What's The Point Of Marriage Anyway?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

230, not 200

[BrassFusion]

230, not 200

round numbers sound better and it's not 250 yet

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

OH... Then I'm 35 years old.

[BrassFusion]

lol by my reckoning, i guess you are. i'm 20.

[Msterbeau]

although its changing, "Marriage" seems to imply a greater degree of legal responsibility once the relationship has been severed.

In terms of escape, it's also just basically much harder emotionally and spiritually to walk away from your wife than it would be with your girlfriend or "S.O" Words like "Wife" and "Husband" communicate a much deeper degree of permancy and commitment, whether we agree with that or not. Much like "boyfriend" and "Fiancee" communciate different levels of identity.....one is potenitally temporal, while the other is indicitive of building and planning a future life togethor in a "traditional" sense.

I dont like the watering down of traditions simply because we no longer think in long term ideals.

I dont like the re-classification of traditions based on PC objectives.

And I dont like where your head goes when you boil water. Stop that.

What I'm hearing from you, and I've heard it from others, is that it SHOULD be hard to split. I don't think I can agree with that. You can't force people to stay together. It seems to me that if we want commitments to mean something, then this is something that needs to be addressed early in life at a parental/societal level. Even then, people make mistakes. Why are we made to feel like failures for this?

Why is it watered down to separate the legal and spiritual aspects of committed relationship? Nothing about the ceremony or vows that you take from within your church would change.

PC Objectives? Equality is not a PC objective.

[Msterbeau]

lol by my reckoning, i guess you are. i'm 20.

Damn. That means I'm still 40.

[torn asunder]

I dont like the watering down of traditions simply because we no longer think in long term ideals.

(btw, this isn't directed specifically and solely at steven...)

and i don't like keeping "tradition" simply because "that's the way it's always been"... life evolves, and i, with it. and to be honest, i think it's bullshit, that the gov't is trying to write discrimination into our laws and consitution. complete, and total bullshit. there comes a time when things must evelve, or become irrelevant, and i think gov't endorsed marriage is one of those things. i'm all for faith-based commitments, and if you're into that, more power to ya - for people like me, however, i find it intrusive, inappropriate, and exclusionary, to say the least. have your own beliefs, but please, don't force them on me, ya know!? religion has no place in gov't/legal proceedings, because then, which religion? ok, i'm gonna stop now, because this will end up way off base!!

[Steven]

2 part reply because my last on edidint go thru...

to Marc: do I think it should be harder to get out of a marriage?

YES. More importantly, i think it should eb hardr to get INTO one.

We study human behaviour, models of social order, we prepare ourselves with prerequisites before we can get promoted and be handed greater rsponsibility, we educate ourselves and pursue degrees, but we dont do jack shit when it comes to prepareing ourselves to sustain and nurture a lifelong commitment. Pretty much all we do is go to IKEA and run up our credit cards.

To Mike:

your assuming then that people are evolving, and this is where we disagree. I do not see an evolution of our species. I see that we communicate less, have less intimacy, more headshrinkers, more prescription coping mechanisms, more debt, less long term relationships, more division, and far greater desperation and anger among the youth.

And you see your arguments toward exclusionary practices, while they certainly hold water, they also make person like ME feel excluded and outdated, yet I belevie that my life bears evidence of somethign that works. So there is our catch 22.

[Msterbeau]

Hmm.. Two, 2-part answers. :-)

We're gonna disagree on the getting out of marriage thing. Making it harder to get into it... That's an interesting thought, one I probably would agree with. There still needs to be way more thought into how we parent our children and how society as a whole views these events. You're certainly on the right track with you're comments on how people are devolving. I don't see it getting better any time soon.

So how exactly are you excluded if we separate civil unions from the religious institution of marriage and allow gays to have the right to do so as well? I've seen long term gay relationships. I would argue that they work just as well as yours seems to. BUT... If their partner goes to the hospital, they have no authority as next of kin. They can't get insurance as a "spouse"... I think that's the greater injustice here.

And you ARE outdated. You're over 40 now........

