# Obsession with marriage for the non-religious **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 10, 2001, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967 "2001-05-10T05:37:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Procacious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Procacious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procacious)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2001, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967/21 "2001-05-12T07:27:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Jerry Seinfeld (paraphrased from memory): “The problem I have with marriage is that it happens so often. Two people decided that they love each other so much, they want to spend their whole lives together. That should happen what: two, three times a century?” > > Saying that, let me turn the tables a little and ask why not get married? If you think that you have made all the commitments of a marriage, then how would it be a negative thing for you to actually go ahead and get married? Maybe the reason society discriminates against heterosexual couples that don’t get married is that society doesn’t truly believe that they are as serious as a married couple. You want the benefits? You claim that you are as serious? Then prove it! After all, nothing’s stopping you! > > I’m not sure I totally agree with this myself, but I can understand the reasoning. And when setting a law as regards tax (for example), it is a lot simpler to draw the line at marriage than at some nebulous self-defined relationship. Such wisdom from such a poor comedian. Well, I suppose the reason to not get married is because of the horrors that occur if you discover that you’ve made the wrong choice. If it were possible to swear your love to someone for life that would be one thing, but you have little control over who you fall in love with. If marriage is important to people, I would think they would wait until they were absolutely sure it was the right decision. That would take several years if not decades. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## Originally posted by Procacious If marriage is done for the minor benefits it confers, then it has nothing to do with love at all. > > I think the benefits of marriage go far beyond love and also go beyond legal benefits. There’s a big advantage to having a committed, permanent relationship. Marriage helps make the commitment stronger. (I don’t mean to deny that marriage is not for everyone. It certainly has downsides, too) Hmmm, then it is as I feared. The greatest benefits of marriage are not real, they are just in your head. If you believe that marriage has magical powers (e.g. makes a commitment stronger/more meaningful) then it will mean something to you. I was looking for something concrete, but it appears the obsession with marriage is caused by the same dilemma that plagues much of our society…people don’t analyze things. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2001, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967/22 "2001-05-12T14:30:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Since people change over time, living together for 10 years before getting married doesn’t seem unreasonable. Especially when you consider that absolutely nothing will change once you get married. So people change up until the point where they get married, then stop? One thing you seem to be hung up on is the idea that love has anything to do with marrige. It dosen’t, really. Love can be the **motivation** to get married, but they are seperate things. Two people who do not love each other in the romantic butterflys-in-my-stomach style can have a good, solid marrige and two people that love each other very much may not be able to live together, let alone marry. Marrige is a legal partnership. Being married confirs a whole bundle of legal rights, and while you can address each of those rights seperatly it a) costs a whole lot more b) is alot more trouble and c) You run the risk of forgetting something that will be crucial later (not good to find out after your husband died and you have 2 small children that his MIL who hates you is still the beneficiary of his life insurance policy–that kind of thing). Marrige isn’t the only institution like this. For exam[ple, when you “own” proprety what you really own is a whole bundle of rights–but instead of listing each one each time, we call it buying and selling property unless there is a need to get more specific. I don’t think you are a cynic, I think you are a frustrated idealist who is discovering that marrige isn’t romantic. Well, you’re right, it isn’t. But it is still useful. On a side note, since the point of many many marriges is to form a legal partnership for the purpose of raising children, the decades thing just isn’t feasible. Only so many fertile years avalible. Furthermore, someone is just as likely to change radically after 15 years as they are to change radically after three. Thre is no sure thing. ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2001, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967/23 "2001-05-12T15:06:29Z")
My GF and I have been together for 6 1/2 years, and we consider it a foregone conclusion that we’re in it for the long haul. When I go away for my residency a year from now, she’s going with me and we’re moving in together. If it were up to us, we would probably never get officially married. For one thing, we’re both atheists. For another, we both hate weddings. For another, she has seen most of her high school friends get married in recent years, and they all immediately turned, in her words, “old and boring”. (This has not been my experience, nor do I think it would be the case with us, but I must admit that it’s uncannily true in the case of her friends.) However, we will probably get married within the next few years, for two big reasons: 1.) As mentioned before, economic expedience. I’ll probably be staying in the South, where there is still a huge gap between “wife” and “domestic partner”. Getting insurance or buying a house will be much more difficult if we’re not married. Some places (more than you might imagine) would not even let us rent a place if we planned to shack up in it. 2.) Our familes. Our grandmothers, more specifically. Neither her parents nor mine would be especially shocked by us living together unmarried (although they wouldn’t like it), but we both have good Christian grandmothers from the era in which people just didn’t do that.