The purpose of marriage

[Ishmael]

Since the other thread got hijacked, I thought I'd start a new one.

What, in your opinion, is the primary purpose of marriage, and what forms of marriage should be legally recognized?

Damn good question with a lot of good posts.

I don't see marriage as a moral or immoral issue. One can form a partnership without the benefit of marriage.

Nor is marriage a piece of paper. Marriage licenses are a relatively new invention, marriage itself has been around as long as recorded history. Nor is it a religious function. Marriage is practiced by virtually all peoples on the face of the earth. This wide spead practice implies that it's more than some religious rite.

I think that it's nothing more than the public affirmation that two people have decided to join as one. To hold one another exclusive of all others. Based on the concept of two working together in intimacy and day to day survival have a better chance than just one.

An exchanging of vows publically with or without benefit of clergy, paper, or any other 'stamp' of approval.

My take anyway.

Ishmael

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Who judges the stability of the marriage?

Is stability the same thing as happy?

How many studies are done involving adult children of loveless, yet stable (ie:no abuse/fighting/conflict) marriages?

There's always been debate between "staying together for the kids" and getting divorced so that the kids don't grow up in a loveless household.

Personally, I think it's much more unhealthy to stay together just for the sake of the kids, because the kids see that the love is missing, and begin wondering if they were a product of "non-love." Not only that, but they have a high chance of having loveless relationships of their own when they get older.

If I was in a loveless marriage, I would rather get divorced and let me children learn that everyone can move on and get an idea of what truly healthy relationships are about.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Re: Re: The purpose of marriage

Damn good question with a lot of good posts.

I don't see marriage as a moral or immoral issue. One can form a partnership without the benefit of marriage.

Nor is marriage a piece of paper. Marriage licenses are a relatively new invention, marriage itself has been around as long as recorded history. Nor is it a religious function. Marriage is practiced by virtually all peoples on the face of the earth. This wide spead practice implies that it's more than some religious rite.

I think that it's nothing more than the public affirmation that two people have decided to join as one. To hold one another exclusive of all others. Based on the concept of two working together in intimacy and day to day survival have a better chance than just one.

An exchanging of vows publically with or without benefit of clergy, paper, or any other 'stamp' of approval.

My take anyway.

Ishmael

Well, after skirting the issue...should gays be allowed to be legally married?

Sure, they can get married in a ceremony, but until the state begins to recognize those marriages, they aren't taken any more seriously than someone with a degree from Sally Struthers Univ.

 

[weed]

Marriage is a social construct that I think is becoming more and more meaningless as far as the "til death do you part" kind of commitment that many associate with it. The benefits of marriage come from the society that gives them with the promise that you'll keep the union together. Forever is the implication and I think that most couples enter with a "forever" intention but the practicality of it in today's world doesn't always pan out.

With so many marriages ending in divorce marriage is no longer the commitment it infers in its vows. I'm not knocking that commitment but I think it can be made without the piece of paper. And not all unions are destined to be forever. I don't think this necessarily makes them a failure if the relationship was right for the couple at the time. Just maybe shouldn't have been a marriage.

The enticements are strong though. A big party, a celebration of love in front of family and friends (why don't we do that without the wedding?), society's acknowledgement of you as a couple, tax breaks, co-insurance, legitimate children...

Well, that's what I'm thinking about marriage these days.

As far as who should be able to get married, as society changes it's only natural that changes in the marital institution will follow. Albeit painful changes. Homosexual couples in the open are becoming more and more commonplace and accepted. I think that eventually same sex marriages will be treated the same as M/F couples.

After all, it is just a contract. Why shouldn't any two willing unincestuous adults be able to enter into it?

 

[JazzManJim]

Who judges the stability of the marriage?

Is stability the same thing as happy?

How many studies are done involving adult children of loveless, yet stable (ie:no abuse/fighting/conflict) marriages?

Here's one extensive study with lots of charts with comparisons.

Judge their data points for yourself.

However, my own take on what I've read on the subject is that what is paramount is the stability of the marriage. Children above all require stability on which to grow. It's certainly preferable that the stability be accompanied by love. But it's also possible for two people in a marriage to love their children very much and demonstrate that love while not loving each other and for the children to find great benefit from that. It makes sense to me for that to be true.

 

[PCG]

I would rather get divorced and let me children learn that everyone can move on and get an idea of what truly healthy relationships are about.