[torn asunder]

And you see your arguments toward exclusionary practices, while they certainly hold water, they also make person like ME feel excluded and outdated, yet I belevie that my life bears evidence of somethign that works. So there is our catch 22.

how would having gov't civil unions and personal religious ceremonies two separate things, make you feel excluded & outdated? you would still be allowed to do exactly the same thing you did in the past, which is - have a merged/joined/legally binding relationship as far as the gov't is concerned, and have a religiously meaningful commitment ceremony (of your choosing) that encompasses all of the traits/definitions/deeper meanings, that you and your SO firmly believe in and wish to commit to. the way you're advocating is exclusionary and discriminatory - the way i'm suggesting is inclusionary/ non-discriminatory, as far as i can see. (please point anything out if i've missed something)

seriously, though, how is it exclusionary to you? i'm curious to see your thought process on this...

[TygerLili]

I agree that, for me, marriage would be making a promise to the man I was marrying and receiving a promise from him as well. If I spend a long enough time with someone and put a certain amount of effort into the relationship I would want a commitment from him that he would do the same, and I'd want that commitment to be legally binding. I guess I sort of see marriage as an insurance policy.

For everyone else the point of marriage is whatever it means to those who choose to(or not to) marry. If it doesn't mean anything to you, don't do it.

[BrassFusion]

It shouldn't be harder to get into or out of marriages, because you can't make people better by trying to force values on them.

And if you put some sort of government restrictions on how long you have to wait to get married or how many months of counseling you need before you can get divorced, it's a slippery slope BACKWARDS to new restrictions on who can have children and how you can raise them. Boo to that.

Government sanctioned marriage should simply be a declaration of partnership between any two people without implications of romance or biological child-bearing, because that's all the LEGAL part really is. the ceremony can be performed in a church by a pastor, in a temple by a rabbi, in a courthouse by a judge, on a boat by a captain... in front of friends, family, fellow inmates, bar patrons, and God if that's what you believe. with those freedoms of spiritual ceremony we have the freedom to choose our partners, which to me means any other consenting adult(s).

so all i want is the government to recognize all such partnership ceremonies equally in every case to the marriage of a man and a woman, with the obvious exception of group marriage, which would involve its own special procedures.

[Msterbeau]

Brass... Points well taken on making it harder to get into a union. In principle, we shouldn't have to raise barriers to entry for something like this. A 41% divorce rate says otherwise. (Would you believe it goes up to 60% for second marriages and 73% for thirds? Talk about not learning...)

Here's a thought... Much of the "counseling" and pre-marital "work" is a joke. I wasn't talking about time delays or anything like that anyways. I'm talking about activities that REALLY challenge people to know one another and the reasons for why they want to enter into a committed relationship. If you can't do that... you don't belong married. If you can... well perhaps you'll get to know each other that much better. It's not a magic bullet.. but it might help.

Another thought. Both people should go see a therapist. After a few months the therapists compare notes and determine if things should proceed or advise the people to give it up.. ;-) (Make sure they're decent therapists... many should be tossed on their ass since they haven't even done their own therapy... which aught to be mandatory... I digress. )

[BrassFusion]

Brass... Points well taken on making it harder to get into a union. In principle, we shouldn't have to raise barriers to entry for something like this. A 41% divorce rate says otherwise. (Would you believe it goes up to 60% for second marriages and 73% for thirds? Talk about not learning...)

Here's a thought... Much of the "counseling" and pre-marital "work" is a joke. I wasn't talking about time delays or anything like that anyways. I'm talking about activities that REALLY challenge people to know one another and the reasons for why they want to enter into a committed relationship. If you can't do that... you don't belong married. If you can... well perhaps you'll get to know each other that much better. It's not a magic bullet.. but it might help.

Another thought. Both people should go see a therapist. After a few months the therapists compare notes and determine if things should proceed or advise the people to give it up.. ;-) (Make sure they're decent therapists... many should be tossed on their ass since they haven't even done their own therapy... which aught to be mandatory... I digress. )

I guess I'm just of the complete opposite opinion. So the divorce rate's 41%...

