Is marriage worth it anymore?

[Gaze]

Thank you, Res. And yes. I love how you were able to narrow my rant down. I appreciate it. Sometimes I talk to much. =X

No, you didn't. I really appreciated your explanation. I have minimal relationship history so i enjoy learning from those who share their experiences. And since we're in the same age group, i appreciate your perspective.

 

[Ecton]

People just need to find the right people. What I imagine as a stable relationship is one that has been tested and ironed out. Then a few years pass, tensions resolve. Fights become trivial. THEN you marry, assuming you're still together.

Yep. My wife and I lived together before we tied the knot. We used contraception. My wife even insisted that we get AIDS tests. She is a practical woman. We wouldn't have even gone that far if, heuristically, it didn't seem like it was going to work out.

But I have a good intuition, and some people just don't. So I don't judge failed relationships harshly.

My wife's parents were divorced and she was very skeptical about long term commitment. I had loving, stable parents, and so for me it was a no brainer. So I have experienced first hand how one's experiences with parents can have a large impact on what one feels one is capable of. And maybe with good reason.

Whytiger, I agree with your perception as well.

Dneecy, I'm so sorry. Your situation is pretty similar to what my wife's mom went through. When we first met, I got to watch some of their family videos and I could not believe how emotionally abusive my wife's dad was to her mom. It was relentless. Little jabs all of the time. Terrible. The videos were laced with them. He's much better now, but he left and married a woman he was cheating with. They were just not meant to be together, and quite frankly, she was is plain-spoken but caring person, and he is a man who needs to feel special through things and sensations. They were never going to make it.

 

[rbecca23]

I had never realized this about divorce laws and what becomes of the fathers of so many children. I have to admit that women tend to be flaky, and the more men I've dated, the more I realize that I have committed issues compared to them; they want commitment, and a family.

But I can't help that feel that marriage is something that should still be considered a worthy goal. Many people jump into marriage as a quick-fix, or as a way to solve other problems - whether financial, social, or physical, but sometimes I wonder if people know what they are getting into.

The United States is a very selfish culture, and a lot of what people do tends to be for their own personal gain. When it comes to marriage, I think people forget that they are going to be living with another person, dealing with not only their own personal problems, but someone else's. They are going to be responsible for and to this other person, and vice-versa. When they commit to each other, they are going to have to realize that they are no longer separate entities, but one body, one being who hopefully love each other enough to think that such a mindset is ideal and desired.

But in the US, marriage sounds more like a super-long sleepover, and I've found that couples are started to refer to their marriages as their 'first marriage,' or their 'starter marriage.' What kind of things are they setting themselves up for with just having that attitude kick-start their marriage? Wouldn't you rather go into something with the intention that it is going to last, rather then end down the road, or unexpectedly.

A lot of it is based on trust, and it starts with learning how to trust yourself and what you REALLY want out of life, out of yourself, and out of the people around and being able to fully commit to your desires. People tend to compromise their dreams and their standards for the sake of sex, or immediate - if not short-lived - security. Though marriage is a type of economic security, I believe that emotional security was intended as well, and that both partners must commit and realize that the partnership of marriage is going to be an uphill climb from the moment they say, "I do" until "death do [they] part."

It's about love and the emotional bond two people can form and the hopes of having a life together where they can share children, property, and most important love.

 

[Gaze]

I had never realized this about divorce laws and what becomes of the fathers of so many children. I have to admit that women tend to be flaky, and the more men I've dated, the more I realize that I have committed issues compared to them; they want commitment, and a family.

But I can't help that feel that marriage is something that should still be considered a worthy goal. Many people jump into marriage as a quick-fix, or as a way to solve other problems - whether financial, social, or physical, but sometimes I wonder if people know what they are getting into.

The United States is a very selfish culture, and a lot of what people do tends to be for their own personal gain. When it comes to marriage, I think people forget that they are going to be living with another person, dealing with not only their own personal problems, but someone else's. They are going to be responsible for and to this other person, and vice-versa. When they commit to each other, they are going to have to realize that they are no longer separate entities, but one body, one being who hopefully love each other enough to think that such a mindset is ideal and desired.

But in the US, marriage sounds more like a super-long sleepover, and I've found that couples are started to refer to their marriages as their 'first marriage,' or their 'starter marriage.' What kind of things are they setting themselves up for with just having that attitude kick-start their marriage? Wouldn't you rather go into something with the intention that it is going to last, rather then end down the road, or unexpectedly.

