Mawij

[flylock shox]

Borrowing from prime333's related thread, it appears that marriage isn't for everybody - a position that Statscan tends to support, since the number of people who never marry is increasing, and 40% of Canadians who do marry end up getting divorced.

And divorce sucks.

So, marriage: is it a good idea?

What are the pros and cons? Is it better to stay single forever?

If you do get married, what are the most important things to make it work?

What are the things that are most likely to make it fail? Is it really always women's fault?

Where is the institution of marriage heading and what kind of relationships are going to replace it in the future?

How about that polygamy thing? Polyandry? Polyamory?

What's the best way to go?

[troutman]

“Marriage is not a love affair. A love affair is a totally different thing. A marriage is a commitment to that which you are. That person is literally your other half. And you and the other are one. A love affair isn’t that. That is a relationship of pleasure, and when it gets to be unpleasurable , it’s off. But a marriage is a life commitment, and a life commitment means the prime concern of your life. If marriage is not the prime concern, you are not married.”

- Joseph Campbell

http://www.awaken.com/2013/07/joseph...l-on-marriage/

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Borrowing from prime333's related thread, it appears that marriage isn't for everybody - a position that Statscan tends to support, since the number of people who never marry is increasing, and 40% of Canadians who do marry end up getting divorced.

And divorce sucks.

So, marriage: is it a good idea?

It depends on each indivdual and their reasons for getting married in the first place.

What are the pros and cons? Is it better to stay single forever?

If you do get married, what are the most important things to make it work?

Commitment. Many people today view it as just a thing to do and not a lifelong commitment. If you're willing to throw it away at any bump in the road, why are you there?

What are the things that are most likely to make it fail? Is it really always women's fault?

Infidelity for sure, but more than that, a willingness to settle. If you're going into a marriage 'just because', you're doing it wrong. If you think to yourself your partner is 'good enough' so why not, that's a recipie for disaster. What's that saying about finding someone you can't live without, instead of someone you can live with?

Certainly, women are famous for 'trapping' men with children, but honestly, it takes two to make a baby and two to make the decision to marry for the sake of the children instead of love. So many people put their kids first but the foundation of any family starts with the parents and if their focus isn't on their relationship, it will fall apart.

Where is the institution of marriage heading and what kind of relationships are going to replace it in the future?

How about that polygamy thing? Polyandry? Polyamory?

What's the best way to go?

Everyone is different. Marriage isn't for everyone.

After hitting the wall myself, I was forced to accept that I would probably never marry and probably never have kids as I did not want to raise children alone. I was okay with that and got myself a dog. I dated and had fun but when I met my husband and we connected like we had known each other forever, we both decided that we wanted a family together and the first step was going to be marriage. That's our choice. It isn't for everyone though.

[wretched34]

If the process to get married, was as painstaking as the process to get divorced, I think there would be a lot less divorce.
It'd really make people think twice about getting married.

For example, I got married. Getting my marriage license took 15 minutes, at a registry, we were then free to get married. Less than a year later, it fell apart.
It has taken longer to get divorced, then it did to get engaged, plan a wedding, and our entire marriage combined. The Government has no issue with people getting married, but when it comes to splitting, they like to stick their nose in it, and act as if they're saying "Are you sure? Is this what you really want?" If the divorce is a bigger mistake than the marriage, we'll take the 15 minutes at the registry again, to fix things.

It's a ridiculous process, and can be very costly. I guess what I'm getting at, is if the government feels the need to stick their noses in a decision like this, it should be at both ends of the spectrum, not just one.

[Ozy_Flame]

I'll never understand the social stigma against prenups. I don't know why these are aren't used more. I think there is a "you don't love me if we get a prenup" mantra floating around for some people. A couple of buddies I know have run into that response.

[Looch City]

Do what ever the hell you want, just as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

[Cheese]

George Bernard Shaw described marriage as an institution that brings together two people "under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions. They are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part."

In some cultures and times, true love was actually thought to be incompatible with marriage. Plato believed love was a wonderful emotion that led men to behave honorably. But the Greek philosopher was referring not to the love of women, "such as the meaner men feel," but to the love of one man for another.

