On Marriage

[Alexiev]

The state of marriage is precarious, these days. Rampant divorce rates, same sex unions, and the meaningless hubub of modern life threaten it.

Are these changes good things or bad things? Women working in high-paying (although not AS high-paying) jobs are doubtless one reason for modern divorce rates, as is the secularization of society. If couples are not as economically dependent on each other (based on a division of labor), they are not as – well - dependent on each other.

Same sex marriage is fair, in many ways, but since I was a single father much of my adult life, it led me to think (like Elrond in the Lord of the Rings movies, “My list of allies is growing thin.” After all, why should married people get paid $7k a year more than single people (especially single parents) for doing the same job (spousal health insurance)?

In addition, people become disillusioned because marriage is not romantic. Of course marriage is not romantic! Uncertainty and adventure are the essence of romance. That's why all romance novels (and movies) end with the wedding or proposal.

When marriage is described in literature, it is often disasterous. Anna and Karenin, Madame and Msr. Bovary, Dorothea and Casaubon. Not a happy marriage among them! “All happy families are happy alike, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,” Tolstoy offered as the first sentence of “Anna Karenina”.

George Eliot (aka Mary Anne Evans) wrote several great novels featuring depctions of marriage. She was also a moralist, a supporter of Spinoza, actually. She not only believed that morality was a personal matter, but considered George Lewes, the essayist with whom she shared her life, to be her “husband” although, since he already had a wife, the marriage was recognized by neither church nor state (and this in Victorian England).

Perhaps, though, marriage is necessary, or at least useful. The propaganda and mythology surrounding it may actually help to rear healthy, well adjusted children, although my own brilliant son suggests otherwise. What do the members here think? Is marriage outdated?

[Dontaskme]

Some people are just born to need their own space and independance all the time. Marriage for these people would be a mistake, it would be suffocating, uncomfortable, cause anxiety and stress to the solitude loving person. These people are quite happy in their own world and don't need others to complete or entertain them, or need approval from them, they are already comfortable in their own skin and need nothing from others.

Other people love to be coupled up with someone else. They perhaps feel lonely isolated on their own, or even feel like they are unwanted and unloveable maybe. Marriage for these people may feel like they have purpose and meaning because they are able to share their life with someone else, giving each other companionship and sexual pleasure, etc etc..which makes them feel like they have an actual use for life.

Other people like to have a permanent intimate partner to love and cherish for life, but choose not to marry or live together, rather they prefer to live separate from each other in their own places, needing their freedom to be themselves, enjoying their own space, independance and privacy, but can enjoy the separate set-up immensely by virtue of reciprocal mutual respect of the consenting arrangement.

I personally don't like the idea of marriage, I tried it once, it was awful, although I loved my husband, I did not like the feeling of being trapped in a marriage with someone else, being with them every single day, did not feel natural for me, I felt like I was taking away his freedom to do as he likes when ever he likes, it just didn't feel right for me. I won't ever get married a second time.



These are just my opinions of course.

[Lacewing]

Uncertainty and adventure are the essence of romance. That's why all romance novels (and movies) end with the wedding or proposal.

Very true!

Is marriage outdated?

I think conventional marriage might be. Respectful and reliable partnerships seem like a good thing: being with someone who has your back... witnessing life together... stronger through shared resources... and someone to play with.

I've often thought about the evolvement and re-visioning of 'committed relationship', in contrast to the expectations of traditional marriage. I felt trapped in my marriage years ago, and I'll probably never do that again. My (now) partner and I get along well most of the time, but when he is dark and grumpy, I wish we were in separate houses. He brings gloom into my space, and I feel I have a right to my happier, safer space. (Would we allow someone to drag garbage into our sanctuary?)

I am hopeful that society will soon evolve to recognize and support all people equally -- whether single, or parents, or coupled. I'd like to see an official and widely recognized classification of 'coupled', rather than, or at least in addition to, 'married'. And I'd like to see people feeling free and inspired to set up the structure of that in whatever way suits them... whether it might include: separate houses, separate ends of the house, some days shared together, some days designated for personal space, etc. -- the primary goal being to support each individual for their own greatest good and life experience.

