Should marriage be legally recognized?

[Khamelion]

my parents have been married their whole lives, something like 50 years now I think

Sorry... okay, yes I see your point... in some people's minds, they have to believe that things will always be the way they currently are. Seems illogical to me. There's no way one could possibly know what the future will bring, and I don't see why they should pretend to in order to take advantages of the legal benefits of having a partner. But to each his own.

Oh Jesus... I don't even have a reply for that one.... instead of fixating on all the different ways that first statement is just so compleatly off the mark I'll just end by pointing out that once again you've reduced something that to me is a spiritual/humanitarian matter into cold dead legalities and $$ signs.

I am now going to go eat a corndog, smoke a cigarrete, and try my utmost not to weep for your soul :wink:

*weeps for Joy's $oul*

[Joy]

lmao

that reminds me...

Nick: Yeah, I—I'm sorry, there seems to be a really fine line here between, uh peddling marriage and peddling flesh.

Chloe Daniels: When is marriage anything else?

Brass: Nick is, uh…he's an old-fashioned guy.

Chloe Daniels: Really? (laughs) Well, what do you think engagement rings are? Just proof that a man can pay for his bride. Look, a caveman would go steal a woman from a neighboring clan. He'd tie her hands and her feet 'till she wouldn't run away. Once she'd stay put, he would only tie her finger, just to remind her.

Brass: So you're a romantic.

Chloe Daniels: Marriage is not romance. It's a contract with the state. It's an investment in your future. I'm not making it about money, it just is.

From the TV show CSI (Nesting Dolls)

[Not A Communist Shill]

Meh. I think a 'new' kind of marriage should be drawn up, where two people can make an union to show their financial interdependence - this would operate at the level of the household but would be like a buisness agreement - the two people can have a 'normal' relationship, or can get married if they really want to - but this new union should be as easy and everyday as making a vote etc., without the complications of divorce - this would allow a practical union, rather than a proper marriage.

The U.K. allows gay people to get 'married' now - though the state calls it a civil partenership, to show its a secular bond (everyone calls it a marriage though) - there were these two elderly sisters who wanted to get 'married' to get the financial benefits - but the government rejected because they were closely related - which I think is a bit stupid. This would be like designating someone in a will, but giving a close person duality in your combined financial affairs while you're still alive - simplifying things in the event of death (especially amongst friends who have no shared blood).

[Creepy-bg]

my parents have been married their whole lives, something like 50 years now I think

Sorry... okay, yes I see your point... in some people's minds, they have to believe that things will always be the way they currently are. Seems illogical to me. There's no way one could possibly know what the future will bring, and I don't see why they should pretend to in order to take advantages of the legal benefits of having a partner. But to each his own.

Oh Jesus... I don't even have a reply for that one.... instead of fixating on all the different ways that first statement is just so compleatly off the mark I'll just end by pointing out that once again you've reduced something that to me is a spiritual/humanitarian matter into cold dead legalities and $$ signs.

I am now going to go eat a corndog, smoke a cigarrete, and try my utmost not to weep for your soul :wink:

*weeps for Joy's $oul*

OMFG!!! LOLs all over the place... that is too perfect.

I'll send you an ounce of lime green kind bud right now if you'll erase your's and let me edit it into mine :wink:

[Creepy-bg]

Meh. I think a 'new' kind of marriage should be drawn up, where two people can make an union to show their financial interdependence - this would operate at the level of the household but would be like a buisness agreement - the two people can have a 'normal' relationship, or can get married if they really want to - but this new union should be as easy and everyday as making a vote etc., without the complications of divorce - this would allow a practical union, rather than a proper marriage.

that's exactly what I think they should do to.

[olduser]

let people do what they want. Two men getting married never broke my car.

[Khamelion]

Hell yeah!

Bud for my $oul.


Sweet deal!

[Creepy-bg]

Hell yeah!

Bud for my $oul.