So what? Most of the people who are going to get divorced are gonna do it no matter who they marry anyway, and for a therapist to disallow ANYONE to get married is just... well, wrong...

y'see, that's what they used to do when women were property. the fathers would control who their daughters married and after that, their husbands would own them. divorce was not an option because if they guy got sick of her, he'd just sleep with younger women with perkier tits and get his home-cooked dinners ANYWAY. a high divorce rate is just the price we have to pay for sexual equality.

in other words (actually this is a completely different thought, but fuck it, it's late, too much coffee), if you want the divorce rate to drop, nurture good relationships of your own and try to encourage healthy attitudes and self-esteem among your friends. you may be your brother's keeper, but some joe schmoe in nevada? let him make his own mistakes and if he learns from them, great.

[Msterbeau]

I

in other words (actually this is a completely different thought, but fuck it, it's late, too much coffee), if you want the divorce rate to drop, nurture good relationships of your own and try to encourage healthy attitudes and self-esteem among your friends. you may be your brother's keeper, but some joe schmoe in nevada? let him make his own mistakes and if he learns from them, great.

I'm already advocating this... I guess you missed that part. BUT... divorce takes a tremendous toll on the people involved. It takes a toll on their families. It takes a toll on their friends. It most certainly takes a toll on their children. And it definitely takes a toll on society. Why shouldn't we try to help people improve the odds that they stay together? So what, you say??? Try going through a divorce with children. You won't be so cavalier about it.

As for the therapy thing... that's more of a joke then not.

[Rayne]

I'm already advocating this... I guess you missed that part. BUT... divorce takes a tremendous toll on the people involved. It takes a toll on their families. It takes a toll on their friends. It most certainly takes a toll on their children. And it definitely takes a toll on society. Why shouldn't we try to help people improve the odds that they stay together? So what, you say??? Try going through a divorce with children. You won't be so cavalier about it.

As for the therapy thing... that's more of a joke then not.

I agree with Marc, being divorced twice myself ... with kids.

[Steven]

Hmm.. Two, 2-part answers. :-)

We're gonna disagree on the getting out of marriage thing. Making it harder to get into it... That's an interesting thought, one I probably would agree with. There still needs to be way more thought into how we parent our children and how society as a whole views these events. You're certainly on the right track with you're comments on how people are devolving. I don't see it getting better any time soon.

So how exactly are you excluded if we separate civil unions from the religious institution of marriage and allow gays to have the right to do so as well? I've seen long term gay relationships. I would argue that they work just as well as yours seems to. BUT... If their partner goes to the hospital, they have no authority as next of kin. They can't get insurance as a "spouse"... I think that's the greater injustice here.

And you ARE outdated. You're over 40 now........

Semi Quick answers: (Im at work)

I did not realize we were talking about seperating civil unions from marriages. I thought we were discussing replacing marriages with civil unions. I have a marriage. I take it extremely seriously, so that it not only survives but thrives, I teach biblical marriage concepts, I coucil with people strugglign in their marriages, etc etc etc. I suppose what I'm saying Mark and Mike is that I personally, emotionally (oh yes) hate the idea of what I work very hard to defend and preserve and even model to be set aside in favor of something else as an improved model for society. Ultimately what is being siad is that "this model is no longer relaly relevant, people have moved forward, and so we need civil union version 2.0).....

I hope that sheds a little light on what I'm struggling to explain in terms of my feeling outdated and or excluded. But I see now that your talking about a distinclty seperate provision. Perhaps what i "fear" (hate that damn word) is that in time we will simply do away with marriages altogethor in favor of the civil union. And I dont want my civil union recognized.

