GameBanshee Forums

Hi all !

Since we're already discussing EVERYTHING here, I thought I could put this one up for discussion:

As I've posted in the "age discrimination" thread, some people look down their noese at me because my wife is (a) OLDER than me and (b) we're NOT married but DO have 2 children.

On the other side I know quite a lot of people who were a happy couple - right up until they got married. Then things went downhill quickly and in some cases ended in a divorce only one or two years after the wedding.

On still another side - my parents (and most of their contemporarys) were happily married for 42 years (then my father died) .

SO: Is "marriage" an outdated concept ? Or did it never really work anyway ? Or is it of no consequence if your married or not - as long as you and your partner have a good and working relationship ?

Let loose folks, I'm waiting !

No worries,



Beldin

Yes.

Originally posted by Gnu
Yes.

Yes What ?

Marriage in the UK is more financially profitable, i realise that is not a deciding factor on marriage, but it is interesting

Personally i don't see how marriage is really that different to partnership, it is the same day-to-day before and after one has married.

I don't know why many couples who have married tend to split up, it doesn't really make any sense.

Personally speaking marriage is a Christian institution, so if one is not a christian then it is debatable what influence marriage should have on joe publc.

@ Gnu

SPAMMER

I believe in marriage, due to my Catholic upbringing however commiting myself to marriage. Well when I'm a lot more mature I'll give it another thought.

However having a good and working relationship is the most important part.

I wont tell

No, seriously, I think it is nice that people get married. It's a sign of love, not just religion. But if people dont want to get married, it's okay. I think both partnership and marriage is perfectly fine. People who go into partnerships instead of marriage are perhaps afraid of commitment.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

I don't know why many couples who have married tend to split up, it doesn't really make any sense.

Could it be that once you're married you "let your hair down" (I think thats the correct phrase...).
That people think: "OK, now I'm married, so I don't have to work on my relationship, now it's written in stone, so I don't have to give a damn anymore ? "


@Gnu: Thank's for elaborating.

No worries,

Beldin.

Originally posted by Beldin
Could it be that once you're married you "let your hair down" (I think thats the correct phrase...).
That people think: "OK, now I'm married, so I don't have to work on my relationship, now it's written in stone, so I don't have to give a damn anymore ? "

Certainly a possibility, i wonder sometimes if everyone is as fickle as that though?

Originally posted by Mr Sleep


Certainly a possibility, i wonder sometimes if everyone is as fickle as that though?

Sorry - I didn't mean that as a conscious decision - I think it's more like the feeling of security dampening the enthusiasm for each other...

I'd also like to mention that all the divorced couples mentioned a certain decline in ther sexlife after the wedding...

No worries,

Beldin

The main reasons for getting married have always seemes to me to be: religion, tradition, and a party. I'm not big on the first two, and the third, well, there are less long-term committment ways to have a shindig!

Sometimes I think it would be nice to have the proof of commitment that a wedding gives you, but these days is there much difference (aside from hassle) between breaking up and divorcing? I don't think marriage certificates create any more of a bond than just being together with someone you love.

Originally posted by Gnu
I wont tell

No, seriously, I think it is nice that people get married. It's a sign of love, not just religion. But if people dont want to get married, it's okay. I think both partnership and marriage is perfectly fine. People who go into partnerships instead of marriage are perhaps afraid of commitment.

I think you hit the nail on the head with the last statement, Gnu. It's not that marriage is a by-gone institution more than that people are afraid of committing themselves to one partner for the rest of their lives. Common law partnerships offer a back door of escape. It is, in the final analysis, a cop-out, and is symptomatic of our self-focused, convenience-loving culture. Although 50% of marriages end in divorce or separation, you can bet that, without a public pledge or promise to remain faithful (ie. a wedding), the percentages of those who live together and then break up is much, much greater.

IMO, a lot of people are wary of marriage today not because of unwillingness to commit, but because the complexities of modern society make it much harder to find a likely partner and survive the changes of the years.

Back in the 18th century, you tended to spend your life (with few intervals) in the village/town/city of your birth, wedding someone from there, of similar background. Activity roles were clearly defined by gender, class, age and profession, for better and worse. There was little leisure time, so there was little occasion to develop new interests and grow apart.

In modern Western culture, it is standard for most people in many communities to be in transit--having moved there, and probably going to move again, sooner or later. Finding a commonality of ideas and backgrounds is harder than it might seem, at first. Marriage cab no longer be defined as an institution of preestablished roles, which means that any two people may have very different series of expectations from it. The stress of outside interests also tends to pull married couples in different directions, so that even when they start from a similar base of concepts, they may end with enough differences to make it seem as though they're married to complete strangers.

My husband and I had a mortgage for a few years, then two children aged over five and two when we married. From a personal point of view, I would have been happy to stay as we were, but he was keen on the idea so *shrugs* I didn't mind.

Getting married has not altered our relationship. but what this piece of paper has offered in terms of legalities was full parental responsibility for my husband over our children. Without 'parental responsibility' he was not allowed to sign for any medical treatment, apply for school places, or take them out of the country without my consent - among many other restrictions. In effect, he was not considered their legal guardian, no more so than their schoolteacher...

Originally posted by Yshania
My husband and I had a mortgage for a few years, then two children aged over five and two when we married. From a personal point of view, I would have been happy to stay as we were, but he was keen on the idea so *shrugs* I didn't mind.