\* I don’t think they would pressure us into getting married–they would more likely quietly disapprove and pray for us. However, we have such great respect for them that we would be inclined to “make it official” partially for their sake. \*People in that era may have rarely “shacked up”, but it seems that the decision to get married was often made much more lightly. Read those Ann Landers “How We Met” stories to see what I mean–“I met him three weeks before he shipped off to Europe, and we were married two weeks later! After 56 years, we’re still going strong!” Most people consider this sweet and romantic. Instead, I think about how many people lived miserable lives because they got married so hastily and wouldn’t get divorced when they realized it wasn’t right. I’d guess that there were several for every “Still Going Strong”. Dr. J ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2001, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967/24 "2001-05-12T22:13:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Hmmm, then it is as I feared. The greatest benefits of marriage are not real, they are just in your head. If you believe that marriage has magical powers (e.g. makes a commitment stronger/more meaningful) then it will mean something to you. I was looking for something concrete, but it appears the obsession with marriage is caused by the same dilemma that plagues much of our society…people don’t analyze things. It’s not that marriage has magical powers that make the commitment stronger. It’s partly that the _willingness_ to get married signals a stronger commitment. The signal is by no means always accurate, but take the following examples : 1. I promise to sell you my car for $1000. No one else is there when I make this promise and I sign nothing. 2. I promise to sell you my car for $1000 in front of fifty people and sign a document stating I made this promise. In which case are you more confident that I mean what I say? It’s also partly that having made a commitment (and it doesn’t necessarily have to be marriage) makes it more likely that the people involved will try to work out problems, rather than leaving at the first sign of trouble. ---
**Author:** ![SkeptiJess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea666f/32.png) [@SkeptiJess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkeptiJess)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967/25 "2001-05-13T01:49:03Z")
> [@](#): > > I find it disturbing that we as a society tend to believe that a person’s word is meaningless without a contract. In business I can understand it because it is a cutthroat world we live in and lying to get ahead is common and productive. However, a loving relationship without trust is doomed to failure. If your significant other promises to remain with you forever, no contract should be necessary to make you believe them. Well, **Procacious** , I guess I didn’t make myself very clear. I didn’t speak at all about private promises between couples. I was speaking of marriage as an institution. I believe (and tried to say) that marriage’s greatest intrinsic value lies in the statement that it makes to society. To be married is to _publicly declare_ yourself a team, a family, a partnership. I see value in this declaration, which is why I chose to participate in the institution. Your mileage may vary. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967/26 "2001-05-13T03:38:23Z")
Believe it or not, some of us who are still quite young were raised to believe that if you’re serious about loving someone, you marry them, not move in with them. My parents celebrated their 26th aniversary this week, and I’ve been told in no uncertain terms that they would not abide by my living with a guy before marriage. To tell you the truth, it doesn’t bother me since I have no intention of moving in with anyone before marrying them. There are lots of statistics out there, like people who live together first are twice as likely to divorce than those who don’t, and couples live together for an average of 2.4 years before breaking up, but even if these are totally false, I’ve seen enough people move in together, decide they hate each other, then have to deal with both emotional heartache and pratical things like who gets to keep the apartment? I don’t think I need the complications. I like the idea of marriage, because it conveys a sense of stablity (whether there really is stablity is another matter). Now, the idea of a wedding on the otherhand, terrifies me. Somehow I see myself eloping if I ever find the right person… ---
