Will you marry me?
Well, alright, that’s not really the question. The actual question is: what does that mean?
In this day and age, what does marriage mean? Is it a relationship, an economic bargain, a sacred rite, and threadbare custom, what? Does it have a purpose, or is it a pragmatic recognition of a cultural reality?
I think it’s a demonstration of commitment to a relationship that says you are willing to put yourself in a possition of not simply being able to walk away from it as you could with a boyf / girlf.
Exactly, I think my marriage was a logical step forward in a relationship that continues to grow. Not requiring marriage for copulation allows it to become a more pure symbol of a bond based on more than animalistic urges. When I refer to “my wife” I am referring to my equal partner in the complex array of choices, chores, and experiences that make up a complete and happy life: the business of organizing a family, the economics of running a household, the shared enjoyment of life experience and raising children, etc.
Freeing myself from the requirement of marrying in order to experiencing the most basic and instinctual aspect of this relationship gave me the opportunity to remove that aspect as the primary deciding factor when choosing a mate. Simply, I didn’t marry the first girl who would sleep with me.
I don’t think most people think about marriage like this, but I do find my own much more rewarding than either of my parents, or my wife’s, found theirs.
I agree w/ your logical “next step” in an already loving relationship. When in love, you want to show it to each other and the world by being ‘legit’. I don’t need god or any of his minions to bless or condone it. The court’s approval is all that’s necessary for me. Then again, I’ve never been one of the dreamy wedding types. It’s become such a huge commercial industry & creates impossible ideals of the ‘perfect’ wedding, off to the sunset where’s the “sacrement” in that?
People walk from marriages every day.
But they’re penalised in ways that they are not for walking out of a non-marital relationship. Some people may find that penalty trivial, others may find it serious, but the consequences of walking out of a marriage is more serious than the consequences of walking out of an equivalent non-marital relationship.
And thats not to say that there are no penalties to leaving non-marital relationships. Personally I see it as one of several steps along a gradient of commitment.
that depends on local laws… in NZ, for instance (as I mention below), three years together has a similar effect as being married, and you have legal recourse for things jointly owned etc.
I learned that there is no penalty for walking from a marriage. Walking away from a child, yes, the courts will enforce child support to the best of their ability. But, no penalties or repercussions for simply walking away from the marriage…just file papers, get them signed and it’s all over. In this instance, marriage had no more weight to it than what the individuals contributed emotionally and financially, certainly not any legal entanglement beyond the paperwork.
in NZ, after three years together your relationship becomes de facto, a phrase that has entered the language meaning a serious partner you haven’t married. Marriage, then, is a way of announcing to others that you’re committed.
The economic side of it certainly complicates things. I have friends who wanted to marry decades ago, but it would have meant a bit tax hit for them. There are lots of women out there desperately seeking husbands who can provide them with health insurance. I’m glad I got married, simply because when my husband lost interest in playing house, I had the legal mechanism to get him to help support the child he was only too happy to help create.
Marriage or subsequent divorce isn’t a requirement for child support, is it? Just a question of paternity which can be determined by DNA.
You have to track ‘em down and get that swab, first! But seriously, in my case, my Daughter gets more because a judge reviewed our incomes than she would if she just received the state guideline support amount, which just covers food and 1/2 of bare necessities. Having a few dollars to put toward a college fund is worth the legal unpleasantness.
Trust me, I’m familar w/ the minimal state guideline support. Arrrgh!
The “sacrament of marriage” began as religious control to benefit men as “head of household” when women were considered a man’s property just like his prized goat. Wife got ‘branded’ by taking on his name. Now it’s a cultural expectation of a society that is cancer-ridden w/ religious influence (intrusion). That, I’ll have no part of.
I have no beef w/ civil marriage but they should be more easily dissolved when the couple decides to do so. Many courts impose moral standards on divorce that they have no business doing. In my state of NC, a physical separation of couple for 1 year is required before the court will grant divorce. And during that separation you’re considered legally married so “cheating” can be used against you in divrce settlement, custody of kids, etc. I assume this is to encourage some possiblity of “saving” the marriage or b/c it’s “sacred” or some similar BS.
