What is the purpose of marriage?
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
S
Shai Gar
To solidify a commitment between you and another. Wherein the commitment is whatever oaths you give to the other person.
I hate that "write your own vow's" crap. Most people don't write their own vows, so they're not actually promising ANYTHING to their partner, just reading out a definition of love.
I hate that "write your own vow's" crap. Most people don't write their own vows, so they're not actually promising ANYTHING to their partner, just reading out a definition of love.
I'm being stupid.Satya said:
Ok, serious answer; I don't see any purpose for marriage other than legal and financial security, obviously factors that can be important when children are involved.
Everything else is about signing a piece of paper that says you are committed, imho it serves no purpose, that piece of paper does not bind you in that commitment, divorce would be non-existent if that were the case. There is no purpose, it’s emotional.
Yep I'm cynical about this, but I don't suggest it doesn't mean something.
Though I'm young, nothing can convince me that one needs a certificate to "prove" that they love someone.
Not to mention the fact that after ten years I believe (in California at least), if a couple lives in the same house and pays taxes on that house for ten years, they're technically "married" after that, without having to do all the religious preachy stuff!
It's all about free love!
Not to mention the fact that after ten years I believe (in California at least), if a couple lives in the same house and pays taxes on that house for ten years, they're technically "married" after that, without having to do all the religious preachy stuff!
It's all about free love!
It's nothing but a 'binding' contract to lower the probability that the couple will annul their 'love' towards each other. What I mean in love is not agape or something; it's just feelings from id, which just wants to satisfy its 'basic needs.' Well, I think I can add some evolutionary purposes there as sauce.
Because of my cynical view towards marriage and love, I tend to believe marriage is unnecessary and I will probably be happy living by myself, without any spouse.
Because of my cynical view towards marriage and love, I tend to believe marriage is unnecessary and I will probably be happy living by myself, without any spouse.
These days it seems that marriage is some sort of ideal we are all trying to live up to.
Back in the day marriage was an economic institution untiting fortunes with land, titles, etc....
Maybe the question we should be asking is what should I be getting out of my marriage/relationship?
While my spouse and I aren't the best match in religious beliefs, politics, even to some degree MBTI (he tested as an ESFJ but due to life things he's kinda a damaged ESFJ) and astrological (including the chinese stuff). Both of our individual strengths are the others weaknesses. I am good with managing money...he is not. I am not so good making decisions and setting courses of action....He is. His academic strength is in logic, mathematics, etc...I am English, Language, and writing strong. I'm a detail person, he's a big picture person. He's got the originality, I can find the way to make it happen. Together we are more successful then either of us would be apart.
Back in the day marriage was an economic institution untiting fortunes with land, titles, etc....
Maybe the question we should be asking is what should I be getting out of my marriage/relationship?
While my spouse and I aren't the best match in religious beliefs, politics, even to some degree MBTI (he tested as an ESFJ but due to life things he's kinda a damaged ESFJ) and astrological (including the chinese stuff). Both of our individual strengths are the others weaknesses. I am good with managing money...he is not. I am not so good making decisions and setting courses of action....He is. His academic strength is in logic, mathematics, etc...I am English, Language, and writing strong. I'm a detail person, he's a big picture person. He's got the originality, I can find the way to make it happen. Together we are more successful then either of us would be apart.
Thats not exactly a fair quote there.
The purpose of marriage could be defined with different criteria over the different levels of society across different periods of time in history.
Back in the roman days, it wasn't unusual for the patriarchs to marry off their sisters, daughter, and even cousins, nieces, and aunts to their constituents.
The purpose of marriage today is a lot different than what it was at any other point in history.
The purpose of marriage could be defined with different criteria over the different levels of society across different periods of time in history.
Back in the roman days, it wasn't unusual for the patriarchs to marry off their sisters, daughter, and even cousins, nieces, and aunts to their constituents.
The purpose of marriage today is a lot different than what it was at any other point in history.
In the long run it's not inherently bad for traditionalists, or for progressives. Depends on the results. I think change is best accomplished in small steps. When pendulum change occurs I think it results in more interim chaos before some kind of balance is achieved.
I think that to some degree there is a mockery made of the institution of marriage. When we get people in hollywood marrying people for a fluke and then divorcing days later (if not hours). When two people marry when they aren't really suited for each other because the girl is pregnant (It's not necessarily wrong, but I think that it would be healthier for the kid to have to amicable parents who never married but are friends, to having two people get into a bad marriage, stick it out as long as possible before an ugly messy divorce and years of animosity).
I think that 'Irreconcilable Differences' is too loose of a reason to grant a divorce. I am not saying get rid of it all together. But I think that maybe it should only be granted after a set number of visits to a licensed qualified relationship consulor. Along with the consulors report of their progress during counseling. Maybe if it was a bit more difficult to get a divorce, people wouldn't get married quite so quick.
I think that to some degree there is a mockery made of the institution of marriage. When we get people in hollywood marrying people for a fluke and then divorcing days later (if not hours). When two people marry when they aren't really suited for each other because the girl is pregnant (It's not necessarily wrong, but I think that it would be healthier for the kid to have to amicable parents who never married but are friends, to having two people get into a bad marriage, stick it out as long as possible before an ugly messy divorce and years of animosity).
I think that 'Irreconcilable Differences' is too loose of a reason to grant a divorce. I am not saying get rid of it all together. But I think that maybe it should only be granted after a set number of visits to a licensed qualified relationship consulor. Along with the consulors report of their progress during counseling. Maybe if it was a bit more difficult to get a divorce, people wouldn't get married quite so quick.
In Western culture, marriage is a romantic institution. People get married because they are in love and and blissfully happy and can't imagine being apart from one another for the rest of their lives! Unfortunately, these reasons aren't enough to actually sustain a life-long relationship, which is why there's such a high divorce rate.
Most people are selfish -- it's about what we need/want/desire. ME ME ME! I think this is the mentality of most people going into marriage is: "this person makes me feel good about myself" "this person makes me feel loved" "this person makes my life better." All fine and dandy, but when that smidgen of unhappiness comes about, instead of trying to fix it, the divorce papers are sent.
Love is emotions. Emotions are fleeting. Thus, so are relationships.
To stay in a marriage AND be happy, it's not about romance, it's about truly liking the other person, caring about them and choosing them as your life partner. And a marriage is not needed for that!
Most people are selfish -- it's about what we need/want/desire. ME ME ME! I think this is the mentality of most people going into marriage is: "this person makes me feel good about myself" "this person makes me feel loved" "this person makes my life better." All fine and dandy, but when that smidgen of unhappiness comes about, instead of trying to fix it, the divorce papers are sent.
Love is emotions. Emotions are fleeting. Thus, so are relationships.
To stay in a marriage AND be happy, it's not about romance, it's about truly liking the other person, caring about them and choosing them as your life partner. And a marriage is not needed for that!
pandagirl said:
Therefore love is fleeting?
I don't believe so, the mother's love of a child can last untill the day she dies and the same can be said for other forms of love. I think this is where a lot of relationships go wrong, confusing emotions with love. Love to me is dedication, loyalty and acceptance no matter what, you can go through a whole range of emotions (including negative) but still love that person just as much throughout them.
To me marriage is a symbol of commitment and unconditional love. However, truly unconditional love is very rare, so many of us want instant gratification, "I love you because you make me happy, I love you because you make me proud, because, because, because etc." are essentially meaningless compared to "I just love you, you don't have to give or do anything that benefits me and I will still love you". Very few people make that kind of statement.
I aboslutley agree with this though, a selfish outlook causes many problems.