southernhybrid

Would your relationship be different if you did have that piece of paper? I personally felt as if we had a higher level of commitment once we made our cohabitation into a legal partnership. My husband also feels this way. Not everyone may feel that way, but I've known many couples that do. Ny son and dil married last year after four years of living together. There was no pressure from any of us to do so. They feel the same way as we do about the level of commitment. It also gave us a nice packet of legal protections without going through the difficulty of trying to get those protections one at a time.

There are also benefits not available currently if you cohabitate. Most companies don't offer domestic partner health insurance, and since my income potential has always been lower than my husband, I can take his much higher social security benefit should he proceed me in death. My mom will be able to get my dad's VA benefits should he proceed her in death. It's also much easier to make medical decisions for each other if you're the legal spouse. Laws regarding appointing a medical POA vary from state to state.

While I think it's fine to avoid the legal aspects if that's what you want, I don't know why you would try and make a case against marriage for everyone. I like the legality and in a world where women do not enjoy complete equality with men, I feel like I need the legal protections.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the romanticized version of marriage doesn't exist. I have a very ideal, highly romanticized marriage which has been going on for over two decades. Of course we work at keeping things so satisfying and romantic. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean, cheetah. Could you be more specific?

I think it's good that there are so many options for people these days. I just don't think that marriage as an institution need be a negative thing at all. It may not be what everyone wants but it's a good option for many couples. It's been a good option for us. Perhaps one day there will be no need for legal marriage but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. You may not need/want the piece of paper but I did. I wanted that higher level of commitment, even though the relationship itself was very good without it. I hope your relationship would remain very good even if you had the piece of paper.

seebs

People keep saying this, and I have seen absolutely no hint of support for it, ever.

Observation #1: Nearly every human culture has invented something fairly similar to monogamous pair-bonding. (There are exceptions, but they are fairly rare and fairly specialized.)

Observation #2: The basic outline of the pair-bond does not appear to be a function of religious belief.

Religion has adapted to the human interest in forming and supporting monogamous pair bonds. Not the other way around.

Any consideration of the topic rooted in the idea that marriage was somehow a pure invention of religious people will miss the point. Most people don't *want* to be "free" of this particular social convention; it meets a need they have, and trying to "work around it" will simply not meet that need.

I would love to know where people get the wacky idea that marriage exists only because religions require it. Marriage predates all of the major religions, and almost every religion out there has formed a way to do marriages.

Either humans, in general, *want* marriage, or all of the religions are being secretly manipulated by God. Or both. But I don't think you can blame marriage on religion without facing serious epistomological problems.

PopeInTheWoods

Hello, Claudia,

I was simply attempting to refute the assertion that the only reason to get married was to be responsible for the children produced. I meant to offer that some people see publicly committing to each other as a good reason. I didn't mean to imply that marriage was always necessary for commitment.

Andy

southernhybrid

You are correct. I've recently been reading quite a bit on the history of pair bonding. It's something that we humans like to do and we've been doing it for a very long time. I don't see any major difference between long term cohabitation and legal civil marriage. For myself I wanted the more formal commitment and the added legal benefits. I suppose we all have different needs when it comes down to the details.

seebs

No one in this thread, but you did say:

This seems to be false.

If the entire thread is predicated on the false premise that marriage is something "required by religion" with no other reason to exist, the entire thread is a waste of resources, because it's predicated on a falsehood.

Any discussion of alternatives to marriage had better be rooted in an understanding of what it is that marriage does for us.

seebs

Indeed. I think it's useful to start by trying to understand what those details are, and where they come from. That said... You're likely to find you have preferences or desires which you cannot justify or explain. Ignoring them simply because they're irrational is a recipe for disaster. Mating behavior is very deep in the psyche, and you have a better chance of deciding, based on chemical analysis, that you actually like a food which tastes awful to you, than you do of really overhauling your personal set of romantic desires and needs. IMHO.

Which means it's important to be honest about 'em. I've seen a lot of people make some mistakes like that, and I've made some too. When I was in college, I was *convinced* that there was no non-religious reason to prefer monogamy. I've since discovered a very practical one: I like it better. It doesn't matter why I like it better. It doesn't matter whether it's a result of the dynamics of personal relationships, or whether it's a deep-seated instinct to try to make sure that all my wife's children are mine. What matters is that I want to be in a monogamous relationship, and this is not something I can change. The only thing all my philosophizing has done is make me unwilling to object to *other people* choosing different relationships than I have. If they have different instincts, then I hope they find happiness in the way they're best suited to.

