What is the purpose of marriage?
- Thread starter SeaCat
- Start date
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
off the top of my head, here are four;
1) emotional security
2) social status and community affirmation
3) economic concessions that make life together a little bit easier
4) the right to have your loved one's care and keeping in your hand.
1) emotional security
2) social status and community affirmation
3) economic concessions that make life together a little bit easier
4) the right to have your loved one's care and keeping in your hand.
xssve
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 5,854
Depends - marriage is traditionally a social arrangement between two people who wished to share a bed, the marriage itself is a public recognition of the fact that neither of them were to be considered fair game henceforth.
Marriage as political-economic institution was a device to merge the social economic concerns of two families, typically with the goal of producing an heir who would keep the family fortunes, in the family.
Modern marriage is all of these things, depending, a political football, and a multibillion dollar industry to boot.
Marriage as political-economic institution was a device to merge the social economic concerns of two families, typically with the goal of producing an heir who would keep the family fortunes, in the family.
Modern marriage is all of these things, depending, a political football, and a multibillion dollar industry to boot.
cloudy
Alabama Slammer
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Posts
- 37,997
This.
What we have now is just a remnant, left over from the times when the above was all-important.
Wildcard Ky
Southern culture liason
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2004
- Posts
- 3,145
Marriage is how we begin the "family unit". People get married to have kids with a partner they've chosen and care for.
The government endorses this by giving certain social and tax status, and monetary incentives.
Young people always think about these things when getting married. It's all about getting the house and having kids.
OLDER people, such as myself, view marriage differently. I already have a house and have had my kids. I'm sterile now, so kids are not a consideration. So, having those two primary things already in place, what would marriage have for me?
Nothing that I can see. Can't have kids, don't need kid credits. Already have my house. I can find a girlfriend in my age group, and she's probably going to be in a similar situation. We're both free adults. We can enjoy each others company in any way we choose without having to consider children or getting a house. We can live together and it doesn't effect anyone but us.
Never say never, but I'll never get married again. I'm past all of the reasons people choose traditional marriage for.
The government endorses this by giving certain social and tax status, and monetary incentives.
Young people always think about these things when getting married. It's all about getting the house and having kids.
OLDER people, such as myself, view marriage differently. I already have a house and have had my kids. I'm sterile now, so kids are not a consideration. So, having those two primary things already in place, what would marriage have for me?
Nothing that I can see. Can't have kids, don't need kid credits. Already have my house. I can find a girlfriend in my age group, and she's probably going to be in a similar situation. We're both free adults. We can enjoy each others company in any way we choose without having to consider children or getting a house. We can live together and it doesn't effect anyone but us.
Never say never, but I'll never get married again. I'm past all of the reasons people choose traditional marriage for.
D
DeeZire
Guest
Marriage is also a convenient hiding place for gay conservative politicians who wish to remain straight in the eyes of the voters.
Super-Surprise
Loves ****
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Posts
- 74,462
The true purpose of marriage is to allow women to steal money from men without going to jail. Get married > stick it out for a few years > get divorced > have a good lawyer take the man for as much as you can get.
Just ask Paul McCartney, Donald Trump, Tiger Woods, and every other poor schmuck that has got taken to the cleaners.
On the other side, look at the likes of Anna Nicole Smith, and other "Gold-Diggers.
Just ask Paul McCartney, Donald Trump, Tiger Woods, and every other poor schmuck that has got taken to the cleaners.
On the other side, look at the likes of Anna Nicole Smith, and other "Gold-Diggers.
R. Richard
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2003
- Posts
- 10,382
In the earliest days, people lived in hunter gatherer groups. The men mostly hunted and the women mostly gathered and had children. A woman probably tended a home fire for a hunter. However the hunter might not return from the hunt. Thus, it was better for a woman to be able to convince at least several of the men that the child just might be his. Three were too few in a hunter gatherer band to maintain a good gene pool, so girls were traded among the bands, to enhance the gene pool. So it was among the bushmen of the Kalahari and certain tribes of the Amazon basin.