I discourage my daughters from marriage & advise them to live w/ man for a lst a yr if they feel they must marry. Waiting until marriage for sex is personally irresponsible & has no bearing on the “health” of the marriage only to make it worse. It’s another bronze age notion about women being “clean or unclean” and having no value but as an object.
For all who want argue semantics: I’m not suggesting it be like ripping off a bandaid, obviously rules & regulations should be followed to protect all interests: hubs/wife/children/property. Nor am I encouraging promiscuity/early sex in young people.
No marriage for me it is not in my genes.
By not marrying you introduce a risk-factor that your partner might leave you any moment. It forces me to keep the relationship interesting and not in some bored routing because of no risk that your partner will leave you.
Your partner could leave you at any time, regardless of a marriage license. Marriage can’t prevent any one from leaving. It may give you an advantage in a settlement but I don’t see it as a guarantee of anything.
Your other statement is a bit confusing & implies that non-married couples don’t work on their relationships or care enough about them. And it suggests that you feel it’s ok to hold someone against their will in an unhappy marriage. Which is kinda creepy.
I understood this comment the other way round: that not being married encourages you to work more at the relationship, because it’s easier for the other person to walk away.
You’re right, I did too, I read it several times…and went w/ that, then you took it the other way too, so now I don’t know!. I should have asked olaf to clarify before jumping the gun.
Don’t worry. :-)
I agree when you are married you can also stop the marriage, but it is harder to stop then if you are not married. Peer pressure, the shame of what others might think and the lawyers will also slow down the separation process so you somehow could be in a bad marriage for many years before you finally set the step. And all these times you should be very careful meeting new people otherwise you get hit by layers because you cheated.
The other thing is he mindset when you marry. The moment you marry you decide it is for life. So you also assume that your partner will marry you for life. Somehow this could put you in a very easy state that she will never leave you no matter how lazy you are. Until it is too late.
My GF was married before and divorced. She also does not want to get married ever again. So we are equals now :-) And we have a near 7 year relationship.
Thank you for clarifying Olaf!
I don’t want that entrapment. The novelty will wear off. There are other ways to prove to each other that this it. If it’s all based on love, so what.
Marriage is a way to ensure you get half the other person’s stuff if they sleep around.
I didn’t sleep around on either of my wives and both got way more than half. I think I need a better attorney before I consider marrying a third time.
To whatever extent marriage may be a “sacrament” or a ‘sacred rite,” this aspect falls within a religion, and should not be imposed on society at large. Imagine a law that marriage was a Roman Catholic sacrament, and so Protestants could not get married.
The attempt to impose their religious perceptions of marriage on the general populace is yet another example of the failure of many modern religious persons to understand separation of church and state.
And no, I will not marry you.
To me, marriage is the whole reason to have sex. I mean, I have to be married to have sex with someone, so why waste time on thinking about how life-changing an event marriage is and rush to it like a wanton jetstream just so I can bone the girl I love.
I hope we really work out sexually, because if she doesn’t put out in bed I’m going to have to divorce her within a week.
I’ve never understood that.
Sex is an extremely important part of a long lasting and healthy relationship, it shouldn’t be left to chance like this. Sure, its not the #1 thing you need to be concerned about, but it is extremely frustrating if you have no chemistry with your partner at all.
Just screw her already, get married when you’re ready. At least then you’ll know.
You cant get Cooties from someone if you are both protected by the bonds of marriage.
(nods sagely)
What if your mate believes occasional naughtiness is within the bonds of marriage?
Impossible!
(stamps foot)
“marriage is the whole reason to have sex”
I don’t understand this comment. Are you saying that you’d only have sex if you were married, otherwise not?
“I have to be married to have sex with someone”
Why? And do you mean you have to be married to that person to have sex with them, or just married to someone and then you can have sex with anyone?
There’s an old saying that sums up some people’s thinking about marriage and sex: “Marriage is the price men pay for sex, and sex is the price women pay for marriage”.
I am almost certain DDM is poe-ing you guys.
“To me, marriage is the whole reason to have sex.”
Apostle Paul also said that.
To me, marriage is there for those who need it. Some people need to have a big party and engage in certain rituals to make their love feel more special and to show how serious they are, others do not. I don’t really like or dislike marriage, to me it’s just one of a million ways to show love. I’ve heard debates over the whether to wed or not and both choices seem to have their benefits and downsides. I guess it really depends on how you think about relationships.
