About the law they are trying to pass in Germany that will limit marriages to 7 yrs.? This is there atempt at controling divorce rates, not to mention the extra money they would make for those who wanted to renew their marriage licenses!. Is this ridiculous or what? Next thing they will be outlawing marriage, but then again they would lose all that money.
2007-09-25 05:47:14 · 29 answers · asked by Connie D 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
This is a terrible Idea. It is immoral and wrong.
2007-09-25 05:50:35 · answer #1 · answered by dee 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's not limiting marriages to 7 years. It is limiting the marriage license to 7 years.
If a couple wants to stay together forever they will renew their marriage license another 7 years and another 7. Just like you do your drivers license.
If you are in between licenses and you want a divorce, you will either have to WAIT till your license expires or pay a FINE for ending your license.
They hope this will make people think twice about getting divorced and make divorces less costly.
2007-09-25 12:56:06 · answer #2 · answered by pixie_pagan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It definitely has a hint of dictatorship in it. The problem that, I think, we are running into in the world is that marriage no longer serves much of a purpose. Hence high divorce rates and government attempts at controlling it. I don't limit that statement to just Germany , think about what our own country (US) is doing to control marriage. Is banning gay marriage not in the same class of dictatorship as Germany's proposed plan to limit marriages? Yes it would cost money to renew licenses but how much would be saved in divorces? Getting back to my previous statement that marriage serves no real purpose. If you look back a couple hundred years why did people get married? A) women came with dowry's. B) SEX. It is very common to have sex prior to marriage in our modern society and generally when you marry someone you don't necessarily gain anything (maybe some debt). Other than for insurance reasons marriage serves little to no real purpose. You can love and live with someone and be equally as happy or happier with out some stupid piece of paper.
2007-09-25 13:01:41 · answer #3 · answered by mentallyendangered 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
This isin't being considered for passage into law. It was proposed by one candidate who has stated she was looking to shake things up a bit. She proposed it since divorce is common she felt it would make sense to give people a chance to reassess their commitment and decide if they were still committed without having to necessarily divorce. Her proposal would only apply to civil marriage not the church marriage if the couple had one. In many European countries it is normal to have two ceremonies if you want a religious wedding, the civil and then the religious. Her proposal hasn't been seriously received.
2007-09-25 12:58:46 · answer #4 · answered by Zen Pirate 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's a good first step....
A beginning point that decides both the details for conducting the marriage and considers all of the details for concluding it as well will make a much better institution out of marriage. ...In fact I would propose an even shorter period of time would be better; five years or even three years would work with greater efficiency to eliminate domestic problems of abuse, incompatibility and infidelity, all of which will tend to be a benefit to children and parents and society alike..
I've been personally touting the strengths of this idea for more than two decades. I see the possibility for a greatly improved and better system of marriage in this idea than in what we have traditionally called marriage.
In a complex modern world as we have today, two very young and relatively inexperienced people, their heads filled with emotion and ideas of love and romance, have a very unrealistic picture of the future;hence, it is preposterous to expect them to make life long commitments to each other with any degree of being successful. My only marriage was ideal until I became ill 23 years into it... the divorce I elected to pursue resulted in a very good decision where all of us, my family entire including my ex-wife, have continued in happiness and harmony for the betterment of all.
Contracts of all kinds are generally limited to reasonable lengths of time - they have beginning dates and ending dates and specified conditions for breaking the contract spelled out clearly well ahead of time - they are realistic about the possibility of changing conditions and they make clear and reasonable allowances for them.
Child birth ought to be a separate contract that is exclusive of the marriage contract in every way. Child custodial responsibilities ought to be decided at the time of birth and a child's welfare ought to be put into the hands of only one of the two parents with attached financial responsibility upon the second - all conditions of visitation rights need to be spelled out clearly from day one.
This is a very good change of policy and it's high time it becomes officially enacted. I certainly hope that it happens.
[][][] r u randy? [][][]
2007-09-25 13:29:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It sounds crazy to those who are secure in their marriage, however I'm sure that a number of people would choose not to renew their marriage vows. It offers an option to those who are stuck in an unhappy marriage without the trauma of saying. "I want a divorce".
2007-09-25 12:58:37 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The bible talks about Timothy chapter 4. This is a evil and wicked world. Read Timothy ch 4. For biding to mary.
2007-09-25 13:05:38 · answer #7 · answered by jonathin l 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Marriage is a religious institution. The government only has control over civil unions.
2007-09-25 12:56:29 · answer #8 · answered by march 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Society has already tainted marriage by making divorce popular. God does not sanction divorce. I know the scripture where it says And ill quote now Matt 19:7-8 7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so Who commanded it? Moses did not God.
lets go to verse 6 now and see what God says
6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder
You can have it any way you want from man doesn't mean God approves.
2007-09-25 12:57:57 · answer #9 · answered by jesussaves 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It will not pass because its against the Christian doctrine and the lady who's running the whole law is just mad cuz she's been divorced like 4times....she wants security and can't stand the thought of it happening again.
2007-09-25 12:56:10 · answer #10 · answered by Egyptiano 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I thought it was a cool idea, which was also brought about to lessen the suffering couple's go through when they divorce. Half of marriages end in divorce, costing money and suffering. I think it's a great, progressive idea.
2007-09-25 12:52:21 · answer #11 · answered by Militant Agnostic 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