A lot of it is based on trust, and it starts with learning how to trust yourself and what you REALLY want out of life, out of yourself, and out of the people around and being able to fully commit to your desires. People tend to compromise their dreams and their standards for the sake of sex, or immediate - if not short-lived - security. Though marriage is a type of economic security, I believe that emotional security was intended as well, and that both partners must commit and realize that the partnership of marriage is going to be an uphill climb from the moment they say, "I do" until "death do [they] part."

It's about love and the emotional bond two people can form and the hopes of having a life together where they can share children, property, and most important love.

Great post. Quite agree.

 

[aeon]

Slant:

Thanks for sharing your opinion. What you said made a lot of sense to me. That said, in considering marriage, my sense was you addressed a lot of the external, social aspects, but didn't speak to the internal ones.

That is why I so valued Elf's post - because it speaks to the aspect of marriage that transcends - the aspect based in a shared spiritual truth - something culture, tradition, and law has never addressed and never will.


cheers,
Ian

 

[Faye]

I dont get why a man is automatically suffering from Peter Pan Syndrome just because he wont get married. It is almost the more responsible thing to do. Being married doesnt make you grown up either.

It doesn't, but it is perceived as such. If you're smart and going in for a typical job interview in the business world (like a serious long term job with decent pay) and if you are a young male, then it would be wise for you to either barrow or find a ring that looks like a wedding ring to wear. Men who have families are perceived as being more responsible than men who do not.

Conversely, if you are female and you're going in for your typical job interview, you will want to hide the ring. Womens' families are viewed more as liabilities than assets in the business world (i.e. mommy track).

Does this make sense? In reality no, and I agree with you. However, the people with the power to hire others are more often than not older and more conservative (socially, at least) than a younger person. Their version of the world hasn't changed at the very least since the early 80s if not earlier.

The United States is a very selfish culture, and a lot of what people do tends to be for their own personal gain. When it comes to marriage, I think people forget that they are going to be living with another person, dealing with not only their own personal problems, but someone else's. They are going to be responsible for and to this other person, and vice-versa. When they commit to each other, they are going to have to realize that they are no longer separate entities, but one body, one being who hopefully love each other enough to think that such a mindset is ideal and desired.

But in the US, marriage sounds more like a super-long sleepover, and I've found that couples are started to refer to their marriages as their 'first marriage,' or their 'starter marriage.' What kind of things are they setting themselves up for with just having that attitude kick-start their marriage? Wouldn't you rather go into something with the intention that it is going to last, rather then end down the road, or unexpectedly.

From what I have observed, most people don't feel as if they are emotionally responsible for the person they marry. They have an attitude that "super-long sleepover" describes best. Nobody says it, but in some cases people find that having to be emotionally, socially, or otherwise responsible for/to another person, especially emotionally, is a deal breaker.

The reason for this is that they aren't responsible for themselves and do not want responsibility. They will run at the first sign of it. This applies just as much, if not more so, to women as it does to men.

 

[Barnabas]

Coming from a divorced family, I can't express how important it is to whole family. You lose so much, even with the clean divorce that my folks had. Memories, momemts things that are beyond worldly value, I can remember the first Christmas after the divorce. No one should have to share the Holdays.

 

[acd]

The dynamics between men and women are no longer what they used to be. A lot more women don't prepare their entire lives just to be married and taken care of. Men don't have to be providers anymore as women can provide for themselves. Marriage is pretty much an institution that reinforces those traditional concepts. So when people begin to live outside that structure, what's the point? It becomes meaningless.

 

[Barnabas]

Not truthfully, I know plenty of happy couple whom both work full time. They care for oneanother and do so gladly.

 

[acd]

Not truthfully, I know plenty of happy couple whom both work full time. They care for oneanother and do so gladly.

I'm just saying across the board. Our culture has changed significantly regarding gender roles in the past forty years. Marriage is one institution that housed those roles. I'm saying that since our culture has changed regarding gender roles, it makes sense that the institution of marriage is going to undergo a revamping.
Gay marriage is one idea of how marriage is being reconstructed. As this article mentions, men feel they don't get a fair deal these days. Back then, they held all the power and now it seems as if the women's movement has overcompensated for that in the deal men get after a divorce. So I can see some dialogue there to make things more 50/50 after a divorce. Or maybe people are just more realistic about breaking up and divorcing as now, the woman does not become the man's property-- or someone to obey. People are going to be more cautious before entering because they have other options and other things to consider.

