scratch Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 OK, time for another esoteric thread. Regular rules - no smileys, off topic banter or ad homenim arguments. I propose two scenarios, A and B. Scenario A: M and F live together and enjoy a monogamous relationship, have children together and intend to remain with each other in perpetuity. Scenario B: Scenario A plus M and F enter into a marriage contract. Which is a better scenario, and why? Is the answer different for men and women? I'll sound off at some point, but want to hear from others first.
LucreziaBorgia Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 It entirely depends on whether the couple decides to make the marriage work for them, or whether they intend to box themselves up into someone else's version of what marriage "should" be, and end up working for the marriage instead of making the marriage work for them. If someone goes into it intending to change who they are to fit themselves into a marriage, instead of making a marriage fit their existing lives then they'd be better off not getting married. I got married to Mr. B with the clear understanding between us both that our marriage was OURS and no one else's - we live by our own rules, and we cut the marriage to fit us, we don't cut ourselves to fit a marriage. I would not have gotten married (or at the very least stayed married) otherwise. I like having the legal backup that makes us a family, though. I like not having to worry about hassles in property ownership, medical stuff, and the like. I would love it if the government made common law arrangements less of a hassle. I would feel the same emotional bond/love with him regardless of the paper we signed. Signing the paper made things a whole lot more simple for us though.
Outcast Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 I think are soooooooo cute! Let's see how many old hoary myths and worn out theories about men, women, and marriage can be trotted out. Again.
Author scratch Posted July 26, 2005 Author Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by LucreziaBorgia I like having the legal backup that makes us a family, though. I like not having to worry about hassles in property ownership, medical stuff, and the like. I would love it if the government made common law arrangements less of a hassle. I would feel the same emotional bond/love with him regardless of the paper we signed. Signing the paper made things a whole lot more simple for us though. Would it be fair to say that the primary benefit of scenario B over A, then, is administrative convenience?
Woggle Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 Any man who gets married these days is out of his mind. It's like playing russian roullette. I would even say that men should not even live with women because some men have gotten the shaft in court over that. Just find a girlfriend with her own place and visit each other often.
quankanne Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 what's the line from that Michelle Pffeifer-Robert Redford movie (she's a TV anchor, he's her mentor and lover) -- when she lets him know that it's time to get married because she likes the idea of him being legally obligated to come home to her? for me, marriage is saying to the other person, "I like you, I love you, I have faith in a future with you so much that I'm willing to spend the rest of my life married to you and no one else." There is a certain sense of security knowing this person wants you above all others to spend his life with, even though you both know that there will be tricky or rough spots along the way. it's less about having financial security or health benefits -- that's something I can get on my own with a decent job. Same with kids -- you don't need a marriage to make those happen. However, you do need a committed partner to have a marriage. Which all goes back to my previous answer: having that someone who is interested in pledging his life to yours. living together just seems so ... temporary, is the word I think I want. There's always something at the back of your head saying that you've got an escape hatch should it not work out. There's no real sense of stability (well, again, this is how *I* would feel in that kind of situation) of relationship.
Author scratch Posted July 26, 2005 Author Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by Woggle Any man who gets married these days is out of his mind. It's like playing russian roullette. I would even say that men should not even live with women because some men have gotten the shaft in court over that. Just find a girlfriend with her own place and visit each other often. This is completely off topic. Either answer the question posed given the two specific scenarios or take your whining elsewhere.
Author scratch Posted July 26, 2005 Author Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by quankanne for me, marriage is saying to the other person, "I like you, I love you, I have faith in a future with you so much that I'm willing to spend the rest of my life married to you and no one else." There is a certain sense of security knowing this person wants you above all others to spend his life with, even though you both know that there will be tricky or rough spots along the way. living together just seems so ... temporary, is the word I think I want. There's always something at the back of your head saying that you've got an escape hatch should it not work out. There's no real sense of stability (well, again, this is how *I* would feel in that kind of situation) of relationship. So you feel there's a symbolism implicit in marriage, and marriage alone, that will add vital stability to the relationship? Given the prevalence of divorce, is that symbolism still valuable? Is there really a sense of stability available in B that is unavailable in A?
loony Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 I'm not sure if you can really say that one scenario is better than the other. My guess is that a guy who tells me that he wants to get married is more interested in a stable long-term relationship than a guy who tells me that he doesn't see any meaning in taking the marital vows. If someone tells me "I want to marry you" I translate it, I want to have a long-term relationship with you, I'm ready to stay with you for a long time and that's what I personally prefer if I want to have a family with someone. I'd assume that he's willing to take responsibility for our children and that he is willing to commit himself to this relationship. On the other hand a guy who is hesitating in respect to the idea of getting married would make me suspicious. I would ask myself if he really knows what raising children means, what commitment means. I'd take his hesitation as a sign that he is fearing for his independence, that he still hears this little voice inside his head that will tell him occasionally that the grass might be greener on the other side, that there's still this jacuzzi with the naked women just waiting outside for him (ha, ha, ha ). If a guy was willing to marry me, I would believe it more that he has sown his wild oats and is ready to settle down, it shows his readiness to have a long-term committed relationship.
