Freebase Dali

Thanks, Awwsugar, for unwittingly inspiring me to post this during our conversation regarding marriage ethics.


I want to get a general consensus on what you guys personally believe about the act of marriage and how marriage laws affect such relationships in a modern context. There are several beliefs I hold that conflict with some of the ideas behind legal marriage and the some of the rules that govern them, and especially the traditional beliefs that seem to dominate the outlook on marriage.

The first concept I want to address is:
Commitment.
While many may look at the legal joining of two adults in marriage as a token of commitment, I see it as the implementation of a penalty factor to influence any future weaknesses by either party should they begin to lose a foothold in the relationship. Granted, while the pain and monetary factors involved in terminating a marriage could be persuasive, we can safely look at statistics and reason that it's not quite the most effective method for keeping a marriage together.
While penalties may be effective in some cases, it's ultimately down to a willingness for both parties to WANT to work it out regardless of penalty. With that being the noble intention, legal penalties become a moot point in the decision. It is in this that I believe a legal commitment to be pointless in the decision for two people to commit to each other for life in the context of quality of commitment.

My question to this is; what's wrong with a personal commitment between two individuals and why is it not usually considered as strong as a legal commitment? If legality is taken out of the decision, then the only influential factor in the commitment is the personal decision, which is supposed to be the only factor to begin with.
Why can't a decision to be partnered with another person for the rest of your life be a personally binding contract, and not a legal one? Why does it need to be both?

Which brings me to my next point:
Escaping The Relationship.
Many would reason that if there were no legality involved in a marital union, either partner could simply abandon the relationship and leave the partner and the children to fend for themselves. The reasoning would continue that in order to place regulations on this, the marriage itself would have to be legally regulated. But as we all know, two unmarried people can have a child together and both are still legally responsible for that child. So that just leaves the partners themselves...

Which brings me to my next point:
Who's Responsible For Who?
Historically, women were at a huge disadvantage to men when it came to earning a living. Everyone knows that back in the day wives cooked, cleaned and took care of the kids while the husband worked for the money to support the family. In this setting, it's clear that the man is responsible both legally and morally. But in a modern context, women have come a long way and are mostly just as advantaged as men in the workplace, and in every way as far as common abilities. It is a common thing to see gender roles reversed and women making the living that supports the family. To assume that, in a modern context, the man is still undoubtedly the one who is responsible for both the children and the wife in the event of a divorce is to apply old thinking to a new situation. Yet we still have divorces happening where the woman is entitled to unwarranted support from the ex husband. The child will always be a responsibility of both parties involved, but are we adjusting to the social climate in regards to the male / female relationship in this day and age?
I think not.

In summary, I think that while our societies progress and our opportunities broaden, some of the fundamental traditions that define most of our lives are not keeping up. And although the gap between the progression of them is only one of the main factors in my stance toward marriage, I think it's worth investigating as a society. But ultimately, in regards to marriage, I think that it should be done out of love and commitment independent of this tradition that serves yesterday more than it serves today.

What are your thoughts on this?

__________________

Bane of your existence

I think tradition should only play a part in the ceremony, and not in your desicion to plunge.

I used to think marriage was archaic, blahblah. But really, it's a step towards a stable and some might say better life. The most important thing is, if you're going to have children, obviously they do better off in a houshold of married folks. Married people are less stressed, and usually more financially sound. That said, I don't think it's for everyone. I think some people force themselves in to marriage, and even more just marry the wrong person because they think it's "time." I think it's a personal desicion, and one that should not be taken lightly.

bandteacher1

Marriage is a wonderful thing. But it's not for everybody. It's a very personal descion to marry somebody, to commit to them for all entirenty. But why do people do it? Because it's a far more stable home enviroment, especially if you haqve/plan to have/want children. The two involved in the marrige are more likely to share the responisbily of house and home. One advantage it does give you, is if you're parenter/spouse/other is injured, and the hospital needs consent to perform something or another, because you're their /wife/husband/partner/spouse/other, you can make that call because of your love for them. For tax purposes, it serves to get the IRS off your back. But that shouldn't be even considered when you get married. That's sorta like a house warming gift. I've been married to Christian for 8 years now, and it's been wonderful, it still is, and I think it will be for many year to come.

__________________
Dr. Lea Moudlian
Director of Music
Clear View Regional High School
Home of the Firebird Marching Band
cvrhsmusic@yahoo.com

Sneer

I'm unashamedly idealistic and tradional in my views of marriage. I guess you could say a romanticist. I think marriage is a glorification of the sanctity of that special relationship i think is out there for everybody. It's a symbolisation of the love and commitment you have for one another and a declaration to the world of your unity.

