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?
I really don't mind what the basis of marriage is, as long as the people engaging in it had the freedom to decline. Most of the time this is the real problem with arranged marriages. You don't really have a choice.
I'm not sure why marriage is even still a state institution. We have pretty great contractual law that could cover it, and you wouldn't have all this pointless bickering over the sanctity of marriage or whatever.
It shouldn't be up to the state to decide either way.
On May 01 2015 03:29 Millitron wrote: I'm not sure why marriage is even still a state institution. We have pretty great contractual law that could cover it, and you wouldn't have all this pointless bickering over the sanctity of marriage or whatever.
It shouldn't be up to the state to decide either way.
a bit off topic but I agree...
@OP Revisit this when you understand what "so called love" is :D
On May 01 2015 02:55 Glowsphere wrote: 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?
Hahaha! What is this? If it is only intense but short lived emotion, why would you get married at all?!! I would think romance should be stronger if the two people don't really feel they need marriage to feel so strongly loved by each other, but that they shouldn't marry if it's not strong enough, so the only circumstances under which it would be sensible to marry for romance would be if they love each other enough to not need it in the slightest! (so it'd be a pointless "icing on the cake" sort of thing for couples with more money than they need).
Based on that, arranged marriages might be the only marriages that seem to have real sense behind them, but given I prefer people to get together for romance, I'm against that too. :Þ
Question: What did the people who voted for "other" mean and what did the OP intend this to (be able to) mean? What sort of other practical concerns are there? Religious tradition, where the couple may love each other but marry to please their more strongly religious parents? For status in old times (and I guess potentially still now)?
As some one who makes a living as a wedding photographer. I don't really care why people do it as long as they are still spending insane amounts of money on one day hah.
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.
couple salty dudes here from first world counties afraid of women. unfortunately about a third of the women in marriages on the planet can be legally raped by their husbands. typically the more arranged ones.
marriage is kinda dated but throwing a gigantic party to celebrate that you are promissing to spend the rest of your life with someone sounds like a fun idea.
On May 01 2015 03:50 soul55555 wrote: Marriage is overrated it's better to be single. 50% of Marriages fail and your end up stuck paying child support and alimony.
Yeah, it's better to have kids without getting married and then have single parents raising said kids without you having to get your hands dirty, right? I mean, hating on the concept of child support is pretty... childish, as popular as it might be nowadays.
On May 01 2015 03:50 soul55555 wrote: Marriage is overrated it's better to be single. 50% of Marriages fail and your end up stuck paying child support and alimony.
Yeah, it's better to have kids without getting married and then have single parents raising said kids without you having to get your hands dirty, right? I mean, hating on the concept of child support is pretty... childish, as popular as it might be nowadays.
What is so childish about my statement care to explain?
On May 01 2015 03:50 soul55555 wrote: Marriage is overrated it's better to be single. 50% of Marriages fail and your end up stuck paying child support and alimony.
Because seriously, who cares about the future of a kid you conceived yourself right?
I could never imagine myself trusting a female enough to actually want to marry her. Every girl I've met comes off as being insecure, or jealous, or domineering and she inevitably thinks that she should be the center of my world and that she should be first above all else all the time. I could be with one girl and not cheat or take advantage of the situation but I still need to be and feel free to make choices and spend my time the way I want to and in a relationship that freedom is limited beyond my ability to feel unrestricted and comfortable.
It seems ridiculous to me. I don't think I could ever be married and because of this I don't think I could ever want kids, either. I feel like I'd constantly be having to explain myself and justify things to someone with a closed mind and judgmental attitude. That's too much stress for me. I tell myself that I am open to the idea of marriage and that I just haven't found the right woman yet, but the truth is, that if she's out there, she's going to have to be one super cool chick that doesn't take things too seriously and has sex like a porn star (I have found these things, but not all of them together).
I hope I explained that well enough.The dating and marriage paradigm as I see it now looks like a sham. If you are going to marry someone, though, it should be simply because you love each other.
On May 01 2015 05:21 Inertiaddict wrote: I could never imagine myself trusting a female enough to actually want to marry her. Every girl I've met comes off as being insecure, or jealous, or domineering and she inevitably thinks that she should be the center of my world and that she should be first above all else all the time. I could be with one girl and not cheat or take advantage of the situation but I still need to be and feel free to make choices and spend my time the way I want to and in a relationship that freedom is limited beyond my ability to feel unrestricted and comfortable.
It seems ridiculous to me. I don't think I could ever be married and because of this I don't think I could ever want kids, either. I feel like I'd constantly be having to explain myself and justify things to someone with a closed mind and judgmental attitude. That's too much stress for me. I tell myself that I am open to the idea of marriage and that I just haven't found the right woman yet, but the truth is, that if she's out there, she's going to have to be one super cool chick that doesn't take things too seriously and has sex like a porn star (I have found these things, but not all of them together).
I hope I explained that well enough.The dating and marriage paradigm as I see it now looks like a sham. If you are going to marry someone, though, it should be simply because you love each other.
This post just screams "I am 14-19ish years old and have no clue what I am talking about, but because I am a teenager I think I know everything".
Doesn't really matter. People who want longer commitments will find someone who feels the same and people who bounce around will bounce around. The only thing that should stop is cultural pressure for marriage as something defined in a very narrow and specific way and as something you must do or you are weird.
On May 01 2015 03:50 soul55555 wrote: Marriage is overrated it's better to be single. 50% of Marriages fail and your end up stuck paying child support and alimony.
Because seriously, who cares about the future of a kid you conceived yourself right?
um..money that's suppose to go to the kid (if it's even yours), doesnt always go to the kid if you know what i mean.
I'm well beyond my teenage years, and I don't know everything. I've just become a bit cynical and jaded, but I think I'm saving dating and kids for my next life, at this point.
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.
This post just screams "I am 14-19ish years old and have no clue what I am talking about, but because I am a teenager I think I know everything".
Doesn't really matter. People who want longer commitments will find someone who feels the same and people who bounce around will bounce around. The only thing that should stop is cultural pressure for marriage as something defined in a very narrow and specific way and as something you must do or you are weird.
Yea, a lot of threads talking about marriage/relationships end up like this on the internet; hipsters, nerds, or otherwise bitter individuals that want to make sweeping negative statements about relationships/marriage, usually born out of bitterness and immaturity.
Marriage can be done for a lot of reasons. The problem is that most of the western world believes in marriage being done because of love, and people, in general, are really bad at this; if you want to marry truly for love/compatibility, you have to be really picky and make the right choice, or you'll end up bitter/unhappy/divorced. On the other hand, historically (and in many cultures still), marriages were arranged/pseudo-arranged and were more about convenience, political moves, financially motivated, etc. which actually makes it quite a bit easier.
On May 01 2015 05:21 Inertiaddict wrote: I could never imagine myself trusting a female enough to actually want to marry her. Every girl I've met comes off as being insecure, or jealous, or domineering and she inevitably thinks that she should be the center of my world and that she should be first above all else all the time. I could be with one girl and not cheat or take advantage of the situation but I still need to be and feel free to make choices and spend my time the way I want to and in a relationship that freedom is limited beyond my ability to feel unrestricted and comfortable.
It seems ridiculous to me. I don't think I could ever be married and because of this I don't think I could ever want kids, either. I feel like I'd constantly be having to explain myself and justify things to someone with a closed mind and judgmental attitude. That's too much stress for me. I tell myself that I am open to the idea of marriage and that I just haven't found the right woman yet, but the truth is, that if she's out there, she's going to have to be one super cool chick that doesn't take things too seriously and has sex like a porn star (I have found these things, but not all of them together).
I hope I explained that well enough.The dating and marriage paradigm as I see it now looks like a sham. If you are going to marry someone, though, it should be simply because you love each other.
This post just screams "I am 14-19ish years old and have no clue what I am talking about, but because I am a teenager I think I know everything".
Doesn't really matter. People who want longer commitments will find someone who feels the same and people who bounce around will bounce around. The only thing that should stop is cultural pressure for marriage as something defined in a very narrow and specific way and as something you must do or you are weird.
I dunno, having a ton of friends who date in the 21-30 post college years, the saying "all the good ones are taken by now" rings pretty true, there seem to be way more crazies than at college age. It becomes very obvious why these people are single after the 3rd date when they can't hide the crazy as well. I actually feel pretty bad for one particular friend since he lost a ton of weight and did a lot to turn his life around but the last girls he dated were all crazy, or possessive, or some other red flag, can't imagine what would've happened if he married them.
Granted, I live in Bay area, could just be a higher concentration of crazies here.
I think the question at hand has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. One can't deny that it is economically better to be married than single (taxes), so it's only reasonable that some people get married mostly for the benefits.
Despite that, people have love as the ultimate drive behind their marriage. Of course, it helps that you still get those nice benefits, but that is more of an icing on the cake kind of scenario to these kind of couples.
On the side of "eww marriage" topic, I don't foresee myself getting married anytime soon, if at all. Having 100% freedom is a pretty cool thing.
On May 01 2015 05:21 Inertiaddict wrote: I could never imagine myself trusting a female enough to actually want to marry her. Every girl I've met comes off as being insecure, or jealous, or domineering and she inevitably thinks that she should be the center of my world and that she should be first above all else all the time. I could be with one girl and not cheat or take advantage of the situation but I still need to be and feel free to make choices and spend my time the way I want to and in a relationship that freedom is limited beyond my ability to feel unrestricted and comfortable.
