Marriage is a relationship between your relationship and the government.
And, I meant to add, it only outmoded if it is conceived to be anything else. If it were anything else, I’m already married to several of my friends and never got a divorce from my first girlfriend.
I remember being shocked the first and only time I encountered someone saying that she was really against the institution of marriage. My impression of her argument was that marriage was just a way for one partner to be able to own or control the other, and having never thought of it that way I was really struck by that. (I mean, the prospect of marriage being immoral? What isn’t immoral these days?)
It got me thinking, though: beside financial reasons (which by themselves would reduce marriage to little more than a business relationship), was there really any benefit to marriage that didn’t spring from the desire to assuage my insecurity at the thought of a lover leaving or the desire to have a lover all to myself? It seems to me that those are two powerful reasons people choose to get married: the stigma of divorce and the desire to keep one’s promises makes marriage a more “secure” relationship than simply living together, and being married implies to a lot of people a sense of belonging to someone and having someone belong to you.
To be honest, I have to admit that both of those reasons are part of why the idea of marriage appeals to me (especially the idea of both belonging to my future wife and her to me), but they also both strike me as being wrong. Presumably, if I really loved my wife and she didn’t want to be in a relationship with me any more, I should try to do what’s best for her—and keeping her in “wedlock” against her wish (if not her will) would not be doing that. Also, along the same vein, I shouldn’t want to “own” someone either; not if I was really putting her first.
But I think there’s more to marriage than that, enough that I still think it’s worth it for me (and not immoral either). For one, the physical process of marriage can be romantic and beautiful. It’s also, as was stated, a public declaration, but with both internal and external meaning. It’s not so much a binding force (divorce being not quite the stigma it once was) but is a symbol of an enduring commitment made willfully by both partners. Marriage is also a way to bring families together—not just in the tactical sense, but because in some marriages it’s as if each partner is adopting another family into their lives. It may not be that way in every case, but maybe ideally marriage creates a “unit” and brings family together in a way that simply living together doesn’t (and that fact may be part of the reason influencing people to forgo the whole marriage thing in the first place).
So I think there’s still reason for people to choose to get married, and an argument for why a marriage situation might be better than living together. Financial benefits and other legal recognition would be incidental benefits. There’s also the significance that religious couples would add to marriage as well.
But maybe the most compelling reason for marriage for me is the dream of married life. It’s a desire lots of us have grown up with, and that in itself might be it’s own justification for the continued significance of marriage.
Legal marriage is for the law and society, so it is not usually outdated when tax time comes around. From a religious and traditional view, my belief is that what is in the heart, not on paper or in front of an audience, is what matters most.
im not anti marriage… i just cant say i ever want to do it, or see the point of it for my situation. if others want to get married, more power to them, just dont expect me to.
my only whining comes for the negative reactions i get from married folk. i dont diss their state of union so youd kinda expect id get the same in return.
no, the majority of married people feel free to tell me that im a commitment phobe, that im not mature, and generally that theres something wrong with my partner and i. thats just not cool.
i live in a country where legal and money wise a de facto relationship has the same rights as marriage.
so if its not for legal, money, religious or family reason (all of which are firmly ruled out in my case) why would i marry?
I agree. I’m 29 and live in the Bible Belt of America. I’ve never been married and am in no hurry to do so. I’m not against it as an institution, it just doesn’t sound better than the much more carefree life that I now live. However, people here in the South marry very young. And many people have been married several times by the age of 30. I’ve been asked by men and women who have been married 3 or 4 times as to why I haven’t been able to find someone (the irony should be apparent). In fact, upon learning of my marital status, I get the same pop-quiz from everyone:
Them: Are you divorced?
Me: nope
Them: Just haven’t found the right person, huh?
Me: I’m not looking to marry anytime soon.
Them: Why not? I know this girl/have a sister/heard of this hooker that I could introduce you to.
Me: I think you missed part of the conversation.
At this point I would rather shove a pencil in my eyeball that continue this conversation, which loops endlessly with mindless questions.
The pressure to get married is quite real down here, particularly for women. A receptionist at my previous job would literally cry several times during her workday because she was 27 and still unmarried; her twin sister was in a similar situation. Of course her mother compounded (caused?) her depression with nagging questions of when she was going to settle down. I’m not a woman, but I would imagine that many unwed women become quite cynical about the marriage process after experiencing such pressure throughout their adult life-they just haven’t posted in this thread.
In short, I am against the concept of marriage as I see it around here-that marriage is a goal that everyone must attain, and a person’s life is incomplete until he or she completes this goal.
If your married and happy, good for you- I’m unmarried and happy.
Furr, if the law treats you and your partner in the same way as a couple who’ve been through a marriage ceremony, then you are married. You just didn’t have any choice about it.
Furr, if the law treats you and your partner in the same way as a couple who’ve been through a marriage ceremony, then you are married. You just didn’t have any choice about it.
i think youd find alot of married people whod disagree with that view point. certainly most of the people i work with would.
i see marraige as a legal contract, (though i would point out that under the law my relationship is defined as a ‘de facto partnership’ which just happans to be granted the same rights as another thing called ‘marriage’) so yes im technically married.
most i know view marriage as a social/religious/emotional contract which is represented by that ceremony, that bit of paper. in there eyes im not, in the laws eyes im in something just as good as.
IMHO the current institution of marriage from a legal perspective is outdated. I know several people who practice family law and who are constantly saying that they are forced to advise clients to remain in extremely unhappy marriages simply because these clients could not afford to get divorced. Were these sorts of couples to get divorced both parties would be in extreme financal dire straights. That simply is not fair. Divorce in general which now is the norm not the exception seems to be very brutal.
Marriage is a social and legal construct, but it became a social construct because of its being a long standing legal construct.
I would agree that when children become involved having two parents is preferable, but mainly from the perspective that it insures greater supervision, and i wider range of views from which the child creates his/her own. “tracer” had mentioned how the nuclear family became the norm recently and prior to that people lived with larger extended families. In either case children had the benefit of increased supervision and multiple adult role models. It is this facet that is important in raising a child, but because of the practical social construct of marriage and the nuclear family that is the norm that has worked best. SO now to my rather long winded point. Marriage is BECOMING an outdated institution. It is not completely w/o merit, but at the same time is clearly not acceptable to more than half the people who enter into it.
Ummm…
Esprix
Oh, Esprix, let’s not nitpick the little things. :rolleyes:
But I want a subscription to Bride!
Esprix
Lola and I participated in the other thread on marriage and for anyone who missed it, we’re one of those couples in a long term relationship that do not care that society participates in our union. Our present, un-santioned union has outlasted both our previous marriages and I find it offensive for anyone to say that our relationship and the bond we share isn’t fully meaningful.
You would be hard pressed to find another couple who is any more devoted to each other than we are, whether they are married or not.
Feynn, I didn’t post the quote but I think what was intended was to draw a distinction between the basic relationship which exists between two people, and a marriage, which is a further relationship between the couple concerned and the rest of society (i.e. social recognition of their underlying relationship with one another). If the rest of society takes no interest in the couple’s relationship then there is no marriage in any meaningful sense, but this does not imply that there is no relationship between the couple. There may be a very strong relationship, but it is a private one.