[Alexiev]

Some people are just born to need their own space and independance all the time. Marriage for these people would be a mistake, it would be suffocating, uncomfortable, cause anxiety and stress to the solitude loving person. These people are quite happy in their own world and don't need others to complete or entertain them, or need approval from them, they are already comfortable in their own skin and need nothing from others.

All true. But parents, if they don't shirk their responsibilities, give up their independence more than married people do. In fact, responsible co-parents commit to living near each other during their children's youth. So they lose independence both to their children and their children's other parent.

[Dontaskme]

Some people are just born to need their own space and independance all the time. Marriage for these people would be a mistake, it would be suffocating, uncomfortable, cause anxiety and stress to the solitude loving person. These people are quite happy in their own world and don't need others to complete or entertain them, or need approval from them, they are already comfortable in their own skin and need nothing from others.

All true. But parents, if they don't shirk their responsibilities, give up their independence more than married people do. In fact, responsible co-parents commit to living near each other during their children's youth. So they lose independence both to their children and their children's other parent.

People automatically lose their personal freedom and independance when they have children, that's for sure, because it's the moral duty of anyone who chooses to bring life into the world to be responsible for them, and it can be for some parents a life long commitment. So we have to think very carefully before choosing to have children whether we want to give up our independance and be responsible for an other human being for the rest of it's life.

It's the risk we take, when choosing to make new life, knowing that the person they have brought into the world, might not like being alive, and may feel no obligation to be thankful for being born, or may feel they have any responsibilty to their parents well being as they age and get older and older, when they too are of an age where they are needing the care from somebody else to help them survive.

All just my opinions of course.

[Alexiev]

People automatically lose their personal freedom and independance when they have children, that's for sure, because it's the moral duty of anyone who chooses to bring life into the world to be responsible for them, and it can be for some parents a life long commitment. So we have to think very carefully before choosing to have children whether we want to give up our independance and be responsible for an other human being for the rest of it's life.

"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose" as Kris Kristofferson might say. We give it up in all our moral and responsible interactions. All our human rights are nothing more than responsibilities on yhe part of others. Of course you are right that parents (whether they "choose" to have children or not) have more responsibilities rhan most others.

[Dontaskme]

"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose" as Kris Kristofferson might say.

I agree, we have nothing left to lose in a life no one asked for in the first place, so what is there to lose, but our life?

And that's why we take responsibilty for our lives and our children's because what other choice do we have, now we are here alive and making other people alive, we don't seem to want our life or their life to come to an end, that's why we choose to have offspring.

We give it up in all our moral and responsible interactions. All our human rights are nothing more than responsibilities on yhe part of others. Of course you are right that parents (whether they "choose" to have children or not) have more responsibilities rhan most others.

We give up our freedom once we have children or choose to be in relationship with anyone.

Freedom is such a meaningless word now because as long as we are alive, we are never free, we are bound to being alive, and there is no escape from it as long as we continue to procreate.

[LuckyR]

Marriage, like everything else, has tradeoffs. In my experience, the high divorce rate is caused by folks who are not willing to take on the tradeoffs involved in the institution, getting married anyway.

In other words, most of the population are either unsuited to marriage or will become suited to it later than when they actually get married.

[karenmancilla]

Marriage, like everything else, has tradeoffs. In my experience, the high divorce rate is caused by folks who are not willing to take on the tradeoffs involved in the institution, getting married anyway.

In other words, most of the population are either unsuited to marriage or will become suited to it later than when they actually get married.

I totally agree with you. Marriage requires both husband and wife to take on the tradeoffs and share everything. In the past, money and prejudice are the main reasons that stop the wife from divorcing. Recently, when the wife can easily get a high-paid job and the people are open-minded, she can easily divorce without hesitating. I think this is the signal of the development of gender equality.

[Philosphicalous]

The state of marriage is precarious, these days. Rampant divorce rates, same sex unions, and the meaningless hubub of modern life threaten it.