It's totally naieve to say that there aren't going to be significant changes in one institution of our culture after the changes we've had in the last 40 years. The small sample of people that you know don't necessarily represent the population and I'm speaking on speculation anyway. I'd wager that the happy couples you speak of are Christian couples anyway, and that in some way they still adhere to the traditional values of marriage while adapting to the current times.

 

[aeon]

Marriage is pretty much an institution that reinforces those traditional concepts.

Such is its exoteric nature, yes.

That said, it has an esoteric nature as well. I find plenty of meaning there.


cheers,
Ian

 

[Barnabas]

I'm just saying across the board. Our culture has changed significantly regarding gender roles in the past forty years. Marriage is one institution that housed those roles. I'm saying that since our culture has changed regarding gender roles, it makes sense that the institution of marriage is going to undergo a revamping. Gay marriage is one idea of how marriage is being reconstructed. As this article mentions, men feel they don't get a fair deal these days. Back then, they held all the power and now it seems as if the women's movement has overcompensated for that in the deal men get after a divorce. So I can see some dialogue there to make things more 50/50 after a divorce. Or maybe people are just more realistic about breaking up and divorcing as now, the woman does not become the man's property-- or someone to obey.

It's totally naieve to say that there aren't going to be significant changes in one institution of our culture after the changes we've had in the last 40 years.

First off, I never said there haven't been or there are not going to be changes to marriage in the future. My second post even reinforces this, how long ago was it that women couldn't or didn't hold jobs. Yet in a modern marriage it is common and most of the time neccesary for a family to have multiple sources of income.

secondly marriage has survived thousands of year of social change, and still retained it's menaing(if not revamped), to think it would lose it now in the face of a new change is naieve.

 

[acd]

First off, I never said there haven't been or there are not going to be changes to marriage in the future. My second post even reinforces this, how long ago was it that women couldn't or didn't hold jobs. Yet in a modern marriage it is common and most of the time neccesary for a family to have multiple sources of income.

secondly marriage has survived thousands of year of social change, and still retained it's menaing(if not revamped), to think it would lose it now in the face of a new change is naieve.

You also said: Not truthfully. Which to me, means you aren't even willing to look at it from a different perspective than your own. Not everything is black and white. Because you disagree with me does not mean that everything I say is not true or at least reasonable in some way. But I'm not even going to argue with you after this because it's pointless. I still am allowed an opinion here and I'm going to state what I think is going on whether you like it or agree or not.

Ok. I mean to say the recent meaning is lost and so a new meaning must be created. Does that make sense?

Marriage was just accepted as something everyone did--maybe a duty you fulfiled.. that if you didn't marry your life was unsuccessful. In recent decades, that attitude has begun to change as people have become more individualistic in determining the course of their lives because they've been given new freedoms from old roles. All of these changes are going to change the way people think about marriage. Like Satya said, marriage was created as a patriarchal structure.. and our culture is not as patriarchal as it was in past decades.

This new freedom from old roles that were rooted in traditional marriage gives validity to homosexual relationships. There are a lot of things in marriage that are being redefined.. Should gays be allowed to marry is one to consider (I believe they should.) As people are able to be more individualistic in defining themselves and their purpose in life (because gender roles aren't really doing that anymore) people are going to redefine marriage, they're going to be more cautious about getting involved in it, and yes--see it as not something fixed and something that can end or change because people are less apt to say they will marry for life as their roles don't compel them to stay married.

Which is why more people are apt to say: It's a state of mind. Or that it has an esoteric meaning. They're still taking that freedom they've attained from old roles and redefining their interpretation individually.

I wasn't trying to say : It's meaningless and it's going to end. I should have been more clear.

 

[LadyINFJ]

I believe in marriage when people enter into it with clear minds and being absolutely sure that this is the partner they want to make family with. And I know a lot of couples who are still together, happily married. I am happily married, too - even though I waited really long time before I meet the right one. And it was absolutely worth it. I married at the age of 27.

 

[Quinlan]

I dont get why a man is automatically suffering from Peter Pan Syndrome just because he wont get married. It is almost the more responsible thing to do. Being married doesnt make you grown up either.

Yup, this is part of the problem, too much social expectation for people to get married.

"Why aren't you married/had kids yet?" should be a very dirty saying with the proper response being the big middle finger.

The whole bastard child stigma should be gone too.

That should mean at least most people getting married would do so for the right reasons.

Although some people are just idiots and god knows why they get married so quickly.