d'Arthez Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 There are so many things that may influence a preference for scenario A or B. For instance: - Religious dictates - location - sex of both partners (you can't marry in the US as homosexuals, ruling out scenario B) - issues pertaining to nationality (is it possible for a North Korean to marry a South Korean?) - tax considerations, and other financial considerations These are the things that the persons in their situations don't have any control over. You just find yourself in a situation with M or F in these proposed scenarios. And then of course there are the personal beliefs of you and your partner. A preference is just that. A religious person does not see marriage just as a contract, but as something completely different. Someone else might see it as a legal document, and not much more than that. What is an ad homenim argument?
alphamale Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by d'Arthez (is it possible for a North Korean to marry a South Korean?) sure...as long as they are not on the Korean peninsula
loony Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by d'Arthez What is an ad homenim argument? I think it's ad hominem argument, an insult or something? P.S. Ok, I just looked it up in Wikipedia. It's when you attack the person that presents the argument in order to undermine it validity instead of pointing out to the flaws of the argument itself. My spelling was better than my explanation.
Pocky Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by scratch OK, time for another esoteric thread. Regular rules - no smileys, off topic banter or ad homenim arguments. I propose two scenarios, A and B. Scenario A: M and F live together and enjoy a monogamous relationship, have children together and intend to remain with each other in perpetuity. Scenario B: Scenario A plus M and F enter into a marriage contract. Which is a better scenario, and why? Is the answer different for men and women? I'll sound off at some point, but want to hear from others first. It really depends on the individuals and the relationship they have and want. Some people do really well in a monogamous relationship and have no need for marriage, while others feel it's important enough or necessary for them in order to find happiness and security in their relationship. Marriage isn't evil and neither is monogamy without a marriage certificate. Some people just want different things out of life. I was never a big marriage person and my family always assumed I'd never get married or have children. My husband and I didn't go along the traditional sense of marriage and actually got married for money - we figured what the hell - we knew we were going to spend our lives together. However, after having lived in a long-term monogamous relationship for five years and living with my husband in a long-term monogamous relationship for two years, I can honestly say there is a difference between my long-term relationships and my marriage. I prefer marriage.
IhavenoFREAKINclue Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 I would say Scenario B is better security wise. Scenario A has all the qualities that marriage entails but if the man or woman decides to up and leave one day, there's no obligation. Either on can leave the kids, life and run away with the secretary and have no consequences. If that were to happen in scenario B, Were talking alimony, child support, divorce, lawyers, courts etc. Guess some people just don't find it worth it.
Author scratch Posted July 26, 2005 Author Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by Pocky However, after having lived in a long-term monogamous relationship for five years and living with my husband in a long-term monogamous relationship for two years, I can honestly say there is a difference between my long-term relationships and my marriage. I prefer marriage. Elaborate a bit on the difference and the basis for your preference. Originally posted by IhavenoFREAKINclue I would say Scenario B is better security wise. Scenario A has all the qualities that marriage entails but if the man or woman decides to up and leave one day, there's no obligation. Either on can leave the kids, life and run away with the secretary and have no consequences. If that were to happen in scenario B, Were talking alimony, child support, divorce, lawyers, courts etc. Guess some people just don't find it worth it. Does this statement imply that a loveless marriage is better than a breakup?
IhavenoFREAKINclue Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by scratch Does this statement imply that a loveless marriage is better than a breakup? Easier than a breakup.
Author scratch Posted July 26, 2005 Author Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by IhavenoFREAKINclue Easier than a breakup. You personally began your post by saying that B is better because it offers security. Then you explained that security in terms of what would happen if the love leaves the relationship. In A, if the love is gone the relationship ends. In B, if the love is gone the relationship is less likely to end, hence a loveless marriage. Again, I ask: Does this mean that B is better than A, or is A better than B?
IhavenoFREAKINclue Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by scratch You personally began your post by saying that B is better because it offers security. Then you explained that security in terms of what would happen if the love leaves the relationship. In A, if the love is gone the relationship ends. In B, if the love is gone the relationship is less likely to end, hence a loveless marriage. Again, I ask: Does this mean that B is better than A, or is A better than B? I didn't say the love leaves the relationship...I said a partner leaves the relationship. He still may love her but the secretary has perkier breasts. So to answer your question, A is better. Not for the woman (if it were the man who left) but in general I would prefer scenario A. I would take that over divorce BS and loveless marriages anyday!
loony Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by scratch Does this mean that B is better than A, or is A better than B? I'm not sure if you can compare these two scenarios, as the people who choose them are different. As I said, I assume that a guy who wants to get married is by far more stable and more willing to settle down than someone who prefers to live with me without a marriage certificate. I'm assuming that in the case of the marriage that we're talking about the two people are really aware of what they are doing. If this is the kind of marriage where two people run off to Las Vegas and then later discover they are not compatible when they are sobber, then that's not a real marriage for me. If two people marry for the right reasons and know what they are doing then I assume that this marriage will last longer than a relationship where people are committed, but without the papers.