For example, some people think marriage is more special because it makes the relationship difficult to leave. I can understand this point, but on the flip-side, some people may value a lover more who stays through the tough times when they could leave at any time.
I’m still learning about my own relationship preferences so at this point I’m not sure which person I am.
In America, marriage comes with a whole package of automatic benefits that are difficult (though not impossible) to replicate without marriage.
I am automatically my wife’s guardian in medical matters, as she is mine. Believe me, this can be a huge deal. It’s one of the major issues that come up in gay relationships. When one partner has a life threatening illness or injury, and suddenly the other partner is blocked from seeing them or making decisions for them, and parents the person hasn’t spoken to in ten years suddenly sweep in and start making all the decisions.
Our assets are automatically joined, which means that if I die without a will, none of the assets go through probate court. My wife, as the other owner of them, just gets them.
There are tax benefits.
Insurance companies always have provisions for covering a spouse, and usually for less than adding a second person to a policy. Some have started doing similar things for ‘domestic partnerships’ but not all do.
My wife can not be forced to testify against me in court. Which means if either of us need to hide a body, we know who to go to.
“My wife can not be forced to testify against me in court. Which means if either of us need to hide a body, we know who to go to.”
This is more important than most people realize. :)
Another important think to know, always dig your holes ahead of time, otherwise you could be out in the desert all goddamed night.
LOL! The saying that “friends help you move, but good friends help you move bodies” comes to mind! Just don’t piss her off!
I am glad I am already married. We have the same meaning of marriage. Wait! I think I am panicking. I’ve never ask her… Vorjack what are you trying to do?
No, I will not marry you.
Marriage is a contract between two people, nothing more, nothing less. Commitment doesn’t need a contract, and the contract doesn’t enforce commitment.
I like your pragmatism. I tend to agree. Lifelong happy marriage is an impossibly idealistic concept that *obviously* does not work. Over 50% divorce, and the remaining 40% stay married but it’s anything but happy or ideal. The 10% left are probably old & won’t be in the numbers much longer! (Statistics mine)
I’ve seen far too many failed marriages in my own family to ever care about a contract. Of course, the benefits are awesome, but I’ll not pretend that it means more than it means.
That’s a lot of baloney. I’ve been married for 20 years and we are actually as happy as we’ve ever been. We’ve been like newlyweds the whole time.
And while I know a lot of unhappy marriages, I also know a lot of happy ones.
Most people get divorced because of money or kids. Keep the outside pressures in perspective, and it’s not that hard to maintain a longterm happy relationship.
Ty, I’m glad you had a good experience. I was not so lucky or smart. I know marriages that *seem* happy too, but also had those people confide that all was not what it seemed. Not trying to argue. Marriage is for some and not for others. Just like anything else!
The trick is to not have kids. I suspect if we had kids things would be a lot less blissful.
Yeah, I’m glad it worked out for you.
I suppose bad juju runs in my family, because I have yet to see a single person in my family – both sides – who has a happy, healthy marriage and hasn’t divorced at least once.
To each their own I guess. As a father of four I think kids add to the marriage experience.
I think marriage is a good way to say you are ready to have kids and start a family. All the benefits are most useful for having and raising children, plus having extra incentive for both parents to stick around is beneficial to children. Its really just society’s way of saying “this is how a family should look”. That is why I am in favor of gay marriage, two parents are the best structure for a family and should be given the same benefits when it comes to insurance, guardianship, and ownership of joint property. This is also why many people are against gay marriage, because they think that children should have a mother and a father, not two mothers or two fathers.
Well, being the child of a twice-single-mother, I don’t really care much for the whole “two parents” thing, especially because most of the two-parent homes I’ve met are dysfunctional in some way my single-parent home isn’t.
Also, many people don’t want kids at all – like me – and still get married – like I hopefully won’t.
“two parents are the best structure for a family”
Basis please.
I tend to agree with reservations that more than one adult in a household with children is better than just one for the upkeep and management. On the condition that they are both/all competent and want to be there. That arrangement may be a single mother and whatever help she hires to watch her kids while she works, or helps her clean the house or cooks. If her kids are in school, maybe they just have a babysitter or her mom lives nearby… or someone.