That's exactly my plan.

 

[PCG]

Here's one extensive study with lots of charts with comparisons.

Judge their data points for yourself.

However, my own take on what I've read on the subject is that what is paramount is the stability of the marriage. Children above all require stability on which to grow. It's certainly preferable that the stability be accompanied by love. But it's also possible for two people in a marriage to love their children very much and demonstrate that love while not loving each other and for the children to find great benefit from that. It makes sense to me for that to be true.

No, I want to know what YOU consider to be the characteristics of a stable relationship and why YOU believe that marriage is a necessary part of that stability.

For the record, I wholeheartedly disagree that it's ok to raise children in an environment which does not include the adults loving each other. I spent part of my childhood in that home, and it wasn't healthy by any stretch of the imagination. IMO, of course.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Marriage is a social construct that I think is becoming more and more meaningless as far as the "til death do you part" kind of commitment that many associate with it.

Blame it on the rising life expectancy.

Back in the days of 35 year life expectancy, "til death do us part" was in the order of 20 years or lower.

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

I spent part of my childhood in that home, and it wasn't healthy by any stretch of the imagination. IMO, of course.

As did I...and when my parents got divorced, I was actually happy.

 

[weed]

No, I want to know what YOU consider to be the characteristics of a stable relationship and why YOU believe that marriage is a necessary part of that stability.

For the record, I wholeheartedly disagree that it's ok to raise children in an environment which does not include the adults loving each other. I spent part of my childhood in that home, and it wasn't healthy by any stretch of the imagination. IMO, of course.

Have to agree, PCG. In my own experience the kids are actually getting more quality time from both of us than they did before. I know they've gone through changes along with their parents but we've done what we can to make it easy on them and give them the security they need. In many ways better than before.

 

[PCG]

As did I...and when my parents got divorced, I was actually happy.

Ok, so we're twins and BBW agrees with me on a lot of shit lately.

I'm building a fall out shelter.

 

[JazzManJim]

No, I want to know what YOU consider to be the characteristics of a stable relationship and why YOU believe that marriage is a necessary part of that stability.

For the record, I wholeheartedly disagree that it's ok to raise children in an environment which does not include the adults loving each other. I spent part of my childhood in that home, and it wasn't healthy by any stretch of the imagination. IMO, of course.

I know you disagree with that point (we've been involved in a similar discussion before) and I'll not begrudge you that.

I don't want to argue it, though.

 

[gravyrug]

Ok, so we're twins and BBW agrees with me on a lot of shit lately.

I'm building a fall out shelter.

Nah, this is just what happens when the thread doesn't become a flame war. Rare around here.

 

[weed]

Blame it on the rising life expectancy.

Back in the days of 35 year life expectancy, "til death do us part" was in the order of 20 years or lower.

Maybe we should make the contract expire after twenty years unless renewed.

It would be another excuse for a big party for some and let the those who've drifted out of their chains painlessly. (Well, probably not painlessly.)

 

[PCG]

I know you disagree with that point (we've been involved in a similar discussion before) and I'll not begrudge you that.

I don't want to argue it, though.

Ok, but please answer the first part of my post.

Define your concept of stability and why marriage is an integral part of that. I don't ask to start an argument, I ask beause I"m curious how people's views of 'stability' may or may not differ with regard to relationships.

 

[gravyrug]

I know you disagree with that point (we've been involved in a similar discussion before) and I'll not begrudge you that.

I don't want to argue it, though.

I'm gonna have to go along with PCG and Bob on this one. I think that the stability of a marriage has to come from commitment to the spouse as well as the children. Otherwise it's not truly stable, just continuing. Children need to see adults being happy in order to believe they can be happy when they grow up. Or else they just refuse to grow up, and we see way too much of that.

 

[Janes Addiction]

Here's one extensive study with lots of charts with comparisons.

Judge their data points for yourself.

It is very difficult to take anything from these data points. Thats all they are - points. Are any of the differences statistically significant?

Are there any studies published in peer reviewed journals?

 

[JazzManJim]

Ok, but please answer the first part of my post.

Define your concept of stability and why marriage is an integral part of that. I don't ask to start an argument, I ask beause I"m curious how people's views of 'stability' may or may not differ with regard to relationships.

I dunno. I smell a trap, insofar as I'm the only one thus far who has used the word "stability" in respect to the topic.

