OT: Debate Thread

[Yngvai X]

I don't think marriage is obsolete...to me the problem stems not from obsolescence but from society's inability to take it seriously.

I think we have an innate need for that mate whom we can trust for everything--and I think marriage is perhaps the ultimate demonstration of trust, because to put oneself in a binding commitment for life is a HUGE thing to do. I think many people rush into marriage without thinking this through...two major problems arise. These days, we tend to think romantic/sexual love is the real driver and predictor of a successful marriage; when the passion cools, the head-over-heels couple is suddenly quite nasty to each other because of problems they thought they could sweep under the rug with a lot of sex. The keys are the underlying trust, respect, and friendship that create a different kind of love, one that is more in the heart and the spirit than the libido (although that's a part of a healthy marriage, too...just not the most IMPORTANT one).

The other problem is that people are seeing marriage as a trial period...that's what engagement is for as far as I'm concerned. If a couple is not married, I find myself questioning the degree of commitment of one to the other. What is the partner with cold feet afraid of? To be blunt, I could not give my full trust to a man who felt the need to leave what amounts to a "escape route" or a "cheating clause". Marriage demands the utmost trust--I will accept no less in return for my own trust.

The final reason I think marriage is still extremely important: while human instinct is to take multiple partners, human health is NOT helped by such a practice. It's fairly safe to say that if all adultery were to cease today, the propagation of STDs would slow dramatically. Yes, condoms do help slow diseases as well, but not to the same level of confidence as only having one sexual partner in one's lifetime (with the exception of remarriage after a partner's death). I think that this points to a very real public-health need for marriage.

None of this discussion even takes a religious angle into account, but obviously those who follow a religion feel very strongly about the marriage custom.

Rose I must say I agree with you 100%

 

[Conti]

Someone said above they thought poeple must have thought if you don't get married then you go to hell. Well that can't be true as priests can't get married.

Now,how do I feel on this subject? I think getting married is very important. Some poeple may feel secure just being with someone but I couldnt be knowing that at any time my partner could just walk away. Getting through hard times and over coming obstacles only makes you stronger as a couple. I'm not saying getting married chains you or inprisons you but getting married forces you to take on these challanges in life. It helps you as a person as well as your relationship

 

[Taliwakker]

But if they do indeed have sufficient loyalty--then what's holding them back? Why the fear? Marriage would be affirming what's already there.

Go price a wedding and reception for 100 people and that may give you a clue on why some people might be reluctant

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Well I have to say that I agree with Rose on this issue. As for the cost issue, not all weddings have to be expensive, and secondly, if you really love your partner is there ever such a thing as "too expensive"? I mean you are publically showing your love for them right? About a dozen posts previous to this one someone mentioned that people used to believe that unmarried individuals would "go to hell", and yet there was no evidence posted to support this. I find this very hard to believe considering most priests and even Christ himself were unmarried.

 

[theVikingR]

About a dozen posts previous to this one someone mentioned that people used to believe that unmarried individuals would "go to hell", and yet there was no evidence posted to support this. I find this very hard to believe considering most priests and even Christ himself were unmarried.

I think the point was that couples who weren't married would go to hell.

But if they do indeed have sufficient loyalty--then what's holding them back? Why the fear? Marriage would be affirming what's already there.

How is locking yourself into marriage a better demonstration of loyalty? Surely the greatest show of trust would be two people staying together with nothing tying them together other than their own love? The fact that they could leave at any time without the legal and psychological hold marriage would add shows less fear than getting married.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Go price a wedding and reception for 100 people and that may give you a clue on why some people might be reluctant

That's what eloping is for. You can still make it legal...without all the people. I knew a couple who did that because there were stepfamilies and all that didn't get along with each other.

How is locking yourself into marriage a better demonstration of loyalty? Surely the greatest show of trust would be two people staying together with nothing tying them together other than their own love? The fact that they could leave at any time without the legal and psychological hold marriage would add shows less fear than getting married.

Ideally, the marriage itself should be second to love--if it's an affirmation of what already exists, then what fear would there be that doesn't come with entering into the relationship itself?

 

[ABQShredHead]

Marriage is a legal union of a husband and wife. There is no means to make this concept obsolete. It is a legal union above and beyond a "sharing" of one's life with another.

A couple may choose to live together out of wedlock, but, in my mind, they are doing nothing more than living together. There is no binding of assets, no sharing of any legal rights, etc. If either party wants to call it quits in the relationship, they can merely move out and take what they want with them. There is no binding tie to the relationship. Divorces (a concept I don't believe in) are messy for a reason - an untying of the couple is required, whether by law or by agreement.

