NationStates Jolt Archive

Two couples. One couple had a marriage ceremony, and have kids. The other couple had no ceremony and are not officially married, and have kids.

A very common assumption is that the second couple is somehow less stable than the first.

I have no problem with people getting married. I do have a problem with people who assume that because they bought into the concept that this ceremony magically secured their future as a couple, that the refusal of other couples to marry somehow means they are doomed.

So let's discuss marriage versus common-law arrangements, or if common-law does not exist in your country, then marriage versus cohabitation...all within the context of children of course:)

To be absolutely clear, I'm talking about couples here, not single parents.

Sadly, wedding bands are not magical Marriage Force Power Rings. Wedding bands do not convey superpowers. They do not make the wearers more intelligent, more capable, more steady, or more responsible. They do not make bad parents become good parents.

In my opinion, if two people are going to be good parents, they're going to be good parents whether they're married or not. If two people aren't good parents, they're not going to magically become good parents if they get hitched. A good parent won't stop being a good parent if their marriage ends, nor will they fail to be a good parent if their marriage never starts in the first place. A lousy parent will be quite able to continue being lousy even after 25 years of marriage.

Hell, some of the best parents I know are legally blocked from getting married. Doesn't stop them.

In all probability, the kids from both hypothetical couples will grow up to be unreasonable, hopelessly feeble-minded and unprincipled. It matters not if their parents are married.

Sadly, wedding bands are not magical Marriage Force Power Rings. Wedding bands do not convey superpowers. They do not make the wearers more intelligent, more capable, more steady, or more responsible. They do not make bad parents become good parents.

Oh dear. I now have the unfortunate duty of telling my parents they were cheated...

In my opinion, if two people are going to be good parents, they're going to be good parents whether they're married or not. If two people aren't good parents, they're not going to magically become good parents if they get hitched. A good parent won't stop being a good parent if their marriage ends, nor will they fail to be a good parent if their marriage never starts in the first place. A lousy parent will be quite able to continue being lousy even after 25 years of marriage.

It seems so obvious...but many people have a real glorification of marriage that doesn't actually make any sense.

I considered marriage, but honestly, despite the fact that my parents are married, and his parents are married, marriage just doesn't have any importance to me. I give my all to my relationship and to my kids...to me, marriage would not add one iota to that. So why do it?

As long as they are in a stable relationship then there's nothing wrong with it. Marriage is the act of having an entity (Be it the state, a god/gods, or somthing else) recognize your love. It doesn't make the kids any less screwed up. And has no effect on them whatsoever as a matter of fact. (Well other then the term illigitimate child I suppose..)

I agree, Bottle. Unfortunately, not everyone got the memo about wedding bands not being magic rings, and even more unfortunately, there are quite a number of people (some probably typing a post even as I do this one) who believe they are. Back in the Bronze Age, when I was growing up, not being married was hardly an option (okay, maybe it was but we sure as heck never heard of anyone with kids not being married). Thinking back to the suburban neighborhood where I spent my formative years, we had brats, thugs, good kids, the whole gamut. So, yeah, kids thrive when they have good parents, not because those parents have a certificate saying they're "married."

Oh, and I hearby stipulate to the Focus on the Family studies contradicting what I just said. You can find studies backing up every position under the sun.

Oh dear. I now have the unfortunate duty of telling my parents they were cheated...
Of course, if they really did issue Marriage Force Power Rings, I'd have been married at least 5 times already.

That would be totally sweet.

Marriage is a physical act of commitment between two people. For some people, that is more necessary for a stable long-term relationship than for others.

That's about it.

You can find studies backing up every position under the sun.
I have a study contradicting that somewhere...

Of course, if they really did issue Marriage Force Power Rings, I'd have been married at least 5 times already.

That would be totally sweet.
A married friend, male, did tell me once that his wedding ring made him invisible to young, single women. :p

Of course, if they really did issue Marriage Force Power Rings, I'd have been married at least 5 times already.

That would be totally sweet.

Yeah. I mean, not only do you get to have sex and kids without social consequences, you also get superpowers! It'd be a great deal.

I agree, Bottle. Unfortunately, not everyone got the memo about wedding bands not being magic rings, and even more unfortunately, there are quite a number of people (some probably typing a post even as I do this one) who believe they are.
According to the fundies, marriage protects you against unplanned pregnancies and STDs, as well!

They would make a great infomercial:

"Ladies and gentlemen, I have the honor of presenting to you a terrific new product...The Wedding Band 3000! It eliminates STDs, transforms deadbeats into ideal parents, eliminates romantic discord, takes stains out of carpets, and ensures that all children you produce will be well-adjusted and upstanding citizens!"

Oh, and I hearby stipulate to the Focus on the Family studies contradicting what I just said. You can find studies backing up every position under the sun.
Yes, this is true...too bad studies are of limited use when evaluating a relationship..."your relationship is going to fail because you didn't get married" is a punchline to a very silly joke.

Yeah. I mean, not only do you get to have sex and kids without social consequences, you also get superpowers! It'd be a great deal.
If I ever got married, the wedding ceremony won't end with bride and groom kissing. Instead, it will end with us slamming our Power Force Rings together and shouting, "Our powers combined, we are THE MARRIAGE FORCE!"

Then we'll blast a hole in the ceiling with our ring lazers and fly off into the sunset. Ahh, romance...

and ensures that all children you produce will be well-adjusted and upstanding citizens!"
There are no upstanding citizens, only rebels, leaders, and cattle.

A married friend, male, did tell me once that his wedding ring made him invisible to young, single women. :p
Really? I've heard the opposite. One of my friends told me he suspects that his wedding band contains a tiny but extremely powerful magnet that attracts dangerously unstable women half his age.

Yeah. I mean, not only do you get to have sex and kids without social consequences, you also get superpowers! It'd be a great deal.
But it still wouldn't guarantee that you'd turn out to be a decent parent. Sometimes I'm amazed that the human race has lasted as long as it has, given that bringing up kids seems so fraught with uncertainty. I'm not a parent and I marvel at the way my friends with kids manage. They're like professional golfers, they make it look so easy!

Really? I've heard the opposite. One of my friends told me he suspects that his wedding band contains a tiny but extremely powerful magnet that attracts dangerously unstable women half his age.
I suppose it depends on where you bought the ring. My friend was young at the time he said that, perhaps as men get older, the power of the Ring changes.

Well, I think the answer is simple. The rings may not be magical but they are symbols of dedication and devotion and because of that it is quite easy to believe that between a married and unmarried couple the married one is more likely to be stable and dedicated as they were willing to swear to the bonds of marriage where as the other couple wasn't. At least that is my view on this issue.

The claim that really bothers me is that your kids will suffer if you don't get married.

Please, the point of parenting is to make your kids suffer regardless!

If I ever got married, the wedding ceremony won't end with bride and groom kissing. Instead, it will end with us slamming our Power Force Rings together and shouting, "Our powers combined, we are THE MARRIAGE FORCE!"

Then we'll blast a hole in the ceiling with our ring lazers and fly off into the sunset. Ahh, romance...

*sighs dreamily* That would be lovely...we really do need to improve marriage, make it more hip and empowering.

Sadly, wedding bands are not magical Marriage Force Power Rings. Wedding bands do not convey superpowers. They do not make the wearers more intelligent, more capable, more steady, or more responsible. They do not make bad parents become good parents.


pffft.:rolleyes:

shows what you know. I know for a fact that when 3 married couples come together and combine the rings, they have the power to SWING!

If I ever got married, the wedding ceremony won't end with bride and groom kissing. Instead, it will end with us slamming our Power Force Rings together and shouting, "Our powers combined, we are THE MARRIAGE FORCE!"

Then we'll blast a hole in the ceiling with our ring lazers and fly off into the sunset. Ahh, romance...
You should copy that onto the "How do you do it" thread. :D

Well, I think the answer is simple. The rings may not be magical but they are symbols of dedication and devotion and because of that it is quite easy to believe that between a married and unmarried couple the married one is more likely to be stable and dedicated as they were willing to swear to the bonds of marriage where as the other couple wasn't. At least that is my view on this issue.
When it comes to parenting, it's the dedication to the KIDS that matters, not the dedication to one another. You can still be a wonderful parent even if you don't love your kids' biological mother/father at all.

If I ever got married, the wedding ceremony won't end with bride and groom kissing. Instead, it will end with us slamming our Power Force Rings together and shouting, "Our powers combined, we are THE MARRIAGE FORCE!"

Then we'll blast a hole in the ceiling with our ring lazers and fly off into the sunset. Ahh, romance...

lmao:p

But it still wouldn't guarantee that you'd turn out to be a decent parent. Sometimes I'm amazed that the human race has lasted as long as it has, given that bringing up kids seems so fraught with uncertainty. I'm not a parent and I marvel at the way my friends with kids manage. They're like professional golfers, they make it look so easy!

And like professional golfers, they often look ridiculous doing it...

Well this is no fun...where are the Greenlanders, and other such Focus on the Family posters to provide an opposing view?

Well this is no fun...where are the Greenlanders, and other such Focus on the Family posters to provide an opposing view?
I *may* have eaten them. *shifty eyes*

When it comes to parenting, it's the dedication to the KIDS that matters, not the dedication to one another. You can still be a wonderful parent even if you don't love your kids' biological mother/father at all.
I never said that you couldn't. However, stable backgrounds for children are still necessary. Many children today have problems from back when mommy and daddy split up. Stable couples are better for children than unstable couples all else being equal.

Well this is no fun...where are the Greenlanders, and other such Focus on the Family posters to provide an opposing view?

well just to feel the gap...

IF YOU DON'T MARRY, YOUR LIVING IN SIN. SATAN WILL CLAIM YOU!!!!

YOUR CHILDREN WILL GROW UP TO BE WHORES, DRUG ADDICTS, RAPIST AND WORST OF ALL AFROISLAMOFASCISTS!!!!

there you go.:)

I never said that you couldn't. However, stable backgrounds for children are still necessary. Many children today have problems from back when mommy and daddy split up. Stable couples are better for children than unstable couples all else being equal.
But you are assuming that marriage = stability.

