Is Marriage Necessary For Commitment?

[Adumbros]

Interesting (and controversial) discussion i've been having on the side. Wanna know your opinion on this.

Personally, I have no problem with marriage. I can't say 'yea' or 'nay' as far as I am personally concerned; I may do it someday; I may not.

Nor do I think that blacks shouldn't marry whites, or Chinese, or any other racial stigma.

I don't have a problem with interdenominational marriage, being as I don't believe in organized religion anyway.

I don't feel that homosexuals should be denied marriage rights.

But this isn't really about any of that.

On the listed topic:

Do I believe that marriage is necessary for a committed relationship?

No. I have had this discussion with numerous people before, and though I can understand the vehemence of people's opinions, the aggression that that vehemence all too often masks daunts me. I say, if two people are committed to one another, and are comfortable together, and they really truly feel that they are in it for each other to the end, then marriage as a ceremony is not necessary. Hell, let's be honest folks: The ceremony is just for show, and wearing that filthily expensive band on your finger, well, it's just a symbol. Just because one person wants to wear a symbol and another doesn't, doesn't make it right or wrong. I support our American troops; does that mean I have to wear one of those little ribbons on my collar? No. People who do stuff like that actually strike me as phony, as in "Oh, look at me, look at how good and patriotic I am!" Remember, our original military didn't even have a uniform. Did that make them unpatriotic?

So no, I don't find marriage itself necessary; I neither condemn nor condone it. For those that want to, go for it. But to say that if you don't do it, you don't love your significant other...well, remember this:

For those of you who are truly die-hard marriage advocates, you likely consider yourself Christian, so this is directed at you personally (and don't take that remark as antagonistic)-

In the Bible, "marriage" was described as being a physical union between a man and a woman of intimate purity. I.e., two virgins, one of each gender, engaging in physical consummation. The dowry paid to the bride's father was not in exchange for any ceremony (which often did not take place until after consummation), nor was it paid for the right to put a corsage on her breast nor to place any object on her finger. In fact, I can recall no instance in the Bible mentioning a "marriage ceremony" or a "wedding ring"; both appear to be relatively modern traditions. The dowry was paid for the right to deflower the man's undefiled daughter. Granted, the Bible shows us that the good husbands often showered their brides with goodwill and gifts; but because he loved her, not because some societal mandate told him to.

Therefore, I rest my case on the marriage ceremony, based on this fact, more than any other:

Marriage is defined as a blending or matching of different elements or components.

Therefore, believes I, commitment, by definition, is itself marriage.

[LadyHitchhiker]

Marriage is neccessary to some individuals because of religious reasons and many other reasons.

I dated my husband almost three years before we married. He told me he wanted to get a house before he got married. I didn't think this was unreasonable, but then, we lost his daughter, almost lost my mom, and his dad was dying of cancer. I told him I wanted something happy to plan and that I wanted to get married that year. In that month we threw the wedding together.

I look at marriage as this, this was the most dear and beautiful and full gift I could give to another man. My promise, my love, my commitment of my mind body and soul. This was the biggest gift I could give anyone in the whole world. And to accept his commitment was the greatest gift I have ever received. Did we need to legally get married to prove our commitment? No. However, I needed emotionally something to plan at the time, because I felt I was falling apart and needed to solidify our position as family while people around me were dropping like flies. A position that would not be accepted by my catholic parents without marriage. We did not get married in the church, but after that, my mother could accept that we were together for life, even though I had told her that before. It's too bad that she couldn't accept us as family before LeAnn died, and that we couldn't all be a lot closer before my father died.

Oh, and the marriage we rushed so that my father-in-law could hopefully be there? Well, my husband's father died the morning we were to be married, but his brother wouldn't tell us about this until after the ceremony for fear that my husband would decide not to go through with it.

I am proud to be Mrs. Black. I am proud to be his wife, and I am proud to call him my husband. Maybe I'm a little old-fashioned and a little bit over-romanticized but it fills me with such joy to be his wife, and to not just be "the girlfriend".

I hope some of this made sense. LOL

[Adumbros]

it made sense, and i can comprehend and agree with your reasons for it. and this isn't a thread to 'knock' marriage. I simply contend that the act itself is not a necessity.

[LadyHitchhiker]

I understand and appreciate your opinion. I don't think my husband and my relationship is any different because of our marriage. We had already committed to each other, but it is something that my family needed in order to accept him.

[Adumbros]

duly noted :wink:

i myself am not a direct proponent of marriage. i can't say why, i'm just...not.

