₦airaland Forum

debosky: TV01

Excellent delivery style and structure as usual, but I can't help feeling you were debating a slightly different proposition than what was stated. Your excessive emphasis on defining marriage and on themes such as the role of the state and societies that repudiated marriage - all issues largely tangential to the subject of discussion - was glaring. As usual your advocacy for marriage (as you view it) was clear, but you didn't spend enough time challenging the premise that the duration of commitment should be left to those involved. The reference to same-sex marriages was completely unnecessary in this case and factually incorrect (in some jurisdictions at least) in some respects. That said, your focus on the effects on children - linking that to why marriages should be lifelong - was well presented.

If the topic was 'Lifelong marriage of a man and a woman - the optimal child raising construct?' then you'd have won without a contest. You'd benefit from a more focused argument instead of dwelling on valid but ultimately unrelated aspects.

Thanks for your comments.

My aim was to demonstrate what marriage is and what purpose it serves. From that, I felt it would be self-evident why it is meant to be a lifetime commitment. I also tired to show that varying it for individual desires was not in the overall best interest, as it's purpose is not simply to validate individual relationships. Perhaps I could have weighted my argument more in other areas - but you probably captured it in noting my "advocacy". I can't be tactical with what I believe to be the truth.

My submission had no reference to same-sex marriage.

TV

ileobatojo: How about we start here.

If I defined marriage simply as, "a polygamous union between one man and up to 4 wives", what would you say about that definition?

Nothing at all.

The debate required me to show why marriage should be a lifetime commitment. I thereby defined it, outlined its essence and clearly showed how it serves the spouses, their offspring and society.

And the "idea" I posted falls well within yours.

So, no enlightenment given, competency established or integrity demonstrated.

Please don't bother yourself with further obfuscation.

TV

ileobatojo: TV01, your definition of marriage continues to stump me. You were extremely limited in your defense of your position and your focusing primarily on the children significantly weakened your argument. Your hard-lined posturing ended up being too tunnel visioned. I would have loved a broader perspective. With that said, your delivery was captivating and kept the reader engaged. Thank you for your time and hard work.

Thanks for your comments.

By briefly outlining how you define marriage and what the essence of it is you can do a number of things;

1. Lend credence to your comments
2. Demonstrate your competency to judge, as presumably you have a personal idea of what marriage is against which you graded mine?
3. And your integrity, as all judges had the opportunity to query during the discourse, but you were conspicuously mute, only to say this?

Don't worry, I won't engage you in any debate. I'm just curious, as I suppose will be others who are following.

So for everyone' enlightenment then.

Thanks again.
TV

yellowpawpaw: Congrats obinoscopy!
TVO1,
U were simply amazing!
I enjoyed ur arguments very well.
Very constructive and insightful.
Standing ovation for u!
(I lv intellectuals.)

Stop dat !

I am not an intellectual. Just a Christian who loves truth and wants to see strong families.
But thanks for the encouragement.

TV

Congratulations Obinoscopy. Well done, It was a pleasure.

All the best in the finals.

TV

Efemena_xy: Being in a marital relationship (i.e being married) does not eliminate occurrences of violence / abuse on partners, better termed as domestic abuse. There are quite high figures of this happening even in the western world. Take the UK for example: the following excerpt from the charity organisation CAADA (Co-ordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse) states:

Key statistics on the prevalence of domestic abuse

Current estimates of domestic abuse (DA):

~ In 2010/2011, an average of 2 women a week were killed by a male and/or former partner: this constituted around one-third of all female homicide victims (Smith, Osborne, Lau, & Britton, 2012). This finding is consistent with previous years (Department of Health, 2005; Home Office, 1999; Povey, 2004, 2005).

~ Approximately 100,000 individuals are currently (2011/2012) at high risk of serious harm or murder as a result of DA (CAADA, 2012).
In 2010/2011, domestic violence accounted for 18% of all violent incidents reported in England and Wales (Chaplin, Flatley, & Smith, 2011) .
7% of women and 5% of men reported DA in 2010/ 2011. This is equivalent to approximately 1.2 million female and 800,000 male victims of DA (Smith, Osborne, Lau, & Britton, 2011) .

~ In 2010/2011, repeat victimisation accounted for 73% of all incidents of domestic violence, 44 % were victimised more than once and 24% of victims had been victimised three times or more (Chaplin et al., 2011).

~ Approximately 130,000 children are currently (2011/ 2012) living with DA (CAADA, 2012).

http://www.caada.org.uk/policy/statistics.html

Now I think it would be interesting to see your statistical figures that show that the occurence of abuse between co-habs is higher than that for married couples. You also mention that marriage provides a safe environment from abuse for children, while the last point of my excerpt refutes that claim of yours.

Finally, it's much harder to hide a trait from a partner when living together as opposed to living apart - moreso if the relationship is a long distance one. The same analogy applies to partners with an abusive tendency. Based on these facts, I therefore stand my ground that cohabitation helps the couple cohabiting to discover much more about their other half and quicker too.

Thanks.
Efe.

1. I did not claim that abuse does not happen in marriage
2. Domestic abuse clearly covers any type of domestic arrangement and for the UK will probably include SSC as well. Your excerpt shows nothing specific. Domestic does not = marital, it = living together.
3. I showed in yesterdays SF a link showing that women and children are safer in marriage.
4. I did not say that marriage keeps women and children safe. Just that it is safer than any other type of domestic arrangement.
5. Threads on the section show clearly that non-marrieds relationship and especially co-habitees suffer abuse. And studies showing marriage to men is the lowest conflict relationship for women, make it easy to infer that co-habbing is more abusive on the whole. Co-habbing doesn't flush out abuse, it seems to precipitate it's onset.
6. It is also clear from our Family section threads that victims of abuse in co-hab r/ships do not find it any easier to disengage - even without children!

Long excerpt and conclusions that didn't address the questions

TV

^{All, could the unspoken inference be that men simply value live-ins less than wives?}

Another thing, regards marriage vows, which simple put are love & cherish, through all situations, for always (although Sisi-Kill seems to think that vows are being kept if they simply stay together?)

In a co-hab arrangement how do the serious things that life can throw at you play out. Say for example, one falls seriously sick with the prognosis uncertain. Marriage vows are clear, you stay and support. What is the likelihood - compared to marriage - that a "co-habee" would stay and support in such a situation?

Even simpler things like long-term job loss. With a contract/agreement in place or even that financial independence due to the lack of commitment, would the feeling of "carrying the other" or contract violation not come into play and generate resentment?

Thanks
TV

Tgirl4real: I see Coogar peeping. Any questions for the debaters?

Yes, the abuse one. This topic generates a lot of heat - although not much light from what I can see - on the Family section. Threads of 100+ pages are not uncommon.

One thing that is startlingly clear is that violent abuse is suffered in co-habitation arrangements. This fact, allied with studies which clearly demonstrate that proper marriage is still the safest place for women and children, make it is logical to infer that women suffer more abuse in "co-habs". Also interesting is that they seem to find it as difficult to leave abusive situations as properly married victims. And lastly, the insinuation that co-habiting would flush put potential abusers seems odd, when most of the the self-identified victims of abuse swear blind that it was well hidden until marriage.

Could the debaters please address this please. Especially the "for cohab" proponent.

Thanks
TV

yellowpawpaw: TV, how do u want me to answer ur kweshion naw?
Me, I no sabi grammer too much.
Let me consult my dickitionary.
It will take time o.
Just wait, I dey come.


Me think that since we hv diverse religiou beliefs, when used in context like this, mostly d aim is defeated since all side will start defending their faith(w'out knowing it) instead of focusing on the topic of discussion.
Also, other major points which would hv surfaced and treated equally will automatically die natural death.
Let us not forget that the debate has to be neutral.

Then again, we can pair and learn from both sides(if actually that's the aim) without throwing stones but can that be obtainable here.

Two christians quoting the bible is meaningless to a muslim reading the post or a free thinker. Think about it.

I take your point, but this debate did not centre around or focus on religion. Like I said, I did not mention it in any way shape or form in my submission.

Are the claims made by the religious necessarily exclusive to them? Or exactly the same for all religions? The practical outworkings of religious positions can be challenged or discussed, just like any other, whatever its origins.

A Christian and a Muslim could well argue monogamy vs. polygamy, does their faith invalidate their views? Many non-religionists now arguing for poly-marriages, is it fine because theirs is not a faith-derived position when they argue for it?

The thread is now open for general debate. I'd love to hear - and would be more than happy to discuss - points that do not touch on - or without touching on - religion in the slightest.

TV

Obinoscopy: Tut tut. You're very wrong @ the bolded. I addressed the topic from different angles. This is enough evidence that you did not read my presentation and did not address my rebuttals effectively.

We debated in the current - third round (i.e. this round) - not the second.

TV

Obinoscopy: Thanks for this reference. This was exactly what I was looking for. The other references you provided were not in correlation with the topic of discuss but this one is. Weldone!

No problemo.

Have a pleasant Sunday.

TV

yellowpawpaw: Tgal and debators, u all are amazing.

I observed one thing.
Pls can we leave the bible out of this debate?
The bible makes no sense to a muslim debator or an etheist.
(On d other hand, Tgal, we should look for a muslim and an atheist to complete the equation, what do u think)

Wonderful presentation from both sides.
Very well articulated too.
I enjoyed it.

ifyalways: Good debate but for Christians only( much emphasis on monogamy,Bible)

Welldone @ contestants.

Tgirl4real: Thanks Yellowpawpaw.

The debaters were volunteers. There is really no way to know the religion of some of them at the early stage.

Thanks Guys,

In the first round, my submission did not mention scripture except in reference to the topic - from whence it derived - and footnotes. In the second round, I mentioned religion and culture in passing and made it clear they were not the mainstays of my position, my respondent chose to focus on nothing else. Choosing to focus on denigrating religion and totally ignoring the valid practical posers I made.

In this round, my submission did not contain a single reference to God, the divine, faith, religion or any scripture. The debate flowed the way it did. I could have simply ignored references to the Bible, but that would have seemed like I was failing to rebut.

Having made both of those points, why should religion be left out of public discourse? Everyone subscribes to a particular worldview - even if it's not a well articulated or codified one - what makes or who deems religious persuasions any less valid?

Marxism, feminism, atheism and every other ideology one could mention has it's voice. No one denies them the right to postulate and promulgate their viewpoints

I am not insisting that faith is to be the sole determinant of social policy or laws, but it is wrong to want to stifle the voice of those who speak out of a deeply held faith. In many instances they are in fact the majority.

Faith as I experience it translates into tried and trusted practical principles. Indeed, I was perhaps remiss in not touching on it in my submission, as it seems I will be judged on bias against my faith even where I don't refer to it? I am more convinced than ever, that the truth of faith discomforts and convicts and that's why there is such a clamour against it.

TV

Obinoscopy: The first reference was about same sex marriage, the second about cohabitation before marriage while the third reference was also about homosexuality. There's no correlation between your supposed source and your previous assertion that made me request for your source. I'll quote your previous assertion here for the benefit of the viewers


You said of all relationship, male and females marriages have the lowest levels of abuse. So you're inevitably saying that they shouldn't seek divorce due to marital abuse because of the above reference of yours? Have you not heard of marital rape?Domestic violence? Are you saying such is lowest in marriages? Cos your reference was silent on that

Please read again, it's there. Here is an additional one where it's "in one' face".

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/03/marriage-still-the-safest-place-for-women-and-children

TV

Obinoscopy: Since my contestant has begged to take his leave, I beg to take mine, even though some of my questions and rebuttals were not addressed squarely.

Goodnight everyone.

I don't feel I received responses to my extensive queries. But a lot has been written.

Lets leave it to our judges to decide.

Well done Obinoscopy, I appreciate it's challenging.

TV

Obinoscopy: Ok, but the deed has been done. He's already married. Don't you think we should liberate him?

Did we force him into marriage at gunpoint?

TV

Obinoscopy: Please provide us with source. It is very wrong to make such assertion without providing source.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron1.html

http://www.smartmarriages.com/cohabit.html

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

TV

I have responded to all substantive questions at least once.

I'm happy to close, unless any judge or viewer has a query?

TV

Obinoscopy: So what should be the solution for the person you referred to in the bolded? Don't you think he/she should dissolve that marriage since he/she can't meet the demands of the marital union?

No, he/she should not enter into it in the first place.

TV

Tgirl4real: I'm wondering why this debate is based more on the bible.

It was not mentioned in my submission. But I had to re-but errors in my learned friends piece.

TV

Obinoscopy: What if the couples were ignorant of the bolded and ventured into marriage, would you agree that they should seek divorce? After all, they should have forgone it in the first place! I sincerely need your response to this.

One cannot plead ignorance. Marriage is no to be entered into lightly, as it says on the tin. Whoever joins you should make that clear. Mature, caring, committed. Marriage is not for anyone to devalue or to vary.

TV

Sisi_Kill: By Betrayal....do you mean getting divorce? I.e a child would find it difficult to take advice from divorced parent.

