Why is marriage considered different than other relationships?

[marlena]

Just because it is more difficult to leave a marriage because of children, common assets,family, history, vows taken ages ago etc... does not assign a more elevated meaning to the marriage or make it right when it isn't. In fact, it complicates things tremendously when one or both parties want to leave but feel bound to stay because of these considerations, often time leading to feelings of resentment, frustration and bitterness.

 

What makes any union between two people right is the people themselves, their feelings for one another, and not a set of moral constructs that society dictates that they have to uphold.

[angie2443]

Those who are fighting for it probably are because they want to share things such as health insurance, etc. just like hetero couples who are married.

 

I can't speak for every homosexual couple, but the ones I know of want to have the right to marry because of religious reasons and they want to proclaim their love and commitment to their friends and family, in a cerimony.

[angie2443]

Who told you it's "not supposed to" fade?

 

I think most long-term married people would tell you that passion and desire ebbs and flows over time. You have to fuel it and nurture it. It's love that does not fade. But passion? Geez, you have a bad week at work and the kids screaming and yeah, you're not necessarily going to feel all sexy or interested in passion as much as a good night's sleep.

 

Exactly! I think people would benifit from some sort of pre-marriage counseling in which they were told there would be ups and down and that they actually had to nurture a relationship for it to thrive.

[EllieBean]

If love and desire etc didn't fade in marriages, there wouldn't be so many people getting divorced! Of course it's possible for love to fade in a marriage, just like it can in any other relationship. Those who stay happily married would likely have remained together happily without being married. Those who get divorced would likely have ended their relationships, married or not. Married people have made more of a commitment to work on any issues, and it's not so easy to walk away, but the act of marriage itself doesn't prevent the love from fading.

 

The point of marriage is that you want to formalize your union and announce it to the world, as well as having the legal security that comes with marriage (e.g. inheritance tax benefits, immigration rights, etc). You're not just ticking along with a guy one day at a time, you've actually made a legally binding promise to stay with him forever (even if in the end you divorce and therefore don't honor that promise). Even if you intend to stay with the guy anyway, I think the act of actually making it legal makes it feel more permanent and committed, as well as providing a great deal of security.

[Kasan]

The few people who are happily married would most likely be happy anyway with or without the paper.

 

I am happily married and Marlena speaks the truth IMO. I don't believe for one moment that our relationship would be any different if we hadn't gotten a marriage license.

 

A piece of paper doesn't define our relationship. And.....if I truly wanted out, that piece of paper wouldn't stop me, nor do I believe it would stop him.

 

There was another thread on here that asked what the point of marriage was.

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t182704

[clv0116]

I'll believe marriage and shacking up are one and the same when I stop seeing women ask "why won't he commit" when they really wonder why he won't propose. Todays example.

[clv0116]

By the way, if my sweety asked me to marry him, I would say yes. Not for me, but if he asked, that would mean he felt strongly enough about it to want to do it, so I would.

 

At the moment his feelings are not strong enough to warrant a proposal. I guess it's good you understand this.

[complicatedlife]

Sure, I understand completely. I imagine that there are alot of people who can commit equally regardless of marriage.

This is exactly what I have been trying to convey.

 

I think marriage is an institution bordering on sacred, but I have no problem with people who don't see the point in it.

I used to feel that way until I went on a self-discovery of why I wanted to be married, which led me to doing some research on the history of marriage. Religion and love have just recently come to be one or two of the reasons why people get married - about the past 150 years or so, if I am not mistaken. But bigger than that, I realized that what I want is a committed and loving relationship - marraige doesn't GUARANTEE that. And I want to be with someone who will honestly tell me when he can't do that any longer, without feeling morally obligated by his VOWS and a LEGAL DOCUMENT. I want him to want to be with me because he loves me.

[complicatedlife]

At the moment his feelings are not strong enough to warrant a proposal. I guess it's good you understand this.

I find this to be a petty insult/jab. There is no way that you could no whether that statement is true or not. She said if he wanted to - it's quite possible that he doesn't believe in the institution.

 

I wonder how old you are, how many kids you have - if any, how long you have been married for - if married.

[complicatedlife]

I'll believe marriage and shacking up are one and the same when I stop seeing women ask "why won't he commit" when they really wonder why he won't propose. Todays example.

So now it is your assumption that ALL women believe that a commitment involves marriage when there are plenty of women right here in this thread saying quite the opposite?????

[complicatedlife]

At the moment his feelings are not strong enough to warrant a proposal. I guess it's good you understand this.

I find this to be a petty insult/jab. There is no way that you could know whether that statement is true or not. She said if he wanted to - it's quite possible that he doesn't believe in the institution.

 

I wonder how old you are, how many kids you have - if any, how long you have been married for - if married.

[complicatedlife]

I am happily married and Marlena speaks the truth IMO. I don't believe for one moment that our relationship would be any different if we hadn't gotten a marriage license.

 

A piece of paper doesn't define our relationship. And.....if I truly wanted out, that piece of paper wouldn't stop me, nor do I believe it would stop him.

 

There was another thread on here that asked what the point of marriage was.

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t182704

 

I am very curious as to whether CLV has read this; particularly the bolded parts. Pretty sure there won't be a comment about it from him.

[clv0116]

So now it is your assumption that ALL women believe that a commitment involves marriage when there are plenty of women right here in this thread saying quite the opposite?????

 

You said ALL, *I* did not.

 

 

There is no way that you could no whether that statement is true or not. She said if he wanted to -

 

She said if he felt strongly enough he would ask. I'm just agreeing.

 

 

I am very curious as to whether CLV has read this; particularly the bolded parts. Pretty sure there won't be a comment about it from him.

 

Marriage at it's core isn't about a piece of paper, it's about taking a relationship to the highest level of commitment possible. In different places and times that is expressed in different ways, but the fact that it's the highest form of commitment is evident in all manner of daily observations. For instance, you won't see very many married women wondering when their husband will propose they change their situation from married back to living together, will you? Nope. Why? Because it's a step back, a move to a less committed state.

 

I bet the mere suggestion would be a cause for alarm in most cases, whereas as we see above, an upgrade from "very committed to being shacked up" to married would not be frowned upon. Again, why? It's certainly not a change to a less committed state, that's why.

 

Marriage is the most explicit and binding way to announce your mutual commitment. It's not for everyone, and some shouldn't do it, but it is what it is.

[complicatedlife]

You said ALL, *I* did not.

 

You didn't specify either way, actually. What you said, in fact, was the following: I'll believe marriage and shacking up are one and the same when I stop seeing women ask "why won't he commit" when they really wonder why he won't propose. So for all intents and purposes, one takes the word "women" to mean "all women".

 

She said if he felt strongly enough he would ask. I'm just agreeing.

 

Hmm, not what she said. She said: By the way, if my sweety asked me to marry him, I would say yes. Not for me, but if he asked, that would mean he felt strongly enough about it to want to do it, so I would.

 

It, as she used it here implied marriage. Not feelings.

 

You may want to think about sticking completely to the facts as opposed to fine tuning the words to support your stance. Not a good "friendly" debate tactic.

 

Marriage at it's core isn't about a piece of paper, it's about taking a relationship to the highest level of commitment possible.

According to who? And this standard is the correct one because? You are forcing your personal moral views onto other people. It's certainly okay to have a view/opinion, but one should be able to accept that that view/opinion may not be shared by others - and neither opinion is right nor wrong.

In different places and times that is expressed in different ways, but the fact that it's the highest form of commitment is evident in all manner of daily observations.

If what is bolded is true, how can you say the latter is true? If it's expressed in different ways, then it is safe to say that "the highest form of commitment" is different to different people and/or different cultures.

For instance, you won't see very many married women wondering when their husband will propose they change their situation from married back to living together, will you? Nope. Why? Because it's a step back, a move to a less committed state.

Oh please. Irrelevant. There have been married women right here in this thread who said that getting "married" didn't change their relationship. And that, CLV, is what the OP's thread is all about.

 

Marriage is the most explicit and binding way to announce your mutual commitment.

Again, to WHO?

