The idea for this thread came from a reply on topic " polygamy versus other forms of relationships"
The points of debate are:
What precisely do you understand by “romantic love” and how it effects relationships.
Why is the question of having a marriage contract so disturbing to this idea.
Extending the issue to homosexual or bisexual relationships : What is the role of this concept in these relation/ partnerships.
What is according to you the difference between the concept “love and marriage/LAT relation/Living Together” you have and the concept “love and marriage” in societies with a tradition of arranged and eventually multiple marriages.
Do you have the impression that the concept “romantic love” is better/works out better for long lasting partnerships and if yes, why.
Salaam. A
Some people feel that a pre-nump is “preparing for failure.”
Personally, I feel that a lot of people have misconceptions about love and marriage. Too many people expect the Hollywood Happily Ever After ending. They expect eternal passion and excitement.
They don’t account for the gentle mellowing that comes with a stable marriage. They start to feel that something is “missing” because they don’t feel the same excitment and passion they did when they first came together with their spouse. Sadly, some start looking for that excitement outside of their marriage.
If they find it, they may want to leave their spouse, but again, they’re expecting the impossible-- that partner won’t be able to always excite them in the same way. It becomes a vicious cycle, with people eternally searching for something that really doesn’t exist.
In my opinion, the most important factor in marriage is friendship. “Romantic” love has a tendancy to dissapoint: passion cools, excitement fades, love mellows into something deep and quiet. Too many people “love” their spouse, but don’t really like them. After the sparkle is faded, they look at their spouse and see nothing left to hold them together.
True, lasting, love has a strong friendship factor-- it’s what’s most important.
I can’t agree more. My wife is, first and foremost, my best friend in the world. I’d rather do something with her (even if it’s just sit around) than anything else.
I’ll weigh in on the OP, just because he referenced me, though I don’t see a slot of debate here. The best answer I have to his question is: it depends. Some arranged/contractual marriages will be just as fulfilling to those involved as one founded on a great passion.
My original point was that the debate we were having in the other thread was assuming the same definitions for marriage, and the expectations therein. Today, it is generally accepted in the West that you marry who you love. I know that many cultures (my parents’ among them) believe that you love who you marry. And that’s an important distinction.
As for the prenup, I stand by what I said, though I realize that it’s different for everyone. It seems to me like you’re saying ‘till death do us part’ in one breath, but preparing for divorce in the other. I can’t imagine my wife and I splitting up, but if it happened, a marriage contract would not make things any easier. You can’t just shake hands, say ‘no hard feelings,’ and go on your way.
People who say they do not want a prenupt because it is considering the possibility of failure make no sense to me for several reasons. The idea that your marriage cannot fail is just nor supported by statistical evidence. Or how is your marriage different from the many others which also failed? But, in any event, whether you like it or not you have a prenupt. If you do not draw one up yourself you are accepting the default set up by the laws of your state. They are, in fact, what will rule your divorce should it come to that. So how is it such a bad thing to raw up your own rules rather than accept the ones which the state has set up by default? I don’t get it. Suppose the law says the woman gets the cat and the man gets the dog. What’s wrong with saying we’ll do it the other way around? In either case there is a governing rule. Why is the general rule any better than making your own? i don’t get it.
That’s a good point, but I think that the ‘statistical evidence’ leads people to weird assumptions. The 50% figure that we all hear does not really take into account serial monogamists that get married 3-4 times. I know several of these, and you can pretty much tell that the divorce is coming before you get to the reception. Of course, even if this were not true, 50% for a lifelong commitment is still pretty good.
My marriage is different because it is mine. I can’t speak to any of your marriages. I am sure that there’s a possibility that I am deluded, but that’s my problem, I suppose. My wife and I are reasonable people…our expectations for the marriage include a lot of bad times to go with the good, and a lot of total blah to go with the grand passion we share. We have similar life ambitions and interests. We also courted for 3 1/2 years before getting married, and talked out so many of the issues that people who rush in get blindsided by.
There’s no guarantee that we’ll not get a divorce some day. But the state of my assets will be least of my troubles in that case. And I think that legal precedent in the US is pretty fair in most cases- so maybe I have made a decision to go with the standard prenup. I had not thought of that, but this might be the case.
I hold an unpopular view of marriage, at least on these boards.
A marriage is not the union of two (or more) equal people. It is the union of two complementary people – emotionally, socially, physically, spiritually, etc. The union of two partial individuals that becomes one whole unit.
I believe this is a biblical understanding (which helps to explain its unpopularity). God created the Adama, the human. When a suitable mate for the human could not be found, God took a side (usually translated “rib”) and made one for him. Each individual – now a man and a woman – was the completion for the other. This passage is echoed in the teachings of Jesus and Paul in the NT.
That’s why I have problems with homosexual “marriages”, polygamous “marriages,” or any other type of would-be “marriage” that doesn’t conform to this ideal. Men and women are not interchangeable – not just physically, but in their very nature.
It’s also why I have a problem with pre-nups and divorce in general. Once a man and a woman are united, it’s permanent. “The two shall become one flesh.” I couldn’t divorce my wife anymore than I could divorce one half of my body from the other. Obviously I’m exaggerating, since legally I could divorce her – but it’s just as unimaginable as cutting myself in half.
I could go on, but I’ve probably said enough to provoke a heated response already.
