|
On May 01 2015 19:18 Chairman Ray wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2015 06:42 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 01 2015 03:49 Chairman Ray wrote:
On a slightly different note, in the US, is there any point for two individuals who both work and have health benefits to get married? The tax penalties are a pain in the butt. Uh, what? There are massive financial benefits to being married compared to being single. Do you know where I can find info on these benefits? So far in my search I've only found tax information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty
Some that I ran into getting married:
-Taxes are easier to file
-Car insurance rates drop significantly, particularly if you're young and then get married
-It's much easier to borrow money
-benefits from a lot of jobs (particularly the military) are significantly better
-by combining resources, a number of other financial issues can be easier to handle (anything where you have to declare "married" or "single", they use that info in your financial dealings)
-Financial aid offices from schools are required to use your combined income (and not either of your parents') if you are married, no matter your age
Those are just off the top of my head. And no, that marriage "penalty" isn't to everyone; it's only to couples that have relatively equal income that, combined, bumps them up a tax bracket.
|
On May 01 2015 19:55 BisuDagger wrote:
I'm engaged. Getting married in napa valley in October with no guests. We spent a not to much amount on us. The only issue with weddings is the average one costs 30k and that's just absurd. I am excited to be married and think it is a good thing. The criteria for marriage should be love, trust, alignment of long term goals, ability to support each other's individual goals, and to be selfless for your spouse not out of obligation or need, but want. (And she supports Bisu, GG)
As far as easy clues she's interested in the life of the marriage and not just the wedding, being willing to marry without 100+ people and 30k in the dumpster is a pretty good tell. That last 'want' you mention, being a steady want by choice born out of love, that's a biggie.
|
On May 01 2015 15:59 helpman169 wrote:
In a super-traditionalist society, marriage is still viable because divorce is basically a non-option (see e.g. India, Lybia, Chile).
However, in Western societies this has become nullified and marriage has become a gamble.
How come that being able to nullify marriage makes it more of a gamble that a live long commitment?
|
On May 02 2015 00:47 sabas123 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2015 15:59 helpman169 wrote:
In a super-traditionalist society, marriage is still viable because divorce is basically a non-option (see e.g. India, Lybia, Chile).
However, in Western societies this has become nullified and marriage has become a gamble. How come that being able to nullify marriage makes it more of a gamble that a live long commitment?
The fact that 50% of marriages are being divorced tells you something about how society deals with marriage in general.
As a result, marriage is NOT a lifelong commitment any longer because there is basically no societal pressure to remain married no matter the circumstances.
It is important to stress that the decision of the individuals to remain married or not is in large parts shaped by societal pressure.
If divorce is commonplace, if there is no one judging you, the decision for divorce becomes a lot easier.
To summarize, the definition of marriage has shifted. It is NOT a lifelong commitment anymore because of the lack of societal pressure to remain married.
That means, marriage has become a gamble for EVERY person.
Do not kid yourself and think that you and your spouse are somehow superior to 50% of the population.
The chances of divorce are roughly the same for everyone.
|
On May 02 2015 01:32 helpman169 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2015 00:47 sabas123 wrote:On May 01 2015 15:59 helpman169 wrote:
In a super-traditionalist society, marriage is still viable because divorce is basically a non-option (see e.g. India, Lybia, Chile).
However, in Western societies this has become nullified and marriage has become a gamble. How come that being able to nullify marriage makes it more of a gamble that a live long commitment? The fact that 50% of marriages are being divorced tells you something about how society deals with marriage in general. As a result, marriage is NOT a lifelong commitment any longer because there is basically no societal pressure to remain married no matter the circumstances. It is important to stress that the decision of the individuals to remain married or not is in large parts shaped by societal pressure. If divorce is commonplace, if there is no one judging you, the decision for divorce becomes a lot easier. To summarize, the definition of marriage has shifted. It is NOT a lifelong commitment anymore because of the lack of societal pressure to remain married. That means, marriage has become a gamble for EVERY person. Do not kid yourself and think that you and your spouse are somehow superior to 50% of the population. The chances of divorce are roughly the same for everyone.
First, marriage means different things to different people. You don't get to define it just because of the existence of divorce.
Second, you haven't supplied one piece of logic that sports the idea that marriage is a gamble.
Third, saying that everyone has an equal chance at seeing their marriage end in divorce displays a complete failure to understand what divorce statistics mean (or what statistics in general mean). Certain marriages are MUCH more likely to fail than others.