The way I look at it, if you've made a lifetime commitment to someone, you are married, no ceremony necessary. The ceremony is simply to share that decision with others. Thus, an "unmarried" couple in a common-law marriage or cohabitation (if they have made that commitment) is really no different from a married couple.

well just to feel the gap...
:eek: Pervert:p


AFROISLAMOFASCISTS!!!!

Dangit, it's that word again. I think I may need to shower...

The way I look at it, if you've made a lifetime commitment to someone, you are married, no ceremony necessary. The ceremony is simply to share that decision with others. Thus, an "unmarried" couple in a common-law marriage or cohabitation (if they have made that commitment) is really no different from a married couple.
That is how I feel about it at well.

To me, the ceremony is superfluous. I'm not against it, if that's what you'd like...a bit of ceremony is important to some people. It simply isn't to me, or my spouse. But ten years, and two kids later...being unmarried certainly doesn't make us 'less stable' than John and Judy who just got married after six months of dating.

The way I look at it, if you've made a lifetime commitment to someone, you are married, no ceremony necessary. The ceremony is simply to share that decision with others. Thus, an "unmarried" couple in a common-law marriage or cohabitation (if they have made that commitment) is really no different from a married couple.

^
that pretty much it.

Unless you have a religious compunction to marry, living in sin, etc..
Or
have the need for everyone to know how much your in love
Or
want gifts

I never said that you couldn't. However, stable backgrounds for children are still necessary. Many children today have problems from back when mommy and daddy split up. Stable couples are better for children than unstable couples all else being equal.
Well, then logically we should oppose marriage because married couples are significantly more likely to divorce than unmarried couples.

;)

But you are assuming that marriage = stability.
Well, once again, I must point out the fact that marriage is a sign of devotion. Of course, I do not claim that unmarried couples cannot be devoted, however, if those couples are so devoted then why don't they get married? Marriage in our culture is pretty much the sign of devotion and a stable relationship, and although that is not universally true of course that still does not change the idea that it is logical that on married couples will tend to be more stable than an unmarried one because of the nature of marital bonds.

want gifts
Ugh...that's another reason to avoid it...we don't need more junk!

If I get married, it will be for the right reasons*.


*an excuse to have a huge party and BBQ

Well this is no fun...where are the Greenlanders, and other such Focus on the Family posters to provide an opposing view?
just for your entertainment (http://marriageandfamilies.byu.edu/issues/2001/January/cohabitation.htm)

now, if you want to know what I really think, you are going to have to come up with a less vague starting point.

:eek: Pervert:p

i claim spelling mistake as a defence!!! honestly:D

That is how I feel about it at well.

To me, the ceremony is superfluous. I'm not against it, if that's what you'd like...a bit of ceremony is important to some people. It simply isn't to me, or my spouse. But ten years, and two kids later...being unmarried certainly doesn't make us 'less stable' than John and Judy who just got married after six months of dating.

Indeed. The ceremony is important to me because (a) I like to keep my family very involved in my life and (b) I know that both my family and his family really want to participate. But, as far as my view is concerned, my fiance and I have been married for quite some time now. =)

According to the fundies, marriage protects you against unplanned pregnancies and STDs, as well!

They would make a great infomercial:

"Ladies and gentlemen, I have the honor of presenting to you a terrific new product...The Wedding Band 3000! It eliminates STDs, transforms deadbeats into ideal parents, eliminates romantic discord, takes stains out of carpets, and ensures that all children you produce will be well-adjusted and upstanding citizens!"

Thanks, Bottle. That was hilarious. :D

But that idea's already been used, I'm afraid. It seems that their ad campaigns are directed toward 13-15 year olds... I've seen it before :upyours:

Well this is no fun...where are the Greenlanders, and other such Focus on the Family posters to provide an opposing view?
*Put on Devil's Advocate hat*

Children not only need stability, they also need to see good behavior modeled for them. Children will be better off if they see Mommy and Daddy in a committed, formalized relationship, because it will impress upon them the seriousness of commitment that should be present when one forms a family.

Well, then logically we should oppose marriage because married couples are significantly more likely to divorce than unmarried couples.

;)

Precisely. Eliminate the root cause of the heinous divorce statistics.

Well, then logically we should oppose marriage because married couples are significantly more likely to divorce than unmarried couples.

;)
Only because divorce is something that is limited to married couples, other forms have the same issue but they don't call it divorce. I mean the problem is what happens, if the name mattered then we could make divorce statistics go down to 0 if we just changed the meanings of the words.

The way I look at it, if you've made a lifetime commitment to someone, you are married, no ceremony necessary. The ceremony is simply to share that decision with others. Thus, an "unmarried" couple in a common-law marriage or cohabitation (if they have made that commitment) is really no different from a married couple.
While I agree in spirit, I still feel that it's important to recognize that LEGAL marriage is a whole different ball of wax.

Being legally married to somebody is radically different than being life-bonded with somebody sans marriage license, in pragmatic terms. You may FEEL the same way about the person, but the practical repercussions are significant.

For instance, say you are in an accident unexpectedly, and some serious medical decisions need to be made on your behalf. If you are unwed, these decisions will most likely be made by your parents or next of kin, unless you have specifically obtained legal documents establishing your partner's right to make such decisions. Even if you have such documentation, it's much easier for them to be challenged then if you had been legally married.

Obviously this kind of thing could make a pretty big difference, regardless of how seriously you happen to take your commitment to your partner.

Well, once again, I must point out the fact that marriage is a sign of devotion. Of course, I do not claim that unmarried couples cannot be devoted, however, if those couples are so devoted then why don't they get married? Why should they? If you yourself believe that this act is necessarily to signal your devotion, that is fine. It's good for you to do it. If it means nothing to me, why do it? I refuse for the same reason I refuse to attend church, or pray before a meal...because these things mean nothing to me, and I don't want to be a hypocrite for doing it anyway. If you get married because other people expect you to, and NOT for you...what use is it? It will not affect your devotion to your spouse...you merely go through the motions to legitimise yourself in the eyes of others. To me, that is dishonest, and really not worth doing.

Marriage in our culture is pretty much the sign of devotion and a stable relationship, and although that is not universally true of course that still does not change the idea that it is logical that on married couples will tend to be more stable than an unmarried one because of the nature of marital bonds.
I'm sorry, I don't see that as logical at all. 'The nature of marital bonds' depends completely on the individuals involved and their beliefs on the matter. You've stated it as a truth, as logic, as a natural law...when in fact, it is not. Marriage ceremonies are nothing but symbolic acts. Other symbolic acts can replace marriage, and be as binding. Or one can simply live, with the dedication to their partner, not needing any symbolism to reflect what is already true.

*snip*This all depends on the common-law legislation in your country.

Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#Canada)

Only because divorce is something that is limited to married couples, other forms have the same issue but they don't call it divorce. I mean the problem is what happens, if the name mattered then we could make divorce statistics go down to 0 if we just changed the meanings of the words.
I was joking, of course. :)

However, the fact remains that as long as divorce exists, marriage is no guarantee of stability. Marriages can break up just as relationships can break up. Two people getting married says nothing about their likelihood of STAYING married.

Remember, in America we allow heterosexuals to get married on a moment's notice. You can have people getting married after knowing each other only a few moments. You can have people getting married for money, or for sex, or for any reason under the sun. And you can have them divorcing for just as many reasons.

This all depends on the common-law legislation in your country.
true, but if you are common law married, you are in fact legally married, so that would change the definition of "unmarried" to people who are not in a stable commited relationship, would it not?

While I agree in spirit, I still feel that it's important to recognize that LEGAL marriage is a whole different ball of wax.

Indeed. I guess I should have gone into that, but people seemed to be focusing more on the stability of the couple than on more practical reasons to marry.

Being legally married to somebody is radically different than being life-bonded with somebody sans marriage license, in pragmatic terms. You may FEEL the same way about the person, but the practical repercussions are significant.

For instance, say you are in an accident unexpectedly, and some serious medical decisions need to be made on your behalf. If you are unwed, these decisions will most likely be made by your parents or next of kin, unless you have specifically obtained legal documents establishing your partner's right to make such decisions. Even if you have such documentation, it's much easier for them to be challenged then if you had been legally married.

Obviously this kind of thing could make a pretty big difference, regardless of how seriously you happen to take your commitment to your partner.

Certainly, and any such problems would be visited upon the children as well, not to mention the legal problems encountered if both parents are not biological parents of the children. Without common law marriage, I could certainly foresee the instance in which a couple would get married specifically for the protection of their children.

This all depends on the common-law legislation in your country.
This is absolutely true. My point was simply that the LEGAL ramifications of marriage are pretty serious. Common-law marriage would fall under this too, I suppose, though to different extents depending on where you live.

i think we should also look at this from a historical aspect.
A benefit of marriage is that the women becomes your property for you to do as you wish.

Of course, the problem of owning said property in writing, is that when you wish to purchase a newer model there can be a financial loss

true, but if you are common law married, you are in fact legally married, so that would change the definition of "unmarried" to people who are not in a stable commited relationship, would it not?
In my mind, married couples and common-law couples are the same (though there may be legal differences depending on where you live), but that is not true for many others. So no, I don't think this discussion needs to define 'unmarried' as those that are not in a stable committed relationship, even though that is in fact my definition of unmarried.

Indeed. I guess I should have gone into that, but people seemed to be focusing more on the stability of the couple than on more practical reasons to marry.

Yeah, that's what I figured. Even though I replied to you, I really was addressing it more generally...I was reasonably certain that you already knew all that stuff anyhow. :)


Certainly, and any such problems would be visited upon the children as well, not to mention the legal problems encountered if both parents are not biological parents of the children.
Yeah, that's a whole other mess.

A gay couple I know just went through an unnecessarily painful custody process regarding their adopted daughters, because stupid laws in their state meant that they could not adopt as a couple. Gay people can adopt, but not gay couples. Makes perfect sense, right? *eye roll*

So, as it worked out, they had to each adopt one of the girls, which means that each of them actually has no legal relation to one of their daughters. Even though their break-up was very civil (as these things go), the process of working out the legal aspects of custody was just insane.

In my mind, married couples and common-law couples are the same (though there may be legal differences depending on where you live), but that is not true for many others. So no, I don't think this discussion needs to define 'unmarried' as those that are not in a stable committed relationship, even though that is in fact my definition of unmarried.
true, that's why I said your first post is too vague for me to intelligently comment on.

I tend to get into the very smallest of details when it comes to questions like these ;)

Indeed. I guess I should have gone into that, but people seemed to be focusing more on the stability of the couple than on more practical reasons to marry.

Certainly, and any such problems would be visited upon the children as well, not to mention the legal problems encountered if both parents are not biological parents of the children. Without common law marriage, I could certainly foresee the instance in which a couple would get married specifically for the protection of their children.
And yet, I've never encountered this very practical argument about marriage from the 'sanctity of marriage' crowd when the topic comes up. The arguments are almost always focused on stability.

i think we should also look at this from a historical aspect.
A benefit of marriage is that the women becomes your property for you to do as you wish.

Of course, the problem of owning said property in writing, is that when you wish to purchase a newer model there can be a financial loss
Yeah, and for women the problem is that your re-sale value drops markedly. What with all the mail-order brides, it seems like no men are buying "used" any more...

A gay couple I know just went through an unnecessarily painful custody process regarding their adopted daughters, because stupid laws in their state meant that they could not adopt as a couple. Gay people can adopt, but not gay couples. Makes perfect sense, right? *eye roll*

So, as it worked out, they had to each adopt one of the girls, which means that each of them actually has no legal relation to one of their daughters. Even though their break-up was very civil (as these things go), the process of working out the legal aspects of custody was just insane.
So a swingle gay person is somehow a better enviroment then two of them? :eek:

true, that's why I said your first post is too vague for me to intelligently comment on.

I tend to get into the very smallest of details when it comes to questions like these ;)
Well, I thought it best to work from the common definition of married versus unmarried, and then hit people with the whole 'common-law means married too' whammy later.

Spoil sport!:)

So a swingle gay person is somehow a better enviroment then two of them? :eek:
Well, see, people don't want to let gay couples adopt, because they don't want gay couples to accidentally happen to acquire some kind of legal standing or recognition. So they can't adopt jointly, they have to adopt as if they were single.

So a swingle gay person is somehow a better enviroment then two of them? :eek:

Swingle? *snicker*

Why should they? If you yourself believe that this act is necessarily to signal your devotion, that is fine. It's good for you to do it. If it means nothing to me, why do it? I refuse for the same reason I refuse to attend church, or pray before a meal...because these things mean nothing to me, and I don't want to be a hypocrite for doing it anyway. If you get married because other people expect you to, and NOT for you...what use is it? It will not affect your devotion to your spouse...you merely go through the motions to legitimise yourself in the eyes of others. To me, that is dishonest, and really not worth doing. Marriage is the traditional sign of devotion. You may not agree with it, however, that is what it symbolizes to society, your life is your choice though. The purpose of marriage is to declare this devotion, there is little else to it and whether or not you go to church or pray has little to do with the issue at hand given the fact that many people don't get married in a church at all and just have it legally done.


I'm sorry, I don't see that as logical at all. 'The nature of marital bonds' depends completely on the individuals involved and their beliefs on the matter. You've stated it as a truth, as logic, as a natural law...when in fact, it is not. Marriage ceremonies are nothing but symbolic acts. Other symbolic acts can replace marriage, and be as binding. Or one can simply live, with the dedication to their partner, not needing any symbolism to reflect what is already true.Yes, and certain people have tendencies towards these acts. The logic of it is that dedicated couples are more likely to get married than less dedicated couples. If one is a devoted couple then one often has an incentive to get married(social acceptability, presents, tradition, etc) so the question still ends up being why not? Wouldn't a symbolic act that replaces marriage and that is as binding as marriage really be a form of marriage?

Yeah, and for women the problem is that your re-sale value drops markedly. What with all the mail-order brides, it seems like no men are buying "used" any more...

well asian models are generally cheaper than the western equivalent, small, compact and fuel efficient. And honesly who wants an old banger?

Well, I thought it best to work from the common definition of married versus unmarried, and then hit people with the whole 'common-law means married too' whammy later.

Spoil sport!:)
sorry :p

But honestly, many people just don't understand what common-law marriage is...so when you mention you were not officially married to your spouse in a ceremony, they make wild assumptions. I want people to challenge that.

Swingle? *snicker*
Lol, I missed that...but I think I'm going to have to appropriate that term for my own use.

"Swingle" = "Person who is in an open relationship; one who is in a relationship yet still available to 'swing.'"

well asian models are generally cheaper than the western equivalent, small, compact and fuel efficient.

Oh sure. Why don't you just hand our economy over to the Japanese?! Patriotic American men will always choose to buy American women.

Swingle? *snicker*
oh shut it.:p

Well, see, people don't want to let gay couples adopt, because they don't want gay couples to accidentally happen to acquire some kind of legal standing or recognition. So they can't adopt jointly, they have to adopt as if they were single.
Still, it seems idiotic even when I look at it from the "TEH ZOMG GAYS ARE EBIL!!111oneoneeleventyoneoneone" standpoint.

Oh sure. Why don't you just hand our economy over to the Japanese?! Patriotic American men will always choose to buy American women.
Speak for yourself. :p

But honestly, many people just don't understand what common-law marriage is...so when you mention you were not officially married to your spouse in a ceremony, they make wild assumptions. I want people to challenge that.
people seem to think that my husband and I are "less married" because we eloped, and didn't have the "wedding" that is "normal" around here.

people are stupid.

he logic of it is that dedicated couples are more likely to get married than less dedicated couples.

I don't know about that. Look at how many couples end up breaking up within 6 months (or even within 50 hours, like the first Britney Spears marriage). There are those out there who do it almost as a lark.

Lol, I missed that...but I think I'm going to have to appropriate that term for my own use.

"Swingle" = "Person who is in an open relationship; one who is in a relationship yet still available to 'swing.'"
Yeah, lets go with that. *nods*

Marriage is the traditional sign of devotion. You may not agree with it, however, that is what it symbolizes to society, your life is your choice though. The purpose of marriage is to declare this devotion, there is little else to it and whether or not you go to church or pray has little to do with the issue at hand given the fact that many people don't get married in a church at all and just have it legally done. You missed the point of the reference to church and praying I'm not linking it to marriage...I'm linking it to a ceremonial practice that is void of meaning on the individual level to me...and yet is very important on the individual or social level to others.

Yes, and certain people have tendencies towards these acts. The logic of it is that dedicated couples are more likely to get married than less dedicated couples. If one is a devoted couple then one often has an incentive to get married(social acceptability, presents, tradition, etc) so the question still ends up being why not? Wouldn't a symbolic act that replaces marriage and that is as binding as marriage really be a form of marriage?So your only argument is that it's traditional, and people who are devoted couples follow tradition?

You haven't addressed the issue of it not being important to certain people...so asking, 'why not', I counter with 'why'? If a symbolic act holds nothing for you, why engage in it?

people seem to think that my husband and I are "less married" because we eloped, and didn't have the "wedding" that is "normal" around here.

Ok, now that's just plain silly. That's not even about marriage at all, it's just about a WEDDING. Even if (big giant if) you were going to assume that marriage is important for parenting, that would have nothing whatsoever to do with the fucking party that you throw to announce you're married!

But gosh, I guess you can't be a responsible parent unless you're willing to blow 2 years' salary on a party for yourselves. :P

Ok, now that's just plain silly. That's not even about marriage at all, it's just about a WEDDING.

I guess you can't be a responsible parent unless you're willing to blow 2 years' salary on a party for yourselves. :P
I definately detest the commercialisation of the event. A lot of people really buy into that...it becomes less of a symbolic act, and more of a pageant...

Oh sure. Why don't you just hand our economy over to the Japanese?! Patriotic American men will always choose to buy American women.

meh. too much needless boot/trunk space. Fuel inefficient. AND they breakdown too often.

meh. too much needless boot/trunk space. Fuel inefficient. AND they breakdown too often.
Trunk space if NEVER needless!!! Apparently you haven't seen the Latina and African models available...you'll be left raving about trunk space you will!

I definately detest the commercialisation of the event. A lot of people really buy into that...it becomes less of a symbolic act, and more of a pageant...
I detest much of the symbolism of it, myself.

"Traditional" weddings are about making a woman feel like a princess for a day...as she enters into a union in which she is supposed to be, essentially, a servant for the rest of her life. You throw this massive party to gloss over the reality, which is that she's a bride for a day but she'll be her husband's property forever.

Plus there's all that "sexual purity" crap getting fetishized. Yuck.

Trunk space if NEVER needless!!! Apparently you haven't seen the Latina and African models available...you'll be left raving about trunk space you will!
Bigger is not better, I like the compactness of the Japanese models, and they're so CUTE!:fluffle:

Plus there's all that "sexual purity" crap getting fetishized. Yuck.
Hey! Don't knock fetishes!

Trunk space if NEVER needless!!! Apparently you haven't seen the Latina and African models available...you'll be left raving about trunk space you will!

oye women! wait till your spoken too!!!

remember
women should be seen, but not heard.

(joking of course;) )

not really a fan of the african station wagon...

I detest much of the symbolism of it, myself.

"Traditional" weddings are about making a woman feel like a princess for a day...as she enters into a union in which she is supposed to be, essentially, a servant for the rest of her life. You throw this massive party to gloss over the reality, which is that she's a bride for a day but she'll be her husband's property forever.

Plus there's all that "sexual purity" crap getting fetishized. Yuck.
:rolleyes: Ain't it the truth? Though traditionally, you know, you're blowing two years of your parents' income on the party, so what the heck, go for it! Just keep a detailed inventory of all the presents so you can divide them up in the divorce.

Ok, now that's just plain silly. That's not even about marriage at all, it's just about a WEDDING. Even if (big giant if) you were going to assume that marriage is important for parenting, that would have nothing whatsoever to do with the fucking party that you throw to announce you're married!

But gosh, I guess you can't be a responsible parent unless you're willing to blow 2 years' salary on a party for yourselves. :P
I guess you are right ;)

When I was studying to be a marriage counselor, they made the joke that the cost of the wedding is in opposite proportion to the length of the marriage

40K on the wedding = 6 months together

so when I got married I thought "how little can I spend?"

I spent less than $100 including my dress, the license, and breakfast the next morning. ;) we are going to be married forever !!! :D

I detest much of the symbolism of it, myself.

