Just because someone says they are going to be monogamous doesn’t mean they will have the strength to carry it through. I can’t make a person I know who is married and cheating stop through sheer force of will. Yes, I think that a monogamous commitment is certainly a elemental part of the definition of the term marriage. But that doesn’t give me the power to remove the label from someone whom I know is cheating. I know, this makes my defnintion immoral in your view. Well, then we just have to go back one post to have that discussion.
Sorry, but can you tell me what HYSBYW means? Best I can come up with is, “Have you seen Bush Yelling Waterlilies?” And I know that’s not what you meant.
And I don’t think I presumed anything in my question. The title of the thread is “What is marriage?” What’s presupposed in that?
This reminds me of something an aunt said to me one, “I don’t have any choice about loving you, kid. You’re family. But I sure as hell get to choose if I like you.” Without in anyway trying to characterize how or what you feel for your wife, I would simply like to point out that on some level you must have chosen to accept the feelings that you have for her. They may have been undeniable, but you certainly aren’t resisting them, are you?
There are many examples of situations where people might have been better served by limiting their capacity for love. Take for example the starstruck teenage lovers, who blindly allow their emotions to rule their decisions and end up in unfortuneate circumstances. Or how about the person who, out of a misplaced sense of love for an abusive parent never seeks a way out?
Does it seem fair to tax two married people earning $35,000 each at a lower tax bracket, which also qualifies them for other tax breaks; while a single income couple where one of the pair earns $70,000 are taxed at a higher tax rate? This is how it works in Canada, anyway. Taxes aren’t fair. And they really have little to do with the motivations for marrying. Your fellow posters are getting you off track.
Getting back to your original query… I think what you were asking was, is monogamy a good thing? I think it is. Really only a minority of marrieds and singles don’t. Marriage is simple, natural and beautiful… when it works.
The divorce rate has remained high for some time now. There is less social pressure to stay together even when children are involved and I think there is less stigma about cheating. Do you know how often I’ve heard it dismissed by the comment, ‘the marriage was doomed anyway’? What utter nonsense, especially to someone who knows how miserable divorce can be – the grief, the cost, the stress… If you know anyone who says they’re considering divorce because they’re bored of their spouse or maybe because they’ve cheated tell them to think twice.
Here’s another problem. Domestic abuse. When monogamy goes bad, it allows for all sorts of intense and pathological headgames as one or both partners take out their unresolved emotional issues on one another. The stats say that it occurs in 1 in 18 homes.
The principle of marriage or committed relationships as you set it out is good, right and noble in my opinion. Since the 60s, the idealistic marriage you describe has taken a beating. Maybe that is the source of the cynicism that you sense in your fellow posters. Well, despite being in the midst of a protracted, messy divorce, I still believe in the notion a committed monogamous relationship between TWO consenting adults. I refuse to be jaded, because I may yet meet that special someone who, unlike my former spouse, shares the same ideals about relationships as I do.
If you are married or thinking about it, it will work if she shares your vision of marriage. And as long as both of you are willing to work at it.
Someone who knowingly and wilfully breaks their vows to their spouse is not “choos[ing] to dedicate themselves” at all, in my view; the words I would use for such a person are “oathbreaker” or “forsworn”, which rank very high in my terminology of contempt.
It is entirely possible to either keep one’s vows or not make vows which one knows that one cannot keep; either of those is an honorable course. As I have said before, one’s genitalia don’t go walking off on their own; it is always choice to betray.
I would consider your definition of marriage unreasonable because it is evaluating people on whether or not they make the vows that you want them to rather than the vows which are best for their relationship, and because it seems to consider the treacherous more worthy of respect than the faithful solely on the basis that they told the approved lies.
The entire discussion has devolved into a run around about what to call people living together for the purpose of forming a family. One side says that if there is one man and one woman then it can be titled “marriage.” Any other combination MUST be called something else. The other side says that any combination should be called marriage.
Lets slow down a bit and get out of the ivory tower of how things SHOULD be. The problems you guys are so lightly passing on in order to argue about semantics are very real and very urgent. There are millions of “non-traditional” families in existance today in the US. They have all the same problems and needs as male/female couples. But they have no way to address these problems.
If a world war broke out I think you guys would call a conference to decide what to call it.
The issue is that all families need the same services and protections. These are not provided to encourage matromony or to punish the sinful. These are provided because, as taxpayers and full fledged citizens, every one of us is entitled to equal protections. It is the job of government to provide a legal framework in which we all can function. That framework is currently broken and will HAVE to be fixed.
So call if fleebage instead of marriage if you want but provide its protections for any group of adults who have come together as a family.
I agree with all you wrote. That covers the practical, econonic side of domestic arrangements very well.
I’m also concerned with the nebulous, I don’t want to say moral…, side of adult relationships. Values, would be a better way of putting it. I’ve got a bunch of kids who may someday enter committed relationships; in my view the nature of commitment between two romantically involved individuals has been eroded in many ways by our culture. Loosening up some of the old parochial ways was a step forward, but long standing problems like spousal abuse haven’t been properly addressed by society or the law. Attitudes about cheating have softened IMO. And divorce rates and breakups among common-law couples are high. This often leaves one partner (often the woman) and sometimes children with a lowered standard of living. Many people are married more than once or involved in serial long term relationships. Is transitory commitment a better thing for individuals, couples, children or society than monogamy?
Sure. And John and Jane met that criteria. But you would have them no longer married if they intend on mutually agreeing to modify their monogamous commitment. At this point, it doesn’t matter if they sleep around - you’ll still call them married and provide all the legal benefits. You measure their married-ness based on their intentions to keep their (monogamous) vows, not their behavior.
But how does my definition remove protections from anyone? It doesn’t harm or even affect any of the “marriages” you would include in your definition. My definition is much more inclusive, and for that matter, much closer to legal recognition of marriage (which has been pointed out numerous times, does not incorporate any criteria of monogamy).
I fully support the propriety of keeping ones commitments, but what makes monogamy worthy of societal rewards? What makes plural marriage unworthy?
How do you see it differently? And you are right, we will not likely see eye to eye. But I have as much right, if not more right, to use the term marriage, since it is entirely consistent with both the dictionary definition as well as common use.
“Have you stopped beating your wife?” Your question, “What are the reasons for defining marriage as a sacramental union between a man and a woman specifically?”, presupposes that marriage is defined as a sacramental union between a man and a woman specifically. That is the issue of the OP!
Certainly not. I could choose not to act on my feelings. I could choose to leave her. But I know if I did, I would feel heartbroken. Because I love her. Not because I choose to love her. When we were dating, I wasn’t looking for a spouse. When I recognized that I was falling in love, I felt scared. I felt vulnerable. I felt “choice” slipping away…
You are, again, confusing feelings with actions. One can choose their actions, but not their feelings.
For example, if a monogamously committed spouse begins having an attraction to someone else, they can choose to no longer make contact with that person, and hopefully prevent their feelings from growing stronger. In order to keep their commitment, I see that as an honorable action. They could also approach their spouse, and discuss, honestly, how they are feeling. Their spouse may feel jealous. Their spouse may choose to lay down edicts or ultimatums. Or they may choose to permit their spouse the freedom to explore what may lead to a loving relationship. And what, exactly, is your problem with allowing people such choice?
Or perhaps the idealistic marriage you reference (“Ozzie and Harriet-style”) was never reflective of reality, but only in fantasy. And the choices now available (and generally acceptable and often exercise) have strengthen the marriages that endure. Back in the day, if John was a wife-beating, cheating louse, Jane would have felt enormous pressure to stay in the marriage. The kids would learn those role models from the parents. Was society better off?
Well, sure, because this thread broke off a more substantive thread to talk about the definition of marriage! It’s hard to blame the thread for the supposition of the OP. FWIW, I concur with the points in your post.