That's a real possibility. even adult children are affected by teir parents divorce. It can seem as if your whole childhood was a lie and can make you doubt everything they ever said or modelled.

Sisi_Kill: So basically you are saying a child who watches one of his parent threat the other badly is more likely to still seek advice from them if they remain married than if they are divorced? He is more likely to see their marriage as a model regardless of what kind of model it is as long as they remain in the union?

I have stated no such thing. In the first instance you are implying "abuse" as the cause. In the second you are missing the bitterness that typically accompanies divorce whatever the cause.

Sisi_Kill: It seems to me that we are more concerned about "keeping the vows" than whether the right message is being sent or the right lesson being learnt.

As ever, I am concerned about strong marriages and flourishing societies. In any event, if vows are being kept, then the right message is being sent and the right lessons are being learnt.

Sisi_Kill: Please correct me if I have in someway misunderstood your point.

As above

TV

Obinoscopy: Matthew 5:32

Read it carefully, it says sexual immortality is enough justification to divorce a marriage

Read that as you will, but it does not imply re-marriage.

TV

Obinoscopy: Again this a false statement. If divorce is permitted, it means every marriage is not lifelong since there's a termination clause.

Biblically divorce does not mean re-marriage. One is bound until death. Please read Romans 7 as quoted above.

Obinoscopy: You cannot say you can live forever when you have a terminated clause: death.

You need to re-read this carefully.
Biblically, death is reason for re-marriage


TV

Obinoscopy: The bible gave instances where a woman is free of her husband besides death. This confirms the fact that even the bible is aware that not every marriage is lifelong.

Where? Please show us.

TV

Obinoscopy: What would make one want to remain in a bad marriage? It's only bondage that can.

Your use of the term "bad" is pejorative. Not having ones desires satisfied does not mean "bad". I have friends with daughters and no sons and vice-versa. Others with no children even though they would dearly love them. Some men consider that bad, others choose to remain committed to their wives and any children regardless

Voluntary commitment is not bondage. Marriage in truth is about serving the other. If you can't do that or cannot aspire to it, then forego it. Your relationship does not have to be witnessed and validated as marriage by society if you are not willing or able to confirm and commit it's value to that same society. There are various other options available. I'm sure there is one that suits whatever arrangement a couple have.

TV

Obinoscopy: You don't seem to understand what I meant by "they have to". I was talking about that clause "Till death do us part". They might not have been pressured into marriage but they certainly were made to recite that clause without meaning it. This is because if they had meant it, there will be no divorce.

In as much as divorce happens for a number of reasons, it does not mean that couples did not mean their vows at the time of exchanging them. Marriage vows are well known and not a surprise on the day.

The reasons for divorce are legion, but for the most part boil down to individuals not understanding or having the right expectations of marriage, or being unduly selfish and engaging in wilfull/destructive behaviour after.

TV

Tgirl4real: TV01,

Please, we are waiting for you.

Thanks.

I think the time difference threw things somewhat. I'm an hour behind.

TV

Obinoscopy: Must the parent of this grownup child be married before they can provide them with the needed advice and assistance? Or is it the marriage certificate that will provide the advice and assistance?

True.
But consider the dynamic. Children are often bitter when their parents get divorced. It often cause estrangement. Even where it does not, it's hard to seek certain types of advice from someone who cannot model marriage, who in your eyes have lived a lie or betrayed someone you love dearly.

TV

Obinoscopy: Your statement: "Divorce is devastating for children" is too general and thus a falsehood. Or are you saying that a child will benefit more from a family where his father beats up his mother everyday than if they are separated? Don't you think we should spare the child of those domestic violence? There are certainly instances were the inability to seek divorce should be what is to be termed devastating.

Divorce for whatever reason harms children, and can never be described as a falsehood. Abuse in the relationship is simply additional harm to that child.

Mature, caring and committed adults do not abuse their spouses. Hint, hint.

TV

Obinoscopy: The argument is not about the repudiation of marriage, I personally will never deny the benefits of marriage, the argument is about whether it should be a lifetime commitment. So can you tell me the import of the statement of yours on the debate topic?

Certainly. If you vary marriage without due cause and/or adding value, their will be ramifications. Here you are proposing short-term contract arrangements. The effect on children alone will be horrendous. To vary it in part - especially in a way that diminishes it as a whole - is in essence to repudiate it and the purpose it serves.

