Why do people get married?
Sep 29, 2006 at 8:23 AM Post #16 of 57
Quote:

Originally Posted by daveDerek
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!


OT: There is a sticky in the member lounge about it.


This Permanent Thread Contains Sticky Topics, Forum-Specific Rules/Notices, Etc.


There is also an other set of rules at the very bottom of the pages I personally don't think it's a very visible place to put rules but that just me.
wink.gif


Head-Fi Rules/Terms of Use
 
Sep 29, 2006 at 9:55 AM Post #17 of 57
I think Scotty757 has it nailed: its a COMMITMENT to your mate. A public statement that you intend to be with this person for life. Simply "living together" doesn't really carry the same weight, socially.
(Married since '91)
 
Sep 29, 2006 at 11:29 AM Post #19 of 57
Quote:

Originally Posted by bowraboy
People are scared to get old alone.


I think that's probably the number one reason, in my opinion. Also, lot's of young people fall in love easily and they get pulled into the idea of marriage. Many people are very social and want to live with each other and start families.

I'm not married and I'm not sure if I'll ever get married and to me I'm not worried about it. I grew up being the only child in my family and my parents went through an ugly divorce. Lot's of terrible memories in my childhood. Perhaps this closed my heart as my father whom I used to love turned into a monster. As a single person, I am extremely happy. As an only child in the family, I'm used to being alone. I'm not sure if marriage is for me. If I never do get married, it would be great. But if I do get married to a wonderful person, that could be good too. Also, I don't have an interest in having kids but I do like them and have dealt with children in my teaching interenship and that was a pleasure.
 
Sep 29, 2006 at 1:18 PM Post #21 of 57
Aside from religious (without delving into it, this is where the concept of "marriage" was born) and legal standpoints, there is no reason whatsoever to enter into a formal marriage. There is no difference between two people making the decision to spend their lives together sans ceremony and legal binds, and those that do, outside, once again, the religious and legal aspects.

So, the simple answer is, people get married because:
1. Their religion dictates marriage
2. They feel the need to legally bind themselves, for varying reasons already covered by previous posters.

and one other wrinkle:
3. social pressure - everyone at some point in their life will, probably numerous times, hear the refrain "when are you getting married", by family members, friends, etc. The social pressure will cause someone to feel they must get married at some point, or they are doing something wrong, or will haved failed at completing a major life goal.
 
Sep 29, 2006 at 1:38 PM Post #22 of 57
I highly, highly advise the OP to check out this book. It's a great read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotty757
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.


To go one step further I think it's sort of built into female genes to want male commitment. On the flipside, I think it's built into males to not need commitment. Think about it, females can only be fertile 3 months a year, assuming a pregnancy every year. It doesn't benefit them to have multiple lovers because she can only be pregnant by one man at any given time. Plus given the fact that women only have a predetermined number of eggs, they're in a rush to get pregnant and have someone around to rear the young ones.

Men on the other hand, however, can have as many lovers as they want and will virtually never run out of sperm. As a guy, you have an unlimited supply, thus what is the benefit if settling down with one lover the rest of your life? Guys are ultimately pushed towards getting their "seed" to as many women as they can, and this is usually going on at the genetic level.
 
Sep 29, 2006 at 2:25 PM Post #23 of 57
I guess this topic has been on my mind a bit lately...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken36
When the time is right, you will find the answer within your heart.


I think Ken's right. I don't know what's different with this girl, versus the ones I've dated in the past. I've had relatively serious relationships (2 - 3 years) with some girls that I certainly could have happily lived the rest of my life with. But I don't know. It didn't feel right. I suspect I just wasn't ready.

Maybe only now after having gone through those relationships and being a little bit older (I'm 31), this time it feels right. The idea of sharing the rest of my life with this girl is very comforting to me. Not because of ephemeral love or anything. There is that. But as that there is a person I want to have a deep, committed, relationship with. That life is no longer just about me (and believe me, life was very good when it was just about me), but it's about us. It's going to be hard, because to a large degree, I'm used to being a selfish, spoiled, self-centered brat (heh, if you haven't noticed). But my life is just richer and more rewarding with her in it and I don't feel that will change. I feel it will be even richer and more rewarding commiting to that on a permanent basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3DCadman
its a COMMITMENT to your mate. A public statement that you intend to be with this person for life. Simply "living together" doesn't really carry the same weight, socially.
(Married since '91)



I think there's a lot to this. For me it's not just socially but personally. It doesn't really carry the same weight for me.