In ancient India, falling in love before marriage was seen as a disruptive, almost antisocial act. The Greeks thought lovesickness was a type of insanity, a view that was adopted by medieval commentators in Europe. In the Middle Ages the French defined love as a "derangement of the mind" that could be cured by sexual intercourse, either with the loved one or with a different partner.4 This cure assumed, as Oscar Wilde once put it, that the quickest way to conquer yearning and temptation was to yield immediately and move on to more important matters.

In China, excessive love between husband and wife was seen as a threat to the solidarity of the extended family. Parents could force a son to divorce his wife if her behavior or work habits didn't please them, whether or not he loved her. They could also require him take a concubine if his wife did not produce a son. If a son's romantic attachment to his wife rivaled his parents' claims on the couple's time and labor, the parents might even send her back to her parents. In the Chinese language the term love did not traditionally apply to feelings between husband and wife. It was used to describe an illicit, socially disapproved relationship. In the 1920s a group of intellectuals invented a new word for love between spouses because they thought such a radical new idea required its own special label.

In Europe, during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, adultery became idealized as the highest form of love among the aristocracy. According to the Countess of Champagne, it was impossible for true love to "exert its powers between two people who are married to each other."

http://www.stephaniecoontz.com/books...e/chapter1.htm

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Cheese

George Bernard Shaw described marriage as an institution that brings together two people "under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions. They are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part."

In some cultures and times, true love was actually thought to be incompatible with marriage. Plato believed love was a wonderful emotion that led men to behave honorably. But the Greek philosopher was referring not to the love of women, "such as sthe meaner men feel," but to the love of one man for another.

In ancient India, falling in love before marriage was seen as a disruptive, almost antisocial act. The Greeks thought lovesickness was a type of insanity, a view that was adopted by medieval commentators in Europe. In the Middle Ages the French defined love as a "derangement of the mind" that could be cured by sexual intercourse, either with the loved one or with a different partner.4 This cure assumed, as Oscar Wilde once put it, that the quickest way to conquer yearning and temptation was to yield immediately and move on to more important matters.

In China, excessive love between husband and wife was seen as a threat to the solidarity of the extended family. Parents could force a son to divorce his wife if her behavior or work habits didn't please them, whether or not he loved her. They could also require him take a concubine if his wife did not produce a son. If a son's romantic attachment to his wife rivaled his parents' claims on the couple's time and labor, the parents might even send her back to her parents. In the Chinese language the term love did not traditionally apply to feelings between husband and wife. It was used to describe an illicit, socially disapproved relationship. In the 1920s a group of intellectuals invented a new word for love between spouses because they thought such a radical new idea required its own special label.

In Europe, during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, adultery became idealized as the highest form of love among the aristocracy. According to the Countess of Champagne, it was impossible for true love to "exert its powers between two people who are married to each other."

http://www.stephaniecoontz.com/books...e/chapter1.htm

So, if the passion is going to inevitably die anyway, if you are going to get married, should you be looking for qualities that are more pragmatic in nature? Should you marry someone who is your best friend rather than your best lover?

Arranged marriages supposedly fail less often. Is that just because of cultural reasons, or are there pragmatic considerations such as family harmony that make them successful? I'd hate to be in a passionate relationship with a woman whose family I hated.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

So, if the passion is going to inevitably die anyway, if you are going to get married, should you be looking for qualities that are more pragmatic in nature? Should you marry someone who is your best friend rather than your best lover?

Arranged marriages supposedly fail less often. Is that just because of cultural reasons, or are there pragmatic considerations such as family harmony that make them successful? I'd hate to be in a passionate relationship with a woman whose family I hated.

Keep in mind that this figure is hotly debated because many point out that cultures partaking in these types of relationships do not support divorce.

The argument is that, if you’ll allow someone to arrange your marriage for you, you will also follow the norm and denounce divorce. Similarly divorce is decidedly more difficult in these countries compared to those in the west.
While the arranged marriage statistics may be encouraging, stories in the news regarding these types of unions are usually not wrapped up with a fairytale ending. We hear a lot about young women being killed by their families for not accepting a pre-determined partner. Of course, statistics related to this are not available.
http://www.everythingengagement.com/...tatistics.html

[Puppet Guy]

Originally Posted by wretched34

If the process to get married, was as painstaking as the process to get divorced, I think there would be a lot less divorce.
It'd really make people think twice about getting married.