I really don’t want to twist this thread or hijack it onto such a well-worn road, but you’re absolutely right that your blanket statement is going to provoke a heated response. I’m not going to argue the point that men and women are, on very deep levels, rather different beasts in ways social conditioning can’t quite touch. However, differences do not equal complementary differences. Just because a woman has an attitude radically different from a man (note: not women and men. I am speaking in the singular here) does not mean the man must find that difference fills a signficiant void within him. Nor must a woman seek out a man to find the complementarity (word? it is now!) she seeks. Further a man can find that desirable left to his right in another man, ditto with women. I have a new friend rapidly on the way to becoming a very dear one whose girlfriend is all the things she is not, yet in that reversal they find a wonderful common ground I think is beautiful to behold. To state off-handedly that while yes they may have found something wonderful they’re still missing some weird abstract bit which would turn their love into a marriage rightly infuriates me, because out of all my friends at present (college-age) theirs’ is the most worthy, trusting, and caring relationship I have ever seen and the one most worthy of being called a marriage.
And thats all that I’m going to say here. I’m not going to participate in a hijack of this thread beyond my post. I’ll be happy to bander words yet again on the subject if you choose to revive one of the many threads floating around pertaining to it.
You’re right, I’m sorry for the hijacking. I shouldn’t post when I’m on cold medicine.
To address the OP more directly, and to leave my sexual ethics out of it for the moment:
The importance of “romantic love” in a marriage is overrated. I’m not saying it’s not important or good to have, because it is. Most marriages, at least in western culture, start with this kind of romantic attraction and there’s nothing wrong with that.
But you can’t build a lasting marriage on those emotions. It won’t last. To love someone is not an emotion, it’s an act of the will. You have to want to love them, and you have to put some effort into it at least sometimes.
That’s one reason that traditional arranged marriages can work very well. The individuals don’t have any expectations that they will have feelings of romantic, emotional “in-love” feelings (although I’m sure they are happy when they do). They know that this is the person they are going to marry, and so they make the decision to love that person. (as a broad generalization).
So the question of a marriage contract (meaning a pre-nup) is disturbing because I don’t believe that marriages should fall apart because the parties discover one day that they’re not “in love.” That’s not a reason to dissolve the union.
OK, the post is about as incoherent as my other one but at least it’s more on-topic.
There are other reasons for dissolving the union. So if I were wealthy, I would want to insure that what I brought to the marriage was protected. That would be especially true as I get older and my judgment could be more easily swayed.
Or if signing a pre-nup is what it took to put him at ease, that wouldn’t bother me.
No one, including my husband and I, believed that our marriage had much of a chance. But we were too obsessed with each other not to marry. That was almost 18 years ago. So far, so good.
“Better” is an extremely vague term used like that. Do you mean, “More enjoyable for the parties in question”? Do you mean, “Longer-lasting”? Or something else?
In any event, value is subjective. It is better that the beholder select his beauty than any other way, and by “better” I mean “aligns evaluator with evaluated”. There is no guarantee of avoiding irresponsible decisions, acting out of lust rather than love, and so on.
I mean “better” in general in comparison with the other types of marriage. Sorry, I don’t know which other word to use here.
Well I think one of the reasons arranged marriages can work out very well is that this "“selection” and “evaluation” is done by parents or relatives who want the best for the two young people involved and who know them very well.
I find the concept “romantic love” as a necessity to get married rather risky since the saying “love makes blind” shows itself to be true in many cases.
Getting married and start a family is engaging yourself in what is supposed to be one of the most influential factors for the rest of your life. On merely personal level it is in fact the most influential factor of all.
I have an additional question:
What is in your opinion the difference between
A marriage arranged by the family
and
Arranged by an agnecy where the work for finding a partner for you is done for you because you pay for it.
Salaam. A
What I’m unclear on is exactly what you’re comparing… better by what? You mean are arranged marriages better than two people meeting marriages simply because they are arranged? Is that the only comparison?
This is entirely possible, yes. But they can also guide a loved one’s decision by suggesting a mix, or indicating why a certain partner is not well-suited, without going all the way towards arrangement.
Well, as with all human behavior, there are no guarantees. Emotions can be a great benefit by telling us what behavior we’re doing is pleasing or not, or they can blind us through their intensity. Similarly, arrangements might be made on grounds that seem rational, but it requires the agreement of the spouses-to-be to make a marriage work. Romantic involvement or family mandate, marriages only last when the parties care to make it last. If we attempt to enforce marriages beyond this point, we foster ill-will. I believe the rising divorce rates are a testament to the quantity of mistakes made in the past rather than an indication of anything wrong with the present.
In the latter case there is still no question that a marriage proposal (and its acceptance) will only take place if both parties agree to it. There is no compulsion to create a marriage, while in the former case the pressures of family and culture are very strong. It is not so much the arrangement that seems bad to me, but rather the imposition that this arrangement become a permanent partnership.
It would be one thing to tell a friend, “I know this woman you would absolutely adore. I’ll introduce you.” But I think it is quite different to say, “I know this woman you would absolutely adore, so I’ve arranged for a wedding already. Trust me.”
With “better” I meant to ask if people think it is better for the couple and for the marriage itself if they meet unvoluntarely and “fall in love” and start a family.
You have a point when you mention family- and cultural pressure in the case of arranged marriages.
It is a wrong perception though to think that this is always the determinating factor by implying that the couple involved has nothing to say or doesn’t know the spouse to be.
This certainly can and does happen in some societies or cases but I have no personal experience with it.
Salaam. A