**Author:** ![Procacious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Procacious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procacious)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967/27 "2001-05-13T04:20:38Z")
> [@](#): > > The signal is by no means always accurate, but take the following examples : > > 1. I promise to sell you my car for $1000. No one else is there when I make this promise and I sign nothing. > 2. I promise to sell you my car for $1000 in front of fifty people and sign a document stating I made this promise. > > In which case are you more confident that I mean what I say? In most cases I would believe option 2 more than option 1, but in the case of the person I am in love with, I better have total faith in what my partner says in both cases. If I am too unsure of my partner’s honesty to believe option 1, then the relationship has not yet built up enough trust to be worthy of marriage. I choose to trust my partner completely until she violates my trust, at which point the partnership is over. I can forgive the little things like if she lies about drinking all the milk or something, but there are certain things you do not lie about. If you do lie about one of these things, and your partner finds out, the relationship is over. I don’t understand how people can stay together after one person cheats. The trust is gone. To give your complete trust back to someone who has cheated on you is unwise. The person has proven him/herself untrustworthy. It was risky enough to give your complete trust over the first time (but you did which is why you should believe option 1 as much as option 2). > [@](#): > > Well, Procacious, I guess I didn’t make myself very clear. I didn’t speak at all about private promises between couples. I was speaking of marriage as an institution. I believe (and tried to say) that marriage’s greatest intrinsic value lies in the statement that it makes to society. To be married is to publicly declare yourself a team, a family, a partnership. I see value in this declaration, which is why I chose to participate in the institution. Your mileage may vary. Fair enough. I guess I never put much value in the opinions of those that discriminate as a hobby so I do not really care about making a public statement. If someone chooses to shun me for not getting married, I have a special finger just for them (family included). I have gotten over discrimination through the faulty reasoning (though quite effective) that any person that chooses to discriminate against me or those I care about must not have an opinion worth respecting (great philosophy isn’t it?) I thank you all for you feedback. I have learned quite a bit about the subject from all of you and will take it to my grave. I am a bit wiser now (though I’ll never show it 😉 ) ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967/28 "2001-05-13T05:31:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elfkin477 \* > **Believe it or not, some of us who are still quite young were raised to believe that if you’re serious about loving someone, you marry them, not move in with them.** I, too, was raised to believe that. Once I was able to evaluate the idea on my own, though, I didn’t see why that had to be the case. The problem with the statistics you cite is not that they are false but that they are confounded. The most obvious confounding factor is that people who have moral problems with cohabitating probably have similar problems with divorce. (That can be a good or bad thing.) Another problem I see is that living together is often a compromise when she wants to get married and he doesn’t (or vice versa). This creates what I call an “expectation gradient”–the difference in the desires and expectations of the two halves of the couple. A relationship with a large EG is headed for trouble, no matter what. Living together should be something that both partners want, not a compromise between competing interests. > [@](#): > > **but even if these are totally false, I’ve seen enough people move in together, decide they hate each other, then have to deal with both emotional heartache and pratical things like who gets to keep the apartment?** At least it happened before they got married–which probably would have happened sooner, had shacking up not been an option. Cohabitation, IMO, should never be seen as a “trial run” for marriage, but it is handy that it works out that way sometimes. Dr. J ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2001, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967/29 "2001-05-13T06:59:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Procacious \* > \*\* > > Don’t get me wrong, I still think marriage is worthless 🙂 > Those benefits that people have been mentioning are trivial to me (since most can be achieved in other ways that are less imposing). \*\* Trivial to you but perhaps not to most other people. And I fail to see how gaining the benefits of marriage without getting married is any less imposing. Perhaps you could shed some light. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I didn’t mention them because I did not expect people to cite them as reasons for marriage, but since people did I brought up the fact that it is discriminatory to give those benefits only to married couples. \*\* How is it discriminatory if you said you can get the exact same benefits in a less imposing way? > [@](#): > > \*\* > My only trouble is that the marriage contract adds a little more paperwork than what was mentioned above. If I could line-item veto some of the marriage contract then that would be different 🙂 \*\* In Collin County, Texas it cost about 30 dollars for a marriage license and you’ve only got to fill out one document. How much more paperwork do you think it would take to confer all the benefits of marriage? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Exactly, and marriage does not do a single thing to help loving each other or spending your lives together. That can be done just as easily without marriage. \*\* It does help when it comes to spending the rest of our lives together. Others have said how it helps but you obviously disagree. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The “benefits” of marriage seem largely to come in the case of divorce, in which case there never should have been a marriage in the first place. > (The other benefits of marriage, such as pulling the plug, etc., should not be benefits of marriage because they should exist for all couples that want them). \*\* So what’s your **real** problem with marriage? On one hand you’re saying that it is easier to get the benefits of marriage without all the hassle. Now you’re saying that all the benefits of marriage come in the case of divorce. Do you think you’re going ot be able to enter into some sort of other contract and break it without penalty? Also you realize that you can get a prenuptual agreement, right? And about the pulling the plug thing. You can give someone power of attorny. I assumed that’s one of the things that was covered under alternatives to marriage. > [@](#): > > \*\* > So marriage really doesn’t have anything to do with love? \*\* Love isn’t the be all end all of marriage. > [@](#): > > \*\* > It is just as easy to buy such things with two bank accounts as with one. \*\* You want to jump through so many hoops to avoid marriage but end up with a contract that is almost exactly the same as marriage. That seems rather silly doesn’t it? Marc ---
**Author:** ![Procacious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Procacious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procacious)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967/30 "2001-05-14T02:13:28Z")
> [@](#): > > ## quote: > > Originally posted by Procacious > Don’t get me wrong, I still think marriage is worthless > Those benefits that people have been mentioning are trivial to me (since most can be achieved in other ways that are less imposing). > > * * * > > Trivial to you but perhaps not to most other people. And I fail to see how gaining the benefits of marriage without getting married is any less imposing. Perhaps you could shed some light. What I meant by “less imposing” is that, since you apply for each privilege one at a time, the government only intrudes on one part of your life at a time. The government is only involved in those things you applied for, and not in those things you did not apply for (e.g. the government may be involved in how the stuff is distributed when someone dies, but not in how it is distributed if the couple separates). > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > I didn’t mention them because I did not expect people to cite them as reasons for marriage, but since people did I brought up the fact that it is discriminatory to give those benefits only to married couples. > > * * * > > How is it discriminatory if you said you can get the exact same benefits in a less imposing way? Only those thing that cannot be acquired in other ways are discriminatory. I assume there are at least some features in marriage that cannot be duplicated in other ways or else I do not see what all the fuss over rights for homosexual couples was about. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > My only trouble is that the marriage contract adds a little more paperwork than what was mentioned above. If I could line-item veto some of the marriage contract then that would be different > > * * * > > In Collin County, Texas it cost about 30 dollars for a marriage license and you’ve only got to fill out one document. How much more paperwork do you think it would take to confer all the benefits of marriage? It would certainly involve more paperwork to avoid marriage, but that one simple marriage contract involves many more laws than all of those pieces of paper that you would have to apply for separately. Marriage involves too many laws in my opinion. There are fewer forms to fill out, but more laws involved. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > Exactly, and marriage does not do a single thing to help loving each other or spending your lives together. That can be done just as easily without marriage. > > * * * > > It does help when it comes to spending the rest of our lives together. Others have said how it helps but you obviously disagree. Most of those things that they mentioned were in their heads. Marriage only helped because they thought it would (placebo effect). > [@](#): > > So what’s your real problem with marriage? On one hand you’re saying that it is easier to get the benefits of marriage without all the hassle. Now you’re saying that all the benefits of marriage come in the case of divorce. Do you think you’re going ot[sic] be able to enter into some sort of other contract and break it without penalty? Also you realize that you can get a prenuptual[sic] agreement, right? My problem is that marriage is expected of almost everyone. It is rather difficult to find women that do not have their heart set on getting married some day. This troubles me. I would hate to limit the pool of potential prospects for such a reason, so I probably won’t, but this means that it is very likely I will get stuck under a contract I am uncomfortable with. There should be no penalty for breaking the contract because there should be no contract to begin with. You cannot promise your love to anyone and agreeing to stay with someone you hate seems like slavery to me. Last I checked people could not sign themselves into slavery even if they wanted to. Indeed one can get a prenuptial agreement, but many people seem to take offense at the idea. Besides, I am not comfortable making a promise that I cannot keep and that is what I feel marriage is. I cannot promise to love anyone forever. It doesn’t work that way. But as long as marriage is expected of me (by most of the women I date anyway) I will probably have to lie to them to make them happy (the lie being that I promise to love them forever no matter what). I can promise to try. I cannot promise to succeed. > [@](#): > > You want to jump through so many hoops to avoid marriage but end up with a contract that is almost exactly the same as marriage. That seems rather silly doesn’t it? I suppose it is, but I do not want to make a promise that I may not be able to keep. I would not be any more comfortable with marriage if the woman was a billionaire. It is not my money that I am worried about. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967/31 "2001-05-14T04:11:43Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by Procacious \* \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > What I meant by “less imposing” is that, since you apply for each privilege one at a time, the government only intrudes on one part of your life at a time. \*\* How does slower equal less imposing? I’d really like to know. Either way if you file some sort of contract the government ends up knowing about it. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The government is only involved in those things you applied for, and not in those things you did not apply for (e.g. the government may be involved in how the stuff is distributed when someone dies, but not in how it is distributed if the couple separates). \*\* If you broke the contract then the government **would** be involved in how goods are distributed. Your partner might even have the legal right to sue you for breach of contract. So much for less imposing. > [@](#): > > \*\* > It would certainly involve more paperwork to avoid marriage, but that one simple marriage contract involves many more laws than all of those pieces of paper that you would have to apply for separately. Marriage involves too many laws in my opinion. There are fewer forms to fill out, but more laws involved. \*\* Which is why it is less imposing. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Most of those things that they mentioned were in their heads. Marriage only helped because they thought it would (placebo effect). \*\* And your problems with marriage is entirely in your head. > [@](#): > > \*\* > My problem is that marriage is expected of almost everyone. \*\* Which has nothing to do with any laws regarding marriage. > [@](#): > > \*\* > It is rather difficult to find women that do not have their heart set on getting married some day. This troubles me. I would hate to limit the pool of potential prospects for such a reason, so I probably won’t, but this means that it is very likely I will get stuck under a contract I am uncomfortable with. \*\* Most of the good choices eventually want to settle down and perhaps start a family. And if you’re uncomfortable entering into marriage you can always get a prenuptual agreement. > [@](#): > > \*\* > There should be no penalty for breaking the contract because there should be no contract to begin with. \*\* So don’t enter into the contract. Wow, that was simple. > [@](#): > > \*\* > You cannot promise your love to anyone and agreeing to stay with someone you hate seems like slavery to me. Last I checked people could not sign themselves into slavery even if they wanted to. \*\* I promised my love to my fiancee when I asked her to marry me. I reaffirmed this promise when I said “I do” when I took my wedding vows. Am I a liar? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Indeed one can get a prenuptial agreement, but many people seem to take offense at the idea. Besides, I am not comfortable making a promise that I cannot keep and that is what I feel marriage is. I cannot promise to love anyone forever. \*\* And you think someone is going to be comfortable planning a long term relationship with someone who doesn’t want one? Because believe me marriage isn’t your problem it is long term commitment. > [@](#): > > \*\* > But as long as marriage is expected of me (by most of the women I date anyway) I will probably have to lie to them to make them happy (the lie being that I promise to love them forever no matter what). I can promise to try. I cannot promise to succeed. \*\* Don’t date women who expect marriage. It will only lead to their unhappiness should a relationship develop and that is very unfair towards them. > [@](#): > > \*\* > I suppose it is, but I do not want to make a promise that I may not be able to keep. I would not be any more comfortable with marriage if the woman was a billionaire. It is not my money that I am worried about. \*\* You’re problem isn’t marriage it is long term commitment to a relationship. It’s gotta be because all of your grievances against marriage just don’t make sense. Marc ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967/32 "2001-05-14T12:43:22Z")
Assuming I continue to be ineligible for a legal marriage or civil partnership, when I get married it will be more in the measure of, “Everyone - I love so-and-so and he loves me. We’re going to start calling each other husbands now. Let’s have a ritual and a party to celebrate our relationship and to establish ourselves in society as a social unit.” Possible objections. 1. _Why have a party to celebrate beginning to call him my husband?_ Why not? Society loves a party. It’s no more insubstantial than the German _brudermachung_, where two male friends go out and get drunk together to formally celebrate when they agree to stop calling each other _Sie_ and start using _du_ instead. 2. _If you’re not going to vow to stay with him for the rest of your life and to remain sexually faithful, why are you getting married?_ First, the limits we agree with each other to place on our sexual lives are our business. Second, for me the point would not be to make lots of lovely vows with little connection to reality, but rather to _formally_ establish ourselves as a social unit. You may now send party invitations and Solstice cards to us together; don’t be surprised if he shows up when I’m around; if you invite him to the opera you’ll probably be stuck with me; etcetera, until further notice. It’s such a pain in the arse to remember who’s going out with whom that we need another level in order to say “You weren’t expected to remember Tom and Jeremy and Kenneth and Giulio and Hans, but here’s Jimbo, and you are expected to remember him.” The couple is a useful social unit, and marriage is a good way of formally establishing it in the minds of one’s friends and family. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2001, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967/33 "2001-05-14T12:51:52Z")