For example, I got married. Getting my marriage license took 15 minutes, at a registry, we were then free to get married. Less than a year later, it fell apart.
It has taken longer to get divorced, then it did to get engaged, plan a wedding, and our entire marriage combined. The Government has no issue with people getting married, but when it comes to splitting, they like to stick their nose in it, and act as if they're saying "Are you sure? Is this what you really want?" If the divorce is a bigger mistake than the marriage, we'll take the 15 minutes at the registry again, to fix things.

It's a ridiculous process, and can be very costly. I guess what I'm getting at, is if the government feels the need to stick their noses in a decision like this, it should be at both ends of the spectrum, not just one.

in the lead-up to our wedding, Mrs. Puppet read somewhere that the majority of couples spend over 200 hours planning/discussing the wedding, but averaged about 2 hours planning/discussing the marriage. There's a sure sign that priorities are completely mixed up.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Do what ever the hell you want, just as long as you can deal with the consequences.

This is a saying I use all the time with my kids and myself.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by FireFly

So many people put their kids first but the foundation of any family starts with the parents and if their focus isn't on their relationship, it will fall apart.

That's the thing - the relationship is the foundation for the kids, the house, the finances, the future lifestyle, etc. If it's shakey, all of those things are affected.

I'm curious if there are any key predictors for marriage success or failure. It's obviously a very important question.

The passion vs. pragmatism aspect is interesting. Other things might be religion, relative financial independence, common interests and values.

And if the passion does inevitably die, are open marriages the future?

[trumpethead]

Originally Posted by wretched34

It has taken longer to get divorced, then it did to get engaged, plan a wedding, and our entire marriage combined. The Government has no issue with people getting married, but when it comes to splitting, they like to stick their nose in it, and act as if they're saying "Are you sure? Is this what you really want?" If the divorce is a bigger mistake than the marriage, we'll take the 15 minutes at the registry again, to fix things.

It's a ridiculous process, and can be very costly. I guess what I'm getting at, is if the government feels the need to stick their noses in a decision like this, it should be at both ends of the spectrum, not just one.

Explain to me how the government stuck their nose in your divorce proceedings. Beyond caring about your marital status with respect to taxation, I fail to see why the government would have any interest in your divorce.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Borrowing from prime333's related thread, it appears that marriage isn't for everybody - a position that Statscan tends to support, since the number of people who never marry is increasing, and 40% of Canadians who do marry end up getting divorced.

And divorce sucks.

So, marriage: is it a good idea?

Don't know I'm 40 something and still single. But I attribute that to the whole if your not sure don't do it. I think marriage is a great idea if you take your time getting to that point and there are no mysteries or skeletons going into it. You also have to as a couple be strong enough to survive things that would destroy ordinary people. Marriage does work, there are lots of people like my parents who have been together for 50 or 60 years and have the ability to apply a single minded work ethic to solving situations.

However future prime minister Crunch would put in a process where you could get a limited term marriage license of 5 years with a pre-defined separation clause.

Originally Posted by flylock shox

What are the pros and cons? Is it better to stay single forever?

Obviously on the pro's side of single hood there's a lot more freedom, and the mistakes that you make generally don't have the same splash and collateral damage that they do if your married. There's also the avoidance of staleness in your life because you can simply move on or move out or whatever.

On the con side of single life, eventually everyone hits the point where they're standing over the sink on Thanksgiving eating a cold can of Chef Boy-ardee. Of you start to question your human qualities, and looking with some jealousy on couples. then there's the whole alcoholism thing that follows and then jumping off of a bridge when you realize that nobody will even realize that your gone.

Originally Posted by flylock shox

If you do get married, what are the most important things to make it work?

Commitment to making it work no matter what the costs, would probably be the answer that my parents who have been together for more then 5 decades together. And brutal honesty without consequences.

Originally Posted by flylock shox

What are the things that are most likely to make it fail? Is it really always women's fault?

Keeping secrets, or in the terms of Jay Feaster Intellectual Dishonesty.

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Where is the institution of marriage heading and what kind of relationships are going to replace it in the future?

I think that the institution of marriage will always be there, and people will always have a desire for that serious committed monogamous declared relationship. I could see like I said someone proposing term limits on marriage with a pre-defined dissolution process.

Originally Posted by flylock shox

How about that polygamy thing? Polyandry? Polyamory?

Usually this seems to be one girl multiple guys, and homey don't play that. And even if it was one Crunch and multiple woman, I think I speak for every guy here when I say that if it happens once, awesome bucket list filled, but a committed relationship built around that, I have enough trouble keeping one woman happy.

Originally Posted by flylock shox

What's the best way to go?

You can go your own way
Go your own way
You can call it another lonely day
You can go your own way
Go your own way

[The Ditch]

Look at marriage as its own entity, bother partners have to be emotionally/mentally/spiritually/whatever healthy individually before they can work on the emotional/mental/spiritual health of the marriage. Partner 1 and 2 have to constantly be working on themselves and the marriage, letting something lapse in themselves or the marriage can cause chaos throughout. This is a lot of work.

tldr; it's complicated and a lot of work

[troutman]

The Legacy Project compiles wisdom from our seniors:

http://legacyproject.human.cornell.e...-and-marriage/

To my surprise, their advice was nearly unanimous: Opposites may attract, but they don’t usually make for great and lasting marriages. Based on their long experiences both in and out of romantic relationships, the fundamental lesson is this: You are much more likely to have a satisfying marriage for a lifetime when you and your mate are fundamentally similar. And if you’re very different, the elders warn although that marriage can work, is likely to be much more difficult.

Of course, to ensure shared values, there is a catch: Namely, you need to explore one another’s values while you are in the process of committing to a relationship. Ask the question: Do we believe the same things in life are important? The long-married elders recommend that you discuss this issue and to make sure core values are as similar as possible. A number of the elders offered this tip: Early in the relationship, each of you writes down your basic values or principles in areas like money, children, work, and sex — then share these statements with one another. Because value differences are likely to be at the heart many relationship problems, it’s much better to know them in advance of committing.

[GGG]

fundementally a marriage (common law or registered) is just a contract which sets the grounds for separation later on. It protects the children and the lesser earning spouse from not gaining anything over the course of the marriage. Essentially marriage is just a pre-nup.

In society though I think that the desire to raise kids with a partner will still exist and people will get married for that purpose.

What should reduce over time is the pressure to get married as the thing to do. I think too many people get married to check the boxes. Got a job, been dating for a year or two, gotta get married. I also think people have kids to check that box as well. As people make conscious choices to get into these situations rather than caving to societal pressure we will see more successful marriages.

One reason people get married and have kids I think is that it is much harder to say no and change your life. If you have been dating for 2 years its easier to get married than break-up. If you are married its easier to give in and have kids then break-up. The fear of being viewed as a failure keeps people in relationships longer then they should leading to the consequence of children which makes it more difficult to end relationships.

One of the things lately that makes me feel old is having friends getting divorced at a greater rate than getting married. And as you hear details you ask yourself why did they ever get married in the first place.

[Plett25]

Am I the only one around here who clicked on the thread to find out what "Mawij" meant?

[Plett25]

Marriage should not influence the level of commitment, rather, the high level of commitment should lead a couple into marriage.

Marriage (in my opinion) is just the legal documentation and social demonstration of a highly committed relationship.

[Chill Cosby]

Marriage is great.
So is being single.

Both have almost entirely subjective value.
It doesn't matter which you prefer, or what life arrangement outside of those two options you choose, it likely only has value to yourself.

The only advice I would have on marriage is to take it as seriously as deciding to get a tattoo on your face. It's going to be part of your identity, part of who you are. It's a life altering decision. You can still get a job while married, but you get the idea.

Thing is, if marriage is something you think you need to get out of after a year or two, then in my opinion you don't "get it" and you really should never marry again until you've substantially grown as a person. People who marry and get divorced multiple times, why? Just don't get married.

If the high level of commitment is something you're capable of, the person you're with is someone who can truly last through 99% of relationship issues and shares the same fundamental values as you, and the label is important to you, get married. If one of those things isn't true, then it would be idiotic to get married. Even if you're mostly sure about all of them, don't get married. Be sure.

It's marriage, you don't HAVE to do it. If you're going to do it, at least be sure about it so you don't waste everyone's time celebrating the arbitrary and fake process the two of you are going through that essentially means next to nothing to you.
...Unless you had an open bar, then we'll call it even.