Boy, I was right with you up to your last sentence. Is there something about non-monogamy that implies transitory commitment? Can’t a couple be committed to live their life together, in sickness and in health, to honesty and integrity, without vowing monogamy?
BTW, I’m headed off on vacation til next Monday. I’ll be taking my laptop, and should have high-speed access at my destination, but I hope to spend more time on the beach than on SDMB. I’ll certainly check back when I return.
The offense that I tool was was not that you made a remark about god , but that you made fun of someone for their religious expression.
As I celebrate my 15th anniversary tonight, I can attest that a lack of monogamy does not mean that the relationship is tranitory and without commitment. I stopped being monogamous because my husband asked me to. Our marriage, years later, is as strong as it ever was as we now have a beautiful daughther and her beautiful mother as part of our family as well.
If John and Jane mutually agree to end their monogamous committment to one another then they should have access to a different kind of social and legal recognition. One that embraces and empowers the multiple dimensions that polygamy and polyandry entails. Likewise if a couple chooses to dedicate their lives to one another exclusively, then they should receive the legal/social recognition that such a choice deserves. The two choices are fundamentally different. Regardless of the emotions involved I think that financially, legally, and socially the practices of monogamy and polygamy are different. Why should the definition of marriage be changed to embrace something which is not marriage?
If Jane is sick and tired of John’s sleeping around she should have the legal recourse to say, “This is unacceptable.” When the legal/social definition of marriage makes no distinction between monogamy and polygamy will Jane still have recourse to a divorce? What’s to stop John from arguing that he should be allowed to keep as many spouses as he wants, and if Jane doesn’t like it that’s her problem? And if he does argue such, and the law backs him up (since there is no distinction made between monogamy and polygamy) then what right does Jane have to financial or custodial consideration?
You say in repsonse, “Couples must choose beforehand what kind of partnership they want to enter into.” Fine, I say than that the law must recognize two separate kinds of relationships. And in doing so it must treat monogamy and polygamy as separate types of wedlock. Which is basically all I’ve been saying from the start. And as for your contention that legal recognition of marraige does not incorporate any criteria of monogomy permit me to direct your attention to New York State’s Domestic Relations Law:
I read this to mean that a person can only marry one person at a time. Granted, I do not know the laws of your jurisdiction, but I would imagine that most states have similar statutes.
Look, I don’t think that polygamy should be penalized. If three or four or ten people wish to live communally, fine, let them. And let’s work to make the law of the land reflect the needs of such arrangements. But let’s not rob monogamists of the protections that the current law grants them.
What gives you more right? Are you “more married” than me because you have multiple spouses? Common use? As far as I understand it, there are far more monogamists in America than polygamists. That would seem to me to make monogamous marriage the more commonly understood meaning of the word.
How dare you make such a disgusting, unwarranted accusation? Perhaps you are offended by my definition of marriage, but I have not, nor would I ever stoop to say something so blatantly inflammatory and disrespectful. I had assumed we were capable of having an intelligent, respectful debate. I guess I was wrong.
Wrong. You’re obviously confused here. My original question was “What is Marriage.” That’s it. I later asked the question you quoted in an attempt to get the defenders of marraige as a sacramental union between and man and a woman to defend themselves. Obviously this distinction was lost on you. And for the record, again, I say that marraige is a monogamous commitment between two people, without regard to sex or religion. Perhaps instead of assuming you know what I mean you should actually go to the trouble of asking me.
You know what? The hell with this. Why should I even bother continuing to try and have a discussion with someone so disrespectful? Enjoy your vacation. I hope you don’t get sand in your motherboard.
Is “G-d” really a religious expression? I would think that someone who embraces and acknowledges the presence of God in their life would be unafraid to use the word. Why should someone take offense at that?
I have never said that a polygamous relationship was necessarily transitory and without commitment. I’m happy that you, your husband, your daughter, and her mother are a fully functioning, stable and strong family unit. I simply think that such realtionship is something more than a marraige.
Polyandry is a subtype of polygamy, not some different thing.
You would have a much stronger leg to stand on about “the definition of marriage” and changing it if you were not subscribing to a revisionist definition thereof. (Or, for that matter, if you weren’t attempting to argue that my marriage does not exist.)
My claim of revisionism on this, incidentally, is based on a very basic layman’s awareness of anthropology, not my personal preferences.
Did someone advocate changing the divorce laws? As far as I know, anyone can get a divorce at any time for any reason; are you expecting this to change to “anyone can get a divorce at any time for any reason except in cases of multiple marriage”?
If John wants to be an asshole and expects Jane to stick with him despite his refusal to consider her desires, that’s his loss when Jane leaves him.
(And, of course, it’s not like this exact scenario doesn’t play out here in the real world, not only with people who want multiple relationships but with a huge variety of behaviours, desires, and priorities for living. Marriages end just like this for reasons of religion, for reasons of wanting or not wanting children, for reasons of suddenly learning that they have incompatible living habits.)
Same right as any divorcing spouse.
Personally, I would favor additional marriage contracts requiring countersigning from extant spouses to indicate consent; in the absence of that countersigning I would cheerfully prosecute for marriage fraud (otherwise known as ‘bigamy’).
Of course, if the world were adhering to my desires on this, it would be a lot harder to construct straw men.
Given that nobody has proposed such a thing, this is not especially relevant.
Look up Jewish conventions on writing the name of Hashem.
MARRIAGE, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making, in all, two.
-- Ambrose Bierce, *The Devil's Dictionary*
(There are no listings in The Devil’s Dictionary for “homosexuality,” “sodomy,” or even “the statutory offense” – apparenty in Bierce’s day there were some things even the most daring, iconoclastic humorist could not mention in print.)
I was recently asked to consider a committed relationship where I would be the one having other partners. I refused because I wasn’t ethically and emotionally comfortable with the idea. (Not to mention that with four kids I barely have time for one lover.) The gentleman applied some degree of pressure, but when he saw my determination to resist his offer, he respectfully gave up.
About 10 years into my 22-year marriage, after the birth of our first child, my former husband became abusive. I won’t go into why I stuck it out other than to say that I was motivated by fear, denial, low self-esteem and love. He finally cheated on me and left with the other woman. It was in one way a relief and in another a betrayal. I was aware that he had been cheating once in a while in a casual way and it bothered me, but it didn’t bother me as much as his conducting a serious love affair behind my back when the youngest of our four kids was just two years old. The last thing I feel like doing is welcoming his girlfriend into my life. I also know that if my ex had asked me to have an open marriage (before the kids came along and the abuse started) I would have said no.
All I can say is you must be far more sophistocated than I am. I’m confused about what you are commited to. Do you agree not to dump each other for one of your lovers? I am also puzzled about the whole casual sex thing in your relationship. If you love your husband, why seek meaningless sex on the side? Perhaps this fulfills a fantasy or yours? But then your seeing others wasn’t your idea; you eventually came around to it. Having experienced a variety of headgames first hand, I know how one spouse can use the weaknesses, trust and love of the other to control, dominate and isolate. Similar tactics could be used to pressure a spouse into swinging, or to agree to open marriage… Do you ever wonder if you were subtly coerced to go along with your husband’s agenda?
Jane and John agree to a multi-partnered relationship. Jane as the John’s lawful wife may divorce him (because he leaves his socks in the livingroom or whatever) and she has the right to child and spousal support if applicable and half of every asset that she and John accrued during the union. She is protected.
How about this arrangement: Jane and John are legally married and they invite Jill into to relationship. Due to irreconcilable differences she leaves the arrangement. First of all Jill will have a hard time obtaining spousal support even with a signed domestic agreement. She likely won’t be entitled to any property other than what she came into the arrangement with. Assuming Jane contributed to the domestic upkeep and economics in some way, she would lose out financially in this arrangement upon divorce.
How about the parallel marriage you describe. John seeks the permission of his first lawful wife Jane, before legally marrying Jill. Okay… doesn’t matter which lady wants to leave either way neither will be entitled to half of the family assets accumulated in the marriage. It would be one-third. Fine. Now John gets permission from both wives Jane and Jill to marry Jennifer. If Jennifer later wants a divorce does she get one quarter of the family assets? The leaving spouse makes out slightly better financially with the legal protection of marriage, but it becomes very complicated for John if children are involved. Child support must be based on the mother’s and father’s incomes. Poor John would have to pay Jennifer her portion of the family assets, as well as substantial child support (and possibly spousal support) despite his ongoing financial commitment to his wives and children remaining in the household. All I can say is John had better work hard at keeping his wives happy.
Regarding the notion of adultery: In Canada we have ‘no fault’ divorce. A couple need only remain separated without ‘cohabiting’ for one year to seek a legal end to the marriage on the ground of irreconcilable differences. However, divorce may also be sought on the grounds of adultery and mental or physical cruelty, although it is rarely done these days. (These grounds require evidence and witnesses and more court time and costs.) I may be wrong, but I think American laws are similar. So Wrenchslinger is quite likely correct that monogamy is protected against adultery under the law. Since removing or altering the legal definition of adultery, which would be necessary in order allow for multiple/parallel unions, the rights of those in monogamous marriages may be jeopardized.
No, you don’t get it. Thanks for the laugh. My husband is not subtle. Not even a little bit. His agenda was to be a stay at home dad. He made that clear.
When my husband, who shoots blanks, told me that he wanted me to get pregnant, I asked him what he wanted me to do. He told me to do what it takes. I told him that I don’t do meaningless sex, and I wanted a child conceived in love. I was not ready to go buy some sperm just yet. He agreed that a child conceived through love was preferable and encouraged me to find love. I have twice now. The first was a lovely affair, but he was at heart monogamous and found his special someone. I cheered him on and said goodbye. The second is the mother of my daughter. We are working on our third year living together.
We live as a family, me, my husband, my lover, and our daughter. We share good times and bad, sickness and health, and definitely richer and poorer. KellyM moved in when she lost her job. She quickly found a good job and recently the tables were turned, and she has helped us out financially. The three of us make decisions about our life. We have family goals. We are committed to each other’s happiness.
Everyone acts like sex is the thing, but it is not. Commiting to support one another is. Support emotionally, support financially, support physically if need be.
Just wanted to toss out that more has been mentioned of the “rights” related to marriage, than the “obligations” imposed - both upon the participants and 3d parties. To support each other and any dependents. To be jointly responsible for certain debts and obligations. The need for property division upon dissolution.
I cannot imagine why the government would care about the gender or sexual orientation of participants wishing to enter into such a binding relationship.
However, IMO, the implications of “marriage” upon 3d parties might provide sufficient basis to withhold legal sanction of unions of more than 2 people.
Just quickly off the top of my head, in a polygamous “marriage”, are employers expected/required to provide benefits to all partners? Are the rights of relatives of the 2 partners “diluted” by the entrance of a 3d party? How does “divorce” work?
Given the fact that AFAIK folks interested in legally sanctioned polygamous unions are an infinitesimal minority of US citizens, I see no reason for the government to even address that can of worms.
I totally agree with your last statement. Sexual love fades with age or poor health. Attachment and deep caring keep the relationship going. However I was not wrong assuming that some people (not you in this case) do swing or have open marriages to break up the ‘boredom’ they percieve of having sex with only one partner.
I understand now that your stepping out had to do with your choosing a very unconventional means of having a child.
Pardon my old fashioned upbringing. I’m totally confused about your gender:
Husband shoots blanks but wants you to get pregnant. You have an affair with a man, then you find a woman to have your baby??? You are a bisexual male or female?
Congratulations on finding an arrangment that is satisfactory to all parties involved. I’ve never questioned the love or committment that you and your partners share, and I wish you all the best into the future. And belive me, I have no wish to stick my nose into anybody’s bedroom.
That said I have two questions:
When you accepted KellyM into your partnership, did you have a formal publically declaration of everyone’s committment to one another?
What will happen if someone wishes to leave your family?