It seems ridiculous to me. I don't think I could ever be married and because of this I don't think I could ever want kids, either. I feel like I'd constantly be having to explain myself and justify things to someone with a closed mind and judgmental attitude. That's too much stress for me. I tell myself that I am open to the idea of marriage and that I just haven't found the right woman yet, but the truth is, that if she's out there, she's going to have to be one super cool chick that doesn't take things too seriously and has sex like a porn star (I have found these things, but not all of them together).
I hope I explained that well enough.The dating and marriage paradigm as I see it now looks like a sham. If you are going to marry someone, though, it should be simply because you love each other.
This post just screams "I am 14-19ish years old and have no clue what I am talking about, but because I am a teenager I think I know everything".
Doesn't really matter. People who want longer commitments will find someone who feels the same and people who bounce around will bounce around. The only thing that should stop is cultural pressure for marriage as something defined in a very narrow and specific way and as something you must do or you are weird.
I dunno, having a ton of friends who date in the 21-30 post college years, the saying "all the good ones are taken by now" rings pretty true, there seem to be way more crazies than at college age. It becomes very obvious why these people are single after the 3rd date when they can't hide the crazy as well. I actually feel pretty bad for one particular friend since he lost a ton of weight and did a lot to turn his life around but the last girls he dated were all crazy, or possessive, or some other red flag, can't imagine what would've happened if he married them.
Granted, I live in Bay area, could just be a higher concentration of crazies here.
I could say the exact opposite. Pretty much the overwhelming amount of women I know who are 21-30 range are the opposite of this characterization. In the end a person's personal experience (or even the experience of 1 person + their group of friends) represents a tiny sample size (and maybe says something about where those people are looking?) that makes it silly to characterize a whole gender with those negative (or even positive) connotations.
On May 01 2015 05:42 Inertiaddict wrote: I'm well beyond my teenage years, and I don't know everything. I've just become a bit cynical and jaded, but I think I'm saving dating and kids for my next life, at this point.
You generalise 50% of the population based on what seems to be a small sample size of teenage girls. You're not cynical, you're shallow.
On May 01 2015 05:21 Inertiaddict wrote: I could never imagine myself trusting a female enough to actually want to marry her. Every girl I've met comes off as being insecure, or jealous, or domineering and she inevitably thinks that she should be the center of my world and that she should be first above all else all the time. I could be with one girl and not cheat or take advantage of the situation but I still need to be and feel free to make choices and spend my time the way I want to and in a relationship that freedom is limited beyond my ability to feel unrestricted and comfortable.
It seems ridiculous to me. I don't think I could ever be married and because of this I don't think I could ever want kids, either. I feel like I'd constantly be having to explain myself and justify things to someone with a closed mind and judgmental attitude. That's too much stress for me. I tell myself that I am open to the idea of marriage and that I just haven't found the right woman yet, but the truth is, that if she's out there, she's going to have to be one super cool chick that doesn't take things too seriously and has sex like a porn star (I have found these things, but not all of them together).
I hope I explained that well enough.The dating and marriage paradigm as I see it now looks like a sham. If you are going to marry someone, though, it should be simply because you love each other.
This post just screams "I am 14-19ish years old and have no clue what I am talking about, but because I am a teenager I think I know everything".
Doesn't really matter. People who want longer commitments will find someone who feels the same and people who bounce around will bounce around. The only thing that should stop is cultural pressure for marriage as something defined in a very narrow and specific way and as something you must do or you are weird.
I dunno, having a ton of friends who date in the 21-30 post college years, the saying "all the good ones are taken by now" rings pretty true, there seem to be way more crazies than at college age. It becomes very obvious why these people are single after the 3rd date when they can't hide the crazy as well. I actually feel pretty bad for one particular friend since he lost a ton of weight and did a lot to turn his life around but the last girls he dated were all crazy, or possessive, or some other red flag, can't imagine what would've happened if he married them.
Granted, I live in Bay area, could just be a higher concentration of crazies here.
Think about the number of women that you know.
Now think about the number of women that are in your state.
Now the country.
The fact is that when someone says that "pretty much every girl I know has X or Y wrong with them", the more likely explanation is that a combination of that person's personality, lifestyle choices, occupation, friends, and location result in the kind of girls/guys he/she is exposed to. Someone might be really unlucky and just not meet the right type of people even if they are around (or there just might not be ANY decent people around/single), but the vast majority of the time, not meeting decent girls/guys to date is an aggregate result of the various factors that make up your overall lifestyle.
And for some counter-anecdotal evidence, the vast majority of people I meet that complain about stuff like this have some serious problems of their own (i.e. their own personality reflects the people that they complain about dating).
The idea of getting married is nice, but in reality it's just something bonding two people to protect themselves right now. I personally don't care for getting married.
That said, I'm 17, and my opinion may change over the course of time. I was very much against getting married a couple of years back, now I ''wouldn't mind.'' Still not in favour though. I think you can love each other unconditionally without a paper saying so.
On May 01 2015 05:42 Inertiaddict wrote: I'm well beyond my teenage years, and I don't know everything. I've just become a bit cynical and jaded, but I think I'm saving dating and kids for my next life, at this point.
You generalise 50% of the population based on what seems to be a small sample size of teenage girls. You're not cynical, you're shallow.
I wasn't really generalizing women as much as I was generalizing my feeling towards Marriage. I generalized the feelings that I have towards the women I've been with, sure, but I never said "most/all women are this or that". I guess I'm just waiting for the right one to impress me, but until then, it's not for me, and I do go through this with an open mind.
On May 01 2015 03:50 soul55555 wrote: Marriage is overrated it's better to be single. 50% of Marriages fail and your end up stuck paying child support and alimony.
You can still make children without being married, and you're still responsible for paying child support if you didn't get married. So that really doesn't solve anything for you.
Personally I see marriage as an legal agreement, at the end of the day its a piece of paper. It gives you some tax benefits, access to some things legally. But that piece of paper doesn't prove someones love. A married couple doesn't love each other more than a committed dating couple because they got a piece of paper involved.
As someone who is mortified of commitment the idea of marriage is a nightmare to me. The only thing that trumps it would be having children, I have no desire for either. Long term committed relationship sure, marriage and kids scares the shit out of me.
It's a legal contract, anything about "love" or something is out of place. I defy anyone to put love into a contract. What's a marriage license, a love certificate? The rings are some kind of mystical artifact that transfer love? It's a legal way to be partners.
i used to be one of those people who said "fuck marriage, we don't need a certificate to prove we're in love, etc. etc." but as i got older and became a grown adult who lives in the real world i started seeing it differently. for better or for worse, forgetting marriage and tax breaks and all that, marriage is the way our society has generally established a consensus for measuring a desire to commit to a relationship.
if you genuinely believe in your relationship and want to be with someone on a permanent basis, i don't see any reason to avoid marriage. you don't have to have an expensive reception or a religious ceremony (at least in my part of the world, thankfully) in order to get married. you don't have to invite anyone you don't want there. but it is a statement to society about what your relationship is, and it's a statement i consider worth making. if you're an adult with a job who buys groceries and uses public services, you are a part of society and so is your relationship. you and your SO can claim not to care what society thinks, and if that works for you then fine. but personally i have an active desire for the entire world to know my wife and i are committed to each other and that we aren't just "dating" or "having fun". i like having a ring to point to if someone is trying to flirt with me. i like that my wife can call me my husband to drop a hint if some creep is hitting on her. i just like being married to her. it's not what my parents want or what some religion wanted or what the government wanted, it's what i want.
at the end of the day everyone can do whatever they want, but that's my take on it
On May 01 2015 05:42 Inertiaddict wrote: I'm well beyond my teenage years, and I don't know everything. I've just become a bit cynical and jaded, but I think I'm saving dating and kids for my next life, at this point.
You generalise 50% of the population based on what seems to be a small sample size of teenage girls. You're not cynical, you're shallow.
I wasn't really generalizing women as much as I was generalizing my feeling towards Marriage. I generalized the feelings that I have towards the women I've been with, sure, but I never said "most/all women are this or that". I guess I'm just waiting for the right one to impress me, but until then, it's not for me, and I do go through this with an open mind.
based on the way you talk about women there's a really strong chance you are actually the asshole in your relationships, dude
On May 01 2015 08:27 oBlade wrote: It's a legal contract, anything about "love" or something is out of place. I defy anyone to put love into a contract. What's a marriage license, a love certificate? The rings are some kind of mystical artifact that transfer love? It's a legal way to be partners.
nah dude it's also a social contract and there are thousands of years of history backing me up. i defy you to put love into anything, it's just love. why does a red shape with two bumps at the top mean love? why does smashing your lips into someone else's lips mean love? why does anything mean anything? the legality of marriage is the legality of marriage, but ignoring its place as a social ceremony is just plain ignorant. you can disagree with it or think it's silly, but saying it doesn't exist just makes you seem uninformed
On May 01 2015 03:19 reki- wrote: Never get married in the USA (as a man) is what I'm thinking
If you live in Canada you need to reduce that to "don't ever move in with a woman", because if you live with someone for I think 3 years you're considered married according to common law.
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.
This post just screams "I am 14-19ish years old and have no clue what I am talking about, but because I am a teenager I think I know everything".
Doesn't really matter. People who want longer commitments will find someone who feels the same and people who bounce around will bounce around. The only thing that should stop is cultural pressure for marriage as something defined in a very narrow and specific way and as something you must do or you are weird.
Yea, a lot of threads talking about marriage/relationships end up like this on the internet; hipsters, nerds, or otherwise bitter individuals that want to make sweeping negative statements about relationships/marriage, usually born out of bitterness and immaturity.
