Nah, gay marriage won’t do much for gays.
Uh, when it comes to this topic, what else is there? What are you looking for? It sounds like you have a contrary opinion but aren’t particular up to discussing it. That doesn’t do much for the Great Debate, does it?
I’m not the one making assertions without anything to back 'em up.
Andros, looking back over the thread, all you’ve been doing in it is policing it: uh, you need a cite for that; no, that’s not right. If you have an opinion on the matter, why not reveal it and actually participate in the debate? Just MHO. Thanks.
Because unlike some, I actually want to learn something instead of trotting out my own preconceived biases.
Andros, you’re in the Pit.
That’s as may be. But you still haven’t supported your assertions.
Dude, I want to hate the wimmins as much as the next guy. Help me out.
I don’t hate women. I am also very hard on men in various battle-of-the-sexes threads that have come up. The sexes are not a perfect match to begin with, and our current society exacerbates those differences.
I’m serious when I ask you what kind of cite you want, or what you would find appropriate. A lot about psychology and social science is known through common-sense observation of what is going on. Often there is no way to be “scientific” about it. And a lot of it is simply a matter of opinion.
I didn’t choose for this thread to be in GD. There are very few hard stats about divorce rates, and maybe some polls about how many people are happy in marriage or how many gays want gay marriage and how many straights oppose that. Beyond that, it’s people arguing about their vision of the good and relaying their observations and those of others. Calling “Cite!” does not reflect an understanding of the nature of the problem.
“Potentially” is the key word here. “Potentially” <> “Must”.
Oh I don’t know, how about a simple “they plan to stay together for life the same way hetero couples are supposedly signing up for.” Hows that for the level of commitment. You know all those words about 'til death do you part and so on are supposed to mean just that.
All this bitching about how the length of the commitment should be lowered or the arrangments should somehow be altered to accomodate a non monogomous relationship is just plain moronic.
If you go into a marriage with the attitude life is too long time to stay monogomous then don’t bother. I’m not saying you can’t get married but rather you shouldn’t because you are already in the self defeating mode. Why bother?
Believe it or not there are still quite a few of us out there who want their relationship to remain lifelong and will work to keep it that way. So I’ll just stick to the old fashioned ideals of marriage and be happy with that thank you very much.
Now I will add that I do believe in the divorce laws because there are always exceptions especially in cases of spousal abuse and what not. There needs to be a safety net in those cases. Too bad it has also become an easy out for those who shouldn’t have bothered to sign up in the first place.
To save you trouble, if you think life is better free and single, do that instead.
Indeed, hindsight is 20-20. And the wedding industry is a multibillion dollar business.
You see, kingpengvin, we have created a culture (especially among women) to strive towards marriage. By the time one realizes that one shouldn’t have been caught in that web, it is already too late. Next thing you know, there are couple of kids … and the rest is the old story.
So, the purpose here is to warn those who may be considering it (due to tradition, parental/peer pressures or the black widow’s web), but have not yet fallen into the trap.
Aside from the “black widows web” nonsense, how many long term contracts do you get into without first considering all of the ramifications of the deal? Would you buy, say, a house without thinking about everything that is involved in the purchase including later up keep and renovations as well as how to deal with keeping the house should you come into later financial difficulty?
If you can’t afford the costs and are too lazy to work on up keep and renovations you should know so before hand.
The multi billion dollar industry does not create marriages it merely preys on those who wish to enter marriage.
Aside from your assertions it seems to me the culture seems to promote the joys of youth and single life over marriage lately.
When I see “real” Families on TV (Dr Phil, Nanny 911, divorce court etc) they are all dysfunctional all have bad marriages and brats for kids.
There are very few positive families shown these days on Sit Coms. The Men are boobs, the women nags and in laws are caustic and poisonous to the relationships. It makes for funny comedy but as a tool to promote marriage it blows.
Love stories in Film and novels usually are about infidelity (but have an easy out by having the person cheated on being some form of cad or witch).
But if you can tell me where in North American popular culture Marriage is being crammed down our throats as the only alternative the days I wouldn’t mind some examples.
It’s not a tool to promote marriage; it’s a satire.