It's not for everyone, and some shouldn't do it, but it is what it is.

If it's not for everone, as you have just written, then it is certainly NOT "the most explicit and binding way to announce your mutual commitment.

 

You are contradicting yourself and not answering the OP's original question. I'd love to see you tell my friend's parents who have been married for 48 years or any couple in a similar situation that the life they have built together has been reduced to a mere "shacking up" relationship

[clv0116]

You didn't specify either way, actually.

 

If I meant all women everywhere, I would surely say so explicitly.

 

 

According to who?

 

See below.

 

 

If it's expressed in different ways, then it is safe to say that "the highest form of commitment" is different to different people and/or different cultures.

 

It'a marriage no matter how local laws and customs define the ceremony. Or it's not, if you avoid being married.

 

 

Oh please. Irrelevant. There have been married women right here in this thread who said that getting "married" didn't change their relationship.

 

Show me a couple who decided to get divorced and stay a happy loving couple by merit of shacking up together, and I'll show you a couple that went the other way. We'll see which is most common. Asking your beloved to marry you is the socially understood final and highest form of public commitment. Being uninterested or unable to secure that from a current relationship doesn't change it.

 

 

And that, CLV, is what the OP's thread is all about.

 

Exactly.

 

 

Again, to WHO? If it's not for everone, as you have just written, then it is certainly NOT "the most explicit and binding way to announce your mutual commitment.

 

As someone else said a while back, if one can't live up to that level of commitment then it's not for one.

 

 

I'd love to see you tell my friend's parents who have been married for 48 years or any couple in a similar situation that the life they have built together has been reduced to a mere "shacking up" relationship

 

If they're married why would I say they are shacking up?

[complicatedlife]

If I meant all women everywhere, I would surely say so explicitly.

So "which women" did you want us as readers to know you were referring to? Please don't answer that. It's getting tired. Semantics.

 

If they're married why would I say they are shacking up?

Pardon my error as I meant to add quotations to that; I meant to say "married" because that is what they call themselves. Their relationship causes them to feel that particular word, not a legal contract. I may actually ask my friend's mother, Ms. S., to come here and start a new thread on cohabitating.

 

But in any event, I am ceasing our polite banter as we are on two different planets: you keep using the word "public" and "society" and "social", ("socially understood final and highest form of public commitment ")while I have yet to use those words to support my view, and that is because it is not understood to be the highest from of PUBLIC commitment to me. Our life together would not be in hiding, it would be in PUBLIC. I will take my partners' word that he loves me and will be with me and is COMMITTED to me over a legal document any day - that's called TRUST. If we don't have trust, we have nothing - I must be able to trust his word. The institution of marriage DOES NOT GUARANTEE: longevity, trust, love, or commitment. Those are things that just can't be guaranteed in life. Human beings do that with their behavior. If a marriage guaranteed any of those things, divorce wouldn't happen. Ever. Period. If you choose to do what is socially acceptable for your relationship, I wish you the best. But I don't do socially acceptable. I do what is acceptable to complicated life and her partner.

 

As for the OP, Mr. PKN, I feel like I have slightly taken away from his original question with my banter, and I am sorry for that, so let me answer him directly in a different post.

[complicatedlife]

Why is a marriage considered so different than other relationships? You read thread after thread of how people (like me) lose that love, passion, desire for their spouse. Which in a normal (pre-marriage) relationship would be a signal that you move on. But divorce is ugly so people cheat or just stay and are unhappy.

 

I know you see those "special" couples that are that perfect match that last forever, but those seem more like the exception than the rule.

 

But why is marriage supposed to be so much different?

 

In my opinion, there is no emotional difference between marriage and a non-marital relationship. I have experienced both marriage and non-marital relationships. I think marriage is good if you want children and some of the other "benefits" that can come to one because of the legality of it. I also think it is good if you are a religious or spiritual person because the couple may want God's blessing on their relationship and from a religious and spiritual aspect, He will only do so if you are married. If someone I was dating or cohabitating ("shacking up" lol) with wanted to get married for the spiritual aspect (as I myself am a spiritual person), I would want us to have a pre-nup as I think that the biggest thing about marriage is that it is about property and assets (I came to this understanding from my research), whether people choose to admit that or not. However, this is just my opinion.

[pkn06002]

Oh I have actually very much enjoyed this little debate. Especially your last two post complicatedlife.

 

They sum up what I am believing now very much

[clv0116]

.... I am ceasing our polite banter ....

 

If I found myself in as untenable a position as you are in, I'd want to stop too.

[complicatedlife]

If I found myself in as untenable a position as you are in, I'd want to stop too.

 

Thanks for telling me where I am finding myself "positionally" to be on this! Lol. Let me make it cyrstal clear for you since it's cloudy on your end: I chose to stop because I have nothing to prove when narrow mindedness and such "inside the box" thinking enters a discussion. I am happy to agree to disagree when it is done with respect and not trying to enforce one's views onto others in a judgmental way. You chose not to particpate in a way that was conducive to one's personal growth or self reflection and I don't choose to promote my opinions in that way.

 

You need more hugs (or perhaps a physical way to relieve your frustrations when people don't agree with you?) in your life. It's not that serious. ;-)

[carhill]

Topically, having been married (still am), to me, it's just another relationship option. It creates some immediate and well-defined legal and social bonds, but is otherwise as much of a variable as the people within it.

 

I tend to align with TBF in that is an option to pursue if one believes in it as a form of relationship. Personally, I do. I like being part of a clear and concisely defined team. No ambiguity. If it works, it works. If not, buy another woman I come to feel indifferent about a house. I like real estate

[complicatedlife]

Topically, having been married (still am), to me, it's just another relationship option. It creates some immediate and well-defined legal and social bonds, but is otherwise as much of a variable as the people within it.

 

I tend to align with TBF in that is an option to pursue if one believes in it as a form of relationship. Personally, I do. I like being part of a clear and concisely defined team. No ambiguity. If it works, it works. If not, buy another woman I come to feel indifferent about a house. I like real estate

 

Carhill - I usually agree with much of what you post, but I'd like to know what you mean: are you saying that the only "clear and concisely defined" relationship option is marriage as well as it being the only non-ambiguous relationship option?

[carhill]

Marriage, as a legal and social "word", conveys, immediately, clear and concise parameters of social, legal and expressed obligation to one's marital partner. There's no ambiguity about what the word means in the world. Nearly everyone knows what it means, no matter their language or belief systems. That doesn't mean they have to believe in it or, in it's absence, have less fulfilling or meaningful lives. It's an option, one of many, for people who wish to be in romantic and/or other types of interpersonal relationships.

 

It's recognizable, not "better".

 

When the chaplain married my wife and I in Hawaii, I immediately was aware of my position and obligations and perspectives as a husband. For me, on that day, my life changed. As I often say, my path is my path. Yours may differ and I hope it does. Variety is what makes life special

[complicatedlife]

It's recognizable, not "better".

Agreed.

 

 

As I often say, my path is my path. Yours may differ and I hope it does. Variety is what makes life special:)

I agree with this as well. I do think marriage is a good path - even for me, possibly (there goes that pre-nup word again!Lol.).

[carhill]

Hey, no problem with pre-nups. I'd be happy to sign one. I erred in not getting one for my current M.

 

A real poignant example of the clarity of the M word would be the LTR of my female friend. She lives with her boyfriend, manages his business and personal affairs, yet there is no clear and defined presentation of their relationship. It was only recently, after having been together for a number of years, that he started calling her his girlfriend publicly. He, prior, introduced her as his "office manager". There are no financial bonds, no legal bonds, no clarity (IMO). It's a path which appears to work for them, but it certainly isn't my path. Firstly, I could not have intimate relations with a woman who was not my partner (as in girlfriend) and she would, at that point in the relationship, be widely known as someone who is special to me; a full-page ad as it were. No secrets, no ambiguity. If the bond was strong and we were apparently compatible, it would proceed to engagement and marriage. That's how my current M proceeded. Even though it apparently has not been successful long term, I don't regret the process and would not change a thing, except for getting a pre-nup.