Side point B: I'm from california. I too, have seen MANY gay relationships up close, and by and large I have not seen them stand the test of time. Yes there are exceptions, but in general the gay lifestyle overall tends to carry shorter lifespans in terms of commitment. That's a whole other Oprah. I'm not anti-gay, there are gay people in this world who love Laura and I and who go back years with us. But I dont think the lifestyle relaly equates to long term happiness relationally. Thats jsut an observation, not an agenda. For example look at Mellisa Ethridges celebrated marriage to Julie Cypher and their bilogical kids via David Crosby's sperm donation. they made People magazine as the family of the new millenia, a celebration of what love can do to overcome boundries. That family hit the skids a short time later and now involves a 2nd generation of broken heartedness. We did not see that covered by People magazine. I do not celebrate that failure, but I do get fruistrated when we fail to show the whole picture. So although I do not support gay marriage you will not see me holding a sign and yelling curses. If you ask me however, I will tell you that I dont belevie in it. I will also tell you that I dont beleive in premature marriages, premature divorces, pre nups, and the majority of marriage counceling.

what I really want you guys, is for us to honor our word, deepen our commitments, stop being so fucking self protective and categorical, and raise our expectations of one another. None of this requires legalities. All of it requires charector, which we seem to be hemmoraging at a rapid rate....

[Homicidalheathen]

A very close relative changed her religeon to marry a catholic because 1) he was good looking, 2) he was popular.....and 3) his family is rich and he is an only child.

Well it worked.....she has it all now.....except.....happyness.

Everytime I see her she seems stressed.....unhappy.....works all the time.....for others. To please them. She has to do everything the mother in laws way to get the cash.

She has to keep up a certain appearance......including being successful in EVERY aspect of her life.....to the max.

Make x amount of dollars a year....vaca in posh places.....ect.....ect.......

The kid works her ass off too. Ballet, music....art......sports....this kid works so hard with her after school stuff she has no time to play.

At first I thought this person who married more for money than love was foolish.....giving up her beliefs like that. She was a sort of, athiest/witch. Strange combo, I know.

But in her words: 'I never really believed in anything anyway so it doesn't make any difference to me. I can practice whatever.....it doesn't matter what I think...I just don't tell anyone'.

Well if all you care about it money, then I guess you will be as miserable poor so you might as well be rich and fake it. I guess.......

I could never just surrender my belief system like that and kiss ass. I would have ulcers.

[BrassFusion]

marc and steven, i'm going to direct the same answer to both of you, marc, for wanting legislation that discourages divorce, and steven, for wanting legislation that discourages gay marriage.

it doesn't matter if YOU think it's bad. it ain't your damn business what other people do, and by extension, it ain't the government's damn business to FORCE other people what to do.

*bows*

[Msterbeau]

Um... when did I ask for legislation? Much less legislation that discourages divorce? What I think MIGHT be a good idea is a PROCESS that gets people to get to know each other on a level that they themselves might not otherwise do. Then they might figure out that they do or don't really belong in a long term committed relationship. Then they may save the everyone they're connected to, including themselves, a whole lot of grief. I would have an open mind to the notion that people learn through bad experiences, but the statistics I quoted seem to indicate otherwise.

What people do in their house is their business. When it spills out into the public and touches us in some way, It becomes our business. Fucked-up relationships have a way of doing this.

[torn asunder]

Semi Quick answers: (Im at work)

I did not realize we were talking about seperating civil unions from marriages. I thought we were discussing replacing marriages with civil unions.

that's exactly what i'm talking about - separating, not replacing...that way, religion has nothing to do with the legal aspect of commitment.

I hope that sheds a little light on what I'm struggling to explain in terms of my feeling outdated and or excluded. But I see now that your talking about a distinclty seperate provision. Perhaps what i "fear" (hate that damn word) is that in time we will simply do away with marriages altogethor in favor of the civil union. And I dont want my civil union recognized.

as long as there is religion, there will be marriage!

