ERRR...Peter from Manchester get with the programme!
Temporary marriages in Iran usually have one function...
for men to sleep with women without having to commit to marriage as sex is taboo outside of it.
Then the women are usually too 'tainted' to remarry and the men have had their fun and can move on to an 'untainted' woman. A lot of these marriages are also used to cover prostitution
I lived in the Middle East for two years and although it varies in degrees from country to country it's all about the same thing.
It's an ABHORRANT and oppressive culture where people are in total denial about sexuality and women's rights and is sickening and hypocritical.
DO NOT compare it to anything to do with the West, which, while has its problems is miles ahead on anything in this area
from
Someone who knows

Erica, London,

I don't consider cohabitation any less a sign of commitment to my partner than marriage. I didn't move in with my current partner with the idea that I would leave him anytime soon any more than I got married 14 years ago thinking that I would divorce 11 years down the line.

And some of us do nicely being from divorced parents. I was always more comfortable knowing that I was being raised by two happy, although separate, parents who both loved me.

If marriage was not the iconic state of being for heterosexual couples within social policies relating to all aspects of our welfare we wouldn't even need to have a debate about what's best for the nations people and the finite resources of the welfare coffers!

Liz, Plymouth,

Frankly, I see cohabitation as essential to the whole marriage process. You learn a lot about someone when you move in with them, not all of it pleasant. Moving in together (long) before marriage allows the couple to learn more about eachother. Marriage IS a big commitment, and certainly not to be taken lightly, which means you should do everything in your power to make sure that what you have is "forever".

Ian, New York, USA

Oh Dear! I usually think India Knight talks good sense. But this is very flawed thinking. What makes her think that changing the whole basis of a marriage would not effect the outcome of it?

If tall men were proven to have more sex than short men, would making everyone wear high heels change it at all?

Likewise, changing "Till death us do part" to 7 years, would spawn all sorts of problems towards the end of the period, when marriage anecdotally run into problems anyway (7 year itch).

Robin Leggate, London, UK

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I take exception to your hypothesis.

The LDS(aka "Mormons") believe that marriage between man and woman is ordained of God and is the ultimate union here on earth. Producing the offspring from such union, though a worthy goal of the biblical injunction to "be fruitful and multiply, is not the sole value of such a union.

Marriage as ordained by our Heavenly Father is the gateway to a greater glory than can be conceived by the mind of mortal mind left by himself to imagine. There are worlds many beyond this transitory life. If you were to glimpse into these realms for but an instant, it would be more knowledge accumulated than by the sophistry of man over a millennium here on earth.

All this can be made possible through a Godly ordained marriage.

But, I may have chanced to fall into a politically motivated pit with this ontological thesis, so I will close off at this point admonishing you to contact www.lds.org.

Geoff Pace, Salem, Utah

"Cohabitation is also to do with self-preservation:" People who cohabite rather than marry are like the people who want to buy a PC but don't because they think that a better model will be available next month.

doug George, Antibes, France

Marriage is risky! Co-habitation is risky! Life is risky! Commitment to SOMETHING is one of the things that make life worthwhile and fulfilling; and, by every correspondent's definition, co-habitation and commitment are poles apart.

And if you think divorce lawyers are expensive when everything is jointly owned, how much do lawyers cost when co-habiting couples disagree over who owns what and who put more into the common co-habitational pot?

Commitment to parents, commitment to children, commitment to partner: yes, of course it's hard work and of course there are times when you feel like walking away. But in the commitment to care for others - and leaving those others to care for you - is surely the path to greater happiness in the end?

Phil Williams, Shrewsbury, UK

Gabriele Pauli picked up the idea from a German comedian. So, even technically, it's a joke.

Martin, Leipzig, Germany

Peter from Manchester who thinks " It seems Iran is leading Europen Union in liberating women from risky ties." It seems that your "collage" course doesn't cover human rights for women in Iran. Women in Iran face widespread discrimination under the law. They are excluded from key areas of political participation and do not have equal rights with men in marriage, divorce, child custody and inheritance.

M Brown, I feel sympathy for your plight but homosexual couples don't have more rights than you as you wrongly say - all the civil partnership laws entitled homosexuals to is what you could have had at any stage over your relationship by popping down to the registry office.

Sarah K, London,

I always read India Knights column in the 'Sunday Times'. As ever this week her article reflects a common sense approach to the joys and sorrows of co-habitation and marriage. In either case where children are involved their needs come first. I am the product of divorced parents and a single mother dumped by a Yank 40 years ago who co-habited for his own uses. However my daughter is wonderful, retains an amicable relationship with her errant father and who is entertained frequently by my Swedish husband (I'm his 3rd wife). My daughter respects them both but probably loves my husand most. So as India suggest it's all down to the way we handle our relationships maturely of conversly immaturely.

Leijonhufvud, Brusna, Republic of Ireland

Interesting to see that someone in the UK takes Ms Pauli seriously. Here in Germany the general response has deservedly been one of disapproving mockery as described by Bill Newcastle. Let me add that this was actually not even Pauli's own idea as she later admitted herself. Its author is Frank Markus Barwasser, a Bavarian comedian who put in the mouth of his character Erwin Pelzig.

Georg, Würzburg , Germany

I see nothing wrong with both genders trading up.

marty, Ohio, USA

Marriage is too dangerous to get into nowadays.
The way the system is now, the wife can take the kids, the house, all the money and a big chunk of future earnings as well.
All the poor husband can do is climb public buildings dressed as spiderman.

Brian, Manchester, England

After coming out of a 8 year co-habitation relationship with my ex fiance and finding myself in a legal battle over property, I know i would never live with someone else again. This is one of the last few countries who don't recognise co-habitating hetrosexual partnerships. So far I have spent £30, 000 paying solicitors and barristers to fight my case as my ex-partner became violent and mediation is not an option. I have no rights under English law. If i was in Australia or even Columbia i would have rights. With the Civil partnership laws homosexual couples have more rights than me. I consider myself conservative. I never wanted to co-habitate, i believed in marriage. If Mr David Cameron wants my vote he has to do better than Gordon Brown and get the co-habitation laws introduced for long term cohabiting couples. Labour has wasted 10 years thinking about it. I think it would cut down on the men who lead women on for the sake of a 'liberal' relationship.

M Brown, London, England

Well as a cohabitee for the last 10 years I feel this looks at the reasons for cohabiting and marriage contracts from the wrong angle. We have a number of friends who went down the marriage route and it ended in bitterness, divorce and the children didn't do very well from the situation.

Leave it alone. Our relationship is much stronger than a piece of paper, a slap up meal and a large audience. Our 2 children are perfectly happy with our cohabiting status and have never thought anything about it. Sadly the eldest school child has experience of divorce from her friends and
doesn't think much to it.

What a complete waste of time and money. Marriage is for people who want a seal of approval. A bit like having a new car or nice house every year. You'd be better saving your cash for a deposit on a new house and forget marriage. If your relationship isn't strong enough for cohabiting then cut and run before it gets messy.

Chas, Leeds, UK

I study Islamic religion at collage. This agreed-in-advance-divorce thing is practised in Iran already. It is called Mutah marraige. Couples apprear before a judge or coulcil official and exchange marriage vows. official asks the couple if they wish their marriage to last indefinately or for a temporary period. Temporary marriage expire automatically on the specified date which can be as short as one day. It can be extended if partners feel they are made for each other. Permanent marriages are annuled whenever one partner feels the relationship is on the rocks and asks for a divorce. It is part of their religion. Their God forids sex outside marriage but allows men and women to have purely sexual relationship in marriage even for few hours. It seems Iran is leading Europen Union in liberating women from risky ties.

Peter, Manchester, UK

So, children and spouses are happier in marriage than in other arrangements.. Maybe the fact that they are a public 'permanent' commitment has something the healthier psychological enviironments that they provide?!

So, making them legally provisional may well be another step in the long march of social progress that has wrought so many other happy societal improvements over the last 40-odd years.

David, Oxford, UK

Surely, nothing to stop you having a fixed term contract covering marital affairs. You could put a rider clause on your civil partnership to make it expire in seven years. But it doesn't meet the definition of marriage.

Alex, Tunbridge Wells,

Surely,there was a meaning to all that study,dedication and creativity in our former early learning/schooling years that was meant to give us a basis for forming relationships in our business lives as well as our personnal ones ?
If we cannot continue a marital relationship because it is too destructive to , a) our children and b) our own personnal being,(and in that order where children are involved), then we should consider divorce....
Otherwise ..I would say that the words of Samuel Johnson and Oscar Wilde combined ,define perfectly, what marriage should be .i.e. the triumph of hope, experience,imagination and intelligence.

Gerry, Paris, France

Gabriele Pauli made this 7-year expiry date bid in a desperate attempt to raise public attention as a preparation to become leader of Bavaria's conservative Christian Social Union, CSU. She topped that a few days later with posing in a weekly magazine semi-naked, draped in a Bavarian flag. She eventually did not succeed.... As for the "marriage with expiry date": Logically this would also mean that there is no need for divorce cases at court and expensive settlements any more. Eventually it would be (wealthy) men who benefitted most of such an arrangement, as it would allow them to get a "newer model" every 7 years, without having to pay for their former spouse... Is this really what you want?

Bill, Newcastle, UK

This could work as an option. After all, in 1900, "til death do us part" did not last nearly as long. Couples should be able to choose the type of marriage they want. A traditional marriage works great for some, but others would benefit from setting a time limit.

Joseph, NYC, USA

A lot of people already have given marriage an expiry date - today's!

Dave, Southampton, UK

Every marriage already comes with an expiry date- when a partner dies.

Cheers.

amriksson, Ann Arbor, USA/Michigan

"but one in three marriages still hits the ropes"

so actually, even in our self-obsessed times, despite the fact that the "intellectuals" and opinion formers in our society are overwhelmingly dissmissive of the institution of marriage, and despite the challenges of publicly declared matrimony, 66% of people who get married remain so. Most married people I know are perfectly happy with their lives and tend to have realistic expectations of what marriage provides and of what they can expect from their spouse. It's called give and take. When a marriage is successful, the relationship becomes far greater than the sum of the parts. If you have never experienced this you will never understand, as a remarkable number of couples still do, why marriage is potentially far more satisfying than even the most successful informal arrangement under which people cohabit.

Tam Earl-Aine, Cheltenham,

Too bad you separated from your partner!. I love you both as novelists...

alexandra, milan, italy