Is Marriage Realistic? My opinion - NO...

[BigShoeStu]

My opinion - NO . . . but who asked me? I'm just trying to stir things up a little.

Marriage, life-partner, soulmate, whatever. I am VERY skeptical about marriage being a realistic institution. As romantic of a notion of spending the rest of your life with only one other person is, I really don't feel it is realistic. I feel it is impossible to know if you are going to "love" someone for the rest of your life (unless you are currently strapped into the electric chair and the Governor isn't calling), then why in the world would someone make that commitment?

Is marriage romantic? Absolutely! But honestly. Why the "'til death do you part" commitment? Why not, "'til our love is no more" or, "'til we change and want something different" or, "'til Jerry Springer invites us on his show" or, "'til I get tired of you" or, "'til I catch you with the neighbors dog"?

Seriously, I don't think loving only one person for the rest of your life is impossible. It happens all the time, all over the world, and when it does I think it is a truly beautiful thing. What I find impossible is to be able to predict (at any age) that this one person is going to be the only one you will love and live happily ever after with "'til death do you part".

I would love to hear any good arguements to the contrary. I would also love to hear from anyone that agrees with me. Someone, [sobbing] please validate me.

[Yahweh]

I'm not sure you will be able to find many Philosophical arguments demonstrating "love is forever" or anything of the sort, however I believe there are a number of legal protections and benefits you can gain by marriage...

[scribble]

In the words of Tina Turner: "What's Love got to do with it?"

In the words of Billy Joel:
"Well now you tell me you love somebody
And you'll love 'em forever, you may love 'em forever,
But you won't like 'em all of the time.

Well now you tell me you need somebody
For the rest of your life you might have somebody,
But you won't want 'em every day."

And in the words of Joe Cocker: "Aaaaaa aa aa aaaaaaaA" <twitch>

I can't say it any better.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I don't completely disagree with you, but I think you have missed the point about what "love" is being committed to.

If one takes their wedding vows to mean, "I promise to go on feeling about you the same way I do now until I die," then that person is being unrealistic. But I think the love being referred to here is more an act than an emotion. The vow should translate more closely to "I promise to hold your best interests equal to my own for as long as I shall live." By marrying someone, you are basically extending your primary concern (your own best interests) to include another, and, presumably, any children that result from the union.

The benefits of such a union are many, not the least of which is the fabled stable home life for the kids. Most people probably like the idea of someone who, as their life wanes, will have shared all their experiences, someone who will truly "get" them, and care about what happens to them. A second income is helpful, or if one partner chooses to stay at home to care for the kids or the vegetable garden, the working spouse's income can grant them the freedom to do so.

Now do these and any other benefits outweigh the costs of marraige? I would say that is something that is left up to the individuals involved to decide. I do not see that the usual answer would be 'no,' however.

for the record, I'm not married, nor do I intend to be anytime in the forseeable future

[kevinsbikes]

I have the ability to love until the end of my life. The love I have for my best friend (bigshustu), I am comfortable to say that I will take to the grave with me. I will validate you, my friend... marriage is a silly institution that I, however, embrace. Dating is the process of enjoying another persons company with the potential of sex. Marriage is... who am I kidding... I thought marriage would give me "tail on tap", but I was way wrong! One kid, then two... the doctor might as well have given my wife a chastity belt... she works, she tends to the kids the majority of the time, shes tired, she thinks she looks fat, she has a headache, etc!!! The list goes on. But, given all that, I still love marriage... for me, it has rewards that I do not have the intelect nor vocabulary to describe. I refer to myself as miserably happy and I am sticking to this story. I am a helpless romantic that simply loves marraige. I will just have to settle for living vicariously through my single (never gunna get married in a million years... marriage is for suckers) friends. :p

Kevin W.

[max]

When the marriage laws were first created, man devised them so as to safeguard him from bringing up someone elses offspring. I am not sure which century the marriage was invented but it was at a time in our history when humans' life expectancy was about 30 years. So, it was quite easy to say 'until death' etc.
Now we live far longer and no it's not an easy vow to make and keep to.
I also believe that the first throes of love and all the exitement that brings, is nature's way of getting the couple to reproduce the species. Having produced an offspring, nature calms us down as we have to be responsible enough to look after the infant. It is this 'cooling' off which leads to couples thinking they may have chosen the wrong partner and so off they go in search of that feeling of the early throes again. Many of us then embark on illicit love affairs. If only couples knew that we all cool off once we have become totally familiarised with our spouse. But then a frienship takes the place (or should do) of the neck throbbing exitement. Of course there will be the exceptions......the ones who married their sole mate and how lucky those ones are!!!

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by max
When the marriage laws were first created, man devised them so as to safeguard him from bringing up someone elses offspring.Are you claiming we didn't mate for life until we had laws to define marriage? I think this interest predated our intelligence. We didn't have to think it up.

[max]

well, I would think we didn't mate for life then or we wouldn't have devised the marriage vows. I expect like any other species we fornicated when and where ever until the man may have become aware that his partner was nursing an offspring perhaps with red hair, when they were both blond. Well, you know how it goes ;) And he would be pretty miffed at having to hunt and feed someone elses sprog. Not that the vows ensured that any future kids were his but I guess it put pressure on the woman not to stray.

[BigShoeStu]

Max, I like the way you think. Very analitical and logical. I also tend to think in the same respect which, I think, is why I have such a problem with "lifetime commitments".

As for "Love", maybe I shouldn't have even brought love up. My aurguement didn't mean to imply "how could one love another for all their life. It's way to vague of a question when so many people define love in different ways.

If there MUST be some kind of commitment made, I just feel it would be more realistic to commit to an undeterminable time. I feel strongly that every relationship has an expiration date, but it is impossible to determine that date. IMPOSSIBLE! Whether a couple can make it 1 year, 3, 5, 10, 50 or actually make it to the end of their lives before the marriage goes "sour", setting the timer for eternity, I feel, can cause more problems than anything else. I understand how people can love each other for the rest of their lives, but that doesn't mean the relationship will benefit them for the rest of their lives. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a marriage or any other kind of ceremony that instead of stating "'til death do you part" or, "bound for life" could be replaced by something more realistic like, "until your time together no longer benefits one or another and shall ye part"? It's hard to find exact wording for it and I realize my thoughts on this are killing the romantic aspects of marriage.

It just continues to bother me. . . no, INFURIATE me, seeing intelligent couples of every culture, religion and non-religion continueing to make unrealistic commitments when the evidence is slowly, but surely, showing that lifetime commitments statistically are not working. Last I heard, Americans are 52% likely to divorce and second marriages are closer to 80% likely to end in divorce. Personally, of the 48% that remain married, at least half of them SHOULD be divorced. I have mo evidence to back that up - It's just a personal opinion.

Has anyone ever thought of renuable marriages? "Do you, BigShoeStu, take Girl6 (just an example) to be your wife, to love, honor and take dancing every Friday night for the next three years with an option to renew for another three or five years at the end of this term?" - Damn, that really sucks the romance out of it, doesn't it?

[kevinsbikes]

Originally posted by BigShoeStu

I understand how people can love each other for the rest of their lives, but that doesn't mean the relationship will benefit them for the rest of their lives.

Oooh! My bruddah!
Dude, I love you... and WILL for the rest of my life. There isn't always tangible benefit. No one can expect that. Bull/Bear market... it just doesn't matter.
My honest opinion of marriage is that while I continue on my short pathway of life, I embrace the fact that my wife is currently on a similar pathway. Ups and downs included. It isn't always perfect, but the good outweigh the bad. If that ever changes where the bad outweigh the good and our pathways seperate, then it is time to add to the statisics column. Until then, it is "'till death do us part." :D

[hawkins_anderson]

It's not the "institution" (Jail???? LOL :) of marriage that is terrible but what people do with it. I enjoyed every day of my marriage even the hard times because I knew she was there, and I was not alone. When I lost my wife 3 years ago, it was a devistating thing for me. Most of my buddies kept pushing me to get back out there. I just couldn't. I felt incomplete and still do in many ways to this day. The problem I've noticed is way too many people "commit" to each other for all the wrong reasons. I miss my wife and would not have traded that experience for anything in the known universe. Marriage is realistic but only if the two people involved in said marriage are realistic with each other.

[Zero]

What I like to consider is the fact that the life expectancy of people 1000 years ago was short enough that you could reasonably commit to a lifetime commitment. Especially if the husband was 10-15 years older than the bride, "til death do us part" could be 10 years.

[iain]

Realistically, "until death do us part" means "until we get fed up with each other" these days. That might not be a bad thing.

I guess the answer is that, if marriage doesn't work for you, don't get married. As long as you don't start telling me that I shouldn't be married, I really don't mind how you live your life :)

[Schizobunny]

That's what they created divorce (and guns) for.:D :jedi: