I really like your idea, sort of like required prenuptial agreements for everyone. I think there needs to be some sort of commitment because we see a lot of problems with people not taking responsibility. Not to pick on men but it's a lot easier for them to walk away if they just don't want to deal with any kids that come out of a relationship and that's a huge problem, and probably a reason for why marriage evolved as it has. I think consciously making these decisions beforehand and writing it all out would do a world of good, especially for starstruck youngsters (like I was) who have no idea what they are getting into. They would have to put at least some thought into what exactly they are committing to that that would be so good.

I did my own divorce over 2 years ago. I was lucky because in 12 years of marriage we had no children. The core of marriage belief comes form religion. While people claim you should support your wife and children the basic marriage concept is out of the bible with a woman as property. I understand fully when women do not want to change their names. What about Mrs. Smith? Is that your name now and your identity? It is a poor name that only honors the male in the relationship. Again, this comes out of ownership. Marry me and remain whoever you are.

Most weddings are now non religious. It's ages since I was at a wedding in a church and the couple make up their own vows so there is none of the god stuff

I do not know about Australia, but the divorce rates have been decreasing steadily in both Canada and the USA. Particularily among millenials that are delaying or opting out of marriage altogether. What is the situation like in Australia? Do you have the census data on your divorce rates?

I see marriage (in Australia anyway) as more a legal thing that religions like to hijack as if it's their possession and and everyone else is appropriating it. Having been married in a church (what the other person felt strongly about), I see a lot of people trying to get a bit of moral point scoring up by using the "religious marriage>secular marriage" debate.You should've seen some of the BS that was thrown around while our govt was trying to appease their constituents allowing there to be a plebiscite to decide if they were going to allow same sex marriage to be legalised here. But the fact of the matter is, you don't gain anything in rights/expectations/responsibility with the Marriage Certficate, just an excuse for the govt to delay your divorce proceedings under the guise of "counselling/salvage time".
IMHO, it's a way of showing your commitment, rings and all, excuse to have a party, but religion has no claim to it.

All states require registration for a marriage to actually be legal, the ceremony, religious or not, is Not the Legal part!

Marriage was invented to make people pay more taxes. Period.

Not in civil marriages only in religious ones.

I have honestly never understood why so many people view marriage so negatively, or where strange ideas like marriage ruining relationships or being at odds with romance come from. To me, it's as simple as: your marriage is whatever you make it. Choose to get married, or don't--but don't delude yourself that this choice will somehow determine how functional, or romantic, or whatever else, your relationship is (or isn't from then on)! No one forces you to relate differently to each other just because you got married.

Marriage serves no purpose. If a couple is not working out, then holding each other to a contract will not improve a situation. A couple should simply be together for as long or as short a time as both parties derive value from it. It is unreasonable to predict what the future holds, and therefore a commitment for the rest of ones lives is morally reprehensible.

Why do couples have children time after time but say marriage is too big of a commitment? As I told my classes, parenting is an 18 year to life sentence!

I was continually shocked at how many college students did not know that the church service does not mean you are married. Neither does a secular marriage. It is not until the application is filed with the county with a fee (of course) that the marriage becomes legal.

Marriages are failing not because of religion or something.... It's completely based upon two individuals...Here in India we have separate system like arranged marriage like marriage will be arranged by their parents and relatives, they will find girl/boy within their community and they will check everything...If some problem occurred between couple, entire family will involve and solve things... I'm not encouraging this type of marriage but I'm just sharing

the marriage part is a legally binding contract witnessed by friends and family...and as a wedding photographer getting married in a church now is very few and far between...Most weddings now are at the registry office...

Marriage was never for me, but I never wanted children either.
If children are involved, a contract is practically mandatory.
That way, even if the marriage itself dissolves, both parties are legally responsible to support the child or children until they're ready to make it on their own (and/or 18 years old).
That's only fair.
AND there's always the dividing of assets.
Otherwise, strictly a personal call

I don't have anything against marriage, and can understand how some people would want that, but I have no desire or reason to enter into one.

I thought it was biology: man+woman = child. I think they stay together...because they care for and like each other!? You know...love? Also i guess there is a survival advantage.

Not sure where marriage came from really. But it seems to be more for the community at large than the couple lol. Is it to let everyone know? Is it to just celebrate? Is it to get gifts? Is it to get a priest's blessing to bring good fortune? All of the above?

I agree. An interesting example is Jean-paul Sartre and Simone de Beuvoir. They had an open relationship. They were together in one way or antother from 1929 until Jean-Paul's death in 1980. They had an agreement that they could both see other people. I would say their relationship was based on an deep intellectual connection. I am not saying that arrangement is for everyone but it worked for them to have a long-lasting relationship and true friendship at its core. If you read their biographies they seem that they would be difficult to get along with which makes their long-lasting relationship an existential miracle.

One might say that the church has had at least 2020 years to get marriage a right AND desireable thing to do and the best they could come up with is about "Its manufacture in Heaven". Now though it is up to Non believers to get it right with protection for both parties and children, all involved really. Is it moving in that direction? I still want to deter divorce in some way not to bar but to protect against human nature of a selfish individual.

I have made suggestions in the past that divorce should be made MUCH harder - or a massive overpayment to protect children so that actual marriage should only happen when the first child comes along {Since there are more obligations to helpless people then}. Up to then both parties should be able to handle the consequences OR lack of divorce [ because there is no marriage till then].

There are a few elements to it. One is the partner's needs. Another is the children's. There are more, of course. Only dealing with those two, there's the parent's need to get out of the situation where they feel trapped and the children's desperate need for security in their formative years.

Says who

Well, before, yes, was based on religion. Nowadays, people don't realise the responsibility it brings. People tend to see only the romantic side of it. Also, with the heavy mortgages that we have today, it's an "easy" way to get the expenses shared. The everyday life is so busy that many times we can't take care of important matters. So, many other factors contribute for the high rate of divorces.

[slate.com]