I hereby pronounce you in denial

[m_the0ry]

Marriage, one of the longest lasting foundations of modern western civilization, is also a construct that is brutally defective by design. Marriage at its core denies that relationships are transient. This is an interesting emergent property of human social behavior.

Say for example I have a best friend Bob. As long as Bob is my best friend I behave as if Bob will be my best friend forever. If I suggest that Bob will not be my best friend forever, regardless of the factual truth of the statement, Bob will always take offense to it and as a result our relationship will degrade. This is uncomfortable and provides enough incentive for me not to imply such things unless I decide that Bob is enough of a nuisance for me to terminate our friendship, or gradually degrade it to a lesser state.

Marriage contractually binds two people into a state of best-friendship - indefinitely. It is an external factor supplying force for keeping a friendship together. How healthy or natural is this? Are you still best friends with your best friend from college? From high school? From grade school? Where can we draw the line? What would have stopped you from contractually agreeing to be best friends for eternity with your buddy from the 5th grade?

I'm curious to see what other people here think of the subject. I certainly have a biased point of view as the child of now divorced parents. I think marriage has nothing but negative consequences. I can easily picture a world where my parents are on good terms and both supported me through my development with a healthy amount of distance between them. This is not a world with marriage, or at least not a world where marriage is a staple of the 'American Dream'.

[ShakeZula06]

This is probably better suited for SMP, but I'm glad you posted it here because I probably wouldn't have seen it otherwise. Good post.

[Copernicus]

The only major argument that I can see against your position is a financial one. Other than that I agree that marriage is an artificial institution that applies external pressure to maintain a relationship. It may have its roots in genetics/evolution and was hijacked by religions as another area where they could control the lives of their adherents.

The financial side is somewhat knotty though it does have some workarounds in common law.

When the major breadwinner in the couple induces the other partner to abandon a career, education or other development of their skills, I believe they have a financial obligation to continue to support the spouse beyond the point where either one of them wants the relationship to continue. If there were no marriage per se then enforcing the continuation of support would become more difficult. The concept of common law marriages attempts to overcome the lack of a marriage certificate after some period of time (7 years in many states if I recall correctly) but that may not be a fair condition in many cases.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
The only major argument that I can see against your position is a financial one. Other than that I agree that marriage is an artificial institution that applies external pressure to maintain a relationship. It may have its roots in genetics/evolution and was hijacked by religions as another area where they could control the lives of their adherents.

The financial side is somewhat knotty though it does have some workarounds in common law.

When the major breadwinner in the couple induces the other partner to abandon a career, education or other development of their skills, I believe they have a financial obligation to continue to support the spouse beyond the point where either one of them wants the relationship to continue. If there were no marriage per se then enforcing the continuation of support would become more difficult. The concept of common law marriages attempts to overcome the lack of a marriage certificate after some period of time (7 years in many states if I recall correctly) but that may not be a fair condition in many cases.

[/ QUOTE ]
Coase Theorem FTW

[Shadowrun]

Why are you assuming everyone behaves this way in regards to their best friend?

I now there is a chance that my best friend wont be my best friend forever i.e. having your best friend move in 2nd grade reinforces this idea.

In fact, i think most people understand this and accept it.

Divorce is so common that people now going in, you can easily get a divorce. Thus, this state of best-friendship you speak of is a fictional one.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
you can easily get a divorce.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. Reminds me of the joke from the Dukes of Hazzard movie though.

"Why is divorce so espensive?"
"why?"
"because it's worth it!"

[m_the0ry]

I'm glad you brought up finances because it's really no different from the marriage contract in that it is just another external force keeping people in a relationship when they might not otherwise want to be. I personally think finances should be completely personal and never, ever shared with the only exception being discrete 'gifts'. A gift being some asset given to another person with the express intent of getting absolutely nothing in return.

With respect to one partner abandoning their career because the other is the main source of income, I think this is a particularly disgusting abuse of ritual history. There is absolutely no excuse for abandoning your career, ever. Not children, not housekeeping, not pets; the idea that someone has to stay at home and keep things together is preposterous. Being a stay at home wife or husband is a voluntary sacrifice of your own freedoms and no one ever has the responsibility to pick up after you. I know far too many couples who have raised very successful children while maintaining their careers and volunteering so that they remain an attractive choice for employers for there to be any explanation for this dependency other than laziness or unmitigated stupidity.

Having 8 children; unmitigated stupidity.

Being a housewife when you have a decent degree and 2 children; laziness.

How much does it cost to hire a nanny? A maid even? Outsourcing this kind of labor is a win-win always. It's not hard to find a nice and nurturing young boy or girl to babysit and clean up around the house. Again there's no excuse I can think of for abandoning your career unless you are self-loathing or have a self esteem problem.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Being a housewife when you have a decent degree and 2 children; laziness.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's way out of line. As someone raised by a non-dysfunctional family including a stay-at-home mom, I can confidently conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about. Sure you could pay a maid and a nanny to raise your kids and manage your household for you, but a lot of people (I guess the dumb, lazy ones under your paradigm) think their kids gain from being raised by, you know, their actual parents. As children of such parents, I can tell you that I benefited enormously from that decision.

I don't question your right to have your own conception of how relationships should be (temporary, financially independent, etc.), but I don't see why you have to denigrate the way other people want to organize their lives. It's not stupid to prefer a traditional marriage or stay-at-home parenting. It's certainly uncalled for to call other people names for making sacrifices for their children.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you brought up finances because it's really no different from the marriage contract in that it is just another external force keeping people in a relationship when they might not otherwise want to be. I personally think finances should be completely personal and never, ever shared with the only exception being discrete 'gifts'. A gift being some asset given to another person with the express intent of getting absolutely nothing in return.

With respect to one partner abandoning their career because the other is the main source of income, I think this is a particularly disgusting abuse of ritual history. There is absolutely no excuse for abandoning your career, ever. Not children, not housekeeping, not pets; the idea that someone has to stay at home and keep things together is preposterous. Being a stay at home wife or husband is a voluntary sacrifice of your own freedoms and no one ever has the responsibility to pick up after you. I know far too many couples who have raised very successful children while maintaining their careers and volunteering so that they remain an attractive choice for employers for there to be any explanation for this dependency other than laziness or unmitigated stupidity.

Having 8 children; unmitigated stupidity.

Being a housewife when you have a decent degree and 2 children; laziness.

How much does it cost to hire a nanny? A maid even? Outsourcing this kind of labor is a win-win always. It's not hard to find a nice and nurturing young boy or girl to babysit and clean up around the house. Again there's no excuse I can think of for abandoning your career unless you are self-loathing or have a self esteem problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally disagree. Child rearing can never be outsourced as effectively as a parent being at home when school is out, and having the time to be attentive to their needs instead of preparing for the next days meeting. You claim to know of successes in 2 career families, but you have no way to measure success.

The major problem in our education system has little to do with class size, teachers and books and much to do with parents not being involved enough in education and discipline.

There is no subsitute for a 2 parent household and there is no substitute for one of those parents being home.

[John Kilduff]

Well, you certainly seem to have some strong opinions on the subject.

Have you considered any other perspectives?

Have you ever been very, very deeply in love?