marriage

Post Reply New Topic

in response to the existing threads discussing gay marriage, i thought it might be interesting to talk about the institution of marriage in general.

what is the real purpose of marriage?

why is there really any need for a legal contract to define our relations with a person for whom we apparently feel love and devotion?

are we so moronic we cannot manage our own personal relations without the blessing of the state?

with the increasingly rising numbers of divorcees and unmarried couples over recent decades, is the institution of marriage in any way relevant any more?

is the interest in marriage simply a romantic notion, a fairytale idea planted in the head as a child? since it seems to me that many people i have known who have married were more interested in the idea of a wedding than anything that marriage in itself entails.

Divorce is a disease to marriage, BUT I can understand why a couple would want to divorce. However, too many people today divorce because of stupid reasons. These people marry because of stupid reasons. These people have no respect for marriage. They just waste money only to divorce a year later.

I still hold to the belief that the purpose of marriage is to find a mate, have and raise a child. I'm very traditional when it comes to marriage. That is to say marriage shouldn't be a completely emotional event, it should be something well planned and thought out. With marriage comes great responsibilities and devotion. People have forgotten that. They, like you posted, marry just to marry with no extra thinking.

Definitely no children outside of wedlock.

I approve of the idea o fthis thread.


The purpose of marriage is to establish a long-term relationship between 2 individuals that will allow for long-run cooperation. Often times towards child production, but mutual pleasure can also be chosen.


There isn't. The state does not need to be involved in marriages at all.

Some would think so. I would not.


I don't think that this data really reveals that much. Unmarried couples and divorcees tend more often to be from a lower socioeconomic strata or from very ambitious males than where the more successful marriages tend to arise. What we are seeing is that marriage as a social organization is going to be more indicative of one's presence in certain subgroups of society or people who wish to appeal to those subgroups. Perhaps some of these subgroups will weaken, but their death would probably take quite a bit longer.

Well, to some extent, however, marriage has some very real advantages. The issues are just that the advantages are less than they used to be as sex is more separable from pregnancy. Economic division of labor outside of the household is a good substitute for a lot of household division of labor. And incomes have risen enough where single parenthood is possible even though it may still be difficult. Frankly, I would not mind getting married to express a commitment to a long-run relationship with somebody and I don't care much about the wedding or ceremony that much at all.

well yes i thought it might be interesting


it is, but is it really necessary to have an institution specifically for this purpose? i would suggest that it's not, i know unmarried couples who have raised children and stayed together longer than others who were married.


i am not an expert on the technicalities of marriage, but i had assumed that it did. do marriages not require to be legally recognised, hence the current furore over gay marriage?


well this is also an issue i have been thinking about. some writers have considered marriage as being a means by the state to enforce the current status quo in terms of social strata. not that i necessarily agree with this, but it is an interesting point nonetheless.

Well, to some extent, however, marriage has some very real advantages. The issues are just that the advantages are less than they used to be as sex is more separable from pregnancy. Economic division of labor outside of the household is a good substitute for a lot of household division of labor. And incomes have risen enough where single parenthood is possible even though it may still be difficult. Frankly, I would not mind getting married to express a commitment to a long-run relationship with somebody and I don't care much about the wedding or ceremony that much at all.[/quote]
again, your point here doesn't pertain to the institution of marriage per se, these advantages could also apply to unmarried co-habiting couples. obviously there are some advantages that only apply to the legally married couple such as tax issues etc. but i would also question whether this is in any way fair.

The purpose of the legal contract is to manage the relationships of third parties with the couple. If you are unable to make decisions for yourself (for example you are in a coma after an accident), through marriage you have given your spouse rights to make decisions on your behalf, decisions that tell others what to do. If you die without a will, through marriage you have given your spouse rights to your property that would otherwise go to third parties, like the rest of your family or (if you have none) the state. If a man dumps the woman who raised their kids, perhaps put him through university on her salary, if they were married, she can point to the marriage contract and say "he has obligations towards me", and ask others to help. Marriage is a standard contract offered by social institutions (whether secular or religious) that makes explicit the commitments the partners make to each other, so that if there is a disagreement, third parties who are asked or feel obliged to intervene know what the agreements are. That's easiest if you have a standard package.

Well, no, it technically is not. But marriage provides a contract of commitment that would discourage disinterested individuals from staying. It is not necessary, but it is useful.


