Marriage Anyone????

I don't think lawyers and government have any place getting involved in romantic affairs.

Ultimately a marriage license is about assets and inheritance. Mixing business and love is questionable in any other context as far as society is concerned - why it's acceptable under the guise of marriage is beyond me.

I feel such considerations are only appropriate if there are children involved and if a couple makes a conscious choice that one party will be a full time homemaker (meaning they have no work experience if the marriage ends).

If you choose to be with someone forever, and you mean it, you don't need a piece of paper legally obliging you to stay. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Well said! I don't think romantic love needs to be confirmed through a legal partnership unless there are legal reasons to do so, like Lauren said. At the same time, I think any adults should be able to have a legal partnership (roommates, friends, siblings, etc) if it benefits them.

I know there are some great step-parents, single parents, extended family caregivers (e.g. grandparents) out there and great people that come from broken homes (so there is no need to chime in with your annecdotes), but let's face it: it isn't ideal, particularly from the kid's standpoint. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I'm from a culture where people rarely raise their own kids anyway - that's the grandparents' job, or if there's enough money a nanny might be employed.

While I agree that seeing your genetic influences (biological parents) in action is a very valuable experience that can teach a child how to become an effective person... hearing your parents fight, watching them silently ooze anger and resentment, and watching them cheat and lie to each other is also far from ideal.

IMO, the best way to be a good parent is to be happy, and show your kids that happiness is possible. The methods (marriage? no marriage?) is not nearly as important as the end result.

~Mme X~

With respect to all that have answered, you are asking something of a biased audience. Of course, some might say that most people feel similarly, but our anonymity and reasons for being here simply make us more open to telling the truth about how we feel.

Me, I'm still convinced that unhappy marriages and other bad things (floods, bank seizing my house, etc.) only happen to other people, and I'm immune to such things. I'm a romantic Pollyanna.

Regardless, I don't believe that marriage as a legal or romantic institution is obsolete, however I do believe that the legal aspects should be a separate agreement. How would we do that? I dunno, man, I just come up with the great ideas and let everyone else figure out how to make them happen.

"The family is now one of the major obstacles to improved mental health, and hence should be weakened, if possible, so as to free individuals and especially children from the coercion of family life."
International Congress on Mental Health, London, 1948

"Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well – by creating the international child of the future"
Psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce, Address to the Childhood International Education Seminar, 1973

"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas...
Dr. G. Brock Chisholm, psychiatrist and co-founder of the World Federation of Mental Health

Been there, done that.
Been there, don't wanna go back!

Pithy remarks, notwithstanding, I do think Carrie's comments have merit. I suppose, under the right of circumstances....

...the illusion, she is powerful....

With respect to all that have answered, you are asking something of a biased audience. Of course, some might say that most people feel similarly, but our anonymity and reasons for being here simply make us more open to telling the truth about how we feel.

Me, I'm still convinced that unhappy marriages and other bad things (floods, bank seizing my house, etc.) only happen to other people, and I'm immune to such things. I'm a romantic Pollyanna.

Regardless, I don't believe that marriage as a legal or romantic institution is obsolete, however I do believe that the legal aspects should be a separate agreement. How would we do that? I dunno, man, I just come up with the great ideas and let everyone else figure out how to make them happen.
Originally Posted by Carrie Hillcrest

Carrie, you are a genius - as always. Guess that leaves it to us mere mortals to figure out the details. For you, my dear, anything!

Guess I'll have to marry you so we can get collaborative credit on the research when we publish

Cheers!

I don't think lawyers and government have any place getting involved in romantic affairs.

Ultimately a marriage license is about assets and inheritance. Mixing business and love is questionable in any other context as far as society is concerned - why it's acceptable under the guise of marriage is beyond me.

I feel such considerations are only appropriate if there are children involved and if a couple makes a conscious choice that one party will be a full time homemaker (meaning they have no work experience if the marriage ends).

If you choose to be with someone forever, and you mean it, you don't need a piece of paper legally obliging you to stay. Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

Beautiful!

This is really the fundamental question that I see with gay marriage. Nothing in the world prevents two guys from finding a Reconstructionist Rabbi or Unitarian Universalist minister to conduct a marriage ceremony.

The issue lies, rather, with government approval. A license. And then giving government authority over the details of any subsequent separation.

And my fundamental question is: Why is it any of the government's business *at all*??

It is a totally private affair.