But, here goes (with the provision that when I say "you" I mean it in the universal sense, and I include myself in it also)

I believe that a marriage ought to be entered into carefully and with more thought than the average person would give to taking a job, buying a house, or buying a car. I believe that a marriage is a lifelong commitment made in front of God and the world and that the pledge you give ought to be held as sacredly as you'd hold any other pledge. I believe that the marriage vows demonstrate that you both are promising to commit yourself to the building of a family above all else. Marriage ought to be something to which you commit yourself without reservation and if you, for one minute, believe you can't do that, you ought not marry.

Children need that bond of commitment to hold between you and the other until there is absolutely no other option available, and I also include remaing together after love is gone. Chidren need that level of stability as a foundation to grow and mature. They need to know that even though everything else in their life may be in flux - themselves, school, friends, and the world around them, their family is not. They need the security that such stability brings.

I'm not so foolish as to believe that everyone can have that, even if they believe that they can when they start. I'd be a fool to think that marriages don't go bad, that love leaves, that people who once pledged to be together forever turn into bitter enemies for a time (or even forever). I very nearly walked into such a situation myself despite my efforts to make it otherwise. But I also believe that if you can still maintain a friendly relationship with your spouse, even if the love has dribbled away, the children would be better off in such a relationship.

That's about it for now (though certainly not all of it. I have particularly strong feelings about the subject and I've held them back).

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: The purpose of marriage

Well, after skirting the issue...should gays be allowed to be legally married?

Sure, they can get married in a ceremony, but until the state begins to recognize those marriages, they aren't taken any more seriously than someone with a degree from Sally Struthers Univ.

That is the issue, isn't it? Marriage vs state sanctioned marriage.

I've already stated that I'm against state sanctioned same sex marriages. My position, also previously stated, has nothing to do with morals, the church, or any thought of 'wrongness'. It has to do with the body of law surrounding marriage, divorce, and the cost to society. If the state hadn't interjected itself into the institution of marriage I wouldn't have a problem at all.

Ishmael

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The purpose of marriage

That is the issue, isn't it? Marriage vs state sanctioned marriage.

I've already stated that I'm against state sanctioned same sex marriages. My position, also previously stated, has nothing to do with morals, the church, or any thought of 'wrongness'. It has to do with the body of law surrounding marriage, divorce, and the cost to society. If the state hadn't interjected itself into the institution of marriage I wouldn't have a problem at all.

Ishmael

So who should decide what defines the institution of "legal" marriage?

 

[gravyrug]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The purpose of marriage

That is the issue, isn't it? Marriage vs state sanctioned marriage.

I've already stated that I'm against state sanctioned same sex marriages. My position, also previously stated, has nothing to do with morals, the church, or any thought of 'wrongness'. It has to do with the body of law surrounding marriage, divorce, and the cost to society. If the state hadn't interjected itself into the institution of marriage I wouldn't have a problem at all.

Ishmael

If the state is involved in sanctioning marriage at all, and given that the purpose of marriage is a commitment to a stable family, why should the state not sanction same sex marriage? I would think that the state should encourage stability in same sex unions just as strongly as heterosexual ones.

(I missed your previous rants on the subject, but if they have to do with current law, wouldn't it be better to change the laws?)

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The purpose of marriage

So who should decide what defines the institution of "legal" marriage?

Who? The state already has. The horse in the form of the law is already out and running. You think that closing the barn door now is an effective measure?

If you are going to deal with gay marriage, then you are going to have to deal with gay divorce as well. In the case of gay men, on a scale that is far above national averages. (The most stable gay relationships I've seen, friends, are well into their 40's. Lesbian realtionships are as stable as any other statistically. Women tend to form longer lasting relationships regardless of sexual preference.)

Our legal system is based on precedence and precedence makes for bad law. (I can now see the board lawyers jumping in with the English Common Law argument. I'll deal with that when it occurs.)

In any event, the cost to society in the form of taxes cannot be calculated yet. It's another door that once opened, can't be closed.

And I ask you this. What are the benefits to the individual and society if the state were to sanction such marriages? Of what particular difference does that make? And how is that in conflict with a publlic vow of affirmation?

You, in your previous posts, have disavowed the necessity of state sanctioned marriage. That being the case, why are you married? I would suppose that it was your choice. Fine. But was it necessary and if optional why would anyone want to extend this falacious state (ergo legal) priviledge in such a way that has no benefits and only costs?

