Germany Politition Proposes Marriage Expiration Date

Gabriele Pauli, a German politition, has proposed a law that would force marriages to expire in seven years. It'd be perfect for couples who don't want lifetime commitments. Somewhere in that proposition states that couples can request for an extention. Note that the woman has been married and divorced.

What do you think of this? I strongly disagree with the law, there's a reason there's the option of divorce! Applying for an extention? Why the hell would anyone get an extention if they can just move out of the country? Is it not just a bitter woman trying to seek what she believes is justice?

No, I'm not German, I'm just butting in to world polotics.

 

....What the freak is THAT??! Stop marriage?? That's so stupid! Marraige is a part of life for us humans! It's a bond between people..a special bond. I don't believe in this ****y law one bit. >.>

 

I can see where she is coming from. Divorces can be long and expensive proccedures. What she is suggesting is giving the option of stopping the marriage after a set period of time. Most couples would get it extended. it's basically trying to save the courts time.

 

I think Marriage Expiration is a joke...I mean, why do you think marriage is for? why do you think that there is a "till death do us part" in marriage ceremonies? I strongly disagree with this...

Seriously, I think this German Politicion didn't think this Marriage Expiration through

Edit: Just because this person has been married and divorced doesn't mean that she has to ruin it for other people

Edit: Edit: You have two polls that have the same thing

 

Eh? What do you mean by that?

 

Tell that to the thousands of marriages that end in divorce every year.

I think it's a good idea. And one that really shouldn't affect GOOD couples. It'll save the courts time and it'll just get things over with. Divorces cost a TON of money. And getting an extention of your marriage sounds simple, and if you really love someone you should at least be able to take the time every 7 years to say, "I want to spend the rest of my life with them." Granted you should be able to always say that during marriage, but that just doesn't happen these days.

 

Well, that's ******ed. You're only allowed to be married for 7 years? What happens when you have a kid?

 

I really disagree with this, I mean I can see where this would come from sorta :/ but I don't like the idea of getting "marriage extentions" it just sounds...weird.

I know divorces can cost a ton and take alot of time but still, I dissagree with this law.

Oh by the way, for the poll you put "I strongly disagree with this law" twice, I think you meant for the last one to be "I stongly agree"

 

How could she even EXPECT anyone to actually agree with something that ridiculous?! It's incomprehensible. An expiration date forces a couple to seperate. At least divorces alow them to seperate of their own free wil.

 

where the hell do poeple come up with this crap!?!
Any way, I so disagree with this!

 

Personally, I think its a really stupid idea. I mean, a divorce happens only once, but if u want to extend ur marriage every 7 years, u gotta do at least twice the work. (more if u want longer) Seriously, it's just inconvienent for every1 so y bother.

P.S: u made strongly disagree twice

 

Well, I just see people saying yay or nay and not really elaborating beyong "OMG IT WOULD BE TOO INCONVIENENT".

I can SOMEWHAT see the practicality and the IMPRACTICALITY of this.

Times have changed people, "holy matrimony" is somewhat of a statistical rarity now.

On one side if you have this 7year-term renewal, it is clearly something that helps make sure that some MUTUAL sincerity is there. True it seems ridiculous, but MARRIAGE IS A PRIVALAGE. People seem to forget that, and what if it became mandatory? I'm sure people could look around it as a "special anniversary" of sorts. Who's to say its an entirely BAD THING?

Now on the impractical size...yes how would this method of renewal work out? And how would children be involved? (Though techinically marriage would have been renewed about twice and some odd years before the child is legally not your responsibilty.) Also is the division of property still the same even if it is a marriage expiration date?

Think CAREFULLY before just putting it off as "******ed". Yes I know this sounds nagging, but it does require some amount of thought. Most if not all of us haven't even been married so at best we can theorize (it doesn't matter if you have seen divorces or otherwise, unless YOU YOURSELF have been married your own opnion is still not as valid.) And there is also the golden rule to take into account....NOTHING IS ALL GOOD OR ALL BAD. What proportion it is however is entire up for debate.

