View Full Version : Marriage
Relambrien
06-9-2008, 06:19 PM
I caught a snippet of a CNN broadcast about declining marriage rates in the U.S.--rates are 20% down in the last ten years--just now. Following that, there was a discussion about why this could be, what are the repercussions, etc. Now, that was a CNN thing and I know the Internet doesn't like CNN, so what are your thoughts on this?
Here's what I'm thinking. At least one half of marriages in the U.S. end in divorce, and that's deterring younger couples from marrying. What's the reason for this? I don't think a less-responsible society combined with needs for instant gratification are completely the problem, rather, I think people's standards have risen a lot.
Think back to before the 1920s in America, casual dating was almost nonexistent. You had one relationship with one person your entire life, and that was the person you married. Even if there were arguments and strife, your oath to God necessitated that you remain together and forced you to resolve the issue.
Then the 1920s came along and people began to have casual relationships--dating didn't mean you would marry. With this, people had a choice about who they could have relationships with so they began to expect more. If a relationship wasn't working out, end it and find a better one.
I think now that trend is working its way into marriage. The whole "oath to God" thing isn't nearly as important, and with the accessibility and social acceptance of divorce, ending marriages today could possibly be compared to ending dating relationships from the 1920s. People get into a relationship and it's working out, so they get married, but then problems arise. However, rather than work 100% to solve these problems--and if they're irreconcilable, live with them--just get a divorce instead. The end result is a much higher divorce rate that turns away younger couples from the concept of marriage.
I've also heard assertions that cohabitation rather than marriage gives an economic benefit, but I can't honestly say I know anything about that. Additionally, some people claim that the lack of a formal "marriage" decreases stress in a relationship, since there's no set rules or standards to adhere to, thus making problems easier to solve.
What does marriage give, anyway? A chance for couples to express their undying love through a formal joining under the eyes of God? If that's it, then why do couples -need- a formal ceremony to know they love each other dearly? Is God used as an omnipotent third-party, giving validation to the couple's claims of devotion?
What do you all think? Should marriage be as important as it is traditionally considered, or is this decreased focus a good thing for society?
It could have to do with how much easier it is to get around and see more people now. Communication has grown so much over the last 10 years. People don't seem as religious anymore as a whole country.
devonin
06-9-2008, 06:33 PM
I think you'll find that divorce rates are actually falling in terms of meaningful statistics.
The rise in divorce rate stemmed from a large number of couples, married at a time when divorce wasn't really a social option, deciding to split up in later years when it was more acceptable to do so, coupled with at least one movement to start getting married younger.
People are waiting longer -to- marry, but in general, more newlywed couples seem to be staying together, likely -because- they are waiting longer than before to decide to.
tsugomaru
06-9-2008, 06:40 PM
The rise in rates in divorce is related to women's right in some form another. It can't be coincidence that the divorce rates started increasing as soon as more and more women found jobs. Today, more and more women are entering the work force and they are getting ever so much closer to equal pay. No doubt that there would be conflicts in the family as both the husband and wife will try to strive to keep their job. If this argument can't be resolved, than a divorce is one of the ways out of it. It's probably also why families are getting smaller and smaller nowadays because if a couple have too many kids, the relationship can grow complicated because one of the two will have to give up their jobs in order to look after the children.
~Tsugomaru
Relambrien
06-9-2008, 07:18 PM
@Izzy
I can understand how a decrease in religious feelings could result in marriage being less important, but how does improved communication result in a decrease in religious feelings?
@ Devonin
It isn't so much divorce rates that I wanted to focus this discussion on. I realize a large chunk of my post was dedicated to divorce, but that was to give an explanation as to why marriage rates are decreasing. I'm talking about the number of couples getting married, not necessarily staying married. You said that people are waiting longer to marry, and I'm assuming you implied that that is the reason for a decrease in marriage rates, but could you elaborate on that specifically?
@ Tsugomaru
While I can understand what you're saying, it seems sort of...far-fetched to blame increased divorce rates (on a larger scale) and declining marriage rates on the struggle for women's rights. Also, I doubt that occupation conflicts are the result of -too- many divorces, though I agree there are probably quite a few.
tsugomaru
06-9-2008, 08:11 PM
But they do contribute quite a bit. As I said before, as women rights increased, so did divorce rate. Something about the two should be related, I find it difficult to believe it's coincidence.
Also, in no way or form am I saying women's rights are terrible because they increase divorce rates, it's just one of the reasons why they are.
~Tsugomaru
sarahxjane
06-9-2008, 09:20 PM
I do not believe in marriage.
I have never dreamed nor wished to become married.
This could be because my parents were never married or my own views or both.
I find it to be a waste of time and money. It is merely a piece of paper and a special day in the end of it all. Both families dish out thousands of dollars for a big get together for the couple. I could care less if it religious. Vows are made and broken all the time. Just because a couple is married does not mean they will not cheat or what not.
I believe that if a couple is happy, whether they be the same gender or not, just being together should be enough. People can see your happiness and love without having to announce it to the entire world.
As for divorce, it seems like marriage is becoming less about couples in love and more about what is beneficial to both parties. Teenagers generally become married if they have a child. Celebrities become married to gain publicity. They are making a mockery out of what is sacred to those to believe in it.
I just don't see the point.
@Izzy
I can understand how a decrease in religious feelings could result in marriage being less important, but how does improved communication result in a decrease in religious feelings?
I didn't say that for i used periods :| I guess that comment would go better with the first sentence.
Relambrien
06-10-2008, 03:51 AM
Ah, sorry, I took your post to mean "The country is less religious as a whole because it's easier to get around and see people, along with improved communication."
Zythus
06-10-2008, 11:42 AM
Its no suprise really. I argue in the contemporary soceity that the prerequsite relationships before marriage do not prevail long enough to flower into marriage.
Personally, I would not even consider "love". I have no interest with the pointless intricacies that comes with the package.
darkness1477
06-11-2008, 10:34 PM
i think the media is to be blamed at least partially because they have downplayed the importance of marriage and it makes divorce seem like an outlet for marriage and many peopl don't want to have to expierience the pian of being divorced so they just avoid it altogether and the decrease of religion as an esssential part oif peoples lifes makes sex before marriage nt seem as a bad thing so why get married to have it seeing as you have to make a commitment when so many people are scared of commetment or just want to enjoy life to the ffullest which also stems from a decrease in religion since people are focused on life now ansd not the afterlife which has been happening more and more ever since the reniasance (i suck at spelling)
justaguy
06-12-2008, 03:34 AM
What does marriage give, anyway? A chance for couples to express their undying love through a formal joining under the eyes of God? If that's it, then why do couples -need- a formal ceremony to know they love each other dearly? Is God used as an omnipotent third-party, giving validation to the couple's claims of devotion?
Marriage gives definition and security for most couples. It's not really a chance to express their undying love, it's more an extension of it. Why do couples need a formal ceremony? It's tradition. You can't simply disregard tradition without being under the scrutiny and criticism of those around you. God really isn't a defining factor in the process of marriage, just an influence.
I think you'll find that divorce rates are actually falling in terms of meaningful statistics.
The rise in divorce rate stemmed from a large number of couples, married at a time when divorce wasn't really a social option, deciding to split up in later years when it was more acceptable to do so, coupled with at least one movement to start getting married younger.
People are waiting longer -to- marry, but in general, more newlywed couples seem to be staying together, likely -because- they are waiting longer than before to decide to.
