Putting Off The Married Life

[MetroStyles]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Just some food for thought. I'm always game for a thoughtful argument on social matters like this, barring degeneration to name-calling and snark.

and on cue:

Originally Posted by edmorel

So basically, from page 2 on, you just wasted everyone's time. Thanks Tegeredinatlanta!

Originally Posted by Fuuma

I didn't read the discussion that ensued the initial first post of major suxor that I didn't finish reading either. This thread still sucks and I'm sure some off the cuff sociologists/biologists/anthropologists distributed wonderful pearls of wisdumb.

Originally Posted by iammatt

Thank you.

 

[edmorel]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

and on cue:

You are not really complaining about degenerating threads and snark, are you?

 

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by dah328

I don't buy it when all these guys say, "I am just as committed as anyone else. I just question the necessity of the additional social and legal constraints on top of my commitment."
You need to meet more people. I can introduce you to many wonderful long-term couples, living together with kids that never bothered (or actively don't want to) get married. I would never dare call them less committed.

 

[MetroStyles]

Originally Posted by Étienne

You need to meet more people. I can introduce you to many wonderful long-term couples, living together with kids that never bothered (or actively don't want to) get married. I would never dare call them less committed.

Étienne, I would add to this that it is a greater form of commitment to be legally married. However, it is a bastardized kind of commitment. A lifelong partnership is meant to be an emotional and physical commitment to another person. Marriage can be said to be the same. However, a legally binding document is actually insurance on that commitment: in other words, insurance against one of the party's reneging on their commitment. It's like saying "I am committed to you fully, but in case I would otherwise slip up and leave or cheat, this document will make me think twice." It adds the financial aspect to the emotional and physical. On a theoretical level, it only needs to exist as added incentive to not cheat or leave or break vows. If the emotional commitment was there from the start, it would not be required.

That opens up a whole different (and fascinating) discussion on the validity of promises and commitments (see Montaigne), but I suppose this isn't the best place for it.

 

[dah328]

Originally Posted by Étienne

You need to meet more people. I can introduce you to many wonderful long-term couples, living together with kids that never bothered (or actively don't want to) get married. I would never dare call them less committed.
I know this is one of your hot-button topics, but I would call them less committed. For what reason other than the option of more easily severing the relationship would they have chosen to avoid social and legal recognition of their commitment?

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by iammatt

Thank you.

I'm sure some benchwarmer of sexuality dropped by to impress you all. They're real alphas and read they Darwin wiki entries, they know this ****!

 

[MetroStyles]

Originally Posted by dah328

I know this is one of your hot-button topics, but I would call them less committed. For what reason other than the option of more easily severing the relationship would they have chosen to avoid social and legal recognition of their commitment?

See my post above. A legal insurance on your commitment is actually an admission of weakness in the original promise.

 

[edmorel]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Étienne, I would add to this that it is a greater form of commitment to be legally married. However, it is a bastardized kind of commitment. A lifelong partnership is meant to be an emotional and physical commitment to another person. Marriage can be said to be the same. However, a legally binding document is actually insurance on that commitment: in other words, insurance against one of the party's reneging on their commitment. It's like saying "I am committed to you fully, but in case I would otherwise slip up and leave or cheat, this document will make me think twice." It adds the financial aspect to the emotional and physical. On a theoretical level, it only needs to exist as added incentive to not cheat or leave or break vows. If the emotional commitment was there from the start, it would not be required.

That opens up a whole different (and fascinating) discussion on the validity of promises and commitments (see Montaigne), but I suppose this isn't the best place for it.

So then the divorce rates must be astronomically higher among the poor than among the rich and also, the poor must have higher rates of marriage than the rich.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by dah328

I know this is one of your hot-button topics, but I would call them less committed. For what reason other than the option of more easily severing the relationship would they have chosen to avoid social and legal recognition of their commitment?

My uncle and aunt have never gotten married because they resent the "marriage institution" and think it's bourgeois. They're in their early 60s so they've been together awhile ahd have kids, certainly no less commited. You can be sure they're socially recognized as a couple and some legal protection apply in addition to the ones they drafted themselves (she's a lawyeress so you know she's evil).

 

[dah328]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

See my post above. A legal insurance on your commitment is actually an admission of weakness in the original promise.
You are quite correct. It is an admission that "emotional commitments" are inherently fragile due to the emotional flakiness of the people involved. It takes more commitment to get up in front of friends and family (social commitment) and the state (legal commitment) and make a commitment that despite your own emotions, you will remain committed to your spouse and accept the consequences of possible social stigma and legal damages should you renege.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by dah328

You are quite correct. It is an admission that "emotional commitments" are inherently fragile due to the emotional flakiness of the people involved. It takes more commitment to get up in front of friends and family (social commitment) and the state (legal commitment) and make a commitment that despite your own emotions, you will remain committed to your spouse and accept the consequences of possible social stigma and legal damages should you renege.

Aas I explained in the post above I wouldn't try to quantify it as "more commitment".

 

[Etienne]

Originally Posted by dah328

For what reason other than the option of more easily severing the relationship would they have chosen to avoid social and legal recognition of their commitment?
Possibly because they consider that the state has no business dealing with what happens in their bedroom (which is a very important part of legal marriage). There are tons of reasons besides what you consider the only conceivable one.

 

[dah328]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

My uncle and aunt have never gotten married because they resent the "marriage institution" and think it's bourgeois.
What is there to resent about it?

 

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Étienne, I would add to this that it is a greater form of commitment to be legally married. However, it is a bastardized kind of commitment. A lifelong partnership is meant to be an emotional and physical commitment to another person. Marriage can be said to be the same. However, a legally binding document is actually insurance on that commitment: in other words, insurance against one of the party's reneging on their commitment. It's like saying "I am committed to you fully, but in case I would otherwise slip up and leave or cheat, this document will make me think twice." It adds the financial aspect to the emotional and physical. On a theoretical level, it only needs to exist as added incentive to not cheat or leave or break vows. If the emotional commitment was there from the start, it would not be required.

That opens up a whole different (and fascinating) discussion on the validity of promises and commitments (see Montaigne), but I suppose this isn't the best place for it.

hmmm. First...Metro, I've got to say you're showing moxie in this thread.

Second: I know of couples who got married but should not have, largely because one wanted to perpetrate a sort of commitment upon the other. Kind of like the couple who have a kid to 'save' the crumbling marriage. You all know the outcome.

But - as to the Q 'why marry?'...Just as the wedding is really for the wife and her friends, the value of marriage (IMHO) is more about joining the in-laws than for the couple getting married. Whether that's better or worse, they are usually an older generation (as are their peers) who tend to value tradition.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by dah328

What is there to resent about it?

State ingerence? Weight of tradition? Desire to insitutionalize relationships? The need for socially accepted demoninations adding legitimacy to human contact?