TV

Obinoscopy: Don't you think you shot yourself on the foot with this truthful statement of yours?

The fact that the inputs of both gender is essential at different stages in the life of the child confirms the fact that it's not a must that the couple must live together before the child can get their parental inputs.

I have a young family. My input varies to that of my wife in some aspects, but is no less critical and could not be delivered remotely with the best will in the world. Emergency dashes at 2am to the hospital? Tactical changes to childcare plans due to unexpected events at home or work?

More specifically children are aware and deeply affected by the dynamic between their parents and typically internalise any division as their fault or meaning they are not good enough.

You would seriously postulate non-proximity as equal to husband and wife together when raising children? Please don't propagate such notions.


TV

When a man and a woman love each other so much and feel they are compatible enough, they may decide to get married. This marital ritual involves the exchange of vows and the establishment of rights and obligations between the couples, between the couples and their unborn children, between the couples and their in-laws and – by extension – between the couples and the society at large. The man promises to love and care for his wife, the woman promises same. They declare their faithfulness “till death do them part.” They say these words because they have to.

Whatever a couples reasons for getting married - and love or proof of love has never been required - a couple should understand and embrace what marriage represents to society. Marriage is not forced upon any couple. So no, it is a fallacy to claim they say them because "they have to"

They recite the words as read out to them by their pastor or imam. Those words are not said from their heart. How can it be said from the heart? How can you promise to love and care for someone for the rest of your life? This is probably someone you know for just 3 years or at most 5 years. And you feel the five years friendship and companionship you enjoyed with him or her is enough to make you extrapolate such friendship and companionship for the rest of your life? My dear you are making a very dangerous extrapolation. No one knows the future, except God.

It is a far stretch to claim that vows exchanged are not from the heart. Especially at the time of exchange and absent coercion or undue pressure. Yes, some find they entered unprepared or without the requisite understanding and some lose their resolve. Your claim that a couple cannot take lifetime vows is discredited simply due to the fact that it has been lived and accomplished and continues to be.

As to your reference to God, marriage as biblically outlined is for life. Marriage as instituted by God can by His grace, endure. Divorce is a fail whatever you believe.

Marriage is not a prison house. Marriage is not an institution where there is only one way in and no way out. Marriage is not bondage. The essence of marriage is for companionship and for procreation; if a man or a woman is not getting either of these, then he or she should call it quits. There is no need pretending or acting. Even professional actors cannot keep on acting for the rest of their life; there will come a time when he or she has to resign from acting and face reality.

You are making baseless assumptions about "prisons & bondage"without accounting for individual willingness to remain married regardless of desires or outcomes. With full disclosure prior and a willingness to live with whatever occurs after the exchange of vows, the love you claimed can keep couples together. If procreation does not happen naturally there are options that can be explored.

Many men and women have met their untimely death because they have been in bondage for too long in their marriage. Ailments such as high blood pressure, stroke, heart failure, depression, etc. were pointed out as the cause of their demise but the real cause of their death is their marital bondage. It was the marital bondage that precipitated those ailments.1

The fact that all of these happen outside marriage amply proves that these ailments are not caused by marriage, but by individual human frailties and inability to cope with the demands of the marital union. Marriage will not necessarily cure you of destructive behaviours. Best one is mature enough to form mature, caring and committed relationships prior to marriage.

Domestic/marital violence has led to depression, bruises, broken bones, head injuries, lacerations, internal bleeding and injury to or death of the fetus.2,3 How do you expect one to remain in such bondage after all these health implications?

Glad you co-termed that "Domestic violence". Studies show that of all the relationship arrangements male/female marriages have the lowest levels of abuse. One does not need to be married to experience abuse. As I noted above, maturity, care & commitment.

Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, rather marriage is the coming together of two people who are in love with each other and who are compatible with each other. As long as that love and compatibility remains, the marriage remains. But once the love or the compatibility fades, the marriage should fade as well. That is why the word ‘divorce’ exists.

A feeling of being in love does not demand marriage. Two people "in love" can do whatsoever they please. The societal value and importance of marriage demands that if it is in view, that feeling of love become a "commitment to love". A commitment to love demands that the relationship is nurtured and protected by all involved.

Even the Catholics who claim to be against divorce also endorse ‘annulment’ which is a form of divorce. For clarity sake, I wish to state categorically that I am not a proponent of divorce for every marriage. Divorce certainly has its negative effect. However I am of the opinion that divorce must be called in once it has been discovered that the benefits of the wedlock have been outweighed by its risks.