Sweet deal!

hehe (evil laugh)

we actually (well it was sorta my idea ) made one our friends sign over his soul for a bowl in highschool. Made him write it out on paper and sign it. But then it got sort of traded around for awhile, like "I'll give you half of Steve's soul if buy me a cheeseburger.". Eventually a year or so ago, after ten or twelve years of being fractioned up and moved from person to person, this one friend of mine, she ended up auctioning it off on some internet site... she got $7.50 for it

it's kinda messed up. I still see him but I figure it's best not to let him know that his soul is currently being tormented by some pasty Everquest freak in his Mother's basement.

[UDP]

I have no qualms about marriage - the everlasting kind.

I think people are not selective enough in choosing their partners, and as such, make exceptionally poor decisions. Not that I would play Darcy with other people's affairs .....

Probably one of my favorite things about being LII is that I don't have to put up with the bullshit other people do with relationships. Thankfully I've been given a wonderful opportunity to witness firsthand several relationships, and also analyze them with socionics.

In complete sincerity: I originally came to socionics to find who I would be most compatible with. So now it's just ballsing up and making sure I talk to those ESE's with the magnificent beauty aura.

[eunice]

I have no qualms about marriage - the everlasting kind.
I think people are not selective enough in choosing their partners, and as such, make exceptionally poor decisions.

I totally agree with that. I feel that everyone should be idealistic when it comes to marriage and not settle for something less. I'm a romantic and idealistic person when it comes to marriage. Better to stay single for good than get married to someone who falls slightly below your expectations. I feel that besides love, it is also necessary marry someone who can improve your status in life i.e. provide you with a better life. It need not be someone rich. It can be someone who is ambitious, hardworking, knows what he wants out of life and constantly improving himself.

On a side note, I voted that marriage should be legally recognized. It gives me a status which provides me with a sense of security.

[UDP]

@eunice: *INxj Secret Identicals-Only Handshake*


What you see as romantic idealism I see as logical idealism.

[Logos]

So where are we at this point at the thread disagreeing about?

[Creepy-bg]

So where are we at this point at the thread disagreeing about?

well at the moment nothing it seems. But I'm sure Joy will finish going through all her $ bills and making sure they all face the same way (or whatever it is she does when she's not here posting) and come back to disagree some more...

So I'd suggest checking back in on this thread in an hour or so if your looking to get in on some disagreement

[Joy]

I actually do that

(not all of the time that I'm not posting of course, but I do make sure my money is all facing the same direction)

[Joy]

actually, I'm beyond the point of disagreeing because so many things have been said in the past few posts that I don't agree with that I'm just like...

the worst of which was a certain comment about status and security

Anyways, I'm done.

[Creepy-bg]

[FDG]

As far as I'm concerned the man I married died in that car accident. I continued with the legal marriage for three years after that. When you have zero intimacy (not just physically, but more importantly emotionally - just being able to talk, have a real conversation, to connect, understand each other) when that's gone what are you salvaging?

When your children's well-being becomes an issue at his hands, the forever part doesn't matter. I believe in keeping my word, and I don't consider it a light or easy thing to end a marriage, my goodness if people only knew the kind of turmoil I've been through over this. But there's something greater and more important than marriage. Life. My kids' lives, and my life. I feel like the breaking of those legal bonds are actual physical bonds being broken, like I'm finally going to be free for the first time in ten years.

Mind you I'm not against divorce, by any means.

[munenori2]

People? Who gives a shit? Only two people are involved, I doubt that people will go around bothering them

I guess you don't have an Italian Fred Phelps over there.

[UDP]

People think it should be legal and yet so many disrespect such a law.

*sigh*

[Logos]

I'm stuck between "I don't know" and "Probably not". In theory I'm against the idea of marriage being legally recognized, but I'm not sure what the actual affects that would have.

I really fail to understand this. If marriage is a legal contract, how can it not be legally recognized, when by its very nature is defined by being a form of contract? I suppose you could always call them civil unions and have marriage as a religious term, but that is kind of stupid honestly. As Say said in the other thread, just call the spade a spade and be done with it.

On one hand, marriage is a religious and cultural practice and it's ridiculous to legally bind someone to you for those reasons. Then again, some people need that shit in order to have a sense of security in their lives... which I'm fundamentally against, but whatever. Who am I to tell them what to believe or feel?