I dislike the “traditional” arrangement personally, but it works for some people (where the husband earns pay and the woman does all the house chores). In reality, someone does need to earn pay and keep the house clean and inhabitants fed as a cooperative effort, and that is hard for a single person with children. Single people with no children do not generally need the help of someone else in order to clean and eat and fix simple things, but they may opt for it. Single people with children generally do need to hire or borrow someone for at least some tasks and the upkeep of a household. I’m not calling hiring a babysitter or a housekeeper, or having a helpful neighbor or nearby parent or relative pitch in, a “marriage,” but outside the traditional pair w/ children, a single person needs help maintaining, and would extend the usual benefits of being in a marriage to include at least one other competent adult to fill out the roles left vacant by not having a partner. That’s why having a partner is considered ideal, and even then, a lot of them hire more adults to fill out the roles they are too busy for or just too wealthy to do without (among various good reasons or whatever, none of anyone’s business).
It’s not ideal for two people who don’t get along to be in any contract with each other for the upkeep of a household. If you disagree a lot with your nanny, or you catch your housekeeper billing you to watch tv all day, you fire them and hire someone else.
Marriage complicates things because you’re also emotionally attached and it’s not all about the maintenance of the household, and both partners generally are equally related to the children (if any), even if by adoption, etc. It has to be somewhat about maintaining the household, but it can be “uneven,” where the value of the labor and time involved is never equal enough or valued enough. A working man cannot really fire his housewife for not cleaning the house while he’s at work, but he can be unhappy. A hardworking housewife can be unhappy because she works harder than her husband thinks she does and he doesn’t value that enough. Or a “working mom” (job out of the home) will labor twice as much as she is not done when she gets home from work, or they can cooperate. Discord in a marriage tends to come from one or both partners having different value to the upkeep of the household and their roles in it. If both work outside the home for 8 hours, and one makes more money, does that mean the other has to put in more hours into the home (cleaning and cooking and taking care of children)? If one stays home and the other works outside the home, what is expected, or should be expected?
I mean, with children, you are practically running a business just to live, and working outside the home as well. It’s probably strain of not cooperating, for one, or secondly, spending too much time at the housework in addition to working outside the home, additional time spent arguing about it, and not enough time being friends with each other. In the scenario with a single parent and outside help, the roles are defined. You are on friendly (agreeable) terms, but you are not friends. You hire a housekeeper and you pay that person for doing what you ask and that person goes home when they’re done. You fire that person for not doing the job hired to do or for complaining, or they quit because you demean them or don’t pay them as much as someone else can, for example. But if you get married and you slack off and you hope you’re forgiven, or you do too much, and nobody pays you or appreciates you. You argue, maybe someone insults someone, probably later, you make up and move on. If it builds up too much and you cannot agree ever, you undo the contract.
It doesn’t matter if you’re gay or straight or live with an extended family or communally, or what have you. Bringing up kids is probably best if you are more than one adult, even if you have to hire someone to help out. By going into contract for marriage or co-signing a lease, or whatever, you have less definition of roles, and more opportunity that someone will play martyr while another flakes out.
I am trying not to really adhere to “traditional” roles in my definitions, but that usually it is a man who works outside the home; if someone stays home, it’s usually the woman; if someone does the housework, it’s usually primarily the woman; if someone earns more, it’s usually the man; if someone thinks they don’t have more work to do when they come home from their higher paying job, it’s usually the man; if someone is a single parent, it’s usually a woman. I’m also starting to realize my own issues with housekeeping, my role resistance, and how that’s not really the point when it comes to my own relationship. I’m single with no children, someone has to do it. It would be nice to see that it can be done and that I’m willing and capable of contributing some effort, not all the effort. I guess I learned something here today.
I have to second everything Kodie said. My mother’s help (cook, maid and babysitter) were certainly more useful than my dad. I find it kind of ironic that the babysitter lasted longer than my dad, after I was born – babysitter helped mother with both children, even though we’re ten years apart. My dad folded the moment I got ill.
Yeah, see, you don’t need two parents, you just need more than one adult, I really think. In my answer to the original question, I still think marriage is an economic partnership mostly for the upkeep of a household with children, and we have options that discount marriage from being the only path to get there, and less stigma. It’s still probably easiest if two partners who initially decide to raise children stay together if they can, but good riddance to bad partners, it’s proven you’re not necessary.
