midnight

I see marriage as an attempt by man to try to make something permanent in a fully unpermanent world. Also backed by religious and patriarchal traditions. Maybe for child bearing it is practical. And being a non-breeder I'm not concerned with the breeding aspect of marriage (but thats a whole nother issue). What I'm wondering is what others think of it. Is it practical to expect a relationship to survive a life time. To expect sexual fidelity for a life time. Could the expectations change (or have they already) to make it a more practical institution. Should it be done away with all together?

scarmig

Most of man's endeavors are very similar.

In some cultures, to some people.

Marriage is all about breeding? *All*?

Define "practical"? It may not be easy to make a relationship last a life time. But the practicality of it is an entirely personal decision, IMO.

If you all you think marriage is is a breeding program and you do not want to breed, than no, marriage is not practical.

On the other hand, if marriage is about companionship, and you've decided in your mind that you're willing to work very hard to keep that companionship, then marriage might be a practical device to achieve that result.

Only if your definition of marriage includes sexual fidelity for a lifetime.

Yes and yes. Every marriage that has ever begun or ended has resulted in changed expectations. Once again, define practical.

As with all contractual arrangements between people, it is hoped by both parties that the contract is mutually beneficial. The contract can be written with changing expectations in mind, if you so desire it.

Corollary: Are pre-nuptial agreements practical? If you can explain how a pre-nup is practical, then you can probably explain how a marriage might be practical.

I think it is entirely each person's individual decisions what oaths they take and to whom. You and I don't have the right to take marriage away from anyone who wants it.

midnight

I didn't say that it was all about breeding. I don't think it is all about breeding. I was trying to say that that was one aspect of the traditional judeo-christian marriages and one area where I thought expecting a life long commitment applied.



I was speaking from the idea of a tradition judeo-christian marriage. Life long and fidelity throughout. Well of course practicality is a personal decision and I was wondering what others had personally decided.




I meant a general societal change in expectations. A shift from the expectations of life long, fidelity throughout to something that might be expected to be more transitory. . . . or whatever someone else might have in mind.


The existence of pre-nups illistrates that change in expectations that I was talking about. Pre-nups acknowledge that from the start the marriage is thought of as something that is not permanent or may not be.



And I totally agree. I was just asking other people's opinion on the subject and sharing mine. Notice all the questions. Yes my opinion was mixed in there but I didn't tell them that mine was the only opinion to have or that any other opinion was unacceptable.

Pyrrho

I like most of what scarmig had to say, but perhaps it may be useful to hear about a particular case. I am married, and we do not now, nor will we ever, have children. We expect sexual fidelity. We became the best of friends before we were married. We have been married for over 10 years, and still enjoy spending as much time as is practically possible together. To me, my wife is the sexiest woman in the world (although she does have a terrific body, it is her mind that makes her the most sexy woman in the world to me; there are plenty of women with nice bodies). I have no wish to ever have sex with any other woman. We don't want to have sex with other people, and we have no particular reason to suppose that that will ever change.

We were not children when we married, and we got to know each other very well before we were married. I recommend both things for anyone contemplating marriage. Also, it is a good idea for the couple to discuss their expectations in the marriage before they become engaged. Many people assume that other people view it the same as themselves, and this is a really stupid assumption.

Also, there are the legal aspects of marriage to consider. It affects, among other things, inheritance and the ability to make medical decisions for the other one if the other one is incapacitated, both of which are things we like.

Now, whether marriage is right for you or not depends on you, and whom you would marry. For many people, one or both of these makes their marriages mistakes. For us, marriage is a very good thing.

Of course, we could always be together for the rest of our lives without being married, but we like the legal aspects of it, and we are both committed to each other. And one more thing: For us, marriage has not been a lot of work to stay together. We have always wanted to be together, and have never had any real fights. I think that the people who have to work very hard at it either were not suited for marriage themselves, or they married the wrong person.

cheetah

I do think marriage is an outdated and unnecessary institution, but not for those reasons. I believe a lifetime relationship is possible, but certainly does not have to be in the context of marriage. My partner and I (hetero, just to clarify we COULD get married) are not fond of the institution. I know our relationship i just as special, even if we do NOT decide to register our love with the "guvmint." Marriage really is just a piece of paper to me, as you can have almost everything a marriage has without that piece of paper. If you are talking more generally about lifelong relationships, I think it takes work, but is an excellent endeavor!

wildernesse

To me, marriage is committing myself to a life-long partnership with my best friend and closest companion, someone who knows me, loves me, and helps me reach my goals and become the person that I dream of being. Plus, I have a biological drive to meet and mate with a desirable guy--and no more of those "cheating wife" posts, Rufus--you know you're the one.

The answer to your "is marriage practical" idea lies in what you think humans are supposed to acheive--what are our goals, individually and group-wise? Once you've defined your goal, then you can label something as practical (in line with acheiving goals) or impractical (not in line with acheiving goals). So, what do you think the goal is, and why should I agree with you?

--tibac

midnight

I think humans are supposed to achieve . . . . . well I don't know. My goal as a person is to live minus constraints thought up and applied by people in the name of religion or other such things. Live in a way that doesn't harm others or violate others' rights and try to to contribute positively to society. I too crave companionship and such but like cheetah I don't think I need to register my relationship with the gov. But I don't crave so much a permanent partner. I don't feel like I need to have someone by my side forever. I don't fear waking up alone an old lady. And I just tend to think that the idea of happily everafter when it happens should be appreciated but I don't think it should be expected for everyone.

King Rat

Pyrrho described my relationship with my wife to a 'T'.

Marriage existed (and worked) pre x-tianity, and will happen post x-tianity as well. Just because it has been adopted by mouth-breathers doesn't mean it was invented by mouth-breathers.

cheetah

I agree. Companionship or a relationship is about the journey not the end result. I am not in this relationship so that I don't wake up alone. I am in it because we are on a journey that is, in my situation, better taken together. It is romantic to think that we'll stay together "forever" and because I am a goals person, I like to have that as a goal. but, if we part ways somewhere on this journey, that doesn't make it any less important for us to do our best now and enjoy the ride. It's a process that we feel is successful. But, when people say, "I want to spend the rest of my life with you." it's more for emotions than practicality, IMO. It just sounds good. It's socially acceptable. In general though, I place more importance on the quality of the relationship than the longevity.

Pyrrho

I agree that quality is more important than longevity, but I don't think the two are unrelated. After all, the reason why people divorce is due to a lack of quality in the relationship.