This is where i'm told to shut up, but i find the whole concept of finding that special one and sealing the bond with such a ritual as a comforting light at the end of a dark, twisting and unpredictable tunnel. It's a solidarity and a calm (unless you marry a twat, in which case there's nobody to blame but your impatient self) amongst a life full of the unexpectated.

This, i am sure, will all change when my future wife files for divorce and robs me of the millions ive earnt from my genius, but for now a guy can cling to his ideals.

__________________
Fright Team radio show

mr dave

1 - personal commitment is seen as stronger because it's 'supposed' to encapsulate all aspects of the individuals involved, mind, body and soul or whatever, as opposed to just controlled legal materials.

2 - because people are ****s and will try to screw each other over for personal gain with little to no qualms about it.

as for the escapism point you bring up. even with laws in place take a look at the deadbeat parent stats, it doesn't matter whether or not they're legally responsible for their offspring there are plenty of parents who can't be bothered to pay attention to anything besides themselves and their desire to stay young forever. seems to me more often than not that's the root cause, if the two adults were fine with themselves and growing old they'd also be fine with raising the future.

in terms of the 3rd point. whichever parent is taking care of the child is the one that needs the support regardless of the gender. mind you the support is intended for the proper care of the child, to help with groceries, school supplies, diapers, lunches, text books, new clothes, etc. etc.


actually i think the biggest problem facing marriage in this day is that more and more brides and grooms still see themselves as two separate individuals after becoming married and starting their family as opposed to one of the two halves that create their only real future.

__________________
i am the universe

SATCHMO

I agree with this completely. Surprisingly having been married for 5 years and divorced for less than one hasn't robbed me of the same idealism. Marriage isn't for everybody, and it's not for every couple. I think a couple has to have the dynamic of a great partnership, and each spouse has to be mindful of their own contribution in order for it to work, but I can say that the lessons I learned in life came from my experience of being married, as well as going through a divorce. All idealism aside, You quickly find out that commitment often equates to work and sacrifice for the good of your partner, and the marriage as a whole. I don't mean for that to sound like a bad thing at all. It really is the essence of what love is all about. A lot of boys and girls go into marriage and quickly find out it's definitely an institution meant for adults. I can speak for myself and say that I was far too immature for the experience. I'm very open to being married again in the future.

If you do have the opportunity to to be robbed of all your millions by your soon to be ex-wife give it all away willingly, selflessly, and with as big a smile as you can muster, because the experience will be worth much more than that in the future.

Astronomer

Marriage for me, is generally not about making a commitment to somebody. If I wanted to make a commitment to somebody who I was in a relationship with, I shouldn't need to have to announce it legally for it to be valid. I agree with you on this.

However, when I have decided that I want to commit myself to one person, and have a family with this person and spend the rest of my life with them etcetera, marrying them would make things more agreeable for me because 1) after marriage I would choose to take on the same surname as my husband and consequently the same name as my children and 2) legally, it would make things so much simpler - not just that we would all share the same family name but legally, being husband and wife, we would be able to conveniently share bank accounts, access each other's information and accounts regarding healthcare, finances, whatever you do together.

Marriage may be seen as a redundant procession that is only performed because of tradition but I still think it plays a large role in society, mainly for legal reasons it's a lot less complicated for married couples to do things together - sharing accounts like I said, adopting children, claiming financial benefits, etc.

Also, what you said about child support and stuff - I think the law has adjusted itself to modern societal values. It is true gender roles are often being reversed but it is still often the case that following a divorce the mother will still be the primary caregiver of the children and so this is why in most cases it is she who will receive child support. Otherwise, in most divorces I've seen occur in my life, the parents are granted equal custody and the responsibility, emotionally and financially, is usually divided entirely equally. In the event that the father would become the primary caregiver following divorce, I don't see any law that would prevent the mother from having to pay child support to the father. I think it's pretty equal, and pretty adapted to modern society.

I don't think marriage is a redundant or silly tradition. I still think there are so many reasons why it is still relevant to many of our lives today.

That being said, I think sometimes people marry for the wrong reasons and see marriage as something totally different from what it should be. I believe that couples don't have to be married in order to have children, in fact the traditional family module has pretty much completely been dissolved. But for me, marriage still seems very relevant to relationships and families.

__________________