Are these changes good things or bad things? Women working in high-paying (although not AS high-paying) jobs are doubtless one reason for modern divorce rates, as is the secularization of society. If couples are not as economically dependent on each other (based on a division of labor), they are not as – well - dependent on each other.

Same sex marriage is fair, in many ways, but since I was a single father much of my adult life, it led me to think (like Elrond in the Lord of the Rings movies, “My list of allies is growing thin.” After all, why should married people get paid $7k a year more than single people (especially single parents) for doing the same job (spousal health insurance)?

In addition, people become disillusioned because marriage is not romantic. Of course marriage is not romantic! Uncertainty and adventure are the essence of romance. That's why all romance novels (and movies) end with the wedding or proposal.

When marriage is described in literature, it is often disasterous. Anna and Karenin, Madame and Msr. Bovary, Dorothea and Casaubon. Not a happy marriage among them! “All happy families are happy alike, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,” Tolstoy offered as the first sentence of “Anna Karenina”.

George Eliot (aka Mary Anne Evans) wrote several great novels featuring depctions of marriage. She was also a moralist, a supporter of Spinoza, actually. She not only believed that morality was a personal matter, but considered George Lewes, the essayist with whom she shared her life, to be her “husband” although, since he already had a wife, the marriage was recognized by neither church nor state (and this in Victorian England).

Perhaps, though, marriage is necessary, or at least useful. The propaganda and mythology surrounding it may actually help to rear healthy, well adjusted children, although my own brilliant son suggests otherwise. What do the members here think? Is marriage outdated?

I’m not sure what your position or point is on marriage. Marriage is a Christian ceremony. A government sanctioned Civil union contract isn’t a marriage. I’m legally divorced but still spiritually yoked. My wife walks around thinking she is legally divorced. I never signed the legal paper work I was sent. It went in the bin. That was nine years ago. Not was has anything been sent to me saying We await your signature. She legally robbed me of half of my assets and tried to legally remove my son from me.

[LuckyR]

The state of marriage is precarious, these days. Rampant divorce rates, same sex unions, and the meaningless hubub of modern life threaten it.

Are these changes good things or bad things? Women working in high-paying (although not AS high-paying) jobs are doubtless one reason for modern divorce rates, as is the secularization of society. If couples are not as economically dependent on each other (based on a division of labor), they are not as – well - dependent on each other.

Same sex marriage is fair, in many ways, but since I was a single father much of my adult life, it led me to think (like Elrond in the Lord of the Rings movies, “My list of allies is growing thin.” After all, why should married people get paid $7k a year more than single people (especially single parents) for doing the same job (spousal health insurance)?

In addition, people become disillusioned because marriage is not romantic. Of course marriage is not romantic! Uncertainty and adventure are the essence of romance. That's why all romance novels (and movies) end with the wedding or proposal.

When marriage is described in literature, it is often disasterous. Anna and Karenin, Madame and Msr. Bovary, Dorothea and Casaubon. Not a happy marriage among them! “All happy families are happy alike, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,” Tolstoy offered as the first sentence of “Anna Karenina”.

George Eliot (aka Mary Anne Evans) wrote several great novels featuring depctions of marriage. She was also a moralist, a supporter of Spinoza, actually. She not only believed that morality was a personal matter, but considered George Lewes, the essayist with whom she shared her life, to be her “husband” although, since he already had a wife, the marriage was recognized by neither church nor state (and this in Victorian England).

Perhaps, though, marriage is necessary, or at least useful. The propaganda and mythology surrounding it may actually help to rear healthy, well adjusted children, although my own brilliant son suggests otherwise. What do the members here think? Is marriage outdated?

I’m not sure what your position or point is on marriage. Marriage is a Christian ceremony. A government sanctioned Civil union contract isn’t a marriage. I’m legally divorced but still spiritually yoked. My wife walks around thinking she is legally divorced. I never signed the legal paper work I was sent. It went in the bin. That was nine years ago. Not was has anything been sent to me saying We await your signature. She legally robbed me of half of my assets and tried to legally remove my son from me.