Okay, what statistics, if any, are you basing this off? You're making incredibly broad generalizations. Personally I think you're speculating in the wrong direction with regard to divorce rates.
The rise in rates in divorce is related to women's right in some form another. It can't be coincidence that the divorce rates started increasing as soon as more and more women found jobs. Today, more and more women are entering the work force and they are getting ever so much closer to equal pay. No doubt that there would be conflicts in the family as both the husband and wife will try to strive to keep their job. If this argument can't be resolved, than a divorce is one of the ways out of it. It's probably also why families are getting smaller and smaller nowadays because if a couple have too many kids, the relationship can grow complicated because one of the two will have to give up their jobs in order to look after the children.
~Tsugomaru
I actually agree with a large part of this. Increased divorced rates can be attributed to the idea that women are becoming more prominent figures in society. Because of this movement, traditional roles that once existed in family structure have dissolved and defining roles in marriages and parenting are really up in the air. While I don't think this is necessarily the only factor, I definitely feel this is a contributing factor to increased divorce rates.
I do not believe in marriage.
I have never dreamed nor wished to become married.
This could be because my parents were never married or my own views or both.
I find it to be a waste of time and money. It is merely a piece of paper and a special day in the end of it all. Both families dish out thousands of dollars for a big get together for the couple. I could care less if it religious. Vows are made and broken all the time. Just because a couple is married does not mean they will not cheat or what not.
I believe that if a couple is happy, whether they be the same gender or not, just being together should be enough. People can see your happiness and love without having to announce it to the entire world.
As for divorce, it seems like marriage is becoming less about couples in love and more about what is beneficial to both parties. Teenagers generally become married if they have a child. Celebrities become married to gain publicity. They are making a mockery out of what is sacred to those to believe in it.
I just don't see the point.
The only reason you actually believe what you do is simply because of what you stated at the beginning of your post:
This could be because my parents were never married.
You've witnessed it work, and you think it'd work the same for you. However, judging by your tone you aren't very open minded about the issue. I'd assume your parents came to a mutual understanding regarding the issue of not being married, and simply didn't find it necessary for them to engage themselves in it. Some couples require the satisfaction behind marriage to feel like they are truly a couple, hell, you might even need this. I wouldn't waltz into a LTR with preconceived notions regarding the necessity of marriage because it may not suit it.
I believe that if a couple is happy, whether they be the same gender or not, just being together should be enough. People can see your happiness and love without having to announce it to the entire world.
Believe it or not, some people may disagree with you.
As for divorce, it seems like marriage is becoming less about couples in love and more about what is beneficial to both parties. Teenagers generally become married if they have a child. Celebrities become married to gain publicity. They are making a mockery out of what is sacred to those to believe in it.
This is completely backwards. Maybe you're functioning in the past, or something. One reason for increased divorce rates is the pursuit of love. Love has essentially redefined marriage from being "what is beneficial to both parties," or from "marrying for the child," to pursuing an ideal counterpart. Because divorce has become a lot more socially acceptable, this is happening more frequently than in years past. Additionally, referencing tsugomaru's point earlier in the thread, the issue of redefined gender roles can be heavily attributed to increased divorce rates. I read (sorry, I don't have the source) that groups of women in Europe are marrying significantly less to pursue their career. Women already married may be under the same pressure to pursue a career while simultaneously raising a family. I feel most of these factors mentioned can be attributed to increased divorce rates.
Grandiagod
06-12-2008, 03:54 AM
Everyone's operating on the basis that divorce is a thing to be avoided, completely overlooking the benefits of divorcing someone that you're not compatible with.
devonin
06-12-2008, 12:04 PM
Personally I think you're speculating in the wrong direction with regard to divorce rates.And yet you say divorced rates can be attributed to the idea that women are becoming more prominent figures in society. Because of this movement, traditional roles that once existed in family structure have dissolved and defining roles in marriages and parenting are really up in the air.
Which is basically an explicit defense of my supposition of 'Divorce rates look higher because people who are already married are getting divorces because it is now more acceptable to do so thanks to the changing gender roles in society, but at the same time, already being aware of this shift, people are waiting longer to marry, and thinking harder about whether they want to marry etc. and thus newlyweds seem to be getting divorced less'
Everyone's operating on the basis that divorce is a thing to be avoided, completely overlooking the benefits of divorcing someone that you're not compatible with.Well, as to this: I don't attach any religious or spiritual significance to the institution of marriage, and the state has plenty of legislation to extend marriage benefits to unmarried couples that live together, so I could take or leave the whole institution.
Fun Fact: It seems like simply cohabitating with someone of the opposite sex long enough will automatically make you common-law, but if the person you're living with is the same gender, you have to show (unspecified as to how) that you're actually in a sexual romantic relationship first.
darkness1477
06-12-2008, 12:20 PM
divorce may have some benifits but it is supposed to be used as a last resort and some people just don't want to put forth the effort involved with having to spend your entire life with a person and just get divorced
sarahxjane
06-12-2008, 12:21 PM
You've witnessed it work, and you think it'd work the same for you. However, judging by your tone you aren't very open minded about the issue. I'd assume your parents came to a mutual understanding regarding the issue of not being married, and simply didn't find it necessary for them to engage themselves in it.
My dad is unable to get married due to the fact that he has been married to a woman for over 20 years now.
They have been separated for that long, since my parents were together for that long.
I think I am being open minded about it. Perhaps even hypocritial.
I'm happy that my brother is finally getting married.
Also, my dad and his girlfriend are planning on it. He just needs to track my step mother down.
( I've never met her and she doesn't know about me )
I am excited for all four of them but not for other people.
*Shrugs*
I honestly don't care how people view this.
My opinion on marriage overall still stands.
Even if it is deemed ridiculous or contradictory.
justaguy
06-12-2008, 03:29 PM
Which is basically an explicit defense of my supposition of 'Divorce rates look higher because people who are already married are getting divorces because it is now more acceptable to do so thanks to the changing gender roles in society, but at the same time, already being aware of this shift, people are waiting longer to marry, and thinking harder about whether they want to marry etc. and thus newlyweds seem to be getting divorced less.'
Like I said, there are multiple factors that contribute to changes in divorce rate. In retrospect I should have reread your post after articulating my points and maybe I would've made the same connection, but I still refute the idea that divorce rates will forever decrease. I think once this peak in divorce dies down, divorce rate will fluctuate. This is pure speculation of course, but I'm basing it on the fact divorce has become, for the most part, socially acceptable. Thinking about what you said, it makes sense to label the past few decades as the ultimate rise and peak of divorce rates.
man **** CT it makes me think about what i'm writing can i go back to trolling
Tokzic
06-12-2008, 03:52 PM
no once you enter ct your mind is bound here forever and you cannot leave alive
I don't put much weight in marriage. I'm not a creationist, so the whole being-approved-by-God thing doesn't apply to me. And for people who aren't religious, why should marriage make your relationship any more valid? There's only as much meaning in these things as you instill in them - valuing your relationship is good, but if having a ceremony over it makes you appreciate it more, it begs the question why you didn't value your relationship that much in the first place.
As for divorce, it's not inherently a bad thing. As Grandi said, if you're unhappy with your marriage and you don't get out of it (like most people), you are effectively pissing your life away. Frankly, I don't believe anyone can enjoy one single exclusive person's company for their entire life. I have limited evidence, and this obviously isn't provable, but I'd bet that a large majority of marriages that last over a decade are NOT healthy, but blowing the commitment out of the proportion results in staying together anyway. Which is horrible.