Fourth, there's still plenty of societal and financial pressure to not divorce; kids with divorced parents have significantly worse outcomes in general, it is a financial and legal nightmare to get divorced, many communities frown upon divorce, and being divorced in general has a significant stigma in many communities.
|
On May 01 2015 02:55 Glowsphere wrote:
Growing up, I knew nothing else but that marriage was a consequence and ultimate consummation of love. To suggest anything else would illicit fear and disgust. I've since learned that in many cultures, and all throughout history, marriage was more an agreement between families than individuals. I have no real life acquaintance with arranged marriage, but I wonder, is it really so inferior to marriage for so called love? Is making a long term commitment based on status, money and child rearing actually more sensible than basing it on intense but short lived emotion?
On May 01 2015 03:57 soul55555 wrote:
I bet a lot of the TL'ers who are married are spring chickens. How long have you guys been married for?
Oh my, this topic hits way too close to home for me. Too close, almost for comfort.
I've been married for a bit more than four years (not arranged, we met in graduate school), but I also come from a very conservative culture where even when I lived in the Western world, I still had the deal with the pressure of possibly having an arranged marriage. From my personal experience, it was a nightmare in every sense of the word (especially being female).
But at the same time, I realise that is not the way others who were subject to arranged marriages have dealt with it.
How smoothly an arranged marriage goes down ultimately comes down to the relationship between the children and the parents (the de facto matchmakers). There are also regional variances to this. If the child is on the same track with the parents as to what they want out of life, etc. then the vast majority of the times things are actually going to be fine. There are people who legitimately don't want to deal with the dating world and the dating culture (especially in today's internet age of all these crazy dating apps that in reality can make more complicated). The parents are actually seen as a filter and in that sense, that actually CAN be a good thing.
Unfortunately (as was the case in my life), my parents (particularly my mother) has a very different idea of what she wanted in a spouse for me (let's just say it wasn't as open-minded as my views) compared to myself. That's when things go south really quickly. End of the day, it's a competition between the "knowing what is best for yourself" mentality and "the parents know better for their child because they have raised the child" mentality. And it becomes more complicated the older one is.
Personally I don't see one as "inferior" to the other, provided that the child had consent and there was mutual consent involved, as is the case with a love marriage. And I've seen poor choices made in marriages of both types.
I have no hard statistics, but I would bet that arranged marriages have lower rates of divorce only because of the cultures and the pressures that come with those cultures. And not because of the marriages or how that marriage came to light.
|
On May 01 2015 10:46 Chairman Ray wrote:
Do we have anybody on TL that is/was in an arranged marriage? Should totally do an AMA or something.
It almost happened to me. I (narrowly) dodged it when I started graduate school.
Ironically, that is where I met my husband.
|
On May 01 2015 19:55 BisuDagger wrote:
I'm engaged. Getting married in napa valley in October with no guests. We spent a not to much amount on us. The only issue with weddings is the average one costs 30k and that's just absurd. I am excited to be married and think it is a good thing. The criteria for marriage should be love, trust, alignment of long term goals, ability to support each other's individual goals, and to be selfless for your spouse not out of obligation or need, but want. (And she supports Bisu, GG)
100%
And congrats! And married in Napa...very nice (being a wine enthusiast, a tad biased).
|
On May 02 2015 02:29 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2015 01:32 helpman169 wrote:On May 02 2015 00:47 sabas123 wrote:On May 01 2015 15:59 helpman169 wrote:
In a super-traditionalist society, marriage is still viable because divorce is basically a non-option (see e.g. India, Lybia, Chile).
However, in Western societies this has become nullified and marriage has become a gamble. How come that being able to nullify marriage makes it more of a gamble that a live long commitment? The fact that 50% of marriages are being divorced tells you something about how society deals with marriage in general. As a result, marriage is NOT a lifelong commitment any longer because there is basically no societal pressure to remain married no matter the circumstances. It is important to stress that the decision of the individuals to remain married or not is in large parts shaped by societal pressure. If divorce is commonplace, if there is no one judging you, the decision for divorce becomes a lot easier. To summarize, the definition of marriage has shifted. It is NOT a lifelong commitment anymore because of the lack of societal pressure to remain married. That means, marriage has become a gamble for EVERY person. Do not kid yourself and think that you and your spouse are somehow superior to 50% of the population. The chances of divorce are roughly the same for everyone. First, marriage means different things to different people. You don't get to define it just because of the existence of divorce. Second, you haven't supplied one piece of logic that sports the idea that marriage is a gamble. Third, saying that everyone has an equal chance at seeing their marriage end in divorce displays a complete failure to understand what divorce statistics mean (or what statistics in general mean). Certain marriages are MUCH more likely to fail than others. Fourth, there's still plenty of societal and financial pressure to not divorce; kids with divorced parents have significantly worse outcomes in general, it is a financial and legal nightmare to get divorced, many communities frown upon divorce, and being divorced in general has a significant stigma in many communities.
