marriage vs. partnership

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 7:49 am

LOL@Ode that is true...

Though most people who are on the marriage side of the debate aren't around currently, so I don't think there'll be too much debate going on.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 7:55 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

You could try to create a new and interesting thread. I would be surprised if there are any new posters in a thread this large, most likely the newbies would be too intimidated to post in such a thread

Not to mention its intimidating black handlebar moustache, the scar that runs diagonally across its face, and the sneer with which it greets all comers.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 7:59 am

Originally posted by fable
Not to mention its intimidating black handlebar moustache, the scar that runs diagonally across its face, and the sneer with which it greets all comers.

But this isn't the only thread that Sleepy hangs out in...

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 8:30 am

Originally posted by fable
Not to mention its intimidating black handlebar moustache, the scar that runs diagonally across its face, and the sneer with which it greets all comers.

LOL

That is just it trying to be friendly

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 10:01 am

I think I have probably already posted some of my opinions regarding the said question in this thread, but I have recently been giving it more thought.

First of all, Congratulations @ Jace

On one level, I do not think there is a difference between marriage and partnership. As far as I'm concerned the one is not necessarily more stable or meaningful than the other; given the divorce rate I really do not see how this could be the case.

Like Jace, I have lived with my partner for the last fifteen years. We even have a seven-year-old son, and in my opinion there are few things more indicative of a desire to stay together than to have a child.

I have in the past argued that a formal ceremony makes a mockery of the feelings that two people share, and that it should not be necessary. I also tend to be believe that no third party has any business validating or denouncing in any way what is now a private decision. To quote (slightly out of context) one of Canada's former prime ministers, the late Pierre Elliot Trudeau, "The State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."

All of that said, however, I have come to realise that perhaps there is a difference between marriage and partnership. When two people get married, no matter how small or large the ceremony, regardless of the form it takes, it is a very public declaration of all they feel for one another. They are demonstrating in front of witnesses at least their intent to form a lasting uniion.

I believe that this can have a tremondous psychological impact, and perhaps explains in part the deep fear some people have of venturing that step.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 10:39 am

All of that said, however, I have come to realise that perhaps there is a difference between marriage and partnership. When two people get married, no matter how small or large the ceremony, regardless of the form it takes, it is a very public declaration of all they feel for one another. They are demonstrating in front of witnesses at least their intent to form a lasting uniion.

I believe that this can have a tremondous psychological impact, and perhaps explains in part the deep fear some people have of venturing that step.

It can--or, it may simply be an opportunity for a large, well-orchestrated social gathering, and perceived as such by all the participants. The public expression of love may take a back seat, if indeed it has one at all in the affair. I'd suggest it depends upon the culture in which it takes place.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 10:42 am

I may have interjected my thoughts on this subject in this thread before (probably, but I'm not about to dig through the 35 pages to find out), but this is what I think about the subject.

We have to view marraige as two separate institutions: it's a legal contract between two people that establishes a certain relationship and entitles the participants in the marraige to certain benefits and responsibilities (ie-health care, child custody, etc.), and second as a religious and social declaration of two people intending to enter into a spiritual union that is not legally binding (ie-homosexual "marraiges") but is, as you say, a public delcaration of their love and commitment.

In the United States, employers are required to extend health care benefits to married spouses (although some companies voluntarily extend these benefits to same-sex and different-sex couples, too). Marraige also has ramifications in terms of entitlement to child support, legal testimony and residence for foreign nationals, among other things. As a legal contract, marraige is very easy to get into, and very hard and expensive to get out of. That's why there are so many divorce lawyers over here.

As a social institution, marraige has often been a way for men to assert control over women (ie-until recently, married women owned no property and could not divorce), however, the importance of marraige is being lessened as people are living longer, having fewer children and women are able to support themselves and be financially independent.

Still, I think marraige is important to some people (and their parents) for exactly the reason you say: it is a public declaration of a couple's love and intentions to stay together, which is a powerful statement to make. I think some people are afraid of getting married because it means they are making a lifelong commitment, so they enter into a partnership that may or may not be fulfilling, but it still leaves them an out from a lifelong commitment. However, for other people, that statement is very affirming; that they love their partner so much they are willing to publicly say that they will forsake all others, etc., etc.

Marraige is a changing institution, both socially, legally and religiously. It's not for everyone, but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily antiquated or worthless. I think many people get married for the wrong reasons, and many people are quick to dissolve a marraige for equally wrong reasons. However, I've been married for four years now, and I love my wife more today than the day we said our vows, and while we lived together for a year before we got married, our relationship is different now and I think it's for the better. Plus, by getting married, we got lots of free stuff and a vacation.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 11:10 am

@Fable and HLD

Yes....I do think that the nature of marriage has changed, certainly within "western" culture anyway. Before, in addition to being a means of exerting control over women, it was also a political arrangement......an alliance that was often economic or military in nature.

In terms of today, I believe that when two people step up to that alter they should, at least within the moment itself, be entirely sincere. I believe it is wrong to take that step, if at the time you are fearful or unsure. Moreover, despite the obvious legal advantages, I feel that prenuptial agreements are fundamentally wrong. IMO they are the equivalent of a "money back guarantee," and they truly cheapen what should be something profoundly special.

Maybe I am idealistic here, and since I have never been married perhaps I have little business pontificating

But that is what I feel anyway.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 11:38 am

I've always had a low opinion of pre-nups, but since I'm not rich, there's no need for me to require one of my wife. I'm sure I'd think differently if I were someone like Michael Douglas or Bill Gates, though.