"Traditional" weddings are about making a woman feel like a princess for a day...as she enters into a union in which she is supposed to be, essentially, a servant for the rest of her life. You throw this massive party to gloss over the reality, which is that she's a bride for a day but she'll be her husband's property forever.

Plus there's all that "sexual purity" crap getting fetishized. Yuck.

If someone wishes to accept tradition, good for them. But as sinuhue said its the comercialisation.
I HATE WHEN PEOPLE MIX AND MATCH!!

women who want a traditional wedding and want to wear pur white yet not not virgins:mad:
people don't want traditional they want TV weddings

I spent less than $100 including my dress, the license, and breakfast the next morning. ;) we are going to be married forever !!! :D

no that only happens if you make a profit

I detest much of the symbolism of it, myself.

"Traditional" weddings are about making a woman feel like a princess for a day...as she enters into a union in which she is supposed to be, essentially, a servant for the rest of her life. You throw this massive party to gloss over the reality, which is that she's a bride for a day but she'll be her husband's property forever.

Plus there's all that "sexual purity" crap getting fetishized. Yuck.
http://toughlove.ytmnd.com/

Seemed fiting ... turn the volume up the song rocks! (lol)

Trunk space if NEVER needless!!! Apparently you haven't seen the Latina and African models available...you'll be left raving about trunk space you will!

I love me some trunk space. Especially on the Brazilian models.

Daaaaaayuuuuuum.

You missed the point of the reference to church and praying I'm not linking it to marriage...I'm linking it to a ceremonial practice that is void of meaning on the individual level to me...and yet is very important on the individual or social level to others.

So your only argument is that it's traditional, and people who are devoted couples follow tradition?
It has meaning, it means devotion and dedication. Marriage is the sign of dedication and devotion, the reason you don't pray or don't go to church is because you are not dedicated or devoted to that what asks for such. Marriage has an important social value because of what it symbolizes, people go to churches to congregate with others of the same belief and people get married to show to the world their dedication. It is not some stretch of faith to assume for the most part that those who do not engage in those practices are not in the same boat as those who do. A couple that is devoted does benefit from marriage, and a person that is a devout Methodist does benefit from going to a Methodist church. There is little reason why either would not want to engage in those activities.

My argument is that marriage is the sign of devotion and as such it is quite simple to assume that people within marital bonds are more likely to be more devoted. That assumption does not seem invalid as people who are devoted would have no reason not to follow such traditions. I never said that all unmarried people were less dedicated than all married people nor have I suggested the converse. However, due to the self-selecting nature of marriage it is easy to assume that on average that married people are going to be more dedicated than non-married because they took the plunge. Marriage is how people in our society tend to show such devotion, and all I am doing is recognizing that.

Two couples. One couple had a marriage ceremony, and have kids. The other couple had no ceremony and are not officially married, and have kids.

A very common assumption is that the second couple is somehow less stable than the first.

I have no problem with people getting married. I do have a problem with people who assume that because they bought into the concept that this ceremony magically secured their future as a couple, that the refusal of other couples to marry somehow means they are doomed.

So let's discuss marriage versus common-law arrangements, or if common-law does not exist in your country, then marriage versus cohabitation...all within the context of children of course:)

To be absolutely clear, I'm talking about couples here, not single parents.

Are married parents inherently better than their unmarried counterparts? No. However, it is well known that marriages, as a whole, tend to be longer-term than unmarried cohabitation. Marriage may be symbolic, but, its adherents tend to be happier and have a greater sense of well-being than their unmarried counterparts.

Stability is a key factor in the raising of children, and as cohabiting couples tend to break up more quickly and more often than married couples do, children who are born into cohabiting relationships do have a greater likelihood of parental upheaval in their lifetime.

Whether these properties that seem to point to marriage being a superior environment for children is because of the act itself (the symbolistic power of a marriage) or actually because the kind of people who tend to be married have greater tendencies towards happier, lasting relationshops as opposed to those who cohabit.

One thing I do find interesting is that people who identify as Democrats are more likely to cohabit than conservative Americans. They are also less happy as a group than Republicans, while Republicans are more likely to be traditionally married and be engaged in longer term relationships. Their children are also happier and go on to stay in healthier relationships, IIRC.

Make of it what you will.

I considered marriage, but honestly, despite the fact that my parents are married, and his parents are married, marriage just doesn't have any importance to me. I give my all to my relationship and to my kids...to me, marriage would not add one iota to that. So why do it?
You are married.

If someone wishes to accept tradition, good for them. But as sinuhue said its the comercialisation.
I HATE WHEN PEOPLE MIX AND MATCH!!

Meh. Since the traditions repulse me, I don't much mind if people butcher them. :)


women who want a traditional wedding and want to wear pur white yet not not virgins:mad:

Well, it enrages me when men wear black to their wedding even though they aren't a virgin. But you don't hear me bitching about it. ;)


people don't want traditional they want TV weddings
People want TV marriages, more like it. The wedding is just the precursor to a lifetime of silliness.

People want TV marriages, more like it. The wedding is just the precursor to a lifetime of silliness.

how true. next time some group start talking about the destruction of the fabric of society someone should point them toward the E CHANNEL & MTV.

how true. next time some group start talking about the destruction of the fabric of society someone should point them toward the E CHANNEL & MTV.

Don't do that, you'll just get them all excited.

Don't do that, you'll just get them all excited.

but they might actually do some good for once

http://toughlove.ytmnd.com/

Seemed fiting ... turn the volume up the song rocks! (lol)
Ohh add this one to it
http://drphilsafety.ytmnd.com/

Are married parents inherently better than their unmarried counterparts? No. However, it is well known that marriages, as a whole, tend to be longer-term than unmarried cohabitation.


That doesn't tell us anything, because it's not the right comparison to be making. Plenty of people are unmarried and cohabitate, but do not view themselves as in a life-bonded relationship.

The comparison that is relevant to this topic is, do marriages last longer than relationships between people who perceive themselves as bonded life-mates, yet who are not legally wed?


Marriage may be symbolic, but, its adherents tend to be happier and have a greater sense of well-being than their unmarried counterparts.

Given the way our society treats unmarried relationships, and the children they produce, is that really much of a surprise? That's like saying that heterosexuals tend to be happier than homosexuals; when there's so much homophobia in the world, is that really much of a surprise?


Stability is a key factor in the raising of children, and as cohabiting couples tend to break up more quickly and more often than married couples do, children who are born into cohabiting relationships do have a greater likelihood of parental upheaval in their lifetime.

Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. People who are cohabitating and happen to get pregnant are a quite different story than people who are in committed, life-long relationships but have chosen not to get married.

In other words, take one of those "cohabitating" couples you're talking about. Don't change anything about them at all, except make them be married. Are they really going to be any more stable than they were before? Nope.


One thing I do find interesting is that people who identify as Democrats are more likely to cohabit than conservative Americans.

People who hold liberal views on sex and relationships tend to be more liberal politically. It's not a hard and fast rule, but a general trend.


They are also less happy as a group than Republicans,
Considering how our society is structured, is that any surprise?

Gosh, imagine that: in a country where Republicans control all three branches of government, Republicans are happier than Democrats! In a country where "traditional values" are being legislated up the ying-yang, traditionalists and conservatives are happier than progressives!


while Republicans are more likely to be traditionally married and be engaged in longer term relationships.

Conservatives also tend to be less likely to seek divorce in cases of domestic abuse. Does that really mean their relationships are "better"?

how about THIS (http://www.leaderu.com/critical/cohabitation-myths.html)

how about THIS (http://www.leaderu.com/critical/cohabitation-myths.html)
Wow, so much silliness in one place. That's impressive. :)

Wow, so much silliness in one place. That's impressive. :)
It was, wasn't it?

I skimmed it, but I did notice that it said that a marriage ceremony was a requirement. Not in the great state of Colorado, it isn't. All you need do is give the county clerk a check, fill out the marriage license and send it back in. You don't even have to wait four to six weeks for delivery.

The comparison that is relevant to this topic is, do marriages last longer than relationships between people who perceive themselves as bonded life-mates, yet who are not legally wed?

Well, if it's already shown that marriages, as a whole, last longer than cohabiting relationships, then is it not safe to assume that, if the rates of the life-bonding people are consistent throughout the population, that marriages still last longer? You would have to give basis to the claim that non-married life-bonded people are more likely to have longer term relationships, when it seems that a majority of the people of those who do choose to settle with someone opt for marriages, hence explaining their greater length and frequency.

Given the way our society treats unmarried relationships, and the children they produce, is that really much of a surprise? That's like saying that heterosexuals tend to be happier than homosexuals; when there's so much homophobia in the world, is that really much of a surprise?

Given how common it is for children to be born out of wedlock, I can hardly see how it would make up the difference in attitudes. Obviously, if a couple chooses not to marry and yet they still live together, I think that they probably don't care toooo much about what society may say about them, especially when the only difference between them and married couples is a short ceremony. They 100% CHOOSE their lifestyle, whereas it is uncertain whether homosexuals are born that way.

In other words, take one of those "cohabitating" couples you're talking about. Don't change anything about them at all, except make them be married. Are they really going to be any more stable than they were before? Nope.

Well, looking at what we know...somehow the married couples STILL last longer.


Gosh, imagine that: in a country where Republicans control all three branches of government, Republicans are happier than Democrats! In a country where "traditional values" are being legislated up the ying-yang, traditionalists and conservatives are happier than progressives!

Actually, from what I understand, Conservatives have held the edge, varying from 5-11%, ever since the Pew Research Center began measuring in the 1970s. So control of government really doesn't have an intense effect.

Conservatives also tend to be less likely to seek divorce in cases of domestic abuse. Does that really mean their relationships are "better"?

Well, some studies have indicated that women in cohabiting relationships are many times more likely to be killed by a spouse than married women, and are more likely to be cheated on. I'd say conservatives still hold an edge in the "happier relationship" category.

snip

Well, some studies have indicated that women in cohabiting relationships are many times more likely to be killed by a spouse than married women, and are more likely to be cheated on. I'd say conservatives still hold an edge in the "happier relationship" category.
I would like to see these "Studies"

Two couples. One couple had a marriage ceremony, and have kids. The other couple had no ceremony and are not officially married, and have kids.

A very common assumption is that the second couple is somehow less stable than the first.

I have no problem with people getting married. I do have a problem with people who assume that because they bought into the concept that this ceremony magically secured their future as a couple, that the refusal of other couples to marry somehow means they are doomed.

So let's discuss marriage versus common-law arrangements, or if common-law does not exist in your country, then marriage versus cohabitation...all within the context of children of course:)

To be absolutely clear, I'm talking about couples here, not single parents.

I don't know whether or not I believe that married couples are more 'stable' than common-law couples. Marriage seems to be more like a 'mission statement' than anything else in this day and age. So, in that sense perhaps married people are more committed to see things through. I doubt the numbers back that up.

Either way, I don't believe that it's either better or worse for children in general. I can say that from personal observation, that people that I know who's parents 'stayed together', came from married homes. Of course, I saw some of those same married couples split up once the kids were old enough to live on their own.

Ultimately, I think it just varies from family to family, and any condescension on the part of married couples is unwarranted and inaccurate.

It has meaning, it means devotion and dedication.It has NO inherent meaning. It has the meaning you assign to it. I assign it no meaning...to me it is meaningless. It may have meaning on a wider social level, but I challenge that.

Marriage is the sign of dedication and devotion, the reason you don't pray or don't go to church is because you are not dedicated or devoted to that what asks for such. Marriage has an important social value because of what it symbolizes, people go to churches to congregate with others of the same belief and people get married to show to the world their dedication. It is not some stretch of faith to assume for the most part that those who do not engage in those practices are not in the same boat as those who do. A couple that is devoted does benefit from marriage, Prove to me how this is so. You are stating it as fact, as though a devoted couple must benefit from marriage. How can that possibly be true if marriage is a symbol, with no inherent meaning other than what the participants assign to it? YOU belive it has meaning and it would benefit YOU. It would NOT benefit me, and yet by your reckoning, that means that I am less devoted. False.

and a person that is a devout Methodist does benefit from going to a Methodist church. There is little reason why either would not want to engage in those activities. I've given you the reason, again and again. You simply refuse to look at it.

My argument is that marriage is the sign of devotion and as such it is quite simple to assume that people within marital bonds are more likely to be more devoted. That assumption does not seem invalid as people who are devoted would have no reason not to follow such traditions. I never said that all unmarried people were less dedicated than all married people nor have I suggested the converse. However, due to the self-selecting nature of marriage it is easy to assume that on average that married people are going to be more dedicated than non-married because they took the plunge. Marriage is how people in our society tend to show such devotion, and all I am doing is recognizing that.The problem is, you are not just recognising that, you are assigning to marriage, an importance beyond what it can actually have. And now that you are talking averages, and this and that, and stating it as fact, or 'logical', I'll ask you to provide some sources, or admit that this is your opinion only.

Are married parents inherently better than their unmarried counterparts? No. However, it is well known that marriages, as a whole, tend to be longer-term than unmarried cohabitation. Marriage may be symbolic, but, its adherents tend to be happier and have a greater sense of well-being than their unmarried counterparts. Wow, those are some pretty far-reaching statements to make as 'fact'.

I'd like your sources on the claim that marriages are more long term than unmarried cohabitation. I'd also like your sources on married couples having 'a greater sense of well-being' and so forth.

This is what bothers me the most...you may have an opinion on the subject...but when you decide that your opinion is truth, and you represent it as fact, without backing yourself up, you are being dishonest.


Stability is a key factor in the raising of children, and as cohabiting couples tend to break up more quickly and more often than married couples do, children who are born into cohabiting relationships do have a greater likelihood of parental upheaval in their lifetime. Stats please.

Whether these properties that seem to point to marriage being a superior environment for children is because of the act itself (the symbolistic power of a marriage) or actually because the kind of people who tend to be married have greater tendencies towards happier, lasting relationshops as opposed to those who cohabit.

One thing I do find interesting is that people who identify as Democrats are more likely to cohabit than conservative Americans.
Stats please.

They are also less happy as a group than Republicans, while Republicans are more likely to be traditionally married and be engaged in longer term relationships. Their children are also happier and go on to stay in healthier relationships, IIRC.

Make of it what you will.Stats please. I can't take all these suppositions seriously if you just pull them out of your backside.

You are married.
I agree.

But others do not.

I would like to see these "Studies"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16162491&dopt=Abstract

http://www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/cohabitation.php

http://digitalcommons.fau.edu/faculty_dissertations/AAI9710339/

http://lifestyle.msn.com/Relationships/CouplesandMarriage/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=21647&GT1=7386

Here's some. Apparently, a lot of these studies pull from government data that shows that cohabiting has a stronger tie to violence, as opposed to marriage, and infidelity as well. Why? I do not know.

Cut the crap okay? You're not unique for defending people whom aren't married, you're not some sortof rebel, and you're barely even correct in your statement. So just sumbit defeat now before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.

Ofcourse people can love eachother and have a stable enviorment for thier kids without marriage, that's not the point, the point is marriage just insures it all that much more. Guess what, you can sleep on the floor, and still wakeup refreshed and ready to work, but why the fuck would you want to when you can sleep on a bed? Now if you have to sleep on the floor okay, and you deal with it and work around it. But if you have a choice for something better, why wouldn't you take it?

The problem with you liberal's is your trying to convince stupid people that the floor is just as good as a bed, and it's not.

Cut the crap okay? You're not unique for defending people whom aren't married, you're not some sortof rebel, and you're barely even correct in your statement. So just sumbit defeat now before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.

Ofcourse people can love eachother and have a stable enviorment for thier kids without marriage, that's not the point, the point is marriage just insures it all that much more. Guess what, you can sleep on the floor, and still wakeup refreshed and ready to work, but why the fuck would you want to when you can sleep on a bed? Now if you have to sleep on the floor okay, and you deal with it and work around it. But if you have a choice for something better, why wouldn't you take it?

The problem with you liberal's is your trying to convince stupid people that the floor is just as good as a bed, and it's not.
Not sure my dad had a badly ruptured disk and sleeping on the floor made life a whole lot more bearable then sleeping on the bed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16162491&dopt=Abstract

http://www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/cohabitation.php

http://digitalcommons.fau.edu/faculty_dissertations/AAI9710339/

http://lifestyle.msn.com/Relationships/CouplesandMarriage/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=21647&GT1=7386

Here's some. Apparently, a lot of these studies pull from government data that shows that cohabiting has a stronger tie to violence, as opposed to marriage, and infidelity as well. Why? I do not know.
Ah thought you were going to post the actual studies (I have a degree in statistics) was rather interested. I so rarely see them done correctly nowadays, and everything I have seen from the polls that we run on campus sheds a bit different light on the subject but that is Minnesota only

Cut the crap okay? You're not unique for defending people whom aren't married, you're not some sortof rebel, and you're barely even correct in your statement. So just sumbit defeat now before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.

Ofcourse people can love eachother and have a stable enviorment for thier kids without marriage, that's not the point, the point is marriage just insures it all that much more. Guess what, you can sleep on the floor, and still wakeup refreshed and ready to work, but why the fuck would you want to when you can sleep on a bed? Now if you have to sleep on the floor okay, and you deal with it and work around it. But if you have a choice for something better, why wouldn't you take it?

The problem with you liberal's is your trying to convince stupid people that the floor is just as good as a bed, and it's not.
Sure there buddy...you have some flecks of foam there on your shirt...

*Snip*


Democrats less happy than Republicans?

Yep, across the board. Middle-Income Republicans are even happier than upper-income Democrats.

http://pewresearch.org/social/pack.php?PackID=1

My last claim is based on these previous findings:

1. Republicans are happier as a group.

2. They are also more likely to marry in a traditional sense.

3. Marriages are more stable than cohabiting relationships.

4. Children benefit from stable and happy relationships, and based on the above, those are more frequent for conservative families and in turn they tend to replicate those behaviors as adults.

Children of Republicans then, can expect to have happier and longer lasting relationships than their Democratic counterparts.

Also:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/election04/interview.htm

Election data shows married couples were more likely to vote Republican, too, while divorced or unmarried people were more likely to vote Democrat, further evidencing the affiliations and choices of people who marry and those who do not.

Also, look at the marriage rates of Europe and Scandinavia, very low compared to here. Also, those areas are very liberal.

Also, look at the marriage rates of Europe and Scandinavia, very low compared to here. Also, those areas are very liberal.

Of course, there are many pressures in these places not to marry. Often, from an economic standpoint, it is better for a couple *not* to get married in these countries - not legally anyways - so they don't.

Ah thought you were going to post the actual studies (I have a degree in statistics) was rather interested. I so rarely see them done correctly nowadays, and everything I have seen from the polls that we run on campus sheds a bit different light on the subject but that is Minnesota only

Really? Interesting. Here where I am the studies I have seen have tied pretty well to the student body. Richmond is a pretty liberal town as far as students go, and we're smack dab in the middle of a very conservative state.

Really? Interesting. Here where I am the studies I have seen have tied pretty well to the student body. Richmond is a pretty liberal town as far as students go, and we're smack dab in the middle of a very conservative state.
Yeah I am just going off of memories of studies when I used to work for the survey lab … I was the only resident statistician AND computer geek lol

Democrats less happy than Republicans?

Yep, across the board. Middle-Income Republicans are even happier than upper-income Democrats.

http://pewresearch.org/social/pack.php?PackID=1

My last claim is based on these previous findings:

1. Republicans are happier as a group.

2. They are also more likely to marry in a traditional sense.

3. Marriages are more stable than cohabiting relationships.

4. Children benefit from stable and happy relationships, and based on the above, those are more frequent for conservative families and in turn they tend to replicate those behaviors as adults.

Children of Republicans then, can expect to have happier and longer lasting relationships than their Democratic counterparts.

Also:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/election04/interview.htm

Election data shows married couples were more likely to vote Republican, too, while divorced or unmarried people were more likely to vote Democrat, further evidencing the affiliations and choices of people who marry and those who do not.

Also, look at the marriage rates of Europe and Scandinavia, very low compared to here. Also, those areas are very liberal.
Cart <-> Horse.

The main study appears to find that those that are happier tend both to vote conservative (republican) and adhere to conservative social structures (ie, marriage). Since general happiness implies a degree of contentment with your lot - your place in society - and, therefore, with society and extant social structures (as they affect you), this strikes me as neither surprising nor particularly interesting.

It also does not address Bottle's thought experiment of holding all factors constant except for the marriage condition. One of those factors held constant would be the level of happiness in and between the couple concerned.

Two couples. One couple had a marriage ceremony, and have kids. The other couple had no ceremony and are not officially married, and have kids.

A very common assumption is that the second couple is somehow less stable than the first.

I have no problem with people getting married. I do have a problem with people who assume that because they bought into the concept that this ceremony magically secured their future as a couple, that the refusal of other couples to marry somehow means they are doomed.

So let's discuss marriage versus common-law arrangements, or if common-law does not exist in your country, then marriage versus cohabitation...all within the context of children of course:)

To be absolutely clear, I'm talking about couples here, not single parents.
Marriage is either a good way to keep a man from just running off and leaving his partner with all the responsbilities, or a great way to end a perfectly good realtionship ... I'm not sure which. :)

Marriage is either a good way to keep a man from just running off and leaving his partner with all the responsbilities, or a great way to end a perfectly good realtionship ... I'm not sure which. :)
it's not particularly good at keeping a man from doing anything, if he wants to bad enough.

I agree.

But others do not.
Do you have some sort of religious marriage not recognised legally?

Do you have some sort of religious marriage not recognised legally?
No, I am common-law. Here, you become common-law when you live with a partner for a year, or you have children together. In most cases, the legal rights and responsibilities of common-law couples is equal to those who were married officially.

Hence, I consider myself married, as does the state, albeit 'not married' but 'common-law', being fairly equal...but many people do not consider me to be married because I did not go through the ceremony.

Sadly, wedding bands are not magical Marriage Force Power Rings. Wedding bands do not convey superpowers. They do not make the wearers more intelligent, more capable, more steady, or more responsible. They do not make bad parents become good parents.

In my opinion, if two people are going to be good parents, they're going to be good parents whether they're married or not. If two people aren't good parents, they're not going to magically become good parents if they get hitched. A good parent won't stop being a good parent if their marriage ends, nor will they fail to be a good parent if their marriage never starts in the first place. A lousy parent will be quite able to continue being lousy even after 25 years of marriage.

Hell, some of the best parents I know are legally blocked from getting married. Doesn't stop them.
Marry m--...uh...common-law me!

Seriously, great post. Thanks.

A married friend, male, did tell me once that his wedding ring made him invisible to young, single women. :p
Actually, what's happened in my experience, even though I've been engaged but never married, is that young, single women seemed MORE likely to hit on me or "check me out" when I was with my fiancee or girlfriend at the time.

I found it disturbing.

My fiancee told me that it was because I was with someone as attractive as she that I was getting looked over because I must have SOMETHING great beyond my outward appearance to have lured such a hottie.

It was that statement, among others that I let slide because of "love", that came back to validate my decision not to be with her anymore.

Really? I've heard the opposite. One of my friends told me he suspects that his wedding band contains a tiny but extremely powerful magnet that attracts dangerously unstable women half his age.
That's what I was trying to say. Thanks again.

Well, I think the answer is simple. The rings may not be magical but they are symbols of dedication and devotion and because of that it is quite easy to believe that between a married and unmarried couple the married one is more likely to be stable and dedicated as they were willing to swear to the bonds of marriage where as the other couple wasn't. At least that is my view on this issue.
So your claim is that words somehow guarantee...aw, skip it.

That is how I feel about it at well.

To me, the ceremony is superfluous. I'm not against it, if that's what you'd like...a bit of ceremony is important to some people. It simply isn't to me, or my spouse. But ten years, and two kids later...being unmarried certainly doesn't make us 'less stable' than John and Judy who just got married after six months of dating.
Careful with that loose talk! The Wedding-Industrial Complex hears that stuff and you'll be in Dutch with wedding planners, florists, hall renters, churches...and...and...well, nevermind, nothing to worry about there. Pissed-off capitalists, is all.

No, I am common-law. Here, you become common-law when you live with a partner for a year, or you have children together. In most cases, the legal rights and responsibilities of common-law couples is equal to those who were married officially.

Hence, I consider myself married, as does the state, albeit 'not married' but 'common-law', being fairly equal...but many people do not consider me to be married because I did not go through the ceremony.
It only takes a year ? wow I spent a year with a crazy ass gf of mine just to make rent ends meet

I would hate to think that I would be married to her just because of the apartment lease

Only because divorce is something that is limited to married couples, other forms have the same issue but they don't call it divorce. I mean the problem is what happens, if the name mattered then we could make divorce statistics go down to 0 if we just changed the meanings of the words.
Wait a minute, your post before this one said the name DOES matter. You said "if you're devoted, why not get married?" Becuase it's just another name, that's why. Perhaps the expense is prohibitive. Perhaps the respective families of the couple aren't good in social situations or are dead or indisposed or just not very nice people.

If everything is already in place and the family is whole and secure, how on Earth will having a ceremony strenghten it?

Thanks, Bottle. That was hilarious. :D

But that idea's already been used, I'm afraid. It seems that their ad campaigns are directed toward 13-15 year olds... I've seen it before :upyours:
Younger than that. They're for little kids, and they're called Fairy Tales.

It only takes a year ? wow I spent a year with a crazy ass gf of mine just to make rent ends meet

I would hate to think that I would be married to her just because of the apartment lease
You'll be fine as long as you don't declare yourself as common-law (just pretend she's your roomate)...just don't knock her up.

And I heard a while back that in Alberta they were considering shortening that time to six months...I'm not sure if they'll did, I'll nose around.

Oh, and check your specific state law...some have NO time limits, some do, some are based on a declaration, some aren't...it varies. US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#United_States) (it looks like in your state, that there is no common-law marriage? Wait, there is something called a putative spouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#Putative_spouses) that may apply....)

"Any person who has cohabited with another person to whom he is not legally marriaged in the good faith belief that he was married to that person is a putative spouse until knowledge of the fact that he is not legally married terminates his status and prevents acquisition of further rights."

Yeah, and for women the problem is that your re-sale value drops markedly. What with all the mail-order brides, it seems like no men are buying "used" any more...
I'd prefer to date a divorced woman. Ideally, they'd know exactly what they DON'T want, which, in many cases, is more practical than knowing what you DO want.

The whole notion of "resale value" and the ownership heritage of marriage is repugnant to me, but you make the point for a good reason.

You'll be fine as long as you don't declare yourself as common-law (just pretend she's your roomate)...just don't knock her up.

And I heard a while back that in Alberta they were considering shortening that time to six months...I'm not sure if they'll did, I'll nose around.

Oh, and check your specific state law...some have NO time limits, some do, some are based on a declaration, some aren't...it varies. US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#United_States) (it looks like in your state, that there is no common-law marriage?)
Alrighty makes sense she really was my roommate mostly that’s why we did what we did was for rent purposes… we liked each other just fine but it defiantly was even at that time not going anywhere lol.

Marriage is the traditional sign of devotion. You may not agree with it, however, that is what it symbolizes to society, your life is your choice though. The purpose of marriage is to declare this devotion, there is little else to it and whether or not you go to church or pray has little to do with the issue at hand given the fact that many people don't get married in a church at all and just have it legally done.

Yes, and certain people have tendencies towards these acts. The logic of it is that dedicated couples are more likely to get married than less dedicated couples. If one is a devoted couple then one often has an incentive to get married(social acceptability, presents, tradition, etc) so the question still ends up being why not? Wouldn't a symbolic act that replaces marriage and that is as binding as marriage really be a form of marriage?
Sorry, but I'll respectfully disagree by saying that an unmarried couple who stays together is more impressive to me than a married one who does. Divorce is messy, no matter how amicable it is, it's messy, stressful, and at the very least, inconvenient.

As such, I'd wager many couples stay together despite not being stable or happy because the spectre of divorce is even scarier than life with someone that they no longer feel devoted to. A couple who stays together WITHOUT the noose of a marriage and legality around their necks, who could legally split at a moment's notice with nothing more inconvenient than having to relocate (assuing no children), is more devoted, to me, than any other couple.

Children, of course, make the whole thing more complex and minefieldy. There are legions of marriages which are all but over but stagger on because of the perception of stability to and for the kids. Well, I say my married mother and father scream, yell and break things at one another for many years before they divorced, and I can tell you I'd have been a lot happier having not experienced that (or for that matter, my older brother stopping my mother from taking a knife to my father).

I will disagree on the "marriage is stability" statement until my last breath.

I'd prefer to date a divorced woman. Ideally, they'd know exactly what they DON'T want, which, in many cases, is more practical than knowing what you DO want.

Funny, that's the same reason I refuse to date virgins...


The whole notion of "resale value" and the ownership heritage of marriage is repugnant to me, but you make the point for a good reason.
True story: an aunt of mine expressed horror when I got to my senior year in college without a single marriage proposal coming my way. She is of the opinion that a female past age 23 is beyond her "sell-by" date, and will not be able to find a buyer--I mean, a husband.

I find it interesting that I'm supposed to want to marry the kind of man who won't look at a woman older than 23. Of course, I also find it interesting that my main mission in life is supposed to be selling myself. But what do I know.

Cut the crap okay? You're not unique for defending people whom aren't married, you're not some sortof rebel, and you're barely even correct in your statement. So just sumbit defeat now before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.

Judges, what's the ruling? A teeny, tiny bit of projection here?


Ofcourse people can love eachother and have a stable enviorment for thier kids without marriage, that's not the point, the point is marriage just insures it all that much more. Guess what, you can sleep on the floor, and still wakeup refreshed and ready to work, but why the fuck would you want to when you can sleep on a bed? Now if you have to sleep on the floor okay, and you deal with it and work around it. But if you have a choice for something better, why wouldn't you take it?

Congratulations! You've Completely Missed The Point!

The assumption that marriage is better than cohabitation is precisely what is being argued in this thread.


The problem with you liberal's is your trying to convince stupid people that the floor is just as good as a bed, and it's not.
No, darling, we're trying to convince people to shack up before they marry, or to do away with marriage altogether. That's substantially easier than convincing people to sleep on the floor...;)

I find it interesting that I'm supposed to want to marry the kind of man who won't look at a woman older than 23. Of course, I also find it interesting that my main mission in life is supposed to be selling myself. But what do I know.
I wouldn't buy you. You'd never do the ironing.

