What does marriage mean to you?

[CmdrAJD]

I see two aspects to it, neither of which necessarily require the legal bond part of the institution.

First is the romantic love between two people who have chosen to spend their lives together. Again, there's no reason that a special ceremony has to occur for people to make this decision; however, there are many who like to declare their love and dedication to each other in front of friends and family. Also for some the ceremony and becoming a married couple holds religious significance.

Beyond that, though (and I would argue possibly more important than that), is the partnership that results between the people who have chosen to go through life together. Loving somebody is one thing, but living with them is something else entirely. As unromantic as it sounds, being married carries with it a lot of aspects of a business partnership. Marriage, particularly in the early years, is a thousand little negotiations. Your lives have been legally bound together, so you have to figure out how it's all going to work. How are finances handled? Who does what chores? Are they shared? And so on. Bringing children into it just adds to the complexity. Will one parent stay home? Is day care an option?

Again, non-married couples can just as easily have these same issues, but marriage raises the stakes due to that whole "legally-binding" aspect of things. There's a song that says "sometimes love just ain't enough." You may love your partner, but if they are irresponsible with money or a complete slob, you may find that you can't be married to them.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

Some earlier posters have brought up the issue of the wedding ceremony/event, and I would suggest that that is a separate issue from the marriage. Overblown weddings should hopefully not be the issue that sours a person on the concept of marriage.I do think that too many couples feel the obligation to host a ceremony that is realistically beyond their finances, and this is a shame. It can put the couple in a financial bind right from day one, and finances are the #1 cause of problems in a marriage (from what I understand). So have the ceremony that you can afford. Friends and family should not care about how much $$$ was spent on the day.

I have no problem with marriage at all. It is not for everyone, though, and I know some people with excellent, very long term relationships where the two are definitely committed to each other. Others act like marriage is just a long term date that involves signing a piece of paper-- this is a recipe for disaster.

I think the divorce rate is so high because many people are not ready (or do not take seriously) what that "legal" marriage vow and piece of paper means in our culture.

I also think that (for almost all cases) if you are going to have kids, you should be married. Not everyone is as committed to a relationship with a "partner", but if you bring a child into the world with someone, there needs to be some legal structure in place to ensure that you will continue to be responsible to raise the kid (who can't provide for themselves for much of their early life), even if you choose not to be responsible to your partner (who probably can take care of themself without you). An innocent child should not suffer for a parent's inability to have made good decisions or lack of interest in keeping their commitments.

 

[Miss Chicken]

In Mick and Sue case they just refer to each other as husband and wife. Some people I know use the word partner. Some men refer to their Missus.

I assume Mick and Sue are happy together ? They have no piece of paper to say they're married, they have little legal recognition of their relationship so it looks to me like you've highlighted a good example of two people who have made a real commitment to each other rather than one enforced by law.

Actually in Tasmania they have quite a lot of legal recognition. In fact, they have the same rights as people who have been legally married.

Also they could register their relationship on theTasmanian Relationships Registry. This is not the same thing as marriage - in Australia marriages acome under Federal law - but it is as much recognition as the Tasmanian law can possibly give. Though this would not give them any more rights than a relationship that isn't registered, it does mean that the relationship is easier to prove for legally purposes.

 

[CorporalClegg]

The interesting thing - in light of the general patriarchal bent to society - is that monogamous marriage functions in the female rather than the male interest. For the female, marriage provides a degree of security wrt the raising of offspring.

That's because, from when they're young girls, they're constantly bombarded by an artificial, fantastical image and ideal that no one could realistically live up to.

Male-centric polygamy makes more sense from an evolutionary perspective, but is not as socially stable, in that the wifeless males will forever chafe at their position and seek to challenge or subvert the power of the dominant males. In this light, the decline of polygamy in favour of monogamy functions in the collective interest like social welfare and the practices (progressive/corporate taxation) supporting it: the powerful trade some of their power (wives, dollars, etc.) in exchange for a significantly reduced risk of losing their heads to the proletariat.

