Why is marriage even necessary ?

[Gee :)]

Hi IBees!v

alrighty,

I am of the opinion that marriage just complicates things for no reason (other than tax benefits).So at the risk of offending people,I will proceed.

I understand that people fall in love but why do they feel so much pressure to get married?

Why don't they just continue liviing in their committed relationships?Isn't it just the same thing really?

Why do people wear rings as symbols of their love?

I mean,why is the ring of so much significance? If a person is committed,surely they don't need a ring to tell them that (not against people wearing rings just because they want to though)

I find it really unnecessary.I don't understand why people get married when divorces happen so often.They could just date and *potentially deal with less legalities if they decide to split later on.

Help!

Edited May 18, 2011 by Gee :)

[bigbangfan]

Thanks for raising this interesting anthropological issue. It serves as a means of discussing global issues that reflect the essence of the International Baccalaureate and make us more open minded and consider contrasting perspectives. I´ll tell you my view.

One major reason why people enter in this "eternal union" is religion. One sacrament of the catholic church is marriage, and catholic people try to acquire them all during their lives. From the religious perspective, marriage symbolizes a merge with a person of the opposite sex, with the objective of building a family and passing on the catholic values to their descendents. The ring is just a symbol that illustrates this love and the responsibilities it requires.

I agree with you that nowadays the number of divorces is increasing. This might be due to the lack of knowledge about what marriage implies and represents. However, a certain fact that affects the number of divorces is that people change without noticing it.

I also agree with you that people see marriage as an end and not as a mean. Several persons feel forced to marry someone because of interests, reputation and financial issues.

I believe that people should continue marrying but only if they are bound to face the challenges that marriage brings to their lives. As I said before it is not an end, it is a means of accepting both the joy of life and the problems that we all inevitably have to face at some point of our lives. The thing about marriage is that we have to learn to overcome these difficulties and move on. People that are willing to accept the challenge must marry, and the people who are blind to these circumstances should not.

Edited May 18, 2011 by bigbangfan

[Gee :)]

Thanks for raising this interesting anthropological issue. It serves as a means of discussing global issues that reflect the essence of the International Baccalaureate and make us more open minded and consider contrasting perspectives. I´ll tell you my view.

One major reason why people enter in this "eternal union" is religion. One sacrament of the catholic church is marriage, and catholic people try to acquire them all during their lives. From the religious perspective, marriage symbolizes a merge with a person of the opposite sex, with the objective of building a family and passing on the catholic values to their descendents. The ring is just a symbol that illustrates this love and the responsibilities it requires.

I agree with you that nowadays the number of divorces is increasing. This might be due to the lack of knowledge about what marriage implies and represents. However, a certain fact that affects the number of divorces is that people change without noticing it.

I also agree with you that people see marriage as an end and not as a mean. Several persons feel forced to marry someone because of interests, reputation and financial issues.

I believe that people should continue marrying but only if they are bound to face the challenges that marriage brings to their lives. As I said before it is not an end, it is a means of accepting both the joy of life and the problems that we all inevitably have to face at some point of our lives. The thing about marriage is that we have to learn to overcome these difficulties and move on. People that are willing to accept the challenge must marry, and the people who are blind to these circumstances should not.

Thank you for your opinion.

It has brought my attention to marriage as perceived from a religious perspective which I wasnt heavily considering when I started this thread.

I differ slightly about your other point though.The concept of "overcoming difficulties" is no different in long term relationships.A married couple would not face issues any more complex than those faced by any other couple in a long term relationship.The only difference occurring in these types of unions would be the social pressures related to marriages and perhaps the unfavourable perception of divorces.

I believe that you view marriage as being superior to ordinary long term relationships and this is something I must challenge.

The way I see it most people go into marriage to solidify their commitment to each other.They are legally recognised as a couple and this is a benefit.However,I do not think they are any more prepared for difficulties in relationships.Essentially,when you strip away the wedding,the rings and the legalities that come with getting married,they are still merely in a long term relationship.

I do not understand modern marriage because I feel it is being mistreated and thus has lost its significance.The original purpose of marriage ,I believe was a display of a couple's commitment before God(and this is how religion is largely involved).But I think over time marriage has become commercialised and defined by societies to the extent where "true" marriages are rare.

I agree that many people don't understand what marriage is about and I blame the influence of society.(For example,society ,marriage is expected and I think women feel pressured to "settle down" and thus they may not be *actually prepared for a long term relationship when entering marriage).

My problem with marriage is the discrepancy between what is is in reality,what it is veiwed as and what I feel it is supposed to be.

In reality,marriage has been tarnished by social pressures surrounding it.If there was a hierarchy involving different types of relationships, legal modern marriages would be at the top.That's how it is viewed.However,this is a contradiction to what marriage means in the real world because often people are subliminally feel pressured into it and this results in what I would call false marriage.