I don't know. Haven't you (I use this term in general) ever taken an oath? It's like in life there are things that are worth believing in. Principles and values that give life meaning. I feel building a lifetime relationship with this girl is a principle and value that is a part of giving my life meaning. It's certainly not the only one, but it's an important one. And I guess that's why I want to do it.

And symbols and rituals matter. I think they're a part of being human, even for someone who's not religious (an athiest actually) and somewhat cynical about most things relating to principals or values or beliefs.

Now, as for this having to buy this $30k rock in a little baby blue box that she can wear on her finger as some sort of prerequisite to entering into this commitment... now that was marketing genius.
biggrin.gif


Best,

-Jason
 
Sep 29, 2006 at 2:46 PM Post #24 of 57
Quote:

Originally Posted by jjcha

Blah blah blah blah blah



And when you buy a ring someday, we're going to call it "The Orpheus."
 
Sep 29, 2006 at 2:48 PM Post #25 of 57
Originally the rock was a deposit, basically. It was acknowledged that the man would "spoil" the woman's chances at a future wedding once they got engaged, so the rock was a way to provide financial guarantees that he wouldn't back out. If he did, he loses the rock, and the girl has SOMETHING to show for her lack of marketability in the future.
 
Sep 29, 2006 at 3:00 PM Post #26 of 57
My answer assumes that there may be someone in consideration. There is really nothing wrong with not getting married in itself.

The answer to this touches all the forbidden elements for this forum but if you must here are a few reasons that come to my mind. The forbidden elements of political and religious discussions is what I mean. So if we have to remove those elements from our culture then we lose the essential elements of what makes marriage, well marriage.

1. Culture, do you think your culture is worth saving for the future? Building your culture by passing it on to your posterity? If not then don't get married. We in the west living, in a PC world I feel, have abandoned the essentials to what our culture that we enjoy is based upon. If we keep on this course the western civilization with all of what it has given this world both the good and the bad is dead.

2. Family is a microcosm of the community you live in, which is a microcosm of the region (nation) where you live. If you don't believe in the family commitment then you don't believe in the community or national interest of where you live. Marriage implies stability or a conservative view of the world.

3. Marriage is commitment first and last. Marriage is not that "feeling of love". It is wonderful when you have those feelings but with any heart you can have some of those feelings toward many people but that does not bring with it anything of what a marriage represents. What does marriage represent to me: companionship, comfort, love, passion without loss of personality, family, a cultural representation of what I believe.

4. If you believe in nothing then don't get married. That is what marriage represents to me, your culture. If you believe in slavery your marriage will represent that. If you believe in liberty then your marriage will represent that. The traditional Western view with an essential Judio-Christian view represents a liberty that can only be experienced if you really believe in those principals. The reason why the western view of culture is under such attack today is principally because of a loss of belief in those views. Conversely, if you choose to not marry because of what you believe that makes a statement concerning your world view as well. Form my perspective that means you are an anarchist.

5. The alternative is another long period called the "New Dark ages." Who will write the history of this period of history following the new darkages and where will we be in it?

One's culture in some manner represents a combination of your religious and political beliefs.
 
Sep 29, 2006 at 3:41 PM Post #27 of 57
I think I have feelings about marriage similar to those of Azure.

The big question seems to be, "what difference does it make if you're legally married?" It would seem as though you can do everything the same and not be legally married. You can live together, have kids together, share money, etc.

I will say that I am married and have been only since last november. Getting married is a legal bond between two people (in some cases a religious bond [that is all I will say about that]). In the legal sense it makes two people financially and emotionally bonded. The primary legal reasons for marriage would be related to children. It is far easier to grow the wealth of two people together if they are married. Also things like insurance depend on being married in order for both parties to be covered together. There are "perks" associated with it. Although through a divorce these "perks" can really come back and bite you.

Another big reason is it publically shows just how committed you are to one another.

Also in some states if you live together for a certain amount of time and with certain circumstances you will end up legally married anyway.

It's difficult to find two people willing to spend the rest of their lives together without being legally married. I have a couple of friends who lived like that; most of these friends have ended up getting legally married after a few years.
 