The thing is, if it were ever possible to ensure everyone involved in a polygamic relationship were able to live and be treated equally, then, in the long-run, I think it would be the ideal situation for both men and women. I think we, both as a society and species, would be better-off in the long run.

Some earlier posters have brought up the issue of the wedding ceremony/event, and I would suggest that that is a separate issue from the marriage. Overblown weddings should hopefully not be the issue that sours a person on the concept of marriage.I do think that too many couples feel the obligation to host a ceremony that is realistically beyond their finances, and this is a shame. It can put the couple in a financial bind right from day one, and finances are the #1 cause of problems in a marriage (from what I understand). So have the ceremony that you can afford. Friends and family should not care about how much $$$ was spent on the day.

But see, therein lies the problem. The social pressures have shifted the focus to "getting married." The union itself has sort of become this inconvenient after thought.

I have no problem with marriage at all. It is not for everyone, though, and I know some people with excellent, very long term relationships where the two are definitely committed to each other. Others act like marriage is just a long term date that involves signing a piece of paper-- this is a recipe for disaster.

Why? A legal union should be approached just like any other legal proposition. Two people get to like each other, decide to go through with it, get a boiler-plate and fine tune it to their needs, sign it, and move on. If if it doesn't work out, they simply make the necessary adjustments. No fuss, no muss.

I think the divorce rate is so high because many people are not ready (or do not take seriously) what that "legal" marriage vow and piece of paper means in our culture.

Again, this has to do with the sociological "pressures" of getting married.

The way people approach relationships is different than it has been for the all the previous thousands of years. People have tried to adjust and adapt to modern principles, unfortunately we, as a society, are still rooted in the old quagmire.

I also think that (for almost all cases) if you are going to have kids, you should be married.

And see, I just think this is short-shortsightedly clinging to archaic ideals.

Several months back, I posed the question of why can't civil unions be sufficient for the rest of us. This is the perfect example of why.

That's not to say I think marriage should be abolished. If that's your bag, then you should be allowed to do it now matter your creed, color, sexual preference, whatever. But currently people see civil unions as the weaker, less-civilized option. I think it should be the other way around.

Two people get together and want to make it official, sign some papers, go see the judge, then go out for cocktails. So simple.

 

[Haggis and tatties]

A government sanctioned device from old to ensure two people get tied down to kids, debt and work, and continue to pay taxes until they die, or until that clause "Till death us do part" comes into force and one dies allowing the other to start the whole process with somebody else again.

And that's just my personal opinion of it, nothing more.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Marriage means living with my fiancée when the time comes. Religious sanctions, actual ceremonies or legally binding documents have little to do with it. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[An Officer]

A beautiful union of souls. Marriage is a great and wonderful thing in my eyes.

 

[Deckerd]

In Mick and Sue case they just refer to each other as husband and wife. Some people I know use the word partner. Some men refer to their Missus.

I assume Mick and Sue are happy together ? They have no piece of paper to say they're married, they have little legal recognition of their relationship so it looks to me like you've highlighted a good example of two people who have made a real commitment to each other rather than one enforced by law.

Actually in Tasmania they have quite a lot of legal recognition. In fact, they have the same rights as people who have been legally married.

I'm fairly sure long-term relationships in the UK have legal recognition too, whether or not a formal marriage has taken place.

 

[Robert D. Robot]

Robert D. Robot wrote:
Some earlier posters have brought up the issue of the wedding ceremony/event, and I would suggest that that is a separate issue from the marriage. Overblown weddings should hopefully not be the issue that sours a person on the concept of marriage.I do think that too many couples feel the obligation to host a ceremony that is realistically beyond their finances, and this is a shame. It can put the couple in a financial bind right from day one, and finances are the #1 cause of problems in a marriage (from what I understand). So have the ceremony that you can afford. Friends and family should not care about how much $$$ was spent on the day.

CorporalClegg wrote:
But see, therein lies the problem. The social pressures have shifted the focus to "getting married." The union itself has sort of become this inconvenient after thought.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


I am a bit confused by your choice of words, or maybe you are confused by mine, Corporal Clegg.