Judges, what's the ruling? A teeny, tiny bit of projection here?


Actually, the ruling can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=493344);)

I wouldn't buy you. You'd never do the ironing.
Who the hell irons anymore?

Two words: nanotechnology and microfibres. They are a reality, and you can toss that iron out the window (but I wouldn't actually suggest it).

people seem to think that my husband and I are "less married" because we eloped, and didn't have the "wedding" that is "normal" around here.

people are stupid.
Exactly.

A person can be smart.

People are stupid.

Marriage is simply an illusion. Love prevails regardless of matrimony.

Who the hell irons anymore?

Two words: nanotechnology and microfibres. They are a reality, and you can toss that iron out the window (but I wouldn't actually suggest it).
Why not throwing heavy things from high places is awesome

Well, if it's already shown that marriages, as a whole, last longer than cohabiting relationships, then is it not safe to assume that, if the rates of the life-bonding people are consistent throughout the population, that marriages still last longer?

If we were comparing marriages to all cohabitating relationships, yes. However, we're not. At least, not as far as the subject of this thread goes.


Given how common it is for children to be born out of wedlock, I can hardly see how it would make up the difference in attitudes. Obviously, if a couple chooses not to marry and yet they still live together, I think that they probably don't care toooo much about what society may say about them, especially when the only difference between them and married couples is a short ceremony. They 100% CHOOSE their lifestyle, whereas it is uncertain whether homosexuals are born that way.

Whether or not the behavior is chosen doesn't change how society reacts.
Children born out of wedlock DO face a lot of nastiness from society, and I can personally assure you that cohabitating couples get more than their fair share of shit from society as a whole.

Do I choose to cohabitate anyway? Damn right I do. I choose to stick up for myself in a lot of areas where I get crap for doing so. But that doesn't change the fact that my general mood is brought down when I am constantly harassed and attacked for my personal choices. I choose to stand for what I believe in anyway, but I must sacrifice some "happiness" to do so at times. t I still have the unhappy reality of living in a society that can't seem to get its nose out of my business. Until our society changes, I suspect I will be markedly less "happy" than women who are content to stay home and quietly make babies.


Well, looking at what we know...somehow the married couples STILL last longer.

That's not what I asked. I said, "Take a cohabitating couple, and change ONLY ONE VARIABLE about their relationship. Make them married, but still totally identical to their previous selves in every other way. Will their likelihood of spending the rest of their lives together increase simply because they are now married?"


Actually, from what I understand, Conservatives have held the edge, varying from 5-11%, ever since the Pew Research Center began measuring in the 1970s. So control of government really doesn't have an intense effect.

Control of culture does. Think about being a progressive in this country. Think about what that means.

Hell, think about being black in this country. Or a feminist. Or gay. Can you see how, just maybe, the last 30 years haven't been entirely wine and roses? Can you see why conservative white males might be slightly "happier," on average, than other demographics? Can you see why the "happiness" of one group relative to another doesn't necessarily tell you anything about who is making "better" choices?


Well, some studies have indicated that women in cohabiting relationships are many times more likely to be killed by a spouse than married women, and are more likely to be cheated on. I'd say conservatives still hold an edge in the "happier relationship" category.
I'd say that's a crazy leap of logic, since "traditionalism" of a relationship is directly correlated with domestic abuse. Indeed, strong religiosity and belief in "traditional gender roles" are the second strongest correlated factor with domestic abuse (second only to alcoholism). Additionally, the more socially conservative a society is, the higher the rates of domestic abuse. In the US, the states that are the most conservative have the highest per capita rates of domestic abuse (as well as the highest divorce rates, I might add).

This is not to say all conservatives beat their wives, or that no progressives do. But what it means is that you are lumping together too many demographics, and then trying to make generalizations that have nothing to do with what your data set is actually telling you.

I wouldn't buy you. You'd never do the ironing.
I don't think I even know how to iron. I generally just throw stuff in the dryer with a wet sock. :P

It was, wasn't it?

I skimmed it, but I did notice that it said that a marriage ceremony was a requirement. Not in the great state of Colorado, it isn't. All you need do is give the county clerk a check, fill out the marriage license and send it back in. You don't even have to wait four to six weeks for delivery.
Same thing in Washington. You must wait three days before actually getting married, but the license itself is $55 and only needs to be signed by the officiant (minister, judge, ship's captain, etc.) and two witnesses.

Devotion? Not mentioned on any forms. I know this because I was a licensing agent in my home county for three years.

Who the hell irons anymore?

Two words: nanotechnology and microfibres. They are a reality, and you can toss that iron out the window (but I wouldn't actually suggest it).

There are women who don't believe in ironing?

*blinks*

Wait a minute.... you're not real are you?

(Besides, everyone knows the perfect solution is to throw a wrinkly article of clothing in the dryer for a few minutes and then stretch the clothing out to see if the wrinkles will go away. Or buy a fresh article of clothing.)

(Besides, everyone knows the perfect solution is to throw a wrinkly article of clothing in the dryer for a few minutes and then stretch the clothing out to see if the wrinkles will go away. Or buy a fresh article of clothing.)
Use a wet sock. I'm telling you, it works.

Either that, or hang your clothes up in the bathroom and run a hot shower. Keep the door closed and let the steam relax out the wrinkles.

:D I'm all about the half-assed solutions!

(Besides, everyone knows the perfect solution is to throw a wrinkly article of clothing in the dryer for a few minutes and then stretch the clothing out to see if the wrinkles will go away. Or buy a fresh article of clothing.)
But they fold new clothes in such a way that they have these really bad, hard pressed creases in them, so you have to wash them anyway to get rid of them.

So says the man who has actually tried buying new clothes to avoid ironing...

Democrats less happy than Republicans?

Yep, across the board. Middle-Income Republicans are even happier than upper-income Democrats.

http://pewresearch.org/social/pack.php?PackID=1

My last claim is based on these previous findings:

1. Republicans are happier as a group.

2. They are also more likely to marry in a traditional sense.

3. Marriages are more stable than cohabiting relationships.

4. Children benefit from stable and happy relationships, and based on the above, those are more frequent for conservative families and in turn they tend to replicate those behaviors as adults.

Children of Republicans then, can expect to have happier and longer lasting relationships than their Democratic counterparts.

Also:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/election04/interview.htm

Election data shows married couples were more likely to vote Republican, too, while divorced or unmarried people were more likely to vote Democrat, further evidencing the affiliations and choices of people who marry and those who do not.

Also, look at the marriage rates of Europe and Scandinavia, very low compared to here. Also, those areas are very liberal.
So...ignorance really is bliss, then. Cool.

So says the man who has actually tried buying new clothes to avoid ironing...
Pfft. That's nothing. In my household, every couple of months we discuss whether we should clean house, or just move to a new apartment.

Pfft. That's nothing. In my household, every couple of months we discuss whether we should clean house, or just move to a new apartment.
:p

You could just buy a caravan, glue down everything you want to keep, then tip it up at one end and let the mess fall out the windows.

Use a wet sock. I'm telling you, it works.

Either that, or hang your clothes up in the bathroom and run a hot shower. Keep the door closed and let the steam relax out the wrinkles.

:D I'm all about the half-assed solutions!

You're a damn genius! Genius I say! That'll show those traditional Ironists!

But they fold new clothes in such a way that they have these really bad, hard pressed creases in them, so you have to wash them anyway to get rid of them.

So says the man who has actually tried buying new clothes to avoid ironing...

I generally use the dryer for that problem...

...wait... I see where you're going with this...

*makes plans to start soaking some socks*

:p

You could just buy a caravan, glue down everything you want to keep, then tip it up at one end and let the mess fall out the windows.
:O

This is an absolutely subperb idea. I am totally going to start buying crazy glue in bulk...

So...ignorance really is bliss, then. Cool.
You also have to take into account the attitudes toward divorce.

Progressives and social liberals are less likely to view divorce as evil. Traditionalists and conservatives are more likely to perceive divorce as inherently bad, and are probably more likely to stay in an "unhappy" relationship in order to avoid divorcing. People who view divorce as a reasonable and non-evil option will be more likely to pursue such an option if their relationship is no longer working...makes sense, right?

So, then the question becomes: which is better for kids? If a marriage is loveless and unhappy, is it better for the parents to remain married to provide "stability," or would it be better for them to divorce so that the child is not growing up in a home with that kind of tension?

I think the case can be made either way, and it also depends a lot on HOW the parents divorce. My cousins endured one of the nastiest divorces ever, and it warped them pretty badly. On the other hand, one of my best friends saw his parents divorce when he was 9, and he has always said that it was the best thing that could have happened to his family. He now has two sets of loving, attentive parents, and his biological parents are able to be friends now that they don't have to be married to each other.

Which brings me back to my original statement in this thread...good parents tend to be good parents whether or not they marry, and whether or not they divorce. Lousy parents will be lousy parents if they're married, and they're also more likely to be jackasses about a divorce (since they are less likely to put their kids' needs first).

Seems like it's all the same to me.

You're a damn genius! Genius I say! That'll show those traditional Ironists!

Or, you could just not bother with ironing/removing wrinkles altogether (like me). :p

As far as the topic goes... I honestly don't care. Whatever people want to do in that sense is up to them, not me.

Or, you could just not bother with ironing/removing wrinkles altogether (like me). :p

As far as the topic goes... I honestly don't care. Whatever people want to do in that sense is up to them, not me.

Are you following me? :D

If I ever got married, the wedding ceremony won't end with bride and groom kissing. Instead, it will end with us slamming our Power Force Rings together and shouting, "Our powers combined, we are THE MARRIAGE FORCE!"

Then we'll blast a hole in the ceiling with our ring lazers and fly off into the sunset. Ahh, romance...
That is pure genius

So, then the question becomes: which is better for kids? If a marriage is loveless and unhappy, is it better for the parents to remain married to provide "stability," or would it be better for them to divorce so that the child is not growing up in a home with that kind of tension?

The answer is the latter. My mother stayed with my father for years, when she really didn't want to, because people told her that "her children needed a father." While I had begun to realize it before, it was truly a shock to me when, at 15 or 16 (a year or two after the divorce), I realized that I was seeing my mother truly happy probably for the first time. She's remarried now, and truly happy - and she didn't need to suffer through years of unhappy marriage because someone else told her she should do it for the sake of my brother and I.

The answer is the latter. My mother stayed with my father for years, when she really didn't want to, because people told her that "her children needed a father." While I had begun to realize it before, it was truly a shock to me when, at 15 or 16 (a year or two after the divorce), I realized that I was seeing my mother truly happy probably for the first time. She's remarried now, and truly happy - and she didn't need to suffer through years of unhappy marriage because someone else told her she should do it for the sake of my brother and I.
That's my feeling on it as well. But then, I don't view divorce as necessarily bad.

Many people I know think that divorce = a "failed" marriage. I don't see it that way, any more than I think a relationship is a failure if two people break up. There are plenty of reasons why people would grow apart, and why they might decide that they are no longer good together, and it doesn't have to have anything to do with the relationship being a failure.

There's this weird attitude, at least in my country, where marriage (or relationships) are perceived as failures if they don't last FOREVER. You can hear it in our marriage vows, read it in our greeting cards, and see it in every sappy movie. "Eternity" is a strong theme, and the implication is that true love will always last forever. I think that's bullshit.

I don't think a play is a "failure" because it has a final scene. I don't think a book is a failure because it has a last chapter. If your marriage is only ended by the death of one of the partners, then that's fine...but if it ends with you two deciding to part ways at the age of 45, then that can be fine too! It all depends on how and why you do it. I think it's childish to assume that true love will hold a couple together FOREVER.

That's my feeling on it as well. But then, I don't view divorce as necessarily bad.

Many people I know think that divorce = a "failed" marriage. I don't see it that way, any more than I think a relationship is a failure if two people break up. There are plenty of reasons why people would grow apart, and why they might decide that they are no longer good together, and it doesn't have to have anything to do with the relationship being a failure.

There's this weird attitude, at least in my country, where marriage (or relationships) are perceived as failures if they don't last FOREVER. You can hear it in our marriage vows, read it in our greeting cards, and see it in every sappy movie. "Eternity" is a strong theme, and the implication is that true love will always last forever. I think that's bullshit.

I don't think a play is a "failure" because it has a final scene. I don't think a book is a failure because it has a last chapter. If your marriage is only ended by the death of one of the partners, then that's fine...but if it ends with you two deciding to part ways at the age of 45, then that can be fine too! It all depends on how and why you do it. I think it's childish to assume that true love will hold a couple together FOREVER.

I agree with you.....to a point. I do think that marriage is supposed to be - and should be - for life. But it takes both people to keep a marriage going, and, all too often, it simply doesn't happen. I don't think that people should stay in a relationship that is obviously over, as I don't think that is healthy. I do, however, think that there are often things that can be done before the couple has grown apart or let anger build up or whatever happens to end it - if and only if both people are working at it.

In the end, I think that too many people enter marriage lightly and too many people exit it lightly. Neither, in my opinion, is a good thing.

I agree with you.....to a point. I do think that marriage is supposed to be - and should be - for life.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think that if a person enters into a contract where they say they will commit for life, then they should do everything in their power to fulfill their commitment. However, many marriages nowadays do NOT stipulate that. Virtually all marriages carry the element that there are certain reasons why the contract would be assumed null and void; for instance, "I swear to spend the rest of my life with you" is commonly assumed to carry exceptions such as, "...unless you start beating the shit out of me, in which case you can bugger off."

Additionally, even if we assume that people should go into a marriage with the assumption that it's for life, I STILL would not think a marriage is necessarily a "failure" if it ends sooner than that. There are tons of variables you simply cannot know about when you get married, no matter how in love you are or how well you know your partner. You CANNOT know everything about them, or everything about the person they will be. You cannot even know everything about yourself and the person you will be. You cannot know about all the different twists and turns your lives will take. So you make the best possible evaluation based on what you know.

I don't believe there is necessarily any shame in it if you later learn something that makes your marriage inviable. If you couldn't possibly have know about it ahead of time, and you did your absolute best with what you had, then why should you (or your marriage) be labeled a "failure"?


In the end, I think that too many people enter marriage lightly and too many people exit it lightly. Neither, in my opinion, is a good thing.
I certainly agree with that. However, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to enter into a marriage WITHOUT the assumption that it must last for a lifetime. I don't think it makes the marriage any less serious, nor do I think it necessarily means the participants take it less seriously.

I take my job extremely seriously even though I know (with 100% certainty) that this job will end within the next 6 years. I would be deeply insulted if anybody were to question my commitment based on the fact that my job will not continue for the rest of my life. Similarly, I am deeply insulted by people who imply that my commitment to my partner is any less because I recognize the possibility that we may break up at some point in the future. I would be equally insulted if somebody were to label one of my past relationships as a "failure" simply because I am no longer with that person.

That is pure genius


You're a damn genius!
Wow, two people saying that about me on one page.

You know, I think it's distinctly possible that I'm a genius!

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think that if a person enters into a contract where they say they will commit for life, then they should do everything in their power to fulfill their commitment. However, many marriages nowadays do NOT stipulate that. Virtually all marriages carry the element that there are certain reasons why the contract would be assumed null and void; for instance, "I swear to spend the rest of my life with you" is commonly assumed to carry exceptions such as, "...unless you start beating the shit out of me, in which case you can bugger off."
a friend of a friend got married last weekend, didn't go to the wedding, but heard from a reliable source that the vows included instead of a "forever" a promise to "work to be together for at least 7 years"

yeah, that's a commitment worthy of 30K and a big cake :rolleyes: I suppose at least they were honest, although I did ask the bride "so, if you guys make it 2 weeks after the honeymoon does that count?"

a friend of a friend got married last weekend, didn't go to the wedding, but heard from a reliable source that the vows included instead of a "forever" a promise to "work to be together for at least 7 years"

yeah, that's a commitment worthy of 30K and a big cake :rolleyes:

I don't see why it's any less serious a commitment than one that includes "forever." As I said before, I have made a commitment to my current job that cannot last longer than 8 years total; does that mean my commitment is less serious than somebody who is committed to their job for life? Fuck no. In fact, my commitment to my job is significantly stronger than many people who are in their careers for life.

I don't see why it's any less serious a commitment than one that includes "forever." As I said before, I have made a commitment to my current job that cannot last longer than 8 years total; does that mean my commitment is less serious than somebody who is committed to their job for life? Fuck no. In fact, my commitment to my job is significantly stronger than many people who are in their careers for life.
a commitment to a job and a commitment to a relationship are two different things.

I don't see why they just didn't continue to live together if they really can't figure out if they can be together past "trying for at least 7 years", what's the point?

They have always been a "keep it seperate" couple too, he pays her rent, she buys her own food, he isn't allowed to eat any of it... it's just weird to me.

a commitment to a job and a commitment to a relationship are two different things.

Yes, they are commitments to different things. So?


I don't see why they just didn't continue to live together if they really can't figure out if they can be together past "trying for at least 7 years", what's the point?

Because they wanted to be married. Many people feel that being married is qualitatively different than being not-married. These individuals wanted to spend at least the next 7 years being married to one another.

It's like how I want to do my current job for at least the next 6 years. I could have chosen to not do this job at all, since I'm not going to be able to do it for more than 6 years, but the thing is that I like this job and want to do it. This job is qualitatively different from other jobs I might have taken, and I want to have this job, even if it will not last for the rest of my life. I am extremely dedicated to my work, and probably put more thought and effort into what I do than many people who are in life-long jobs.


They have always been a "keep it seperate" couple too, he pays her rent, she buys her own food, he isn't allowed to eat any of it... it's just weird to me.
I'm not clear on how him paying her rent constitutes "keeping it separate," but okay.

Regardless, there are lots of people who marry for reasons that I don't understand. Many of my friends have been married for reasons that I find confusing, or even silly. But I don't presume to insult them for making their own choices about their own relationships. If I did that, I'd be a pretty crappy friend.

I'm not clear on how him paying her rent constitutes "keeping it separate," but okay.
she has him on a lease, they have completely seperate money, if she can't buy tampons, he won't loan her the money without interest. It's just a weird relationship to me.

Regardless, there are lots of people who marry for reasons that I don't understand. Many of my friends have been married for reasons that I find confusing, or even silly. But I don't presume to insult them for making their own choices about their own relationships. If I did that, I'd be a pretty crappy friend.
true. although she is a friend of a friend, so technically I can be a bitch right?

I guess I have a different view of marriage than you, because I used to do premarital counseling for couples, I have a whole different idea of what makes a healthy marriage, and what type of commitment is required.

We can agree to disagree again. ;) it's okay.

I don't think that being married makes a parent more committed or less committed to their child. My ex husband could not be less committed to his three children if he tried, but my partner, who is not their father, would give up his life for them...a marriage certificate is not what makes you a good parent.

she has him on a lease,

If he is leasing from her, then he's not "paying her rent." He's paying HIS rent, to her.


they have completely seperate money, if she can't buy tampons, he won't loan her the money without interest. It's just a weird relationship to me.

Meh. Some people prefer to have separate finances. There are plenty of married couples in which the husband gives the wife a set allowance, and will not allow her access to other money.


true. although she is a friend of a friend, so technically I can be a bitch right?

You always can choose to be a bitch. I just don't understand why you'd want to, in this case. Meh again. :)


I guess I have a different view of marriage than you, because I used to do premarital counseling for couples, I have a whole different idea of what makes a healthy marriage, and what type of commitment is required.

Clearly. And I don't mind the fact that most people have different views of marriage than I do. The only thing I mind is when other people insult marriages that aren't designed according to their own values. It's one thing to say, "That kind of marriage is not for me." It's another to say, "That kind of marriage is inherently less valid or worthwhile because it's not designed with my priorities in mind."

Now, I grant you, there are certain limits that I think are generally fair to impose. For instance, I think it's pretty reasonable to question a relationship in which a 10 year old girl has been "married" to a 55 year old man. I think it's reasonable to question the "love" in a physically abusive marriage. I think it's reasonable to question when a rape victim is forced to marry the man who raped her. But I think you can see the objective standard that is in place here (hint: is related to objectively-verifiable bodily harm), and how it differs from judging marriages based on how well the participants use your favorite buzz-words.

We can agree to disagree again. ;) it's okay.Yah. No problem with that!