# Marriage Should Automatically Dissolve After 7 Years



## Lynne (Sep 21, 2007)

Bavarian politican, Gabriele Pauli, believes that marriage should end after 7 years.  Couples could decide to extend their marriage, if desired.

Pauli has been divorced twice herself which may not make her a marriage expert.  I wonder where/why people come up with this crazy stuff.  I suppose it garners attention and then they can promote themselves and/or their deeper political agendas.  


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070921/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_germany_politics_marriage


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 21, 2007)

Hmm, a_ woman_ figures out the cure for the 7 year itch??


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 21, 2007)

Marriage is two things.

One is a religious covenant, to those who choose to make it so.

The other is a civil contract. It is not uncommon for civil contracts to have preset time periods, and extention and renewal clauses.

Personally, I think it is an emminantly reasonable idea.


----------



## shesulsa (Sep 21, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> Hmm, a_ woman_ figures out the cure for the 7 year itch??


We get it too, ya know. :shrug:


----------



## Big Don (Sep 21, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Marriage is two things.
> 
> One is a religious covenant, to those who choose to make it so.
> 
> ...


I think this is reasonable, but, I don't like it. Marriage is not a driver's license, nor  should it be treated like one.


----------



## crushing (Sep 21, 2007)

Lynne said:


> Bavarian politican, Gabriele Pauli, believes that marriage should end after 7 years. *Couples could decide to extend their marriage, if desired.*


 
Couples don't already have a say in how long their marriages last in Germany?  Some people have been married just for the weekend here in the US.  I don't see a need for the government to mandate some arbitrary term of service for marriage.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 21, 2007)

I've seen similar ideas on marriage in numerous sci-fi books.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 21, 2007)

I'd be curious to see what sort of unexpected consequences something like this would have.  Could be good, could be bad.  It would definitely be interesting.


----------



## Lynne (Sep 21, 2007)

I personally consider marriage sacred, a commitment, a promise.  I can't imagine marrying someone with the idea of nonpermanency looming over my head.  I wouldn't want to have children in that scenario either.


----------



## Kacey (Sep 21, 2007)

I don't see any reason to place limits - upper or lower - on marriages.  What is the purpose of the government of any country involving itself in such things?


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Sep 21, 2007)

Lynne said:


> I personally consider marriage sacred, a commitment, a promise.  I can't imagine marrying someone with the idea of nonpermanency looming over my head.  I wouldn't want to have children in that scenario either.



Couldnt have put it better myself.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 21, 2007)

Lynne said:


> I personally consider marriage sacred, a commitment, a promise. I can't imagine marrying someone with the idea of nonpermanency looming over my head. I wouldn't want to have children in that scenario either.


 
I don't want any biological children, ever. 

I ended up marrying a woman with two children from her first marriage; which I don't think lasted seven years. 

Somehow, I think 'children' is not a good indicator or attribute of marriage. At least when discussing the civic privleges. 

In a religous context, it is perhaps a different issue. 

I don't think the proposal came from a religious leader, did it?


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Sep 21, 2007)

Marriage is a *religious* institution.

Civil partnership is something different.


----------



## 14 Kempo (Sep 21, 2007)

Well, the idea, if it was in place, would have saved me from going through a divorce leading up to my eighth year.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 21, 2007)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Marriage is a *religious* institution.
> 
> Civil partnership is something different.


 
I am an athiest. I was required to acquire a 'marriage license' and have it signed by a Justice of the Peace. My wife and I are in a marriage. It is a civil institution in this country. The term is shared with religious organizations, but it is not exclusively one, or the other.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 21, 2007)

Lynne said:


> Bavarian politican, Gabriele Pauli, believes that marriage should end after 7 years. Couples could decide to extend their marriage, if desired.
> 
> Pauli has been divorced twice herself which may not make her a marriage expert. I wonder where/why people come up with this crazy stuff. I suppose it garners attention and then they can promote themselves and/or their deeper political agendas.
> 
> ...


 

Contract Marraiges. The contract states the expectations of each party and the term of the contract. Stipulations for children could also be made. Fines set for those who violate the contract, including early termination. 

Starter Marriages - a new term that psychologists have coined. This is when people just get married after their BS or BS degree to move out and then etiher get their professional degree (Master's or PhD or Dr *) and then divorce and move on to someone they can spend the rest of their life. 

The first takes out all religious meaning and makes it all upfront.

The second could be people using the other in particular if they do not tell their "partner" about their desires to move on in the future. In Psychology today a year ago I believe I read the article and it talked about how mostly (* more than 50% *) were women as they could control if a child was involved or not and still have sex. They also would many times move on to someone in a better profession. Note: There were still men who did the same.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 21, 2007)

Mawarrage! Mawarrage is what brwings us twogether twoday. Because lwuv, twue lwuv .... 
(couldn't resist  sorry  ) 



CoryKS said:


> I'd be curious to see what sort of unexpected consequences something like this would have.  Could be good, could be bad.  It would definitely be interesting.


 Consenquences? What I can see is that there'd be a lot of half-brothers and half sisters running around and think in the long term what that would do to the gene pool. 
Also people wouldn't marry for love and what's the point of that? Without love and sustaining love our society, I earnestly believe would crumble and degenerate eventually to nothing. All the (bad) stuff we talk about in the Study about spousal murders, and rapes and molestations would blossom to horrific proportions. Why? Because without love without the concept of loving for a lifetime children growing up in this "bubble", which is a concept that is *felt* as well as thought of, would grow up not having the love within them to stop doing these horrific crimes. They wouldn't care. 
That, Miss Tina Turner, is what's love got to do with it. 

You marry someone _because_ you love someone and can't imagine loving anyone else (that way or that deeply). You WANT to stay with them forever and a day. 
People who divorce after a few years of marriage didn't truly see the depths of their affections for their (former) S/O because they were blinded by the moment... and probably by the itch in their crotches. Best way to know is if you're willing to wait... and you do. 

Having a contractual marriage just eliminates that (deep-true-love) from the equation. Besides they have that here in the states anyway... it's called Common-law marriage. It's beneficial to the point of helping one another get out of debt faster and getting certian tax breaks to achieve that. 
It also helps reduce (not eliminate) the chances of STD's because you're with ONE partner... provided each stays within the confines of the "agreement". 
Marriage does that sure, but call it a "life-time warranty"... yet I'll concede that unfortunately the warranty isn't exactly a guarantee... but it's awfully close and does work in many cases that I know. ... but the cases that I know it DIDN'T work outnumber the ones that did work. 

Sigh.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 22, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> Mawarrage! Mawarrage is what brwings us twogether twoday. Because lwuv, twue lwuv ....
> (couldn't resist  sorry  )




Inconceivable!


----------



## Big Don (Sep 22, 2007)

as a divorced guy, I must say, seeing a story on marriage in the Horror Stories area, seems kinda fitting...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 22, 2007)

FieldDiscipline said:


> Marriage is a *religious* institution.
> 
> Civil partnership is something different.


Only in the sense that it is in your religeon that you do best for your children.
Sean


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Sep 23, 2007)

" I've heard marriage referred to as a "commitment" and an "institution"--And who the **** wants to be committed to an institution?"

--Andy Moynihan


In all seriousness though, I'm not down on people who choose marriage because it is what they want, but it should---no, it MUST--be THEIR choice, not the government's.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 24, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> " I've heard marriage referred to as a "commitment" and an "institution"--And who the **** wants to be committed to an institution?"
> --Andy Moynihan



jumps up and down in chair with hand raised high... "Ooooh! Me ME ME!" :boing2::boing1::erg::moon:


----------