A final reason: it’s a good way to get that final holdout aunt to stop calling him your “friend.” ---
**Author:** ![Procacious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Procacious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procacious)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2001, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967/34 "2001-05-15T02:46:39Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Procacious > > ## quote: > > What I meant by “less imposing” is that, since you apply for each privilege one at a time, the government only intrudes on one part of your life at a time. > > * * * > > How does slower equal less imposing? I’d really like to know. Either way if you file some sort of contract the government ends up knowing about it. Let us say that a marriage contract causes a couple to be affected by exactly 100 laws. If you file the papers to allow yourself to be affected by 25 of those laws instead of getting married, it will be “less imposing” because you are only affected by the 25 laws you want to be affected by and not the other 75. It is true that if you filed paperwork to be affected by all 100 laws then it would not be “less imposing” but merely slower. However, if you wanted to be affected by absolutely every single thing the marriage contract involves, then there would be no reason to not get married. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > The government is only involved in those things you applied for, and not in those things you did not apply for (e.g. the government may be involved in how the stuff is distributed when someone dies, but not in how it is distributed if the couple separates). > > * * * > > If you broke the contract then the government would be involved in how goods are distributed. Your partner might even have the legal right to sue you for breach of contract. So much for less imposing. True, but the reason for filling out separate contracts for each and every thing is to avoid making a promise you cannot keep. Part of the reason so many people violate their marriage contracts is that the contract has too many parts. If you only apply for those benefits that you want, there is no need to break any of the contracts. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > It would certainly involve more paperwork to avoid marriage, but that one simple marriage contract involves many more laws than all of those pieces of paper that you would have to apply for separately. Marriage involves too many laws in my opinion. There are fewer forms to fill out, but more laws involved. > > * * * > > Which is why it is less imposing. Avoiding marriage is more work, but less imposing because less of your private life is affected by laws. Filling out extra papers is nothing more than a minor problem. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > Most of those things that they mentioned were in their heads. Marriage only helped because they thought it would (placebo effect). > > * * * > > And your problems with marriage is entirely in your head. Of course it is. My dog wouldn’t mind getting married because she would never even consider the implications. Most of our problems are in our heads. What is difficult about my problem is that it is socially unacceptable. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > My problem is that marriage is expected of almost everyone. > > * * * > > Which has nothing to do with any laws regarding marriage. True, but if it were not expected of me by the women I date it wouldn’t matter how many laws marriage involved because I could easily avoid it. > [@](#): > > So don’t enter into the contract. Wow, that was simple. If only she thought that way. > [@](#): > > I promised my love to my fiancee when I asked her to marry me. I reaffirmed this promise when I said “I do” when I took my wedding vows. Am I a liar? Assuming you are still in love with her, you are not a liar. However, if at any point you stop loving her, you are a liar. The trouble is, you do not have control over whether or not you love her. You made a promise you are not allowed to make. Like if I promised your love to your fiancee for you. It is not a promise that I am allowed to make because I do not have control over your love either. > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > Indeed one can get a prenuptial agreement, but many people seem to take offense at the idea. Besides, I am not comfortable making a promise that I cannot keep and that is what I feel marriage is. I cannot promise to love anyone forever. > > * * * > > And you think someone is going to be comfortable planning a long term relationship with someone who doesn’t want one? Because believe me marriage isn’t your problem it is long term commitment. Perhaps, but I do not believe so. I never try and promise anything that I am not absolutely sure that I can do. For example, since I do not talk in my sleep, I am comfortable promising to keep a secret since I believe that I can keep it forever. However, I would never promise to be somewhere on time, because I may get stuck in traffic or arrested, or whatever. I can promise to try, but I cannot promise to succeed. > [@](#): > > Don’t date women who expect marriage. It will only lead to their unhappiness should a relationship develop and that is very unfair towards them. Trouble is, asking whether they want to get married someday before the first date has even begun can create new problems that would not have arisen if I had not asked. I may very well end up scaring off someone that does not want to get