Sure, it is up to your personal assessment how much of a gamble getting married really is for your particular circumstances.
Certain factors like education, income, urban/rural and dozens of other factors play a role.
But the point is that there is always a certain amount of uncertainty simply because it is so 'easy' and commonplace to get divorced.
|
On May 01 2015 15:39 Varanice wrote:
From my understanding it seems that rather than the "western" concept of marriage where you're in love, and then you stay together later for necessity and needs, you first get married because of necessity and needs, and then later "fall in love" because of the commitment.
Probably was the case around my parents' time. Now? Not necessarily. Modern arranged marriages (I'm defining this being within the last 10 years or so) from what I understand and know of some examples of people I know, there are some initial introductions/dating between the two (potential) partners, and if things work out, it goes ahead.
Now, obviously I don't know your friends' situation. but generally speaking, the interpretation of this varies by how the parents feel and their beliefs, and some don't allow any sort of dating to happen before marriage. But going through one of these is quite a process.
|
On May 01 2015 19:55 BisuDagger wrote:
I'm engaged. Getting married in napa valley in October with no guests. We spent a not to much amount on us. The only issue with weddings is the average one costs 30k and that's just absurd. I am excited to be married and think it is a good thing. The criteria for marriage should be love, trust, alignment of long term goals, ability to support each other's individual goals, and to be selfless for your spouse not out of obligation or need, but want. (And she supports Bisu, GG)
30k? Holy shit. Congrats and good luck to you though.
|
On May 02 2015 03:38 Glowsphere wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2015 19:55 BisuDagger wrote:
I'm engaged. Getting married in napa valley in October with no guests. We spent a not to much amount on us. The only issue with weddings is the average one costs 30k and that's just absurd. I am excited to be married and think it is a good thing. The criteria for marriage should be love, trust, alignment of long term goals, ability to support each other's individual goals, and to be selfless for your spouse not out of obligation or need, but want. (And she supports Bisu, GG) 30k? Holy shit. Congrats and good luck to you though.
I've had clients spend upwards of 10k on just pictures alone. It's crazy but I'm fine with it hah.
|
On May 02 2015 02:51 Half the Sky wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Oh my, this topic hits way too close to home for me. Too close, almost for comfort.
I've been married for a bit more than four years (not arranged, we met in graduate school), but I also come from a very conservative culture where even when I lived in the Western world, I still had the deal with the pressure of possibly having an arranged marriage. From my personal experience, it was a nightmare in every sense of the word (especially being female).
But at the same time, I realise that is not the way others who were subject to arranged marriages have dealt with it.
How smoothly an arranged marriage goes down ultimately comes down to the relationship between the children and the parents (the de facto matchmakers). There are also regional variances to this. If the child is on the same track with the parents as to what they want out of life, etc. then the vast majority of the times things are actually going to be fine. There are people who legitimately don't want to deal with the dating world and the dating culture (especially in today's internet age of all these crazy dating apps that in reality can make more complicated). The parents are actually seen as a filter and in that sense, that actually CAN be a good thing.
Unfortunately (as was the case in my life), my parents (particularly my mother) has a very different idea of what she wanted in a spouse for me (let's just say it wasn't as open-minded as my views) compared to myself. That's when things go south really quickly. End of the day, it's a competition between the "knowing what is best for yourself" mentality and "the parents know better for their child because they have raised the child" mentality. And it becomes more complicated the older one is.
Personally I don't see one as "inferior" to the other, provided that the child had consent and there was mutual consent involved, as is the case with a love marriage. And I've seen poor choices made in marriages of both types.
I have no hard statistics, but I would bet that arranged marriages have lower rates of divorce only because of the cultures and the pressures that come with those cultures. And not because of the marriages or how that marriage came to light.
Thanks for the insiders view of arranged marriage. I'm glad at least you weren't forced into something that obviously wasn't for you. It makes me think of what the first reply said, that the important thing is people have the option to decline. Personally I kind of wish my family came from a culture that arranged marriages, because I am one of those people that don't want to deal with the dating culture. It seems foolhardy to me, like the blind leading the blind, with people often ending up decades later in a mid life crises and full of regrets. It seems more sensible to me to have two families join together for the purpose of rearing children, rather than have two individuals (with no parenting experience) making a go on their own.
|
On May 02 2015 03:48 Dizmaul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2015 03:38 Glowsphere wrote:On May 01 2015 19:55 BisuDagger wrote:
I'm engaged. Getting married in napa valley in October with no guests. We spent a not to much amount on us. The only issue with weddings is the average one costs 30k and that's just absurd. I am excited to be married and think it is a good thing. The criteria for marriage should be love, trust, alignment of long term goals, ability to support each other's individual goals, and to be selfless for your spouse not out of obligation or need, but want. (And she supports Bisu, GG) 30k? Holy shit. Congrats and good luck to you though. I've had clients spend upwards of 10k on just pictures alone. It's crazy but I'm fine with it hah.