Marriage can be done for a lot of reasons. The problem is that most of the western world believes in marriage being done because of love, and people, in general, are really bad at this; if you want to marry truly for love/compatibility, you have to be really picky and make the right choice, or you'll end up bitter/unhappy/divorced. On the other hand, historically (and in many cultures still), marriages were arranged/pseudo-arranged and were more about convenience, political moves, financially motivated, etc. which actually makes it quite a bit easier.
Half-true imo. Divorces themselves are the main reason marriage is considered a terrible idea now. People have been getting married and living with a single person for the rest of their lives for centuries, but it's only recently that divorces have been considered acceptable.
Thanks for all the opinions shared so far. I added poll about marital status of self.
While my OP became rather narrow, I'm interested in general about the topic of marriage. I'm 31 and so friends I grew up with are starting to marry and have kids.
My view of marriage is that for the few that work out there seem to be way more that don't. My parents divorced when I was 7. They remain good friends to this day, and probably love each other more than many married couples. As I've grown older I, can understand better why they divorced; they came from different cultures and values. So I know of at least one instance where love existed and yet marriage failed. It makes me wonder at all the people who marry each other without love, and seemingly without any reason to replace it. I wonder too at the function of marriage among a mostly secular society.
On May 01 2015 03:41 Fuchsteufelswild wrote: Question: What did the people who voted for "other" mean and what did the OP intend this to (be able to) mean? What sort of other practical concerns are there? Religious tradition, where the couple may love each other but marry to please their more strongly religious parents? For status in old times (and I guess potentially still now)?
I guess by "other" I meant whatever wasn't love, kids, or money. I felt I couldn't come up on the spot with every reason people would marry (religion probably belonged on there), so I just put other for people who didn't like the choices. Practical concerns I guess would include money, house sharing, tax benefits, cultural solidarity if immigrants, and such things.
On May 01 2015 03:19 reki- wrote: Never get married in the USA (as a man) is what I'm thinking
If you live in Canada you need to reduce that to "don't ever move in with a woman", because if you live with someone for I think 3 years you're considered married according to common law.
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.
This post just screams "I am 14-19ish years old and have no clue what I am talking about, but because I am a teenager I think I know everything".
Doesn't really matter. People who want longer commitments will find someone who feels the same and people who bounce around will bounce around. The only thing that should stop is cultural pressure for marriage as something defined in a very narrow and specific way and as something you must do or you are weird.
Yea, a lot of threads talking about marriage/relationships end up like this on the internet; hipsters, nerds, or otherwise bitter individuals that want to make sweeping negative statements about relationships/marriage, usually born out of bitterness and immaturity.
Marriage can be done for a lot of reasons. The problem is that most of the western world believes in marriage being done because of love, and people, in general, are really bad at this; if you want to marry truly for love/compatibility, you have to be really picky and make the right choice, or you'll end up bitter/unhappy/divorced. On the other hand, historically (and in many cultures still), marriages were arranged/pseudo-arranged and were more about convenience, political moves, financially motivated, etc. which actually makes it quite a bit easier.
Half-true imo. Divorces themselves are the main reason marriage is considered a terrible idea now. People have been getting married and living with a single person for the rest of their lives for centuries, but it's only recently that divorces have been considered acceptable.
i take issue with the argument that divorce rates are a reason not to get married. love and emotion are not possible to generalize across any percentage or demographic of people: a couple either works or it doesn't. i've been happily married for almost 3 years and can't imagine ever wanting anything but to be with my wife. i know of couples who loved each other until they died together in their 80's and 90's. marriage works for me and it worked for them - why make us responsible for the failed ones?
then you get into the issue of how you define a "failed" marriage. i mean, i personally want to be married to my wife forever, of course, but if some other couple gets divorced then does that mean i view the time they spent on each other as a "failure"? it depends on a lot of things. did they grow as people during that time? did they have kids and do they love the kids? are the kids okay? are the divorcees going to be okay? seems to me the problem with marriage is the expectation of expense on the ring, reception, ceremony, etc. and how these things create an "anchor" on people who may change their hearts down the road. i'm not saying i think marriage shouldn't be forever, but realistically of course it's not going to work every time. why not just make it easier on the unfortunate souls for whom it doesn't work out?
i've been let down by a lot of "friends" who turned out to be trash, but god help me if i don't keep trying to make friendship work too
On May 01 2015 03:19 reki- wrote: Never get married in the USA (as a man) is what I'm thinking
If you live in Canada you need to reduce that to "don't ever move in with a woman", because if you live with someone for I think 3 years you're considered married according to common law.
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.
This post just screams "I am 14-19ish years old and have no clue what I am talking about, but because I am a teenager I think I know everything".
Doesn't really matter. People who want longer commitments will find someone who feels the same and people who bounce around will bounce around. The only thing that should stop is cultural pressure for marriage as something defined in a very narrow and specific way and as something you must do or you are weird.
Yea, a lot of threads talking about marriage/relationships end up like this on the internet; hipsters, nerds, or otherwise bitter individuals that want to make sweeping negative statements about relationships/marriage, usually born out of bitterness and immaturity.
Marriage can be done for a lot of reasons. The problem is that most of the western world believes in marriage being done because of love, and people, in general, are really bad at this; if you want to marry truly for love/compatibility, you have to be really picky and make the right choice, or you'll end up bitter/unhappy/divorced. On the other hand, historically (and in many cultures still), marriages were arranged/pseudo-arranged and were more about convenience, political moves, financially motivated, etc. which actually makes it quite a bit easier.
Half-true imo. Divorces themselves are the main reason marriage is considered a terrible idea now. People have been getting married and living with a single person for the rest of their lives for centuries, but it's only recently that divorces have been considered acceptable.
I don't really buy this argument that divorce makes marriage less desirable. If anything, divorce being an option makes it easier for people to commit to a relationship because they know they can get out of it; that's all that divorce is, the option to choose to end the commitment you made. It doesn't really follow that having the ability to stop something would cause people to not do that thing at all. In fact, logic says that the exact opposite would happen.
Unless the exit option is counter to the idea of marriage itself: lifelong commitment, 'til death do us part, etc. If people like the marriage for its permanency, making it transient surely devalues it.
people seem to forget marriage is a means to an end, end being a prosperous family.
perhaps there is a non-traditional way of having a family? not married yet have children then grand children and so on, does the family name matter? big family relationship? to me this is the point of marriage, to start a family. not to prolong love, not to say "i love you forever", to me it simply means lets have babies and make it legit. but this is my opinion and there are plenty of legitimate reasons to marry, no more important than the other. this is just my opinion of marriage. (my poll answer would be yes, no, sometimes, both, and/or. there are many reasons for marrying and ways to marry all varying by culture)
divorce should have nothing to do with it, life is full of drama and ending a commitment is just one of those and it could be much worse like burying someone you still love either a wife/husband or child. not marry because of the chance of fallout? would you not have children for the chance of burying them? thats the chance of life.
if you're not ready to have children, its completely fine not to get married. if you're afraid of things falling apart, there's the divorce option or not if you're not into divorce. life is a game of chance and who you marry, how that turn out is a game of chance, not everyone gets a happy ending but many do live life for that goal. dont want to pay child care after ending it or whatever? you're a irresponsible prick.
On May 01 2015 03:19 reki- wrote: Never get married in the USA (as a man) is what I'm thinking
If you live in Canada you need to reduce that to "don't ever move in with a woman", because if you live with someone for I think 3 years you're considered married according to common law.
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.
This post just screams "I am 14-19ish years old and have no clue what I am talking about, but because I am a teenager I think I know everything".
Doesn't really matter. People who want longer commitments will find someone who feels the same and people who bounce around will bounce around. The only thing that should stop is cultural pressure for marriage as something defined in a very narrow and specific way and as something you must do or you are weird.
Yea, a lot of threads talking about marriage/relationships end up like this on the internet; hipsters, nerds, or otherwise bitter individuals that want to make sweeping negative statements about relationships/marriage, usually born out of bitterness and immaturity.
Marriage can be done for a lot of reasons. The problem is that most of the western world believes in marriage being done because of love, and people, in general, are really bad at this; if you want to marry truly for love/compatibility, you have to be really picky and make the right choice, or you'll end up bitter/unhappy/divorced. On the other hand, historically (and in many cultures still), marriages were arranged/pseudo-arranged and were more about convenience, political moves, financially motivated, etc. which actually makes it quite a bit easier.
Half-true imo. Divorces themselves are the main reason marriage is considered a terrible idea now. People have been getting married and living with a single person for the rest of their lives for centuries, but it's only recently that divorces have been considered acceptable.
I don't really buy this argument that divorce makes marriage less desirable. If anything, divorce being an option makes it easier for people to commit to a relationship because they know they can get out of it; that's all that divorce is, the option to choose to end the commitment you made. It doesn't really follow that having the ability to stop something would cause people to not do that thing at all. In fact, logic says that the exact opposite would happen.
That's illogical. You're saying marriage - something that's supposed to be a legal document stating your life-long commitment to another - is more desirable because it's easier to end that commitment.
On May 01 2015 03:19 reki- wrote: Never get married in the USA (as a man) is what I'm thinking
If you live in Canada you need to reduce that to "don't ever move in with a woman", because if you live with someone for I think 3 years you're considered married according to common law.
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.
This post just screams "I am 14-19ish years old and have no clue what I am talking about, but because I am a teenager I think I know everything".
