The purpose of Marriage?
 

I am really curious to find out people's opinion about why marriage is important. Now, I am for a good wedding as much as anyone, and I feel fortunate to have parents who have been together almost 50 years, but it is somewhat troubling to me when I read how many people think that marriage should be regulated by the states. If marriage is a holy union, then why is it not taken as such by most, with the divorce rate as high as it is (I might be wrong about this, but doesn't 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce?). If marriage is for procreation, then let's make a law that states it as such, and that if you don't procreate in a certain amount of years, then the marriage is invalid. Of course, that would never be the case, but boy if I hear one more time that "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", I don't know what I'll do!!! I honestly don't know-I am lucky enough to not want marriage right now, and I am very fortunate to have as one of my best friends and fraternity brother a man who has been with his partner over 15 years. But they cannot marry. On the flip side, I also have a couple of friends who have each been divorced twice and they are not even 35 yet! So really, let me know why you feel that marriage should only be reserved for some-please feel free to quote the Bible and whatever else is important to you.

I think this is a good question, although I don't really have an answer. The more I think about it, the more I think that there really is no purpose of marriage other than what each individual gives it.

Most people (and feel free to disagree) get married for one of three reasons -- (1) based on religion, they feel it's the right thing to do; (2) they want to have children and feel that marriage is the appropriate environment for that; or (3) it's just what you do.

Once you strip away all the traditional/religious aspects surrounding marriage, I think that it's really just something that makes people feel better about themselves. What it really does is attempt to keep people together, which isn't always a good thing -- if I'm with a guy for years and we're in love, that's great, and we don't need marriage at all because we're happy and we're together because we want to be. If we decide that we're no longer happy, marriage keeps us from splitting up without what could be a long, difficult legal battle. I don't think that's a good thing -- if Mr. valkyrie woke up tomorrow and decided he didn't want to be with me any more, he should be free to leave without the goverment having to be involved.

Wow...this one is making me think...

My husband and I have been married almost 10 years.

We are in an interfaith marriage...so religion wasn't a basis for marriage....
We don't plan on having children...this this wasn't a basis for marriage...

I think for us marriage was a public commitment of our love and devotion for one another. We both knew we wanted to be married and we both wanted to be committed to each other. Marriage was the perfect way to do it...

Sounds strange I guess?! But it is true that marriage is what you make of it.

Personally, I think that's the best reason to get married. It sounds like you really THOUGHT about it, which is great. :)

I'm pretty sure that if you examine the development of cultural and societal norms over time, and break down the true sociological bases for an institution such as marriage (which has multi and varied purposes across many nations, eras, and societies), you'll find that there is really only one true linking factor, one singular thing that really cements the institution as both necessary and desired for those involved, and this is the far easier justification for anal.

I think that this is beautiful, wonderfull job.

It kind of begs the question though . . . People could get married in a public ceremony without the state getting invovled.

Hell then you could take out an add in a national paper which is about as public as it gets and informs more people.

In which case you would still be able to leave without penalty should either of you decide to do so . . ..

The legal state marriage makes leaving problematical.

Other than societal rules about who can make medical decisions for you, who can visit you if you're in ICU, etc, I see no reason for marriage. There are financial benefits if one spouse dies, because you can get Social Security and other issues like that, but other than those things that society has imposed on us, there truly is no reason (other than religious beliefs).

Dee

and

My father-in-law and pseudo-mother-in-law had a public 'wedding' ceremony without making it legal (hence the pseudo-mother-in-law moniker...I don't like her either). This was because of financial considerations...he is retired military, she is widow of retired military. She loses first husband's pension if she remarries, and then if something happened to father-in-law, she would lose all her income.

BUT...father-in-law has a bigger estate and HER children are circling like sharks...lack of legal status can be a problem in California because of common-law marriage statutes. (Mr Sageofages and his sister have consulted a lawyer).

Fortunately without documents, a good lawyer can keep everything separate and away from her greed spawnling.

A good reason for not getting married when you are over 75!!!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AChiOAlumna
I think for us marriage was a public commitment of our love and devotion for one another. We both knew we wanted to be married and we both wanted to be committed to each other. Marriage was the perfect way to do it...