But, in the end, I'm not married because of religion, I'm married because I want a life-long pair bond in my life. If I came to believe it was "just" because of religion, and tried to avoid it, I would be less happy. Admittedly, as a theist, I guess I wouldn't see that as grounds to avoid something, but I did once, and I sometimes regret the time I wasted trying to be something I'm not.

villainess

As far as partnerships go, I like having a primary partner (more specifically, I like the primary partner I have now a great deal) and am too damn lazy to go the polyamory route, but I prefer a relationship that falls a bit further on the "personal freedom" end of the personal freedom <------> group loyalty spectrum than your traditional marriage. In theory the relationship I have now is 'open' but in four years neither of us has had sexual relations outside the partnership This may, however, be a factor of both of us being pathetic.

I've already outlined in the other thread what I'd like to see done legally vis-a-vis legal recognition for dependent children, which to my mind is the only part of the sexual relationship that the state has compelling interest in. Of course, I think churches and individuals should be at liberty to provide weddings and commitment ceremonies to supply the social need for as long as there is a felt social need for even one couple.

I'd personally as soon cut off both my small toes as go through with a legal marriage as it now stands. It'd be just as useful and about as attractive.

cheetah

I'm aware of the package benefits of marriage. The site I mentioned above has a quote (did I already say this quote?) something to the effect of: Marriage is the only contract people sign without having the ability to modify the terms and often, the people signing don't even read the contract! I personally prefer a more deliberate approach in taking on the benefits and resposnibiities purposefully and in a manner in which we lay the terms. For now, we are fine with missing out on the ones we can't contract into.

I don't think my relationship would be any different with the piece of paper. We have a high level of commitment, which I don't think would be enhanced with the piece of paper. We would obviously have enhanced legal benefits and restrictions, but as far as commitment...I don't think so. People often say marriage just feels different, better. First, i don't like the superiority (not trying to say anyone here does it); some people think their relationships are better or more valuable because they signed this contract. obviously no one can really know the quality of their relationship compared to the quality of a relationship they are not in, precisely for that reason. Secondly, I am skeptical that that paper can, or more accurately, should, make a difference in how the partners feel about one another. What if you (meaning anyone reading this thread) was not allowed, by reason of some religious or racist tyranny, to marry, as has been the case in history? Would you love each other less because that option was stripped from you? If suddenly the regime was overthrown and you married, let's say at the age of 60 after 30 years of partnership, would you suddenly love each other more the next day? I hope not, because then what does that say for you as people? That it takes some external force to validate the quality or appropriateness of the relationship? IMHO, no one has that power except the participants, which is why I am fine without the piece of paper. I know no external power can make my relationship any better than my partner and I can alone.

I believe marriage is a construct of the mind, other than its legal ramifications, obivously. If you have been trained to believe that marriage offers emotional benefits that cannot be had elsewhere, then you will believe in marriage as a romanticized concept. if you know your relationship is the same (again, sans legal issues) with or without having the piece of paper, then you have no romantic concept of marriage. But, in no case can someone say that marriage, in general, is more romantic or better than a relationship or non-marriage (see above about not knowing about the superiority of your own relationship). I personally think it is sad that people think getting married makes their relationship better, because I would like them to have a relationship that is great regardless. How great can it be, emotionally, if it takes a piece of paper granting only legal status and benefits to make it another step better? Again, the question of external approval comes to mind.

Having said that, I don't want the whole world to not get married (don't think I implied that anywhere!), but my purpose here was to make the state of non-marriage better known to increase social awareness of the concept (i.e. I don't need people throwing me a pity party because I am not married, people, by exposure, could know that some other people might actually choose not to marry!). I don't need external approval of my relationship, but I would like it if people didn't automatically assume it was automatically of a lesser quality.

southernhybrid, I'm pleased that you have such a happy relationship. That's all that really matters, right? That we can all have relationships in the manner of our own choosing!

seebs

I think the problem here is that not everyone is using the word "marriage" to refer to the same thing. If I've understood you correctly, cheetah, you have a long-term exclusive pair bond. Once you look at all the cultural variants, that's pretty close to a core definition of "marriage". It may not be what our government looks at, but it's similar enough that I don't see what the big deal is.

If I'm talking about people from Japan, or China, who have very different cultural standards than mine, I don't refer to them as "living together and raising kids but not married", I refer to them as "married", even if their marriage has very different rules and expectations than mine.

It seems to me that we need some way to distinguish between pair-bonding and civil marriage. I guess we could all just refer to it as "pair-bonding".

So, one answer to "alternatives to marriage" would be "pair-bonding", the difference being only that one has a legal definition, and the other has a biological definition.