We should acknowledge that marriages end for different reasons.There's the fact that people change without noticing it.And then there are things like infidelity.Where I live infidelity is *very* common.And I will speak from my observations in my society (insert bias here )Its actually shocking how common infidelity is particularly amongst married people.I cant quantify how many people in my community are unfaithful or such but I believe that it is safe to say that it is occurs more frequently than should be accepted( in a society full of married people) ! I feel marriage is over-praised because such things.Marriage is the union of 2 people but as you'd expect,this is something I feel is not common.Or at least its not common enough to justify the generally positive perception of marriage.It is praised because of what it is supposed to be but it does not always "live up to" its reputation.

I'm not people saying shouldn't get married.I just wish there was a way to change people's perceptions of marriage because of what I feel is the widespread misunderstanding of what it is.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Gee :)

[Req]

[quote name=Gee ' timestamp='1305752336' post='116622]

Hi IBees!v

alrighty,

I am of the opinion that marriage just complicates things for no reason (other than tax benefits).So at the risk of offending people,I will proceed.

I understand that people fall in love but why do they feel so much pressure to get married?

Why don't they just continue liviing in their committed relationships?Isn't it just the same thing really?

Why do people wear rings as symbols of their love?

I mean,why is the ring of so much significance? If a person is committed,surely they don't need a ring to tell them that (not against people wearing rings just because they want to though)

I find it really unnecessary.I don't understand why people get married when divorces happen so often.They could just date and *potentially deal with less legalities if they decide to split later on.

Help!

Great issue, I considered this question recently.

I find that marriage still plays a significant role in our lives because of the extense religious influence in our world--especially the judeo-christian one. BTW consider the negative connotations present in the word "bastard". Also I consider that as we are self-interested beings (appealing to Thomas Hobbes) we need someone that "belongs to us" that provides us with unconditional love--or at least instigates such feeling upon us. The role of the ring is like a tag that hangs from our dog-collar. Also consider Maslow's pyramid of needs (you know what I'm talking about lol), we have Love needs and we require to be loved and what is more ideal than a person that is supported by the law during such association? Even the law supports the process, but it does not force you to...

[shalala]

Hello:)

I would say marriage is still this huge because of traditions, I mean in many countries it is not okay to have sex before someone comit to live their life with this specific person. Also, it is not a very long time ago this was the case in western societies as well. Then we have christianity and other religions which I think plays a significant role. The bible actually says that a man and a woman should live their life together. Though as many other thing in the bible, will loosen up and will eventually not be followed.

So, I think in the future lets say 300-500 years from now, the people that is getting marriaged will be few.

This is what I think will happen hahaha, my opinion on the other hand, is that to me marriage means that you want to grow old with this person and also die together. Marriage shows that this seriousness of the realtionship. Though, for many people I guess the norm is that in a life you should marry someone.

Moreover, marriage is a celebration, a huge party for your love, and people likes to celebrate stuff hahaha. Or you could see the celebration as a way of saying goodbye to your life, since after marriage you usually get kids and then your life is not all about you anymore but rather focusing on someone else. (I realize how bad this sounds haha, I don't think getting children is the end of life more like, end life as you know it, settling down and loving instead of exploring. Ofcourse you can explore after children but it is probably not the same thing)

This became a very long opinion/thought hahaha.

[~Lc~]

I think it stemmed from religion, but then somewhere along the line Disney came along, and it became a force of habit rather than anything else.

It's pretty sad because some people make it a life goal, and feel that they have failed themselves if they don't get married and enter this realm of complete depression! like they've failed in life, which is when marriage bothers me. I'm not planning on getting married myself, it will give my mother a stroke guaranteed!

[Keel]

Why is marriage even necessary?

Firstly, I think that we must appreciate that there are different reasons for why marriage can place e.g. legal, arranged, religious/cultural and social. My main line of argument towards this issue is that the mere purpose of marriage is to protect. Marriage has existed for thousands of years, and its purpose has changed greatly from era to era whether it be to protect the process of procreation, the dominance of male, the status of the family name or to protect the well being of both parties, the reoccurring theme is protection. Thus, I disagree with the above poster who stated that in 500 years to come, marriage will decrease. Humans are naturally insecure, the need for security and stability is human nature and thus I believe marriage will continue long into the future. The only reason I believe marriage has decreased in the recent past is due to connection between religion and marriage. As the power of religion is slowly dissolved, the religious need to get marriage diminishes. However, the social benefits of marriage will always exist.

Marriage is an explicit symbol between two parties that they are willing to commit themselves to a long term relationship. The explicit nature is important as it means that any third party who wishes to interfere with such an agreement has full knowledge that they are attempting to break a union which has been mutually agreed. It also means that an individual involved in the marriage will breach the agreement if they seek a relationship with a third party. Thus, it creates a barrier to both entry and exit of that relationship, hence the protection aspect. From an economic perspective, it creates a cost to an individual if they do anything which breaches the marriage making it unlikely for them to do such a thing, which in turn strengthens the union of the two parties involved. Thus in a sense it provides emotional protection, as the ending of the relationship is unlikely under such conditions.

The legal aspect of marriage must also be considered. Marriage gives protection in the form of economic possessions. Marriage symbolise the integration of economic possessions into one common unit which can be used by both parties. If a the marriage is broken, these economic possessions will be split into respective units and an individual may or may not gain out of the split. Such risk deters one from encouraging a breach in the agreement and protects the relationship. It also means that if the agreement is breached by one party, the other has the right to demand compensation.

