The pointlessness of marriage?

[Straw Dog]

An ant and an elephant married. The lovemaking was so passionte and violent that the elephant died in the morning. Ant, while digging the grave sighed "One night of passion and life long drudgery".

Just joking.

That's what happens when we start letting people marry whom they want. It's a slippery slope.

 

[Infinitum]

This is because the conception of the marriage idea revolves around having children.

What? No, it doesn't. Traditional marriage has been a pact between two families involving the change of wealth an land for individuals. Yes, continuing the family has been a part of it, but even the idea of romantic love is something completely new in our society. This is why in medieval Europe there was for a long time two kinds of marriages: civil ones and the ones blessed by the church. Civil marriage was usually conducted by handfasting, which bonded two individuals together for as long as they wanted - but without the legal benefits. The matter is much more complicated than just two people having sex.

Young couples without children tend not too last very long as the biological purpose of love is not being fulfilled. This leads to infidelity and divorce.

Just a few months ago one of my friend couples divorced partly because they had a child. Divorce is what happens when two people start arguing with each other, and whether they have children or not has very little to do with it. Psychologically this is not true either, since even though some couples marry in order to have sex, after having sex their hormones purr completely happily notwithstanding what follows after the sex. The only reason why having children may prevent divorce is because the parents are afraid of raising the children in a "broken home".

So, if we allow divorce then why bother getting married in the first place?

Say your spouse turns out to be a psychopath. Would you want to spend the rest of your life with that person? Yes, that doesn't happen often, but people have many reasons why they feel they can't be together with someone anymore.

If you are not likely to have children together then why get married in the first place?

There are many legal benefits for getting married. If you want to share your life with someone, don't you think the state should make it possible to organize things in a way that's beneficial for you? Most couples share much of their income to build a home together, and there are many situations where common rules are crucial in order to make it work. Marriage is still also much about property.

The Natural function of love is procreation - it's other meanings are purely idealistic and we all see how this 'fades' away over time, unless of course there are children to perpetuate its substance.

Love is about procreation, yes, but it's also about bonding. Many animals, including humans, are social creatures and simply like the company of someone we know and trust. Just think about birds. I'm fairly sure they would have just as lovely offspring with many of the potential suitors, but they choose to spend even twenty years together with the same bitd. Which brings to my mind, did you know that birds do also have divorces?

So the proposal is to abolish marriage except for those that have children together, in which case the marriage can occur shortly after the first birth.

In my opinion this is just nonsense. It undermines much of the present social structure while being at the same time discriminatory for couples that already have children, cannot have children or do not want to have children, not to speak of same sex couples.

This seems like the most sensible option. (all other couples may have some kind of minor civil union type arrangement if necessary)

Why this separation between marriage and civil union? If civil union involves exactly the same priviledges as marriage, why make the life hard for everyone and use two different words? There is nothing magical or sacred about marriage nor having children, despite of all cultural baggage it carries around these days. Or should we go back to talking about illegimate children and ***tards, now that we're on it?

 

[atanu]

An ant and an elephant married. The lovemaking was so passionte and violent that the elephant died in the morning. Ant, while digging the grave sighed "One night of passion and life long drudgery".

Just joking.

A wife died. So, four people were carrying the dead body and the husband was most anxious that the bed she was being carried upon did not hit anything on the way. He kept on saying "Be careful, there". Folks said "How loving he is. He does not want his wife hurt even while she is dead". He said "I am afraid that she may come back with a sudden jerk".

 

[dawny0826]

Marriage seems to be a pointless, outmoded idea and should be done away with.

Why do I think this?

This is because the conception of the marriage idea revolves around having children.

Young couples without children tend not too last very long as the biological purpose of love is not being fulfilled. This leads to infidelity and divorce.

So, if we allow divorce then why bother getting married in the first place?

If you are not likely to have children together then why get married in the first place?

The Natural function of love is procreation - it's other meanings are purely idealistic and we all see how this 'fades' away over time, unless of course there are children to perpetuate its substance.

So the proposal is to abolish marriage except for those that have children together, in which case the marriage can occur shortly after the first birth.

This seems like the most sensible option. (all other couples may have some kind of minor civil union type arrangement if necessary)

There are different motivations to marry and benefits from a legal and practical perspective. A couple should have the right to define what marriage would mean to them and if would hold benefit to them, from legal, practical, emotional and sensible perspectives.

It's challening to blanket lable, when not all believe that marriage is an ideal option, when children are involved. Not all believe that marriage is ideal when love is genuine and long lasting.

Civil union should always be an option. Divorce should be an option. The ability to live cohabitate and procreate without the pressures of any sort of civil union should also be present, as couples should have the ability to define "ideal" for themselves.

 

[nnmartin]

Until you can show that marriage is only about children, your argument is empty.

ok, what else is it about then?

if you say love, then how does a piece of paper make that any different?

 

[nnmartin]

my forecast is that gradually, marriage will fade into the annals of history.

Already it has become something of a joke with little true meaning other than a ticket to perceived financial security or visa in the passport.

How about the pre-nuptial, where is the love in that?

In ancient times marriage was needed to keep the tribe together and for a woman to have the man provide. Then came along religion and enforced morality which dictated that man and woman must be together and monogamous.

But nowadays we don't need either and so it has just been relegated to the realm of finance, administration and idealism.

No one is saying that you cannot get married, rather , it will just be abolished as the concept is no longer fit for purpose.

 

[Pegg]

what is the point of getting married if you do not want or cannot have children?

ummmm, because that is the type of union that God wants a man and woman to commit to. That makes it special in its own right.

 

[Pegg]

my forecast is that gradually, marriage will fade into the annals of history.

Already it has become something of a joke with little true meaning other than a ticket to perceived financial security or visa in the passport.

How about the pre-nuptial, where is the love in that?

In ancient times marriage was needed to keep the tribe together and for a woman to have the man provide. Then came along religion and enforced morality which dictated that man and woman must be together and monogamous.

But nowadays we don't need either and so it has just been relegated to the realm of finance, administration and idealism.

No one is saying that you cannot get married, rather , it will just be abolished as the concept is no longer fit for purpose.

there are many things in this world that are abused and misused. Cars, Aeroplanes, bombs, alcohol etc etc etc... we dont stop using them just because some people misuse them.

And just because they CAN be used wrongly, doesnt mean that those things are bad in themselves. When used correctly, they are very beneficial.

 

[Foxfire]

what is the point of getting married if you do not want or cannot have children?

I get someone who can fix things around the house and I get to cook for him. LOL!(Although we both like to do those things.) We are best friends.

I like having someone to love. I like being there for him. He drives me to extreme frustration at times, but he is here for me. We have a trust that has taken a long time to build and is still building - in fact, our relationsip is not a done deal - it is always moving, fluid and dynamic.

Anything worth having takes a lot of hard work. And my marriage is definitely worth having. We are an exquisite work in progress and I wouldn't have it any other way. And it is through marriage, IMO, that the benefits bloom untethered. We have pledged to be there for each other and that we shall do until one of us can breathe no longer.

Kahlil Gibran on Love

When love beckons to you, follow him,
Though his ways are hard and steep.
And when his wings enfold you yield to him,
Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you.
And when he speaks to you believe in him,
Though his voice may shatter your dreams
as the north wind lays waste the garden.

For even as love crowns you so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for your growth so is he for your pruning.
Even as he ascends to your height and caresses your tenderest branches that quiver in the sun,
So shall he descend to your roots and shake them in their clinging to the earth.

Like sheaves of corn he gathers you unto himself.
He threshes you to make you naked.
He sifts you to free you from your husks.
He grinds you to whiteness.
He kneads you until you are pliant;
And then he assigns you to his sacred fire, that you may become sacred bread for God's sacred feast.

All these things shall love do unto you that you may know the secrets of your heart, and in that knowledge become a fragment of Life's heart.

But if in your fear you would seek only love's peace and love's pleasure,
Then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out of love's threshing-floor,
Into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears.
Love gives naught but itself and takes naught but from itself.
Love possesses not nor would it be possessed;
For love is sufficient unto love.

When you love you should not say, "God is in my heart," but rather, "I am in the heart of God."
And think not you can direct the course of love, for love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.

Love has no other desire but to fulfill itself.
But if you love and must needs have desires, let these be your desires:
To melt and be like a running brook that sings its melody to the night.
To know the pain of too much tenderness.
To be wounded by your own understanding of love;
And to bleed willingly and joyfully.
To wake at dawn with a winged heart and give thanks for another day of loving;
To rest at the noon hour and meditate love's ecstasy;
To return home at eventide with gratitude;
And then to sleep with a prayer for the beloved in your heart and a song of praise upon your lips.

 

[McBell]

Gjallarhorn:

benefits - yes, that is one of the points I am making.

Marriage in this case is only one of financial convenience so is nothing other than a sham - hence it should be abolished.

Unless of course you are a member of one of the religions that condems prem-marital sex.

I have heard several people say that that is point blank the only reason they got married.
Or the girl got pregnant.

But then, as Kathryn pointed out, there are those who get married for reasons that even you think noble and just.

Though i do wonder why you think that marriage is solely for procreation.
Hells bells, even the Bible clearly shows that marriage is not only about procreation...

