What is the point of marriage?

Post Reply New Topic

People in general don't stick by their word. Divorce rates don't show there's a problem with marriage, it shows there is a problem with people. Divorce rates used to be much lower because there was a (good) social stigma attached to people who did not keep their word. It's evidently considered normal to say one thing but do another as soon as what you said is making you even the slightest bit uncomfortable. Because making oneself comfortable is a far greater thing than is sticking by your word, and more importantly, a person who's earned it.

Yeah, I understand that this approach is taken by many, and is meaningful and important to many. Personally, I see it as a similar logic to "because that's the way we've always done it" or "because I was brought up to believe that..." or other similar rationales. Because I gave my word seems the least meaningful reason for staying with someone, to me. I think it would mean more that someone stayed with me despite never having given me their word that they would. Despite the fact that they were free to leave at any point. Then I can be more confident that they are staying because they believe it is the right thing to do, and because they want to.

My girlfriend wants to us to get married because it would sound like we're more serious than telling people we're boyfriend & girlfriend. I'm not against the idea but we're both disabled & marriage would screw up her benefits rite now.

Have you considered getting engaged and just stopping there? Fiancé does have a certain ring to it.

I think it's very sad when we've reached the point in this world where keeping one's word is thrown on the pile of other useless traditions. I also tend toward tradition anyway. Not in all cases, but certainly a lot of places in my value system, though that may be inconsistent at times as I attempt to adapt traditional idealism with the reality of our sad world. But rejecting tradition just for the sake of what's new is as bad as blindly accepting it because it's always been there. There's no virtue in rebelling against tradition for the sake of it.

Are you basically saying that you feel commitment is a thing of the past? Without one's word, there is no commitment. This is why we have contracts for just about everything. People can't be trusted.

One is only as valuable as your word. If one cannot be held to their word, it's one of the most despicable traits one can have. What good are we if we cannot be trusted to follow through on what we say? We then just become creatures enslaved to the tides of mood. One day this, another that. And it's all ok. Because I never committed to anything anyway.

And that's fine if that's your personal life philosophy. But to act like any relationship is as dedicated as a marriage, where one gives an actual real commitment is hard to be supported by any logic that I can muster. Do people still back out? Sure they do. People are as flaky now as they've ever been.

But in a non-married relationship, it gives people the idea it's ok to leave a partner of many years for the most trivial of reasons. Just because is really the only reason necessary. The only way a relationship lasts for years is through dealing properly with adversity. When you haven't committed to someone, it's likely more probable that adversity will lead you out the door because all you have to do is open it and walk out. Your friends and family will barely care because they were only your ----friend. You will face no questioning as to whether or not you're actually acting immaturely and irrationally. Marriage causes you to make really sure you want to leave if things aren't going all sunshine and whistles. It gives you pause to have to really evaluate where you are with things and not have a knee jerk reaction. I'm sure you'd find plenty of married couples who've been on the brink, and their commitment is what kept them from ending things. And they are glad they didn't because the problems pale in comparison to the benefits of a trustworthy, loyal lifelong companion.

To me, marriage is a sign of commitment and love to the woman I love and cherish. It's also a way to show that I am emotionally and financial stable enough to start a family. As I see it, it's no longer you and I but us. That is why I insisted on joint banking and insurance accounts as we are becoming a family unit. To her, it's important due to her religious beliefs. Being non-religious myself, we had to meet with a member of the clergy for them to approve (bless) the wedding. He looked to us and said "Some of these situations are tricky. This is NOT one of them. Congratulations!"

I do know a large number of my coworkers who did get divorced and not one of them said anything other than "marry that girl!" once they met my then girlfriend.

I think, as in all things, there is a balance to be struck.

I would not want someone to stay with me simply because they had promised to. On the other hand, I consider the promise to be one of not simply walking off at the first sign of trouble, and a commitment from both parties to always try, in good faith, to treat each other well and to work at the relationship.

To commit or promise or give one's word, in any matter, suggests a seriousness about the matter. It is - it should be - a risk, as it reflects on one's trustworthiness and character. but for me, it's not so much the promise kept as the effort one goes to to keep it.

You more or less articulated my view better than I did. I don't think people should stay married regardless of anything that happens but I think there should be a commitment to make ending the relationship the last resort when all else fails. Proclaiming it publicly and legally (as well as spiritually if you are so inclined) does give individuals pause when having to consider a split. From someone with rapidly changing emotions and typically volatile solutions to these feelings, taking a step back to avoid irrational, irreversible choices is quite important. I think, even more balanced people require this when emotions get involved. Especially in a world where replacing things is almost always the choice over fixing them.

She can only give away what she owns if he doesn't own a share I suggest he gets some plans in place :S

I believe that, in it's truest form, marriage is a promise, a vow, a bond, that all too often these days becomes shattered or tossed away.

An easy way to leave something to an unmarried partner is to designate them as the primary beneficiary of a bank account or investment. And, if your partner had a hostile separation in the past, you should make sure that the horrible EX isn't named as a beneficiary just because someone forgot to change the documents.

I think I'd rather say that than saying girlfriend. I'll try suggesting that next time she brings it up but she may worry that people will want to know when we're getting married.

I wasn't saying anything about not keeping one's word. I think that "I will stay with you for the rest of my life even if that causes more harm than good" is a terrible word to give. The type of word I would give my partner is "I will stay with you for as long as it is the right thing to do", and I would commit to that. I would not commit to my partner for life, because I believe that is naive and potentially harmful (and for many, turns out to be a lie).


A contract is created when both parties agree that what is stated in the contract should happen. A contract that binds two people together NO MATTER WHAT is not that kind of contract I would sign. No, I don't think commitment is a thing of the past. I'm happy to commit to being faithful and a bunch of other things while in a relationship with someone.


Perhaps it gives some people that idea. I wouldn't be in a relationship with the sort of person who thought it was okay to leave their partner for a trivial reason. I also wouldn't feel comfortable staying with someone who might only be with me for a trivial reason such as "because I said I would" rather than something that actually means something like "because I still love you" or "because I want to".

It seems to me that one who needs a contract to tell them what to do, i.e. not leave on a whim, hasn't fully developed their own principles, ideas and morals regarding how to treat others, what is ethical, what causes least harm, etc. Personally I can figure it out on my own without a contract to tell me, and I would want to be with someone who is the same.



Having said all that, you can still give any word you want without a marriage. You can give someone your word that you will do all the things in the marriage vows, without actually getting married. So still, it doesn't seem relevant.

I think "I will stay as long as it feels good" misses the aspect of "I will do my best to make it work", which is addressed by wedding vows. For me, "I will stay as long as it feels good" is not a safe commitment I can depend on, so in the presence of only that, I'd rather get out than make my best to make it work in order to not to get terribly hurt by a one-sided breakup.

And I wouldn't say "I will stay as long as it feels good" either. I'm not sure how you got that impression, unless you are giving an additional argument that has nothing to do with what I said? "I will stay with you for as long as it is the right thing to do", which is the wording I used, can (and would) easily include doing my best to make it work.

Actually I'm wondering at this point if marriage is necessarily a vow to commit for life? I believe it often/usually is, e.g. many traditional Christian vows, but perhaps I'm mistaken that life commitment is necessary.

Either way, I still maintain that you can commit to someone for life, or for however long you want, without needing to get married. If it's about one's "word", that's all you need.

To answer the question: tax breaks. That's it.