[LadyHitchhiker]

If my husband were to pass, I don't even know if I would want to remarry. *shrugs*

I DO know that I would want to go back to rescuing and fostering animals, so if I DID start dating again, he would have to love animals at least as much as me. My husband thinks we are fine with our two cats - which we are - but there is such a rush of saving lives and finding animals homes, and watching something sick become healthy... Rescue work is addictive.

And for me to promise myself to another man, I would take it just as seriously as I did with the first commitment I made to my husband. And if he didn't, he'd be in trouble.... :ninja:

[CPU]

I do believe that you can have a committed (and loving) relationship without marriage.

Personally I've always thought of marriage as a legal proceeding that confers certain rights and responsibilities on the two people joining. A marriage gives both parties certain legal rights that they don't always get if they aren't (there are exceptions these days - i.e. - common-law "marriage"). Marriage can also have religious significance as the two people getting married are taking an oath before their God to do whatever (honor, sickness and health, etc, etc).

So, I'm not sure that I can agree that commitment is equivalent to marriage, but I do think that people can have just as successful a relationship together either way.

[Adumbros]

well see, my biggest thing against the "ceremonial" marriage is this (and i don't say ALL of 'em fall under this category, so read this whole post, not just outside the praentheses, to all you who would criticize):

"Legal" marriages, on average, last only 3-4 years in the United States anymore.

"Domestic partnerships" average a 50% more lifelong success rate, and on average, last 15-20 years.

So you tell me which version is more likely to succeed.

[Matt]

I believe in marriage as a spiritual commitment. It mattered to us that we tied the knot that way but we didn't go overly religious.

In the end, marriage is really a contract with the state that says you now are "next of kin" to your spouse.

I think its important to marry so if something happens to me (or her)--the other will be making the decisions on care and not that persons parents which would be the case without a formal marriage license.

No matter how long you are together, common law or any thing like that. If you can't prove you are the spouse in the emergency room, they will not let you make the decision on surgeries (or bob forbid) pulling the plug.

She knows me best, I want her making those decisions for me.

[LadyHitchhiker]

In truth, part of the reason my husband wanted me to get married was that way I would have insurance. :lol:

[Adumbros]

So, I'm not sure that I can agree that commitment is equivalent to marriage, but I do think that people can have just as successful a relationship together either way.

i agree with this wholeheartedly. this may well become the best point about the topic posted on the thread. good insight.

[Girlystevedave]

I have to answer a big fat NO on this one.
I am married, and marriage is an awesome thing for two people who love each other, BUT I don't feel that it has to be done for two people to commit to each other.
My husband and I were together since high school, (10 years) before we got married. It was always the same questions from people as to when we were going to get married. The response was always the same: "If we're gonna be together, we're gonna be together. A ring is NOT going to change it."
And in my opinion, it didn't. The only difference to me is that I file my taxes differently and I have a ring that rubs my finger the wrong way most of the time. :lol:
I'm not trying to be cynical about this, but I just don't feel that it changes much. I feel that two people can be married in the eyes of God without a piece of paper.
Plus...if marriage means commitment, there would not be so many divorces. :)

[Odetta]

I don't think marriage is necessary for commitment. I have seen relationships that have outlasted marriages, so the actually marriage isn't really the issue. It has more to do with the people IN the relationship.

[Adumbros]

I believe in marriage as a spiritual commitment. It mattered to us that we tied the knot that way but we didn't go overly religious.

In the end, marriage is really a contract with the state that says you now are "next of kin" to your spouse.

I think its important to marry so if something happens to me (or her)--the other will be making the decisions on care and not that persons parents which would be the case without a formal marriage license.

No matter how long you are together, common law or any thing like that. If you can't prove you are the spouse in the emergency room, they will not let you make the decision on surgeries (or bob forbid) pulling the plug.

She knows me best, I want her making those decisions for me.

all valid points. Appreciate the insight. And it's so unfair we have such laws, when half of the people who ratify them are openly anti-marriage, cheaters, or closet cases. I say, if I sign a piece of paper recognizing this individual's rights to make decisions in my regard, basically granting them "power of attorney", then that should be legal enough.

I hate how the government forces such crap upon us.

[Adumbros]

In truth, part of the reason my husband wanted me to get married was that way I would have insurance. :lol:

understandable. see last post.

[Adumbros]

I have to answer a big fat NO on this one.
I am married, and marriage is an awesome thing for two people who love each other, BUT I don't feel that it has to be done for two people to commit to each other.
My husband and I were together since high school, (10 years) before we got married. It was always the same questions from people as to when we were going to get married. The response was always the same: "If we're gonna be together, we're gonna be together. A ring is NOT going to change it."
And in my opinion, it didn't. The only difference to me is that I file my taxes differently and I have a ring that rubs my finger the wrong way most of the time. :lol:
I'm not trying to be cynical about this, but I just don't feel that it changes much. I feel that two people can be married in the eyes of God without a piece of paper.
Plus...if marriage means commitment, there would not be so many divorces. :)

AMEN!!!!