The religious aspect was primarily introduced as means of sealing the contract (before the eyes of God or whoever), so really the religious aspect is largely irrelevant, especially since the religious aspect is NOT legally recognized, but the real marriage happens when signing the legal documents. The bold is definitely irrelevant to the religious aspect of marriage. Marriage often has a religious component, because religions themselves often developed a theology surrounding marriage.

On the other hand, relationships are partnerships, and it makes sense for them to be legally recognized to protect both people in the case the partnership dissolves. I could see the existence of a common law marriage making sense for this reason as well... And in cases where there's a law suit or insurance settlement, marriage ensures that one's partner will be protected. It is also practical for when one partner dies.

Marriage at its base components is essentially just a legal contract that binds two individuals of different households into a state of shared living, property, and other rights such that they are treated as a single unit.

Re the Forever: Just have the "forever" part of the marriage contract be the default, but allow for the terms of marriage contracts to be negotiated. But as divorce is always an option, the temporary "5-Year Plans" of marriage seem a little unnecessary. Yes some spouses may have a hard time convincing themselves to get out of a marriage, but I somewhat fail how to see that would be different even with the "5-Year Plans" in place. One option is to require that married couples visit marriage counselors every so often, but that would be too much unnecessary bureaucracy.

[Slacker]

5-year marriages? What a PITA that would be. We already have to keep track of passport expiration dates, my husband's green card, etc. We don't need to worry about our marriage expiring. LOL. And what, go through the expense of getting married every 5 years? And it wouldn't save money for people getting divorced because the expense there is about who gets what and who gets custody of the children, not whether or not to stay married. Figuring out who gets what and who gets custody would happen regardless of whether you actually had to get divorced or whether your marriage just expired.

[Logos]

5-year marriages? What a PITA that would be. We already have to keep track of passport expiration dates, my husband's green card, etc. We don't need to worry about our marriage expiring. LOL. And what, go through the expense of getting married every 5 years? And it wouldn't save money for people getting divorced because the expense there is about who gets what and who gets custody of the children, not whether or not to stay married. Figuring out who gets what and who gets custody would happen regardless of whether you actually had to get divorced or whether your marriage just expired.

Yeah, I can't remember which country proposed something along those lines. It may have been six year marriages, but I decided for 5-Year Marriages since it evoked a sense of how well Stalin's 5-Year Plans worked out.

[Blaze]

i've been procrastinating about posting in this thread. i do think this is a very important topic and i happen to have a lot of thoughts and feelings about it. i know this will be a very long post and am hoping that some will take the time to read it and respond.

historically, amongst other things, marriage was supposed to be the solution to a lack of compatibility. that is, the rules of marriage helped people to transcend problems connected to intertype relations. the strengths of a spiritually based marriage helped people to do this. societal patriarchy reinforced this and enabled it. the man was the leader of his household and the woman was supposed to follow his lead.

a couple of things happened over the last several hundred years and in the 20th century specifically which helped to change how marriage worked. first, with the industrial revolution, men became disconnected from their farms and families and were made to be cogs in the machine, subject to the will of the corporation. since the industrial revolution, most work has turned into this, with the exception of some entrepeneurship and the exceptionally wealthy. but basically, men's role has become somewhat undermined as things have played out over the last several hundred years, which enabled women to assume much greater "power" within the context of relationships, and in society than previously seen.

i put the word "power" in quotations, because in the larger scheme of things, how much power do any of us really have? but to get back on point.....

with the advent of birth control and the loosening of social restrictions on women, and because some men abused their power in their relationships with women (domestic violence, sexual abuse etc) women became more motivated to assess their relationships and became more powerful consumers in the game of relationships since they no longer depended upon men for survival; women could theoretically depend on themselves. a woman who could not depend on herself, could depend on the welfare state to provide state aid and to collect money from the father of her children so as to support them financially.