Perhaps what gives ideas of obsolescence for marriage is the high-profile treatment of Hollywood couples by the media. Who really cares that Kate Hudson split from her husband? I would care more to see a report that Kate and Chris are in marriage counselling to save their marriage, and they've put their careers on hold until they have found each other again. Brad Pitt can't keep his schlong in his pants long enough to stay married to arguably the most beautiful woman in Hollywood and it's front-page news. What about Joe Shmo and his wife that are fighthing tooth and nail in Podunktown, USA, to preserve the ideals of the institution to which they subscribed via oaths and legalities? Those are the stories I find much more interesting, albeit less sensational.

Prenuptial agreements are another mockery. Why would two individuals want to get married when they've already agreed the union is not going to last?

Stand firm to your commitments and hold yourself (and your partner) to your (their) word.

 

[turke]

Marriage..... It really represents different meanings to different cultures these days. We can not come to a single point about it. Some societies marry only to have sex, some marry to cooperate everyday life, some marry because it is a rule of the society. Some women marry because it is the only way to live for them...... etc.

I don't think we can come up to a conclusion in such a complex phenomenon which is relative to many different factors.

 

[ABQShredHead]

Following that same argument, one could argue marriage will never be obsolete since it can have so many different meanings.

 

[Beelzebub]

Someone said above they thought poeple must have thought if you don't get married then you go to hell. Well that can't be true as priests can't get married.

According to the Catholic church, people need to follow six of the seven sacraments. The seven sacraments are Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist (communion), Holy Orders, Matrimony, Confession, and Anointing (aka Extreme Union). One either partakes in Holy Orders (joining the priesthood/becoming a deacon) or getting married, so the whole "but priests don't get married!" line is an inaccuracy.

How is locking yourself into marriage a better demonstration of loyalty? Surely the greatest show of trust would be two people staying together with nothing tying them together other than their own love? The fact that they could leave at any time without the legal and psychological hold marriage would add shows less fear than getting married.

My point exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[ABQShredHead]

I don't think it shows less fear - rather, it shows less dedication to the relationship to live together than it does to get married.

I have seen all too often cases where one person promises their commitment to the relationship but puts off marriage. Several years later, that person, though they expressed their undying devotion to their partner, suddenly upped and left the relationship. The abandoned person was in a huge hole since that person had relied on the other person for money, parenting obligations, and other life requirements.

When marriage is not involved, either person can merely leave the relationship at any time. Is that to say more commitment is required from either person to stay unmarried than would be required to actually get married? I think not. I think it's lazy and self-serving to not get married.

Unfortunately, what we are mainly talking about here is the loss of meaning of marriage and the over-developed concept of divorce. Marriage is meant, in my interpretation, to be a union till death do us part, not till I get sick of you or you cheat on me or it's just more convenient for me to leave you.

Call me old-fashioned.

 

[Rose Immortal]

Thanks, ShredHead...I'll just go with that fine answer that makes the points I would've made.

 

[theVikingR]

When marriage is not involved, either person can merely leave the relationship at any time.

Exactly - since either person can leave the relationship at any time when they're not married, the fact that they don't demonstrates a greater commitment than being married and thus obliged not to leave the relationship.

 

[Beelzebub]

I don't think it shows less fear - rather, it shows less dedication to the relationship to live together than it does to get married.

People can be just as dedicated to each other without having a ring on their finger. Isn't there more fear involved in one another straying if you absolutely have to be married to prevent this from occurring?

 

[Taliwakker]

A couple may choose to live together out of wedlock, but, in my mind, they are doing nothing more than living together. There is no binding of assets, no sharing of any legal rights, etc. If either party wants to call it quits in the relationship, they can merely move out and take what they want with them.

I don't know about the US but that is not so in Australia.
Depending on the length of a de facto relationship and if children are born from this relationship then assets will be split.
My mother-in-law is currently trying to take this poor old bloke to the cleaners at the moment...she wasn't even living with him full time and she's possibly up for cars, a rural property and a whole lot of other stuff the bitch doesn't deserve....she was on welfare before, during and after the relationship ended and didn't really bring any financial assets into the relationship.

 

[SilentRealm]

Richard is right... in Australia, being in a relationship (not necessarily marital) with someone more than 12 months means you could be entitled to their assets (taking several factors into consideration).

Ive heard that the origins of marriage was for a man to (try to) prevent his sexual partner from procreating with other men, thus ensuring the continuing quality of his genetics. The reasons for marriage vary across cultures, some love, some money, some social status etc.

