I want a button that causes (other) people nearby to experience extraordinary physical agony if they have had a moronic thought in the past 30 seconds.

Are you trying to torture the entire human race or something?

That's just evil genius type thinking... :)

No no - it only affects nearby people. Therefore I can use it to walk into a room, yell out in a sinister voice "I COME TO PUNISH THE STUPID", and push the button.


Endless entertainment.

I already have a magic button. When you press it, it destroys the world. However, it's been mostly ineffective at coercing people to do my bidding, as I'd have to press it to show that it actually worked.

Kick the government out of people's marriage affairs so that marriage is no longer treated as a legal document upheld in a similar fashion as a corporation (in plan English, not treating it as a business), but whatever the two decide it should be.

eh? That makes no sense at all. The whole point of marriage as an institution is to provide legal recognition of a relationship.

If you don't want any kind of legal status attached to your relationship, then just say you're married and do whatever the hell you want.

Okay, I know this is a bit old, but I never saw your response. You see, there are some that want a legally recognized marriage to get the legal benefits of it (i.e. hospital visits, insurance discounts, joint tax returns, etc.), which was one of the reasons for the recent push for gay marriage in the US since they could not be "legally" married. The concept of a marriage license itself was created to keep certain types of marriages illegal (i.e. interracial, gay, etc.) and is quite discriminatory from a historical standpoint. But when you take the government out of the equation of people's private lives, all these problems go away.

Your last statement is spot on, of course, because back in the old days, you either had your wedding ceremony or just say "we're married" and that was it. No government dividing your assets for you in case of a divorce, no need for legal incentives, none of that nonsense.

Shogun.

Your last statement is spot on, of course, because back in the old days, you either had your wedding ceremony or just say "we're married" and that was it.

No government dividing your assets for you in case of a divorce, no need for legal incentives, none of that nonsense.

Yeah, except once again, that "nonsense" is the whole point of being married as opposed to just shacking up together.

If you want to be legally recognised as someone's spouse (with hospital visits, inheritance, custody rights, etc) then you get married, and yes, that's especially important in the case of gay marriage.

Hell, in lots of countries, there is the concept of a "de facto spouse" once you've been together a few years to give you exactly these kinds of rights, and yes, obligations.

Your last statement is spot on, of course, because back in the old days, you either had your wedding ceremony or just say "we're married" and that was it.

That hasn't been true for a long time. Marriage was originally a transfer of property (the bride) from the father of the bride to the groom, but it's always been about a societal/legal recognition of a relationship. There might not have been a government contract, but that didn't matter because wives were the property of their husbands and there was no divorce (or if there was, the wife was left destitute). Yay for the good old days!

Yes, destitution (and worse, depriving the women of their children) is what can result when women have no protection by marriage laws.

I'm not comprehending what you mean by it being about societal or legal recognition of a relationship, but it has definitely included at least some government-enforced protections for women for thousands of years now.

There's some in the Mosaic laws, for example, around ~3400 years old. They are very limited in scope, so it was still a pretty bad situation for women, but even "back in the old days" it was far more than just saying "we're married" and "now we're not!". Sure, you didn't have to have a big ceremony, but governmental laws of protection did kick in (when properly enforced).

Instead of the right of divorcing the man, the rights of the women that are protected by the Mosiac laws more have to do with the right to make sure that the man continued to provide for her quality of life (including her right to demand he continues having sex with her, so she can have children).

Which is pretty much the same thing @blueshogun is complaining of, just with a different spin on it. Instead of "government dividing your assets", it was "government forcing you to use your assets to provide for your wife". It's not something new, and, in my opinion, very important.

No government dividing your assets for you in case of a divorce, no need for legal incentives, none of that nonsense.

Yeah, except once again, that "nonsense" is the whole point of being married as opposed to just shacking up together.

If you want to be legally recognised as someone's spouse (with hospital visits, inheritance, custody rights, etc) then you get married, and yes, that's especially important in the case of gay marriage.

Hell, in lots of countries, there is the concept of a "de facto spouse" once you've been together a few years to give you exactly these kinds of rights, and yes, obligations.

In the USA, we call that "Common-law marriage", and while not nation-wide, several states have that here. It's a good idea, though I remember reading about celebrities and wealthy individuals divorcing right before the time-limit is up, so the protections don't kick in. That's when I think it's important to let judges have the flexibility in deciding laws based on the unique circumstances, rather than forcing judges to rule based on top-down broad-stroke one-size-fit-all laws.

I also agree this "nonsense" is extremely important. Yes, it can be abused, but it also provides real protection to really vulnerable people in bad circumstances.

Maybe roll-back your body 10 years.

Okay, I probably shouldn't have opened this can of worms. Oh well, what's done is done...

There might not have been a government contract, but that didn't matter because wives were the property of their husbands and there was no divorce (or if there was, the wife was left destitute).

Maybe so, and it was quite unfortunate at the time. But on the flip side, this is one thing you almost never hear about. During the 1800s (maybe before; and maybe after) the husband was 100% legally responsible for the actions of his wife. The husband had the majority of authority because he had the majority of responsibility and accountability. So in a sense, marriage sucked for both sides back in those days.

In the USA, we call that "Common-law marriage", and while not nation-wide, several states have that here. It's a good idea, though I remember reading about celebrities and wealthy individuals divorcing right before the time-limit is up, so the protections don't kick in. That's when I think it's important to let judges have the flexibility in deciding laws based on the unique circumstances, rather than forcing judges to rule based on top-down broad-stroke one-size-fit-all laws.

And the divorce courts are highly corrupt. Judges pretty much do what they want, and it's interesting how family court is the only court that does not have a jury (afaik). I recommend watching the movie "Divorce Corp". I'd link it, but I fear that might be against the rules to do so. It's easy to find by googling or check it out on Netflix.

Those who know me know I'm not a big fan of Sweden, but one thing they got right is the fact that a very small percentage of divorces have to go to court because they have a realistic and practical approach to handling such cases. In the US, it's the inverse. Given that divorce is a $50 billion dollar industry, divorce lawyers and judges have incentives to keep you coming back to court over and over again to extract more money from you while charging you absurd amounts of money, especially when child custody is involved. These days, a divorce can last longer than your marriage did, literally. No fault divorce sounded great in theory to help women get out of bad marriages easier, but as a side effect, it increased the number of divorces used to take advantage of the system. I listen to the stories of a well known divorce lawyer on a weekly basis, and he confirms everything in that movie. I thank God every day that I never got married and had kids only to end up in the court system.

Shogun.

So, because divorce courts suck (in the US), we should get rid of marriage (in the legal sense)?

That's not really a substantive argument. That's like saying that chemotherapy is awful, so we should use homeopathy to cure cancer.

That's not really a substantive argument. That's like saying that chemotherapy is awful, so we should use homeopathy to cure cancer.

Nah. It's more like saying because America's health system is built on exploiting the system and charging $10000 for a treatment that costs $5 to manufacture, in the name of "recouping R&D costs", we should demolish all US hospitals :D

Dripping sarcasm and plucked out of the air figures inserted for humour purposes only.