As for the question of whether marriage is obsolete -- in my opinion: no, it isn't.

Marriage is a worthy and important social institution that creates extended families and support networks that are important to help raise children and assure economic stability.

I believe that a large measure of the concern about its obsolescence is rooted in just the past 100 years during which the institution has been subjected to unprecedented strains and attacks.

Ultimately, I think that marriage as an institution will adapt to cope with those strains in a process of combined evolutionary and social psychology.

...
Ultimately, I think that marriage as an institution will adapt to cope with those strains in a process of combined evolutionary and social psychology. Originally Posted by Laurentius

You've thought out and presented your view well but I don't agree with this. Just because a 60-year happy marriage is becoming a rarity does not mean marriage as an institution has been eroded by the winds of evolution. It simply means it is more rare. And, many would say, therefore more valuable.

You've thought out and presented your view well but I don't agree with this. Just because a 60-year happy marriage is becoming a rarity does not mean marriage as an institution has been eroded by the winds of evolution. It simply means it is more rare. And, many would say, therefore more valuable. Originally Posted by FLWrite

I don't think we're disagreeing. I DO believe that marriage will survive. Marriage only exists because it proved itself to be adaptive and useful over a period of hundreds of generations.

Marriage may change over time in the face of the problems of its day, but it will still remain.

As one example of the value of stable marriages, just look at the average differences in outcomes between males raised without a father, and males raised by a father and mother.

Quite certainly, in any individual case, you may have even contradictory results. But overall, on average, the children of intact and traditional homes outperform other children when it comes to things like avoidance of jail, academic achievement, lifetime earnings, etc.

These differences add up over time. And overall, those who are products of intact homes gather and control more resources than the products of less traditional approaches. As a result, the relative reproductive fitness of the first group is enhanced.

Now, the details of marriage and expectations will change in response to social conditions. Dowries are no longer common in this part of the world, for example. So marriage changed, but it still persisted.

So I'm not arguing at all that it will disappear -- only that its details will change but it will still survive.

overrated

The only people I know who really want to get married are women who haven't been married before. And yes, I totally agree we are an unusually outside-the-box, independent and prehaps slightly jaded group on this board, but I am not limiting my observations or opinions to this group or lifestyle.
Is it an accident that most 'older' women who divorce or are widowed don't remarry, while most men do?
There's love, and then there is real estate.

My ex first told me about this saying: "Marriage is much like a besieged medieval city -- those on the outside desperately want out and those on the outside desperately want in." Very true.

For a serious look at what's wrong with the concept, look at this web site:

http://www.unmarried.org/

Guess I'll have to marry you so we can get collaborative credit on the research when we publish Originally Posted by topguntex

The pre-nup is in the mail!

The pre-nup is in the mail! Originally Posted by Carrie Hillcrest

Just be careful; in my state, having a child within the first 18 months renders a pre-nup null and void!

You are out to protect your assets, right, Carrie??

Marriage is not yet obsolete. For many people it fulfills some basic needs that include practical (e.g., the legal rights accorded a spouse), religious (marriage is a tenet of all major religions), and emotional apects, among others. If it were becoming obsolete, I don't think there would be the bitter and unending controversy over gay marriage. (An aside - gay marriage and school prayer have got to be two of the most pointless issues that sap our attention and energy.)

I think what has changed, and for the better, is that marriage per se is rapidly becoming an optional lifestyle, rather than an obligatory one. For much of the 20th Century, single people past a certain age were looked upon as odd, or different and there was a tremendous pressure to get married and be married. For example, women who had never been married were called 'spinsters' and 'old maids'. Certainly not complimentary terms. Single men were held in slightly better esteem ('confirmed batchelor') but in many cases still regarded as not quite normal, with the result that their personal and professional lives suffered. All you have to do is watch movies from the 30's to the 70's to see this. The message, endlessly repeated, was that you had to be married to be happy and normal. The result was of course a lot of unhappiness and desperation.

Now, however, not being married is coming to be regarded as a normal and acceptable state, whether people are in a committed relationship or not. Marriage is now becoming socially optional, with the idea that you can be alone, with someone else, or married, as you choose. What remains of course is to fix the legal situation so that married and unmarried partners have the same rights, as has been discussed here and in other threads. For example, a legally recognized and easily dissolvable civil partnership available to everyone, such as they have in Sweden.

Personally, I don't see myself getting married again. No real need. On the other hand, I've also learned never to say never.