[Adumbros]

I don't think marriage is necessary for commitment. I have seen relationships that have outlasted marriages, so the actually marriage isn't really the issue. It has more to do with the people IN the relationship.

another one of the points i have tried to make repeatedly.

[Matt]

Like I said, I don't think it has anything to do with the committment--just legally speaking its better for protection.

You can commit to someone without the paper easily

[alinda]

Legally =yes
Spiritually= most of the time (but not for me)
Socially= propable not
Economically= see legally.


I could go on, I think Matts answer really covers my points.
On a strictly personal level Id say NO , I do not make promises lightly
but when I do......they are for LIFE! :couple:

[Adumbros]

i made a promise to a girl once...and i immediately broke it...i promised to never promise her anything! :lol:

[Poisonbat]

I believe in marriage as a spiritual commitment. It mattered to us that we tied the knot that way but we didn't go overly religious.

In the end, marriage is really a contract with the state that says you now are "next of kin" to your spouse.

I think its important to marry so if something happens to me (or her)--the other will be making the decisions on care and not that persons parents which would be the case without a formal marriage license.

No matter how long you are together, common law or any thing like that. If you can't prove you are the spouse in the emergency room, they will not let you make the decision on surgeries (or bob forbid) pulling the plug.

She knows me best, I want her making those decisions for me.

I must say that I agree with you here. My husband was the one who wanted to get married, I wasn't sure at first, my first marriage was a brutal and abusive one. He changed after that ring went on my finger and looked at me as property rather than a person. But I took a leap of faith with my husband, and he has been such a wonderful companion to me. He loves my kids and treats them as his own. We have talked about our wishes when it comes to life support and death, and I am glad that I have him in my corner when it comes down to it. :huglove:

[Jean]

sure it is not necessary... but bears only treasure unnecessary things, like candlelight and sushi and china dolls and good spelling and knowledge of past history... and marriage...

it is only a symbol, but a symbol is so much

[alinda]

:huglove: That is enough to melt my heart, but sadly sir, your already spoken for :huglove:

[Adumbros]

sure it is not necessary... but bears only treasure unnecessary things, like candlelight and sushi and china dolls and good spelling and knowledge of past history... and marriage...

it is only a symbol, but a symbol is so much

i kinda contest that, personally...

as a Marine, people often wonder why i don't take more offense to things such as civilian government buildings, i.e. city hall, the post office, flying the flag at night or in inclement weather. sure, it irks me, but only because i was taught to be irked by it. Nowadays it doesn't bother me so much, for several reasons:

1)what the hell can i do about it?
2)do you really expect civilian authorities to be as knowledgeable about such things as those under federal employ?
3)as blasphemous as it may seem to some, it's a red-and-blue dyed rag. anybody can make one. firebombing the statue of liberty would piss me off; we only have one, and it likely could not be duplicated to full scale. it's nothing more than a piece of cloth that certain people choose to place a value on. I'm far more concerned with someone nuking a populated area, i.e., 9/11/01, than i am with someone mistreating an object that most Christians would consider heathen in nature. Hell, as far as that goes, I agree. Too many treat the flag the same way too many treat the Pope: with a reverence that should be reserved only for God.

symbols only have value when value is placed upon them.

[BeDaN]

Marriage is only good for 2 things; tax breaks and adultery.

[Adumbros]

Marriage is only good for 2 things; tax breaks and adultery.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Jean]

Adumbros: living in three-, four-, or more-dimensional world is a matter of personal choice.

[Adumbros]

Adumbros: living in three-, four-, or more-dimensional world is a matter of personal choice.

fair 'nuff.

[jayson]

Like I said, I don't think it has anything to do with the committment--just legally speaking its better for protection.

You can commit to someone without the paper easily

I agree completely with this Matt, as well as what you said in your earlier post. I don't think my commitment to my wife would be any less had we not gotten legally married, but there are obvious legal ramifications to our doing so.

It is why I feel so strongly that homosexual couples should have the same rights to legally marry as heterosexuals. A loving committed relationship is a loving committed relationship regardless of the genders of those involved, and everyone deserves the exact same legal protections.

The issue gets clouded when people start involving their religious beliefs, but nobody is suggesting any church should be forced to perform a gay marriage, only that the government (which is supposed to be blind to religious issues) should recognize the rights of partners in any marriage.

[Matt]

I agree on all points, up one side and down the other.

I can't imagine being in a long term homosexual relationship, having something terrible happen to one of the partners and then not being allowed into the hospital room

Horrific!