Doesn't really matter. People who want longer commitments will find someone who feels the same and people who bounce around will bounce around. The only thing that should stop is cultural pressure for marriage as something defined in a very narrow and specific way and as something you must do or you are weird.
Yea, a lot of threads talking about marriage/relationships end up like this on the internet; hipsters, nerds, or otherwise bitter individuals that want to make sweeping negative statements about relationships/marriage, usually born out of bitterness and immaturity.
Marriage can be done for a lot of reasons. The problem is that most of the western world believes in marriage being done because of love, and people, in general, are really bad at this; if you want to marry truly for love/compatibility, you have to be really picky and make the right choice, or you'll end up bitter/unhappy/divorced. On the other hand, historically (and in many cultures still), marriages were arranged/pseudo-arranged and were more about convenience, political moves, financially motivated, etc. which actually makes it quite a bit easier.
Half-true imo. Divorces themselves are the main reason marriage is considered a terrible idea now. People have been getting married and living with a single person for the rest of their lives for centuries, but it's only recently that divorces have been considered acceptable.
I don't really buy this argument that divorce makes marriage less desirable. If anything, divorce being an option makes it easier for people to commit to a relationship because they know they can get out of it; that's all that divorce is, the option to choose to end the commitment you made. It doesn't really follow that having the ability to stop something would cause people to not do that thing at all. In fact, logic says that the exact opposite would happen.
That's illogical. You're saying marriage - something that's supposed to be a legal document stating your life-long commitment to another - is more desirable because it's easier to end that commitment.
Uh, yea.
If I (the average person) have the option of A or -A, but choosing A means I can never go back, then A is a much more serious commitment and I will be a lot more hesitant to do it until I am absolutely sure that I'm not making a mistake.
However, if I can go back on choosing A, then committing to choosing A in the first place isn't as big of a deal, so I am less stingy about choosing A.
This is really basic logic that applies to almost any choice we make; if a choice has more serious consequences that can't be reversed, we are more hesitant to make that choice than we are if we are able to reverse that decision.
people seem to forget marriage is a means to an end, end being a prosperous family.
perhaps there is a non-traditional way of having a family? not married yet have children then grand children and so on, does the family name matter? big family relationship? to me this is the point of marriage, to start a family. not to prolong love, not to say "i love you forever", to me it simply means lets have babies and make it legit. but this is my opinion and there are plenty of legitimate reasons to marry, no more important than the other. this is just my opinion of marriage. (my poll answer would be yes, no, sometimes, both, and/or. there are many reasons for marrying and ways to marry all varying by culture)
divorce should have nothing to do with it, life is full of drama and ending a commitment is just one of those and it could be much worse like burying someone you still love either a wife/husband or child. not marry because of the chance of fallout? would you not have children for the chance of burying them? thats the chance of life.
if you're not ready to have children, its completely fine not to get married. if you're afraid of things falling apart, there's the divorce option or not if you're not into divorce. life is a game of chance and who you marry, how that turn out is a game of chance, not everyone gets a happy ending but many do live life for that goal. dont want to pay child care after ending it or whatever? you're a irresponsible prick.
Marriage is no longer about creating a particular family. We allow divorce, adultery is relatively common, and people aren't required to have kids if they're married (people incapable of having kids/old people are allowed to marry).
Unless the exit option is counter to the idea of marriage itself: lifelong commitment, 'til death do us part, etc. If people like the marriage for its permanency, making it transient surely devalues it.
Well, a lot of things have supposedly "devalued" marriage, but it still has enormous cultural value (and it's usually quite a process to both get married and get divorced).
On May 01 2015 09:42 NovaTheFeared wrote: Unless the exit option is counter to the idea of marriage itself: lifelong commitment, 'til death do us part, etc. If people like the marriage for its permanency, making it transient surely devalues it.
the idea of starting a business is that the business will succeed and be profitable for years to come, but it's completely irrational and even irresponsible to not account at all for the possibility that your business could fail despite your best efforts and intentions. in fact, people have ruined their life by doing exactly that - not accounting for the worst case scenario - just like people have ruined their lives by getting stuck in loveless marriages.
basically what you're saying sounds like "well, if you're so up your own ass about your loving relationship, there should be consequences if you ever end up feeling differently, because, like, that'll show you, man!" i'm not sure i really follow the logic.
and again i'm saying this as someone who's still totally in love with his wife and completely committed to being with her forever. just because it's working amazingly for me doesn't mean i think anyone else should be forcing something they're not happy with just because they wanted to get married at one point.
i think a lot of people with bad relationship histories take a kind of sick pleasure in shitting on the idea of marriage and monogamy because of latent issues they haven't resolved, but that's just me.
On May 01 2015 10:44 jinorazi wrote: people seem to forget marriage is a means to an end, end being a prosperous family.
??? no?? unless you count a husband and wife as a "family" in and of themselves (which i personally would, but not sure if you mean it that way) then you're not correct at all. i don't want kids, my wife doesn't want kids, and i know other couples who feel the same and still wanted to be married because... wait for it... we're in love and want to be together forever
Marriage; A proposition bet offered to your partner in which you wager 50% of your net worth against time that you and your partner will remain happy together until death.
On May 01 2015 03:19 reki- wrote: Never get married in the USA (as a man) is what I'm thinking
If you live in Canada you need to reduce that to "don't ever move in with a woman", because if you live with someone for I think 3 years you're considered married according to common law.
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.
This post just screams "I am 14-19ish years old and have no clue what I am talking about, but because I am a teenager I think I know everything".
Doesn't really matter. People who want longer commitments will find someone who feels the same and people who bounce around will bounce around. The only thing that should stop is cultural pressure for marriage as something defined in a very narrow and specific way and as something you must do or you are weird.
Yea, a lot of threads talking about marriage/relationships end up like this on the internet; hipsters, nerds, or otherwise bitter individuals that want to make sweeping negative statements about relationships/marriage, usually born out of bitterness and immaturity.
Marriage can be done for a lot of reasons. The problem is that most of the western world believes in marriage being done because of love, and people, in general, are really bad at this; if you want to marry truly for love/compatibility, you have to be really picky and make the right choice, or you'll end up bitter/unhappy/divorced. On the other hand, historically (and in many cultures still), marriages were arranged/pseudo-arranged and were more about convenience, political moves, financially motivated, etc. which actually makes it quite a bit easier.
Half-true imo. Divorces themselves are the main reason marriage is considered a terrible idea now. People have been getting married and living with a single person for the rest of their lives for centuries, but it's only recently that divorces have been considered acceptable.
I don't really buy this argument that divorce makes marriage less desirable. If anything, divorce being an option makes it easier for people to commit to a relationship because they know they can get out of it; that's all that divorce is, the option to choose to end the commitment you made. It doesn't really follow that having the ability to stop something would cause people to not do that thing at all. In fact, logic says that the exact opposite would happen.
That's illogical. You're saying marriage - something that's supposed to be a legal document stating your life-long commitment to another - is more desirable because it's easier to end that commitment.
Uh, yea.
If I (the average person) have the option of A or -A, but choosing A means I can never go back, then A is a much more serious commitment and I will be a lot more hesitant to do it until I am absolutely sure that I'm not making a mistake.
However, if I can go back on choosing A, then committing to choosing A in the first place isn't as big of a deal, so I am less stingy about choosing A.
This is really basic logic that applies to almost any choice we make; if a choice has more serious consequences that can't be reversed, we are more hesitant to make that choice than we are if we are able to reverse that decision.
...
Your mindset is the exact reason marriages are failing more often, lol. People don't care about the choice as much, which devalues the concept. Marriage, by definition, is supposed to be a serious commitment that you should be absolutely sure about before making the decision.
It's NOT desirable to have marriage viewed as being less of a serious commitment, because it undermines the entire purpose of marriage.
As for arranged marriages. I know a few people in my family who has had that, and their marriage is not any different, ie they range from good to bad. People who are in love also make bad choices.
As a crude example, if your mother fed you, she might feed you with food that you don't like, but is ultimately healthy (vegetables and fruits). When you were to buy your own food, sometimes you end up buying some really unhealthy food that you enjoy.
In this analogy, preference for food stands for love and your health stands for the health of the marriage.
On May 01 2015 08:33 brickrd wrote: i like having a ring to point to if someone is trying to flirt with me. i like that my wife can call me my husband to drop a hint if some creep is hitting on her.
if it's a woman, she's flirting with you if it's a guy, he's a creep hitting on her
just saying
On May 01 2015 14:27 Orcasgt24 wrote: Marriage; A proposition bet offered to your partner in which you wager 50% of your net worth against time that you and your partner will remain happy together until death.
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.
A long time online gaming friend of mine is currently in the process of getting married through an arranged marriage. It was really interesting hearing and talking with him about it. I don't really want to get too specific about the details, but I'll ask him and see if he might be interested in doing some kind of AMA on TL or Reddit.
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.
I had two friends getting married recently and before that I asked each of them what was the reason for them to get married.
- A said: the financial perks you are getting Honestly, that is a valid response. But it is like going to the casino, putting all your life's savings on red, but you can only win 20% of your bet.
-B said: There is no real reason for me, I can have everything without being married: love, family, commitment, etc. But my parents, relatives and my girlfriend pressure me into it.
Do you really think that 50% of the population are stupid idiots that marry the wrong person? Of course not, they marry because they have found THE ONE!
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.
Marriage is cool I love going to my friends' wedding parties. I'll have to return the favor at some point.