 

Who the heck would want something like that!?! They probably won't enforce that law though, if they have any sense whatsoever.

 

I mean you have two options that have the same thing

 

You're all being extremely closed minded about this. Did anyone even read the enitre thing?

In the end this is the same thing as marriage only it takes away divorce and adds in an expiration date.

You have the same damn thing on all liscenses, credit cards, any sort of contracts, hell you have the same basic principle's in food. This idea is NOT THAT REVOLUTIONARY. Maybe you should all look a bit beyond "the 7 year expiration date" and realize that changing marriage from being permanent to have an experiation has more good benefits then bad. In fact there ARE no bad benefits...it's only really an insult to the idea of marriage. And let's face it...true marriage no longer exists, that sacred bond was tarnished the moment the first man cheated on a women, the first time 2 people were divorced, the first time 2 people bonded their lives togethor forever for sex and lust rather then true love.

Please read this entire post and think about it for several minutes before posting a reply.

 

This I really don't see the point in this law at all, if you can't stay together for life then get a freaking divorce. For a marriage to expire in 7 years is truly absurd, many marriages last much longer and this law would make it highly inconvienent for many relationships. This just shows that people are not getting married for reasons they need, this law was proposed probably cause of a high divorce rate. I don't think this has any legal precedent, no one will want this.

 

So few people are actually reading this as Cin said. It doesn't mean that after 7 years you are no longer married. It means that after 7 years you have the option to not extend your marriage and let it expire. You have eyes and a brain for a reason, please use them ^^

Although, I can see couples missing the renewal date or something and having their marriage expired when they don't want it to be. Although, it could be appealed in a court and easily rectified.

 

I don't agree with this.

Marriage is supposed to be a lifetime commitment. If a person decides to break their vows, they deserve to go through a costly divorce. >_>

 

The law at debate here is just as stupid as the concept it's fighting over.

Marriage is pointless, IMO. It's a 'commitment', but it tends to ruin things more than it fixes and helps things. It often times gives the man and/or woman in the relationship the idea that they rein 'over' the other. (it happens in both cases, sometimes). But that's another debate.

But either way, expiration dates on marriage? Such a stupid idea. What's next, expiration dates on your jewelry? ol

 

It's a good point to bring up. I'd have to say I think the law is really seeming lame to me at the moment and I would have to disagree if it was proposed elsewhere. I can only guess the reasons for it are so that people don't have to file for divorces so they don't get ugly, but what does this solve if people have kids and well, have worked together and have a lot of property etc? Who gets what? It seems uglier to me than just doing a divorce where things can be divided up and done more fairly. It works only for those who believe they are not monogamous to give them a freedom with the lifestyle, but truly, there are marriages that allow for polygamous people to be married and have others they -go with- at the same time, so I can't see the use in this at all.

I'm curious if this is so that they can make extra money when people file for 'extensions' to marriages. What right does the government have to charge you more than once for being married? You go and pay the court house to be recognized as legally married in the first place. Seems like a money making scheme to me. I don't think it's closed-minded to see it for what it is, which is a scam. Imagine the people who don't -file- on time to continue their marriages? What an inconvenience. Renewing anything else costs money. This would too. It's another burden that it seems is not needed. I'm not for the religious method of being married, nor am I a nostalgic fool about it to say it's going to be forever, but the goal is to -try- to make it last as long as it can.

I will say I would not want to be -married- if I could not stand the idea of growing old with the person I am with. I don't care how much pressure there might be to the idea. However, if I did, and things didn't work out, oh well. We don't need a government system to tell us that in 7 years if things aren't dandy, escape now and collect money for the service to be so intrusive. The -idea- of marriage, sure, is to want to live together forever and all that jazz, but I think many people now know that divorces happen for reasons that imply it may not be that way. Marriage is a commitment and if people cannot be committed to one another, really, they shouldn't get married in the first place. Divorce is for when things fall apart. So still, despite Cin's defense for it, I see no reason as divorce makes up for the -people change over time- deal. Seems like a way for the government to take advantage of people instead.