Sounds strange I guess?! But it is true that marriage is what you make of it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How sad that AChiOAlumnae's beautiful and not-so-uncommon reason for marrying was not even considered a possibility in your original list of reasons for marrying.

The statement that marriage is "really just something that makes people feel better about themselves" is incredibly offensive. I am surprised that so many here are against marriage.

I have read that "Marriage provides the slender, silver threads that help hold a couple together during trying times". It is a physical demonstration of your promise that your spouse can count on you for love, emotional support, and someone to depend on.

And FYI, the marriage rate for FIRST marriages is far lower than 50%. It is the "serial marriers" who tie the knot (loosely!) 3-4-5 times that brings the % up so high.

That may be true for the rare good marriages. I admit, I have been divorced twice and therefore have a tainted view. However, I carefully observe my married friends, co-workers, etc and VERY few of them have what I consider to be a "good" marriage. For some of them, they are happy with situations that would make me miserable. Some of them are just totally unhappy but staying in it anyway.

I received NO benefit from being married to either of my husbands. I found it be suffocating and emotionally draining.

Oh wait, there was a benefit, I didn't have to mow the lawn. That's the only one. I can hire someone to do that though.

I won't marry again. I think two tries is enough for anybody. As I told a minister friend of mine "A person can only say 'Til death do we part' so many times and still hold any credibiliy". She said that if I wanted to marry again, she would change the words to "Til we part" for me. I just laughed and said "Thanks, but no thanks!".

My vision of the ideal relationship is having his and hers houses, side by side, with no combining of finances or living space.

Dee

No, it's not physical - and even if it were, why do we need these "slender, silver threads" to fall back on for support, love, and someone to depend on? Shouldn't that be the case in any committed relationship?

I'm sure at some point I'll be into getting married and coaching tee ball and all that fantastic stuff, but without the 'kids' part and the 'religion' part, marriage is simply applying a name and a set of consequences to intangibles in the relationship. If that's comforting for you, GIDDAWNDOWN with your bad self, but don't throw the nose up at people who couldn't care less about titular reinforcement of an otherwise good relationship.

Aren't there "spouse in house" rules for this though?

I don't know if it's offensive...marriage is one of those things that everyone has their own ideas on.

I am getting married next year - this isn't really a secret to anyone on here, as I've mentioned it several times in other threads. Now, I'd like to think that I'd proven myself as someone to love, give emotional support, and someone to depend on before I gave my fiancee the ring and proposed. For me it is a way to publicly and religously unite ourselves, a display for our family, friends and God.

But that's just me, and that's just the thing - I don't think anyone should be offended if someone else is "for" or "against" marriage.

THANK YOU.

Some folks are against marriage.

Some folks want the government destroyed.

Some folks smoke the crack rock.

-Rudey
--Everybody is different

Actually, I didn't want to bring up anything related to what she said because I wanted to see if anyone else did. I stand by my original assertion that MOST PEOPLE get married for one of the reasons that I listed -- she's just smarter than the average person.

I'm not against marriage. If you want to get married, fine, that's great. If you're offended by my opinion, you might want to consider why -- does it strike a nerve or something? What in the world is the point of being offended by what someone else thinks of marriage?

The fact is, when it comes right down to it, marriage makes it harder for a person who is no longer satisfied with the relationship to leave, and I think most people find it comforting to think hey, if I really let myself go, never want to have sex and become a shell of my former self, he/she will have to stay with me anyway.

Wow...when I first read this I was shocked. But after I took a step back I realized that you're probably right...many people may feel this way.

Marriage isn't easy. I've been married over 9 years and it's constant work. It's like having a child in that for all the sacrifices and difficulties, the rewards are worth it. At no point do I "let myself go," my sex drive has never been higher and I feel that my marriage has only enhanced my inner being, not leaving me as a "shell of my former self." I guess I'm lucky that I have a spouse who feels the same way and works equally hard to make our marriage work...

Don't get me wrong. We've had our ups and downs. But like it was said in "Miami Rhapsody" with Sarah Jessica Parker, "You have good days and you have bad days. If you work at it, you'll have more good days than bad." I believe this is true.

I never want my spouse to feel like he "has to stay with me anyway." If he does, then he's in it for all the wrong reasons and I wouldn't want him to feel obligated to stay in a marriage that makes him miserable."

Just my two cents...

I am sorry... maybe I didn't state that clearly. I am not offended in any way at the comments that marriage is not for everyone. Of course not. I took offense at the comment that marriage is "really just something that makes people feel better about themselves". That seems to reduce the convenant to little more than a pop psych, self help group. I consider marriage far more important.

I am just surprised that the folks here, who value standing up in front of other people and making verbal and written promises and commit to stick together in another context, would be so negative about marriage.

After all, don't the marriage covenant and our GLO initiation have a lot in common? Yes, it is much easier to walk away from a fraternity or sorority if you are unhappy, but the concept that you commit to support one another through good times & bad is the same.

Interesting comparison...hadn't thought of it that way before.

The word "covenant" here indicates, to me anyway, that this is a religious value for you as well. Hey, that's cool - I can respect that, that's the entire point I was trying to make.


This is such a total non sequitur. The reality is that this sort of verbal promise is what I consider to happen when you tell someone you 'love' them - since there is no analog to this for hetero male relationships, I took an oath to ksigkid that I would provide him anything he needs (and this is still true, almost 18 months since I've seen him last). The error here, in my mind, is the assumption that everyone desires or requires a ceremonial introduction to these 'verbal and written promises' - but I'll leave that for later.

And doesn't it seem slightly trivial to compare your initiation rites to your marriage vows? I get where you're going, but the similarity is weak for me. They're similar in goal, but disparate in function and scope (not to mention that one is a legal contract, while the other leads to intoxication and manhugging).

May I point out that all the legal benefits we receive from marriage have been imposed (and I use this negative term because the imposition has made leaving the relationship so difficult) on us by a country that, at the time, was heavily influenced by Christianity and it was really for little other reason.

Regardless of your personal beliefs, the only responsibility that the government has to us, constitutionally, is national security. It has far overstepped its original purpose in many ways, but I mention this to illustrate one of the major reasons people want to get married and by people, I include homosexuals. It makes perfect sense to me and, on a side note, I vehemently oppose any amendments to national and state constitution banning gay marriage (but please, let's not get on that topic in this thread!!!!)

In response to the original question, my love for God and desire to follow His law leads me to view marriage as righteous in His eyes. So, I would get married spiritually for God. In fact, the Bible (New Testament, I'm Christian) tells me that the commitment of marriage needs only to be witnessed by God for it to be morally binding. That's what makes it meaningful to me.

The legal side was forced on me by a country that falsely claims religious tolerance.

Okay, this is a common comment I hear from my unmarried friends. "Well, I suppose I'll eventually get married, so I can at least reap some of the benefits."

I'd like to know what these mystical benefits are that everyone keeps talking about. They're certainly not tax benefits, b/c for example, last year was the first year my husband and I filed jointly, and it was also the first time either of us ever owed anything.

:confused:

If you consider marriage far more important, that's fine - but there are people who use marriage as an excuse to justify/further a relationship, just as there are people who use pregnancy and other means the same way.

I'm not sure you can compare initation and marriage - marriage being a legal and religous (in many cases) ceremony, while initation being more symbolic. That's not to say I don't hold my initiation into Kappa Sigma dearly, but that my marriage will just be a different type of thing.

Legal benefits were the last thing on our mind when we got married...granted, it's an added benefit, but we sure didn't go into marriage with anything more but a way to declare our love for one another...

Ironically, until last year, filing taxes jointly hurt us more than helped...last year was the first in 8 years that we received ANY type of tax break!

I'll rephrase: any legal benefits...

I understand where you're coming from, but what you're talking about is only one of the issues. Legal marriage, essentially, makes both parties entitled to certain things that unmarried couples are not (think insurance, though there are several others) AS WELL AS making simpler the "legalness" of having children.

ETA: Your tax complaint is not a marriage related issue as much as a graduated tax system issue.

A lawyer could probably answer this better, but I will give it a try.

I think that the benefits are joint property, Social Security, health insurance, citizenship, and inheritance rights. In order to receive S.S. benefits based on the spouse's income, a couple must remain married for at least ten years.

Well, I do have to say, as far as health insurance is concerned, that's not a benefit either, since I am covered under my employer's insurance plan, and he's covered under his...

...but I'm just trying to be argumentative. ;)

On the other hand, I recently left my job and my new job is in private practice, where I don't get benefits. If we weren't married, I wouldn't be able to benefit from my husband's health insurance....

Then again, my old job's benefits were so awful, that I only used my husband's benefits when I did have them in my own name. ;)

:) Argumentative, huh? LOL! My mother has excellent insurance through the State of Georgia (she's a teacher). She has the family "high option" plan that covers pretty much everything - it might even cover broken nails. JK. Anyway, my father has been on her plan for years, as were my brother and I before we passed the age limit. My father is on the plan only because he's married to my mom. He couldn't even get it otherwise. The same goes for veterans' spouses. They couldn't get on a plan for veterans without having been married to a veteran.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again.

If people marry for benefits, then I guess they get divorced because they hate money and all those good things.

The reasons for marriage are numerous: ceremonial, love, religious, legal binding of estates, family, etc. and it is often a combination of one or more. These benefits people talk about are the least likely of reasons for marriage.

-Rudey
--Some people have had bad experiences with marriage and are getting old and bitter, but for some it's still a great reason for joy.

I agree with this.

It would be really sad if people only married because of tax benefits.

My parents generally won't attend weddings. If they're good friends of the family, they'll attend the ceremony as long as it's in a church, but will never attend the reception. They believe that weddings are just an excuse for people to flaunt their social status.

Or, what's becoming common now, how much credit they have.

I've been to a few weddings where you know that the couple (and both sets of parents!) are going into insane amounts of debt--and what for? At the end of the day, the couple will be married regardless of how much they spend on the wedding.

It disgusts me when people go beyond their means just to impress other people. If money were an issue, I'd rather have 10 people at my wedding, having a nice time than 200 people fighting over the last mozzarella stick because I wanted to have my wedding in an "impressive" location, and couldn't pay for my guests to have more than one of each hors d'oeurve.

I am one of these people that if you want to get married then get married. If you don't want to get married, then, don't get married. I honestly don't think those people who don't get married are really missing out on a life well spent/lived/whatever. Maybe these single-for-life-people are much happier not being married. I hate it when people try to make people feel bad for not ever getting married or getting married again. I just say let people live.

Cosign!

I think it works both ways...I know with us we both have large families, and because they live in different states, our wedding may be the ONLY opportunity our families get to meet each other. Seeing as we come from large, close-knit families, it adds to our guest list.

We wanted our family to be a nice, formal event where people would have a lot of fun, something that would be worth the travel (since we're getting married in Boston).

Now, it won't be ridiculous as far as price or anything else; but it will be a decent size, and will cost some money. Now, it's important for us to have all that family there (as well as a few friends) and for it to be a NICE wedding, both to celebrate our wedding and to give people a good time.

I get the point that some weddings are to the point of ridiculousness...but you also have to take these things on a case by case basis.

Thanks ya'll! I just feel if you're happier married, then, be married. If not happier married, then, don't be married. LOL

The original question
 

Why is it important for 2 individuals to be married in the "state" (or under the government)???

This goes back to property rights from the British Empire. When our "founding fathers" declared their independence from the Empire, they used some of the property rights used by the King in the instances of marriage. Marriage was seen as a unionization of monetary gain. At that time, only a monarchical (sp?) recognized union was legally binding... And that went along with all the war treaties made between England and France and other European Countries... What that means is that only those having a "title" could be "seen" legally married for the mere purpose of property rights... When the United States was formed, then the war relenquished all property obtained by marriage treaties between England, France, etc... Then some European countries started to land grab when the war concluded a bit... But no longer did marriage treaties between the continents were able to be maintained...

Remember long ago, women were beheaded if they did not procreate male children... But then again, a man could marry and have many wives...

What we are seeing nowadays is the archaic understanding of marriage imposed on us. Under statesmanship, it may have minimal at best, legal understandings that were once well defined and clearly demarcated...

As far as to why folks marry now? Most folks do it for their own reasons... There is NO legal requirement to be married other than for monetary gain and even then, there may not be a good reason. So it all boils down to how one person can commit to another for a period of time for whatever reason...

Re: The purpose of Marriage?
 

Of course God created Adam and Eve, but he also created Steve and John and Mary and Dick and Jane. to say otherwise is foolish.