I'm not sure what your opinion is on the spiritual state of marriage in general as well as your specific case. As far as the legal ramifications, what about what happened suprised you?

[Age]

The state of marriage is precarious, these days. Rampant divorce rates, same sex unions, and the meaningless hubub of modern life threaten it.

WHEN 'you', human beings, STARTED getting 'governmentally registered' as 'married', then that WAS WHEN an INTENDED MEANING of the 'marriage' word BEGAN 'its' continued succession of being MISUNDERSTOOD, and BECOMING LOST.

Are these changes good things or bad things?

Are what 'changes' so-called 'good things' or 'bad things'?

For example, if 'one' classes or labels "itself" as 'gay', then 'they' may well see that 'government approved' so-called 'same sex union' as a so-called 'good thing'. However, 'one' who does NOT like 'same sex union', AT ALL, may well probably see that 'governments approving of it' as NOT a 'good thing' AT ALL, or as a 'bad thing'.

And, this is without even delving into if 'rampant divorce rates' is a so-called 'good' or 'bad' 'thing'. If 'some' are being ABUSED by 'partners', then 'rampant divorce rates' might well NOT be rising QUICK ENOUGH, for 'them'.

So, 'you' WILL HAVE TO BE FAR MORE SPECIFIC, that is; IF 'you' REALLY WANT A SPECIFIC ANSWER/S here.

Women working in high-paying (although not AS high-paying) jobs are doubtless one reason for modern divorce rates, as is the secularization of society. If couples are not as economically dependent on each other (based on a division of labor), they are not as – well - dependent on each other.

Same sex marriage is fair, in many ways, but since I was a single father much of my adult life, it led me to think (like Elrond in the Lord of the Rings movies, “My list of allies is growing thin.” After all, why should married people get paid $7k a year more than single people (especially single parents) for doing the same job (spousal health insurance)?

Is there some countries on planet earth, in the days when this is being written, where it has been made into some sort of law that if 'you' are married, then 'you' will get paid $7,000 a year MORE than if 'you' were single?

If yes, then in what country/ies does 'this' apply?

In addition, people become disillusioned because marriage is not romantic. Of course marriage is not romantic! Uncertainty and adventure are the essence of romance. That's why all romance novels (and movies) end with the wedding or proposal.

Are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE ABOUT 'this' CLAIM of 'yours' here?

When marriage is described in literature, it is often disasterous. Anna and Karenin, Madame and Msr. Bovary, Dorothea and Casaubon. Not a happy marriage among them! “All happy families are happy alike, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,” Tolstoy offered as the first sentence of “Anna Karenina”.

George Eliot (aka Mary Anne Evans) wrote several great novels featuring depctions of marriage. She was also a moralist, a supporter of Spinoza, actually. She not only believed that morality was a personal matter, but considered George Lewes, the essayist with whom she shared her life, to be her “husband” although, since he already had a wife, the marriage was recognized by neither church nor state (and this in Victorian England).

Perhaps, though, marriage is necessary, or at least useful.

For 'what', EXACTLY?

The propaganda and mythology surrounding it may actually help to rear healthy, well adjusted children, although my own brilliant son suggests otherwise. What do the members here think?

Are you at all able to explain how by just signing a bit of paper, and then being recognized by a government, state, or church agency, would HELP in ANY way AT ALL rearing, or raising healthy, well adjusted children?

Is marriage outdated?

The 'marriage' that you have been thinking about, imagining about, and talking about here was NEVER 'in-date'.

That form of 'marriage' was, and STILL IS, in the days when this is being written, just USED TO MANIPULATE, and CONTROL, an UNSUSPECTING group of human beings.

[Philosphicalous]

Great question

The so-called Family Court and the Legal Process surprised me. I'm not bitter towards my wife about any of this although some of the things she said about me in her affidavit were outright lies. Once she called a lawyer as did I, the process was out of both of our hands. If I could share one thing from the heart, if there are any men/women going through a divorce that has somehow involved losing access to their children, please don't waste your time on a lawyer. Hang in there. No one can take your children away from you forever THE FAMILY COURT understands and FULLY supports the value and need for a child to have his daddy. It hurts like hell, don't give up, and no, the world is not better off without you, your children need you, so DON'T YOU DARE. The best advice I can give is don't let yourself go, and Build Something.