Perhaps because the minority want to execute through the state, at the expense of all tax payers, the benefits that they could just as well recieve spending two hours with Parson's "It's Legal" software?

Under the concept of 'equality under the eyes of the law' I am forced to agree with the concept. Under the realities I am forced to disagree. And my retort is simply this, why is the state involved to begin with?

Ishmael

 

[gravyrug]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The purpose of marriage

Under the concept of 'equality under the eyes of the law' I am forced to agree with the concept. Under the realities I am forced to disagree. And my retort is simply this, why is the state involved to begin with?

Ishmael

Should we then just throw out the concept of equality under law? Wouldn't changing the law be better for everyone?

 

[Bob_Bytchin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The purpose of marriage

Who? The state already has. The horse in the form of the law is already out and running. You think that closing the barn door now is an effective measure? I asked "who should", not "who does." You were saying that the state shouldn't be involved in the sanctioning or legality of marriage.

If you are going to deal with gay marriage, then you are going to have to deal with gay divorce as well. In the case of gay men, on a scale that is far above national averages. (The most stable gay relationships I've seen, friends, are well into their 40's. Lesbian realtionships are as stable as any other statistically. Women tend to form longer lasting relationships regardless of sexual preference.) Provide links to these stats. Or as you often say to me and others...your "thoughts" on the subject mean squat. What you think and actual stats are more than likely two different things here. Your "feelings" on the matter mean nothing. Since there has never been "gay marriage" there are no stats on the divorce rate. I seriously doubt that the divorce or splitting rate for gays and lesbians is any higher than in heterosexuals.

Our legal system is based on precedence and precedence makes for bad law. (I can now see the board lawyers jumping in with the English Common Law argument. I'll deal with that when it occurs.) Yes, but there is already precedent for heterosexual divorce. Gay divorces would be afforded the same legal leverage as heterosexual divorces. Nothing would change except for the fact that it's two gays or lesbians. In hetero divorces there is always a custody and property battle, and in some states it goes 50/50. If all divorces were settled in a 50/50 manner, then there would be no problems. I think you were trying to say here that hetero marriages have a "man" and a "woman" but gay and lesbian marriages would muddle those lines.

In any event, the cost to society in the form of taxes cannot be calculated yet. It's another door that once opened, can't be closed. Good grief. It's always about taxes. To paraphrase Dr Don Francis: Please let us know when the cost of equality is low enough so that everyone can have your blessing.

And I ask you this. What are the benefits to the individual and society if the state were to sanction such marriages? Of what particular difference does that make? And how is that in conflict with a publlic vow of affirmation? Gay and lesbian marriages would benefit society in the same ways that hetero marriages do. I know it's hard to grasp, but everyone is capable of loving others. Some people want to express that love by marrying the person they are in love with. What harm can that cause? How many loveless hetero marriages are there that don't contribute to society?

You, in your previous posts, have disavowed the necessity of state sanctioned marriage. That being the case, why are you married? I would suppose that it was your choice. Fine. But was it necessary and if optional why would anyone want to extend this falacious state (ergo legal) priviledge in such a way that has no benefits and only costs? I have said that if homosexual marriages aren't sanctioned by the state, then a ceremony that bonds them in spirit and mind would have to do, until the day comes when they can be legally married. I am married because I love my wife, she loves me, and we have kids that we love very much as well. Now please explain the costs to us. I would love to hear this. Now no New York Post figures or made up facts...post links to the detriments and costs of homosexual marriage. I bet you can't because there is no such beast.

Perhaps because the minority want to execute through the state, at the expense of all tax payers, the benefits that they could just as well recieve spending two hours with Parson's "It's Legal" software? So why is heterosexual marriage ok?

Under the concept of 'equality under the eyes of the law' I am forced to agree with the concept. Under the realities I am forced to disagree. And my retort is simply this, why is the state involved to begin with? Ish, you don't have to agree with the concept of homosexual marriage to recognize that it's an equal and just thing to do. I'm not gay, and I have no interest in marrying a man, but my beliefs nor yours should over-ride someone elses wishes and desires.

Ishmael [/B]

 

[JazzManJim]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The purpose of marriage

...but my beliefs nor yours should over-ride someone elses wishes and desires.

Why not? It rightly happens all the time.