# Is Marriage Obsolete

Category: Let's talk

## Post 1 by Sword of Sapphire (Whether you agree with my opinion or not, you're still gonna read it!) on Saturday, 02-Jul-2011 0:32:40

This past semester, I did a research paper for my English class. The question I proposed was Is Marriage Obsolete? Up until that point, I didn't think it was a controversial issue, but I could not have been more wrong. I found a slew of articles revolving around that very question.
I myself believe marriage is no longer necessary. Why? Well, in earlier times, marriage was required in order to have children, elsewise, a person was ostracized and/or looked down upon by society. Also, women needed a man to financially support them, because they took care of the household, land, and children. Nowadays, it is almost conventional to have children out of wedlock, and women are able to support themselves. And in about 30% of households, women are the breadwinners.
Now some may argue that most people desire and/or need a life partner, but marriage is not necessary for such a relationship. Others may say: Well, what about the financial and legal rights that come along with marriage? Many rights that were once only avaible to married couples are now available to unwed couples. Also, a cohabitation agreement discusses a couple's asset and children, if any, and what happens to them in the case of a break up.
Aside from factual information, I just don't think that a couple needs a license to say they love each other.
So what do you guys think? Why?

## Post 2 by chelslicious (like it or not, I'm gonna say what I mean. all the time.) on Sunday, 03-Jul-2011 12:36:02

sure it isn't necessary; some people desire it, though, while others don't. it's all a matter of personal preference.

## Post 3 by TechnologyUser2012 (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Sunday, 03-Jul-2011 19:32:03

I agree that marriage is no longer necessary for all of the reasons mentioned. Society's views have changed concerning children born out of wedlock, and women are much more independent and can financially support themselves. Since an unwed couple now has the same rights as a married couple, why bother getting married anymore? The majority of marriages end in divorce today anyway. I personally have no desire to ever get married... more power to those who do though. Smile.

## Post 4 by squidwardqtentacles (I just keep on posting!) on Sunday, 03-Jul-2011 21:47:14

What exactly does that teach young men in society? That they're just good for a little hit & run? A sperm donor & a wallet? Not even necessary in their child(ren)'s development? Just make it or them and walk away? Sounds scary to me.
While I agree there are some who don't want to chance marriage, IMO marriage is necessary for any children to have influence of both their mother and father. I understand some men, and for that matter, some women get themselves thrown out of some of these marriages, in which case the non custodial parent needs to make every attempt to spend time with any kids. Some of us wouldn't want to chance remarriage, possibly not wanting the risk stepparents have with children who aren't theirs. But to say men aren't needed in committed relationships with adult women or in any childrens' development reduces men to a teenage level and leaves women financially poorer and exhausted performing both the mother's and father's roles.

## Post 5 by Twinklestar09 (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Sunday, 03-Jul-2011 23:30:00

While there is no longer the taboo of children being born out of wedlock or couples getting divorced, to me, I think being married is still more of an incentive for a couple to stay together. I think it'd be too easy for a couple just living together to get into an argument and split up or for one of the partners just to leave when life gets boring or tough. Some unmarried couples may stay together no matter what; my parents have been like that for the most part. But I know of more cohabiting couples that either did not last long or who are not happy. Of course, marriages can end just as easily, but to me, it seems like there is more of an incentive to try to make them work because of everything that was put into it. At least that's how I'd feel anyway. The vows we promise to each other, and the ceremony celebrating our hopefully lifelong commitment to each other would mean a lot to me. Not having that would just seem like we're just a dating couple who has just decided to move into a place together. If anything ever happened that might make one of us consider leaving, at least in my mind the promise we made to stay together for better or worse etc would be part of what I'd be considering as well, whereas if we weren't married, I might be thinking of our history together, but that could be for any emotionally close relationship I was in. Marriage seems to me to make a relationship a bit more meaningful than just living together and calling that a marriage. So, while a cohabitation/common-law marriage might work for some, I'd personally prefer to be married and so would not think that it is obsolete.

## Post 6 by sugarbaby (The voice of reason) on Monday, 04-Jul-2011 5:17:48

the statistic of cohabiting couples splitting up is far greater than that of married couples. for cohabiting couples only 20% end up staying together for more than ten years, whereas with marriage the statistic is that 1 in three ends up in divorce, so essentially 66% stay together.
Also in this country there are legal benefits to marriage that do not exist for cohabiting couples, but these are often benefits that are unknown until you are faced with them. For instance, an unmarried partner is not your next of kin, so were you to be in an accident and require consent for life-saving treatment, your unmarried partner would not be able to grant this, and instead it would fall to your parent or next surviving blood relative. Similarly if an unmarried partner dies without having a will, their partner has no entitlements to any part of the estate.
People assume that cohabiting couples have the same rights, but they do not.
Ultimately it's a personal choice; marriage works for some and not for others, but I think that to say there is no need for it in society any more is wrong.