Well, right, to be married in the eyes of the state, you need state recognition, however, marriage in and of itself is only a cultural commitment and a contract allowing for the couple to act as a firm, and those 2 things don't presuppose the state.


Well, the support of marriage by the state IS a means of enforcing the status quo through an institution that most people don't disagree with. I don't think the institution is necessarily unnatural and just a creation of the state though, I think it is just representative of a traditional culture to which the state is tied to.

Well, that is the deal, marriage ISN'T different than long-term cohabitation other than a marriage is a formal arrangement for long-term cohabitation. In fact, some people turn this argument around saying that if 2 individuals are planning on being together a long period of time, then why not make this formal with a marriage? So, really, I'd have to say that the real difference that you get at is the formality of this being a long-term arrangement and nothing else as I would have no problem if 2 people who were co-habiting wanted to say that they were married so long as they were serious about staying together for a long time as a married couple would be.

First off, lets separate marriage and law.

1. If you live as a de facto couple for more than 1 year in Australia, you're legally entitled to half of the other person's stuff.

2. If you have a child with someone regardless of your marital state, you must pay maintenance if you split.

So Marriage isn't about the law.

So, is it about religion?

Q. Do Atheists get married?
A. Yes

Q. Do Atheists consider it IMPORTANT to get married?
A. Yes

So, Marriage isn't about religion

Now... what about people...

Q. Do MOST Women generally consider marriage important
A. Yes

Q. Do MOST men generally consider marriage important
A. Very divided....


Marriage seems to be about reaffirming commitment and about the celebration itself.

Marriage has good tax breaks.

instead of talking personal opinions and personal beliefs...let's get to the brass tacks of the matter: the secular pro's and con's of the issue.

why secular pro's and con's? because it was the founding fathers' intent to create a secular government to preserve the freedoms and liberties of all men and women and with such, we get the first amendment.

so:

con's...let's have it. what would befall our society if homosexuals were to be allowed to marry? what would happen that would hurt society either immediately in the short term or in the long term?

What is your definition of a secular government? Here in America our form of secularism is vastly different from that of our European friends.

I hold both traditional and non-traditional views about marriage.

I don't care if two gay people that love each other get married. To be honest, it's truly none of anyone else's business if the couple are consenting adults. Same applies to if someone marries because the other partner has a shedload of money...

However, one of my core values is fulfilling every promise I make to the best of my ability... I literally feel like s**t if I break a promise, even if it's something minor like "I'll come in tomorrow to help you with _____", and by the same token, I also have a tendency to snap at people who explicitly make a promise and then go back on it... Because of this, I see the vows taken at marriage to be very serious. They should not be made lightly to begin with, which seems to unfortunately be very prevalent in today's society. Moreover, something that serious should NEVER be broken by a divorce. It's "till death do us part", not "till the novelty wears out do us part"... I don't care if you married for the money, but divorcing for any reason other than your partner becoming a psychopath and/or endangering your own life is just downright reprehensible...

What about divorcing on grounds of adultery? I wouldn't want to be with an unfaithful partner.

I agree with your "broken promises" argument. I feel, and my personal belief, that if a partner is adulterous that person must either pay reparations or be imprisoned, and forced to divorce the partner. The same for a person who decides to end the marriage because he/she found something/someone better. This might prevent people from leaving their marriages prematurely.

BUUUT it will never be accepted by the "Free" people. After all what about OUR Pursuit of Happiness?

2 words, open marriage. If y'all are into swingin' then adultery isn't.


Well, why should the state step in the middle of a contract between 2 individuals? Let them set up their own prenuptual agreements.

Well, you are free to pursue it, but pursuit does not mean that you will be hogtied and dragged to happiness, in fact, the latter stands assuredly against a pursuit of happiness.

Although many people have different feelings about how people should behave in marriage a good deal of the problems have to be dealt with individually. Infidelity is a problem that occurs frequently and some people can accept that as a temporary lapse, some cannot accept it at all and it destroys the marriage. I have been married for many years and many of the problems have been passed through and overcome in my own situation. It's very individual and very dependent upon the participating people. For someone to make general rules that work for everybody is difficult if not impossible. What other people do in their personal relationships has nothing to do with how I handle my own affairs and the legal regulations are a whole different territory.

An open marriage is still adultery.

Why shouldn't it? Ive see too many cases where I'm thinking to myself "WTF? Why isn't there something that penalizes these things?"

What I do with my wife is none of your God's business as long as we're happy about it. And if we're not, it's up to us to settle it.