I think the social pressures to "get married" (and here I mean the condition of BEING in a marriage to someone- NOT the overblown ceremony used to mark the transition into marriage) has already BEEN there for many generations- in American culture, anyway.

It seems in the last few decades that both the need to have an inappropriately expensive wedding ceremony (and expensive rings, too!) and the somewhat cavalier attitude towards what is involved with living together in a committed relationship under the legal definition of marriage for a lifetime (which is the stated goal-- unless you are S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford!) continues to be on the rise.

And if someone does not want to be bound by some archaic system to be financially and morally responsible for raising kids, that is fine, too- just don't be doing anything that is going to result in producing a kid that you may want the freedom to walk away from at any point! Be responsible before the act if you can't be counted on to be responsible after the act!

 

[bigdaddy]

It means very little to me.

I see those of my friends who have lived together for years but never legally married to be as much husband and wife (or h and h, or w and w) as anyone who forked out thousands for a huge wedding and party otherwards.

Marriage doesn't equal a wedding. Marriage is just a legal document.

My alternative is that marriage should not be a legally recognised institution. If two people want to live together, swap rings and have a wedding that's up to them, but no government or court should allow that arrangement to figure in to any decision if and when that arrangement ends.

This has the side effect of allowing same sex couples the ability to marry if they so choose.

I agree with that, marriage is a legal thing and not a religious one in any way. What does marriage mean? Why do people get married?

In Mick and Sue case they just refer to each other as husband and wife. Some people I know use the word partner. Some men refer to their Missus.

I assume Mick and Sue are happy together ? They have no piece of paper to say they're married, they have little legal recognition of their relationship so it looks to me like you've highlighted a good example of two people who have made a real commitment to each other rather than one enforced by law.

This touches on the reason I asked about marriage. Someone I know wants to get married more than anything and we actually are arguing now about this. To him marriage is some BS Christian like thing where you settle down, get a house, raise children and that "love has very little to do with it". The funny thing is he would be the wife.

Some earlier posters have brought up the issue of the wedding ceremony/event, and I would suggest that that is a separate issue from the marriage.

It's a completely separate issues. I'm for non-religious marriage, but not the $50,000 weddings.

 

[K'Ehleyr]

To me marriage means a public statement of love and devotion to your partner.

I've been with Man for 5 years and basically wanted a signal of his intentions.
We got engaged last May (I just wanted the ring! ~ joke!) and the plan is to marry next year.

BUT at our ages (mid 40s and 50), neither married before and live seperately, we are stuck in our ways and like our own space.

Also in the mix is we would have to move into his house as mine is too small, and I would bring Teenager and Cat!

I'm having cold feet already! Maybe we should just stay as we are?


Oh and on the subject of weddings, my 20'ish neighbour got married last year and the guy took out a £30,000 loan for the 'do'. They divorced earlier this year ~ madness!

 

[Robert D. Robot]

$50,000.00 wedding day! Yowch!! That is what I mean!

This sounds a bit cold and not too romantic, but there are many situations where people enter into relationships where they expect something of each other (A rents an apartment from B,
F buys a car from G, M&N buy a house from P, J&K express the desire to be monogamous with each other, intertwine their finances and raise children, S says she'll buy a cell phone for her friend T and keep it in her own name, as long as that friend pays the phone bills that she makes....), and the courts are chuck-full of disappointed and angry people who claim that they were done wrong by the other party, when that other party is saying, "Hey! that's not what the specifics of our arrangement were!".

This is why we have developed leases, contracts, bills of sale, warranties, marriage licenses, joint bank accounts, etc. If something is a large enough issue to involve a big chunk of money, or property, emotional energy, time, etc., society has come to create (somewhat!) enforceable legal documents to make sure that people entering into a relationship (business or serious personal) are on the same page as what commitment and responsibilities are.

It is too bad that society and culture have to resort to all these agreements on paper, but unfortunately all sorts of people are out there, and not all follow commitment to the same degree. Or else they start out on the same page and someone then changes their mind. And they SHOULD be able to do that--- but not without consequences.