OK. The chick rags are constantly going on about the romances, weddings, and children of the stars. That permanent male-female bonding is an absolute good and procreation desirable is simply an assumption of these magazines. Then you have the bride mags. In the young chick mags like Cosmopolitan it is an assumption that you are going to get a man and keep him. In the matron mags like Good Housekeeping it is assumed that you’ve already got a man and things are OK (you’re cooking and decorating that awesome house, aren’t you?).
As men, we don’t read such mags much and don’t get sent those messages. Women do.
I have yet to finish reading the book, but Stephanie Coontz’s Marriage: A History is a facinating read on this topic. Basically, marriage has traditionally (i.e. over the course of a long history) been an economic arrangement between parties for the purpose of raising children and GETTING INLAWS. Its about creating a web of relationships, not about forming a relationship between two people - or even two people and their children.
About 200 years ago in Western society, love began to seriously enter into the equation. Not surprisingly, this came at the same time the economic paradigm shifted. The extended relationships created by marriage became less and less important, although the creation of families for the purpose of raising children and inherientance continued to be important.
About 50 years ago in Western society, the economic interests in marriage became nearly unnecessary. You no longer needed to create the relationships, and it started to be possible to successful raise children outside of marriage (it was always possible - I should say it became more accepted as a possibility).
As love took a more and more important role (and yes, the media plays a part in people believing in some “Disneyland-like” marriage), and staying with a marriage for economic or social reasons became less important, and fuctions outside the home took on more importance for all family members, more people were willing to take on serial monogamy.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for marriage - almost all societies have some form of marriage. However, it does mean that how we practice marriage is shifting and will continue to shift. That’s OK…its shifted before. Marriage is not the same in all cultures and evolves to fit the needs of the society.
Marriage is not for the lazy or the faint-at heart. It takes work, integrity and dedication on the parts of both the people involved to make the marriage work day in and day out. The fact that many people don’t live up to their wedding vows does not make the institution of marriage a failure - it means the people have failed to fulfil their words. The reasons why more people today are not willing or able to form strong relationships that can endure “till death do us part” would make for an interesting thread, but I do not think it is fair to say that marriage itself needs to be reworked.
For those who want the benefits of marriage without the risks and hard work involved in marriage, please go create a relationship that suits you - and please give it a name other than marriage, because what you’ve started is not worthy of the name.
As for the nomarriage.com website, while I understand that this expresses the frustration of many American men with regard to the current cold war of the sexes, I have no sympathy with that viewpoint. Why? You get out of your marriage what you put into it - and if you are not able to (while dating) figure out that this woman you have the hots for now will likely make a lousy wife, you deserve every bit of the misery you reap. If you want sex without marriage, then be up front about that and don’t let yourself be nagged / pushed/ bullied into marriage. If your spouse does a Jekkyl/Hyde after the wedding, for goshsakes call them on it ASAP, rather than letting it become the new status quo.
lark --I agree with you with the caveat that “lousy wife” is a very idiosyncratic thing. What about lousy husbands? They seem to be in abundance today as well. Or is this whole thread a swipe at women in general and non-traditional women in particular?
It is up to the two people involved to make their marriage something that works for them. Neither will get anywhere expecting or feeling entitled to all the marbles.
Deal–or get divorced. That is an option, as well as never marrying in the first place.
There is a name for relationships that are exclusive, last awhile and then die so that the next one can begin. It’s called serial monogamy, but it won’t get you your latest partner’s social security check if she pops off on you. Have at it.
Just a thought.
Hello Quartz. Are you still there?
You made the OP, and you’ve had 2 pages of response consisting of 73 posts.
Your last post (#23) asked: “What sort of contract should a pair enter when one has a child for which another is contributing?”
Could you please sum up the conclusion of this debate that you started, and let us know if you got the answer to your question?
If you got it, what is your perceived answers and conclusions?
If you didn’t, what unanswered questions are still looming?
I’ve got to go to work imminently, so I’ll be quick. I still have no answer for myself. There have been a lot of thoughtful replies (hardly surprising given the nature of Dopers), and they’ve made me think. I think the best bet is to let society sort things out for itself, let marriage evolve how it may.