If the divorce rate is going up, that's a good thing, in my opinion. Marriage doesn't mean anything extra, but choosing to end a bad relationship in spite of feeling trapped in it is a very smart decision, and the more people doing it, the better.
devonin
06-12-2008, 03:56 PM
but I still refute the idea that divorce rates will forever decrease.Good thing I didn't suggest that divorce rates would forever decrease then. I pointed out that we -see- an increase right now that I'm linking to "A normal divorce rate, plus the people who would have divorced before but couldn't because it wasn't acceptable" and suggesting that soon we will fall back down to "A normal divorce rate"
Just because on average people are waiting longer, and thus ostensibly thinking harder about it doesn't mean people won't still screw up, or have their feelings change later, or decide to seperate for other reasons. Just means that less people are rushing into marriage because it's "the thing you do" and are instead actually waiting until they are sure they want it.
darkness1477
06-12-2008, 05:19 PM
divorce does have it's benifits but marraige takes work and more and more people arent willing to put forth the effort. it is possible to love someone all your life beause whatever atrracted you to them in the first place is still there you just have to work past the problems that are inevitable to arise since where just humans and wre arent perfect
1961casey
06-17-2008, 01:40 AM
The main problem with all male/female realationships is that most people enter it with the idea of what they can get out of it for themselves. With that frame of mind the relationship runs dry very quickly. If, instead, they determined beforehand that the person they are considering is mature and responsible and then that they have something to offer the other person then it is off to a better start.
Secondly, a healthy relationship is based on the realization that it takes time and effort to make it work. It involves things like taking deliberate time to simply be with the other person. Making sure there is no doubt that the other person knows that they are loved. (That means saying 'I love you' at least once a day. Right girls? Guys, take it from one who knows: 'You can never go wrong saying it, even if the girl should know better.) It means choosing the other person over time with friends. It means deciding to love the other person even if they are acting like a jerk/bitch. It means shutting up and just letting the other person vent off frustration no matter how silly it may seem. (Again guys, take it from someone who has been there.) It means remembering the little things that the other person likes and acting on it. It means getting to know their quirks and strengths. It means making sure that the other person is the most important person in the whole world to you. It means that whatever decision you make, the other person is at least aware of it beforehand and that they know you care about their opinion at least. It means saying 'I'm sorry' and meaning it. It means forgiving their mistakes and accepting their apology. Note that nowhere in the above paragraph is the condition 'when you feel like it' mentioned. You do it because it is important to the other person not because it satisfies some infantile need for self-gratification.
People have to realize that nowhere in the traditional wedding vows is it mentioned anything about how one '[I]feels[I]' toward the other person. Instead, it is a promise to stick by the other person no matter what. This is a vow, a promise and a commitment. It is a rational decision one makes. It is based on common sense and a realization that it is permanent or at least it is supposed to be.
The bottomline is this: loving someone is a decision you make not an emotion you feel.
If people were willing to accept their responsibility for their relationship with the other person then the divorce rate would drop dramatically. Unfortunately, we live in a very selfish society where personal wants and needs come before everything else including one's spouse. And when those wants and needs are not satisfied the participants move on to the next victim of their needs.
devonin
06-17-2008, 02:58 AM
So assuming people who actually enter into marriage with the best intentions but find it not what they were expecting, or not what they were looking for after all, you'd just rather suggest they "stick it out" and "accept their responsibility" instead of divorcing?
So...you'd rather us go back to the days where divorce was socially unacceptable and whole generations were raised in households that rather than being safe and secure places of love, were full of backbiting, fights, and clandestine affairs?
darkness1477
06-17-2008, 07:10 PM
i don't see how it doesn't apply to same sex mariage but i agree with casey peope arent perfect and they do dumb stuff and u just have to accept it and move on with ur lilves
1961casey
06-17-2008, 11:47 PM
So assuming people who actually enter into marriage with the best intentions but find it not what they were expecting, or not what they were looking for after all, you'd just rather suggest they "stick it out" and "accept their responsibility" instead of divorcing?
So...you'd rather us go back to the days where divorce was socially unacceptable and whole generations were raised in households that rather than being safe and secure places of love, were full of backbiting, fights, and clandestine affairs?
Actually people should enter into marriage with their eyes wide open. Unromantic questions must be asked before they enter into a marriage contract. Questions such as: Is he financially stable? Does he have a criminal record? Is he reliable? Can he be trusted? Is he capable of self-sacrifice? I grant you that I'm asking from a woman's point of view but similar questions should be asked of the woman. If you really think about it, in the old, old days and in some cultures arranged marriages worked because these questions were asked and there were certain expectations that had to be met. If these kinds of non-romantic questions were properly answered the emotions in a marriage would have a solid base from which to operate, again reducing the need for divorce.
And where did you get the romantic notion that there are any households free of backbiting and fights. I grew up with brothers and sisters and believe me that a week without an episode was unrealistic. We had to learn to live with each other as immature siblings and our parents had to set the example. The home was safe and secure because both parents stayed with each other not because everything was idyllic.
I expect that you will come up with a series of 'what if's' but that assumes that the parents are not suitable spouses to begin with and that they had not done due diligence before getting married. As for clandestine affairs, last I checked only faithless cheats had them and that was grounds for divorce.
devonin
06-18-2008, 11:32 AM
And where did you get the romantic notion that there are any households free of backbiting and fights. I grew up with brothers and sisters and believe me that a week without an episode was unrealistic. I'm not talking about between siblings, I'm talking about between parents. "Our parents had to set the example" you say, which just shows that you missed my point entirely. Have you grown up in a house where your parents can't stand each other but won't or can't get a divorce? Constantly shouting at each other, slamming doors, storming out, crying alone, drinking alone? I was lucky enough to avoid that, but I've seen it first hand on more than one occasion and believe me when I tell you, that is not a pleasant arena to be raised in, and no matter how many times one parent or the other tells you that the problems aren't about you, you -know- they are about you and it can really be a hard way to live. A LOT of marriages during the years where one simply did NOT get a divorce generated households such as that.
Arranged marriages worked because people accepted the idea that they could and probably would be in a marriage of convenience not of love. If you ended up loving your spouse, so much the better, but you willingly subordinated that desire to the well-being of your family overall. There's a reason that as independance and awareness increases among younger people, that opposition to arranged marriages grows. People want to be able to -choose- who they want to be with whether they plan on filing a questionnaire beforehand or not.
I expect that you will come up with a series of 'what if's' but that assumes that the parents are not suitable spouses to begin with and that they had not done due diligence before getting married. My point, which you keep artfully dodging is something I shall restate again in comparison to the above statement of yours. How about this? "Even when one exercises "due diligence" one can end up in a marriage with someone else that -later on- becomes unhealthy." Perhaps someone's feelings changed, perhaps someone's status changed, perhaps there are new factors that didn't exist at the time, perhaps one of you has met someone you are yet more compatible with. I can think of many reasons for a marriage to no longer work down the road despite the fact that it showed every sign of working at the time. That describes my parents in fact. They exercised all the diligence you could demand, and were married for seven years before parting, perfectly amicably I might add, for reasons that didn't apply when they married. There were no problems, they just both agreed that things were not working out as they had intended or wanted, and so divorced. I'm quite sure however, that if you had your way, and they were somehow forbidden to divorce, that the amicable parting could have developed into bitterness, regret, and eventually festered into exactly the problems you say "only happen" when people rush into marriage blindly.