[Brice]

sure it is not necessary... but bears only treasure unnecessary things, like candlelight and sushi and china dolls and good spelling and knowledge of past history... and marriage...

it is only a symbol, but a symbol is so much

i kinda contest that, personally...

as a Marine, people often wonder why i don't take more offense to things such as civilian government buildings, i.e. city hall, the post office, flying the flag at night or in inclement weather. sure, it irks me, but only because i was taught to be irked by it. Nowadays it doesn't bother me so much, for several reasons:

1)what the hell can i do about it?
2)do you really expect civilian authorities to be as knowledgeable about such things as those under federal employ?
3)as blasphemous as it may seem to some, it's a red-and-blue dyed rag. anybody can make one. firebombing the statue of liberty would piss me off; we only have one, and it likely could not be duplicated to full scale. it's nothing more than a piece of cloth that certain people choose to place a value on. I'm far more concerned with someone nuking a populated area, i.e., 9/11/01, than i am with someone mistreating an object that most Christians would consider heathen in nature. Hell, as far as that goes, I agree. Too many treat the flag the same way too many treat the Pope: with a reverence that should be reserved only for God.

symbols only have value when value is placed upon them.

I think Jean was only saying that he realizes it's only a symbol of the commitment , but for him (personally) the symbol is an important one.

Personally, I agree with him. To my thinking it's as a little bauble. It serves no true purpose, but it can still be a beautiful thing.

[Adumbros]

Like I said, I don't think it has anything to do with the committment--just legally speaking its better for protection.

You can commit to someone without the paper easily

I agree completely with this Matt, as well as what you said in your earlier post. I don't think my commitment to my wife would be any less had we not gotten legally married, but there are obvious legal ramifications to our doing so.

It is why I feel so strongly that homosexual couples should have the same rights to legally marry as heterosexuals. A loving committed relationship is a loving committed relationship regardless of the genders of those involved, and everyone deserves the exact same legal protections.

The issue gets clouded when people start involving their religious beliefs, but nobody is suggesting any church should be forced to perform a gay marriage, only that the government (which is supposed to be blind to religious issues) should recognize the rights of partners in any marriage.

hallelujah!

anyone remember "separation of church and state"?

yeah same here. i think if you wanna get married, get married. and many other "christians" ride me for this, but two things:

first of all, i'm no christian. think what you want on that.

secondly, for all those christians who claim that it's a sin to be gay/lesbian, how about THIS (another one for the cherry-pickers):

thou shalt not judge, for judgment is the sole province of the LORD.

[Adumbros]

sure it is not necessary... but bears only treasure unnecessary things, like candlelight and sushi and china dolls and good spelling and knowledge of past history... and marriage...

it is only a symbol, but a symbol is so much

i kinda contest that, personally...

as a Marine, people often wonder why i don't take more offense to things such as civilian government buildings, i.e. city hall, the post office, flying the flag at night or in inclement weather. sure, it irks me, but only because i was taught to be irked by it. Nowadays it doesn't bother me so much, for several reasons:

1)what the hell can i do about it?
2)do you really expect civilian authorities to be as knowledgeable about such things as those under federal employ?
3)as blasphemous as it may seem to some, it's a red-and-blue dyed rag. anybody can make one. firebombing the statue of liberty would piss me off; we only have one, and it likely could not be duplicated to full scale. it's nothing more than a piece of cloth that certain people choose to place a value on. I'm far more concerned with someone nuking a populated area, i.e., 9/11/01, than i am with someone mistreating an object that most Christians would consider heathen in nature. Hell, as far as that goes, I agree. Too many treat the flag the same way too many treat the Pope: with a reverence that should be reserved only for God.

symbols only have value when value is placed upon them.

I think Jean was only saying that he realizes it's only a symbol of the commitment , but for him (personally) the symbol is an important one.

oh, i got no problem with it. just stating my own opinion, which is really all this thread is about. and trying my best to respond to as many posts as possible as well, as i honestly did not expect this topic to get so hot so fast.

[Jean]

I actually said that symbols are much more than the objects that serve as symbols... much more than pieces of cloth or metal or paper, or meaningless words you speak with intention to break them... but seeing this "more" or not seeing it is a matter of personal choice.

I think marriage nowadays really makes sense only to those who see the invisible. Not necessarily believe in, say, Christian God... but for whom the world has more dimensions than one, two, three, or even four.

[Brice]

I actually said that symbols are much more than the objects that serve as symbols... much more than pieces of cloth or metal or paper, or meaningless words you speak with intention to break them... but seeing this "more" or not seeing it is a matter of personal choice.

I think marriage nowadays really makes sense only to those who see the invisible. Not necessarily believe in, say, Christian God... thus whose world has more dimensions than one.