From societies point of view, marriage can be deemed to create positive externalities. When two people are married, the debt of one individual inevitably becomes the debt of the other. The civil couple have the legal responsibility to ensure that if they have children, certain conditions are met including education, housing, food, healthcare and basic necessities. Thus, the obligations created increase the welfare of society enormously; they protect the welfare of society.

While all this talk of legal obligations and economic benifits might lead you to think: where is the 'love aspect' in marriage? Well, I don't think the mentioning of love should even come into a discussion of marriage. Love is the pre-condition to marriage and should have taken place long before; marriage is merely the consolidation of the existing, something which protects all.

[Asukers]

I think everyone pretty much summed up my thoughts on the necessity of marriage one way or another

I don't really know who thought of marriage first or how it came to be, but taking a wild guess with no background research, it's probably that the men wanted some kind of security/control/ownership over their sexual partners. I'm thinking pre-historic times here, primates and stuff. Marriage was probably implemented so that each guy can have a gal (or gals in some cultures), and each gal can have a guy to avoid fights, jealousy, loneliness, etc.

Then people started putting deeper meanings and reasons behind it, whether it be love, religion, sex, money, status, etc.

Then people added the Disney effect to it, adding the 'happily-ever-after' effect. Since then, the idea sold a lot of money...

It's developed quite a bit, I suppose. Modern reasons for marriage have changed over the years, and I would understand that it should be avoided if the divorce rates are increasing as well, but generally, they're not increasing? I mean, divorce, annulments, or any other kind of separation after marriage have always been around.

It's not really necessary in the end, especially nowadays it may actually complicate things... Nonetheless, I am pro-marriage because the idea of wearing a white dress, being carried into a house, having anniversaries and golden marriages is just so sweet to me :')

[Gee :)]

Great issue, I considered this question recently.

I find that marriage still plays a significant role in our lives because of the extense religious influence in our world--especially the judeo-christian one. BTW consider the negative connotations present in the word "bastard". Also I consider that as we are self-interested beings (appealing to Thomas Hobbes) we need someone that "belongs to us" that provides us with unconditional love--or at least instigates such feeling upon us. The role of the ring is like a tag that hangs from our dog-collar. Also consider Maslow's pyramid of needs (you know what I'm talking about lol), we have Love needs and we require to be loved and what is more ideal than a person that is supported by the law during such association? Even the law supports the process, but it does not force you to...

Hmmm,you raise a solid argument.I don't deny the factor of psychological needs in marriage (as outlined by Manslow )

Humans obviously need companionship and I guess marriage appeals to people because it provides legal validation to a relationship.

However at the end of the day,a legal validation isn't going to have that much influence if something goes wrong.

If you marry a loser,the legal benefits come to bite you once you realise that you've married a loser.Then you have to go through legal proceedings to legally detach yourself from said loser

You could have just stayed in a relationship.It doesn't make heartbreak any easier but if society provided as many benefits for it,it would could be less complicated

The reason I started this thread in the first place is because I feel the title "marriage" does not guarantee anything,despite the

belief that "marriage is for life".....that's basically saying that one relationship is going to last a lifetime

Im not saying its impossible because it happens a lot

...However,people forget to weigh up the margins of error when making this assertion.For example,how often does it occur that you marry the first person you are in a relationship with?

Usually,you fall in love and then out of love...So how do you *know* you're not going to fall out of love in the future?

If you are this unspecified person I'm referring to,imagine you *did* marry your first partner the relationship panned out in the exact same way.

That would be a catch-22 :/ I know...I'm quite pessimistic but I cannot help it

Like the saying goes "you have to kiss a lot of frogs to find the prince"

But what if you marry a frog??

Something in either the reality of marriage or its ideology is flawed.

In the event that I got married,I would hope that I wouldn't be 100% certain that my one relationship would last for life.It would just be a hope.

But people go into marriage because they believe the relationship will last a lifetime and this is something I do not see.

I have gone off on a tangent but only because I am ever so passionate about this topic.

I think it stemmed from religion, but then somewhere along the line Disney came along, and it became a force of habit rather than anything else.

It's pretty sad because some people make it a life goal, and feel that they have failed themselves if they don't get married and enter this realm of complete depression! like they've failed in life, which is when marriage bothers me. I'm not planning on getting married myself, it will give my mother a stroke guaranteed!

Disney!Giving people unrealistic expectations since the 1960's (Wikipedia) hahaha

I know,my mother will too have a difficult time accepting that the marriage dream....is not a dream her daughter shares

Thanks for your input

Hello:)

I would say marriage is still this huge because of traditions, I mean in many countries it is not okay to have sex before someone comit to live their life with this specific person. Also, it is not a very long time ago this was the case in western societies as well. Then we have christianity and other religions which I think plays a significant role. The bible actually says that a man and a woman should live their life together. Though as many other thing in the bible, will loosen up and will eventually not be followed.

So, I think in the future lets say 300-500 years from now, the people that is getting marriaged will be few.

This is what I think will happen hahaha, my opinion on the other hand, is that to me marriage means that you want to grow old with this person and also die together. Marriage shows that this seriousness of the realtionship. Though, for many people I guess the norm is that in a life you should marry someone.

Moreover, marriage is a celebration, a huge party for your love, and people likes to celebrate stuff hahaha. Or you could see the celebration as a way of saying goodbye to your life, since after marriage you usually get kids and then your life is not all about you anymore but rather focusing on someone else. (I realize how bad this sounds haha, I don't think getting children is the end of life more like, end life as you know it, settling down and loving instead of exploring. Ofcourse you can explore after children but it is probably not the same thing)

This became a very long opinion/thought hahaha.

Haha,you make a good point (people like to celebrate stuff! )I wonder if marriage will ever become outdated.I guess that would depend highly on people's religion in the future.Thanks!

Why is marriage even necessary?

Firstly, I think that we must appreciate that there are different reasons for why marriage can place e.g. legal, arranged, religious/cultural and social. My main line of argument towards this issue is that the mere purpose of marriage is to protect. Marriage has existed for thousands of years, and its purpose has changed greatly from era to era whether it be to protect the process of procreation, the dominance of male, the status of the family name or to protect the well being of both parties, the reoccurring theme is protection. Thus, I disagree with the above poster who stated that in 500 years to come, marriage will decrease. Humans are naturally insecure, the need for security and stability is human nature and thus I believe marriage will continue long into the future. The only reason I believe marriage has decreased in the recent past is due to connection between religion and marriage. As the power of religion is slowly dissolved, the religious need to get marriage diminishes. However, the social benefits of marriage will always exist.

Marriage is an explicit symbol between two parties that they are willing to commit themselves to a long term relationship. The explicit nature is important as it means that any third party who wishes to interfere with such an agreement has full knowledge that they are attempting to break a union which has been mutually agreed. It also means that an individual involved in the marriage will breach the agreement if they seek a relationship with a third party. Thus, it creates a barrier to both entry and exit of that relationship, hence the protection aspect. From an economic perspective, it creates a cost to an individual if they do anything which breaches the marriage making it unlikely for them to do such a thing, which in turn strengthens the union of the two parties involved. Thus in a sense it provides emotional protection, as the ending of the relationship is unlikely under such conditions.

The legal aspect of marriage must also be considered. Marriage gives protection in the form of economic possessions. Marriage symbolise the integration of economic possessions into one common unit which can be used by both parties. If a the marriage is broken, these economic possessions will be split into respective units and an individual may or may not gain out of the split. Such risk deters one from encouraging a breach in the agreement and protects the relationship. It also means that if the agreement is breached by one party, the other has the right to demand compensation.

From societies point of view, marriage can be deemed to create positive externalities. When two people are married, the debt of one individual inevitably becomes the debt of the other. The civil couple have the legal responsibility to ensure that if they have children, certain conditions are met including education, housing, food, healthcare and basic necessities. Thus, the obligations created increase the welfare of society enormously; they protect the welfare of society.

While all this talk of legal obligations and economic benifits might lead you to think: where is the 'love aspect' in marriage? Well, I don't think the mentioning of love should even come into a discussion of marriage. Love is the pre-condition to marriage and should have taken place long before; marriage is merely the consolidation of the existing, something which protects all.

Thank you for the well-reasoned response!

Would you really say it "strengthens the unions of the two parties involved"?

I mean,it all works theoretically.When you get married,the idea is that no one will cheat but it still occurs.The way you put it (or my obscure perception of what you have said) makes it seem like in a sense marriage is a trap if ever you grow tired of your partner.As if once in a marriage,the sole purpose of the people becomes to ensure the survival of the marriage.You state that Love is the precondition to marriage so what is your personal view on all the non-love related implications of marriage.

When you take away the legalities and social benefits a marriage is merely a relationship.I know economic issues are a big factor in real life,but why should economic matters prevail in marriage?Wouldn't that in itself be a contradiction of the part of the traditional vows "For richer or for poorer"?

I feel that the responsibility (education, housing, food, healthcare and basic necessities) and capabilities of parents are more to do with the individual parents than with the status of their relationship.Married people are not necessarily any better parents than unmarried ones and in any case,the expectations posed on parents should be the same.

This is my problem exactly The perceived superiority of married couples over non-married couples is of weak foundation because marriage does not [necessarily] fulfil expectations.

Maybe I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing here (i probably am ) but why is an explicit symbol so important?With the high infidelity in my community (and I suspect,in other places) its showing that the symbol is no guarantee of commitment.If a person is committed ,I don't think they need a symbol for that and I would expect them to reject any third-party advances that come their way.If a couple is unmarried,the only protection they have comes from the word of their partner and their trust of the other person.

I think the best part of marriage is the fact that it is a legal agreement and in the case of a breach,there can be compensation demanded.In that sense,I agree that marriage provides compensation but I'd expect very few people to list that as the best thing about the concept.

I think everyone pretty much summed up my thoughts on the necessity of marriage one way or another

I don't really know who thought of marriage first or how it came to be, but taking a wild guess with no background research, it's probably that the men wanted some kind of security/control/ownership over their sexual partners. I'm thinking pre-historic times here, primates and stuff. Marriage was probably implemented so that each guy can have a gal (or gals in some cultures), and each gal can have a guy to avoid fights, jealousy, loneliness, etc.