That seems so stupid to me... could buy a car or two, or go travel the world together for the price of some pictures. Crazy.
|
On May 02 2015 03:53 Glowsphere wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2015 03:48 Dizmaul wrote:On May 02 2015 03:38 Glowsphere wrote:On May 01 2015 19:55 BisuDagger wrote:
I'm engaged. Getting married in napa valley in October with no guests. We spent a not to much amount on us. The only issue with weddings is the average one costs 30k and that's just absurd. I am excited to be married and think it is a good thing. The criteria for marriage should be love, trust, alignment of long term goals, ability to support each other's individual goals, and to be selfless for your spouse not out of obligation or need, but want. (And she supports Bisu, GG) 30k? Holy shit. Congrats and good luck to you though. I've had clients spend upwards of 10k on just pictures alone. It's crazy but I'm fine with it hah. That seems so stupid to me... could buy a car or two, or go travel the world together for the price of some pictures. Crazy.
It's not stupid to spend 10k on making the one you love happy. If she wants high quality photos instead of travel, so be it.
Gambling and losing 10k, that's stupid.
|
CA10835 Posts
30k sounds about right. i'm getting married in two weeks with the love of my life and i can't wait!
|
I personally don't see the point of marriage, and I think it's sad that doing it for financial reasons is a thing. Getting married for financial reasons should be possible to do with any other person at the civil level, since we're just talking about tax cuts and whatnot. And if any of those cuts have anything to do with children, then it should be child-based. It has nothing to do with some BS notion of a "spiritual" union.
I don't remember who made a joke about it, it may have been Doug Stanhope who said something to the effect that marriage is an institution that makes no sense. In this bit, he's talking to his imaginary girlfriend "Look I've been thinking for a while, we've got something great going, we've been going out for a while, it has been amazing, so why not get the government involved in our love?".
If you love someone and you intend to be united with them, know that marriage is not what you have with your partner, it's what you and your partner are declaring to the State. And the notion that you are married spiritually to someone (or whatever) is only in your head, and is symbolized by an expensive event. That's not to say it's meaningless, because these bullshit concepts have some weight in our minds, but it's still bullshit.
Yet none of this is as bad as arranged marriages which were done for practical reasons. As much as I hate marriages, I respect people's right to declare their love in a useless way that costs money. However, for obvious reasons, I can't respect the union of two people who may not love each other. At this point using marriages as currency (and by extension, using people as currency) is not acceptable.
So no marriage is not for love. Love is perfectly capable of surviving outside of marriages. In fact, it seems to be better without it. Marriage is for worthless tradition and government purposes like taxes. If you think that your present love cannot be fully expressed without government intervention, then I'm sorry :X. Oh and that leaves religious reasons which I haven't discussed because that shit's up to you.
|
when I was studying in China (university) most girls I knew there were waiting for their parents to find them a match. So it's still widely used in some places and accepted/desired by the concerned because it's not really forced. Seems like parents go through their contact and find matches and then arrange dates for their kids, they meet and then decide if they like each other or not.
They were saying that they would like to find a guy themselves but they are still single closing to 30 they ask their parents to get them someone.
And for guys it was the same, most of them would not even bother trying to have a girlfriend during their studies to be able to concentrate on it, knowing that their parents would find them a girl once they are done with their degrees.
|
On May 02 2015 06:23 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:
when I was studying in China (university) most girls I knew there were waiting for their parents to find them a match. So it's still widely used in some places and accepted/desired by the concerned because it's not really forced. Seems like parents go through their contact and find matches and then arrange dates for their kids, they meet and then decide if they like each other or not.
They were saying that they would like to find ag uy themselves but they are still single closing to 30 they ask their parents to get them someone.
Not surprised at all - a girl at 30 without a husband in China will be really frowned upon by the society. At least from my experience. I dated an older 1st Gen Chinese girl and it just couldn't work.
And I had a couple Pakistani colleagues in the UK, who were whoring around, drinking and partying like crazy, I'm actually surprised their dicks didn't fall off - and then got married to a wife their parents arranged for them and were happy about it?
So the institution of marriage is strong in other cultures, and arranged or for practical reasons marriage plays a necessary role in that I'd assume.
|
Bisutopia19379 Posts
On May 02 2015 04:37 LosingID8 wrote:
30k sounds about right. i'm getting married in two weeks with the love of my life and i can't wait!
Dude congrats! I'm burned out from weddings as I was in four last year! I hope you have a great wedding!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
