Thoughts on Marriage

[setsenia]

With marriage so different today than it was, I'd like to hear all your thoughts on marriage. About 50% of the population is married and 90% of people marry at least once in their lifetime. In today's day and age, it's become more acceptable to "live together" in a committed relationship instead of marriage. What is everyone's take on this. I am very liberal myself and think it's up to the individual, but I still have traditional beliefs that if you plan to have a family together and be together long term, there shouldn't be any reason not to get married. This also makes things a little less complicated if you own a house together or if one of you are sick. You don't want to be "just the boyfriend or girlfriend forever", for me most people didn't take our relationship seriously until we were married. How about the rest of you?

[poodle]

I don't believe in marriage. To me it's nothing more than a business contract. If people could get married for the church (not sure how it works for other religions) and not the state, I'd have more respect for it.

 

I also find it much more romantic when people are together because they want to be, even though they have other options, than to stay together out of fear of getting a divorce and all the financial implications that come with it.

 

Maybe I'm a little negative when it comes to this, but I've seen too many marriages destroy people's lives to ever risk giving it a try.

 

Here's a quote I found about marriage. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

Would you invest in a business franchise that had a 50-60% failure rate, 70-80% of the investors were disappointed on the return on their investment, and 30-40% of the investors openly admitted to cheating on their business partner? Then why do millions of people invest in the most frustrating, disappointing, unrewarding and costly business in the world — Marriage (still the number one cause of divorce!)

[Woggle]

A lot of people these days seem to take a huge dump on the institution of marriage but at the same time it is the people in it and not the institution itself. It is what the couple makes it at the end of the day. It is not for everybody but if it meant nothing why are gay people fighting so hard to do it?

[CarrieT]

It is not for everybody but if it meant nothing why are gay people fighting so hard to do it?

 

Oh come on, Woggle - you are intelligent enough to know that it is a bigger issue dealing with health insurance, benefits, and rights of spouses instilled by our government that makes gays want it.

 

Yes, it is a business contract and like most business contracts, there are enough laws involving that business institution to make it desirable for many people. Many others just don't care about those aspects of marriage.

 

Personally, I married when I was 20 and was divorced when I was 25. In the subsequent two decades, I had three long-term relationships and I never once considered marrying any one of those men; there was no benefit to financially or legally tying myself when -- I think -- I knew deep down they were not "'till death us do part" relationships.

 

Now, approaching 50, I am seeing someone who has made me reconsider the idea of marriage and that legal union. I would like that sense of entitlement and - yes - ownership in a relationship; I want to feel I belong to someone legally within the confines of a marriage contract. I no longer want to just be someone's girlfriend. I want the ring and all that goes along with it...

[Woggle]

They have been offered civil unions which pretty much gives them all the legal stuff yet they still want marriage. It shows that it means something to people.

[CarrieT]

They have been offered civil unions which pretty much gives them all the legal stuff yet they still want marriage.

 

 

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

 

Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes but questions remain as to how civil unions will be treated in other states. The two appellate courts that have addressed the issue in Connecticut and Georgia have disregarded them based on the fact that their own states do not grant civil unions.

 

In Illinois:

Couples who have a civil union will not have any of the protections or responsibilities federal law provides to married couples. These include social security survivors’ and spousal benefits, federal veterans’ spousal benefits, immigration rights associated with marriage, federal spousal employment benefits, the right to file joint federal tax returns, exemptions from income tax on your partner’s health benefits, the federal exemption from inheritance tax, and many other federal protections which are denied same-sex couples whether legally joined in a civil union or a civil marriage.

 

 

Also, most other states will not recognize the legal status of your civil union, even though they would recognize the Illinois marriage of a different-sex couple. This means that when you travel or if you move to another state or country, your union may not be recognized. As a result, you should considering taking certain precautions before you travel, such as executing health care and financial powers of attorney and carrying those with you.

 

 

Finally, the most important difference between civil unions and marriage for many individuals is the second-class nature of civil unions. Civil marriage is a widely recognized and respected social structure for two people who have committed to build their life together. Civil unions are not universally understood. It is unclear whether they will be given the same level of respect as marriage in Illinois and elsewhere. What is already clear is that different-sex couples get to choose whether to enter a civil marriage or a civil union; lesbian and gay male couples are given only the civil union option.

 

The bottom line is that a civil union is not universally acknowledged or legally binding. A marriage is.

[quankanne]

then why is there the argument "you should be able to love whoever you want" by gay marriage proponents? It's not just about the practical stuff (which is important), but about being able to be socially recognized as a married couple ...

 

I think Wog says it best here: it is the people in it and not the institution itself. It is what the couple makes it at the end of the day.