Of course it'll be with a girl I am absolutely certain about, was in the going on dates phase, dating phase, relationship phase than lived with for a good amount of years and she still makes me excited to put in the effort to court her after say 5years or more? Why not get married
For love/arrangement - love has to come first and foremost of course. Then logical reasons(how the girl and family fit each others values, how good are they for each others careers...). Then financial reasons
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.
On May 01 2015 09:42 NovaTheFeared wrote: Unless the exit option is counter to the idea of marriage itself: lifelong commitment, 'til death do us part, etc. If people like the marriage for its permanency, making it transient surely devalues it.
the idea of starting a business is that the business will succeed and be profitable for years to come, but it's completely irrational and even irresponsible to not account at all for the possibility that your business could fail despite your best efforts and intentions. in fact, people have ruined their life by doing exactly that - not accounting for the worst case scenario - just like people have ruined their lives by getting stuck in loveless marriages.
basically what you're saying sounds like "well, if you're so up your own ass about your loving relationship, there should be consequences if you ever end up feeling differently, because, like, that'll show you, man!" i'm not sure i really follow the logic.
and again i'm saying this as someone who's still totally in love with his wife and completely committed to being with her forever. just because it's working amazingly for me doesn't mean i think anyone else should be forcing something they're not happy with just because they wanted to get married at one point.
i think a lot of people with bad relationship histories take a kind of sick pleasure in shitting on the idea of marriage and monogamy because of latent issues they haven't resolved, but that's just me.
You misunderstand me, friend. I didn't advocate the removal the divorce option. On domestic violence alone it's indispensable. However, I reiterate the point that the more routine divorce becomes the less a marriage commitment resembles "I will love you forever" which is certainly part of the attraction to the institution to begin with. Some posters are pointing out that when 'til death do us part becomes 'til we get tired of each other it's not as meaningful or coveted an institution to join.
Stratos said that easy exit should make marriage more attractive, but if the difficulty of exit is part of the attraction it may not be the case. He's right that usually easy exit is an enhancement to thing X's value, but X's value in this case is to some degree predicated on permanency. And we ought to consider the effects of exit penalties by the state in the form of alimony etc. Easier exit raises those costs which also cuts against the argument that marriage conceived as temporary, rather than permanent, should be more worthwhile. About half of people over 18 have found the institution worthwhile, but the rate has been on a steady decline for some time now.
I have a friend who's more or less getting married so he can move to Japan with his girlfriend. He's been with the girl for a long time and AFAIK their relationship seems to be stable and 'love', but it still has me a little weirded out.
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)
On May 01 2015 03:19 reki- wrote: Never get married in the USA (as a man) is what I'm thinking
If you live in Canada you need to reduce that to "don't ever move in with a woman", because if you live with someone for I think 3 years you're considered married according to common law.
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.
This post just screams "I am 14-19ish years old and have no clue what I am talking about, but because I am a teenager I think I know everything".
Doesn't really matter. People who want longer commitments will find someone who feels the same and people who bounce around will bounce around. The only thing that should stop is cultural pressure for marriage as something defined in a very narrow and specific way and as something you must do or you are weird.
Yea, a lot of threads talking about marriage/relationships end up like this on the internet; hipsters, nerds, or otherwise bitter individuals that want to make sweeping negative statements about relationships/marriage, usually born out of bitterness and immaturity.
Marriage can be done for a lot of reasons. The problem is that most of the western world believes in marriage being done because of love, and people, in general, are really bad at this; if you want to marry truly for love/compatibility, you have to be really picky and make the right choice, or you'll end up bitter/unhappy/divorced. On the other hand, historically (and in many cultures still), marriages were arranged/pseudo-arranged and were more about convenience, political moves, financially motivated, etc. which actually makes it quite a bit easier.
Half-true imo. Divorces themselves are the main reason marriage is considered a terrible idea now. People have been getting married and living with a single person for the rest of their lives for centuries, but it's only recently that divorces have been considered acceptable.
I don't really buy this argument that divorce makes marriage less desirable. If anything, divorce being an option makes it easier for people to commit to a relationship because they know they can get out of it; that's all that divorce is, the option to choose to end the commitment you made. It doesn't really follow that having the ability to stop something would cause people to not do that thing at all. In fact, logic says that the exact opposite would happen.
That's illogical. You're saying marriage - something that's supposed to be a legal document stating your life-long commitment to another - is more desirable because it's easier to end that commitment.
Uh, yea.
If I (the average person) have the option of A or -A, but choosing A means I can never go back, then A is a much more serious commitment and I will be a lot more hesitant to do it until I am absolutely sure that I'm not making a mistake.
However, if I can go back on choosing A, then committing to choosing A in the first place isn't as big of a deal, so I am less stingy about choosing A.
This is really basic logic that applies to almost any choice we make; if a choice has more serious consequences that can't be reversed, we are more hesitant to make that choice than we are if we are able to reverse that decision.
...
Your mindset is the exact reason marriages are failing more often, lol. People don't care about the choice as much, which devalues the concept. Marriage, by definition, is supposed to be a serious commitment that you should be absolutely sure about before making the decision.
It's NOT desirable to have marriage viewed as being less of a serious commitment, because it undermines the entire purpose of marriage.
We're confusing each other.
I didn't say that it's desirable for people to think this way, I was just saying that this is how people in general think because of the fact that divorce is readily accessible.
I will marry when we'll reach the conclusion it's a snignificant jump in income. We've been living together for 4 years now but I have a friend who was kinda forced to marry before living or even having sex with his loved one. It works well for them, it works well for us. I think you should just find the right balance between your desires and families ones, if it's very important to have your family's support, specially for something which in the end is not THAT important if you choosed the right person.
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.
-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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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.
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.
On May 02 2015 04:51 Djzapz wrote: 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.
That joke is a pretty poor analysis of marriage. The government doesn't get "involved" in marriage; the government simply recognizes your legal union when you declare it.
Can love survive without marriage? Absolutely, and plenty of people do that. However, just because you say that "marriage is not for love" doesn't make it true. All that does is scream "hipster".
If you can't see how legally unifying yourself to another person can be seen as an expression of love, then you have some thinking to do, because it's pretty basic and it's been a thing for a really long time.
On May 02 2015 03:49 Glowsphere wrote: 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.
No problem. It's just one of those concepts that is very easy to misunderstand regardless of your experience with it. As for your last sentence, especially in the modern arranged marriages, you're also making the assumption they even want to have children, though I can tell you that if someone doesn't want kids, very few, if any such arrangements would work. At least in South or southeast Asia, anyhow. I can't speak for China.
And agreed with Stratos on his last post, I can see why people are opposed to it, but there's a reason it's still there.
On May 02 2015 04:51 Djzapz wrote: 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.
That joke is a pretty poor analysis of marriage. The government doesn't get "involved" in marriage; the government simply recognizes your legal union when you declare it.
Can love survive without marriage? Absolutely, and plenty of people do that. However, just because you say that "marriage is not for love" doesn't make it true. All that does is scream "hipster".
If you can't see how legally unifying yourself to another person can be seen as an expression of love, then you have some thinking to do, because it's pretty basic and it's been a thing for a really long time.
First, that joke's poor analysis of marriage obviously. It was to preface my next points. Criticizing a joke on its merit as an "analysis" of something is a waste of everybody's time. It brings something up, which is not indicative of the entire topic that we're discussing, but marriage these days very much is a process which involves government. Thus the joke is not entirely pointless.
Second, I don't think you understood what I said because I'm not saying that marriage is not for love, I'm merely saying that I think it's a tradition with massive flaws. As for your suggestion that I might be a hipster, you're ridiculous, what even, I would never even think of trying to pass that off as an argument on the internet. If you're under the impression that my reasons for not being too fond of marriages are unique to me, you're mistaken.
Third, I do see how legally "unifying" yourself with another person can be seen as an expression of love, it's just not one that convinces me for multiple reasons. For one, it's only an expression of love because it's seen as a risk and an investment. There may be other reasons, like the perception that marriage is a declaration of love, but having been in love myself, I can safely say that the most loved I've personally felt was not when she brought up marriage... It means nothing to me. With a marriage proposal, showing the other person that you love them by essentially gambling on success, while being fully aware that a large number of marriages fail, many of those end up in legal nightmares, and other marriages involve two miserable people trying to make it last. It shows confidence, which isn't necessarily bad, but it's not my thing, not in that context.
I think that it's pertinent enough to mention that marriage has lots to do with government. I did mention legal hell. As for the idea that marriage has been a thing for a really long time, as if that was some sort of argument, I think you should go back to OP and see what marriage was for the longest of time.
Marriages for love are a fairly recent thing. Marriages costing tens of thousands of dollars outside of super wealthy families are a fairly recent thing. Hell, the modern State and practical weddings for tax reasons are also a fairly recent things, whereas marriage used to be family things and religious reasons. Your assertion that I have "some thinking to do" because marriage has been around for a really long time shows that you in fact have some thinking to do.
And you're perfectly free to disagree with me, I recognize many reasons for marriage. Practical reasons for government and financial affairs. Religious and traditional reasons. I also understand the social pressure and the social value that goes around marriage, namely the idea that if you really love someone you'll gamble that it'll be eternal so you should do it. But stripping the notion of marriage naked, it's a worthless institution. If I wanted to formally declare my love to someone, to me it doesn't matter if it's called marriage or turbo-binding-contract-of-doom. If it means something to me, then it's great. It so happens that I don't necessarily care about this concept under the banner of "marriage", a notion with the connotation of religion (which I don't adhere to) and forced marriages (see OP). And if you care to dig into this hipster's head, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to getting married myself even though I consider it a worthless institution on the human level. I'd get married if my girlfriend wanted to and I thought I was good for the long run, and I would give to said marriage whatever symbolic value I felt was meaningful for myself.
I don't know if I'm being clear, but to summarize, marriage by itself is an empty shell. You make it meaningful with your beliefs and who you are.
I honestly don't think that my views are that weird or uncommon, I just fleshed them out in a way that may seem unconventional because marriages are so normal and matter-of-fact. And perhaps you think I'm a hipster because I have this hippie-ish outlook. Be free man!!! Yeah, that's me . And it's not because I'm bitter, or against long term relationships, quite the opposite, really. It's just that I come from parents who were never married and still go on dates, I have friends who won't get married because they don't see the point and they're perhaps the happiest people I know. I just think that love speaks for itself, and it can be declared over and over, formally or informally, so long as it's genuine. Outside of the religious and traditional justification for marriages I think that to some extent, the importance (some) people give to marriage stems from their fear of change, as if getting married would protect their relationship from failure, even today. I mean, it would make sense, seeing how originally marriages were more about a man's ownership of a woman, or some such (depending on culture and era). Wouldn't want bae to cheat!
On May 02 2015 04:51 Djzapz wrote: 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.
That joke is a pretty poor analysis of marriage. The government doesn't get "involved" in marriage; the government simply recognizes your legal union when you declare it.
Can love survive without marriage? Absolutely, and plenty of people do that. However, just because you say that "marriage is not for love" doesn't make it true. All that does is scream "hipster".
If you can't see how legally unifying yourself to another person can be seen as an expression of love, then you have some thinking to do, because it's pretty basic and it's been a thing for a really long time.
First, that joke's poor analysis of marriage obviously. It was to preface my next points. Criticizing a joke on its merit as an "analysis" of something is a waste of everybody's time. It brings something up, which is not indicative of the entire topic that we're discussing, but marriage these days very much is a process which involves government. Thus the joke is not entirely pointless.
Second, I don't think you understood what I said because I'm not saying that marriage is not for love, I'm merely saying that I think it's a tradition with massive flaws. As for your suggestion that I might be a hipster, you're ridiculous, what even, I would never even think of trying to pass that off as an argument on the internet. If you're under the impression that my reasons for not being too fond of marriages are unique to me, you're mistaken.
Third, I do see how legally "unifying" yourself with another person can be seen as an expression of love, it's just not one that convinces me for multiple reasons. For one, it's only an expression of love because it's seen as a risk and an investment. There may be other reasons, like the perception that marriage is a declaration of love, but having been in love myself, I can safely say that the most loved I've personally felt was not when she brought up marriage... It means nothing to me. With a marriage proposal, showing the other person that you love them by essentially gambling on success, while being fully aware that a large number of marriages fail, many of those end up in legal nightmares, and other marriages involve two miserable people trying to make it last. It shows confidence, which isn't necessarily bad, but it's not my thing, not in that context.
I think that it's pertinent enough to mention that marriage has lots to do with government. I did mention legal hell. As for the idea that marriage has been a thing for a really long time, as if that was some sort of argument, I think you should go back to OP and see what marriage was for the longest of time.
Marriages for love are a fairly recent thing. Marriages costing tens of thousands of dollars outside of super wealthy families are a fairly recent thing. Hell, the modern State and practical weddings for tax reasons are also a fairly recent things, whereas marriage used to be family things and religious reasons. Your assertion that I have "some thinking to do" because marriage has been around for a really long time shows that you in fact have some thinking to do.
And you're perfectly free to disagree with me, I recognize many reasons for marriage. Practical reasons for government and financial affairs. Religious and traditional reasons. I also understand the social pressure and the social value that goes around marriage, namely the idea that if you really love someone you'll gamble that it'll be eternal so you should do it. But stripping the notion of marriage naked, it's a worthless institution. If I wanted to formally declare my love to someone, to me it doesn't matter if it's called marriage or turbo-binding-contract-of-doom. If it means something to me, then it's great. It so happens that I don't necessarily care about this concept under the banner of "marriage", a notion with the connotation of religion (which I don't adhere to) and forced marriages (see OP). And if you care to dig into this hipster's head, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to getting married myself even though I consider it a worthless institution on the human level. I'd get married if my girlfriend wanted to and I thought I was good for the long run, and I would give to said marriage whatever symbolic value I felt was meaningful for myself.
I don't know if I'm being clear, but to summarize, marriage by itself is an empty shell. You make it meaningful with your beliefs and who you are.
I honestly don't think that my views are that weird or uncommon, I just fleshed them out in a way that may seem unconventional because marriages are so normal and matter-of-fact. And perhaps you think I'm a hipster because I have this hippie-ish outlook. Be free man!!! Yeah, that's me . And it's not because I'm bitter, or against long term relationships, quite the opposite, really. It's just that I come from parents who were never married and still go on dates, I have friends who won't get married because they don't see the point and they're perhaps the happiest people I know. I just think that love speaks for itself, and it can be declared over and over, formally or informally, so long as it's genuine. Outside of the religious and traditional justification for marriages I think that to some extent, the importance (some) people give to marriage stems from their fear of change, as if getting married would protect their relationship from failure, even today. I mean, it would make sense, seeing how originally marriages were more about a man's ownership of a woman, or some such (depending on culture and era). Wouldn't want bae to cheat!
What you posted here is much more clear. In your first post, you literally said, "marriage isn't about love", and did so in a critical tone, so it was confusing what you were trying to convey. I fully agree that marriage doesn't have much worth in-and-of-itself, but it is given the worth that you put into it.
With all of that said, I do believe that there is a tangible difference between words and actions; professing your love with words is one thing, but actually stepping up to the plate and legally binding yourself to another individual is another. It's easy to throw out the "I love you's" and the "we'll be together forever's", as they are just words, but legally tying your societal well-being to another individual takes a certain level of commitment (or foolishness) that tends to be on a whole different level.
On May 02 2015 04:51 Djzapz wrote: 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.
That joke is a pretty poor analysis of marriage. The government doesn't get "involved" in marriage; the government simply recognizes your legal union when you declare it.
Can love survive without marriage? Absolutely, and plenty of people do that. However, just because you say that "marriage is not for love" doesn't make it true. All that does is scream "hipster".
If you can't see how legally unifying yourself to another person can be seen as an expression of love, then you have some thinking to do, because it's pretty basic and it's been a thing for a really long time.
First, that joke's poor analysis of marriage obviously. It was to preface my next points. Criticizing a joke on its merit as an "analysis" of something is a waste of everybody's time. It brings something up, which is not indicative of the entire topic that we're discussing, but marriage these days very much is a process which involves government. Thus the joke is not entirely pointless.
Second, I don't think you understood what I said because I'm not saying that marriage is not for love, I'm merely saying that I think it's a tradition with massive flaws. As for your suggestion that I might be a hipster, you're ridiculous, what even, I would never even think of trying to pass that off as an argument on the internet. If you're under the impression that my reasons for not being too fond of marriages are unique to me, you're mistaken.
Third, I do see how legally "unifying" yourself with another person can be seen as an expression of love, it's just not one that convinces me for multiple reasons. For one, it's only an expression of love because it's seen as a risk and an investment. There may be other reasons, like the perception that marriage is a declaration of love, but having been in love myself, I can safely say that the most loved I've personally felt was not when she brought up marriage... It means nothing to me. With a marriage proposal, showing the other person that you love them by essentially gambling on success, while being fully aware that a large number of marriages fail, many of those end up in legal nightmares, and other marriages involve two miserable people trying to make it last. It shows confidence, which isn't necessarily bad, but it's not my thing, not in that context.
I think that it's pertinent enough to mention that marriage has lots to do with government. I did mention legal hell. As for the idea that marriage has been a thing for a really long time, as if that was some sort of argument, I think you should go back to OP and see what marriage was for the longest of time.
Marriages for love are a fairly recent thing. Marriages costing tens of thousands of dollars outside of super wealthy families are a fairly recent thing. Hell, the modern State and practical weddings for tax reasons are also a fairly recent things, whereas marriage used to be family things and religious reasons. Your assertion that I have "some thinking to do" because marriage has been around for a really long time shows that you in fact have some thinking to do.
And you're perfectly free to disagree with me, I recognize many reasons for marriage. Practical reasons for government and financial affairs. Religious and traditional reasons. I also understand the social pressure and the social value that goes around marriage, namely the idea that if you really love someone you'll gamble that it'll be eternal so you should do it. But stripping the notion of marriage naked, it's a worthless institution. If I wanted to formally declare my love to someone, to me it doesn't matter if it's called marriage or turbo-binding-contract-of-doom. If it means something to me, then it's great. It so happens that I don't necessarily care about this concept under the banner of "marriage", a notion with the connotation of religion (which I don't adhere to) and forced marriages (see OP). And if you care to dig into this hipster's head, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to getting married myself even though I consider it a worthless institution on the human level. I'd get married if my girlfriend wanted to and I thought I was good for the long run, and I would give to said marriage whatever symbolic value I felt was meaningful for myself.
I don't know if I'm being clear, but to summarize, marriage by itself is an empty shell. You make it meaningful with your beliefs and who you are.
I honestly don't think that my views are that weird or uncommon, I just fleshed them out in a way that may seem unconventional because marriages are so normal and matter-of-fact. And perhaps you think I'm a hipster because I have this hippie-ish outlook. Be free man!!! Yeah, that's me . And it's not because I'm bitter, or against long term relationships, quite the opposite, really. It's just that I come from parents who were never married and still go on dates, I have friends who won't get married because they don't see the point and they're perhaps the happiest people I know. I just think that love speaks for itself, and it can be declared over and over, formally or informally, so long as it's genuine. Outside of the religious and traditional justification for marriages I think that to some extent, the importance (some) people give to marriage stems from their fear of change, as if getting married would protect their relationship from failure, even today. I mean, it would make sense, seeing how originally marriages were more about a man's ownership of a woman, or some such (depending on culture and era). Wouldn't want bae to cheat!
What you posted here is much more clear. In your first post, you literally said, "marriage isn't about love", and did so in a critical tone, so it was confusing what you were trying to convey. I fully agree that marriage doesn't have much worth in-and-of-itself, but it is given the worth that you put into it.
With all of that said, I do believe that there is a tangible difference between words and actions; professing your love with words is one thing, but actually stepping up to the plate and legally binding yourself to another individual is another. It's easy to throw out the "I love you's" and the "we'll be together forever's", as they are just words, but legally tying your societal well-being to another individual takes a certain level of commitment (or foolishness) that tends to be on a whole different level.
In that case I apologize for my calculated passive-aggressive remarks.
By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates
Marriage is a mistake every man should make. - Jessel
I have learned that only two things are necessary to keep one's wife happy. First, let her think she's having her own way. And second, let her have it. - Johnson
Men marry women with the hope they will never change. Women marry men with the hope they will change. Invariably they are both disappointed. - Einstein
My husband and I have never considered divorce… murder sometimes, but never divorce. - Joyce Brothers
Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution? - Groucho Marx
Love: A temporary insanity curable by marriage. - Bierce
In my house I’m the boss, my wife is just the decision maker. - Woody Allen
Before you marry a person, you should first make them use a computer with slow Internet to see who they really are. - Will Ferrell
There's only one way to have a happy marriage and as soon as I learn what it is I'll get married again. - Clint Eastwood
On May 02 2015 19:02 helpman169 wrote: Some quotes on marriages: + Show Spoiler +
By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates
Marriage is a mistake every man should make. - Jessel
I have learned that only two things are necessary to keep one's wife happy. First, let her think she's having her own way. And second, let her have it. - Johnson
Men marry women with the hope they will never change. Women marry men with the hope they will change. Invariably they are both disappointed. - Einstein
My husband and I have never considered divorce… murder sometimes, but never divorce. - Joyce Brothers
Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution? - Groucho Marx
Love: A temporary insanity curable by marriage. - Bierce
In my house I’m the boss, my wife is just the decision maker. - Woody Allen
Before you marry a person, you should first make them use a computer with slow Internet to see who they really are. - Will Ferrell
There's only one way to have a happy marriage and as soon as I learn what it is I'll get married again. - Clint Eastwood
Before you marry a person, you should first make them use a computer with slow Internet to see who they really are. - Will Ferrell
Man, I love that one. When I have a slow connection or I'm lagging for whatever reason, my inner demons come out and it's not a pretty thing to see. Or to hear.
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.
I am like basically on the other side of that XD
I, my parents, and someone's parents think their kids could make a great couple and I agree. So I listened to those parents and moved too fast- she is not amused, understandably.
I must simply be myself though- her parents don't approve for nothing. She makes the ultimate decision though, and I am actually thankful for that (thereby stating my agreement with HtS)
On May 02 2015 19:02 helpman169 wrote: Some quotes on marriages: + Show Spoiler +
By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates
Marriage is a mistake every man should make. - Jessel
I have learned that only two things are necessary to keep one's wife happy. First, let her think she's having her own way. And second, let her have it. - Johnson
Men marry women with the hope they will never change. Women marry men with the hope they will change. Invariably they are both disappointed. - Einstein
My husband and I have never considered divorce… murder sometimes, but never divorce. - Joyce Brothers
Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution? - Groucho Marx
Love: A temporary insanity curable by marriage. - Bierce
In my house I’m the boss, my wife is just the decision maker. - Woody Allen
Before you marry a person, you should first make them use a computer with slow Internet to see who they really are. - Will Ferrell
There's only one way to have a happy marriage and as soon as I learn what it is I'll get married again. - Clint Eastwood
Before you marry a person, you should first make them use a computer with slow Internet to see who they really are. - Will Ferrell
Man, I love that one. When I have a slow connection or I'm lagging for whatever reason, my inner demons come out and it's not a pretty thing to see. Or to hear.
CHUPAZIIIIIIII!!! HIJOLE PUTO I CALL TIME WARNER
WHY AM I PAYING TOO MUCH I SWITCH TO Verizon
(Switches to local cheap ISP that offers gigabit Internet)
On May 02 2015 19:02 helpman169 wrote: Some quotes on marriages: + Show Spoiler +
By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates
Marriage is a mistake every man should make. - Jessel
I have learned that only two things are necessary to keep one's wife happy. First, let her think she's having her own way. And second, let her have it. - Johnson
Men marry women with the hope they will never change. Women marry men with the hope they will change. Invariably they are both disappointed. - Einstein
My husband and I have never considered divorce… murder sometimes, but never divorce. - Joyce Brothers
Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution? - Groucho Marx
Love: A temporary insanity curable by marriage. - Bierce
In my house I’m the boss, my wife is just the decision maker. - Woody Allen
Before you marry a person, you should first make them use a computer with slow Internet to see who they really are. - Will Ferrell
There's only one way to have a happy marriage and as soon as I learn what it is I'll get married again. - Clint Eastwood
Before you marry a person, you should first make them use a computer with slow Internet to see who they really are. - Will Ferrell
Man, I love that one. When I have a slow connection or I'm lagging for whatever reason, my inner demons come out and it's not a pretty thing to see. Or to hear.
Slow net connection. Oh how I know you so much. Sucks to meet you regularly.
I study in financial and risk management. No way I'm gonna sign such a lousy contract :p
In more seriousness, my parents were never married (while being together until my father died) and I'm currently happy in a longterm relationship for 7 years. I do not believe you need "proofs of love" and I see more cons than pros so my skeptic mind set just don't see the point (for me). Other people are free to do as they wish (with consent) even though I question the rationality behind it.
On a more practical note I could see marriage being a good thing if one party has to sacrifice a lot for the relationship. Like stay at home parents. In that case I could see it being an insurance against the break-up with benefits to compensate for the sacrifice once the couple exists no longer. But it may be my background talking here :p
Aaand, love is the thing which is sold to you by society and aggressive marketing (valentine's day, romance movies, blue pill guys, girls reading stupid magazines). Love is just an affection, which tends to fade away by the time.
I highly advise (to guys mostly) educate yourself on marriage, dont listen to your mom, aunt, school teacher. Talk to real guys, read forums and etc. Afaik in western world divorce fucks up you really hard, especially guys (since they are most earners). Your wife can cheat on you and you can't do anything about it. There is no punishment for adultery. She keeps babies, you pay alimony (for wife) and child custody. Plus she takes half of your assets. Eventhough marriage failed because of her. If you don't or can't pay, you get jailed.
Think hard, think hard man, before putting that wedding ring.
its strong NO when it comes to marriage by love. Arrangement? meh. Marriage is only good when both parties benefit from it in real way. Like social benefits, discounts, access to some establishments. Other than that its a burden.
On May 04 2015 14:10 saddaromma wrote: "Love" is a vague thing. Marriage is real.
Aaand, love is the thing which is sold to you by society and aggressive marketing (valentine's day, romance movies, blue pill guys, girls reading stupid magazines). Love is just an affection, which tends to fade away by the time.
I highly advise (to guys mostly) educate yourself on marriage, dont listen to your mom, aunt, school teacher. Talk to real guys, read forums and etc. Afaik in western world divorce fucks up you really hard, especially guys (since they are most earners). Your wife can cheat on you and you can't do anything about it. There is no punishment for adultery. She keeps babies, you pay alimony (for wife) and child custody. Plus she takes half of your assets. Eventhough marriage failed because of her. If you don't or can't pay, you get jailed.
Think hard, think hard man, before putting that wedding ring.
its strong NO when it comes to marriage by love. Arrangement? meh. Marriage is only good when both parties benefit from it in real way. Like social benefits, discounts, access to some establishments. Other than that its a burden.
Imo you are greatly exaggerating the burden of the male and bias in favor of females when it comes to divorce. Also the concept of love and marriage were around way before this "aggressive marketing" that you are referring to. Such a complex notion that has different meaning cross culturally can't be boiled down and dismissed so easily as some sham that is sold to the gullible masses.
On May 04 2015 14:10 saddaromma wrote: "Love" is a vague thing. Marriage is real.
Aaand, love is the thing which is sold to you by society and aggressive marketing (valentine's day, romance movies, blue pill guys, girls reading stupid magazines). Love is just an affection, which tends to fade away by the time.
I highly advise (to guys mostly) educate yourself on marriage, dont listen to your mom, aunt, school teacher. Talk to real guys, read forums and etc. Afaik in western world divorce fucks up you really hard, especially guys (since they are most earners). Your wife can cheat on you and you can't do anything about it. There is no punishment for adultery. She keeps babies, you pay alimony (for wife) and child custody. Plus she takes half of your assets. Eventhough marriage failed because of her. If you don't or can't pay, you get jailed.
Think hard, think hard man, before putting that wedding ring.
its strong NO when it comes to marriage by love. Arrangement? meh. Marriage is only good when both parties benefit from it in real way. Like social benefits, discounts, access to some establishments. Other than that its a burden.
Imo you are greatly exaggerating the burden of the male and bias in favor of females when it comes to divorce. Also the concept of love and marriage were around way before this "aggressive marketing" that you are referring to. Such a complex notion that has different meaning cross culturally can't be boiled down and dismissed so easily as some sham that is sold to the gullible masses.
Oh please, I don't have anything against "concept of love", I just don't like its being forced on us. And I hope, you don't really draw "love and glory was a thing back then" conclusion from fairy tales. People were much simpler in old days. Wife is a child factory and husband is farmer/warrior, and everyone minds their own business. Families made unions by arranging marriages. They never tell about old couples loving each other in stories. Its always young people falling in love, hence 'the affection'.
I'm not really exaggerating on divorces. 95% divorces children end up being with mother. All mother needs, is not to be an alcoholic and not on drugs, its 100% guarantee she gets children.
And this is my experience talking, not some shit I read in forums. I'm married 6 years already. Eventhough my marriage is doing fine, which I don't attribute to signing the paper and saying "I do". Its just we had a luck with my wife that we are soulmates and we could easily live together without marrying. However I have brother, friends and colleagues who have/have been married. And some of them are in deep shit. Which I'm not gonna dwelve into, since its too much story and way out of this topic.
On May 04 2015 14:10 saddaromma wrote: "Love" is a vague thing. Marriage is real.
Aaand, love is the thing which is sold to you by society and aggressive marketing (valentine's day, romance movies, blue pill guys, girls reading stupid magazines). Love is just an affection, which tends to fade away by the time.
I highly advise (to guys mostly) educate yourself on marriage, dont listen to your mom, aunt, school teacher. Talk to real guys, read forums and etc. Afaik in western world divorce fucks up you really hard, especially guys (since they are most earners). Your wife can cheat on you and you can't do anything about it. There is no punishment for adultery. She keeps babies, you pay alimony (for wife) and child custody. Plus she takes half of your assets. Eventhough marriage failed because of her. If you don't or can't pay, you get jailed.
Think hard, think hard man, before putting that wedding ring.
its strong NO when it comes to marriage by love. Arrangement? meh. Marriage is only good when both parties benefit from it in real way. Like social benefits, discounts, access to some establishments. Other than that its a burden.
Imo you are greatly exaggerating the burden of the male and bias in favor of females when it comes to divorce. Also the concept of love and marriage were around way before this "aggressive marketing" that you are referring to. Such a complex notion that has different meaning cross culturally can't be boiled down and dismissed so easily as some sham that is sold to the gullible masses.
Oh please, I don't have anything against "concept of love", I just don't like its being forced on us. And I hope, you don't really draw "love and glory was a thing back then" conclusion from fairy tales. People were much simpler in old days. Wife is a child factory and husband is farmer/warrior, and everyone minds their own business. Families made unions by arranging marriages. They never tell about old couples loving each other in stories. Its always young people falling in love, hence 'the affection'.
I'm not really exaggerating on divorces. 95% divorces children end up being with mother. All mother needs, is not to be an alcoholic and not on drugs, its 100% guarantee she gets children.
And this is my experience talking, not some shit I read in forums. I'm married 6 years already. Eventhough my marriage is doing fine, which I don't attribute to signing the paper and saying "I do". Its just we had a luck with my wife that we are soulmates and we could easily live together without marrying. However I have brother, friends and colleagues who have/have been married. And some of them are in deep shit. Which I'm not gonna dwelve into, since its too much story and way out of this topic.
There are plenty of love tales stretching all the way back to the classical era. Couples growing old together is not something that was invented by some 20th century American marketing department.
Diminishing women's roles to "child factory" is incredibly demeaning, and historically incorrect. The statement "everyone minded their own business" is incorrect as well, considering there was zero privacy in the villages of old (privacy is actually a relatively new phenomenon). Everyone knew what everyone else was doing, and social pressure was enormous since doing something taboo (such as divorcing your spouse) could well result in you being shunned by the only social circle you had.
The reason marriage became an institution is because it promoted social stability, and especially in older societies, prevented inbreeding since you usually married someone of another clan or village. This would also mean that the kin ties between those clans and villages got intertwined, which again, promoted social stability. If anything, the current ridiculously elevated divorce rate is showing what happens if the idea of marriage loses its significance: the poverty rate as well as the risk of falling into poverty among single parent families is staggering: raising a child on a single person's salary is a heavy financial burden that few people can afford.
Sure, love can exist without marriage, but the idea of marriage is in se to dissuade couples from breaking up: you're married now, you have children, you better stick together because divorcing is going to be a legal and social hell. The state wants couples with children to stay together, which is why there are various cohabitation arrangements as well (here in Belgium, legal cohabitation is practically the same as being married). Single parent families are usually a burden on the state since more often than not those people are on some kind of benefit regime.
What I've learned, from my outside perspective, is that marriage/'true' love is about a decision to commit to it, rather than just fleeting feelings. Emotions are an important side of the coin, but the rational 'logic' side generally needs to be involved as well for there to be long term success. I don't believe that emotions and logic are exclusive, but rather opposite sides of the same coin. They are interconnected and must both be utilized and strengthened for either one of them to obtain the best results. That's starting to stray into my personal musings on typology, though.
It doesn't seem to matter if (the road to) a marriage starts due to 'emotion' (love) or 'logic' (arranged), either one can come before the other. In an arranged marriage, it's fairly obvious that the emotional side would be second to arrive - but there's plenty of stories of arranged marriages where the people involved did come to love each other. In any case, both parties would still need to actually commit to it, or it'll have just as many problems as those that are only founded on the emotional side and then crash and burn later when the flames of passion fade, due to an inadequate foundation.
History has already proven that both methods can be successful. It has also proven that both methods can fail quite spectacularly. It does take two, however. If one person is trying to stick it out and the other party has no interest in making it easy to do so, that's just a one-sided bundle of stress waiting to explode.
Society seems to lately be doing a rather shit job at teaching the coming generations on how to maintain long term commitments, such as marriage. Much more of a focus on instant/personal selfishness. Divorce rates have skyrocketed in the last several decades, though I imagine that a fair amount of the divorce rate probably comes from there being far less stigma attached to being divorced. Large portions of humanity have been shitheads since the dawn of time, it's just that there was just so much social pressure that a lot of spouses simply put up with the bullshit in the past. Wonder what type of catalyst will be needed before we finally fix the underlying cause(s) and figure out how to be better people as a species.
On May 05 2015 18:42 Vortok wrote: Large portions of humanity have been shitheads since the dawn of time, it's just that there was just so much social pressure that a lot of spouses simply put up with the bullshit in the past. Wonder what type of catalyst will be needed before we finally fix the underlying cause(s) and figure out how to be better people as a species.
The culture shift has happened and there is no going back to the old ways of less personal freedom and more social pressure. It's not like marriage is the holy grail of human society and we need to somehow "fix" society and bring it back.
Human culture is under constant evolution and the individuals can do nothing on their own to change the dynamics of a culture. That is because everything is interconnected, the individual motivation, the innate biological human behaviors, the infrastructure, the societal organisation, the laws and the government , the gender dynamics, the working environments, the social psychology, etc. Fixing one piece of the puzzle will change the dynamics of all other pieces.
Im 22 and ive been married for 3 1/2 years now. Having said that i view it as nothing but a piece of paper that reduces my taxes and gives me other handy benefits.
At the end of the day, as long as people are given the choice to decide what they want who gives a fuck? Why does it matter if its arranged or not.
I basically married out of circumstance, my wife grew up in a culture where marriage was everything, her family were sceptical of me because i was a white boi and her visa was expiring and she was looking at shitty options such as a work visa for a cunt boss for the next 3 years. Did i "want" to get married at that time? No, but the woman was and is the love of my life and getting married made things easier on many different levels. (because fuck yeah +£300 a month just from that crappy bit of paper <3 taxes.)
I dont think being married means anything at all (ignoring religious beliefs but i am not religious). Sure it represents a commitment to one another but if your relationship is so unstable that you need a piece of paper to tell you that you guys are happy & faithful then your relationship is bollocks. Other than legitimizing your relationship in the eyes of your god i dont see the big deal.
if somebody will ever love me and if ever i'd find the love on how i understand love
from what i've seen though marriage seems to be a terrible idea .. it's like both parties are ALWAYS trying to convince themselves that they are happy with the other person .. from my parents to other married people i know same fucking case but that mess i want it
What do you even mean by "love"? It's a word for many different emotions and urges. What people feel in the first weeks of a relationship is most likely not a good basis for founding a family. And founding a family is the most important reason for marrying (for me). A strong bond with a partner is very beneficial imo, call it love if you want.
If it were up to me tax cuts for married couples without children would be axed asap.
On May 05 2015 21:32 Maenander wrote: What do you even mean by "love"? It's a word for many different emotions and urges. What people feel in the first weeks of a relationship is most likely not a good basis for founding a family. And founding a family is the most important reason for marrying (for me). A strong bond with a partner is very beneficial imo, call it love if you want.
If it were up to me tax cuts for married couples without children would be axed asap.
Interesting. It's just the opposite in the US for example.
On May 05 2015 21:32 Maenander wrote: What do you even mean by "love"? It's a word for many different emotions and urges. What people feel in the first weeks of a relationship is most likely not a good basis for founding a family. And founding a family is the most important reason for marrying (for me). A strong bond with a partner is very beneficial imo, call it love if you want.
If it were up to me tax cuts for married couples without children would be axed asap.
Interesting. It's just the opposite in the US for example.
EPT
just saying
