that he wants to leave his wife. He is from a religious background and in that culture sex and marriage are tied together. Even though he had sex with her before they married (five years worth) he felt reconciled it in his head that he would marry her. Without the religious emphasis of sex = marriage both of them would have moved on with their lives and could be much happier.
The historical baggage of the combination of sex and marriage and children and property rights is not necessary in today's society.
In many countries children get property rights from both parents and support growing up with or without marriage. Paternity tests can be used in cases when there is doubt. With today's contraception there is low risk of an accidental pregnancy. Both partners are educated about contraceptive needs and the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy.
Marriage to benefit possible children is no longer necessary. State interest in marriage is unnecessary. When I started writing this entry I didn't expect to end up arguing against marriage. I live in a country where, unlike in the USA, laws are passed to revent discrimination against marital status of couples and the State needs no involvement in marriage. Perhaps we should go back to the situation in 1957 where marriages were not a State function.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Knight of ShadowsOnce in a Blue Moon
Fortunately, during elections, voters look at the whole picture
I don't care too much for chocolate
Parking an SUV
It's not easy, being me
What a punch
Quote - Bookstores