married by simply asking. > [@](#): > > You’re problem isn’t marriage it is long term commitment to a relationship. It’s gotta be because all of your grievances against marriage just don’t make sense. I realize that long term commitment is a common fear of men, but I honestly do not believe that that is what troubles me. Simply but, I don’t like large governments and want to be affected by as few laws as possible and I also do not like to make promises that I am not sure I can keep. These two things summarize my problems with marriage. > [@](#): > > Second, for me the point would not be to make lots of lovely vows with little connection to reality, but rather to formally establish ourselves as a social unit. You may now send party invitations and Solstice cards to us together; don’t be surprised if he shows up when I’m around; if you invite him to the opera you’ll probably be stuck with me; etcetera, until further notice. > > It’s such a pain in the arse to remember who’s going out with whom that we need another level in order to say “You weren’t expected to remember Tom and Jeremy and Kenneth and Giulio and Hans, but here’s Jimbo, and you are expected to remember him.” The couple is a useful social unit, and marriage is a good way of formally establishing it in the minds of one’s friends and family. After two people have been dating for a couple of years, I usually permanently connect them in my head until one of them tells me to do otherwise. Marriage is like any other long term relationship (except for the laws and promises). ---
**Author:** ![Procacious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Procacious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procacious)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2001, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967/35 "2001-05-15T02:57:29Z")
On the subject of overly powerful governments comes the idea of common law marriage. This is just wrong. After living together for 7 years or so the shackles of law intrude on your life without your ever signing the marriage contract. In this case anyway, marriage has nothing to do with willful commitment but just simple government intrusion into the people’s lives. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2001, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967/36 "2001-05-15T03:42:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Let us say that a marriage contract causes a couple to be affected by exactly 100 laws. If you file the papers to allow yourself to be affected by 25 of those laws instead of getting married, it will be “less imposing” because you are only affected by the 25 laws you want to be affected by and not the other 75. But the vast majority of couples **do** want all 100 of those contractual agreements. SO it makes sense that a legal shortcut should exisist. Furthermore, the instition of marrige is so well established that judges can extrapolate and apply it to new situations that no one saw coming in advance. More specific contracts can’t do this. > [@](#): > > If only she thought that way. I think you have set your standards way, way too low. If this is something you feel that strongly about, hold out until you meet someone who agrees with you. There are women who do. I had to hold out for a long time before i met a man that matched my own little set of idiosyncracies, we all did. > [@](#): > > Simply but, I don’t like large governments and want to be affected by as few laws as possible and I also do not like to make promises that I am not sure I can keep. These two things summarize my problems with marriage. Simply put, had you said this at the beginning no one would have argued with you. What you are saying here is that marrige isn’t right for you. Great. But the attack on other people–the only reason we don’t think like you is because we aren’t analytical enough–is rude nad unsupported by the evidence. Note on Common law marriges: it is not enough to live together for any lengh of time. You have to “act married”–share abank account, call each other husband and wife, the woman adopt the man’s last name nad the man not ocntest it, things like that. It serves the valid purpose of protecting the surviving spouse in the case of death. (i.e, you odn’t want your SO’s mother who hates you having hte rihgt to come in and cart away all of “his” stuff that the two of you bought together) ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2001, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967/37 "2001-05-15T04:33:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Procacious \* > \*\*On the subject of overly powerful governments comes the idea of common law marriage. This is just wrong. After living together for 7 years or so the shackles of law intrude on your life without your ever signing the marriage contract. In this case anyway, marriage has nothing to do with willful commitment but just simple government intrusion into the people’s lives. \*\* In your own words: This is just wrong. First off, common law marriage only exists in a minority of U.S. jurisdictions: D.C., Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, and Texas (although a common law marriage that occurs in one of those places will be recognized in other states). Second, that seven year thing is a product of your own paranoid misanthropy, because it has no basis whatsoever in law. Common law marriage has three components, which may vary slightly in formulation in the various states. [ul][li] An exchange of words spoken with the specific purpose of creating a marital relationship.[/li][li] Cohabitation[/li][li] Holding forth to others as being married[/ul][/li] Without all three of those requirements, there is no common law marriage. Period. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obsession-with-marriage-for-the-non-religious/64967.md?page=1)