This is precisely how I wish I could have worded some of my earlier comments. Wherever I wrote "social value" I meant this.Korolev said:
Is there any reason to get married nowadays?
- Thread starter Saladfork
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Hmm .. this thread smacks to me of someone trying to prove how edgey and antisocial he is. Woooo. Big man.
It's a personal decision made by people who decide to get married. There's a whole range of factors involved in that decision. In the past it was tied closer perhaps to social expectations and taboos. 'Living in sin' was a very real concept and chilren from such a union would often be ostracised by their peers and society in general. These days it perhaps has more to do with a personal commitment to an individual, proving it by having it 'written in stone' (as flimsy as that stone may well be) or enshrined by law. That's why (most) people will have friends, family, and those legally empowered to perform such a ceremony - it's a confirmation of partnership before your peers, which is not as binding as it used to be, but everyone single one of those people will know you go back on your word when shit gets difficult. Being an oathbreaker is hardly something most of us want to be regarded as, no?
You might as well have asked us 'dude, some people put a chocolate sauce on their ice cream, but i think strawberry is better. WTF is with that?' I don't fucking know. It's an individual choice.
It's a personal decision made by people who decide to get married. There's a whole range of factors involved in that decision. In the past it was tied closer perhaps to social expectations and taboos. 'Living in sin' was a very real concept and chilren from such a union would often be ostracised by their peers and society in general. These days it perhaps has more to do with a personal commitment to an individual, proving it by having it 'written in stone' (as flimsy as that stone may well be) or enshrined by law. That's why (most) people will have friends, family, and those legally empowered to perform such a ceremony - it's a confirmation of partnership before your peers, which is not as binding as it used to be, but everyone single one of those people will know you go back on your word when shit gets difficult. Being an oathbreaker is hardly something most of us want to be regarded as, no?
You might as well have asked us 'dude, some people put a chocolate sauce on their ice cream, but i think strawberry is better. WTF is with that?' I don't fucking know. It's an individual choice.
you claim: diamond rings, marriage and having relationships are not materialistic but instead "love". i call you out on it and then you claim you never said it. fun times. its you who are not reading your own posts.A Smooth Criminal said:
Aside from the financial benefits --which I heard they dropped in the UK-- marriage has always seemed to me like the kind of thing where if people want to do it, fair enough, but it's quite an antiquated concept since it's really only a way to involve church and state in your life.
If two people love each other that should be enough, and I know people who call their long term partner 'husband/wife' regardless of marriage, but I guess I understand why some people might still want the big knees-up.
If two people love each other that should be enough, and I know people who call their long term partner 'husband/wife' regardless of marriage, but I guess I understand why some people might still want the big knees-up.
No, but the traditional wedding reception, priest, and rings are things certain couples feel like doing when they've decided to spend the rest of their lives together.OlasDAlmighty said:
There's no logical reason to celebrate Christmas or Easter either, but it's a tradition that some people like to put into practice and some people don't. And a wedding is generally meant as a celebration.
But then maybe I'm just a naive smuck.
Well, 'naive' means lacking understanding of how the world works, and if this is how the majority of the world's populace views marriage then... I guess I am.A Smooth Criminal said:
I wish I could remember from my two business law courses i was required to take in university, but I specifically remember my professor mentioning that while many of the benefits of marriage are conferred on common law relationships as well, some very important ones aren't. I believe some aspects of property ownership/transferal in the event of one spouse dying was one of them. I'd imagine things such as the power to make medical decisions for the other person in the event they're incapacitated and don't have something like a living will might enter into it as well.Saladfork said:
Simply put, the best way to think about marriage is as a standard form contract. Are you in a long term relationship with someone and want them to get all of your stuff when you die and make decisions for you if you're left in a vegetative state? Might want to get married then. Otherwise things can get messier than they need to. You also don't have to hire a lawyer to prepare documents specifying these things if the rights you want your partner to have can be afforded them by marriage.
Just remember, people: Half of marriages end in divorce, and the other half end in death. It's a lose-lose situation.
But I suppose 100% of people who do pretty much anything die, so the statistics say that marriage is good!
But I suppose 100% of people who do pretty much anything die, so the statistics say that marriage is good!
You keep saying that marriage's 'original purpose' was for love... except that, it wasn't. The idea of marrying for love is a very modern one indeed (this is why the works of someone like Jane Austen were odd for her time - she was espousing marrying for love, in a time when the concept wasn't hugely popular).Bhaalspawn said:
OT:
Marriage is a tradition, a ritual, a nice gesture. That is all it is. I do not find it necessary, personally. However, I understand why people do want to get married, and I'm happy for them to get married. If I ever get married, it's likely I'd do it for my significant other (and possibly our families), given that at that point I may feel like I'm going to spend the rest of my life with her anyway.
I work in Social Security and let me tell you, widows and widowers who can only get back on their feet after the death of a spouse thanks to benefits that they are entitled to due to marriage are a daily occurance. Sometimes, even the death of a spouse you DIVORCED. Also it provides a few interesting options to maximize your monthly check in the long term. Then of course there are other legal rights that come with marriage, which bear responsibilities that need to be in place to ensure that not just anyone can get benefits from you. Plus, entangling your lives in a marriage is a commitment device, and though not perfect, commitment devices can work and make you more dedicated to something that you truly want. If you don't want to commit in that way, that's your choice, and a valid one, but its important that you have that choice should you want it.
Money of course, duh. Tax cuts and social benefits you get through your spouse should be all the reason you need along with all the extra rights you get.
And if you are young you can do it for love also.
Otherwise you are a basement dwelling loser that cant get a date. I'd suggest you'd marry your cat but that would erode the foundations of marriage and I cant have that.
And if you are young you can do it for love also.
Otherwise you are a basement dwelling loser that cant get a date. I'd suggest you'd marry your cat but that would erode the foundations of marriage and I cant have that.
I might be an optimist, but whenever I see the 50% of marriage end in divorce I think, wow there's 50% chance I could have true love for the rest of my life!Jimmy T. Malice said:
But of course the 50% thing is far more complicated when you consider serial mongomamists and different demographics (culture, age, soicoecomonic status).