 

[McBell]

having children is what tends to keep the flame of love alive in a marriage - it is a biological instinct at work here.

if you only get married for children then i say your marriage is not all that to begin with.

So without children, we don't need marriage as in this case it would just be an idealistic wish to artificially perpetuate our fading love for each other.

Seems to me that the number of children born daily out of wedlock clearly shows that marriage is not a requirement for having children.

so, much easier to do away with it entirely for all childless couples, and let free love reign supreme.

Except it goes right back to what Kathryn flat out asked you earlier in the thread:

why do you think your opinions about marriage should result in other people being denied the right to be married?​

 

[bobhikes]

Marriage seems to be a pointless, outmoded idea and should be done away with.

Why do I think this?

This is because the conception of the marriage idea revolves around having children.

Young couples without children tend not too last very long as the biological purpose of love is not being fulfilled. This leads to infidelity and divorce.

So, if we allow divorce then why bother getting married in the first place?

If you are not likely to have children together then why get married in the first place?

The Natural function of love is procreation - it's other meanings are purely idealistic and we all see how this 'fades' away over time, unless of course there are children to perpetuate its substance.

So the proposal is to abolish marriage except for those that have children together, in which case the marriage can occur shortly after the first birth.

This seems like the most sensible option. (all other couples may have some kind of minor civil union type arrangement if necessary)

Marriage is a human event and has nothing to do with nature.

It is a process where 2 logical/emotional humans decide they want to spend the rest of there life together. They want other humans to know that they made this decision. The decision is a private and personal one that the two individual humans must agree to.

No one in the US anyway can take away the personal and private rights of the individual if it does not harm others. Marriage does not harm others.

 

[nnmartin]

ummmm, because that is the type of union that God wants a man and woman to commit to. That makes it special in its own right.

Well that surely depends on your religion and beliefs.

 

[nnmartin]

I like having someone to love. I like being there for him. He drives me to extreme frustration at times, but he is here for me. We have a trust that has taken a long time to build and is still building - in fact, our relationsip is not a done deal - it is always moving, fluid and dynamic.

that sounds great but what real difference does having a legal marriage make to this arrangement?

Love is all in the mind and a piece of paper is going to change this except for perhaps a very short time.

boyfriend and girlfriend or husband and wife - what's the difference apart from a few financial benefits?

 

[nnmartin]

Unless of course you are a member of one of the religions that condems prem-marital sex.

I have heard several people say that that is point blank the only reason they got married.
Or the girl got pregnant.

A religious marriage for sure - yes, I can agree with that.

But in the secular world , is it really necessary?

But then, as Kathryn pointed out, there are those who get married for reasons that even you think noble and just.

Though i do wonder why you think that marriage is solely for procreation.
Hells bells, even the Bible clearly shows that marriage is not only about procreation...

Such as?

 

[nnmartin]

Except it goes right back to what Kathryn flat out asked you earlier in the thread:

why do you think your opinions about marriage should result in other people being denied the right to be married?​

no-one can be denied a right to do something if it does not exist.

So, what I am proposing is that we abolish all secular marriage and make a level playing field for all.

someone can always have a private spiritual ceremony and buy a ring if they so desire.

 

[McBell]

no-one can be denied a right to do something if it does not exist.

So, what I am proposing is that we abolish all secular marriage and make a level playing field for all.

someone can always have a private spiritual ceremony and buy a ring if they so desire.

Oh, so you want he government to abolish their income from marriage because you dislike it?

Do you honestly think that the government is going to abolish marriage based on your opinion?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Natural function of love is procreation - it's other meanings are purely idealistic and we all see how this 'fades' away over time, unless of course there are children to perpetuate its substance.

Actually what we call romantic love is the result of various neurotransmitters being released. The urge for sex is another physiological response, as is the urge to have children. You can say one can lead to the other, but there are plenty of romantic couples that do not desire children.
But because most people live within the definitions of their society, marriage does indeed have a purpose. In one way or another, there have been rituals for society to acknowledge a formal commitment of those who the ritual revolves around. However IMO the government-sanctioned part of it in our society is very pointless, and it ends up causing many problems for couples who are not married but otherwise would be just fine with things like finances and inheritance, medical care decisions, and other things the government has mucked up because it got involved with marriage. And then it isn't too uncommon for elderly couples (at least here in America) to refrain from marriage to avoid having their supplemented income reduced.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, what I am proposing is that we abolish all secular marriage and make a level playing field for all.

I'm go'n out on a limb here.
Either.....
1) You aren't married.
2) You'd never let your better half see your posts about marriage.

 

[nnmartin]

Oh, so you want he government to abolish their income from marriage because you dislike it?

Do you honestly think that the government is going to abolish marriage based on your opinion?

sure, why not?

and income can just be gained from other sources.