Then, people discovered agriculture. The farm was the basis of an agricultural civilization. It then became necessary to know who owned the farm. The children of a marriage were assumed to be the inheritors of a farm. The children of a marriage were assumed to be the progeny of the marriage. Only a man could do the hard labor necessary to operate a farm, back in those days. Thus, only a man could actually inherit a farm. If a woman did inherit a farm, she had to marry a man who could operate the farm. There were numerous schemes used to determine inheritence, but the farm had to be worked, to support the civilization. (During the time of the bubonic plague, laws were changed so that a man who found a vacant farm could have the farm, if he would work the farm.)
Then, people discovered agriculture. The farm was the basis of an agricultural civilization. It then became necessary to know who owned the farm. The children of a marriage were assumed to be the inheritors of a farm. The children of a marriage were assumed to be the progeny of the marriage. Only a man could do the hard labor necessary to operate a farm, back in those days. Thus, only a man could actually inherit a farm. If a woman did inherit a farm, she had to marry a man who could operate the farm. There were numerous schemes used to determine inheritence, but the farm had to be worked, to support the civilization. (During the time of the bubonic plague, laws were changed so that a man who found a vacant farm could have the farm, if he would work the farm.)
FallingToFly
Political Stance: Porn
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2006
- Posts
- 7,677
IMHO:
Marraige is the point where two individual pieces merge to become one unti in pursuit of a common purpose.
In my case it was marrying my husband for the purpose of creating a family, working together as partners, and growing old an dinfirm together. Still hoping to attain that last one.
In my friend's case, it was marrying his partner to spend their lives together, building a happy home, a successful business, a joyful life and growing old and infirm together. They're still working on that last one too. And if they ever asked, I'd have their babies for them in a heartbeat.
Marraige is the point where two individual pieces merge to become one unti in pursuit of a common purpose.
In my case it was marrying my husband for the purpose of creating a family, working together as partners, and growing old an dinfirm together. Still hoping to attain that last one.
In my friend's case, it was marrying his partner to spend their lives together, building a happy home, a successful business, a joyful life and growing old and infirm together. They're still working on that last one too. And if they ever asked, I'd have their babies for them in a heartbeat.
Xelebes
Little Blue Alien
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2003
- Posts
- 13,068
Originally? Inheritance. Official marriages only happened between those who actually had property to hand down to their children. Those who didn't didn't care about it. They may have latched together or they may have had none of that amongst the thralls, serfs and slaves.
Nowadays, it has similar purposes but often the focus is on love nowadays and less so on the money - unless at least one of the parties is well-monied. Love is then interpreted into meaning sharing life goals and the sort.
Nowadays, it has similar purposes but often the focus is on love nowadays and less so on the money - unless at least one of the parties is well-monied. Love is then interpreted into meaning sharing life goals and the sort.
Last edited:
3113
Hello Summer!
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Posts
- 13,823
Funny assumption there. Go far enough back and men had no idea they had anything to do with kids. Sex was had, and the baby didn't arrive till way later. So it seemed like the women grew them all on their own. In which case, the women didn't have to convince the men that they had anything to do with creating the kids.
But even if the men did know, women were still precious to the tribe. A man can impregnate many women--then die, and several kids will be born. But a woman needs to survive for nine months and bear that child and nurse it for a few years. Which means if you want the tribe to survive, you have to take care of the women who can bear children. The elders can watch over the kids while the women go out and gather, but only young women can create the kids and nurse them.
All of which has nothing to do with marriage--but there there probably wasn't any such thing in such tribes. There was only women sticking with the men who could best provide for them and their kids. Tribal existence is very "teamwork." Everyone tries to keep the tribe alive, not just themselves.
Ever heard of Egypt? One of the earliest and most successful agricultural civilizations? In Egypt, daughters could inherit. And if they inherited a rich enough farm, they could run that farm by hiring workers, not need to marry.
3113
Hello Summer!
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Posts
- 13,823
Yet old people beyond child bearing years have, from time immemorial, gotten married. Men have married widows who were barren, and women have married widowers who produced no children with their first wife.
