I know I'm not alone in this. The divorce rate these days are so high, I do even have the slightest inkling to get married. People seem programmed to the point where they think they have to do it. I think it's fine if people are married, but it doesn't mean what it should anymore. What does everyone else think?
Marriage
- Thread starter gritter
- Start date
To me over rated, to others highly important. By the time I was done with my 2nd or 3rd girlfriend with which I had talked serious business I decided I would never get married. It seemed as though it would turn into a jail sentence of being forced to tolerate all kinds of behavior... OR PAY THE PRICE ! I now have a 19 yr old daughter, her mother and I stayed together 20 years without being married and without getting divorced. We are now seperate and everything is amicable. I believe it is of higher importance percentage wise too females than men because security is a biggy for females and I can understand this... but "for better or for worse" is bullshit, there is some pretty radical extremes of "for worse" today, as well as people growing apart, much different world today.
SentinelSlain
Suck my joined date.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 153
- 63
One point I can see is that it means any children the couple had will have to be supported by the father if they divorce. If they just split up from being bf+gf he could get away with it. Well I suppose the laws on that might be different in USA. I can understand getting married and getting divorced in the same day for that reason (like the Queen drummer guy did).
I just think of it as a demonstration of intent to put effort into making it work. Not really a binding thing though.
I just think of it as a demonstration of intent to put effort into making it work. Not really a binding thing though.
Seditious
GodSlayer
I suppose it's indicative of a cultural change a partner needs to recognize. If you know people don't take 'under god ... 'til death do we part' seriously, then sure, get married aware of the lack of cultural pressure to remain in a loveless marriage which used to maintain a 'better' divorce rate, but if you actually think 'if someone says this vow they'll actually stick by it until I die' then they're a bit deluded, and need to consider the meaning of the divorce rate before they go into this with misguided expectations.
BlackMetalWhiteGuy
Manly Man!
Personally, I feel no obligation to get married, but I don't have a girlfriend anyway. I'm actually going to my first wedding on Saturday though and they're the same age as me. However, they've been together for as long as I've known them (almost six years) and they're still very much in love with each other. By contrast, I've been single for a year as of two weeks ago and the eight month relationship was the longest that either of us have had.
Honestly though, I really don't see any point to marriage other than in those cases in which a couple wants to go that extra step to prove their dedication to each other. I think in a lot of cases though, many people just get married because they feel pressured into it, or they want to legitimize themselves as adults. Ironically, the forced "shotgun" weddings that used to be so common seemed to have done nothing more than force marriage as a form of punishment upon those who were the least responsible, least qualified and therefore least able to actually maintain a permanent relationship.
Honestly though, I really don't see any point to marriage other than in those cases in which a couple wants to go that extra step to prove their dedication to each other. I think in a lot of cases though, many people just get married because they feel pressured into it, or they want to legitimize themselves as adults. Ironically, the forced "shotgun" weddings that used to be so common seemed to have done nothing more than force marriage as a form of punishment upon those who were the least responsible, least qualified and therefore least able to actually maintain a permanent relationship.
in the same breath you could ask... is marrage relevant to personal dedication... then view the divorce rate and think... probably not.
another interesting phenom we have noticed (not carved in stone) but many couples that lived together for years, finally got married and guess what ? Divorce ! I can only imagine the implications are a troubled relationship, desperately hoping to be cured by finally "tying the knot"... but interesting none the less.
I had one girlfriend I fully intended to marry as soon as she calmed down, but she didnt. Everytime it was "theres no ring on my finger" as to pressure me to marry her, seriously, she wanted it more than me. But I couldnt figure out her method... lol... all she did was push me further from the desire.
We are friends today and that was 25 years ago. Girls !
I think if legal marriage and religious marriage was completely separated, it might keep a little more sanctity. At least in some sense. If getting married through the church was an extra step you could OPT to take, there might be a correlation there: people who go that extra step might be the type who actually found a good relationship and want to stay in it. At the same time, gays and life partners could get "married" and share the legal benefits the currently do not possess.
It was put fairly elegantly, though, before. Statistics can't make something unholy, nor should they change your opinion about the matter.
It was put fairly elegantly, though, before. Statistics can't make something unholy, nor should they change your opinion about the matter.
besides "health insurance" we benefited tax wise by not being married and I just never had health insurance. Pensions are another story... however our "new" society has been trying to render pensions obsolete.
as far as biblical marriage the bible considered consummation itself the bond, not unlike some other species that mate for life. However the bible also says one is too abide by the laws of their nation. Thats where it gets complicated.
Times have seriously changed and there is so many outside factors that can destroy a bond that were not present in a more rural and/or innocent world.
Someone mentioned fixed marraiges, not all of them were disasters. It is possible to build a bond or accumulate mutual respect and love. I sort of know this first hand, and while we are apart, as I said all is amicable. Maybe not passionate "love" but extreme mutual respect and a different kind of "love".
They had many reasons for doing this, one of which was consolidated wealth. But another was teenage pregancy, when girls are ready... shit can happen, the breeding instinct is strong in girls, disregarding the "sex" conotations we put on it today, there is a strong instinct. Then you had a daughter pregnant by a 15 yr old boy who was so far from being a man and having any direction in his life. Now if she has that baby, no man would have her... there is still problems like this today. This is why it was not uncommon to have a 14 year old girl married off to a 25 yr or even older... already established man, before the problem could occur. Im not saying it was right... only showing the logic in totally different times.
as far as biblical marriage the bible considered consummation itself the bond, not unlike some other species that mate for life. However the bible also says one is too abide by the laws of their nation. Thats where it gets complicated.
Times have seriously changed and there is so many outside factors that can destroy a bond that were not present in a more rural and/or innocent world.
Someone mentioned fixed marraiges, not all of them were disasters. It is possible to build a bond or accumulate mutual respect and love. I sort of know this first hand, and while we are apart, as I said all is amicable. Maybe not passionate "love" but extreme mutual respect and a different kind of "love".
They had many reasons for doing this, one of which was consolidated wealth. But another was teenage pregancy, when girls are ready... shit can happen, the breeding instinct is strong in girls, disregarding the "sex" conotations we put on it today, there is a strong instinct. Then you had a daughter pregnant by a 15 yr old boy who was so far from being a man and having any direction in his life. Now if she has that baby, no man would have her... there is still problems like this today. This is why it was not uncommon to have a 14 year old girl married off to a 25 yr or even older... already established man, before the problem could occur. Im not saying it was right... only showing the logic in totally different times.
Möglich;7288060 said:
My vague understanding was that this was currently the case in many developed countries? Where are you talking about?
Perhaps... or perhaps the divorce rate only seems high because people have been accustomed to societal pressure in times past. It seems quite conceivable that there were just as many unhappy marriages involving people who were not 'dedicated' to the marriages happiness / strength, but that they just stuck around with 'token gestures' because they felt they had no other useful option.
It is easy to make sweeping statements based on the surface appearance or statistics - ie, people get divorced more often therefore they are less dedicated / godless / whatever. For anyone who views marriage as something more than status gathering, they are going to be interested in the underlying couple dynamics during the relationship - of which the divorce rate seems a pretty poor overall indicator, imho. Of course, things may eventually reach the stage where marriage itself is no use as any sort of indicator - not sure that I'm sold either way on the positives or negatives of that one.
Yes perhaps, but in this you are not considerating the raised expectations today. Or the factor where both partners head out into the world in two totally different environments everyday. This adds additional pressures and influences which act as wedges, that were not present in previous times. People are bound to grow apart today, where as in the past they were bound to grow together.
That fewer than 10 (I'm fairly sure) nations in the world allow for gay marriages, I would think that religion is heavily tied into the institution of marriage in most nations.
I'm pitching for a much greater enmity than is the case right now.
I used to be one of those people who thought that marriage was a prison, and that it would be too confining. The older I get though, the more I realize that marriage is not only a wonderful thing, but it is almost necessary...so long as one plans on starting a family one day. And while fewer and fewer people are having children, at least in first-world countries, children will be made, and they will need to be taken into consideration.
If you do not plan on having children, and choose to either date various people until you die, or stay with one partner with no children involved, I see no problem with not getting married.
On the other hand; If you plan on having children and raising a family, you better make it for life. No one can ever be certain that things will remain the same and the bond will remain intact. Partners have been known to grow a disliking for one another, and adultery has been known to occur. Yet, it is in the best interest of not only your children, but your society as well, to keep your family intact. The world needs less screwed up people, and divorce has a major impact on children, especially when they are young.
I think it's important to remember the following: What one does, does not only affect themselves, but everyone around them. We are all linked together, and if we take the approach of taking care of our own business, everyone gains as a result.
Fenrisúlfr
ὠδÏÏÎºÎ¿Ï Î»ÏκοÏ
The state has no business legislating private affairs, marriage included. If two consenting parties wish to enter into an agreement which provides for the welfare of their offspring and allows for the orderly operation of the household, so be it, barring that, methinks in an industrialized society it is a farce.
Elaborate, please. How can two guys who trust eachother and want to share certain legal rights that married couples have (such as being able to sign documents and deciding what to do with them if they're hospitalized) reach into anyone's domain but their own?
This scenario doesn't even imply the two are gay, btw.
This scenario doesn't even imply the two are gay, btw.
Perhaps those are implicit in the religious sense of marriage, but as far as legally uniting to people who wish to share the legal benefits of heterosexual couples, those problems are not necessarily existent. If we assume the couple is two orphan people who have no desire to have any children or any other family than their spouse, where is the problem?
