[Azure]

I'm heavily thinking about something right now, and I won't say what it is per Head-Fi's rules, but it involves this question. Why do people get married? There's a decent amount of mature, married folks here, so I figured I'd ask. If you could give one universal reason as to why people get married, what would it be? Expression of love (Do you need to get married in order to express your love?)? Sacred bond/union (Do you need to get married in order to share a forever lasting bond with your lover?) Society (If 2 people love each other, then they are expected to undergo this thing called "marriage"?)? Justification (Do you need to justify/confirm the love/bond between you and your lover through this thing called "marriage"?)? Respect for religious values (Do you get married because it is what you believe, based on your religion, is the way that you ultimately express your love/devotion to somebody? What if you suddenly lost faith in your religion, how would that affect the idea of marriage between you and your lover?)?

If the idea of marriage didn't exist or was outlawed/condemned all over the world, would it affect your relationship with your lover?

EDIT: I should note that I'm not trying to knock your marriage/religion here or anything. It's just that I'm only 17 years old and obviously I'd need the advice from older, wiser members that ARE married to figure this out. Based on my limited experiences/knowledge, I cannot answer this question yet, but I think the experience/knowledge of older members would certainly help me.

 

[harkamus]

Simple: Love someone enough and you want to be with them as much as possible.

To wake up next to the person you love has to be a great feeling. I've not had such an experience myself as I'm not married, but I can only imagine how it must feel.

 

[Azure]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harkamus Simple: Love someone enough and you want to be with them as much as possible. To wake up next to the person you love has to be a great feeling. I've not had such an experience myself as I'm not married, but I can only imagine how it must feel.

But do you have to get "married" in order to do this? Why can't you be with someone forever without being "married" to them? Is marriage some sort of means that ultimately proves whether or not you and your lover actually love each other (So do you have to get married in order to be re-assured that your lover really loves you and wants to spend the rest of his/her life with you?)?

 

[Scotty757]

I think it is almost wholly genetic and evolutionary.

It benefits the offspring greatly to have both male and female present throughout development (i.e. the male for protection and the female for nurture).

I think it was hardwired into our genomes millions of years ago. Ultimately, our biological role is to reproduce and rear healthy offspring, and having two parents increases relative biologic fitness.

Social constructs were, IMHO, built around this principle, even if none of them recognize it.

 

[Scotty757]

Oh, and per head-fi rules, lets not talk about the religious stuff. Don't want to get deleted!

 

[soundboy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure But do you have to get "married" in order to do this? Why can't you be with someone forever without being "married" to them?

That's looking at it from a modern day POV. In the old days, and even today, in some conservative societies, marriage is a "must" in order for 2 people to express their love for each other.

 

[harkamus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure But do you have to get "married" in order to do this? Why can't you be with someone forever without being "married" to them? Is marriage some sort of means that ultimately proves whether or not you and your lover actually love each other (So do you have to get married in order to be re-assured that your lover really loves you and wants to spend the rest of his/her life with you?)?

I suppose if you put it that way, the answer is no. But if two people are already living together that are deeply in love, why not get married? There are benefits for marriage...tax exemptions.

 

[Azure]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotty757 I think it is almost wholly genetic and evolutionary. It benefits the offspring greatly to have both male and female present throughout development (i.e. the male for protection and the female for nurture). I think it was hardwired into our genomes millions of years ago. Ultimately, our biological role is to reproduce and rear healthy offspring, and having two parents increases relative biologic fitness. Social constructs were, IMHO, built around this principle, even if none of them recognize it.

So marriage of the parents of offspring has a tendency to result in more fit offspring? Are 2 married people closer to each other than 2 unmarried people (provided that both equally love each other)? Or is the level of love caused by marriage only attainable by marriage? Is it because our brains have been socially (or religiously? Or maybe we shouldn't go there because I don't want to get this thread locked/deleted...) wired to consider marriage as the ultimate proposal of love? I guess it's a cultural thing then (Any nations in the world where people that love each other don't formally, in ANY degree of that word, represent their love through something similar to marriage/union?)?

 

[Scotty757]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure So marriage of the parents of offspring has a tendency to result in more fit offspring? Are 2 married people closer to each other than 2 unmarried people (provided that both equally love each other)? Or is the level of love caused by marriage only attainable by marriage? Is it because our brains have been socially (or religiously? Or maybe we shouldn't go there because I don't want to get this thread locked/deleted...) wired to consider marriage as the ultimate proposal of love? I guess it's a cultural thing then (Any nations in the world where people that love each other don't formally, in ANY degree of that word, represent their love through something similar to marriage/union?)?

Remember, I said nothing about love. The essence of marraige is COMMITMENT, not love. Love is a flighty, ephemeral thing, constantly changing. Marraige is a lifetime commitment that pledges support and ties the futures of two people.

Thus, the couples that produce children within wedlock will have a reproductive advangate over those out of it, because married couples tend to stay together longer than unmarried ones (I'm talking theory here, not in practice).

But the take home point here is that marraige is 10000x more about commitment than it is about love.

 

[harkamus]

People forget that not all couples wish to propagate.

 

[pne]

big part of marriage is the promise to care for the person, and fidelity. Marriage makes that promise official. Kind of like going to court and swearing to tell the truth. Well people would expect you to tell the truth anyways so making you go under oathe is sort of silly is it not?


Or say getting your college degree...

I could spend 4 years sitting in engineering classes, learning all the material, without registering and paying for the classes. Then I could get a copy of the examinations, do them in front of the interviewer for the job, and pass them with flying colors, and it still wouldn't make a lick of difference to them unless I had that "official" diploma.

 

[Scotty757]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harkamus People forget that not all couples wish to propagate.

agreed. my argument is for the genetic basis of the desire for marraige. The fundamental theory of evolution is reproductive fitness, and a male-female bi-parent model is consistant with higher offspring viability (once again, millions of years ago).

He asked why the desire for marraige exists, and I think that explains it.

Caveat: It also (somewhat) justifies the stronger desire for marraige in females than males. Females are more fundamentally tied to the offspring (due to pregnancy and feeding) than are males. Thus, the female would have a strong desire for some sort of commitment from the male that he would remain for the process of rearing the offspring.

Caveat 2: Couples that don't wish to procreate push their reproductive fitness to zero, and are a standstill in the evolutionary process. Their biologic significance is absolutely nil.

 

[kramer5150]

Its the social / cultural definition of a "family".... husband, wife, kids. Or husband/husband kids, wife/wife kids.

It provides the psycological piece of mind as a parent, to have your "family". It also provides your children a certain sense of family stability in their fagile, constantly evolving lives. Children can be influenced in ALL KINDS of unforseeable ways . Personally, my wife and I prefer to raise our children as husband and wife, and we feel this is the best way to illustrate family values (as defined by society / culture) to them.

 

[daveDerek]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotty757 Oh, and per head-fi rules, lets not talk about the religious stuff. Don't want to get deleted!

i'm not familiar with this. where are the rules posted? i've seen that some folks have been banned, but i never knew what might have precipitated that action. any clarification would be appreciated. thanks!

 

[setmenu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotty757 Caveat 2: Couples that don't wish to procreate push their reproductive fitness to zero, and are a standstill in the evolutionary process. Their biologic significance is absolutely nil.

I guess thats true from pure individual dna standpoint, but the social contribution of such a couple may indeed be beneficial to the species as a whole. After all humans are social animals and assist one another in care and support of others.



.