There then, marriage becomes “too much” about love and not enough about cooperating while sharing a living space. Two essentially roommates agree to live together, you both have to put in, or you should live separately and be single and live exactly like you want with your own consequences (if any) for the flaws (they think) you have (or you’re perfect). You always have as much space as you like when you live alone, but nobody to help where you need help, and sometimes lonely when you wish you had company. When you are in love and having sexual relations, it’s an emotional bond, but it’s also still an economic bond, similar to living with one or more roommate, or combining parts of families — it’s not uncommon for adults single or married to take in an adult cousin, sibling, niece, etc., at least temporarily, if people have nowhere to go until they find a new job or another roommate, for example.
There are answers to the problem of being alone and unable to take care of oneself, or to save money and labor on upkeep, that is, share space with someone or hire help, and either arrangement requires cooperation. The contract between an employer and employee is defined. Moving in together implies a similar division of labor, who is responsible for what, but can be difficult getting people to agree how much or how little they are required to put in. If it is my job to shop, cook, and feed my children, but I hire someone to clean the house, I still have to clean up messes that arise when they aren’t there, and I don’t pay them to put dinner on the table as well, so I agree to be home in time to do that. I may pay a caregiver to watch the children, or I may pay for piano lessons after school (or something) to occupy them with another adult, and coordinate with other parents to carpool from other activities, it’s not all dependent on one single parent alone.
Anyway, I generally agree that marriage is mostly an economic variation that is no longer necessary or the most attractive to a lot of people. A marriage between a man and a woman is slightly the more efficient way to raise children only because they can, if they choose to and are able to, create their own children rather than going through an agency or surrogacy programs. Gay men have a particularly difficult time because neither can just off and get pregnant, artificially inseminated or whatever like a lesbian could, you know, arrange it more easily. An adoption agency scrutinizes any two parents, so gay people and straight people should have equal scrutiny there, but it is still more scrutinous than making babies at will, obviously. That doesn’t mean gay people make worse parents or shouldn’t be parents any more than straight people who choose to adopt or are infertile.
I guess all in all, it’s the economic thing, there are additional legal, medical, and tax benefits to having a spouse besides just combining or contributing to the upkeep of a household or managing purchases or raising children. Being single has benefits also. I don’t know there’s much benefit to being lovers and cohabitants but not being married. It is too easy to walk away on your responsibilities, not just the person you don’t love anymore, but I don’t know if having an easy way out is a benefit for me particularly, or a benefit for the other person, or an incentive to me to be easier to live with, or them either. I live alone now, I’ve lived with a guy before, but it is difficult and nobody tries anyway. I don’t need a wedding to feel married to someone, but then I also need as much emotional support as I give, and I tend to neglect the economic side of things, even though that’s what I’ve been arguing for, but I’m also the only one who has to live with my decisions so far, and it has its advantages and disadvantages.
Siberia, I agree. My dad made my life hell. He thought teenage angst was nonsense & even amusing at times…’it’s all in her head!’…while mom ran interference. But my daughters & I have sailed through their teenage yrs quite nicely w/o a dad-man & their hang-ups, thank you very much! Men get that misogynistic idea that they are the protectors of their daughter’s ‘sexual purity’ then daughter becomes an object that dad tries to control w/ arbitrary rules & over-reaction. No f*cking thanks.
I divorced when they were 7 & 9 so it’s been just the 3 of us in a fear-free home since then. Dysfunction & discord averted. The only time we’ve needed a dad around the house was for car maintenance & mowing the yard.
No offense if you’re a man Siberia, or to any of the other guys. It’s just my unfortunate world-view. To anyone else: no semantics please, I know not all fathers do this & I know I’m using a ‘broad brush’ & that my kids beat their odds.
I’m a girl in a girl-only home :)
But yeah, even though we haven’t had that good experiences with the men-folk, I am quite sure there are some excellent fathers out there. I even know a stay-at-home dad! My sister’s husband is also (apparently) an awesome father. Here’s to hoping.