Getting married has not altered our relationship. but what this piece of paper has offered in terms of legalities was full parental responsibility for my husband over our children. Without 'parental responsibility' he was not allowed to sign for any medical treatment, apply for school places, or take them out of the country without my consent - among many other restrictions. In effect, he was not considered their legal guardian, no more so than their schoolteacher...

Regrettably, that is a problem. My dad was in a similar situation and of course, now he has full parental rights and so on....

I only know ONE happily married couple who are of my parents generation. Plenty of them in my grandparents generation, but I think that says a lot.

Think about this though: What's so great about marriage?

People talk about being 'scared to commit', but if you are scared, why do it? of course commitment is good for some people, and some people are perfectly happy with a life spent with another person, for ever, nonstop. But on it's own as far as I can see, being committed is no better than being uncommitted.
The majority of people I believe, if the world started afresh tommorow, with no religious, historical or social pressure then most people would not want to commit to a life with another partner. It goes against all biological reason. Spread your gene pool, sleep around. You don't think it's just a coincedence that sex loses it's appeal for long-married couples do you? That's Darwin telling people that they've made the wrong choice.
Darwin of course is a force who's existed since the beggining of time and has stopped having much impact on humans. We live to 100+ years, and eventually lose all sexual drive. When that happens we have to fall back on the by-products created when nature was trying to make sure we always eat and sleep and reproduce...reward without work. like chocolate: pleasure we receive without doing anything worth being rewarded for, but nature had to make chocolate nice to make sure that we eat sugar whenever we can as we roam on all fours through the jungle (it's hard to come by in the wilderness you know). These types of coincidental pleasures are the ones that we have to fall back on when the urgent first-hand needs are gone. Love is the greatest natural by-product.

Originally posted by frogus
I only know ONE happily married couple who are of my parents generation. Plenty of them in my grandparents generation, but I think that says a lot.

Think about this though: What's so great about marriage?

People talk about being 'scared to commit', but if you are scared, why do it? of course commitment is good for some people, and some people are perfectly happy with a life spent with another person, for ever, nonstop. But on it's own as far as I can see, being committed is no better than being uncommitted.
The majority of people I believe, if the world started afresh tommorow, with no religious, historical or social pressure then most people would not want to commit to a life with another partner. It goes against all biological reason. Spread your gene pool, sleep around. You don't think it's just a coincedence that sex loses it's appeal for long-married couples do you? That's Darwin telling people that they've made the wrong choice.
Darwin of course is a force who's existed since the beggining of time and has stopped having much impact on humans. We live to 100+ years, and eventually lose all sexual drive. When that happens we have to fall back on the by-products created when nature was trying to make sure we always eat and sleep and reproduce...reward without work. like chocolate: pleasure we receive without doing anything worth being rewarded for, but nature had to make chocolate nice to make sure that we eat sugar whenever we can as we roam on all fours through the jungle (it's hard to come by in the wilderness you know). These types of coincidental pleasures are the ones that we have to fall back on when the urgent first-hand needs are gone. Love is the greatest natural by-product.

"Sigh"

I suppose this kind of reasoning becomes inevitable when humans are regarded merely as creatures of instinct that have evolved "a little higher than the animals," instead of as special beings with souls created "a little lesser than the angels."

@Eminem, i know i shouldn't and it is more than a little Faux pa, but i agree with you

It is a fact that many men jump from relationship to relationship getting women pregnant; creating a clan and then moving onto the next one, this can not be a good thing, if they respected the marriage vows they would be with one family. I am not going to get on my soapbox and say that marriage always works because it is a fact that some couples are incompatible, i have known quite a few women who have been the victim of abuse and the only way out was divorce.

Marriage is in theory a good idea, it is a way of two people in a loving relationbship to declare that love and companionship towards each other. The idea behind this has been distorted beyond any semblance of it's previous ideas (vegas anyone? ).

Anyway enough babbling by me

@Frogus those are some amazingly categorical statements, perhaps you might want to tone down the Darwin fervour?

Originally posted by frogus
It goes against all biological reason. Spread your gene pool, sleep around. You don't think it's just a coincedence that sex loses it's appeal for long-married couples do you?

Wherever did you get this from? My wife and I have known each sexually for about fifteen years, and if anything, it's more pleasurable now than when we started. After quite a while you begin to know your partner very well, what little things set the sexual flame burning very bright, but you gain the opportunity to experiment or improvise with humor, because the need to prove something is no longer present. Best of both worlds, IMO.

marriage is great, but no greater than non-marriage in the right circumstance. A married couple cannot be any happier than an unmarried couple just because they are married. They are married because they love each other more and that's why they are happier. Love is the cause, and happiness and marriage are both results, however, if they cause is the same, the results will not be greater wether married or unmarried.

anyway I am still a child and certainly quite ignorant in subjects like love compared to all of yous. (by the way, checking out some other quizzes on fables Belief-O-Matic site, I was revealed o be a 'Hardcore Skeptic' with cynisicsm levels which should cause concern )

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
@Eminem, i know i shouldn't and it is more than a little Faux pa, but i agree with you

Ack! Thud!

"Suffers heart attack. Falls off chair in extreme coma."


Well, first time for everything.