this was a costly trade-off in my opinion. would women rather deal with the state? or skillfully deal with their husbands? i kind of think of this as an Fi related dichotomy in a sense. because, in a game of survival, i would much rather have a partner by my side fighting with me than independently deal with big brother for my and my children's welfare. in a very obvious way, the power of the union of marriage has been undermined and the state has grown bigger and profited from it.

this has all resulted in the nature of long term relationships/marriages being entirely redefined. a marriage could last....or not, since if it doesn't work out, you can get divorced if you want. and the result of divorce is the redistribution of the finances that it takes to operate 2 households rather than one. who benefits from this? the legal system and lawyers, landlords and real estate agents. the couple's financial power is essentially divided. many women ended up on the short end of the stick with this (when the husband worked and had a lot of money to pay a high priced lawyer) and many working men ended up with a hefty child support bill, and living in an efficiency apartment or with their new girlfriend.

the trouble right now is that both partners in a couple usually have to work these days. you can no longer lead a middle class lifestyle on one person's income, like my mom and dad did. granted - we did not live lavishly, but we lived. i could not maintain a similar lifestyle for myself and my children on one income alone.

the emotional issue is that most of us, when we get married, continue to expect "until death do us part"; and we have this expectation clearly - otherwise why would we have gotten married? this expectation can lead to denial of the severity of problems when they occur and denial of the context we are living in these days. our cultural context does not support marriage. we live in a context that supports divorce, a context that supports robbing couples of the power of their union. and an individual couple's denial serves as a block to correctly identifying and solving marital problems. so when you get divorced, the Bible is right, two who have become one, are essentially ripped apart, and if you have kids, it completely turns your life upside down.

there's nothing quite like a divorce to help you realize just how much big brother has all us by the balls.

i'm kind of getting down on "business" in a sense...we certainly all have choices about the way we live our lives - the goods we purchase, where we live, what we choose to do for work and honestly i'd rather live here than anywhere else. america is the leading edge of the evolution of the human species.

but my questions are: where is all of this going? how does a society of weakened families function effectively? does our weakened status inhibit our ability to handle outside threats? are we living in a transitional time where all of these questions are getting worked out and some good solution will come from it? or are we headed for some sure holocaustic disaster as outlined in Revelations? when young men have no fathers to show them how to be men...how does this affect the overall culture? aren't such men simply incarcerated or given mental health medications when they cannot behave? what price do we pay for incarcerating our men?

the topic of marriage in a sense is a very Ni topic. how will all this play out over time and what the hell does it all mean.

[cracka]

You win. I don't know what. But you win whatever nonetheless.
*slap on the ass* "good game" woot!

[cracka]

Two of the scariest things in the world for me have been having kids and getting married. I'm scared to death of spiders... but i'd let a black widow crawl on my arm before I'd get into either of those two situations, things would have to be almost perfect for me to go there, hell... I don't even get into relationships unless I see them as "good for me" anymore...lol

I figure the only way this view will ever change is if I ever "screw up" and knock a girl up... which, I'm pretty good at not doing...lol or someone comes along that I could see me being with "forever" as it's been said here, then that would have to work out very well before actually "planning" for a child.

Personally, I think the worst thing that I see people doing over and over these days... when they fuck up and get pregnant... *unplanned is what I'm talking about* then they think they "have" to get get married. So, instead of just fucking up once... they do it again because they think it's "the right thing to do." When they really don't even know the person that well and they have a baby because they screwed like rabbits for the first month together, probably not knowing anything about the other unless it's something trivial... what they do, where they're from, their last name... etc. They don't talk about past credit, shitty driving records, the medical condition they have, or shit that drops like a bomb if you find it out after getting married.

Then again, I feel like I've stereotyped marriage in my mind as a bad thing considering most people these days never talk about the good parts of being married nearly as much as the bad. Being the single 27 yr old guy I am, all I ever hear is "don't ever get married" or they'll tell me how shitty things are at home, or what a pain in the ass their kids are, etc...

One observation I have found though, is "most" people that I know who have been divorced in the past, usually have a much better go at it the second time they get married. As far as less problems etc... Kinda makes me want to go out and get married to just get that out of the way. lol.
*steps down from soapbox*

[rockclimber]

I don't really believe in marriage.

