation to maintain those social ties. We need each other for survival. I'm not sure we should throw out the idea of obligation altogether. 

However, now being twice divorced and my kids almost out of the house, I think I would rather have a boyfriend who lives in his own place than a husband who lives with me.


----------