My mistake.

While we definitely don't believe in the same invisible things in some ways I could also agree with that I think.

[Adumbros]

indubitably.

[Sam]

No. Marriage is not necessary for commitment. Commitment IS necessary for a lasting relationship/marriage.

I was committed to my wife long before we got married. Now I just need to be committed.:evil:

[Adumbros]

we all do Sam.

[Matt]

Not me, I'm totally committed to my sweetie pie. In fact, I can't wait to see her again right this very second. :clap:

[Adumbros]

but...but...i thought you loved me, mattykins! :cry:

[Daghain]

I believe in marriage as a spiritual commitment. It mattered to us that we tied the knot that way but we didn't go overly religious.

In the end, marriage is really a contract with the state that says you now are "next of kin" to your spouse.

I think its important to marry so if something happens to me (or her)--the other will be making the decisions on care and not that persons parents which would be the case without a formal marriage license.

No matter how long you are together, common law or any thing like that. If you can't prove you are the spouse in the emergency room, they will not let you make the decision on surgeries (or bob forbid) pulling the plug.

She knows me best, I want her making those decisions for me.

This is pretty much how I feel on the subject of good reasons to get married.

Having said that, been there, done that, probably won't do it again. I've been in a 7+ year relationship with an absolutely terrific man, and not only are we not married, we don't live together, either (which is probably why we're still together :lol:). I am no more or less committed to him than I would be if I married him, and the only reason I could ever see us getting married is for one or more of the reasons Matt stated. Yes, something bad could happen to one of us and the other would have no say about anything, but the other side to that coin is that if one of us dies or is incapacitated, the other doesn't have to deal with the estate, etc. I think it's a risk/reward thing that you have to make up your own mind about. And, you can draw up enough legal papers to cover yourself if you want to, without being married. So there are ways around it, but it's much easier to just tie the knot, if you're really only looking at the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage.

[Ka-mai]

No. Marriage is not necessary for commitment. Commitment IS necessary for a lasting relationship/marriage.

Well said. Lots of people don't take marriage seriously because if it doesn't work out, they can divorce. Which is a very stupid idea, considering how much trouble divorces cause for everyone.

I read a book (A Walk Down the Aisle, I think it was called) in which the author said marriage means more now, because it is optional. Before, you had to get married because of economics or societal pressures. Now it's not really considered a big deal, so you can do what you want, but that's why it's a stronger symbol of commitment. The author was getting married after a seven year relationship in which they already lived together for about five years.

I personally am pro-marriage, but I'm not going to get all crazy on people who aren't.

[Adumbros]

marriage=solitary confinement with someone who may or may not drive you nuts

[Ka-mai]

:lol: Adumbros, I feel that way about roommates, family, friends, coworkers, people I see on the street... :P

[Adumbros]

right?

[LadyHitchhiker]

Speaking of marriage, I think that if I marry a guy, he cheats on me and gives me an incurable disease, that I should end up with severance pay and he should have to pay for all my medical bills because I never asked him to cheat on me... especially with my libido!! :lol:

Like aids, com'on, that's a death sentence! If someone knows they have a disease and give somebody else said disease, don't you think they should maybe get intentional manslaughter?? That's a loaded weapon there!!!

[Ka-tet]

For some people i understand marrige is necicary for religion.

In any other case it makes no differance, it appeals to the couple themselves and what they decide.

[Jackie]

Personally i don't think marriage is necessary for commitment. I think that someday, if i ever "fell in love" that it would be sweet to get married. But in no way do i find it necessary to 'prove' your commitment for someone. I think it can be proven on it's own say if your with someone for a few years. It can also be proven in the 'small things' that your significant one.[ at leeast that applies for me :) ]

As had been said in this thread a few times already, it is more important to some people for a variety of reasons. They might have just been brought up that way, a little untrusting, or it might have something to do with religion or cultral background.

[Adumbros]

Speaking of marriage, I think that if I marry a guy, he cheats on me and gives me an incurable disease, that I should end up with severance pay and he should have to pay for all my medical bills because I never asked him to cheat on me... especially with my libido!! :lol:

Like aids, com'on, that's a death sentence! If someone knows they have a disease and give somebody else said disease, don't you think they should maybe get intentional manslaughter?? That's a loaded weapon there!!!


personally, i feel it should be murder. shit such as "manslaughter" and different "degrees" of homicide i don't believe in. the only distinction i draw is between intentional and negligent homicide, and even in the case of negligent homicide, if a lethal weapon was used, or the defendant had prior existing knowledge of the potential fatality of their act, then it should still be considered intentional. (like this guy in my area recently, he shot a kid with a shotgun that was tryin to rob his place of business. his excuse was that he wasn't aiming for the kid; it was meant as a warning shot. the very fact he has such poor aim should qualify him for criminal negligence, and the homicide should be intentional, because in order to hit the kid, he had to be aiming in his general direction. aiming in the sky does not blow a hole in someone's chest unless he's swinging from a fucking tree. ergo, i say let the shooter hang for intentional malicious homicide.)