*shrugs*

[jessica129]

I could never picture myself being happily married. Ever.

[implied]

hah! chibi that's awesome.

[redbaron]

I could never picture myself being happily married. Ever.

So are you saying you could picture yourself being UNhappily married?

[Slacker]

I'll admit that I know more unhappily married people than happily married people. It's sad.

[redbaron]

I'll admit that I know more unhappily married people than happily married people. It's sad.

Aw, that IS sad. I think the opposite is true for me. Not to say that I don't know some unhappy ones. But more happy than unhappy.

[Slacker]

I might have been a bit harsh. More unhappily married *or mediocre marriages*. Not very many where I can see with confidence that both partners are glad they got married. Some people stay married only because they might as well, or it's easier than getting divorced, or something like that.

[redbaron]

I might have been a bit harsh. More unhappily married *or mediocre marriages*. Not very many where I can see with confidence that both partners are glad they got married. Some people stay married only because they might as well, or it's easier than getting divorced, or something like that.

Yes, I understand. I think that at the stage we're in, there are a lot of very busy families and it's hard for me to tell the true attitudes people have regarding their marriages since so much of life is focused on the kids and the busy schedules. It does make me a bit worried that some of these marriages are going to fall apart when the kids get older simply because not enough energy is going to maintain them now.

[redbaron]

all of that to say that I think those marriages may LOOK happy right now because there's a lot of family activity and enjoying the kids. I just wonder how many underlying problems are being addressed or not addressed in the marriages themselves. I do think marriage OFTEN takes a back seat to child-rearing.

[dbmmama]

I might have been a bit harsh. More unhappily married *or mediocre marriages*. Not very many where I can see with confidence that both partners are glad they got married. Some people stay married only because they might as well, or it's easier than getting divorced, or something like that.

hubby and i talk about this often. we see those "mediocre" marriages too, all around us. we're so glad we didnt settle and are best friends as well as lovers.

[dbmmama]

all of that to say that I think those marriages may LOOK happy right now because there's a lot of family activity and enjoying the kids. I just wonder how many underlying problems are being addressed or not addressed in the marriages themselves. I do think marriage OFTEN takes a back seat to child-rearing.

surface looks are deceiving. go deep and you'll really know...

[strrrng]

all of that to say that I think those marriages may LOOK happy right now because there's a lot of family activity and enjoying the kids. I just wonder how many underlying problems are being addressed or not addressed in the marriages themselves. I do think marriage OFTEN takes a back seat to child-rearing.

I agree. These days -- especially in residential neighborhoods like mine -- it seems like marriages have evolved into business deals, where saying "I love you" is just a perfunctory motion they go through to keep up their illusions. I see these couples in my neighborhood who seem clueless. Whether it's some manipulative gold-digger who's still living in high school, a machismo ESTj (there are a shitload of deltas) dude with some hot little status-symbol chick, or just two people who are living so vicariously through their kids' accomplishments that any interaction lacks the slightest inkling of genuine care and intimacy. Could it have existed before and been extinguished in their more "pressing" pursuits? Sure. But bring it back. Don't run from your problems and hide behind your material assets and "gifted" children to fill the void. On the other hand, I'm willing to bet a good amount of these people never had the real intimacy fueling their marriage. The Jewish culture (which predominates my 'hood') is very ambitious, and a lot of times kids are conditioned to marry people for status and pragmatic ventures. Many couples seem like they became an item in high school because their parents were members at the same country club, became prom king and queen, and are now living monotonously together, wondering where the glory days went.