 

not every relationship is based on the same dynamic, matures at the same rate, nor has similar players; marriage is proof of that. Yet the reasons why a marriage fails are as numerous as the factors involved. You can't say that marriage as an institution is doomed if you only look at the failures ... you've got to look at the successes, which also are based on various factors.

 

I've never not believed in marriage, I just never thought I'd want it for myself. Then I met the man I had a sure feeling about and we've been going strong a long, long time now. Do I have regrets? Sure, when I'm pissed off and want to point fingers at him and/or pinch his head off. But as Woggle pointed out, at the end of the day, our marriage is what we've made it. Thankfully, my husband has a pretty healthy view of what it should be

[setsenia]

I definitely agree with this sentiment. I know many people see divorce as an easy way out rather than sticking with it and working on the issues you have. If there is abuse in your relationship, that's an exception. My husband and I have been through quite an ordeal in our 4 years of marriage, with many family related issues and a few times, I really thought our marriage wouldn't make it. But now we've been together nearly 6 years and I couldn't have been happier. We got through it and I couldn't have found a more amazing person. Marriage is really what you make of it. If you married for the right reasons and you're both willing to work on your problems together, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to have a happy, forever marriage.

Edited February 6, 2012 by setsenia

[KR10N]

I see it as a huge waste of time. Nobody takes it seriously. They give up as soon as one problem arises. You certainly never hear of parents trying for their children. Why get married unless you're okay w/ being monogomus. Apparently no one can be.

[denise_xo]

I'm married for cultural reasons but would be happy living with a partner without official marital status. As someone else said above, at the end of the day it comes down to the intention and work of the people involved. I realise others may place more emphasis on the institutional factors and I think everyone should just do what's right for them, but that's my personal position.

[setsenia]

I see it as a huge waste of time. Nobody takes it seriously. They give up as soon as one problem arises. You certainly never hear of parents trying for their children. Why get married unless you're okay w/ being monogomus. Apparently no one can be.

 

I do agree with that sentiment, LOL!

[KathyM]

I think there are plenty of people who can be and want to be monogamous and they want that higher level of commitment to a person that marriage provides. I think it brings a higher level of security and permanency in a relationship and provides more security to children when they see their parents have that kind of legal and emotional commitment. 90% of people still want that level of commitment to someone, and the security that marriage provides. It is definately a lot easier to split without taking that legal step of marriage. Most people still want that level of security, permanency and commitment that marriage provides. Unfortunately, 50% of people get screwed up along the way, and don't honor their commitment or their promise of fidelity. But there is still 50% who do, so for them, marriage is still a good institution that has value and benefits. Most people do remarry after a divorce, so they must still value marriage, but just believe that they were with the wrong person initially.

[setsenia]

I couldn't agree more. I know marriage started off as a religious basis, but you're right people want the emotional and legal security it provides. Hence why many gay couples want that recognition. Personally, I wouldn't want to be "just the girlfriend" forever. Because that's what you are when you're not married. Also, you may feel committed enough and not feel a marriage contract is necessary, but the world doesn't view it that way. When it comes to the law, you aren't each others dependent, you don't have in-laws, you may not be covered under his/her health insurance and you're also not considered to be immediate family. Before my husband and I got married, his younger brother and his wife were treated very differently when they got married. They felt we each need to pay 50/50 living expenses, but it was okay for his brother to support his wife since they were "married". I honestly didn't find it fair, but that's how it works. You'll never be treated as a legitimate married couple and you will be lucky if you are.

[Ross MwcFan]

I don't like the idea of it, it's like it chains both the people together, and if they want to split up, it's a lot more harder and messier.

 

I think there's probably a lot of people who are married, and have kids, who don't want to be together, but don't get a divorce and split up because of the reasons I've given above, maybe they even argue a lot and don't get on that well at all. This isn't going to be good for the kids.

 

I just don't see the point in marrige, if you're both together and love each other, isn't that enough? Why do you need a piece of paper which means that things will be a lot more tougher if you both end up wanting to split up?

[JazzyFox]

I just don't see the point in marrige, if you're both together and love each other, isn't that enough? Why do you need a piece of paper which means that things will be a lot more tougher if you both end up wanting to split up?

 

Ross, you only have to read a few postings in the married forum to realize that many married couples going through very difficult times, hit rock bottom, decide to try one more time, and then end up being happily married for another 10,20+ years. The contractual nature of marriage sometimes motivates couples to try a little harder to make it work. On the other hand, sometimes it also enables spouses to take each other for granted, which often leads them to the very predicament they are in.

[happyme]

Surely, it's individual, a personal choice for personal reasons... so not really for anyone to 'agree' or 'disagree' with regarding others.

[HeavenOrHell]

I think it's up to the couple to decide what is right. Me and my ex were together 18 years and totally committed to each other and believed it was for life (I took him for granted and neglected him in the end, hence the split, something I'll always regret). I do not feel or believe we would have felt any closer or made more of an effort to make things work had we been married, we couldn't have been any closer, more bonded than we were. We couldn't have tried any harder, married or not.

Marriage seems more for religious people, and the legally binding aspect feels far from romantic to me. I'd rather be with someone because I want to be and not because I feel I have to stay because it's part of a contract.

 

And, how can anyone vow to stay with someone forever? I mean, seriously, how realistic or rational is that??! No-one knows what will happen in a month's time, let alone 40 year's time.

 

You couldn't get a more solid r/ship than me and my ex had, we felt/knew it was for life, so for me, if that ended then I don't believe any r/ship is totally solid and immune from changing.

 

 

 

 

With marriage so different today than it was, I'd like to hear all your thoughts on marriage. About 50% of the population is married and 90% of people marry at least once in their lifetime. In today's day and age, it's become more acceptable to "live together" in a committed relationship instead of marriage. What is everyone's take on this. I am very liberal myself and think it's up to the individual, but I still have traditional beliefs that if you plan to have a family together and be together long term, there shouldn't be any reason not to get married. This also makes things a little less complicated if you own a house together or if one of you are sick. You don't want to be "just the boyfriend or girlfriend forever", for me most people didn't take our relationship seriously until we were married. How about the rest of you?

[HeavenOrHell]

Me and my ex knew/felt we'd be together for life, but didn't feel the need for marriage, what I'm saying is it isn't because we didn't feel it was for life that we didn't get married, there were no doubts about being together, both of us thought it was for life. But I was his first gf when he was 20 and he always said he felt so lucky to have found in his first gf the person he wanted to be with the rest of his life, but people and circumstances change over time.

Not sure I like the idea of belonging to someone, that sounds possessive to me (no offence to anyone), this doesn't mean I don't love feeling as close as possible to my partner.

 

With my current partner, as it's long distance, I might get married if that was the only way to live in the same country, I'd also consider it (but only if we knew we had an end in sight, which we don't) as a way of retaining our bond while we live apart.

 

But it's not gonna happen.

 

 

 

 

Oh come on, Woggle - you are intelligent enough to know that it is a bigger issue dealing with health insurance, benefits, and rights of spouses instilled by our government that makes gays want it.

 

Yes, it is a business contract and like most business contracts, there are enough laws involving that business institution to make it desirable for many people. Many others just don't care about those aspects of marriage.

 

Personally, I married when I was 20 and was divorced when I was 25. In the subsequent two decades, I had three long-term relationships and I never once considered marrying any one of those men; there was no benefit to financially or legally tying myself when -- I think -- I knew deep down they were not "'till death us do part" relationships.

 

Now, approaching 50, I am seeing someone who has made me reconsider the idea of marriage and that legal union. I would like that sense of entitlement and - yes - ownership in a relationship; I want to feel I belong to someone legally within the confines of a marriage contract. I no longer want to just be someone's girlfriend. I want the ring and all that goes along with it...

[HeavenOrHell]

I couldn't have felt more secure or permanent in my previous r/ship and nor could he, we both felt it deeply, marriage would not have made those feelings any stronger. I think we lasted a lot longer and were happy for a lot longer than many marriages. The break up after 18 years was as painful as a marriage break up.

 

 

 

I think there are plenty of people who can be and want to be monogamous and they want that higher level of commitment to a person that marriage provides. I think it brings a higher level of security and permanency in a relationship and provides more security to children when they see their parents have that kind of legal and emotional commitment. 90% of people still want that level of commitment to someone, and the security that marriage provides. It is definately a lot easier to split without taking that legal step of marriage. Most people still want that level of security, permanency and commitment that marriage provides. Unfortunately, 50% of people get screwed up along the way, and don't honor their commitment or their promise of fidelity. But there is still 50% who do, so for them, marriage is still a good institution that has value and benefits. Most people do remarry after a divorce, so they must still value marriage, but just believe that they were with the wrong person initially.

[setsenia]

That's exactly the reason I kept my last name when I got married. Many people think I should have changed my last name, otherwise why get married? I disagree. I don't need to change my identity for any man to show him I'm committed. To me, marriage is about two individuals uniting. You guys have some good concepts about marriage being a religious connotation. Many years ago, the tradition of a woman taking her husband's last name was that she would "lose her identity" and belong to her husband. And hence "father giving away the bride to the husband" and so on. These are very chauvinistic traditions. These aren't true for most today, but still held out of tradition.