These days, its up to the individual.. some people are happier and feel content with their partners without that piece of paper, and to others it means a great deal of significance.

I chose marriage once when I was a silly teen, believing with my whole heart that I was old enough and wise enough to make it last. It didn't - and it wasn't that one day I woke up and decided I didn't feel like being there anymore, I just don't think people should be tied to an unhealthy or dangerous situation for the sake of 'till death do us part'. I don't recommend it to anyone under the age of 25 and also believe people should really get to know each other (over several years) before taking that plunge. However you will come across some people that marry their highschool sweetheart and are content together for 90yrs etc (I'm jealous of those people).. and some that don't find that sort of thing until well into their 30's or even 40's+.

 

[Rose Immortal]

If there is real abuse (including verbal) that could be damaging to somebody, then I think that's a case where divorce is permissible. I don't know where you're getting the idea that the pro-marriage people see NO legitimate reason for divorce. The problem pro-marriage people have is when people get divorced because they no longer have any commitment to working out problems.

 

[ABQShredHead]

If there is real abuse (including verbal) that could be damaging to somebody, then I think that's a case where divorce is permissible. I don't know where you're getting the idea that the pro-marriage people see NO legitimate reason for divorce. The problem pro-marriage people have is when people get divorced because they no longer have any commitment to working out problems.

Yeah.

Australia sounds tough. Do you have to be living together more than 12 months, or just in a relationship?

Eleven US states and DC have common-law marriage laws, but I am not sure what they entail.

I have seen (via friends of my wife) way too many people (mostly women) get burned by their live-in significant others who promise fidelity and truthfulness and honor and parentship (for lack of a better word) in a sustained, monogomous relationship. Then one day they leave. For dumb reasons, usually (because, afterall, they are men [so am I; but, face it, we're dumb]) and the woman is stuck with three kids born out of wedlock and no means of supporting themselves let alone the family. Sad, yes; avoidable, yes - it's called marriage. I can enter this one in the "Things you don't 'get'" thread, because I don't get it.

I married at 28. I knew who I was at the time and I knew what I was getting myself into (mostly). If I did not feel the vows were true, I wouldn't have married her. Better that forethought than polluting the countries statistics with yet another failure.

 

[ABQShredHead]

People can be just as dedicated to each other without having a ring on their finger. Isn't there more fear involved in one another straying if you absolutely have to be married to prevent this from occurring?

"Straying" is a sad basis for any marriage. Hopefully, the couple entering the institution have a far better understanding of it well before they decide to get hitched. If either person is fearful the other will stray, that person has serious trust issues and marriage is not for them. Probably no relationship is really for them, until they get over their own troubles.

 

[SilentRealm]

I have seen (via friends of my wife) way too many people (mostly women) get burned by their live-in significant others who promise fidelity and truthfulness and honor and parentship (for lack of a better word) in a sustained, monogomous relationship. Then one day they leave. For dumb reasons, usually (because, afterall, they are men [so am I; but, face it, we're dumb]) and the woman is stuck with three kids born out of wedlock and no means of supporting themselves let alone the family. Sad, yes; avoidable, yes - it's called marriage. I can enter this one in the "Things you don't 'get'" thread, because I don't get it.

that is something that is really sad, and it can happen with marriage also I think. If a guy, for example, gives her the vows just to make her happy but still lies to her, cheats on her, and leaves her in a few years for his bimbo secretary - she ends up in the same place either way. Marriage certainly in my opinion does not prevent a partner from straying.. nor does "trapping" him by getting pregnant as I see alot of women do also. If he is going to stray, regardless of what a woman does, he will do so.

I think the best way for a woman to try and prevent something like that is to know what the signs of a commitment-phobe or potential wanderer are, and take a good hard long look at the man she is about to commit herself to first - and try to do so without the "lust blinders" that cloud the judgement of even the most intelligent headstrong woman. Nothing is ever failsafe but I know I've seen so many relationships that are trainwrecks waiting to happen because one partner refuses to see the truth about the person they're with, and then complain later that they don't know what went wrong, when the whole time I and other people around me could see exactly what was wrong.

I have another interesting question though if anyone cares to join in.. if you have a friend and either you know their partner is cheating on them, or they are cheating on their partner and you find it despicable.. do you tell the cheatee what is going on?

I would say yes in both circumstances - if I had a friend cheating on their partner, I would re-evaluate our friendship because it means to me they are obviously of low moral fibre and I would tell that person they are doing so because it's just a disgusting thing to do and no one should have to be lied to. And of course vice versa if it was my friend who was the cheatee.