## Post 7 by Thunderstorm (HotIndian!) on Monday, 04-Jul-2011 9:13:11

if you're ready to commit a stronger relationship, no matter how far the misunderstandings or difference of opinions are taking place, marriage is the best solution. if there's a will, there's a way, I say.
As per my personal opinion, life is nothing but give and take. you can have hundred gf's and hundred bf's in a life. but that could never be equvilent to a married partner. I do agree there are few negative points like few married couples aren't living together for a long or something similar. But there are plus and minus with everything. It depends upon how far both are understanding, how far both are being adjustable with one another and how far they love one another.
Sometimes, even if there are some misunderstandings between the partners, after their first kid, everything they forget and all their attention will go towards the direction of their kid. At that time, they really feel happy or dono how to explain that feeling.
I like this with my culture. You can't have a bf or gf. You have to marry a girl for having relationship. On the other hand, I don't like arranged marriages. that's really unfair. We may not be knowing the person and dono how far he or she will accept us. It's like forced relationship. I don't think that will work out well.
So as per my opinion, see 4, select 3, love 2 and marry one. and live with that one alone. lol.
Raaj.

## Post 8 by OceanDream (An Ocean of Thoughts) on Monday, 04-Jul-2011 14:04:15

Marriage isn't going to make or break a relationship. Those who think marriage will make a player faithful really need to think again. I'm not against it. I mean, hey, I'm married myself, but my relationship itself didn't change at all. We just kept going on living, but with the same last name and another legal document. I do like the fact that we're legally recognized as family, though. it just depends what you like. I agree that it isn't necessary to get through life anymore, but it still has its perks.

## Post 9 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Monday, 04-Jul-2011 14:52:40

In your research paper, did you talk to single mothers? Women working 14 hour days, never see the kids, the kids are home alone most times?
Did you talk to gays who now are trying to gain access to marriage? Is it not ironic that straight people, who have unlimited access to marriage might slight it, while gay people, who until recently, were excluded, would value it?
Ironic, but not unusual.

## Post 10 by Sword of Sapphire (Whether you agree with my opinion or not, you're still gonna read it!) on Monday, 04-Jul-2011 22:20:13

To those of you who think I am stating that I think men are no longer a necessary part of the family, read my post again and the posts before and after your own. Some of the reasons I gave for the obsolescence of marriage supported the fact that men had more opportunities than women did in earlier times, forcing women to rely on them by getting married.
No, I did not interview or talk to anyone for this research paper, it wasn't a senior thesis or anything of that sort. However, I did use information concerning single mothers for the supporting and opposing sides of the argument. What you might not know is that an increasing number of women are deciding to be single mothers prior to pregnancy. Yes, women are going to sperm banks to get pregnant.
Now I believe a home with both parents is best for every child, given that the parents provide a mentally, emotionally, and physically stable environment.
I don't know whether I will marry down the road or not, but hopefully, I don't fall into that trap.

## Post 11 by squidwardqtentacles (I just keep on posting!) on Tuesday, 05-Jul-2011 7:41:55

Women have more options, like going to a sperm bank to get pregnant, therefore it's O K for dad not to be a part of the picture?
I think going to a sperm bank to become pregnant is a despicable thing to do to another human being. It's letting the man know he's just a drop in the bucket...literally...and even his identity isn't necessary, as this is all anonymous. It makes me throw up when I get std testing requests on "Anonymous Donor ABC123".
What do these women plan to tell their children when they ask "Whose my dad?". I just hope they don't get themselves into a position like child isn't responding to conventional treatment for leukemia, so they need a bone marrow transplant. Or they're sick and need some other type of transplant, and no one on mom's side of family is compatible. "Dad's side? Gee, I don't even know WHO he is much less where he is." I think IVF is a despicable thing unless it's restricted to married couples where both parties actually want a child.
Any idea how many of these moms who thought single parenthood is doable are actually struggling? Or working two jobs and not getting a lot of time with the child? I actually knew a divorced school nurse who had to get a second part time job when she moved from New York to Florida with her child, and a nurse is an educated, skilled professional. Feminism to me is just another liberal movement that hurts those it claimed to help by teaching 'em that just because something can be done it SHOULD be, and society as a whole is suffering. Men are looked at by some women now as strictly donors, and children are suffering for want of fathers.

## Post 12 by chelslicious (like it or not, I'm gonna say what I mean. all the time.) on Tuesday, 05-Jul-2011 9:24:55

I, too, think it's wrong to say/think marriage is obsolete; what a damn shame it is that men are thought of as practically nothing by some people in the world.

## Post 13 by Miss M (move over school!) on Tuesday, 05-Jul-2011 10:04:30

It depends on how you look at marriage. If you're looking at it in the cultural/religious aspect, the relevance of it depends fully on the society and the particular individuals within it.
If you're looking at it in the legal/government aspect, I agree that it's irrelevant. You should not have to receive a civil union/marriage license in order to share your insurance, benefits, property and whatnot with another person or people - each legal aspect of what the US government defines as "for spouses only" should be separated and freed up so that any mentally stable adult can delegate their stuff (within reason) to whomever they choose.