Long before birth control, people still married even if children weren't in the cards. And now, people can have kids and house and family without marriage. So, I really don't see how kids and a house = marriage. Granted, the original purpose of marriage might have been to make sure there were kids to inherit the land. But that purpose quickly vanished otherwise no one unable to have children would have ever married. Nor would anyone who isn't planning on kids marry now. Nor would anyone be able to have kids without marrying.
Yet they do. Which, I think, undermines your assumption that it's "all" about getting the house and having kids.
What marriage is, I think, is a partnership to help us with life. That may include raising kids, or it could have nothing to do with kids and be all about creating a business; it may include buying a home, or it may have nothing to do with a home and be, instead, about living a life on the road, never settling down. But whatever one's life is going to be, marriage makes sure a person doesn't have to go through the ups and downs, the disasters and successes alone. Marriage makes sure there is always someone at your back, in your corner, ready to take your side and you theirs, and make succeeding at that life more likely than if you tried to do it alone.
Does one have to be married to have such a partnership? Of course not. But if society gives married partners perks that the unmarried do not get, then one is likely to decide to marry. I know several couples who would not have married except that marriage gave them the "perk" of allowing their partner to make medical decisions for them when they could not.
If I want my partner, who I feel knows me best, to make such decisions, and I have to marry to make sure he gets to make those decisions--to make sure he can even visit me in the hospital, then you better fucking believe I'll marry. House and kids have nothing to do with it.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
No. Youre all wrong as can be.
Marriage came about for a couple of practical reasons: Marriage was a means for families to control who their kids partnered up with. And marriage was a means to slither around traditional social conventions, like parents choosing your partner.
Marriage came about for a couple of practical reasons: Marriage was a means for families to control who their kids partnered up with. And marriage was a means to slither around traditional social conventions, like parents choosing your partner.
colddiesel
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2006
- Posts
- 5,724
No. In every single primitive society in the world it was the women not the men who worked the farm- as they still do in Africa.
Agriculture started in the Fertile Crescent which included the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, modern Syria and Israel. Every single one of those tribes including Jews and Phoenecians for examples were matrilineal; inheritance was through the female line. Rule was patriarchal but inheritance matrilineal.
1sickbastard
Seriously?
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
- Posts
- 26,724
That would depend on the society. For those with the tradition of primogenture (not sure I spelled that right) this was certainly true, but for western culture this has only developed recently (last 1000 to 400 years, depending on location) Charlemane divided his kingdom to his 3 sons, whereas Charles Hapsburg (Charles I of Spain) inherited all the lands that became known as the Spanish Empire (which included vast areas of central & eastern Europe).
The advent of the modern corperation has made primogenture as a means of concentrating capital obsolete.
1sickbastard
Seriously?
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
- Posts
- 26,724
Bitter much?The true purpose of marriage is to allow women to steal money from men without going to jail. Get married > stick it out for a few years > get divorced > have a good lawyer take the man for as much as you can get.
Just ask Paul McCartney, Donald Trump, Tiger Woods, and every other poor schmuck that has got taken to the cleaners.
On the other side, look at the likes of Anna Nicole Smith, and other "Gold-Diggers.
1sickbastard
Seriously?
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
- Posts
- 26,724
cynical much?
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
It's love, stupid, love!
After 14 comments and not even a mention of the word...well, I thought at least someone should offer it to SeaCat et al.
To feel what 'love' is, read my short story, 'A Harvest Moon', rated a 4.82 after two years on Literotica for free, or you can purchase the ebook as noted in my sig line...
Mentioning it here will drive Stella to go trash it with a 'one' vote, what the hell, that is expected.
Merry Christmas Day!
Amicus
After 14 comments and not even a mention of the word...well, I thought at least someone should offer it to SeaCat et al.
To feel what 'love' is, read my short story, 'A Harvest Moon', rated a 4.82 after two years on Literotica for free, or you can purchase the ebook as noted in my sig line...