Marriage for me is a social statement that my husband and I are partners in our lives together (despite the fact that I kept my own name). It is a contract granting us certain rights regarding each other (insurance, inheritance, etc). It was the logical next step after dating for 7 years (met in high school). It kept our religious parents from bitching when we moved in together (tiny ceremony, I suspect most people thought I was pregnant, since that’s the usual reason around here for small ceremonies put together on short notice… I just hate the party-planning nonsense… if I’d had my way, we’d have lived together for 6 months or so before getting married) But that’s what it is FOR me. my own marriage is still blissful nearing the 5 year mark (12 years together overall), which is apparently pretty rare, at least where I live.
I do not make the same assumptions about anyone elses’ marriage. I live in a southern military town right now, and I see all around me the problems of poorly-thought-out marriages… I see the problems that happen when people get married because of pregnancy, or because they’ve only been dating 3 months and he’s getting deployed, or because if he gets married his paycheck gets bigger. I see cheaters, abusers, manipulators, losers all getting married ‘because they should’ popping out a few kids, divorcing, rinse, repeat. even being in a happy marriage myself, it makes me think that ‘marriage’ is mostly a joke these days.
The marriage contract doesn’t magically make the marriage work, that takes continuing effort by both spouses to be people worth being married to.
Marriage is an anachronism which has lost its real significance – the male ownership of females and their offsprings – as our society moved ahead from such idiotic cultural underpennings. Today, marriage means whatever you want it to mean which explains why religious groups are so up in arms about changes to their concept of marriage. This is nothing new. During the great awakening of the 19th century a number of what we would today call cults sprung up which practiced polygamy, group marriage and marriages arranged by the spiritual leader of the group. The followers of traditional faiths reacted violently, lynching the men of the Oneida and Amana communities and driving the Mormons out of every state until they made a stand in Utah. Gay marriage today is the new marriage boogie man as was interracial marriage in the last century.
Most of us today end up following some form of serial polygamy, leaving one spouse for the next one. Traditional polygamy would better serve the children but it does not fit with todays social morays.
After two failed marriages and the resulting lawyer bills, I now take the Nancy Reagan approach to marriage, just say no. I feel no compulsion to create legally binding contracts to define my life and prefer people being together because they want to be while being free to leave if that suits their needs later on. I do not view my lovers or my son as property and therefore no contracts for their ownership are required.
I’ve been married and now I’m in what is referred to as a ‘de facto’ relationship. I feel as least as committed and the legal system says pretty much the same thing!
Marriage is an individual choice – for heterosexuals, homosexuals or even flaming god-smitten wingnuts.
Yeah, they call those “common law” marriages down here in the south. Doesn’t really come up much until one leaves, then it gives some protection tor joint assets, kids, etc to the one left behind.
Anti-marriage. It’s an old archaic system that denoted the woman as property (hence the changing of the last name). That and wold never make a lifetime promise or commitment to anyone. People change. It’s far easier to walk away then deal with a messy divorce. That and why let the lawyers make money off of it? Hell why let the government make money off a marriage license?
For me I am happier in open relationships and the only reason I would marry is if a close friend had to leave her county due to safety concerns. I had a friend who married his friend (an Iraqi woman) so she could leave her country and live in a safer country. They separated as they never loved each other.
For the necessary trivia, while Brazil does not allow gay marriages (yet), we do have common law partnerships or whatever you call it (basically, two people live together without signing the contract for an extended period of time are acknowledged as being together – in a way that is almost identical to a legal marriage, including most legal benefits).
My workplace (Superior Court of Justice) has ruled that homosexuals can to have common law partnerships, yo. With all the associated benefits, including pension, taxcuts, joint health insure and the likes.
It also ruled that homosexual couples can indeed adopt, provided they fulfill the qualifications necessary, same way as heterosexuals.
Considering that I live in a deeply religious country, where Catholicism is still kicking and laws were, until very recently, very archaic…
We rock.
I think marriage should be a private commitment between two (or more? idk and don’t have an opinion) people who get to mutually decide what the terms of the commitment are.
You’re gonna have to narrow your definition a little, man. You just defined a contract in general. Marriage is a very specific contract.
But yeah, I fundamentally agree with you.
I’ve been with the same partner in a mutually committed relationship for almost 26 years now, yet we’ve never married. We both pretty much see marriage today as something ideally suited for the likes of “Real Housewives of…” or in other words, much ado about nothing.