Side point B: I'm from california. I too, have seen MANY gay relationships up close, and by and large I have not seen them stand the test of time. Yes there are exceptions, but in general the gay lifestyle overall tends to carry shorter lifespans in terms of commitment. That's a whole other Oprah. I'm not anti-gay, there are gay people in this world who love Laura and I and who go back years with us. But I dont think the lifestyle relaly equates to long term happiness relationally. Thats jsut an observation, not an agenda. For example look at Mellisa Ethridges celebrated marriage to Julie Cypher and their bilogical kids via David Crosby's sperm donation. they made People magazine as the family of the new millenia, a celebration of what love can do to overcome boundries. That family hit the skids a short time later and now involves a 2nd generation of broken heartedness. We did not see that covered by People magazine. I do not celebrate that failure, but I do get fruistrated when we fail to show the whole picture. So although I do not support gay marriage you will not see me holding a sign and yelling curses. If you ask me however, I will tell you that I dont belevie in it. I will also tell you that I dont beleive in premature marriages, premature divorces, pre nups, and the majority of marriage counceling.

up to this point, "gay lifestyle" has had to be"in the closet" because it was morally frowned upon, so i don't think we have any reliable past history to go by, regarding whether or not their "commitment lifespans" are comparable to heteros. (people can't have a successful gay relationship and have it known about, when they fear getting beat down/ostracized/killed for their choices) i look at all the relationships around me, and honestly, i don't see the kind of "lifelong" happiness to which you are referring, regardless of orientation. personally, i don't think the alternative lifestyles have anything to do with the perceived (feared) moral decay of society, and i don't think legal gay commitment will further unravel the moral fabric of this country. in fact, if you look back thru history, you'll find that societal definitions of morality have changed quite a bit since civilization "started". i also think you'll find that it will continue to evolve to include the new directions society takes on its journey into maturity.

what I really want you guys, is for us to honor our word, deepen our commitments, stop being so fucking self protective and categorical, and raise our expectations of one another. None of this requires legalities. All of it requires charector, which we seem to be hemmoraging at a rapid rate....

writing discrimination (no gay commitment) into law is entirely being self-protective, from a x-tian perspective. in my opinion, x-tians don't want to lose hold on their claim of being the right moral compass for the nation. (hell, not just the nation, either!) of course, that's the job of any religion - to claim they are good and right and proper, and that everyone else needs to believe/worship the way they do, and if they don't they're wrong/bad/sinners/evil. it's the nature of the beast, which is why i sincerely hope that one day, we can move beyond separationist beliefs, and grow to be accepting of any belief system that is focused on love, mutual respect, cooperation, and empowerment.

wow... where the fuck did all that come from!?!? :laughing

[Msterbeau]

wow... where the fuck did all that come from!?!? :laughing

A place that I wish everyone else shared.

[Steven]

marc and steven, i'm going to direct the same answer to both of you, marc, for wanting legislation that discourages divorce, and steven, for wanting legislation that discourages gay marriage.

it doesn't matter if YOU think it's bad. it ain't your damn business what other people do, and by extension, it ain't the government's damn business to FORCE other people what to do.

*bows*

I didint ask for any legislation babe, i said I dont beleive in gay marriages and explained why. I also said you wouldent find me protesting gay marriages. Calm down, I aint the enemy.

[BrassFusion]

Um... when did I ask for legislation? Much less legislation that discourages divorce? What I think MIGHT be a good idea is a PROCESS that gets people to get to know each other on a level that they themselves might not otherwise do. Then they might figure out that they do or don't really belong in a long term committed relationship. Then they may save the everyone they're connected to, including themselves, a whole lot of grief. I would have an open mind to the notion that people learn through bad experiences, but the statistics I quoted seem to indicate otherwise.

The "process" is already an option. It's called pre-marital counseling. Not that many people take advantage of it, but well.

If you're not suggesting legislation, what ARE you suggesting?

What people do in their house is their business. When it spills out into the public and touches us in some way, It becomes our business. Fucked-up relationships have a way of doing this.

You can't be society's mommy. No one can. That's the major problem with the democratic party right now... willing to deny basic freedoms (speech, assemblage, press, even religion to a degree) so everyone gets this shallow feeling of self-worth, and so no one has to be offended or exposed to something that makes them uncomfortable.

Not to say the republicans don't mold the same shit into a different shape.

[BrassFusion]

I didint ask for any legislation babe, i said I dont beleive in gay marriages and explained why. I also said you wouldent find me protesting gay marriages. Calm down, I aint the enemy.

If you're not part of the solution...