Mentioning it here will drive Stella to go trash it with a 'one' vote, what the hell, that is expected.
Merry Christmas Day!
Amicus
oggbashan
Dying Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
- Posts
- 56,017
Marriage is the public declaration of two people becoming a single entity.
According to the Book of Common Prayer, published in the second year of the Reign of King Edward VI:
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help and comfort, that the one ought to have of the othere, both in prosperity and adversity.
Og
PS. A couple of quotations:
If you marry, you will regret it; if you do not marry, you will regret it. Kierkegaard.
There's one consolation about matrimony. When you look around you can always see somebody who did worse. Warren H Goldsmith.
No matter how happily a woman may be married, it always pleases her to discover that there is a nice man who wishes that she were not. H L Mencken
According to the Book of Common Prayer, published in the second year of the Reign of King Edward VI:
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help and comfort, that the one ought to have of the othere, both in prosperity and adversity.
Og
PS. A couple of quotations:
If you marry, you will regret it; if you do not marry, you will regret it. Kierkegaard.
There's one consolation about matrimony. When you look around you can always see somebody who did worse. Warren H Goldsmith.
No matter how happily a woman may be married, it always pleases her to discover that there is a nice man who wishes that she were not. H L Mencken
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Happy Christmas Day, Ogg, I hope your weather has moderated somewhat and left you with some beautiful old English Christmas scenes.
You gained a 'first' in my mind, at least here on the forum, I think you are the first ever to quote Kierkegard on anything...Camus..yeah, Sartre, yeah, but...
Best of all things for all the lil Ogg's running amuck!
ami
You gained a 'first' in my mind, at least here on the forum, I think you are the first ever to quote Kierkegard on anything...Camus..yeah, Sartre, yeah, but...
Kierkegaard
Best of all things for all the lil Ogg's running amuck!
ami
Last edited:
1sickbastard
Seriously?
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
- Posts
- 26,724
My own opinion;
Marriage was about control. Historically (cultures ranging from western Europe, to parts of the near & middle east, and large tracts of Asia) marriage was the primary method of reaffirming that women and the offspring bred from them were the property of the patriarch. This was important when the family unit was also the primary economic unit, thus the basic unit for exercising political and social power. If a woman was confined to a family unit with the primary purpose of having more children, the family as a whole was generally better off than the family with fewer children
The breakdown of 'traditional' marriage in the last century can be traced directly to several trends:
-The family unit is no longer a primary unit for economic production. Instead it is now a unit of consumption. Children especially have gone from being a financial asset to a liability. This trend has accelerated as economies make the transition from being rural and agrarian to urban and industrial (or post industrial), requiring longer periods of education/skill aquisition for an individual to become economically useful. A four year old can do useful work on a farm. A ten year old could find a factory job in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries (and still do, depending on the level of developement of a specific area).
-Women have the means to be economically independent. This means getting married is no longer an economic necessity. It also means that women have far more social/political power than ever before.
The more pratical question, I believe, is this; Can marriage remain a viable institution in the face of these social/economic trends. If so, how will the institution evolve to keep it viable.
More importantly, why do we continue to insist that marriage remain 'until death do us part' when currently more than 50% of marriages end in divorce before the tenth anniversery?
Marriage was about control. Historically (cultures ranging from western Europe, to parts of the near & middle east, and large tracts of Asia) marriage was the primary method of reaffirming that women and the offspring bred from them were the property of the patriarch. This was important when the family unit was also the primary economic unit, thus the basic unit for exercising political and social power. If a woman was confined to a family unit with the primary purpose of having more children, the family as a whole was generally better off than the family with fewer children
The breakdown of 'traditional' marriage in the last century can be traced directly to several trends:
-The family unit is no longer a primary unit for economic production. Instead it is now a unit of consumption. Children especially have gone from being a financial asset to a liability. This trend has accelerated as economies make the transition from being rural and agrarian to urban and industrial (or post industrial), requiring longer periods of education/skill aquisition for an individual to become economically useful. A four year old can do useful work on a farm. A ten year old could find a factory job in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries (and still do, depending on the level of developement of a specific area).
-Women have the means to be economically independent. This means getting married is no longer an economic necessity. It also means that women have far more social/political power than ever before.
The more pratical question, I believe, is this; Can marriage remain a viable institution in the face of these social/economic trends. If so, how will the institution evolve to keep it viable.
More importantly, why do we continue to insist that marriage remain 'until death do us part' when currently more than 50% of marriages end in divorce before the tenth anniversery?
1sickbastard
Seriously?
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
- Posts
- 26,724
Probably because a person can fall out of 'love'. It takes two people in love to make a marriage work. If one of those people fall out of love, the marriage is over. If love is the only reason, it makes more sense to NOT get married, so when the break up happens (yes, I said when, not if) the legal economic consequenses are far less severe.
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
Re-check your facts and get back to us. Start with the Egyptians.
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Hello, 1sickbastard, and welcome to the forum...
Several Posters have offered fine, rational, well thought out answers to 'Cat's' question, but...y'all got the cart before the horse, methinks.
I am known around here as the cold hearted conservative Capitalist to whom profit rises above all other matters...not that that matters, but...
I read a Greek myth, somewhere in time (movie), that proposed that each human was born only half a person and that the purpose of life, and fulfillment, was to search out that other half.
Most around here are either too old or too cynical to remember back to our first 'crushes', when the mere sight of another person took our breath away and we became hopelessly obsessed. I try to write about such things as being reflective of our very inner nature that seeks that 'missing part' of our existence, than can only be filled by someone quite opposite, that fills in the empty part of our soul and sense of life.
That is the fundamental key to understanding the nature of marriage and family and nurturing...and loving....without that very natural 'spark' of attraction and desire for just that 'one' only human that can satisfy. Without that, all else becomes dull and droll and the bean counting of pragmatists and cost/effective geeks to whom 'numbers' are the only game in town.
One does not superimpose an idealogy on the natural inclinations of the individual as a means to comprehend any of man's institutions; one begins with the individual and expands the concept from there.
We are a community of writers here and if my intent is not clear, consider for a moment the overwhelming content of poetry and literature throughout the ages...what is the over-riding central thematic in most? Is it not the quest for love and happiness...do not 'love poems' dominate throughout the Classics?
Yes, everything everyone has offered has played and may play a role in marriage, but it begins with the expressed 'love' of one for the other and/or both. All else is but fluff.
amicus
Several Posters have offered fine, rational, well thought out answers to 'Cat's' question, but...y'all got the cart before the horse, methinks.
I am known around here as the cold hearted conservative Capitalist to whom profit rises above all other matters...not that that matters, but...
I read a Greek myth, somewhere in time (movie), that proposed that each human was born only half a person and that the purpose of life, and fulfillment, was to search out that other half.
Most around here are either too old or too cynical to remember back to our first 'crushes', when the mere sight of another person took our breath away and we became hopelessly obsessed. I try to write about such things as being reflective of our very inner nature that seeks that 'missing part' of our existence, than can only be filled by someone quite opposite, that fills in the empty part of our soul and sense of life.
That is the fundamental key to understanding the nature of marriage and family and nurturing...and loving....without that very natural 'spark' of attraction and desire for just that 'one' only human that can satisfy. Without that, all else becomes dull and droll and the bean counting of pragmatists and cost/effective geeks to whom 'numbers' are the only game in town.
One does not superimpose an idealogy on the natural inclinations of the individual as a means to comprehend any of man's institutions; one begins with the individual and expands the concept from there.
We are a community of writers here and if my intent is not clear, consider for a moment the overwhelming content of poetry and literature throughout the ages...what is the over-riding central thematic in most? Is it not the quest for love and happiness...do not 'love poems' dominate throughout the Classics?
Yes, everything everyone has offered has played and may play a role in marriage, but it begins with the expressed 'love' of one for the other and/or both. All else is but fluff.
amicus
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
Nonsense, AMICUS.
Similar threads