...but that, of course, is not we're here to discuss. i do find infidelity legit reason to divorce. and to receive half of the estate, as per law. however, were you to contract an STD, i think that should be jacked to 75% (call the extra fee "punitive"), because anyone who fucks around knows damn well the risk s/he is taking, and if they don't know whether they caught an STD or not, it's their own damn fault for not getting a checkup after the 56th partner in a 3-week span.

[BeDaN]

I believe if they have knowledge of a disease and they knowingly withhold the information, by law they are responsible for the consequences that you face. I remember hearing a few news stories of people who were prosecuted for knowingly having the AIDS virus and passing it onto others.

[Adumbros]

oh yeah its happened before. there was a guy near here, recently, as a matter of fact. the guy caught HIV from a hooker, and, feeling vindictive towards females, he started having unprotected sex with several of them without telling them a damn thing. everyone of them died; not only is he being dubbed a murderer, but the law around the sticks of ohio is so harsh that he's being tried as a serial killer.

[Jean]

oh yeah its happened before. there was a guy near here, recently, as a matter of fact. the guy caught HIV from a hooker, and, feeling vindictive towards females, he started having unprotected sex with several of them without telling them a damn thing. everyone of them died; not only is he being dubbed a murderer, but the law around the sticks of ohio is so harsh that he's being tried as a serial killer.
very good

While to me personally, infecting one's wife - officially wed or not - is even worse than that, is fouler than foul... it's breach of trust, you see, the worst kind of betrayal... and betrayal is the one thing I could never forgive or find mitigating circumstances for.

[Adumbros]

i totally agree. its the reason i'm so adamant against the marriages some of my friends are involved in...there was no trust before the marriages; it was just, "hey, you're the only one desperate enough to fuck me, and i'm the only one desperate enough to fuck you, and we both don't wanna go the rest of our lives without getting to fuck, so let's get married." i believe there should be stricter standards on marriage licenses than just, "we want to exchange vows, your honor."

1) testimony of BOTH parties friends (no one will be more honest)
2) assessment of financial situation (sorry, but a burger-flipper should not be marrying a housewife; how in the hell are they gonna support each other?)
3) assessment of relationship history for BOTH parties (i.e., does long-term exist in their past relationships?)
4) full physical checkup for both parties, both internal and external, if you catch my drift
5) criminal background checks

i mean i could go on and on, but the very institution of marriage has been so bastardized in modern america that it's become a parody of itself. anyone can get married, at any time, for any reason. then, 24 hours later, they can claim negligence, "i was drunk your honor, i didn't remember what my own penis looked like while i was puttin it in 'er last night!" and get an instantaneous annulment.

sad, really. because although i don't place as much value on symbolism on you, Jean, your essential points about marriage are all very valid, btu its idiots that rape and corrupt the system that make us rethink what marriage even means anymore.

on a final note, i think this:

if a couple should divorce on any grounds other than abuse or infidelity (which, granted are both broad terms, but no one wants me to take up half the thread examining the inner workings of them), they should be allowed to proceed, and then immediately charged with perjury. As per ceremony, marriage is a legal act, which requires the conjecture of the parties joined in union, the courts, notaries, etc. to defile those vows is perjury.

alas, no gov't is ever gonna heed our wanton woes.

[Ka-mai]

Speaking of marriage, I think that if I marry a guy, he cheats on me and gives me an incurable disease, that I should end up with severance pay and he should have to pay for all my medical bills because I never asked him to cheat on me... especially with my libido!! :lol:

Like aids, com'on, that's a death sentence! If someone knows they have a disease and give somebody else said disease, don't you think they should maybe get intentional manslaughter?? That's a loaded weapon there!!!

I agree with what you said for the most part, but AIDS isn't quite the death sentence it was in the 80s and early 90s... people can live for decades with AIDS if they get the right medications. Not that I'm saying it's not a terrible disease. My one professor described it as a chronic condition, something that's not desirable to live with and that can complicate your life, but that you can usually live with for many years in relative comfort.

[Adumbros]

i don't understand how "knowing your gonna die" is any relative comfort, but :lol:

[Ka-mai]

Well, we all know we're going to die. :|

[Daghain]

Yes, but if you gave me a disease that a) is going to shorten my life and b) is going to make my life miserable in the process, I want the right to kill you myself - slowly and painfully.

[Girlystevedave]

Yes, but if you gave me a disease that a) is going to shorten my life and b) is going to make my life miserable in the process, I want the right to kill you myself - slowly and painfully.


At first, I read that as "Kill myself- slowly and painfully". I was like: What the hell? :lol:

And the idea of anyone cheating on their spouse without protection is f'n disgusting. I mean, if you're going to be unfaithful, at least have the courtesy to not bring something back home. An affair: Some couples could work through. Herpes, on the other hand: I'm not getting over that one! :shoot:

[LadyHitchhiker]

Yeah I don't want to live with burning parts.... :panic::pullhair:

[LadyHitchhiker]

In fact the two reasons I told my husband I would ever divorce him is if he would a.) beat me or the kids (that includes the cats) or b.) cheat on me.

Maybe I should add c.) burn my book next time we have an argument... Hmmmmmm....

[Ka-mai]

I know it's probably a little late in the conversation, but I just remembered....

People keep referring to the "average" length of a commitment vs. a marriage. First, an average is not always an accurate representation due to the fact that extremes skew the results. Therefor, having a few marriages that only lasted a couple days or months (think Hollywood here) throw off the average. A more accurate representation would be the median length, the one that has an equal number of commitments/marriages above and below it.

Secondly, all marriages are recorded regardless of lenght because you need a marriage license. But commitments aren't recorded legally unless you reach the length of time required for common law marriage, and obviously if they broke up after a few days or months, people won't say they were in a committed relationship. So the numbers can be pretty unreliable.

[Rjeso]

I don't believe marriage is necessary in a committed relationship, but as has been stated previously, it can make a variety of things easier or better for the couple in question.

I also believe that there shouldn't be restrictions on same-sex marriage, and I'm all for interracial marriages. Just as long as you don't marry your cousin or your father, I'm down with everything. ;)

[Ka-mai]

So you're cool with marrying your mother and siblings? What about grandparents?

:P Sorry, I'm being a dick.

[Rjeso]

:lol: Smartass.

[Ka-mai]

:lol: Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[cozener]

In fact the two reasons I told my husband I would ever divorce him is if he would a.) beat me or the kids (that includes the cats)

But...I...I thought that was what cats were for... :doh:

[theBeamisHome]

oh good topic! i have to hurry and answer before i go get breakfast.

as you all know i am madly in love with my Nigel... but i do not believe that marriage is necessary for a lifelong commitment. i agree with what Matt said about the legal ramifications and the such... and with Nigel being in the military it would even be a good move financially. but i am a firm believer that if we were gonna be together forever i wouldn't need a ring or a piece of paper to say so.

as far as religion goes, i agree 100% with Adumbros. i've tried explaining this to some of my family members... i tell you it is impossible to debate religion with older black Christians (don't take offense anyone it's just my experience). of course i don't know anything because i haven't been in the world but a mere 21 years (blah blah blah), but marriages were mostly arranged in Bible days. so the commitment was made by someone else in those cases. so comparing marriages now to those then doesn't hold much water to me. and like Adumbros said it didn't have anything to do with legalities... it was the commitment and a dowry.

i would and probably will get married... and *crosses fingers* more than likely to the person i am with now... but it would be more for our families and their consciences :lol:. Nigel's background as a baptist would probably make him more likely to want to get married. But when we do it we probably won't even have a wedding. I was never the little girl that was planning my marriage. Going to Nigel's sister's wedding made me realize that it's nice, but a LOT of headache... and they cost too much.

[Ves'Ka Gan]

I don't beleive marriage is necessary "for a committed relationshipp" but I think some people see it as necessary for other reasons, and I think it depends on the two people in question. My boyfriend and I both want to be married to each other--not for religious reasons, and not (completley) for benefits or legal reasons, but because we want to bind ourselves with something deeper and more meaningful.

On the other hand--he's obviously not less committed to me just because the wedding hasn't happened yet. I would be just as hurt (and just as likely to kick his teeth in) if he cheated on me now, than if he did it after we got married.

Another good example is my mom, she was married twice and niether marriage lasted very long (you could say the men in queston weren't "committed") now, she's been with my "step-father" for almost 20 yrs and they've never been legally married. They just decided they loved each other, wanted to live with each other, and would share the burdens of that life. I don't think they are any less committed than any married couple (Hell, a lot of married couples don't make it twenty years without splitting up, right?).

[Ves'Ka Gan]

Wanted to add this:

Adumbros--while I agree with you on the outside of your argument about marriage licenses--there are a few things I have a problem with. I wouldn't say there should be an assesment of the financial situation because then you get into the slippery slope of denying a person the right to marry based on their income--and if the burger flipper dosn't mind letting his wife sit at home while he works three jobs--well that's his business. Not to mention, you don't have to marry to live with someone, so if we said "no, you can't get married" then they wouldsay "fine e'll justl ive together and any benefits my wife may have gotten through my shitty job, she'll have to get through the state".

