Marriage & Government Should Divorce
That's right, a second spiel about marriage. Can you get the hint that I harbor some resentment to it?
Note: Nothing I am about to say is against anyone’s personal "choices". My reasons are not "religious" or "discriminatory". No, they are soundly based on what marriage is. Everything I will say solely will relate to the subject of marriage. Everything will be stated factually and rarely as opinion. Okay, just remember that.
Marriage is, contrary to what many think, not originally a religious union thing, but rather a social pairing. Ancient Romans use to just get together a throng of people and say, "Hey, people, nice that you are all here. Okay, me and her, we're married now. Got it? Good." A divorce could happen on a whim much the same way. What made this family declaration desirable? Well, for one thing, tax breaks. If you were married, you paid less tax. This made people have more children, which meant more Romans, which meant more soldiers for the Emperor. Quite smart, really.
Marriage did become religious, however, because, as some may know, a lot of religious principles came from "what made you not die." The entire concept of keeping "Kosher" is an example. Eat shell fish or improperly killed pig, get sick; avoid eating it, not sick. Evaluation: it's evil. Back on track, the religious facility of marriage was quite simply that it kept you free of VD, a good cause if you ask me. They all really would vanish if everyone followed this, but that would require everyone, which is not likely to happen.
Anyhoo, back to the family unit point, it was also the creation of a new family to continue your legacy. This was really the entire point in Japanese culture, as they had a heavy belief in pleasing their ancestors, and a continuing line of descendents was needed to keep their memory alive. Or... maybe it was Chinese with keeping their deities happy... Or both might be the case.
Now then, up for the longest time until the last century, families came about much this way. Most governments offered the tax break as persuasion to make more citizens, which was always desired by any nation (save, maybe, China...). People would have children because, aside from it being a biological compulsion, there was the whole family notion involved. The system was followed for pretty much all of civilized human existence.
Family, reproduction, quarantine. These are the principles behind marriage. So, basically, while there are very rare exceptions, if you know 100% that no baby is going to be popping out of one of the individuals in a marriage, there really isn't a point to it. Even people who claim not to want children or who are sterile run the 1% chance of miracles. There's only one way it is known that the chances are zero.
With all of that groundwork laid out, I shall move on to my main point. I have defined what has been the point and reason of a marriage, which is functional and reasonable. I did not state them to say, "Let's not let some people get 'married'," I stated them to say, "Why do we still have marriage at all?" Yes, that's right. I believe it was that in Europe, the "bastard" levels exceed 50%. Divorce is through the roof. Marriage means nothing now.
I think the entire point of marriage no longer makes sense. Between anyone, anywhere. Its social application has lost all meaning, and I do not see why it exists as a legal entity. Much like saying, "Why legalize drugs when we should be banning the ones that are already legal?” my question is, "Why make more marriages when the ones we have mean nothing?"
History typically works like an ebb, repeating in cycles. In the last cycle of "free love" around the '50s or so, when birth control hit the main stream, it shattered the entire principle of conservative notions beyond repair. It's not going to be coming back. Marriage, as a government regulated observation, means diddly squat nowadays. About the only thing a marriage stands to do anymore is allow a wife to rob half of a man's belongings or other negative effects. No one is really acknowledging its founding reasons, and enough by-laws have been constructed around unwed couples that they could just replace the idea they were built around. It's like double bagging garbage: The inner layer has collapsed but there is a second layer that still is holding it with little or no noticeable change.
Marriage had a nice run, but it should solely be left to religions now for spiritual purposes. The G-men should just grant tax breaks to how many dependents/children you have and ignore the coaxing tax break. I mean, why offer it if they are already raising the population without the surplus in income? It's like baiting a mouse trap if the mice will already climb onto it without the cheese being set. Save that for your sandwiches, boys, don't waste it.