Marriage is....?

BM

Interesting, k.

That probably is true in most cases. My question is,
where does the need for marriage come from? Why not
just live together and split when the need arises?

It seems, in the United States it is perfectly acceptable
to have married numerous times and ultimately get divorced again, as opposed to living in "sin" together. Right?

Hmmm, this article was in the June 6 issue - June 6 was our eighth wedding anniversary...

You're already past the 7 year itch urs, don't worry

For the past 150 years it has been possible to live, and live well, without an extensive social/safety net. We are that productive and rich. Previous to that people could not. Marriage give the individual and extend serries of relatives (Affinal Kin) and the child a basic network (Consanguenial Kin) Marriage also legitimized and made that network "legal". You are "obliged" to aid your relatives. Marriage legitimized children in that it established just which kin networks the individul could demand obligtiory aid from and to whom they owed obligitory aid. Adults could/can and often did in some societies change their networks for a number of reasons and in a number of ways, divorce or polygyny for example. One of the reason social conservatives react so strongly to modern culture is that it does away or at least makes unnecessary the traditional kin based systems by which people sustained themselves. It might also be kept in mind that these networks served many other purposed and supported many traditional institutions that now now fading.

I was reading a book today (fiction) in which the man has been asking the woman to marry him for years. She's pregnant and so he asks her again, thinking she will finally capitulate. Her reply really struck me. She said, "I just can't be that for you - wife and mother and all that." And this is the part that really struck me - "Love ruins itself if you try to put it in a house with names. I've seen it happen."

I think some people just really can't function in a relationship with expectations that will define who they are. They have to be able to have the freedom to be who they need to be. I can relate to that.

I'm at the age where a lot of my friends are getting married. I just don't understand why so many are in a rush to get married...like society says it's what you're supposed to do. Seems like everytime someone I know gets in a relationship now they settle and...done.

Hmm...I've heard so many married people say to me "I love my wife and everything, but I miss being single."

Let's see: I don't want kids, and there's no way in hell I'm allowing another person to be legally entitled to my income when things don't work out. If I ever do get married, a pre-nup better not offend her. Unless of course I find me a nice sugar momma.

I want to stick up for strong commited marriage.

It has deep meaning in our culture. It also has important economic and social advantages that I don't think you could achieve any other way than a strong lasting commitment.

I think that a strong commited stable family is very important to raising children. This means two adults who have commitment to each other, and a stable intimate relationship and a partnership to raising their children. I don't think it is possible to argue that this is not the best for children.

I also don't think that the kinship that others have mentioned has really stopped. In my family, Aunts, Uncles and Grandparents all play an important role in the lives of our children... and also provide support for my wife and I as well.

I think what is different in modern life is that we now have options. In other times/cultures the roles of man and wife and the connections to extended family and community were much better defined and followed without question.

Now, couples need to make important decisions about the nature of their relationship. Women can work, or stay home with the kids. Men must balance traditional responsibilities with new expectations in childcare and housekeeping.

The ease of divorce when things get difficult is another problem. Each couple needs to decide the level of commitment to work through problems... and when to say 'enough'. Somehow it seems it might be easier if this were not such an "easy" option (i.e. compared to times past).

All that being said-- I don't think the reasons that couples decided to make deep commitments to each other have changed since marriage was first invented. A Deep commitment is not only very important for a healthy family, it also provides a level of satisfaction and belonging that is very fulfilling.

Maybe it is not for everyone... but I wouldn't want to live any other way.

Does anyone really get much flack for "living in sin" anymore? I've done both -- lived in sin for four years with hubby before getting married. We did for a number of reasons, primary among them (?) that we planned to have a family. I completely agree that from kids' perspectives, it is vitally important to have at least one adults, preferably two, and as many more from there as is practical who are a constant, nurturing presence in their lives. The two part is mostly in terms of learning about romantic relationships (of whatever stripe), but I think single parents without romantic relationships can also do a very good job.

If kids weren't part of the equation, I kind of like the idea Ursula LeGuin put forward in one of her books -- Left Hand of Darkness, maybe -- of people entering into 7-year unions, that they could then renew for another 7 years, or not.

The sister of my "steady date" is getting married this afternoon (2nd time) after "living in sin" for 5 years. The rational for the marriage is mostly economic, they just bought an expensive ( handymans specialr) house and the banks are much more accommodating if you are married. It was the same with her brother. One of their children was in college, when they decided to built and found that marriage was the cheaper option.

Yes, Sozobe- I absolutely agree. If it were not for the fact that I have always loved children and knew that my life would not be complete if I did not have them - I really would have seen no need for marriage per se. But I agree with you and eBrownp - the two parent family is really the most ideal societal construct in which to raise children, and it was for this reason, and this reason only that I let go of my freedom and married my husband. And once I got used to the idea - it was okay. But I am one of those people who have trouble being fenced in so it was really a struggle to say goodbye to my freedom.

I confess to never really getting that freedom thing. I'm someone who's pretty big on monogamy -- but not just within a marriage. I didn't feel any less free the day I got married than I did when I realized, a month in or whatever, that now-hubby and I were serious.

It had less to do with sex and monogamy than it had to do with saying goodbye to other, differing life experiences. When I married, I knew that I needed to go where my husband needed to go - within the first five years of our marriage we moved twice - once for him to attend medical school, and again when we needed to move for his residency. Both times I had adjusted to and had actually come to love the city we were living in - but I had hitched my wagon to his star - so I had to pick up and leave places and friends I had come to love.

Coincidentally - I have a lot of friends who have never married or have had children. At this point, I am no longer jealous of their freedom and the lack of entanglements they have - because now they are expressing regrets and are lonely, but I have to admit when I was in my twenties and living in a small town in Maine staying home with two toddlers, I was jealous of my friends who were traveling and dating and having fun.

It's all a crap shoot. I would not trade the choices I made because I have two children who are absolutely more precious to me than any experience I could ever have - but I can see how it would be hard to allow your choices to be limited. My husband asked me six times before I could say yes. Mostly because I needed to know I could really "mean" it, before I vowed that I would; and only because I take my "vows" seriously.

Ah, I see what you mean. There is some of that, sure. Less so for people who don't have to do the wagon-hitching thing -- that definitely makes a difference.

Still, I'm not sure if the day I said "I do" was the demarcation point there -- it also went with being serious, whether we got married or not.

A definite free/not-free demarcation point was when I had a kid, though. Not just the two-parent thing, but the fact that I'm a stay-at-home mom, etc., etc.

Yes - when you have a child, the whole scenario shifts, or at least it did for me. Having brought this little being into the world, and/or accepting responsibility for his/her welfare - knowing that I am modeling how to live life for them - has made my wants and needs secondary. I personally, don't mind because I like hanging out with kids - I always have - that's why I became a teacher. I like doing kid stuff and hearing their stories and singing their songs - so it's not such a big sacrifice for me but I have friends who have honestly said, "I'm too selfish to have a kid", - and I honestly tell them - if you think that's true - then don't do it. It'll just make you both miserable- because it's hard work and if you don't enjoy it - it can become just impossible- and the kid always loses. I've seen it so many times.

wow, for 4 days nothing and then today 2 pages..... I'll catch up.

"I will love you, no matter what, for the rest of my life".

At the core of marriage is this commitment. It is on one level ridiculous. but it also meets needs that are a deep part of human nature.

Marriage is more than kids. (I did say that marriage was important for children, but that is not all).

Couples who are willing to make this deep commitment to each other and make the effort and sacrafice it takes to make it work, are rewarded with caring and passion and security and belonging and comfort all on a deep level.

Kids or no kids, I would not want a 7 year marriage. I like the commitment and the eternity and the depth and even the difficulties of it all.

As foolish as it is, I love the fact that I have made a vow to love another human being for eternity. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I don't think it's foolish - I think it's lovely. And I definitely see the inherent value in it. But I think it comes easier for some people than for others. Just as some people are born, grow up and die in the same house or town, others are restless and seek change, and are always on the move. I know myself to be the second type of person - I wasn't sure I was cut out for marriage -but I knew that if I committed to a marriage - restlessness and change would not be acceptable. That's why it was hard for me to do - but I did it - and I'm proud to be able to say, I've kept my vows.
I've always known I was cut out to be a mother, however, and sure enough that has come more easily and naturally for me. I think it's important to know who you are and in what area you might need to apply extra effort before making any decisions about marriage and/or a family. It truly is not for everyone.

Try to use marriage to understand better your own Self this is the true meaning of the Union.We do everything for our own sake!Think of it!
The other will automatically take benefit and will prospere in his or her' s own understanding of what Love is or is not. :wink: