Marriage

[Chanz]

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]

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]

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_]

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?...t&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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

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]

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]

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]

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.

[rzr]

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]

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]

For the sake of length I have added my commentary in red. It comes after each sentence, not before.

Originally Posted by 1961casey

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?

Originally Posted by 1961casey

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]

Originally Posted by tsugomaru

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

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]

Originally Posted by devonin

"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.