You can't tell me with 100% certainty exactly where you'll be, what you'll be doing and what your various needs and wants from relationships will be even 5 years from now. How can you possibly think that two people can generate 100% certainty with regards to where they'll be, what they'll be doing, and what they will need and want from a relationship across the next 40 years, in relation to the same from another person? That's ridiculous.
1961casey
06-19-2008, 01:04 AM
Devonin described household situations where parents were screaming at each other, slamming doors and storming out on each other. This merely describes immature behaviour which should have been detected before they got married. This is stuff that is learned in childhood, not after growing up.
"Perhaps someone's feelings changed, perhaps someone's status changed, perhaps there are new factors that didn't exist at the time, perhaps one of you has met someone you are yet more compatible with. " Perhaps the fairy godmother will come down and wave a magic wand that will give you everything you need without working for it.
Guess what: your feelings WILL change, count on it. Your status will change, count on that too. New factors are a fact of life, anticipate it. And there will always be someone with whom you are more compatible, whatever that means. The point is that you PROMISED to stick with your partner no matter what and that includes all these conditions which are specifically covered in the traditional wedding vows. True romance is when you can go through life's problems with someone and know that they will be there with you and for you. To use such situations as a reason for divorce merely demonstrates how shallow the relationship was in the first place. A real relationship requires work, time and effort grounded in the real world of day to day life. It is not easy, it is not always fun, it is not good feelings 24/7/365. It is not a fairytale where they all lived happily ever after.
I know that I will not be the same person 5, 10, 20 and 40 years from now. I hope so. I also know that a true love relationship will not depend on how I remain the same. That is the ridiculous idea: a marriage is stable only for as long as two people don't change.
devonin
06-19-2008, 03:41 AM
So...you believe so wholeheartedly in the sanctity of marriage that even when a marriage is failing, you would rather insist that people have to "stick it out" instead of making an adult decision to part ways amicably before the problems get too bad.
Fair enough, but you clearly have no intention of discussing here, or considering the possibility that you are setting too high a set of standards for marriage.
Further, you seem to be expressing the idea that marriage is something people ought to be in, or at least that ending a marriage is some horrific travesty that should be avoided at all costs.
What's -bad- about a divorce?
Mans0n
06-19-2008, 08:59 AM
The only BAD thing about divorce, is that If you have kids, they most likely will think it's thier fault, and (can) will become depressed. Especially teenagers or kids who were close to both mom/stepmom/ stepdad.
Cavernio
06-19-2008, 10:27 AM
devonin: "Fair enough, but you clearly have no intention of discussing here, or considering the possibility that you are setting too high a set of standards for marriage."
He's not setting too high a standard for marriage. The expectations he's listed are what society expects from people in general, I think.
Talking about too high of expectations for marriage, high expectations I believe are probably the main reason marriage isn't working out (through increased divorce rates and less people getting married.) That 'love' in the fairytale, romantic way, which we've probably all experienced in one way or another, is what people seem to chase after, and understandably so! Those feelings are amazing. However, those feelings, in my experience, will never last forever. I think we all agree that people are taking longer to get married than before, because they want to 'make sure things will work out', avoiding situations like Devonin described. This happens these days because we're in an open society, (and things like this are known and talked about, and not hidden, unlike in previous generations). This extra time in the relationship also gives more time for that 'love high' to dissipate. When feelings like that go away, permanent things like 'marriage' to a person you're not head-over-heels for, or staying together with that person after marriage, are not in keeping in line with the goal of 'falling in love'.
So why are people chasing after 'love' and previous generations didn't as much? Traditions for marriage are largely gone these days, and with them gone, higher hopes have set in. Not only that, these dreams of Great Love are actually founded these days, moreso than before, in that there IS more communication. The number of people you can talk to these days is astounding. Even people who are housebound have the internet and chat forums and dating services to meet new people on, and to fall in love with.
Also, as to women working being connected to marriage decrease and divorce increase, there're a few things. One of them is liberty. You won't fall in love with someone else while at home raising 5 children, when the only person you ever see is your husband. There's simply less opportunity for forbidden fruit. Another one is that with women working, they're able to support themselves, at least moreso than before. And this means that if you ARE stuck in a terrible marriage, if you divorce, you've got options besides going to live with your mother. Imagine yourself having an abusive husband, not being able to get decent wages if you were to find work, having nowhere to live if you left, and having spent the last 10 years of your life staying at home raising kids. What would you do if you left?
(This lat reason I mentioned, is what a couple of my mid twenties fellow female friends say is thereason marriages end in divorce these days. When I tried to explain things like relambrien did, and other things in my post, they didn't agree with me at all. Sigh.)
Relambrien: I agree with most of your OP, expect that you say that all the reasons you talked about cause high divorce, which then causes people to NOT want to get married. I think we can remove that middle causality and simply apply your arguments as to the high divorce rate to why people don't get married these days as well.
Sarahxjane and tokzic, I believe, have given us, generally, what many people think of marriage. All we have to do is compare what they've said to attitudes towards marriage from previous times to understand, at least in part, why long-lasting marriages aren't du-jour.
tokzic: I disagree, however, that you should question the value of a relationship if you want to get married. The most recent wedding I attended was Hindu. Before it began, it was said that it would be in sanskrit (which no one besides the priest understood), and that it was done this way because it has been done like that for 4000 years. 4000 years!!! There was something...tremendousbout carrying on a tradition for so long. The ceremonyitself was not based on the 'love' between the people, but on that they would share thier lives with each other, much as Casey explained how successful marriages work. The old Hindu tradition was also that the husband and bride would never have met before being married, either.
In closing, I totally see many reasons as to why marriage is what it is today, however, I will say that I think it is largely due to 'love' not fitting well with marriage. This is only confounded by the fact that our society thinkslove and marriage are supposed to go hand in hand.
1961casey
06-19-2008, 09:43 PM
Thank you, cavernio, for your understanding.
Devonin, when two people enter into a marriage it is assumed that both parties are adults and capable of making adult decisions. As such, the adult decision should be to take steps to preserve and enhance the marriage instead of giving up. How can easily will a marriage fail if both parties are willing to work on it like adults?
Maybe I am setting some high standards. But wouldn't it be better than going into a relationship with such low standards that a minor glitch can destroy it? Isn't that a sad situation in which to be? Isn't it a travesty that such a time honored tradition can't be protected? Isn't it sad that half the people can't keep it going? Isn't it disappointing that so many people are willing to accept it as some kind of 'norm'? Maybe we should all be making more of an effort to encourage and protect marriage. Including looking at ourselves and our expectations of our relationships.
Relambrien
06-19-2008, 09:52 PM
I will say that I think it is largely due to 'love' not fitting well with marriage. This is only confounded by the fact that our society thinkslove and marriage are supposed to go hand in hand.
This is actually a very interesting statement. I didn't realize it until now, but now I see that when I was younger, I thought of a clear cycle or pattern into which love fell.
Meet --> Date --> Fall in love --> Marry
^ |
| Break up if necessary
| |
| |
^------------
You're quite right in that society considers love and marriage to go hand-in-hand (no pun intended). When you think about how this might not be the truth, things get interesting. It brings marriage down from a level of mythic elation, to a much more practical plane. Love is only one part of a healthy marriage--and thus, is neither necessary to create one nor to sustain one.