Annulment is for valid reasons, amongst which are non-consummation, which defeats one of the principles of marriage - hence why sodomites cannot marry, as they cannot consummate. It is not for "fading love or compatibility".

The negative effects of divorce ripple through extended families,out into wider society and through generations. Those are the wider negative effects to be considered. And they far outweigh any individuals seeking to satisfy their selfish desires.

For those that feel divorce is very expensive and stressful, there is a possible solution to that effect. Lizbeth Rosas Montero, a Mexican legislator, drew up a bill that will permit newlyweds to take a minimum of two years marital contract before deciding to renew their marital ‘contract.’4 If this bill is passed, there will be a sharp decline of divorce rates in Mexico. This is because once the contract expires, the couples would go their separate ways; no need to go to court to sign divorce papers.

Just as easy to constitute something else, lets for debates sake call them "Civil Partnerships". Marriage serves a vital societal service, to vary it in anyway we should ask what incrementall value are we adding?

If a union ends, whatever you term the dissolution, it's a failed marriage. Semantics don't change anthropological or natural facts, neither does wilful legislation. Legislating for same sex couples to be equal to opposite sex couples has not enables same-sex couples to have their own biological children has it?

Of course, the contract will also make provision for any child that was a result of the wedlock. The beauty of this type of marriage is that it makes the couples remain faithful to each other. Most men cheat on their wife because they know their wife cannot leave them due to the lifetime marital vow they exchanged. The woman too will lose her respect for her husband and is not bothered since she knows he cannot leave. But if they had agreed on a marital contract, they will remain faithful to each other so that they can renew their contract once the previous one expires. Also the renewal of marital vows has a way of strengthening the love between the couple.5,6

Wrong in all respects I'm afraid;

1. The optimal provision for any child is to be raised by their biological parents, so any provision will be sub-optimal
2. How some people are unfaithful before during and after marriage. If vows won't make you faithful, why will contracts?
3. Most men do not cheat. And where they do, it's not simply because they feel their wives won't leave them. It's deeper than that.
4. A short tem contract will not compensate for peoples immaturity or irresponsible/destructive behaviour.
5. Lifelong married couples are able to renew their vows as often as they choose

In all, a philanderer and gamers charter. Two years here, then 2 there, before another 2 here. For how long? Imagine loads of old people looking for partner. Bet they'll be looking for longer than two years then. At best fit for only the irresponsible and immature - people who shouldn't be marrying in the first place.

Marriage has never been a lifetime commitment in the past. I have searched several libraries and the internet for the definitions of marriage, the history of marriage, the etymology of marriage and I am yet to see any connection between marriage and the word ‘lifetime’ through my search. It is our religious leaders who brought up this ‘lifetime’ principle. Even the bible never brought up the term ’lifetime commitment’ in all its verses about marriage. This same bible gave us an instance where divorce is justified (Matthew 5:32). The bible never spoke against couples who want to end their marriage, rather the bible only spoke against the influence of a third party on a marriage. Some churches support divorce. Islam also has separate rules for divorce for men and women under the terms of Islamic law (Sharia). For traditional marriages, divorce is very simple: just return the bride price and the marriage has been annulled. If all these religious bodies support divorce why should we say marriage is a lifetime commitment?

Bible? Easily and speedily debunked. Romans 7:2 - For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

Divorce being permitted does not mean it's intention is not lifelong.

Marriage should be regarded as a legal relationship between a man and a woman, nothing more. The issue of ‘lifetime’ should be left for to time to decide. If the couple leaves happily ever after, we will rejoice. But if they are having issues that are threatening their happiness, their health and their life, then I say they should end that commitment and seek companionship elsewhere. Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, its simply a commitment.

Marriage is what it is and it has served mankind well through the ages. If people would like alternative arrangements - legal or otherwise - fine. But unless marriage is varied in a way that enhances the current service it provides society it should remains as is.

Marriage -properly entered into - does not endanger, rather it enhances and it enriches. The couple, thier children and wider society. Your motive for diluting marriage is clear throughout your submission, even in closing. The inability to maintain a marital relationship is resolved in "seeking companionship elsewhere".

I hate clichés, but marriage is not by force. If you want alternatives, lite-versions dimunitions or pseudo-boyfie/girlfie type arrangements, by all means, but legislate for and name them as such. But please leave marriage as it is. Serving society through the ages and for generations to come.

TV