[Steve]

I agree. These days -- especially in residential neighborhoods like mine -- it seems like marriages have evolved into business deals, where saying "I love you" is just a perfunctory motion they go through to keep up their illusions. I see these couples in my neighborhood who seem clueless. Whether it's some manipulative gold-digger who's still living in high school, a machismo ESTj (there are a shitload of deltas) dude with some hot little status-symbol chick, or just two people who are living so vicariously through their kids' accomplishments that any interaction lacks the slightest inkling of genuine care and intimacy. Could it have existed before and been extinguished in their more "pressing" pursuits? Sure. But bring it back. Don't run from your problems and hide behind your material assets and "gifted" children to fill the void. On the other hand, I'm willing to bet a good amount of these people never had the real intimacy fueling their marriage. The Jewish culture (which predominates my 'hood') is very ambitious, and a lot of times kids are conditioned to marry people for status and pragmatic ventures. Many couples seem like they became an item in high school because their parents were members at the same country club, became prom king and queen, and are now living monotonously together, wondering where the glory days went.

This seems to happen more and more the richer the neighborhood. People become so identified with the objects and status positions around them that they mistake those things for their identity. This leads them to develop the beliefs that "I need these things in order to be happy, or to exist, or to be alive". Many times in these neighborhoods, marriage is yet another object - a business agreement like you say - another status symbol "Look I found someone to marry, therefore I am successful" - or "look I found my soul mate, NOW I can be happy" but it's a dependence, a seeking for the person to provide you with "completeness", which fosters an emotional fragility fearing that any true expression of feeling will compromise the "agreement" people have to maintain a certain order of status in the marriage. "Oh no we couldn't possibly raise our voices toward each other - look at the (so and so couple) they never fight - their kids are at the top of the class, and everyone likes them at the country club"

I notice this kind of shallowness more with old-money. People who started more realistically and then acquired money still have a rawer sense of soul at their core.

I'll never forget from the movie Trading Places where Dan Ackroyd, after being accused for imbezzlement went back to his country club to seek help from his friends, and they were all wearing these thin white clothes, singing to each other but wouldn't help Ackroyd and made a comment about the way he looked - since he was dressed in poor man clothes fromwhat he had just been through.

But what Ackroyd did do is figure out how to survive when he became poor - something those country club pussies never could've done. So in the end it was for the best for Ackroyd to end up losing THOSE friends and being with people who had soul and fight in them.

You find out who your real friends are and who you really are, when you HAVE nothing.

[Slacker]

Advice for those who are not married:

Don't get married because you want to have sex or live together. Just have sex, or just live together. More bad marriages were entered into for those reasons than any others, I'd guess.

Don't get married because you have fun with someone. It's a good start, but not enough.

Please please please don't get married because you want a baby. That's a bad reason to get married AND I'd question whether you are ready to have a baby if you are willing to do that too.

You need a real connection and you need to have a level of trust and comfort in each other that isn't common. You need to truly enjoy each other's company. You need love, fun, and that. Wait for that.

You don't need duality because I know very happy non-dual couples. I am extraordinarily happy in my marriage, but I'm not going to suggest everyone wait for a dual.

[strrrng]

You find out who your real friends are and who you really are, when you HAVE nothing.

I agreed with the rest of the post, but it encapsulated my point well, so I only expand here. Yes, indeed, hard situations are the best things that can happen to you. We spend so much time building bullshit illusions and don't weed things out enough! But it's the best feeling when you start fresh, knowing where you stand. Sometimes it's a circuitous process; others very simple. Either way, it's best to be watchful to avoid expending unnecessary energy on people who just are not worth it. I have done this too many times, idealizing them as the 'right' people. No! People are typically around because of what you do for them, without any real focus on the essence of you. I am guilty of such. Discipline, I hope.

Advice for those who are not married:

Don't get married because you want to have sex or live together. Just have sex, or just live together. More bad marriages were entered into for those reasons than any others, I'd guess.

Don't get married because you have fun with someone. It's a good start, but not enough.

Please please please don't get married because you want a baby. That's a bad reason to get married AND I'd question whether you are ready to have a baby if you are willing to do that too.

You need a real connection and you need to have a level of trust and comfort in each other that isn't common. You need to truly enjoy each other's company. You need love, fun, and that. Wait for that.

You don't need duality because I know very happy non-dual couples. I am extraordinarily happy in my marriage, but I'm not going to suggest everyone wait for a dual.

Thanks for the advice