## Post 14 by squidwardqtentacles (I just keep on posting!) on Tuesday, 05-Jul-2011 11:59:58

Personally, I think mentally competent adults should be free to will their property to whomever they choose upon death. I also shudder at the idea of free reign for family members as far as hospital visitation. Perhaps a family member is most toxic for a person's well being...as shown when Diane Downs of Phoenix visited her wounded daughter in the ICU. Every time 'mom' visited this little girl, her blood pressure spiked from emotional duress, and eventually the visits had to stop. Mrs. Downs was eventually convicted of killing two of her children and attempting to kill the oldest to marry a guy who had a vasectomy & didn't want to be a dad. But IMO an intact married couple is still the best situation for those wanting to parent one or more children.

## Post 15 by turricane (happiness and change are choices ) on Thursday, 07-Jul-2011 10:42:11

i have been married for going on 27 years. here is my take on this situation. if you don't have kids, do whatever you like. you won't have legal protection but if you want to take the risk so be it. thanks sugar baby for pointing out about the next of kin and will issues. i have a dear friend who has lived with her partner for going on 30 years. a few years ago he had a massive heart attack. the hospital would only give information about him to his son to whom she was estranged. for the sake of passing on knowledge, you can stipulate in your living will that your partner should be contacted, but how many of us carry that around with us in case we are in an accident or become ill quickly.
if we have kids we need to be married if possible. babies are cute and adorable but they can also be a big pain in the butt. they cry for hours, get sick, spit up, poop, and do lots of other unpleasant and/or annoying things. there are many times without that document to bind me to the situation i would have loved to take a walk out the door. my husband has aggreed. of course we worked together and got through the rough times, but if we'd just been living together we might not have.

## Post 16 by Eleni21 (I have proven to myself and the world that I need mental help) on Thursday, 07-Jul-2011 12:39:51

*I wrote this before reading all the comments so forgive me for repeating a few things.*
First of all, I must comment on your grammar and diction which are incredible. Very rarely have I ever found such on the internet. As to the question of marriage being obsolete, I have to disagree. While your argument is compelling, I think that there are still reasons for marriage. In America, at least, many states don't recognise common-law couples. That is, ones who have lived together for a considerable amount of time but who are not married. Things such as joint health insurance, the right to see a partner if he/she is in the hospital and to receive and/or control inheritance should a partner die are mostly only granted to married couples. This is one of the reasons why homosexuals are fighting so hard for true marriage and not merely civil unions. My parents had a civil union several years ago, and although they can do certain things, they still don't have the same rights as a heterosexual couple who had a civil marriage i.e. through a mayor or other public official rather than a religious one. Furthermore, their union is not honoured in all states, something which would be unthinkable for a married heterosexual couple.
But I digress. For some, myself included, marriage is a sacred commitment. It's not merely a piece of paper which grants legal rights but a public acknowledgement of two people (yes, I know some cultures have more but I'm keeping things simple) pledging their love to each other in the eyes of the witnesses, and if they're religious, in those of their chosen deity/ies as well. It requires love and a deep bond of the partners involved. This is why I couldn't marry for convenience, even if it offered me the chance of Hellenic citizenship, which is one of my most important life's goals. Legalities aside, there are some people who willingly choose to have only a ceremonial marriage due to it's symbolism. There are also others who wish to have children only after that commitment is made, both for the identity and well-being of the child and to insure stability in the family, whether that means keeping a name or insuring that one partner doesn't simply walk out. Of course, it's possible, but it's more likely that the couple will try to work things out first if they're married. I don't want to have my own children, but if I were to adopt, I would want to be married to the man who would be the child's father first. Lesbians aside for obvious reasons, whoever thinks that men aren't necessary in a relationship or that they're simply sperm donors or insignificant are truly sick and are missing out on something wonderful. I love and appreciate the man in my life and would do anything for him, as he would for me. It'll be four years this 12th of July that we've been together and I couldn't be happier.
But back to the point at hand, a couple need not get married to love one another. My parents have been together for at least 22 years and I couldn't see them separating, even if they didn't have a civil union. True love doesn't need a paper to make it valid. But having it and/or a ceremony can help in numerous ways, as I've demonstrated. You're also right that women can now work and be independent. But it's my personal belief that, if there are children involved, one parent should stay home with them until they're at least five-years-old. It doesn't matter if it's the man or the woman but someone needs to do it. I'm also against both parents pursuing serious careers. Even when the child grows older, he/she still needs that parental bond and it just can't exist if there isn't at least one parent who could afford to spend time with him/her. If both are working hard to the point where they're barely home and/or are totally exhausted when they get there, the child won't have the trust, development and family time that he/she needs to fauster a loving, caring and open relationship with his/her parents which could help as the child grows into an adult. GemiMoonTwinkleStar pretty much said it perfectly. Marriage gives a tighter and deeper committment than merely living together, though I personally have no problem with that either. I completely disagree that it's wrong to have a boyfriend or girlfriend, including sexual activities, without marrying. In fact, I would never choose to marry a man unless I was intimate with him and lived with him for awhile (at least a year) first.
To squidwardqtentacles: You made an excellent point about people being able to will their property to whomever they choose. I thought that this was the case, though it's not always respected. That said, if it's in writing, I can't see how, legally, it can be ignored, since it's what the person wanted. As for visitation, why can't people write out something similar to a living will, in which they state before hand who should and shouldn't be able to visit them? As you said, some people are toxic and there are others, such as friends and unmarried partners, who might actually do good for those in the hospital etc. but who otherwise wouldn't be allowed due to stupid legalities. And what if the person has no family but only friends or a partner? I agree with you to a point about marriage and children. As I said, I wouldn't adopt unless I was married first. But what about homosexuals who either are artificially inseminated, adopt or go with a close male friend to become pregnant? If they can't marry but remain together and raise the child with love and attention, should they not be considered as well?

## Post 17 by CrazyMusician (If I don't post to your topic, it's cuz I don't give a rip about it!) on Thursday, 07-Jul-2011 12:46:38

I am a believer in marriage (hey, I am married) for many of the reasons listed above. The main problem I have with living together without marriage is that there's less likelihood that the marriage will take place.
Good, bad or ugly, but here we go. My sister-in-law has been living with her boyfriend for the past eight or nine years, and they have been "engaged" for the last 4.5 years. I highly doubt they will actually get married, even though they have bought a home together and refer to each other as husband and wife. In my opinion, unless one makes a public commitment to another person (legal marriage) the term husband and wife should not be used. I made vows before my my family and friends, signed the paperwork, and am married in the sight of God and in the eyes of the government. It really gets my hackles up when people skip this step and think they are entitled to the same rights as those of us who followed it.
Kate

## Post 18 by turricane (happiness and change are choices ) on Thursday, 07-Jul-2011 14:22:02

kate i totally agree. as i said on another thread, when people live together it is very easy for the kids to suffer. in a lot of states if the couple is living together and splits there isn't much the courts can do about getting and maintaining child support. so daddy walks and the kids stargve.

## Post 19 by Sword of Sapphire (Whether you agree with my opinion or not, you're still gonna read it!) on Thursday, 07-Jul-2011 17:31:35

I think that couples can use whatever titles they choose for each other whether it's boyfriend and girlfriend, husband and wife, or whatever they prefer. Just because they didn't sign any legal documents sealing the deal doesn't take that simple freedom of speech away from the.
I understand there are a gamut of rights that married couples obtain that their unmarried counterparts do not. As time progresses, these rights are becoming increasingly available to cohabitating couples. It just depends on where you live.
As far as a parent ditching their children and significant other and seeking child support, I think that depends on your lawyer, judge, and the state you live in.

## Post 20 by Senior (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Thursday, 07-Jul-2011 17:40:42

Creating this thread wasn't necessary, but it has been created.
I didn't get married out of necessity. My marriage is a statement of feeling and intent. The feelings of love and affection towards my wife, and of intent to be with my wife for as long as we both live.

## Post 21 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Thursday, 07-Jul-2011 18:05:09

Good bad or indifferent, the single document does solve a ton of problems.
Insurance laws for health, property and automobiles vary more widely from state to state than do teenagers' moods moment to moment.
So if you're unmarried, have no single document that protects you two as a unit, you move, you take up a job and a residence, every single item from healthcare to car to rent or mortgage, everything in between, will have to be ironed out individually. Most people writing on this topic have very little experience with managing these sorts of affairs: I can tell based on the mass amount of ideology and sparse experiences. A couple notable exceptions are obvious: @Turricane, @CrazyMusician and @Squidwardqtentacles to name a few.
That document, as a married couple, means a parent to didn't actually give birth to the child is not questioned at a daycare, as to their custodial legitimacy. Read up on the unrecognized interracial couples at the turn of the 20th century. Or modern day gay couples with kids who are visiting states where their marriage is not recognized.
It's not just a piece of paper, and as both Kate and Turricane pointed out, it is a deal-sealer.
Look at you: you graduated high school, didn't you? You worked for it, you earned it. You got a certificate that recognizes your efforts. How about we call all diplomas obsolete under some erudite thinking that the knowledge is what matters, no need for a piece of paper. Now how are you going to explain this on the job?
We are talking about two entirely different things, of course, but I used graduation to bring it close to home for those of you close to that age.
Because there is one single document certifies that my wife and I are married, a lot of things are easier: we don't have to joint-manage every single thing as though we were functioning as two roommates, two separate entities, etc. There are more things now that you do have to jointly open: I can't just open an account in my wife's name, stick money in it, and expect she can pull from it whenever she wants. We both have to sign for those sorts of things, but the marriage license has a ton of benefits which are impossible to provide for people POSLQ-ing, living together, etc. Formalized legal recognition of things is the way human beings recognize exchanges, ties and contracts.
So, to the couple in question, it's a defining moment: human life is full of such moments. And to the rest of humanity, being officially married presents the couple as a unit, rather than two separate individuals.
Senior thesis or no, you really ought to talk to single mothers - not prospective single mothers, but moms and dads carrying the load without the help of a partner with a little time under their belt. Find out, also, why it is gay people want to marry. Get beyond the politics and see what their lives are like as couples, as parents, when they are unable to seal the deal. You think having to explain your blindness to people is hard? It is hard, it is tiring, it gets worse when your primary thoughts are for your kids. But I have a friend who lives in a state where gays can marry, and she and her wife have a daughter. Every time they leave state, she has to have papers with her that prove she's the adoptive parent, all sorts of things, in the event there is an emergency and she's the one in the hospital with the kid.
If marriage were so irrelevant, why have so many groups tried to gain access to it, and others tried to bar access to it? It doesn't just go to black/white or gay people: Class distinctions in some countries was prohibited, religious distinctions (minor ones by modern standards) in others, the list is long.
People have argued over this probably since people began to seal the deal to begin with.

## Post 22 by Sword of Sapphire (Whether you agree with my opinion or not, you're still gonna read it!) on Thursday, 07-Jul-2011 22:00:10

As for the paper, it could only be ten pages long, which I don't think is much, but that was the requirement. I ensured that I represented both sides of this argument equally. So I simply researched existing studies, instead of conducting one of my own. It's quicker, and other points had to be thoroughly researched and discussed before a deadline.
I understand your point about the legal side of marriage. There's over one thousand benefits to obtaining a marriage license, and while cohabitating couples can gain access to some of these rights, half of them aren't available to such couples. I will still say that marriage is no longer necessary for the conventional reasons it was in earlier times.
By no means am I saying that marriage should be outlawed. Obviously, millions of people don't share my opinion of marriage's obsolescence. I am not saying people shouldn't fight for it, or that such a right should be extracted from society. People still use dial-up and rotery phones, and they have the right to do that, just as they have the right to get married. The latter has more responsibilities and rights that come along with it, but it's losing fans.

## Post 23 by chelslicious (like it or not, I'm gonna say what I mean. all the time.) on Thursday, 07-Jul-2011 23:47:22

you're the only person so far on this topic claiming marriage is "obsolete". so, from that, I don't see how you come to the conclusion that it's "losing fans".

## Post 24 by Sword of Sapphire (Whether you agree with my opinion or not, you're still gonna read it!) on Friday, 08-Jul-2011 13:39:45

fifteen people posting to one thread is not a representative sample of the hundreds of millions of people who live in this country.
While the divorce rate is declining, so is the marriage rate. According to a 2005 article from USA Today, "The U.S. divorce rate is 17.7 per 1,000 married women, down from 22.6 in 1980. The marriage rate is also on a steady decline: a 50% drop since 1970 from 76.5 per 1,000 unmarried women to 39.9."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-18-cohabit-divorce_x.htm
According to a January 2010 article, "the US marriage rate has declined from 76.5 to 37.4 marriages per 1,000 unmarried women."
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/01/08/the-end-of-marriage-2/
I may be the only one on this thread who believes marriage is obsolete, but if you research, there are scholarly articles on this matter.
The 2010 article I discussed above even predicts that the marriage rate in the US is rapidly decreasing and will one day fall to zero.
So what conclusions do you draw from those articles and others you have researched?

## Post 25 by chelslicious (like it or not, I'm gonna say what I mean. all the time.) on Friday, 08-Jul-2011 15:25:25

I don't give a damn about numbers; I'm just trying to emphasize the fact that to say marriage is obsolete, is wrong in every sense. it isn't, nor do I believe it will become so.
as has been stated by many on this topic, it offers a ton of benefits that simply being a couple doesn't.

## Post 26 by Sword of Sapphire (Whether you agree with my opinion or not, you're still gonna read it!) on Friday, 08-Jul-2011 16:39:47

I know you don't care about numbers or external support for that matter because you haven't used any to support your argument. I'm just giving you evidence that goes against your viewpoint. I'm using information that has been discovered through researchers because that packs more of a punch than just simply stating my opinion.
And okay, I'll word it differently if obsolete isn't the right word. Marriage is going out of style. The marriage rate is rapidly decreasing. Marriage is dying.
And if you don't believe the facts, that's perfectly fine. There are still people who believe carrots can improve eyesight. No harm done.

## Post 27 by chelslicious (like it or not, I'm gonna say what I mean. all the time.) on Friday, 08-Jul-2011 17:43:49

FYI: I don't need numbers to back up my opinion cause I'm perfectly able to articulate it in my own words, thank you very much.
I don't see why it matters to you whether marriage is or isn't dying; live and let live, I say.

## Post 28 by Sword of Sapphire (Whether you agree with my opinion or not, you're still gonna read it!) on Friday, 08-Jul-2011 18:39:33

It's just a debate. I was curious about what other people believe concerning the matter and why. In a debate, arguments are supported with experience, examples and external evidence and opinions. Because I was the only one to say that marriage is obsolete, dying, and on the decline, then I went to obtain external evidence to show it.
No one is forcing any belief on anyone, I simply wanted to know what others believe. It's nothing to get upset about.

## Post 29 by SatansProphet (Forever in the service of Satan, my King...) on Sunday, 10-Jul-2011 2:56:49

Well, I don't think it's obsolete myself. I would love to marry my boyfriend, but he doesn't like marriage. He thinks it's primate behaviour; his words, not mine. I don't really get his whole stance on it, though he's explained it to me. But I'm certainly not going to press the issue. And he might, just tmight, change his mind anyway. One never knows. But I think, for some, marriage is definitely needed. It provides a sense of commitment, and yes also benefits. Bottom line, I guess...marriage is for some, but not for others. Personal preference.

## Post 30 by Remy (I've now got the silver prolific poster award! wahoo!) on Sunday, 10-Jul-2011 3:21:05

These days, people are looked down on for being married too. It's like a sign of weakness among certain circles. I have to say though as a very happily married man, the decision I made to marry was the best decision I ever made. Less drama, less hassle, trust communication and someone to be there for me no matter what. When a marriage works...it works.

## Post 31 by SingerOfSongs (Heresy and apostasy is how progress is made.) on Friday, 15-Jul-2011 18:43:46

I for a while have held a slightly off center view of marriage, civil unions, etc.
First, I think government should get out of "marriage" entirely, and give whoever wants them, civil unions; this could be gay, straight, even polly relationship groups if they really want. Leave marriage as a religious custom, so that we can end this stupid back and forth debate.
In addition, it would solve for those of us who are not religious the somewhat ambiguous state of being "married."
Now, on to my personal views of union / marriage. By the time I officially ask someone I'm with if they want to make it official, it's going to be pretty much a formality. I'm going to want to have been with them for a while, us already be comfortable with each other, with our relationship. It's really going to be a formality to the outside world, that yes, we do intend to stay together. By that point, we'll have probably more than established that we love each other, can live with each other, etc. I know some might view this as a bit scued view, but it's how I see it for me.

## Post 32 by blw1978 (I'll have the last word, thank you!) on Saturday, 16-Jul-2011 1:24:22

While I don't agree with getting married too quickly, I definitely think they're are enormous benefits to society in general. Besides all the aforementioned reasons,I think society is more stable when a mother and father raise children. Even if children aren't involved, I don't get the idea of being with someone for a long time and not marrying. If you're going to stay with someone for 10 years, why not just seal the deal and make it official? People who say they're afraid of commitment are usually pretty committed to one another. I think cohabitation allows for more irresponsibility in a relationship. Especially with regards to legal matters. Plus, as a Christian, I believe marriage mirrors the love and unity of the Holy Trinity. I agree that the lack of marriage contributes to an attitude that long term commitment isn't important. Marriage is a sacrifice, and to me, it seems like the lack of marriage in our society has contributed to a more selfish attitude with regard to relationships. The point about downgrading men in society was excellent. I know many single parents, most of whom are mothers, who are excellent, but they'd probably be the first to admit that raising the kids by themselves wasn't their first choice. You can have bad parenting with married couples too, but at least there's more legal options if divorce should occur. I hadn't even thought of the next-of-kin issue. Great point. Don't even get me started on the whole sperm bank topic!!

## Post 33 by squidwardqtentacles (I just keep on posting!) on Sunday, 17-Jul-2011 13:38:41

I disagree about government getting out of marriage.
Those who believe this statement, if I asked would you want brothers and sisters, or grandparents with their grandchildren married, how would you respond? First cousins? A 40 year old man with a 12 year old girl? Syphilis positive people? People who have stiffed another family for child support?
These are actual scenarios. As a matter of fact, there is a book by a teenager named Nujood Ali who wrote a book "I am 10 and Divorced" from Yemen. Even the Islamic clerics voted the divorce of a teen being abused by someone three times her age to be perfectly legitimate.
And personally I am for making first cousin marriages illegal, as most states recognize it as such, as this creates more possibility for genetic defects in children. Look at Amish communities, Muslim communities in parts of the U K, and in the United Arab Emirates, where the government has gone too far in allowing its nationals to marry only other nationals and not foreigners. People in the off the map parts of this country are increasingly getting stuck with sickle cell anemia and thalassemia.
I also think it would be great if both people marrying could be checked against a state registry of those delinquent in child support, and if either party is on it, denying a marriage license. Why should someone be free to make another family when they've impoverished at least one? One guy is being sued to pay back not child support, since his three children are grown, but welfare costs, as that is how his first family was forced to live. Such a law might have saved the new wife some level of embarrassment, too.
Without some government involvement, there would be no standards for marriage, although marriage being strictly a religious matter seems to work in Israel. There folks must go to the cleric of their faith to marry, and that person most likely is knowledgeable about laws of marriage and divorce.

## Post 34 by Thunderstorm (HotIndian!) on Sunday, 17-Jul-2011 22:17:28

marriage is a commitment. It will make sure that there is one for us. I personally feel true love will reflect with married life alone. People who they are against marriage means they are not ready to accept a commitment in their life. If we do something, we all will surely await to get a good result of it, likewise, if you truly love a person, marriage is a good result, I say. Give and take, mutual understandings, agreeing and disagreeing, lovely fights, everything mixed is a married life. but we won't give up and ran away. we will surely think of what we've done wrong and will kiss and get along in married life. rather if that's a bf gf thing, I personally feel silly misunderstandings will also lead you to run away from the relationship. cuz you're sure that you aren't committed to your partner entirely. Most the married couples with kids are happy than the batulor people, in my opinion. even though they are not rich, even though they are not owning a house or whatever, they are happy with their mind.
Raaj

## Post 35 by turricane (happiness and change are choices ) on Thursday, 21-Jul-2011 10:28:40

statistics can be manipulated. USA today is not the most scientiffic organization. I would be interest to know who was polled and what the standard deviation etc were for their so called statistical study. yes, i know you have a link to the article but i'm not that interested.
anyway, people thinking marriage is a sign of weakness? what planet did the emmigrate here from? not committing and bailing when the issues are uncomfortable, costly or hard, are signs of wimpiness.

## Post 36 by CrazyMusician (If I don't post to your topic, it's cuz I don't give a rip about it!) on Thursday, 21-Jul-2011 11:55:25

I think part of the problem is that there are so many different types of relationships that are seeking legitimacy in the western world in particular. It used to be that you were either legitimately single, married, or widowed... occasionally you would wind up with a divorce based on the grounds of adultery, but the rest were considered illegitimate divorces by the society in which they took place. Now you have no-fault divorces, cohabitation, couples who date for years and never move in together, married couples, gay couples in civil unions, and on and on we go... I think that's what's muddid the waters in our western society in particular.

## Post 37 by squidwardqtentacles (I just keep on posting!) on Thursday, 21-Jul-2011 14:54:19

Crazy Musician, what would you say if a couple was no longer walking on the same path, but more like two separate entities occupying a household? Perhaps they no longer share a faith, or goal? Like roommates? Or if someone was married to someone who gambled away the family's existence? Or threw it away on alcohol or narcotics or untreated mental illness? Or violence? Or one person didn't believe in hands on parenting and left the other to do all the work while they played? Personally I think more modern couples have realized that just because they made a commitment, they don't have to stay if it's toxic to their well being. Sure, they should really think it through and even try counseling, especially if it involves one or more kids, but an "I do" should not involve a commitment to toxicity.
As for the others, like an engagement that's been in effect for several years, cohabitation, civil unions, that can be destructive iMO. But I understand dating but not marrying if someone isn't interested in taking a risk on stepparents for any children, and if it's a second or more marriage, marriage is a complete and total commitment...to another's health problems, quirks, bad habits, living habits, it's getting accustomed to family and friends, cultural and religious differences that sometimes aren't compatible. I understand if someone is a parent and/or we're talking other than a first marriage not wanting to do it, but anyone wanting to raise one or more children is better off doing it in the context of marriage.

## Post 38 by LeoGuardian (You mean there is something outside of this room with my computer in it?) on Thursday, 21-Jul-2011 15:21:50

I think both the last two posters raise really relevant issues here.
Here I am, married for over 18 years, we've had our ups and downs but generally get along really well. However, I've seen, and been rather surprised by, relationships end in divorce: not philandering, just, something happened.
The longer I am married, the less I actually know why we are tsill together and they aren't. Obviously, one never knows all of what goes on behind closed doors, but as I said, I'm not referring to sir Oinks-A-Lot taking off and leaving single mother to manage the household and two kids: just, so-called, normal people who split after years of being together.
Many of these people have a very strong faith, so one cannot ascribe it to lack of moral guidance or religion.
It leaves me simply considering myself to be fortunate in this matter: there does not seem to be a clear concise description as to why.
In terms of stricter regulations against divorce, does the existance of divorces now as we know it simply expose a pre-existing problem? I would tend to say 'yes' as an engineer. Any one of us who has dumpster-dived on a bug turning out to be a symptom of a much deeper problem would tell you, you can't just patch the bug and expect the problem to go away.
So if we patched it, making divorce more difficult, whatever the problem is would still be there.
As has been stated, some form of marital union is a major cornerstone of every society which has been dissected by anthropologists. Family, while also a cornerstone, has a lot of varying definitions: the Western nuclear family is actually pretty new, relatively speaking. It is this new 19th-century, industrial-revolution family that so-called conservatives in the United States are referring to when they speak of 'family'. This is not the so-called extended version you get in Latin America and the Middle East.
Rather than obsolescence, the subject should be polymorphism, perhaps. But marriages haven't really been polymorphic in their memberships in other societies: it's usually 2, more in the cases of polygamous households which we Western types find sexist and offensive.
There is probably a lot more to all of this than any of us realize.

## Post 39 by Real Pimps Use Dial Up (Stop, drop, and belly rolls) on Thursday, 21-Jul-2011 18:25:08

First of all, I do agree with most things post, but I do not agree that the whole purpose of marriage is for a license to tell someone they love you... However, I do believe that love is a great way of putting a stamp on a successful relationship, I mean depeding on your religion (if you have one) marriage is sometimes known as holy matramony, so it is shown that people find this not as a way for a paper to bind them in love, but a spirtiual bonding.. Making them one love, one heart, one spirit.. Although I find alot of this fooey I see it so many times, marriage is also a means to let someone know that you are ready to put your foot down and say, "i'm ready to let you be my one and only now and forever"
I have been training in martial arts for a little bit, but they had me start as a white belt and slowly work my way up in the ranks. I plan to get my black belt one day, well I look at marriage as the black belt in relationships, so many unsuccessful relationships happen when people try to get their black belts before they are ready. A forced relationship is the usual culprit in a relationship that was not able to work out.

## Post 40 by Real Pimps Use Dial Up (Stop, drop, and belly rolls) on Thursday, 21-Jul-2011 18:49:20

I'm sorry let me change the last thing.. A nasty relationship that ends with 2 people hating each other is usually the result of a forced and unnecessarily prolonged relationship

## Post 41 by Eleni21 (I have proven to myself and the world that I need mental help) on Monday, 25-Jul-2011 20:28:32

I must chime in here on the age gap bit. While I definitely agree that there should be no sex or marriage between adults and minors, once we start talking about mentally competent and concenting adults, the situation changes. I'm 27 and my boyfriend is 66. We've been together for four years now, and whether or not we ever get married, I would be extremely upset, to put it mildly, if there was a law stating that we couldn't just because of our ages. Mom actually told me of a straight couple, both in their 90's, who were together for decades and wanted to get married, but they were refused! I never followed up on it and would love to know the reasoning behind that if anyone can tell me. I, too, think it's a good idea to prevent first cousins from marrying. I also like the idea of delinquents in child support not being allowed to marry, but I feel that this would require a lot of investigation, since it has the potential to be abused.
I suppose I could understand the sign of weakness bit in a scholarly sense but certainly not in any other. As for types of relationships, I think that "in a relationship" should be on more forms etc. Sure, it doesn't matter in the legal sense, but for other things, like internet sites, questionaires and so on, why not include it? I mean, I'm not single, since I'm seeing someone, but I'm not married either.
I suppose that in cases where abuse and/or cheating aren't involved, people can honestly fall out of love with each other. They may still be good friends but may wish to let each other go so that they're free to find someone to fulfill their romantic and intimate needs. There are, of course, those who stay married, even without the love, and while it's not dangerous, I do think it's sad and can lead to problems if one or both partners want to see other people. Even if they're totally honest, the new partner/s may not want to chance it, incase the married person is lying and is really cheating or he/she simply may not feel comfortable with the idea of going with a married person.
I personally think that polyamourous relationships and marriages should be legal. Again, if we're talking concenting adults, and so long as there's no lying and there's open communication, why shouldn't people be able to make their own decisions about whom they arry? What if two women fall in love with the same man and he with them or vise versa, with two men and one woman?

## Post 42 by OceanDream (An Ocean of Thoughts) on Tuesday, 26-Jul-2011 11:42:57

I'm all for living and letting live. I personally choose not to partake in many of the things mentioned here, but I don't think others who do like this sort of thing should be refused on those grounds, just because the bulk of society thinks it's wrong. the government say they don't think for us. I beg to differ.

## Post 43 by basket (knowledge is power) on Saturday, 06-Aug-2011 12:50:16

I would like to comment on the post stating the USA today was a scholarly article. It is not, it is a newspaper and usually newspapers are usually driven by a stance on a topic that they will defend.
Numbers do not usually represent the entire facts of a situation IE look at the first past the post system of elections.
The standard deviation was a good call since that will, more accurarely represent the sample they were using, the size of the sample and so on.
My stance of marriage is that if you find the person who you trust will be a good wife, a good mother to your children, go for it. I don't need to micro analyse the pro and cons of a marriage, what I will be losing in regards to gaining. Are we as human beings are really reduced down to that level that we have to analyse something that should be decided on one's heart felt feelings and not on the results of analysis?

## Post 44 by CrazyMusician (If I don't post to your topic, it's cuz I don't give a rip about it!) on Thursday, 08-Dec-2011 0:09:40

To decide to get married it should be both well-thought out and well-felt. You can marry someone for all the right reasons but have absolutely no feelings for them, which may lead to problems down the line. You can have all the warm fuzzies in the world and still marry someone totally ill-suited to you because you didn't think it through.
Both of these need to meet, the heart and the head.
Kte

## Post 45 by Inspired Chick (Zone BBS Addict) on Sunday, 22-Jan-2012 20:03:49

I think marriage only makes the commitment stronger between a man and a woman.