Quinch Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 There is a politican in Bavaria, Germany (sorry, can't remember her name right now) who is proposing that marriages be for seven year fixed contracts. When the contract expires they couple have the option to renew or seperate without going through a divorce. She herself has been married and divorced twice. Naturally this has caused massive controversy in Catholic and conservative Bavaria but does she have a point? Would you consider it?
bugggies Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Why bother. The traditional vows would kinda be out ( Till DEATH DO US PART). Marriage should not be looked at as business contract. Seems to be a great escape route. lol
bugggies Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Does a 0 % fixed interest rate come with that? Sorry, it just seem ridiculous to me personally.
Cobra_X30 Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Why do losers always want to change the rules so that they dont feel like losers anymore? If you cant keep a marriage together... dont get married.
marlena Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Yes, I think it is a wonderful idea. If both parties do not agree, then the marraige whould be aytomatically dissolved. It would save a lot of adultery and the drama that follows it. Marraige should be a mutual consent arrangement and not a life imprisonment sentence.
Cerise Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Yes, I think it is a wonderful idea. If both parties do not agree, then the marraige whould be aytomatically dissolved. It would save a lot of adultery and the drama that follows it. Marraige should be a mutual consent arrangement and not a life imprisonment sentence. I agree 100% Too many people stay in bad marriages because they fear divorce and too many people leave right away because they feel 'traped' or 'stuck' and I think this is a good solution to taking the pressure off.
marriedandsad Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Personally I am deadset against it. But a happy medium could be giving the engaged couple a choice...they can do the 7 year marriage, or they can do the permanent one. IF they can't agree on which one, then they probably shouldn't get married.
marlena Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Yucks!! My horrendous sp!!! Think I should either start editing or have my glasses changed!
quankanne Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 why entertain the thought of marriage – which you go into with the understanding that it's for the rest of your life, even if you ARE jaded – if you're already making allowances for divorce? mind you, she's hit on something with the seven-year thing, because that's usually how long it takes for someone to go through a honeymoon period, have their eyes opened by reality, figure out how to adjust to reality and then become disillusioned. But instead of a divorce option, why not put in a clause stating that you agree to marriage counselling or marriage enrichment at year five or six (if not earlier)? That'd make more sense than just flat-out divorce … because what's the incentive to make the marriage work when you know you've got an out Year Seven?
Reckless Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 I think seven years is long enough to be committed to child rearing, we could give them back just before they turn into obnoxious, spotty, beligerent, sweaty, smartmouthed, rebellious teenagers and thus save ourselves another 10 years of trouble...
Mr. Lucky Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 I wondering if, before the 7 years is up, the present wife has any trade-in value on a new one? Mr. Lucky
everynameistaken Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 I agree it should be an option. Maybe they should add a clause about children? Who knows. It'll never happen in the U.S.
Trialbyfire Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 As long as both parties contractually agree to a lifelong commitment for having a litter of children, no problems. Part of the contract ensures that both parents will take 50/50 joint custody and there is an automatic monthly debit to their bank account, for child-rearing costs. Also, bankruptcy laws or governmental tax laws cannot supercede this obligation.
loverly Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Her name is Gabriele Pauli, and she keeps shaking up the old-fashioned CSU. She actually admitted to have nicked the idea from a comedian. She keeps Germany entertained, that's for sure. Personally I wouldn't consider this for me. For me a relationship, sealed on paper or not, is meant to be lasting. That has to be the goal. I read something today that I wholeheartedly agree with: "You don't renew a relationship every seven years. You do it every day." That being said, I think it could get some people to marry who otherwise would have to high a fear of commitment. If well thought through it might be a viable option between the "classical" marriage and just living together without any contract. But there is a lot to consider. What about the children? Taxes? Shared contracts? and so on. Someone said that a solution like this would diminish divorce costs. However, as another politicial wisely pointed out - the dissolving of the marriage only costs around 500-1000 Euros. It's the rosewar that gets really expensive... And that can't necessarily be avoided with a 7 year deadline.
Moose Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 That's about all I have to say about it.....
zsunnydayz Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 I don't agree w/ it, because then vows would look like this: "Do you take this man as your own, at least until 7 years after today, until your contract expires" What kind of vows are those? What happened to tradition any more? I think the only "positive" thing about this is that it would alleviate the cost of divorce...
SoHotZanzibar Posted September 21, 2007 Posted September 21, 2007 Why do losers always want to change the rules so that they dont feel like losers anymore? If you cant keep a marriage together... dont get married. Wow. Life must be great and so simple for you. So you never failed at anything in your life I take it. Maybe this question should be asked to everyone that is getting married. What do you think the answers will be from each couple?
katiebour Posted September 22, 2007 Posted September 22, 2007 I don't see any real benefits to this system over just living together for seven years. This poses the same question that we see all over the board from time to time- why get married at all? If it's for insurance, etc, many companies are now counting domestic partners as insurable dependents. For me it just comes down to: If you don't want to be married for the rest of your life, don't get married at all. Obviously people and people's minds change over time, but this should be no reason to make a marriage into a prison sentence with possibility of parole after 7 years. If it's that much of a punishment don't do it.
Illicit Angel Posted September 22, 2007 Posted September 22, 2007 Correct me if im wrong but i thought marriage was about spending the rest of your life with a person! Not just somethng to try out....... I have a high opinion of marriage (which is why i have not done so) its to important and sacred to fix a term on it!
silktricks Posted September 23, 2007 Posted September 23, 2007 It seems kinda silly to me. I can't say that it's all bad, but the advantage of reducing the trauma (or expense) of divorce may not be real. It seems that around the 6.5 year mark a lot of people would be getting fairly worried and so would go through a mini-divorce-trauma every 7 years. I doubt that the anger level would be any less in a 7 year automatic dissolution if one of the partners decides to walk than it would be in a normal divorce so any imaginary peaceful ending because the 7 year contract is up is probably just smoke. Having only a 7 year marriage contract could create all kinds of additional legal fees in setting up ownership clauses in purchase contracts and other things that married people have - like children and pets, so any money saved in legal fees due to divorce would be eaten up on an ongoing basis in setting all the contracts that people would need for normal arrangements. (To me, it's reminiscent of celebreties who didn't marry, thinking to avoid alimony, but hey, they still got sued for Palimony.) People don't like it when the person they love no longer wants to be with them. It doesn't matter if it's a marriage "for life", a 7 year automatically expiring contract, a living together arrangement or even just hope.
Curmudgeon Posted September 23, 2007 Posted September 23, 2007 Correct me if im wrong but i thought marriage was about spending the rest of your life with a person! Not just somethng to try out....... DANG! I thought so too so we both must be wrong, huh? Not only does that nullify "Til death do us part" or "For as long as we both shall live" but "What God has joined together let no man put asunder" and probably "Forsaking all others" as well. Kind of a death knell for commitment, isn't it? I notice children don't seem to be a part of the equation. I can hear it now. "Hi, Kids." Well, our seven years are about up but not to worry, I'll find you another (mother) (father) for the next seven and we'll see how it goes!"
johan Posted September 23, 2007 Posted September 23, 2007 DANG! I thought so too so we both must be wrong, huh? Not only does that nullify "Til death do us part" or "For as long as we both shall live" but "What God has joined together let no man put asunder" and probably "Forsaking all others" as well. Kind of a death knell for commitment, isn't it? I notice children don't seem to be a part of the equation. I can hear it now. "Hi, Kids." Well, our seven years are about up but not to worry, I'll find you another (mother) (father) for the next seven and we'll see how it goes!" That's kind of how it happens anyway. What's worse: a commitment you make and don't live up to, or a commitment you never make at all?
Touche Posted September 23, 2007 Posted September 23, 2007 It's absolutely ridiculous. First of all, had that been an option, and we had taken it, we'd be divorced right now, and our child would be another one from a broken home. We actually went through hell at the 7 year mark. We got through it though. I'm happier for it, my H is happier for it..our marriage is stronger for it and last but not least, our son still has a mother and father under one roof. I say, don't get married if you want to enter into such a ridiculous contract. Just live together...and please, don't have kids.
norajane Posted September 23, 2007 Posted September 23, 2007 I don't really understand the point. How is choosing to dissolve a marriage at the end of the 7 year contractual term different from getting a divorce when you feel the need for one? You're still dividing assets, you're still going through whatever emotional trauma that would cause a couple to want to split, you're still dealing with custody issues, you still need to figure out new living arrangements, you're still changing your life in a drastic way...
Trialbyfire Posted September 23, 2007 Posted September 23, 2007 An easy out for the commitment phobic...
Recommended Posts