If you are going to be involved with someone beyond a certain level, you should not need a religious ceremony to make it "real", but it may be a wise idea for society- and individuals in general- to have a legal option available to those who want their degree of seriousness about the relationship to be established.

 

[Kestra]

I did the big expensive wedding and I liked it, damn it!

I'm not sure what marriage means. It means a lifelong commitment, a legal and social contract. It means fights and make-up sex and being stuck together in the same apartment even when we don't want to be. It means a constant date to everything, a best friend, someone I hate spending a night without. It means disagreeing over the lamest things in the world like how to load the dishwasher. It means monogamy, and hopefully many silly, crazy, extraordinary years to come. Spending a lifetime with me is a pretty risky thing to do!

That's just some of what it means to me. This need not apply to others!

 

[iguana_tonante]

There's still a problem with what to call your . . . well, what DO you call that person?

“Boyfriend” and “girlfriend” sound like teenagers. “Domestic partner” sounds like something on a census form. “Housemate” sounds too platonic. “Lover”? Too literary, like Emma Bovary or Lady Chatterley. How about “my old man” or “my old lady”? Great, if you want to bring back the ’70s. “Significant other”? Christ, nobody says that!

Come to think of it, maybe this subject deserves a thread of its own.

In true Holmesian fashion, I usually call her The Woman.

More seriously, people here in Italy usually call them "compagno/a", which would be "companion" or "partner". It strikes to me as the most sensible use. And "wife"/"husband" works also if they aren't technically married.

 

[sidious618]

To expand on my earlier statment I see no reason to marry. I'm not religious so there's no reason in that regard. If I love someone and want to spend time with them signing a piece of paper to "prove it" seems utterly moronic to me.

 

[kimc]

Marriage was originally a means to create alliances and control property. It was an enforced lifelong commitment.

Nowadays it's advertised as a voluntary lifelong commitment although many seem to do it for the big party, free household goods and attention. Once they realize the marriage isn't going to bring them the constant happiness they were expecting though...

 

[Garak]

To me personally, my marriage is the most important thing in my life. I think it's a wonderful union of two souls that are totally and completely committed to one another.

I could just as easily go with not being "offically married" but just together for the rest of our lives, but it was important to the wife that we get married so that's the route I took. Je ne regrette rien.

 

[bigdaddy]

To expand on my earlier statment I see no reason to marry. I'm not religious so there's no reason in that regard. If I love someone and want to spend time with them signing a piece of paper to "prove it" seems utterly moronic to me.

Yes! I was talking to someone about this (OK it was a fight on several things), and I could tell he just wants to get married so the guy can't leave him. He even admitted that love has very little to do with it and my mind almost exploded.

And Kim, don't make fun of free gifts. I joke around saying I want to get married for the gifts, which is actually partly true.

 

[bluedana]

A marriage is a contract between two people which includes legal obligations regarding property and any children born to or adopted by the couple. It carries with it certain obligations, such as the duty of care and personal fideilty. It allows for either one or both of the parties to break that contract, with consequences.

A wedding is a ceremony, religious or secular, that expresses the expectations and promises made by the participants, and typically includes a party. It is not the same thing as a marriage.

For me, a marriage means a relationship between a man and a woman where they become an indivisible unit, each giving 100 percent as much as possible. I married someone with whom I am compatible, and whom I love, so my marriage includes mutual sacrifice and completion. I am a better person than I would be had I not married this man. In return, I try to do everything I can to help him succeed at being a better person. Since we have children, both biological and adopted, our commitment to each other includes being the best parents we can be. Further, Christian marriage is a contract which includes God, in that the promises we made to each other, we also made to God.

 

[Amaris]

To me, marriage is the bonding of two people in love, and who have recognized that they cannot be apart from one another in soul and body, and join together. It is a commitment made strong from love and trust, a willingness to become one in heart, to make sacrifices for one another, to grow old together, to traverse through life together. Never alone, never unloved.