[Age]

Some people are just born to need their own space and independance all the time.

If ANY human child was just given 'their own space' and/or 'independence', ALL THE TIME, from birth, THEN 'that human child' would NOT 'last' for very long AT ALL.

Marriage for these people would be a mistake, it would be suffocating, uncomfortable, cause anxiety and stress to the solitude loving person. These people are quite happy in their own world and don't need others to complete or entertain them, or need approval from them, they are already comfortable in their own skin and need nothing from others.

But one could STILL sign a marriage certificate and NOT live WITH the "other one" on the marriage certificate.

Other people love to be coupled up with someone else. They perhaps feel lonely isolated on their own, or even feel like they are unwanted and unloveable maybe. Marriage for these people may feel like they have purpose and meaning because they are able to share their life with someone else, giving each other companionship and sexual pleasure, etc etc..which makes them feel like they have an actual use for life.

Other people like to have a permanent intimate partner to love and cherish for life, but choose not to marry or live together, rather they prefer to live separate from each other in their own places, needing their freedom to be themselves, enjoying their own space, independance and privacy, but can enjoy the separate set-up immensely by virtue of reciprocal mutual respect of the consenting arrangement.

And, some like to SAY that they do NOT like to live or be WITH "others" but spend 'time' talking WITH "others" on the internet and/or forums.

I personally don't like the idea of marriage, I tried it once, it was awful, although I loved my husband, I did not like the feeling of being trapped in a marriage with someone else, being with them every single day, did not feel natural for me, I felt like I was taking away his freedom to do as he likes when ever he likes, it just didn't feel right for me.

WHY would 'you' NOT let "him" do what he WANTED and LIKED to do?

I won't ever get married a second time.

These are just my opinions of course.

Okay.

[Age]

Uncertainty and adventure are the essence of romance. That's why all romance novels (and movies) end with the wedding or proposal.

Very true!

Is 'this' for EVERY one? Or, just for 'you', and SOME "others"?

Is marriage outdated?

I think conventional marriage might be. Respectful and reliable partnerships seem like a good thing: being with someone who has your back... witnessing life together... stronger through shared resources... and someone to play with.

But what happens if 'your' 'thoughts' are False or Wrong and/or 'you' are fighting/arguing with "another", then should "the other/your partner" have 'your back'?

I've often thought about the evolvement and re-visioning of 'committed relationship', in contrast to the expectations of traditional marriage. I felt trapped in my marriage years ago, and I'll probably never do that again. My (now) partner and I get along well most of the time, but when he is dark and grumpy, I wish we were in separate houses. He brings gloom into my space, and I feel I have a right to my happier, safer space.

Do 'you' NOT 'have "his" back'?

(Would we allow someone to drag garbage into our sanctuary?)

I am hopeful that society will soon evolve to recognize and support all people equally -- whether single, or parents, or coupled.

BUT, TO 'you', there is NO 'one way'. So, a society that recognized and supported ALL people EQUALLY would NOT a GOOD NOR a 'one way', well to 'you' anyway.

I'd like to see an official and widely recognized classification of 'coupled', rather than, or at least in addition to, 'married'. And I'd like to see people feeling free and inspired to set up the structure of that in whatever way suits them...

BUT when "he" is being what 'you' call and classify as being 'dark', 'gloomy', and/or 'grumpy', then does "he" have the 'freedom' to be IN whatever way suits 'them'?

whether it might include: separate houses, separate ends of the house, some days shared together, some days designated for personal space, etc. -- the primary goal being to support each individual for their own greatest good and life experience.

So, WHEN "another" is 'being' what 'you' do NOT like, then it is OKAY for 'you' to LEAVE 'them' and go somewhere SEPARATE, BUT when 'you' NEED 'your back' SUPPORTED, then "he/they" should 'be there', FOR 'you', right?