hardenfelt
19.02.06, 19:02
In spite of several long-lasting live-in relationships I never married. I
declared myself a few times, but in the end the consequences became to
immeasurable and I ran away before the final conviction.
It seems to be a very long time to commit Yourself for the rest of life. The
point is, sexual attraction lasts for so and so long. If You want to commit
Yourself for something which in principle should last for life, then You need
something else. It was quite easy 100 years ago as the family was the basic
economic unit and very few people could really manage financially without
such an institution. It is not so in today’s Europe – maybe still to a
certain degree in Poland, but it’s changing rapidly. You can of course base a
marriage on children or other values and many people do and should be allowed
to do so. But what about all the people who would like another construction –
less binding and without the sacramental connotations of a marriage.
The duty of a state is in my opinion to ensure a legal framework for all its
citizens. It is also obvious that when You enter into cohabitation then You
should have certain obligations to maintain your partner. We need this legal
framework in most European countries, trough most governments have now
introduced a solution for homosexual couples. But what about the
heterosexuals who just want another framework?
And why stop here. Why can three or four people not commit themselves to each
other? Having sex with each other or not. Religious groups, communist
collectives and monasteries are obvious groups that would benefit (and get
obligations) from such a commitment. I’m sure the need is there, and then the
government has an obligation to provide the regulations. If not it’s just a
majority dictatorship.