quankanne Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 thanks for the excellent translation of what I was trying to bring across, loony. I don't know if I'd want to use the term "symbolism" as much as I would "implication" when it comes to the difference between living together and marrying: marriage, TO ME, implies that understanding that someone is in it for the long haul because they've gone that extra step of legally recognizing their relationship. This is not to say that a cohabitating couple has it any less than I do as a married woman, just that I receive a mental security in knowing my husband is there for the long haul. Yeah, we may end up divorced, or I may just kill his redneck butt, but in the meantime, it's not going anywhere. I wouldn't have that same implicit understanding were I to have just shacked up with the guy, because I'd always be wondering why he didn't respect me enough to marry me. But that is simply me being me, other people have other ideas of what works best for their relationship, and why.
lindya Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 B - but it really has to be the right person, and that - of course - is the tricky bit that so many people fall down at. If my partner insisted on A, there would always be a nagging voice saying "he doesn't love you. He has doubts. He's holding out for something better". If you've got that little voice, then you and your partner can subdue it with an encyclopaedia sized volume of logic, rationality and articulate attacks on the suffocating rules of convention...but you can never make it go away completely.
Merin Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 This is a difficult question to answer.. I think what is going to be okay for one person, isn't always going to be okay for another. Before I got married, my thoughts were it was better to be married IF you were going to have Little people. I lived with my EXH for a year before we got married, and I wasn't really all about getting married so much, but he wanted to and I did Love him (at the time) and I knew I wanted to have Kiddo's eventually. While I still believe that getting married is the best option IF you want to have a family because I do believe it is more ideal for Children to have 2 parents that are married and co-parenting under one roof, I guess the problem so often is people getting married without the needed values to sustain the marriage. At this point I have zero desire to want to get married again ever. I've been with my BF for 8 months now and we've talked about living together.. that for me/us is what we feel okay with. My now EXH has another Child with his GF and they have not gotten married but do live together.. I feel fairly certain she (his GF) would like to get married as she has his child and she has never been married, but again I think so often when you've gone through a divorce it makes you a lot more cautious in making the decision to do so again.
TineeTam Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 Originally posted by scratch OK, time for another esoteric thread. Regular rules - no smileys, off topic banter or ad homenim arguments. I propose two scenarios, A and B. Scenario A: M and F live together and enjoy a monogamous relationship, have children together and intend to remain with each other in perpetuity. Scenario B: Scenario A plus M and F enter into a marriage contract. Which is a better scenario, and why? Is the answer different for men and women? I'll sound off at some point, but want to hear from others first. Does the couple want their marriage blessed by God? Are they taking a holy vow to each other, or merely signing a civil contract to stay together? Are they getting married only because of the social, political, financial, and legal ramifications of a socially/legally recognized union? Are they united in the eyes of God, or the laws of the land? Is the vow sacred to them? Their commitment to each other might be perfectly sound and forever even if its not in the eyes of God. In that case, its a union that they themselves sanctified without the benefit of God's blessing and some people don't need or want that. Others do. Who is to say which is the better scenario -- its different for each couple and its no up to anyone else to give their approval.
rble618740 Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 It appears that, statistically, there is some validity to the belief that marriage is more stable than cohabitation. A 1992 study of 3,300 cases, for example, based on the 1987 National Survey of Families and Households, found that people who married after cohabitation "are estimated to have a hazard of dissolution that is about 46% higher than for noncohabitors." After 5 to 7 years, 39% of all cohabiting couples have broken their relationship. In contrast, 65% of married couples reach their tenth anniversary. However, these are just statistics. From the perspective of someone who is married (and who was separated last year for 2 1/2 months), I married because I thought it sealed an already secure deal. I didn't marry for this reason, but instead was motivated by a desire to have children within a marriage. Having had my husband walk out on me, I realize it was a false sense of security. You feel like getting married provides almost a guarantee that your mate will stick around and work it out (though I believed that he would even if we didn't get married). Guess what - a marriage is no guarantee. Whether marriage is beneficial to you depends most, in my opinion, on what it means to your partner. For my husband, marriage means a greater commitment from me. I would not have worked hard at reconciling with my boyfriend, but I have busted my butt to reconcile with my husband. For me, marriage has not been that beneficial because my husband does not value the institution in the same way I do, and because - until we have children - my motivation for getting married hasn't been satisfied. We have an excellent relationship now, but its not anything we couldn't have without the confines of marriage. In fact, the very obligations and expectations that accompany marriage can cause trouble in an otherwise good relationship. That's a long, and relatively unclear way of saying, whether marriage benefits you depends in large part on the impact it has on your partner and your motivation for getting married. For me, I've become a better person and partner because my views on marriage obligated me to address my relationship weaknesses, versus find a partner who was more accepting of them.
Recommended Posts