I'll have to think on that some more, actually.
EDIT: Responding to ninja.
As such, the adult decision should be to take steps to preserve and enhance the marriage instead of giving up.
Is this really the case? I would expect an "adult decision" to be one that is the most beneficial to all parties involved. I can think of many situations in which a divorce would be the best possible thing for both the husband and wife. If, as it turns out, circumstances have caused issues that mean the marriage isn't working, and both the husband and wife are unhappy, a divorce solves this 100%. The husband and wife are freed from their relationship problems, and don't have to worry about them resurfacing, as they would if they worked the problems out.
You'll have to explain why preserving a marriage is better than divorcing, which I haven't seen you do, yet. What benefits do the husband and wife have by staying together in unhappy conditions that cannot be matched by simply finding better conditions with another person? In other words, explain why preserving the marriage is "the most beneficial to all parties involved."
devonin
06-19-2008, 09:59 PM
As such, the adult decision should be to take steps to preserve and enhance the marriage instead of giving up. How can easily will a marriage fail if both parties are willing to work on it like adults? Relambrien answered exactly how I was going to. You tacitly assume that staying married is always the better decision, the correct decision, and really don't provide any support as to why that should be.
1961casey
06-19-2008, 11:43 PM
Have you noticed how often it is said "Well this circumstance came up so we might as well get a divorce." Why aren't people saying "This circumstance came up, what are we going to do to resolve it." It merely indicates the low standards people are willing to accept to justify their decisions.
"You'll have to explain why preserving a marriage is better than divorcing, which I haven't seen you do, yet. What benefits do the husband and wife have by staying together in unhappy conditions that cannot be matched by simply finding better conditions with another person? In other words, explain why preserving the marriage is "the most beneficial to all parties involved."
First of all, it is an indication of one's character or lack thereof. Your statement also assumes that the parties cannot do anything to correct the situation. Don't forget, we are supposed to be talking about mature, responsible adults who have made mature, responsible decisions before getting married, made a responsible decision to get married and made a binding promise to stick with the person no matter what. Well 'what' has now arrived. What would be the mature, responsible thing to do? These are circumstances outside the relationship that should not have any bearing on the individuals decisions. Instead they should be looking to each other for support. You asked what benefits are there? Well, for one, the people learn to face their problems and deal with them. They develope character. They discover the depth of their commitment to each other. They discover that there is someone is going to stick by them for their mutual care, comfort and support. They relationship becomes stronger when they realize that, in spite of outside problems, their partner will remain their partner because of their commitment not their convenience. I could go on but I think I may have made my point.
Secondly, if a person is unwilling to stick with one relationship because of circumstances, they are not going to fare any better in the next relationship because similar circumstances will evoke the same response: quit. The problem lies not with the circumstances but with the individual. And they will carry those problems with them wherever they go until they learn to deal with circumstances. Therefore it doesn't matter if they divorce or not, they still have not dealt with their personal problems and their next relationship will suffer in the same way when those problems resurface, and they will.
Cavernio
06-20-2008, 08:43 AM
quoting 1961casey: "The problem lies not with the circumstances but with the individual."
This isn't always the case though. Perhaps its those 2 people together who don't work out. However, seeing how long couples stay together unmarried these days, (their entire lives some of them), if one decides to get married after living with them for a few years, then I don't see how you cannot know the character of the other person.
As usual, I'm divided between the 2 arguments being made, in whether divorcing is good or bad. I certainly feel the attitude of "Why settle for less?", particularly in terms of relationships. And I'm also quite the revolutionary when it comes to following tradition for the sake of following tradition, especially when following that tradition can be harmful. Casey's argument comes together, I think, when he/she says that if one marriage isn't working out, then likely other ones won't either. Relambrien and Devonin, on the other hand, (although nothing is said yet), will probably say something like "So what?" to this argument, because the goal is not necessarily to have a life-long relationship.
I think I'm too young to say whether it's better to have something life-long or not. Rather, I'm leaning towards saying that life-long must have some merits that I obviously haven't experienced yet, however, this is totally counter what I've held since highschool, which is that it's foolish to ever believe I will only ever fall in love with 1 person at any given moment. I know that this isn't true for everyone though.
quoting relambrien: If, as it turns out, circumstances have caused issues that mean the marriage isn't working, and both the husband and wife are unhappy, a divorce solves this 100%. The husband and wife are freed from their relationship problems, and don't have to worry about them resurfacing, as they would if they worked the problems out.
A divorce doesn't always solve things 100%, especially if kids are involved. However, even if their personal problems are worked out but divorcing, there's other problems which can arise. What if you were a stay-at-home parent, who has absolutely no source of income? What if you and your spouse have all the same friends, and even worse, what if they've chosen to 'take sides' against you? What if you're from a small town and avoiding further arguments with them means changing cities? What if you both work at the same place, or in the same field and have regular contact with them outside your home? Even if none of these apply, you're still upsetting your life, which can be very hard to deal with. Besides, these are all situations that can happen when both parties want to divorce. If the divorce is largely 1-sided, you're not going to be happy with it.
As an addition to my previous post, I've since thought of another fairly obvious reason why divorce is rising along with women working. Good relationships need time together, and when both people are working, there's a lot less time for simply being with each other. Complimenting this, there's also more stress.
devonin
06-20-2008, 09:49 AM
First of all, it is an indication of one's character or lack thereof.
It takes a lot of character to get a divorce in a culture full of people like you who will insist that only idiots and weaklings get a divorce instead of 'sticking it out' or trying to 'make it work anyway'
Don't forget, we are supposed to be talking about mature, responsible adults who have made mature, responsible decisions before getting married, made a responsible decision to get married and made a binding promise to stick with the person no matter what.Pretty sure not everyone who gets married gets married in a church that requires you to stipulate "until death do us part" Not every marriage involves such a promise, nor do I agree that even having such a marriage constitutes a -binding- promise.
They discover the depth of their commitment to each other. It's when they do this deep soul-searching and discover that the commitment isn't quite as deep as they had perhaps earlier assumed that they consider divorce. I don't know what it is about divorce that you think anyone who gets one is using it as "the easy way out" Sure, there are plenty of people who consider divorce at the first sign of trouble, but virtually every divorcee I know exhausted pretty much every other avenue beforehand. Counselling, therapy, you name it. It's perhaps more of a -last- resort than you seem willing to even consider.
Secondly, if a person is unwilling to stick with one relationship because of circumstances, they are not going to fare any better in the next relationship because similar circumstances will evoke the same response: quit. The problem lies not with the circumstances but with the individual. And they will carry those problems with them wherever they go until they learn to deal with circumstances. Therefore it doesn't matter if they divorce or not, they still have not dealt with their personal problems and their next relationship will suffer in the same way when those problems resurface, and they will.Once again, you're assuming that a whole lot of circumstances are simply true of all cases of divorce. My dad got divorced, and has since remarried and believe me when I tell you, that there is -no- chance whatsoever that such a thing will happen again. He has been quite happily remarried for the better part of two decades, surely enough time for the glaring personal flaws you want to automatically assign him to assert themselves.
I've since thought of another fairly obvious reason why divorce is rising along with women working. Good relationships need time together, and when both people are working, there's a lot less time for simply being with each other. If the husband is spending a full working day out of the house, they are apart whether the woman spends the -exact same hours- also at work, or sitting at home watching soap operas. This reason simply holds no water.
1961casey
06-20-2008, 11:40 AM
Boy, where do I start. Well, let's begin with Cavernio's last post.
You state "if one decides to get married after living with them for a few years, then I don't see how you cannot know the character of the other person." You are exactly right, which bolsters the argument in favour of a long dating and engagement period during which "This extra time in the relationship also gives more time for that 'love high' to dissipate." and cold rational analysis can begin. The end result being that you know with whom you are dealing and the rose-coloured, or 'love-coloured', glasses have come off.
'Falling in love' is an emotional event, it can occur with a variety of people in your life for a variety of reasons. It is wonderful when it happens but it is also as unreliable as the rest of one's emotions and therefore not a standard by which to judge someone else. Basically the thinking goes 'He/She makes me feel so wonderful that I know I am falling in love.' but that changes when they do or say something unpleasant and the feeling disappears. Then what is left? The object of your affection must make you feel wonderful all the time or else it is not love. It is an unfair and unrealistic burden to place on someone and doesn't require effort on your own part. Talk about selfish especially when it is used to judge the quality of a relationship.
Devonin: 'It takes a lot of character to get a divorce in a culture full of people like you who will insist that only idiots and weaklings get a divorce instead of 'sticking it out' or trying to 'make it work anyway'
I did not say or imply 'idiots and weaklings', I said 'a lack of character'.
It does not take 'character' to do what you want in spite of societal pressure. It the reason we have laws and why we have people who still break them. It is not 'a lot of character' to get a divorce but selfishness or foolishness.
I have to correct a redundancy I commited when I described marriage as a 'binding promise'. A promise is binding in and of itself and to say that it is a 'binding' is unnecessarily repetative.
Devonin states: "It's when they do this deep soul-searching and discover that the commitment isn't quite as deep as they had perhaps earlier assumed that they consider divorce."
You are referring to a statement I made as part of a list of benefits of sticking together in spite of problems. The benefits come after working through their problems, not after a divorce.
Finally, Devonin, you refer to your own Dad as an example of a successful second marriage. I would be very interested to hear what he would have to say. Why did the first marriage not work out? What would or should he have done differently? What changed between the two marriages? Why is his second marriage so successful? Would he like to see his son learn from his mistakes, and if so what would he teach?
Honestly, I am very glad that your Dad has managed to remain happily remarried, and I hope that will be able to celebrate a fiftieth wedding anniversary, even if it is overly-ambitious. I think it would be worthwhile to hear from someone who has gone through a divorce, what they learned and what they would do differently. Hopefully we can learn from someone's experience and perhaps avoid some disappointment at the least.
darkness1477
06-20-2008, 12:18 PM
you all stated some good arguments
i agree with most of what casey says but she seems unwillingly to consider how unforseen changes can and should result in divorce. for example this man and woman were happily married for years and then he got addicted to crack and forgot all about his wife. isn't that a good reason for divorce? this man and woman were happily married for 10 years and then thte wife met up with with this guy she liked in high school and since she was never able to date him in high school she decided she would since she was able to now. is't a good reason for the husband to divorce her? this man and woman were married for a few years and then they had thier first child, a little baby girl. 10 years later the wife caught the man having sex with the child. when they asked him why he said she reminded him of his wife. isn't that good reason to divorce? my frind was married for 3 years and one day his wife told him he was everything she wanted except light skinned. is that a marriage worth staying in were your spuose will never be happy with you just because your skin is as dark as hers?
and what is the point of entering a loveless marriage
1961casey
06-20-2008, 09:49 PM
I stand corrected: there are good reasons for divorce and darkness1477 hit most of them. The three reasons I would accept would be abuse, addiction and adultery. I will leave it at that, and accept the scorn that is about to be heaped on me.
Cavernio
06-21-2008, 08:07 AM
If the husband is spending a full working day out of the house, they are apart whether the woman spends the -exact same hours- also at work, or sitting at home watching soap operas. This reason simply holds no water.
I really didn't think that I'd have to spell things out about this. Firstly, you talk about husband and wife working exact same hours, which doesn't always happen.
Totally besides this, however, I'm shocked at your lack of noticing how much work is put into everyday household chores, paricularly if you're a house-owner. Sure it's mindless work, but laundry, cooking, cleaning and yard-work are all time consuming. Not a full 8 hours worth of work a day, but usually a couple. An 8 hour work day doesn't mean only 8 hours of work for one to do in a day if they come home and have to make supper, clean up afterwards, and then vacuum. Or, you could not do these things and end up spending way more money than you ever thought possible on eating out, and living in a dirty home, which most people find stressful. And we haven't even considered kids yet, which we certainly should considering we're talking about marriage, but I think you can see where I'd go with that.
Even pretending there's never any housework to be done, working full-time can be stressful. If both people come home grumpy and tired, who ends up giving the other person a backrub, or cooking dinner, or doing the laundry; who takes the stress away from the other person? My experience in relationships is that when both people are grumpy, arguements tend to ensue, and its much harder to be level-headed after a stressful day of work.
Lastly, we should consider one of the reasons why so many women are working these days: because they have to for the money, regardless of their husband working full-time. Even in families where both parents are working these days, you can still be poor. And money problems definitely cause stress.
1961casey: I'm surprised you consider adultery to be an absolute to break up a marriage. I perceive cheating to be a common problem, and one which I also perceive, couples work out often. My perceptions could be wrong.
I also have a question; what if someone in the marriage develops serious mental illness, is it OK to divorce then?
devonin
06-21-2008, 09:04 AM
Um...pretty sure I know exactly how much work is involved with keeping house. The purpose of the statement was "If the people are apart for 8 or 9 hours every day, it shouldn't matter whether the places they are apart are workplace/home or workplace/workplace they will still be just as apart" you latched onto a device of emphasis and completely ignored the actual point I was making.
Chanz
06-21-2008, 09:41 AM
I think that marriage has just become something associated with God. Most marriages occur in churches and with that they are swearing their vows to one another under God's witness.
As the time grows on, more and more people begin to question who this "God" creature really is. With that people begin to think about their marriages as well.
Really, marriage doesn't provide anything more than a relationship with someone. Just the only difference is that it costs money to end a marriage and then the whole "who-gets-what" debacle. The only real need for marriage is just for two people to say that they want to be with so-so forever and this is how much I want to express what love is to you with this shiny stone in a silver/gold band. Let's go say our vows under "God's" eyes and then that is that.
And people usually look down on others if they have (a) child(ren) and the two aren't even married. But other than that I think the real reason that marriages are going down is because of the whole "God" concept as stated by the original poster.
That is just my opinion.
Because people are rude I would like to say that before commenting on this post please read the one about 3 post down.
1961casey
06-22-2008, 02:06 AM
Cavernio,
You suggested that adultery would not always be the end of a marriage and the couples often reconcile afterwards. Obviously it is possible and I wish the best to those couples who try and succeed. However, one has to realize that the relationship has been damaged and it will never be the same again, regardless of the passage of time. Possible? Yes! but difficult.
You also asked about the case of mental illness. Let me tell you a real story. I hope that you may get to know a lady like Judy. She was not a 'classy' lady. If anything she could best be described as 'frumpy'. She was not someone to whom you go for advice, or ask to take on a prestigious task. She was sweet, however, and always had a smile and a friendly hello. She doted on her grandchildren, taking them with her whenever she could. Her husband, as a roofer, was somewhat rough around the edges as the saying goes but he managed to support his family well enough.
One day, he fell off a roof and fell the equivalent of three stories to the ground, landing on his head and was severely brain injured. To say his wife was in shock would be to state the obvious. Some how she had to take over everything that her husband used to do around the house, visit him in the hospital, and arrange for his on-going care. Later she had to sell the house, find a extended care facility to care for her husband and one that would allow her to be there with him as well. For the next three years she had to take care of her husband as a she would care for a baby. Perhaps I should rephrase that: for the next three years she decided to take care of her husband. There was no real reason to prevent her from turning the care of her husband over to some facility but she didn't. She could have made any number of reasonable choices but she chose the hardest one. She loved her husband and she was going to make sure he got the best possible care, even if it meant the she would have to give it.
As I said this lasted for only three years. He developed pneumonia and, complicated by his brain injury, it killed him.
One definition of a hero is: one who willingly risks or gives up their life or possessions in order to protect someone else's life or possessions. If you asked Judy why she did it, she would answer 'because he is my husband.' Wouldn't it be wonderful if we all could have a hero in our lives?
darkness1477
06-23-2008, 09:04 AM
you don't have to get married in a church and many people who don't believe in god are hppily married so people questioning god cant account for everything
_Adrian_
06-23-2008, 09:43 AM
Well, I'd like to put my 2 cents in here. I'm obviously someone who hasn't been married or had a girlfriend.
I think people don't get married because of "God" but because of their customs. Personally, I used to think there was a "God", but I saw this movie, Zeitgeist (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=zeitgeist&sitesearch=#). Now I'm not some Anti-Christ. So anyways, I think that marriage is still something good for society, but only if it happens as 1961casey says. Many people today just go into with marriage wanting sex, I assume.
Marriage is still a good thing today, and when I find the right girl, I'll marry her after a couple of years maybe..
Chanz
06-23-2008, 02:30 PM
Ah, I forgot to add to the whole "God" post up there.
So here is another:
Other than the whole "God" concept, I think that another reason to the decrease is this rise in the gay population and that George Bush has made same sex marriage illegal. Many more people are becoming gay and the fact that they can't be married they have to move elsewhere to somewhere that will allow them to get married.
Then another possibility is that times have changed many things and as it seems the entire world has become more open and free willing to do as they wish. With our forms of communication and traveling, it has enabled up to travel around the world more and to more with out life instead of settling down with the girl/guy next door. Things have become less restrictive than in the past that people want to do more with their life before they settle down at the age of 20 or so.
But with both of those statements combined, I think that with the rise in the gay population and the more ways to travel, it has made it so people get married elsewhere.
And that is just a thought.
Okay, this is just to make a point clear. I am just stating my opinions please do NOT IM me about this and start insulting me when I did nothing to you directly. I apologize if I offended anyone, I didn't grow up with your views so please, don't impose yours on me.
Tps222
06-24-2008, 01:45 AM
Addressing an issue brought up by Tokzic and a few others:
Concerning the whole "title" of marriage. Where's the significance? Ever won an award? What is the award? Nothing more than a title, mere recognition of the fact. If I won the Nobel Peace Prize, I'd accept it, even though the work I did is still there. Now, I'm not comparing the two here, but some people view marriage as an honor, and thus the title holds significance.
Being someone who has come from a divorced family, I can say the after-effects of divorce are surely not 100#% better. Especially with children involved, the couple is forced to make interactions from time to time, and it makes things difficult on the children. I realize the personal gains involved with divorce, but they are rarely, rarely, equal. One person usually gets screwed.
Personally, I'd like to get married at some point in my life, and I'd do everything I could to make it last. I just need to do my best with choosing the person, and then be confident in my abilities to resolve problems. I don't know if it's the Catholic upbringing I have, despite me denouncing a lot of it, or the fact that I'm coming from a divorced family, but my biased opinion has me agreeing with almost all of Casey's points and requisites for marriage.
1961casey
06-26-2008, 11:56 PM
As usual, I'm divided between the 2 arguments being made, in whether divorcing is good or bad. I certainly feel the attitude of "Why settle for less?", particularly in terms of relationships.
Could you expand on your point, particularly about settling. As it stands it is vague.
Cavernio
06-30-2008, 03:24 PM
Well, if you feel like you're not as happy as you could be in a marriage, particularly if there's someone else that you'd rather be married to, and you forsee it as being better, I definitely understand why some people would break up the marriage. 'Settling' would be to stay with your spouse even though you perceive it as not being as good as something else you think you can obtain.
1961casey
07-22-2008, 02:35 AM
Well, if you feel like you're not as happy as you could be in a marriage, particularly if there's someone else that you'd rather be married to, and you forsee it as being better, I definitely understand why some people would break up the marriage. 'Settling' would be to stay with your spouse even though you perceive it as not being as good as something else you think you can obtain.
I think also that 'settling' is dwelling on the past or on what could have been. I think most people would concede that this would be a waste of time, because it just won't be. The real question is what can I do to move on? I am not going to waste time feeling sorry for what I won't get so what can I do to look forward. The best that can be done is to learn from what happened, why it happened and what can I do to keep it from happening again so that I won't have to 'settle' for anything else. "Settling' is for people who only feel sorry for themselves and, thus, are of no worth to anyone who wants a mature relationship.
DDRcrazy5
07-26-2008, 08:31 AM
Some people don't take marriage too seriously, for example look at the celebrities. They are married for one year and maybe more, then they just divorce. People have to remember that marriage is probably the most important thing that happens in their life and it has to be taken seriously.
devonin
07-26-2008, 03:33 PM
People have to remember that marriage is probably the most important thing that happens in their life and it has to be taken seriously.Why does it -have- to be the most important thing in their life and why does it -have- to be taken seriously? Where's your pre-existing objective justification for such a claim? If I personally don't think marriage is a serious thing at all, how do you justify telling me that I am simply -wrong-?
Things mean different things to different people, and part of the whole situation is the fact that there really is no way to -prove- that these things have some objective permanant intrinsic value. So -you- think that marriage is very serious and important. Good for you, and I gather that as a result, you will exercise a great deal of caution and planning before you commit to a marriage that will likely be one you want to last forever. I respect that. What I don't respect is your claim that such must be true for all people regardless of circumstances.
So again: Where is your justification that marriage is necessarily super serious and important for all people?
1961casey
07-30-2008, 03:01 AM
Devonin, allow me to take up the gauntlet that you have thrown down. One can say that marriage is important because the couple needs a licence from the government before they can get married. A government official must preside over the ceremony. It must be witnessed and signed by a third party. It is frequently conducted in front of the family and friends who are invited by the participants who wish to share this significant moment with them. The onlookers are often encouraged to hold the participants accountable for their vows (not promises). Finally, the particpants sometimes have the ceremony performed in front of their god in order to receive a blessing on their relationship. No other relationship between two people is consumated under these circumstances. Therefore, yes, marriage is very serious and to say otherwise would be foolishly wrong.
Well, devonin, it's more of a matter of morals. Granted, marriage is not always the most importanc thing in ones life, it is important. However, you're right, there is no justification that it is important for all people unless you ask each person in the world.
I'm not sure how much that contributed to the thread, but I don't personally understand the thread fully.
devonin
07-30-2008, 05:54 AM
Devonin, allow me to take up the gauntlet that you have thrown down. Therefore, yes, marriage is very serious and to say otherwise would be foolishly wrong.
"For people who like that sort of thing, this is the sort of thing those people will like."
Yes, for many people marriage is quite important. They take it very seriously and in many cases it carries with it sacred and religious undertones that make it even more important to them.
I never once disputed that. What I said was "That's not -necessarily- (And here I use the philosophical sense of the word 'necesasry' which is "Completely required in all cases and circumstances") the case for everybody."
Is someone wrong to not take it seriously? Like, objectively universally wrong? Someone who marries a stranger so they can immigrate into the country, good friends who marry because of the tax benefits, hopeless romantics who think it will always work out. Are they actually incorrect to not take it as seriously as you do?
Arch0wl
08-2-2008, 09:12 AM
For the sake of length I have added my commentary in red. It comes after each sentence, not before.
One can say that marriage is important because the couple needs a licence from the government before they can get married. This is a formality. The need of a license is entirely the decision of legislators and the people that vote them in. A government official must preside over the ceremony. Again, this is a formality and decided entirely by legislators. It must be witnessed and signed by a third party. As must court cases. That doesn't make them inherently significant. It is frequently conducted in front of the family and friends who are invited by the participants who wish to share this significant moment with them. As are birthday parties. The onlookers are often encouraged to hold the participants accountable for their vows (not promises). A vow is a promise. Also, people do this all the time, not just with marriage. Finally, the particpants sometimes have the ceremony performed in front of their god in order to receive a blessing on their relationship. So any religious ceremony is legitimate on the basis of being religious?
No other relationship between two people is consumated under these circumstances. Therefore, yes, marriage is very serious and to say otherwise would be foolishly wrong.
Your argument is that the unique circumstances applied to marriage make it legitimate? Many things have unique circumstances that do not necessarily make those things legitimate. I doubt you would approve of a kamikaze bombing, but yet that holds unique circumstances as well.
The Bain
08-4-2008, 12:47 PM
The rise in rates in divorce is related to women's right in some form another. It can't be coincidence that the divorce rates started increasing as soon as more and more women found jobs. Today, more and more women are entering the work force and they are getting ever so much closer to equal pay. No doubt that there would be conflicts in the family as both the husband and wife will try to strive to keep their job. If this argument can't be resolved, than a divorce is one of the ways out of it. It's probably also why families are getting smaller and smaller nowadays because if a couple have too many kids, the relationship can grow complicated because one of the two will have to give up their jobs in order to look after the children.
~Tsugomaru
This does tend to make quite a bit of sense to me, but for a different reason. As women began to assert more independence and join the workforce, their dependency on men was decreased. They no longer needed the security marriage provided because divorce no longer meant losing absolutely everything.
humphoboextreme
08-4-2008, 01:19 PM
USA is declining.
That's all I have to say
EDIT: I think by the mood of this topic, USA may start to have less and less tradition of ancient tradition of the bible, and more and more of newly made up things, which may cause some problems...
That's my view...
I hear about people ending their lives over relationships, which had rooted out of dating.
I'm not sure, it may sound stupid, but you're just used to the idea of dating and stuff.
I bet if you were raised with different goals, morals, etc. You would see what I'm talking about (if you don't already).
MrRubix_MK5
08-4-2008, 01:43 PM
You have to keep in mind here that marriage is only a social function. We have defined, for ourselves, a sort of definition of "family" and "relationship" where we feel as if we, down the road, need to find another human being and slap a title to the relationship.
There's nothing *inherently* significant, I think, about the concept of a marriage. It, of course, has significance to many people, but you have to keep in mind that's it a type of relationship society has set as a mold for us to strive for. Or at least, used to.
I feel that as of recent, this mold is being questioned more. People are finding that a marriage to another human being with an official title is not the type of relationship they want. Everyone wants different things, and it's becoming more acceptable to travel your own road with your own preferences. Some people feel a close relationship without a title is best -- others want the security that a title implies. Others don't want a relationship at all. Some may feel that polygamy is the way to go -- one person isn't enough. There are many forms to relationships, and not everyone fits into the same type. As a result, I think people are beginning to lead lives by their own standards without so much worry about societal "norms" or "implied norms." It's not as shocking as it used to be for a woman to be in her 40's and single.
I don't know the statistics, but I would expect that divorce rates have been high as a result of people rejecting the mold and rejecting the idea of a traditional marriage, and then I would expect the divorce rates to start dropping as a result of people only accepting the mold if they know it is more fitting in the first place. I'd predict that there are *fewer* couples getting married, but with a lower divorce rate.
1961casey
08-8-2008, 01:36 AM
Your argument is that the unique circumstances applied to marriage make it legitimate? Many things have unique circumstances that do not necessarily make those things legitimate. I doubt you would approve of a kamikaze bombing, but yet that holds unique circumstances as well.
No, I do not make such an arguement. I was responding to the question by Devonin "Where is your justification that marriage is necessarily super serious and important for all people?" To answer that question I listed the circumstances under which a marriage is performed. You tried to dismiss certain aspects as being mere formalities, however, these formalities are still necessary for the marriage to be executed. The rest of your 'red letter' comments are very poorly thought out and flippant. Court cases are significant matters. Birthdays, while important, occur every year, while a marriage hopefully happens only once in a lifetime. Would you not agree a vow is more significant than a promise? And what do people do all the time that also happens with a marriage? How does that make a marriage less significant? Finally, what is the connection you are trying to make between a religious ceremony and marriage ceremony? Your final comment seems to be somewhat off topic.
1961casey
08-8-2008, 01:40 AM
"For people who like that sort of thing, this is the sort of thing those people will like."
Yes, for many people marriage is quite important. They take it very seriously and in many cases it carries with it sacred and religious undertones that make it even more important to them.
I never once disputed that. What I said was "That's not -necessarily- (And here I use the philosophical sense of the word 'necesasry' which is "Completely required in all cases and circumstances") the case for everybody."
Is someone wrong to not take it seriously? Like, objectively universally wrong? Someone who marries a stranger so they can immigrate into the country, good friends who marry because of the tax benefits, hopeless romantics who think it will always work out. Are they actually incorrect to not take it as seriously as you do?
Yes.
Zythus
08-9-2008, 12:23 AM
No, I do not make such an arguement. I was responding to the question by Devonin "Where is your justification that marriage is necessarily super serious and important for all people?" To answer that question I listed the circumstances under which a marriage is performed. You tried to dismiss certain aspects as being mere formalities, however, these formalities are still necessary for the marriage to be executed. The rest of your 'red letter' comments are very poorly thought out and flippant. Court cases are significant matters. Birthdays, while important, occur every year, while a marriage hopefully happens only once in a lifetime. Would you not agree a vow is more significant than a promise? And what do people do all the time that also happens with a marriage? How does that make a marriage less significant? Finally, what is the connection you are trying to make between a religious ceremony and marriage ceremony? Your final comment seems to be somewhat off topic.
He is arguing that the ceremoniousness and formalities of the marriage process is objectively ornamental and only done to further embellish and recognize the subjective significance it holds to the individual. The subjective significance is whether the individual deems it as important or not. Arch0wl's opinion is elucidating the views of a lesser importance by comparison to other events with the same intricacies.
Somehow, there is tacit agreement that without official and legal assent and recognition, marriage is unjust. With legal recognition, it becomes an event with intrinsic importance.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.