Sep 29, 2006 at 3:43 PM Post #28 of 57
While there is plenty of room for endless musings on the legal and religious basis for marriage, I think I'll just talk from personal experience.

I was married for 20 years to a woman that, in the end, I found I couldn't tolerate. After separating, I still found myself with an inate yearning to be a family man. I was able to spend this time feeling this desire and getting a grip on it. After separation I felt a poingniant sense of loss of identity. I identified myself for 20 years as a husband, dad, provider, protector, lover, and playmate for the people in my family. I found myself feeling that, while I had a resonably strong sense of personal identity, I had little outlet for my desires to be close with others and serve them. Essentially, as a batchelor, I found that I would retreat into self-serving behaviours due to a lack of other outlets. It was far easier to serve myself and my time wasn't dictated by the needs of a family, but I also felt a certain uselessness to my existance. It became obvious to me that it was far more deeply satisfying to suffer the needs of others and serve them, than to simply satisfy ones own desires. I recall this relativly short time as being quite dark.

So I started searching for a mate. I was particularly interested in finding a divorced woman with children as I felt I loved being a dad. I got lucky and found one: Beth, and her two boys Chance (now 14) and Liam (now 10). I also have a daughter April (now 10) who I ended up having custody of.

I am now happily married. While we had a bit of a rough road for the first year (evidently very typical in a second marriage) we've been very happy this second year and the home is running on all 12 cylinders.

I tend to think the desire for marriage is much deeper than societal (legal), or cultural (peer pressure so to speak) norms. It seems to me as I think about it for myself, that it has to do more with being a part of a tribe. In this day and age in America, society and culture are pretty impersonal. I think what I was looking for was belonging to a tightly knit group of people in which to have personal relationships, and to provide personal help to others. Because of my cultural background, that meant a marriage. So, I don't think procreation per se was the motive---although child rearing was---as much as it was finding a place for intimate relations.

As an interesting aside, my family now has a very unusual set of not blood related relatives. Chance's dad is not his biological dad. The kids have a grand dad that is not biologically related. And the list goes on. So, we are in this odd environment of having adopted a large part of the extended family, as well as the whole step-mom, step-dad, step-brother, and step-sister thing. I can assure you that the love and caring among these people is much stronger than in my preiously biologically entact family.

A couple of notes:

Belonging and participating in a family well include the ability to suffer others gladly. It's much easier to find pleasure alone. But not truly satisfying pleasure---at least for me.

Even though I think it was better for me and my children (my ex still suffers, and IMO due to her selfish nature), I think my seperation and divorce was the most painful experience of my life. The view of divorce as an abomination has great truth.

And therefor, just because you suffer, doesn't mean divorce is the right answer. I suffered for 20 years before I fled. Every time I wanted to choose divorce, I decided against it. When I finally left it didn't feel like a choice, it was more a flight for survival. If I had to do it again knowing what I know now, I would probably do the same thing. That may sound pretty stupid, but I have to tell you that there is almost no way of knowing if you'll truly get along with your mate untill you're years down the road.

If I had to choose a mate today, I would probably try eHarmony. I tend to think that issues of every day compatability are very important. You may think you love somebody now, but if they don't replace the toilet paper and you're a bit obsessive compulsive, that's going to be bothersome and may escelate over the years. Marriage is somewhat more about living in a comfortable home together than sex or love. Personally, I love people, and have therefor come to believe I could marry most any girl for love. But I don't think I could live with almost any girl unless our lifestyles matched significantly. Some of my favorite times with my wife are watching the Daily Show or some liberal documentary. I'm sure that would be far less enjoyable with a conservative wife. So issues of personal taste are very important to my mind.

Marriage is much more about warm, comfy slippers, than about hot monkey sex---IMHO.
 
Sep 29, 2006 at 4:02 PM Post #29 of 57
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.



No, I heartily disagree. Having one women for the rest of your life goes against every evolutionary grain you have. If Evolution had its way, every man would own his own harem.
 
Sep 29, 2006 at 4:06 PM Post #30 of 57
On Tyll's notes I will say that I saw similar things from my father when he got divorced from my mother.

Divorce can cause an extremely emotional response from people. Especially if children are involved.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top