Also, as someone who went through what I like to call a "surprise divorce" I completely agree that there should be penalty for flippant divorce. My ex husband actually admitted that the day we got married he knew he was going to divorce me but was too "embarrassed" and too concerned about the money we had spent to back out. In any other legal situation I could have sued him for fraud, pain and suffering, etc. But because it was a marriage--I had to let it come out in the divorce proceedings, and being that the state we lived in says you have to be married 3 yrs to sue for any spousal support, I got left with nothing at all, including the money I had personally put into our savings, stocks, medical bills, settling his debts, etc.

[theBeamisHome]

yeah i agree Ves... i know some states require that couples go to like a counseling session before they can get married. Georgia is one of those states... and i think that's a good idea.

about the cousin thing i found out that in North Carolina you can marry your cousin as long as they aren't double cousins. *puke*

[Ves'Ka Gan]

Actually, we did go to premarital counseling, it wasn't required by our state, but by the minister who we hired to marry us...the counselor said something along the lines of us being the happiest couple he had ever worked with...

There was a lot of intent with his "faking it" so that no one would know he wasn't down, which again, if it were any other legal situation--well. We'd have gone to court!

[theBeamisHome]

i'm not sure i understand that last part... who was faking what? lol

[Ves'Ka Gan]

Hahaha!

Sorry--what I mean to say is that my ex sort of "put on a show" in the months leading up to our wedding and the months after it. He claimed that he was not in love, did not want to be married, etc. But no one around him (not even those closest to him) ever saw it. He shocked us all when he finally came forward with his true feelings...

He put a lot of effort into fooling his friends and family, and especially me.

[theBeamisHome]

oh! sorry i hadn't seen the part in your post about you ex and your divorce. what a bastard.

[Brice]

yeah i agree Ves... i know some states require that couples go to like a counseling session before they can get married. Georgia is one of those states... and i think that's a good idea.

about the cousin thing i found out that in North Carolina you can marry your cousin as long as they aren't double cousins. *puke*

Yeah, but actually this is a good thing in one respect when compared to other states. There are 25 states where first cousins can marry. In 6 of those there are some restictions on marriage between first cousins. As you said in NC first cousins may marry, but not if they're double cousins. Simple first cousins share 12.5% consanguinity, but double cousins share 25% consanguinity;which is the same as siblings share.

[Matt]

I literally cried at my first wedding and not from happiness.

Really should have known something was up but when it all came out, we figured out we weren't in love at all.

[Ves'Ka Gan]

Okay, WTF is a "double cousin"?

[Brice]

Okay, WTF is a "double cousin"?

When siblings from two different families have kids those kids are double cousins.

[theBeamisHome]

yeah what i read explained it as a couple that is cousins on both the mother and father's sides... idk how that happens honestly, but it sounds like an exercise in incest itself.. :scared:

[Ves'Ka Gan]

So my brother marries some girl--and I meet her brother and decide he's hot stuff, so I marry him. Then me & my hubbs and he & his wife have kids--those kids are double cousins? Am I tracking?

[theBeamisHome]

ahhhh!!! oh ok... that sounds about right... and not disgusting.

[Ves'Ka Gan]

If I explained parts of my family tree to you, you would understand my ability to think around corners on these odd familial-situations....:unsure:

[Brice]

So my brother marries some girl--and I meet her brother and decide he's hot stuff, so I marry him. Then me & my hubbs and he & his wife have kids--those kids are double cousins? Am I tracking?

Yeah, that's about it...that is, if you and your brother happen to be first cousins with the man and woman y'all have kids with.

[Ves'Ka Gan]

Oh. Okay...then that is weird!:orely:

[Matt]

Isn't that just basic cousin lovin'?

If me and my sister marry first cousins, I think our kids may be more than just double cousins

See: The Hills Have Eyes :panic:

[Ves'Ka Gan]

Cousin-lovin' has just never appealed to me...and by "never appealed to me" I mean "ives me the heebie jeebies". Nothing against my cousins, of course. Maybe it is because my famly is so close, and I think of my cousins on close to the same level as my siblings?

I did have a third-cousin hit on me at a family-wake (there are SO many things wrong with that sentence) and even if he hadn't been really unattractive--we had the same last name, and that I believe is a good indicator that two people shouldn't be pursuing more than normal cousin-to-cousin relations...

[Ka-mai]

I did have a third-cousin hit on me at a family-wake (there are SO many things wrong with that sentence)

:rofl: