Down with Divorce

[ppp]

I just wonder where the urge comes from. My grandmother lived with someone for over 20 years, until he died(my biological grandpa died long before my birth). They loved each other very much, but said they didn't want to bother with the wedding and paperwork.

Probably a combination of wanting to share our happiness, announce our transitions of maturity, protect the people we love, and satisfy societal expectations. Or something.

 

[JustGeorge]

Probably a combination of wanting to share our happiness, announce our transitions of maturity, protect the people we love, and satisfy societal expectations. Or something.

That I get. (Well, other than the social expectations. I don't understand those, either.)

The need to bring a license into it is where I get lost.

 

[Wu Wei]

I have seen no explanation of practical differences from you, nor do I anticipate any will be forthcoming. So, that is that.

Have a nice day

 

[Left Coast]

And one can view marriage as just a business transaction and make dumb financial decisions.
All I'm saying is that the probability of making bad decisions is inverse proportional to the realism with which one sees marriage.
Knowing that about a third of all marriages end in divorce and realising that you are not special and marrying anyway is a risk/cost evaluation.
Thinking that you are special and divorce could never happen to you is just as likely to lead to disappointment as thinking that you will never get caught when robbing a bank.
And the "'till does us part" notion instils that naïvety. It also carries the danger of a "gotcha" mentality. "I worked so hard to get you before the altar, now that I'm married, I can relax."
With a temporary marriage you are aware that a performance report is coming up and that you have to keep on your toes.

In a culture where you can divorce at any time, like ours, your "performance report" is every day.

And it's not "naive" to believe your marriage may last till death; many marriages do. It's not like winning the lottery. If anything it increases your resolve to make a relationship last if you have made a public commitment to do so.

This idea of temporary marriages would create its own set of problems, such as spouses who know they're going to "get out" in a few years and thus don't make any real effort to solve the relationship's problems. And again, in a culture where I don't need to wait till then end of my "5 year contract," and can get out now if I want, why wouldn't I?

This proposal just doesn't solve anything from my perspective, really. If anything it just seems cynical.

By the way, are you married?

 

[ppp]

That I get. (Well, other than the social expectations. I don't understand those, either.)

Same. Well, I get social expectation to a small extent, but my "tradition" dial is turned way down. Of all the good reasons to do a given thing, tradition is the least of the good reasons.

The need to bring a license into it is where I get lost.

That is a mixed bag depending on the country. In the US it is intertwined with racism and the fear of whichever forms of miscegenation were abhorred in the region.

 

[JustGeorge]

Same. Well, I get social expectation to a small extent, but my "tradition" dial is turned way down. Of all the good reasons to do a given thing, tradition is the least of the good reasons.

Yup. I understand the need is there for some, but don't relate to it well.

That is a mixed bag depending on the country. In the US it is intertwined with racism and the fear of whichever forms of miscegenation were abhorred in the region.

Interesting. How did bringing a license into it affect these things, or how did these things influence the desire to bring a license into it?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Whether or not there are tax and other legal benefits, we would have had a ceremony to mark our joining. Linn was fine with us living together, but I wanted the public ceremony and recognition of our coupleness. It means a great deal to me spiritually. But I would not think to impose a requirement for such on anyone else...

 

[ppp]

Yup. I understand the need is there for some, but don't relate to it well.

Interesting. How did bringing a license into it affect these things, or how did these things influence the desire to bring a license into it?

Probably in a lot of ways. But coupled with anti-cohabitation laws, it effectively put the state in the position of legitimizing or delegitimizing relationships between people, usually along the lines of protecting some conception of white purity. Miscegenation laws rarely banned all interracial marriages. They primarily pivoted around protecting whites from the racialized other of the region. I say primarily because they also involved around religion and the status of women as possessions. It's a mess that probably goes well beyond the scope of this forum.

 

[JustGeorge]

Whether or not there are tax and other legal benefits, we would have had a ceremony to mark our joining. Linn was fine with us living together, but I wanted the public ceremony and recognition of our coupleness. It means a great deal to me spiritually. But I would not think to impose a requirement for such on anyone else...

I relate to the sentiments here. I love the spiritual relevance of a marriage. The legal stuff feels... odd... to me.

 

[ppp]

Whether or not there are tax and other legal benefits, we would have had a ceremony to mark our joining. Linn was fine with us living together, but I wanted the public ceremony and recognition of our coupleness. It means a great deal to me spiritually. But I would not think to impose a requirement for such on anyone else...

You caused me to wonder what percentage of people have formal marriage ceremonies (religious or otherwise) without registering that marriage with the state. I could not find any studies on it ...in the past five minutes... but cannot imagine the number is completely trivial.

 

[JustGeorge]

Probably in a lot of ways. But coupled with anti-cohabitation laws, it effectively put the state in the position of legitimizing or delegitimizing relationships between people, usually along the lines of protecting some conception of white purity. Miscegenation laws rarely banned all interracial marriages. They primarily pivoted around protecting whites from the racialized other of the region. I say primarily because they also involved around religion and the status of women as possessions. It's a mess that probably goes well beyond the scope of this forum.

I know you said you're in the US(as am I), but I recognize culture varies severely from one part to another.

Historically, I can see why the licensing process was created with this in mind(even if its very sad things operated like this). With this in mind, do you feel that marriage as it is today, in your part of the country, is still affected by racist views?

 

[ppp]

I know you said you're in the US(as am I), but I recognize culture varies severely from one part to another.

Historically, I can see why the licensing process was created with this in mind(even if its very sad things operated like this). With this in mind, do you feel that marriage as it is today, in your part of the country, is still affected by racist views?

Still affected by racist views? Absolutely. Though the edges have been steadily and significantly blunted since I was a kid, a half century ago. Despite the current national upsurge.

 

[JustGeorge]

Still affected by racist views? Absolutely. Though the edges have been steadily and significantly blunted since I was a kid, a half century ago. Despite the current national upsurge.

Specifically in reference to marriage and racism, what do you think has improved? I'm aware interracial marriage used to be illegal, but this has lifted(unless I'm mistaken). What else has gotten better?

What still needs to be addressed?

 

[Kenny]

Marriages should have term limits (3-5 years) where the participants must actively choose to extend the commitment. They should constantly evaluate and reevaluate the legal, financials and personal entanglement, and decide whether the partnership is working to support their needs as an individual, as a parent, as a partner, and whatever else the persons involved deem important. Get rid of divorce. Give us re-enlistments!

I see marriage more of a covenant which requires a little more effort. It gets better as time goes on. Like gold, it is refined through the fire of life and gets better.

Obviously, I am speaking in context of my signature knowing that divorce is sometimes the only answer as when abuse is happening.

5 years is only a “getting to know you” phase and learning how to live with each other. 7 years is a milestone to start finding what marriage is all about IMV

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you think frowning stops many unmarried couples having sex?

I don't think it stops anyone, although I do not approve of sex out of wedlock.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why clean the house? It will get dirty all by its own in no time.

That is what my late husband always used to say, and he always blamed the cats for why the house cannot be kept clean.
That is basically the only thing we ever fought about for during our 37 year marriage, the housecleaning and the yard work he refused to do.
We never fought about what most couples fight about, sex and money.

Other for a very temporary state of being clean, why clean at all?

You have a point there, especially if nobody else is coming over to see it, as is true in my case.

 

[Trailblazer]

the whole fabric of society hinges on a legal contract between two people?

No, it hinges on family, which includes a couple and their children, which normally involves marriage.

Seems a bit dramatic to me.
Especially considered all the people who are getting along just fine with out your society hinging legal contract.

Maybe they get along fine if no children are involved, but in reality children are usually involved, so their welfare has to be considered.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then you are merely speaking out of ignorance.
Go read the Bible then come back and tell us how marriage is not a business transaction.

Why should I care what the Bible says? I am not a Christian, and I do not follow an old Book because I now have a new Book.
I just told you that the Baha'i Faith has marriage and divorce laws but they are different from what is in the Bible.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sounds too communistic to me. Why not keep marriage as it is, life sentence, and offer separate 5 year plans for those who want that?

Marriage is not a life sentence because people can get a divorce if they choose to, and that is what many people do.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because many women in the US are not for pre-marital sex, so men feel almost "forced" to get married.

What women are these? I think most men and women are for premarital sex, although I am one of those women who would never engage in it.

Men are not "forced" to get married, they can just find another woman to have sex with.
All men I have met on dating sites move on after they find out I don't have sex out of wedlock.
That's fine by me since I don't have any interest in men who can't wait till they get married to have sex.