Then people started putting deeper meanings and reasons behind it, whether it be love, religion, sex, money, status, etc.

Then people added the Disney effect to it, adding the 'happily-ever-after' effect. Since then, the idea sold a lot of money...

It's developed quite a bit, I suppose. Modern reasons for marriage have changed over the years, and I would understand that it should be avoided if the divorce rates are increasing as well, but generally, they're not increasing? I mean, divorce, annulments, or any other kind of separation after marriage have always been around.

It's not really necessary in the end, especially nowadays it may actually complicate things... Nonetheless, I am pro-marriage because the idea of wearing a white dress, being carried into a house, having anniversaries and golden marriages is just so sweet to me :')

Haha,it is a beautiful idea

Divorces,anullments etc have been around for a long time.I'm not really arguing that they're unnattural or anything.i'm just saying that I think people dont enter marriages for the "right" reasons (or rathery,they enter it for reasons which contradict the principles of the institution).Also,I'm against the Disney effect which I blame for the above.

Thanks for your input

[Keel]

[quote name=Gee ' timestamp='1306156421' post='117394]

Would you really say it "strengthens the unions of the two parties involved"?

I mean,it all works theoretically.When you get married,the idea is that no one will cheat but it still occurs.The way you put it (or my obscure perception of what you have said) makes it seem like in a sense marriage is a trap if ever you grow tired of your partner.As if once in a marriage,the sole purpose of the people becomes to ensure the survival of the marriage.You state that Love is the precondition to marriage so what is your personal view on all the non-love related implications of marriage.

Well how does it not strengthen the union of the two parties? I've stated how it creates a barrier to both entry and exit, how it creates a cost if the marriage is breached ect. but all you've done is question my statement and ask whether it "really" happens; the argument I have put forward is not merely "[theoretical]". Just because people cheat when they are married does not mean that marriage does not create a deterrent to cheat. The costs of breaching a marriage agreement are still there, people who cheat are just willing to pay such a price. A "trap" is a rather bias way of describing it, yes it creates a barrier to entry and exit, but a "trap" implies something harmful and intentional; by labeling marriage a "trap" you are automatically ignoring all the benefits, in the form of stability and welfare, marriage can bring. "...[O]nce in a marriage,the sole purpose of the people becomes to ensure the survival of the marriage"; not true. You are making the assumption that the relationship is independent of the marriage. However, I'll entertain this. What is the alternative then of not ensuring the survival of the marriage? As for your last sentence, I'm not sure what you mean. All the implications of marriage I stated were non-love related, I purposely took love out of it as explained in the last paragraph.

[quote name=Gee ' timestamp='1306156421' post='117394]

When you take away the legalities and social benefits a marriage is merely a relationship.I know economic issues are a big factor in real life,but why should economic matters prevail in marriage?Wouldn't that in itself be a contradiction of the part of the traditional vows "For richer or for poorer"?

I feel that the responsibility (education, housing, food, healthcare and basic necessities) and capabilities of parents are more to do with the individual parents than with the status of their relationship.Married people are not necessarily any better parents than unmarried ones and in any case,the expectations posed on parents should be the same.

"When you take away the legalities and social benefits a marriage is merely a relationship." OK...so why are you against people having "[mere] relationships"? When I say costs/welfare I do not just mean monetary or financial costs/benefits, it includes emotional and mental well-being. I don't see how it contradicts "traditional vows" (assuming they remain unchallenged). If couples are willing to go through hard times together, it merely means that they see 'benefit' in their marriage. I don't understand your point.

It is true that the welfare of a child lies largely in their parents (maybe independent of their relationship status). However, as I have stated and explained before, marriage creates stability. Is stability exists, the welfare of the child is likely to be ensured. If the child gains welfare, society gains. Thus marriage creates welfare to society.

[quote name=Gee ' timestamp='1306156421' post='117394]

This is my problem exactly The perceived superiority of married couples over non-married couples is of weak foundation because marriage does not [necessarily] fulfil expectations.

A key method to undermine my argument, is to prove that marriage does not create stability and that it does not protect. The mere fact that my position is based on these aspects automatically makes marriage "superior" to non-marriage. I don't think there are any expectations. I merely see it as more beneficial.

[quote name=Gee ' timestamp='1306156421' post='117394]

Maybe I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing here (i probably am ) but why is an explicit symbol so important?With the high infidelity in my community (and I suspect,in other places) its showing that the symbol is no guarantee of commitment.If a person is committed ,I don't think they need a symbol for that and I would expect them to reject any third-party advances that come their way.If a couple is unmarried,the only protection they have comes from the word of their partner and their trust of the other person.

Marriage does not provide a 100% guarantee, however it provides more of a guarantee than no marriage. "...the symbol is no guarantee of commitment" how can you prove this? I think I've shown that marriage can create a guarantee of the relationship through barriers to entry and exit through the creation of cost. Just because high rates of infidelity exist does not mean that marriage does not deter or provides no guarantee; that is flawed reasoning.

[quote name=Gee ' timestamp='1306156421' post='117394]

I think the best part of marriage is the fact that it is a legal agreement and in the case of a breach,there can be compensation demanded.In that sense,I agree that marriage provides compensation but I'd expect very few people to list that as the best thing about the concept.

You misinterpreted my statements before and criticised marriage for being financially orientated and beneficial, yet here you say one of the best things about marriage is that it provided compensation, nearly always monetary gains, in the event of a breech. So in your opinion, marriage does not benefit the individual or society? I mean, prosecuting your partner for adultery can hardly be deemed 'beneficial' to society let alone the one being prosecuted. If you describe that as "the best part of marriage" then surely we can assume that you think that marriage provides no security or stability.

Marriage can be seen as an extra 'bond'. If you have two atoms which already have one bond (they are in a relationship) and you add another bond (the marriage) it will make the overall attraction stronger. More energy is required to break the attraction. I think this chemistry analogy fits quite well. Maybe its better than listing out the pros and cons or costs and benefits of marriage.

[Asukers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13544581

BBC kinda covers the topic! It's interesting

[Gee :)]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13544581

BBC kinda covers the topic! It's interesting

Thanks for the article! I liked it!

[Gee :)]

Well how does it not strengthen the union of the two parties? I've stated how it creates a barrier to both entry and exit, how it creates a cost if the marriage is breached ect. but all you've done is question my statement and ask whether it "really" happens; the argument I have put forward is not merely "[theoretical]". Just because people cheat when they are married does not mean that marriage does not create a deterrent to cheat. The costs of breaching a marriage agreement are still there, people who cheat are just willing to pay such a price. A "trap" is a rather bias way of describing it, yes it creates a barrier to entry and exit, but a "trap" implies something harmful and intentional; by labeling marriage a "trap" you are automatically ignoring all the benefits, in the form of stability and welfare, marriage can bring. "...[O]nce in a marriage,the sole purpose of the people becomes to ensure the survival of the marriage"; not true. You are making the assumption that the relationship is independent of the marriage. However, I'll entertain this. What is the alternative then of not ensuring the survival of the marriage? As for your last sentence, I'm not sure what you mean. All the implications of marriage I stated were non-love related, I purposely took love out of it as explained in the last paragraph.

[quote name=Gee ' timestamp='1306156421' post='117394]

When you take away the legalities and social benefits a marriage is merely a relationship.I know economic issues are a big factor in real life,but why should economic matters prevail in marriage?Wouldn't that in itself be a contradiction of the part of the traditional vows "For richer or for poorer"?

I feel that the responsibility (education, housing, food, healthcare and basic necessities) and capabilities of parents are more to do with the individual parents than with the status of their relationship.Married people are not necessarily any better parents than unmarried ones and in any case,the expectations posed on parents should be the same.

"When you take away the legalities and social benefits a marriage is merely a relationship." OK...so why are you against people having "[mere] relationships"? When I say costs/welfare I do not just mean monetary or financial costs/benefits, it includes emotional and mental well-being. I don't see how it contradicts "traditional vows" (assuming they remain unchallenged). If couples are willing to go through hard times together, it merely means that they see 'benefit' in their marriage. I don't understand your point."

A key method to undermine my argument, is to prove that marriage does not create stability and that it does not protect. The mere fact that my position is based on these aspects automatically makes marriage "superior" to non-marriage. I don't think there are any expectations. I merely see it as more beneficial.

[quote name=Gee ' timestamp='1306156421' post='117394]

Maybe I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing here (i probably am ) but why is an explicit symbol so important?With the high infidelity in my community (and I suspect,in other places) its showing that the symbol is no guarantee of commitment.If a person is committed ,I don't think they need a symbol for that and I would expect them to reject any third-party advances that come their way.If a couple is unmarried,the only protection they have comes from the word of their partner and their trust of the other person.

. "...the symbol is no guarantee of commitment" how can you prove this? I think I've shown that marriage can create a guarantee of the relationship through barriers to entry and exit through the creation of cost. Just because high rates of infidelity exist does not mean that marriage does not deter or provides no guarantee; that is flawed reasoning.

[quote name=Gee ' timestamp='1306156421' post='117394]

I think the best part of marriage is the fact that it is a legal agreement and in the case of a breach,there can be compensation demanded.In that sense,I agree that marriage provides compensation but I'd expect very few people to list that as the best thing about the concept.

You misinterpreted my statements before and criticised marriage for being financially orientated and beneficial, yet here you say one of the best things about marriage is that it provided compensation, nearly always monetary gains, in the event of a breech. So in your opinion, marriage does not benefit the individual or society? I mean, prosecuting your partner for adultery can hardly be deemed 'beneficial' to society let alone the one being prosecuted. If you describe that as "the best part of marriage" then surely we can assume that you think that marriage provides no security or stability.

Perhaps I should have phrased the "trap" thing differently.I don't think that it strengthens the union of the parties.I feel that it would have little impact.The experiences that a couple goes through when married are usually the same things that would have occurred had they been cohabiting ( financial disagreements,household issues and so on).That is what I'm getting at.Being married does not significantly change a relationship.Its still the same two people who were in the relationship before - just legally and socially recognised as a couple.

I agree that marriage can to some extent deter cheating.When I used the word "trap" I did not mean to imply that it was intentional on the part of the couple because I don't feel it is.Trap would refer more to being pressured by society to stay together because of the married status.What I meant by it was that once in a marriage ,(due to societal pressure) you would be trapped in the event that you fell out of love or something similar.Akin to the sort of situations that happen with unmarried couples (except you'd have more legalities in marriage,thus making it more difficult to exit and thus the word "trap".I do think such a situation is detrimental and negative : the connotation of the word "trap" in that respect do not particularly bother me.

I stand by my point that an big objective becomes to ensure the survival of the marriage.It happens that if a relationship is fails and say a couple has children,the parents will remain married "for the sake of the children".This is obviously not always the case but I'm showing you how the survival of the marriage and the survival of the relationship are not necessarily intertwined.

I have no problem with mere relationships.None.I'm a fan.

I don;t dispute the claim that marriage includes emotional benefits.

I would argue though that the emotional and mental stability are enhanced by healthy,committed relationships.Rather a benefit from companionship instead of a result of traditional marriage (as unmarried couples can be just as happy).

In retrospect,I value you whole argument of economics.I should clarify my point about the vows.I felt your argument was leading to contradictions the traditional wedding vows because you placed a lot of emphasis on economic matters.

To an extent,I felt you were reinforcing an opinion I hold ~ which is that marriage,in reality is not about only love as [i feel ]it is supposed to be.The vows "for richer or for poorer" would be interpreted to mean that financial benefits are not influential but as you've stated they are a factor.I feel that society's value on marriage is essentially ruining it.I feel if you're going to vow to be someone "for richer or for poorer" you should actually be prepared to be with them in times of financial difficulty.If there were no financial,legal structures designed to benefit married people,would as many people still be getting married?

It is true that the welfare of a child lies largely in their parents (maybe independent of their relationship status). However, as I have stated and explained before, marriage creates stability. Is stability exists, the welfare of the child is likely to be ensured. If the child gains welfare, society gains. Thus marriage creates welfare to society.

I disagree that marriage creates stability.Sure,people believe that "the welfare of the child is likely to be ensured" but that's not necessarily true.I agree that if the child gains welfare,society gains.But there is a wide variety of scenarios that could occur in marriages which would lead to instability and many factors which influence the element of stability in a child's upbringing.I feel that saying marriage leads to welfare is an over-generalisation.Being married does not guarantee a child a stable upbringing.In any case,it would appear that what you're saying in that point is that married parents make better parents than unmarried ones,which I don't think can be validated.

I'm not saying that marriage cannot create stability.I'm just saying that it does not enough stability to make it superior.

The symbol is no guarantee of commitment.It isn't.Symbols of commitment don't deter cheating.

Or perhaps,I should change my point slightly.Symbols of commitment (particularly rings) do not prove commitment exist.Commitment is really a state of mind.You could have a ring on your finger,it wouldn't mean you were committed.I think the best way to prove commitment is through actions.Symbols,not so much.(You could have them if you liked,not against that,but it would be more of an add-on than any kind of guarantee)

Hmmm,another reason I think we don't agree.You place emphasis on societal benefits that occur as results of marriage when I'm concerned more about individuals.Companionship benefits the individual.Marriage is a form of companionship (but not the only type).Additionally,I wouldn't say that its financially orientated,but I feel that it is infuenced too much by financial issues because those are the greatest benefits.

The benefit of marriage is mainly the legal protection.The right to compensation.Because I do not feel marriage and relationships are the same thing,The benefits that you associate with marriage are ones I associate with other types of companionship.The legal and financial benefits,compensations are the only advantage that only married people have.

Id like you to rephrase your point. "I mean, prosecuting your partner for adultery can hardly be deemed 'beneficial' to society let alone the one being prosecuted."Its either I am misinterpreting it,or you're saying that people should not prosecute adulterous partners .If you do feel this way,I'd like to know why you'd think so.

You don't need to assume anything.My intention with this post was not to prove that marriage provides no stability/security.The purpose was to question why marriage is viewed as being a superior relationship type when essentially,it is a legal long term,committed relationship.Its just a long term committed relationship.I challenge the reasons for which unmarried couples are stigmatised when they choose not to marry.I don't feel that marriage should be seen as being superior.My arguments presented in the thread about how marriage does not provide a superior level of security and stability support(as compared to ordinary committed relationships) provide the reasoning for my opinion.

The chemistry analogy is cute but does not appeal much to me because I never understood much chemistry and thus cannot fully relate.

By the way,are you in any sort of debate club?

Edited May 27, 2011 by Gee :)

[Guest kenshi64]

First of, Way to go Gee and Keel!! massive, well-argued posts!

I've witnessed a broken marriage too many and I can confidently say no marriage until 2-3 years of engagement or longer if your fiance is cool with that. I think after marriage everything is ruined. There are these massive expectations from each other that have to be met, and if they aren't there are fights! Now, fights within a marriage are serious and ugly nothing compared to saying the engagement is off, coz by the time these fights occour you've probably had one unfortunate kind (German for child) .

So that seems to become way more of a task and living up to expectations than the love you married for.

On another note engaged couples try not to have kids, so the sex * mature face* is good and pregnancy ruins the sex quite often in marriages men say. Also the thing about getting sex in an engagement is that there's still 'the earning it' the fun and all that kinkiness in a marriage you've got to work-again- to keep it alive and the fun in earning it the thrill is lost coz its either easy to get or a part of your schedule :/

So don't seal the deal, coz you're probably doing it due to insecurity, instead deal with that and keep the love.

[CkyBlue]

I'm not reading any of ^ that although what I post may have already been mentioned.

Simply put in social terms, marriage happens because people make themselves believe that their bond is much more concrete, and this makes it harder for them to be infidel. It is considerably effective.

The ring is a symbol of loyalty and trust.

Those are the better of the reasons, anyway...

[ShootingStars]

[quote name=Gee ' timestamp='1305752336' post='116622]

Hi IBees!v

alrighty,

I am of the opinion that marriage just complicates things for no reason (other than tax benefits).So at the risk of offending people,I will proceed.

I understand that people fall in love but why do they feel so much pressure to get married?

Why don't they just continue liviing in their committed relationships?Isn't it just the same thing really?

Why do people wear rings as symbols of their love?

I mean,why is the ring of so much significance? If a person is committed,surely they don't need a ring to tell them that (not against people wearing rings just because they want to though)

I find it really unnecessary.I don't understand why people get married when divorces happen so often.They could just date and *potentially deal with less legalities if they decide to split later on.

Help!

If it was just the same thing, then why would it complicate things? Marriage is a celebration of that love, a declaration of that commitment. The ring does not tell them they are committed, it symbolises their commitment. Fine, you can just date. But how is that different from all the other people you've just dated? Marriage is that one more step in a relationship. It is part of culture and tradition and values. And remember, without marriage there are no weddings!

[Mr. Gates]

Hi all!! First post

WOOO!!! I'm really impressed by this! I second Guns of Steel's comment! Very nicely argued by both Gee and Keel. I'd really like to hear more on this topic as im doing something similar on my tok presentation.

And Shooting Stars, if you read the arguement above, they talk about how marriage creates a barrier. Remember weddings are a happy event but they are also extremely stressful. A lot of second round thinking is involved...'is he/she the one'...'will i regret this?'...

Edited October 30, 2011 by Mr. Gates

[KaranKanwar]

Marriage is a concept spun out of religion, it isn't necessary, and it most certainly isn't a good idea (imo) almost 80% of marriages fail, or just suck.

Why go against the odds and potentially ruin your life? Relationships are weak bonds, they're two people loosely bonded to one another by imaginary glue/love which will eventually fade away.

I'd rather be a single, alone, maybe even lonely billionaire who's successful with my own company which I can use to make the world a better place, as opposed to having a family, a wife, kids, financial troubles, and the typical troubling stuff that comes with that sort of thing, I've experienced it secondish hand with my parents, and from that I find marriage not only a waste of your life, but also a waste of intelligence and opportunity.

Although, whether you find it necessary or not, probably depends on your personal beliefs or religion

[URA BOAT]

i see many posts that talk about marriage as a obligation put on the people from the religion groups. well i would like to look at places were religion doesn't influence the culture. AFRICA. what % of the population are born from rape? i think this happens because after having many woman without any commitment people lose the reasoning of why even have a commitment why not just have a one night stand, but then understanding how for a human being their is never enough of any thing, rape comes into play. yes i know that my reasoning has a falsie of a slippery slop, never the less they all seem to connect logically...lets take another look at this reasoning...if people had the feeling of responsibility to commitment they would not even consider rape.they would think "how can i even

also i believe that if marriages were more valued there would be less fatherless/motherless children...did any one of you had to go through life not even knowing your father because after his job was do he just left? if yes im sorry..if he was got married and settled down you wouldn't have this problem! what im trying to say is that settling down and getting married will change the word...im sure it will change it for the better(i dont see how marriage will do any harm)

[notenoughsleep]

I too have come to question marriage. I feel as if it isn't the same as it used to be and has lost much of its meaning. However, there are various legal reasons to continue marriage--especially if the husband or wife decides to desert the spouse and a child. About your statement regarding the importance of a ring, I agree, but if its so insignificant why does it matter if one is given anyway? I believe that marriage should be maintained for two reasons:

1. Legal reasons--guarantee safety and security from a relationship.

2. Freedoms--many religions appraise it, who are we to tell them right or wrong? I'm a libertarian, let people do what they want, if we don't like it then we shouldn't do it and let's leave it at that. It's a sort of ritual, and there's nothing wrong with culture. It's like celebrating a birthday, celebrating a unity within two people should not be frowned upon. If they want to do it, let them do it.

I think I went a little off-topic, but I think that the necessity of marriage depends on the two people. I want to "marry" a woman because it represents a much more stronger bond, and a decision that we made to be together forever--or at least try to be. Also, it's much harder to walk away from marriages than relationships--this is important when considering children.

Edited November 20, 2011 by notenoughsleep