# Why do people get married?



## hohodicestu

Hi everyone,

I understand that in the US, a lot of couples just live together without getting married. Why do you think that marriage is so impotant in your country or culture?

Thanks


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

The big advantage of getting married are tax benefits. If you have children it is definitely better to get married. 

As for the romantic part... if you love someone and share your life with your beloved one, why not get married???

It was more important in the past than it is now anyway, when women couldn't work and had to depend on their husbands...


----------



## Elibennet

The situation in Argentina has changed dramatically in the past 15 years. Nowadays the most common thing is to get together with your partner without getting married. THere are still the traditional ones, but they are fewer and fewer. I´ve been married for 20 years. If I had told my mother that I was going to live with my boyfriend without getting married, she would have had a heart attack!


----------



## GenJen54

hohodicestu said:
			
		

> I understand that in the US, a lot of couples just live together without getting married.


This practice is certainly not limited to the US, and I would say that in many European countries is considered a more "accepted" practice, at least compared to some areas of the US, where it is still widely frowned upon.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> This practice is certainly not limited to the US, and I would say that in many European countries is considered a more "accepted" practice, at least compared to some areas of the US, where it is still widely frowned upon.



Exactly, it's normal here too. It's the most intelligent thing a couple can do, if you ask me. I think people should live together before getting married


----------



## Everness

Why do people get married? Because they don't know better?


----------



## María Archs

In US the latest fashion is LAT (Living/Live apart together)

Regards

María


----------



## GenJen54

Maria Archs said:
			
		

> In US the latest fashion is LAT (Living/Live apart together)


Hi Maria, 
Can you please let us know what this is, or provide the source of your information.  I live in the US, and I've not heard of this latest "fashion."


----------



## María Archs

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Hi Maria,
> Can you please let us know what this is, or provide the source of your information. I live in the US, and I've not heard of this latest "fashion."


 
It was on television. I was watching the news. 
You aren´t in fashion (I´m jocking)
Ask people from New York

Regards

María

I


----------



## Bettie

Yeah, I've read and heard that first and A&E and then in the View, that a lot of couples now can be even married but don't live together, you have your house and I have mine!!!


----------



## María Archs

Bettie said:
			
		

> Yeah, I've read and heard that first and A&E and then in the View, that a lot of couples now can be even marriaged but don't live together, you have your house and I have mine!!!


 
Hahahahaha. IT´S THE BEST

Regards

María


----------



## french4beth

People get married for a variety of reasons in the US, as is the case everywhere else; for love, for money, or for love of money (trophy wives – think Anna Nicole Smith).  Also, if a woman becomes pregnant, some couples will get married even if they hadn’t previously planned on it.  Some people want financial security, some people want a housekeeper/caregiver/bookkeeper; it’s hard to say what motivates people.  Also, some people just don’t want to be alone – I’ve met many people who are currently divorced who said that they knew as they were walking down the aisle that they didn’t truly love their future spouse, but were afraid to disappoint everyone, or the love of their life wasn’t available (married to someone else), or they didn’t want to make the effort to find someone new after investing a lot of time in a relationship.
 
In the US, which doesn’t have national health care, it is now possible to get medical coverage in some areas for someone that you have been living with for at least a couple of years. So that’s one less incentive to get married.
 
I married for love (but they say, ‘love is blind’).


----------



## .   1

To share life with the most important person I know.
Because couples are complete.
I have some life skills as does my wife and together we are almost normal.
To know that there is someone who cares for me above all else.

.,,


----------



## jskmiamiga

Here in my area, the three most common reasons are to be able to move out of their parents home, family pressure, and for fear of being alone.
Sad reasons when you think about it.


----------



## brownsugar10

Good Day,

I live/work in New York City.. and I agree to some point that people tend to live together in the United States...  However, in some parts of our country, it is still consider a sin.  My parents are originally from South Carolina - southern part of the US.  Sourthern folks who tend to attend church often look down on "living in sin".  Anyway... I am a Brooklyn girl.  I believe if you find love, do what you want.  

Peace,


----------



## mytwolangs

Depending on the state, one would end up "common law" married if living together or joint-signing any type of legal contract like tax forms or even contracts for financial loans. 

The problem with NOT being married thru a Justice of the Peace or church is that many employers will not cover a "common law" spouse on insurance or other benefits. My younger sister is having this problem with her now common law husband. (they bought a house together) 

Many people jump into marriage too fast. That is why 50% of marriages fall apart before 5 years (and that rate is accelerating) I have been married 10 years, but looking back, I wish I would have waited so I could get my own life straightened out.


----------



## Arenita

Kräuter_Fee said:
			
		

> Exactly, it's normal here too. It's the most intelligent thing a couple can do, if you ask me. I think people should live together before getting married


 
Totally agree Kräuter_Fee.  I am going to get married next year but I have been living with my fiancé for about a year and that allowed us to know each other better.

I think people should get married because of love.  However, as it was mentioned before, there are many other reasons, that could be very sad.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

María Archs said:
			
		

> In US the latest fashion is LAT (Living/Live apart together)
> 
> Regards
> 
> María



I'm pretty sure that would be the same here if housing wasn't controlled by usurers


----------



## southerngal

It's a commitment to spend your life as a couple and to raise a family.  In modern day culture, love is often seen as a positive feature to the commitment.    Unfortunately, a lot of people don't take that commitment seriously today.  I find it sad that a lot of people haven't been exposed to happily married couples so they see no difference in just rooming with a person to have sex versus creating a newly married life, often with children.


----------



## mytwolangs

The thought of spending your whole life with just ONE lover seems daunting. Ever hear of "The 7 year itch"? 

Romance fades. Sex with the same person gets tired. And to never feel the excitement of meeting a new date, it is, well, dull.


----------



## southerngal

mytwolangs said:
			
		

> The thought of spending your whole life with just ONE lover seems daunting.


 
It can; I agree. That's why marriage is such a serious commitment. When you do find the right person, the sex and the marriage can be deeply satisfying on many levels.




> Romance fades.


 
It can, if you allow it. Love changes from a puppy type of love to a more mature love, if people are patient enough to allow themselves to grow to a new level.




> Sex with the same person gets tired.


 
Not if you have a great lover! The problem is that sometimes we become the TV generation and demand something new and exciting every little bit instead of working hard to achieve something really satisfying. People who are promiscuous often have low self-esteems and will never really be happy because they're always looking for something better. The problem is that they often never stay with one person long enough to develop much of a relationship.




> And to never feel the excitement of meeting a new date, it is, well, dull.


 
That's why it's good not to get married when you're real young. As people mature, quality over quantity becomes more important. If it's simple excitement you want, there are hundreds of ways, other than dating. New sports, new hobbies, new jobs, new continents -- sometimes we forget that we should grow in all areas.


----------



## Bonjules

It has become quite clear from these contributions that all the things that people normally associate with the married state (exclude the taxes for now; in many jurisdictions there is no advantage anyway) you can have just as well living together: Commitment, love, children, no children, a house, two houses, whatever.
So it becomes equally clear that people get married for only one reason: The pressure of social convention. End of story.


----------



## .   1

mytwolangs said:
			
		

> The thought of spending your whole life with just ONE lover seems daunting. Ever hear of "The 7 year itch"?
> 
> Romance fades. Sex with the same person gets tired. And to never feel the excitement of meeting a new date, it is, well, dull.


I have been married for twenty years.
When I first married I did not think that sex was really much fun.
There was a lot of effort and it was messy and no one knew what to do.
It took a couple of years of being married and being able to relax and understand someone else and how to interact and what to do before it became truely wonderful.
As far as being boring goes I can only comment that we have never known each other in the Biblical sense twice in the same manner and we do indulge regularly and with much gusto.
I would be horrified to be out there hunting around looking for a mate on a regular basis and I do not believe that casual sex could possibly be uplifting when the participants barely know the name of the receptical of their urges.
There are very few disadvantages to marriage.  As a matter of fact I can not think of one single reason to not be quite happily married.

.,,


----------



## southerngal

Bonjules said:
			
		

> So it becomes equally clear that people get married for only one reason: The pressure of social convention. End of story.


 
I don't think it's the end at all.  For many, marriage has a deeply religious or spiritual meaning, both personally and to family and friends witnessing the initial wedding ceremony and later sharing in their lives as married couples.  Much may be social, but it can also be very personal fulfilling.


----------



## danielfranco

Alright!
YEAH!
I get to be the corny one!!

I married my wife because marriage was important for her. It could be that her upbringing made her feel she must marry. It could be that she calculated to the last cent how much she saved on taxes alone. It could be that she wanted to wear that dress, dammit!
I don't know. And I don't care: all that matters to me is that she wanted a marriage and it made her happy. Is all.


----------



## Bonjules

I really don't get it:
How deep, spiritual, empty, flimsy, close, loose, firm or whatever a relationship is depends on the participants, their openness, honesty, strength etc. In other words, you get the kind of relationship that you make it.
 Whether within a formalized setting or not.
The danger and the fallacy is that many assume that the 'formalization' will do the work for them. In that sense the lack of formalization is actually better. It keeps folks on their toes. Take nothing for granted.


----------



## Bonjules

Forgot to add - since it seems customary/acceptable to bring in your personal experience here:
I got married after living together for 7 years (probably for the reason stated in the earlier post). It was a very intense, committed relationship.
Before and after. Being married did not make one Iota of a difference.
saludos


----------



## Millar

I agree with you southerngal. And I most add that perhaps the fear of *commiting,* with everything of what that could means, is what unfortunatly too often stops men (more than women) to get married.
Millar.


----------



## Millar

I just read your quote *Bonjules*. 
Clear, plain, and brilliant is your thinking (and as I saw after your "practice") to me.
Thanks for showing me that there are people who are making real and true in life my thoughts and wishes.
I´m not enjoying a life together with anyone, married or not, perhaps I´m always choosing the wrong person, with whom I can not work out the kind of relationship I always wanted. This is based on: openness, honesty, comunication, commitmet, trust ...and definitively LOVE, which is most likely just a nice, harmonic combination  of all of that.
Yet, "hope is trhe last thing to loose", as we say in Spain.
Thanks again, for giving me your alife example, it definitively makes stronger my hope.
Millar.


----------



## Millar

southerngal said:
			
		

> It can; I agree. That's why marriage is such a serious commitment. When you do find the right person, the sex and the marriage can be deeply satisfying on many levels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It can, if you allow it. Love changes from a puppy type of love to a more mature love, if people are patient enough to allow themselves to grow to a new level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you have a great lover! The problem is that sometimes we become the TV generation and demand something new and exciting every little bit instead of working hard to achieve something really satisfying. People who are promiscuous often have low self-esteems and will never really be happy because they're always looking for something better. The problem is that they often never stay with one person long enough to develop much of a relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why it's good not to get married when you're real young. As people mature, quality over quantity becomes more important. If it's simple excitement you want, there are hundreds of ways, other than dating. New sports, new hobbies, new jobs, new continents -- sometimes we forget that we should grow in all areas.


impressive!. 
Great answers to each quote.
I´m having a great time reading people like you.
Thanks for expressing and sharing your thughts.
Millar.


----------



## french4beth

mytwolangs said:
			
		

> That is why 50% of marriages fall apart before 5 years (and that rate is accelerating) ... *this is an* *urban legend! *


Luckily, the divorce rate is *not* at 50%, but this is a common misperception; I found the following info here:


> ... it is correct that in the United States during most of the 1990s, there were about two marriages for every divorce in a single year.. this does not mean that the divorce rate is 50% because _the people getting married in a single year are not the same ones getting divorced_.
> In 2003 there were 3.8 divorces for every 1000 people in the U.S.
> In 2001, about 20% of adults over age 15 had ever divorced [in the U.S.].


I have really enjoyed reading all of your responses - it's encouraging to know that there are many people out there that are committed to healthy long-term relationships that are _true_ partnerships. It gives me hope... it's pretty tough, out there in the trenches... 

Plus, I'm not going to settle for anything less than the best (this time). This doesn't mean that I have some insane mental checklist, it's just that the _next_ time I'm contemplating marriage (see, I haven't given up hope) I'm really going to think things through - I don't live at home (so I'm not _escaping_ my parents), I am gainfully employed (so I'm capable of _earning_ money), and I enjoy spending time with my family, friends, or even by myself (so I'm not _desperately_ lonely).  I want someone to grow old with.  I think that's a _good_ reason to get married!


----------



## Bonjules

Beth,
Live with that person for 2 or 3 years before you do THAT.
Then you'll have a pretty good idea of what you are getting.
Be suspicious of anyone who wants to 'rush'.
Good luck!


----------



## Fernita

I think "marriage" was an institution in the past. Nowadays youngsters prefer living together. Those who still get married, at least in Argentina, generally belong to traditional families who believe that if you don´t do it, you are "the black sheep". But even those who live together, when they are going to have a baby, decide to get married, or sometimes after the baby is born. Everything has changed so much...
Why do people get married? Because they feel their love will last forever, they have hope, I guess. Though according to statistics, most of the married couples, separate sooner or later and even get the divorce.
My advice: first you have to become very good friends, know each other very well, be able to have strong arguments with respect, have fun together, share good conversations, and of course, good sex. But the most important thing is to have very good communication because this is what will keep you together when the passion is gone and mainly when you grow old.
There is a funny slogan in some Tshirts as regards sex: "At my age, it´s more an effort than a pleasure". That´s why I strongly believe that couples need to be very good friends, enjoy being together, going to the cinema, comment on books they read, and not being together all the time. They need to keep their individuality (I don´t know how to express this, hope you all understand). 
Just an opinion from Argentina.


----------



## clipper

I’m getting married next April. I’ve been with my partner for nearly 8 years, we have no children and are not expecting either.
 
We are not religious and the fiscal benefits are small compared to the cost of rectifying a bad marriage situation should that arise in the future.
 
We do not expect to receive gifts at our wedding as half of the guests will have to travel abroad to attend.
 
The reason for the wedding is simple; because we can (financially) and because it should be one of the only times in our lives when we will have a big party and see all of our friends and family in one place at the same time celebrating what is, all said and done, the best part of our lives, i.e. the sharing and “togetherness” of being with the person we love. It will of course also legalize our relationship and so bring with it benefits from medical schemes etc.
 
The comments made in so many posts and also as seems to be the case for many couples in general is that is a life changing commitment and the expectations are way over and above what will actually happen. We will return to the same jobs, flat and lives afterwards, nothing will change except we will have had the biggest party and biggest holiday of our lives.
 
I just hope I will be as happy 8 years after the event as I have been during the last 8 but the act of marrying will not influence this in my opinion.


----------



## maxiogee

My wife and I married because we wished to.
We made a commitment to each other - because we wished to.
We made a public declaration of our commitment to each other - because we wished to.

There were no expectations on us to marry, nor was there any societal pressure. We weren't merely 'following social norms' when we did it (we have rarely followed social norms).


----------



## zena168

I don’t know about others, but I think in US getting married is more about the legal stuff.  People I know normally cohabitates together for a period of time.  Then if they decide to get married—which there’s often a lot more practical reasons behind the ceremony.  Like saving taxes, legalizing the unborn child, compounding finances so you can afford house(s) to save even more taxes.  There’s just too much $ at loss and too many legal problems if a family is not contracted legally.  Some of my friends (including myself in the future) just get registered and never even bother to have a formal ceremony.  Beyond the legal stuff it’s just a piece of paper, it can’t do anything else for your love.  But it’s good for revenge toward an irresponsible spouse.
Divorce breaks people (financially.)


----------



## Honeypum

I think that the "driver" to get married should be "love". Unfortunately, in many cases, there are other reasons...


----------



## djchak

"Divorce breaks people financially."

Well, now we have some insight into why people (not just men) don't want to make the "marriage commitment" before living with each other for 4-7 years. 

Becuase most people want to avoid divorce, and the emotional and finacial turmoil!


----------



## zena168

4~7 years is unpractical. That limits women to very few “wrong” selections during their fertile years! Women can be impregnated at 40, but it is very unhealthy for the child and the mother. A female’s ovum is at its best condition around 20 something, sadly, no woman I know can afford a child so early. Beyond 30 years of age is already quite risky for the mother’s health recovery (longterm-wise).  I say 2 to 3 years of cohabitation is pretty good for grasping how bad it can get with the other person. 
For me, marriage makes it easier to raise children. And you get a good companion to make your boring life interesting. If anyone really took raising their child as serious business, it’s supposed to cost you big!! 
And for those who upheld the inhumanity of marriage with the justification of the ‘7 year itch!’ Well, you should just not get married!!! Please don’t waste other people’s time, youth, effort, and especially ruining children’s future by your irresponsibility. You’re not doing the society any favor! Find a mate that fit your alternative lifestyle please.


----------



## Like an Angel

Fernita said:
			
		

> (I don´t know how to express this, hope you all understand).
> Just an opinion from Argentina.


 
I understand you very well Fernita, and I agree with you!! (maybe because that's our country's idiosyncracy, not sure)

On the other hand, statistics say -I'm 100% sure of these statistics- that marriage is the first and main reason of divorce.


----------



## Fernando

I do not know why two people who wish to live together FOR EVER should not marry. On the worse, the legal situation makes clearer.

At least in Spain if you live together and your "loved" one decide to go on his/her way, they can claim almost the same rights as in a marriage.

And, if you have children there is not matter very much your legal situation: You are f****d.

Marriage makes all the legal stuff much easier. You will not save money but worries (SPECIALLY if you break the relationship).

And it is a bit nicer. I have a big respect for those who confess each other their love in front of witnesses and decide to live together.

I am a single. I know what I am talking about. 



			
				Like an Angel said:
			
		

> On the other hand, statistics say -I'm 100% sure of these statistics- that marriage is the first and main reason of divorce.



Yes, as much as being born is the first death reason. 

I believe as much in the 50% rate as I believe that non-marriage couples rate is far bigger.


----------



## tvdxer

hohodicestu said:
			
		

> Hi everyone,
> 
> I understand that in the US, a lot of couples just live together without getting married. Why do you think that marriage is so impotant in your country or culture?
> 
> Thanks



Because a man and an (unrelated) woman must be married before living together.  To do otherwise is to "live is sin" as it sometimes still called.  

Studies have shown that couples who live separately prior to marrying do better in marriage than those who engage in premarital cohabitation.


----------



## Pirlo

mytwolangs said:
			
		

> The thought of spending your whole life with just ONE lover seems daunting. Ever hear of "The 7 year itch"?
> 
> Romance fades. Sex with the same person gets tired. And to never feel the excitement of meeting a new date, it is, well, dull.


 
The same person that will care for you your entire life? The same person who is your significant other? Being with a lover for the rest of your life won't be daunting when you're old and have nobody else, you won't be able to pick up women like when you were young!

There is a lot more behind romance than just sex!


----------



## .   1

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Studies have shown that couples who live separately prior to marrying do better in marriage than those who engage in premarital cohabitation.


I must confess to a little scepticism of studies of such complex issues that arrive at simplistic conclusions.
I am not sure if it would be possible to come to the conclusion that those who cohabitate are less likely to marry successfully when soooo many people cohabitate prior to marriage these days.
I cohabitated with a few different girlfriends prior to my marriage that has now passed the 20 year itch and she still scratches it just perfectly.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Because a man and an (unrelated) woman must be married before living together.  To do otherwise is to "live is sin" as it sometimes still called.
> 
> Studies have shown that couples who live separately prior to marrying do better in marriage than those who engage in premarital cohabitation.



a) "Living in sin" is a purely Christian concept and doesn't have any bearing on many people's lives.
b) A lot depends on what is meant by "do better".
c) These "do better" couples are more likely to be strongly religiously observant than a family where the couple didn't pre-cohabit - does this mean that they stick together for religious reasons also when the marriage itself has gone down the tubes?
d) What sort of control sample was there in any of these studies? You know how medical research examines three sets of subjects - ones which receive placebos, ones which receive the drug being tested, and ones which didn't receive anything?***
e) Was there any sort of "blind" in the studies? Did the researchers know in advance which couples belonged to which group?

***As .,, has said
> I am not sure if it would be possible to
> come to the conclusion that those who
> cohabitate are less likely to marry
> successfully when soooo many people
> cohabitate prior to marriage these days.

This thought is important - one needs control studies to properly evaluate such "research". This problem raised its head in the Smoking debate and I waited to see if anyone would mention it - in relation to the US Surgeon General's report on passive smoking. That report said that passive smoking increased one's risk of illness - but made no mention of what this increase was measured against.


----------



## timpeac

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Because a man and an (unrelated) woman must be married before living together. To do otherwise is to "live is sin" as it sometimes still called.
> 
> Studies have shown that couples who live separately prior to marrying do better in marriage than those who engage in premarital cohabitation.


You are assuming too much in this answer. It is simply not true that "a man and an (unrelated) woman must be married before living together". Millions of cohabiting couples prove you wrong every day, either by living together and being different sexes, living together and being the same sex or being married and the same sex. As usual when you bring your religious beliefs into these threads you ask us all to accept without comment the tenets of your faith first (and by "you" I mean specifically you TVDXer - I've seen many many Christians argue in these forums staying true to their own beliefs but not building arguments based solely upon them that non-Christians will obviously discount).


----------



## tvdxer

maxiogee said:
			
		

> a) "Living in sin" is a purely Christian concept and doesn't have any bearing on many people's lives.
> b) A lot depends on what is meant by "do better".
> c) These "do better" couples are more likely to be strongly religiously observant than a family where the couple didn't pre-cohabit - does this mean that they stick together for religious reasons also when the marriage itself has gone down the tubes?
> d) What sort of control sample was there in any of these studies? You know how medical research examines three sets of subjects - ones which receive placebos, ones which receive the drug being tested, and ones which didn't receive anything?***
> e) Was there any sort of "blind" in the studies? Did the researchers know in advance which couples belonged to which group?
> 
> ***As .,, has said
> > I am not sure if it would be possible to
> > come to the conclusion that those who
> > cohabitate are less likely to marry
> > successfully when soooo many people
> > cohabitate prior to marriage these days.
> 
> This thought is important - one needs control studies to properly evaluate such "research". This problem raised its head in the Smoking debate and I waited to see if anyone would mention it - in relation to the US Surgeon General's report on passive smoking. That report said that passive smoking increased one's risk of illness - but made no mention of what this increase was measured against.



Here is an excerpt from one such study:



> While common sense suggests that premarital cohabitation should offer
> couples an opportunity to learn about each other, increasing their chances
> for a successful marriage, the evidence suggests just the opposite, Smock
> finds. "Premarital cohabitation tends to be associated with lower marital
> quality and increased risk of divorce," she says.
> 
> In recent years, many patterns of cohabitation seem to be changing, Smock
> says. "Lower proportions of cohabiting couples are marrying and more are
> breaking up," she notes. "Women in the 90s were more likely than women in
> the 80s to cohabit rather than marry in response to pregnancy. Together,
> these trends suggests that cohabitation is becoming more a substitute for
> marriage, rather than a form of engagement that culminates in marriage."



The link for the entire article is here: http://lists101.his.com/pipermail/smartmarriages/2000-February/000051.html .

You can find more by typing in "premarital cohabitation study" in Google.


----------



## tvdxer

timpeac said:
			
		

> You are assuming too much in this answer. It is simply not true that "a man and an (unrelated) woman must be married before living together". Millions of cohabiting couples prove you wrong every day, either by living together and being different sexes, living together and being the same sex or being married and the same sex. As usual when you bring your religious beliefs into these threads you ask us all to accept without comment the tenets of your faith first (and by "you" I mean specifically you TVDXer - I've seen many many Christians argue in these forums staying true to their own beliefs but not building arguments based solely upon them that non-Christians will obviously discount).



I don't intend to debate anybody.  Can I not simply express my beliefs?  If you don't like them, well, ignore them.  OK?

Thousands if not millions steal items large and small every day as well.  Does that prove that stealing is not morally wrong?


----------



## timpeac

tvdxer said:
			
		

> I don't intend to debate anybody. Can I not simply express my beliefs? If you don't like them, well, ignore them. OK?
> 
> Thousands if not millions steal items large and small every day as well. Does that prove that stealing is not morally wrong?


This is a debate. This is not a forum where you post beliefs in a vacuum. We post and reply to each other. If you post a reason based solely on your personal beliefs that you know that others may not share then it is just rude and ignorant because you waste people's time because they have no recourse but to debate those points every bloody time, which turns every thread into a religious debate.

You stated - Because a man and an (unrelated) woman must be married before living together.

This is not true, and you cannot claim otherwise. You mean that "in your opinion this should be the case" (and in writing these words I know I've told you this before) and as such _is irrelevant in a rational debate_. You are wasting my time and that of others and, what really annoys me, getting in the way of an interesting exchange of ideas. Leave your preconceptions at the door like every other person does!


----------



## ireney

tvdxer, from the same article 



> "The prevalence of cohabitation, and of the presence of children in cohabiting unions, indicates how family life in the United States is being transformed, with legal marriage losing its primacy as the manifest centre of family ties."



This is in fact the closing paragraph of the article.

So what if they don't get married? So what if men and women (or vice versa  ) discover after living together for a while that they can't do it anymore? 

I remember we had a discussion on this forum before about how people who don't get married decide to break up more easily than those who do but I'd rather we didn't repeat that discussion here.

For me, people get married 
a) for religious reasons
b) because it's sort of expected and this is what you do
c) because they want to declare in front of witnesses and in a solemn kind of way their love and their intention to spend their lives with each other

Two people who feel that they don't need to tell anyone they love each other etc don't (I am generalising a lot I know but this is a long post as it is)


----------



## MonsieurAquilone

ireney said:
			
		

> tvdxer, from the same article
> 
> 
> 
> This is in fact the closing paragraph of the article.
> 
> So what if they don't get married? So what if men and women (or vice versa  ) discover after living together for a while that they can't do it anymore?
> 
> I remember we had a discussion on this forum before about how people who don't get married decide to break up more easily than those who do but I'd rather we didn't repeat that discussion here.
> 
> For me, people get married
> a) for religious reasons
> b) because it's sort of expected and this is what you do
> c) because they want to declare in front of witnesses and in a solemn kind of way their love and their intention to spend their lives with each other
> 
> Two people who feel that they don't need to tell anyone they love each other etc don't (I am generalising a lot I know but this is a long post as it is)


 
I agree. I think marriage (in a religious context or not [with exceptions]) is a way of showing and proving fidelity and love.


----------



## tvdxer

timpeac said:
			
		

> This is a debate. This is not a forum where you post beliefs in a vacuum. We post and reply to each other. If you post a reason based solely on your personal beliefs that you know that others may not share then it is just rude and ignorant because you waste people's time because they have no recourse but to debate those points every bloody time, which turns every thread into a religious debate.
> 
> You stated - Because a man and an (unrelated) woman must be married before living together.
> 
> This is not true, and you cannot claim otherwise. You mean that "in your opinion this should be the case" (and in writing these words I know I've told you this before) and as such _is irrelevant in a rational debate_. You are wasting my time and that of others and, what really annoys me, getting in the way of an interesting exchange of ideas. Leave your preconceptions at the door like every other person does!



It's important to predicate one's arguments on good, stable ground.  My ground is the natural moral law, which I believe to be the truth. You most likely do not share the same conception of that moral law with me.  Should we turn this into a debate about the origin of morals or even the basis of knowledge and thruth itself?  What should be the basis for my argumentation?  Many (most?) here do not believe in moral absolutes - if that's the case, there really is no point debating the ethics of anything.

Debating moral issues on this site will get us nowhere.  It never has.


----------



## .   1

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Many (most?) here do not believe in moral absolutes - if that's the case, there really is no point debating the ethics of anything.
> 
> Debating moral issues on this site will get us nowhere. It never has.


I am a little perturbed at the insinuated statement here that only people who are interested in morals and ethics are by definition religious.  This is pish and tosh.
I consider myself to be an extremely moral person with an absolutely clear and lucid ethical framework.
My morals and ethics may not be your morals and ethics but they are still moral and ethical and I am fascinated by debates relating to morality and higher thought and ethics and the fundamental thing that makes us what we are but I do not necessarily need to hold existential beliefs to examine my own humanity.
Marriage is all about morals and ethics is it not?
Can an immoral marriage survive?
Is it possible for unethical people to remain together for the long term?
Could an immoral person ever bond with an unethical person?
How about an immoral person married to an immoral person?
What about an unethical person married to an unethical person?
For interest consider an unethical person married to an immoral person?
Marriage is nothing if not moral and ethical for all concerned.
I married to make a public statement to my peers that I was bonded for life.

.,,


----------



## foxfirebrand

I think impulse drives a man and a woman to get together, and the tendency thereafter is to move apart.  

After behaving this way long enough, you link with a woman you are reluctant to drift apart from.  If that feeling is mutual, then a pooling of living arrangements becomes convenient and usually also economical.

A man and woman living in the same space tend to "nest" and shut out each other's competitors.  If this is to mutual liking, it strengthens a bond-- if it isn't, it creates problems.

Problems or not, the impulse to get laid reveals itself as an instinct to propagate-- the woman gets pregnant, the decision to respect the incipient life form wins out over considerations of convenience.

Marriage follows for societal reasons, in most communities anyway, directly related to childbearing.  The comment earlier in the thread about "tax advantages" does emphatically *not*apply in the U.S.

Couples stay together if they get caught up in the child-rearing adventure, and have the good sense to see that their child would become an emotionally and psychologically fuller person if s/he grew up with siblings.

Self-sacrifice is an element, but the reluctance to defer gratifications that were important in youth is weakened considerably when you have kids, especially if you pay close enough attention to them to appreciate and enjoy them.

The instinct to protect and provide for your children proves to be as strong as the urge that brings women and men together-- if my own life is any indication, anyway.  I don't hold myself up as an example, as the "principles" I'm laying down here with such confidence pertain to my second marriage, which I entered into in the waning days of my childhood, at about age 30.

Then the children grow, leave the nest, and recapitulate the whole sorry/glorious pattern.  Why do you then remain married?  Habitude and fatigue are an issue, but of prime importance beyond that, and overriding it on the moral level as well, is-- what was the question again?
.


----------



## timpeac

tvdxer said:
			
		

> It's important to predicate one's arguments on good, stable ground. My ground is the natural moral law, which I believe to be the truth. You most likely do not share the same conception of that moral law with me. Should we turn this into a debate about the origin of morals or even the basis of knowledge and thruth itself? What should be the basis for my argumentation?


Your own logic! As it stands every time you comment on such issues your post boils down to "because I believe it to be so" with no further subsatance - haven't you noticed that no one else does that, despite the fact that they probably _all _have their own set of basic beliefs?

Can you really not see that to answer the question "Why do people get married?" with the answer "because a man and an unrelated woman must before they can live together" in a non-religious forum is ridiculous and unhelpful? You may certainly say "those who believe in no sex before marriage do so in order not to break that belief" but that is not what you did, you present what even many of the most religious would still admit is a belief as pure fact. Annoying, frustrating, intrusive and very _rude _in a lay forum because if everyone did that, begging everyone to believe whatever their fundamental belief system is each time, the forum would be an unreadable unconnected list of posts which make no effort to open a dialogue with each other.


----------



## maxiogee

In an apparent response to a post of mine, tvdxer wrote



			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> Here is an excerpt from one such study:



This doesn't answer any of my queries.
You cannot just expound your religious opinions and then not substantiate claims you make to back them when they are questioned. But, I have come to expect a reticence to debate from people who make dogmatic assertions such as —
"Because a man and an (unrelated) woman must be married before living together"

Is this the same use of "must" as in your other post


			
				tvdxer said:
			
		

> The vast majority of Minnesotans must know how to swim.


?


----------



## justjukka

Marriage is a spiritual commitment between two people who love each other.  In my opinion, the '7 year itch' is a weak cop out for commitment.


----------



## cuchuflete

tvdxer said:
			
		

> Because a man and an (unrelated) woman must be married before living together.  To do otherwise is to "live is sin" as it sometimes still called.
> 
> Studies have shown that couples who live separately prior to marrying do better in marriage than those who engage in premarital cohabitation.


Yawn.  Here we go again.  For some people, who believe that there is such a thing as sin, the statements above may be true.
They may be true, and not particularly meaningful or important to some of those same people, who live "in sin" (whatever that's supposed to mean) despite nominal allegiance to the doctrines that call cohabitation sinful.

However, for millions of others, who vote with their feet (nicely entwined), cohabitation is a state that may include both the happily married, the unhappily married, the separated, the divorced, the unmarried.

It is tiresome to read these declarations of what *is*, with no notation that these are merely personal viewpoints, with which a multitude of good people have no affinity.

Some people get married just because it's the course of least effort in dealing with the burrrocrats.  That's an unfortunate practical reality.  To formally declare one's pre-existing commitment and devotion is a better reason.


----------



## Juri

Right, in Italy it's named "la crisi del settimo anno".
But couples who don't live together  also aren't a new habit.


----------



## TrentinaNE

Last time I checked into it, living together before marriage had no effect on the subsequent probability of divorce.  Neither I nor my two brothers lived with our spouses before getting married, and between us, we now have 57 years of marriage and 0 divorces.

People say you can have the same level of commitment without the "piece of paper," and perhaps some can, but I'm skeptical.  My husband and I made a promise, not only to each other but also publicly to our friends and families, to have a lifelong commitment to each other.  The public, family-supported aspect of it was important to me.


----------



## Lucyernaga

Tradition is still number one here in Panama. Parents usually get disapointed if their childs don't get properly married. It's a social event. 
Feeling secure. Law protects married people for not loosing everything in separation (divorce, death, etc.)
Also faith.  Church and Christian beliefe is still powerful here.  Marriage is then, part of the rules.
Symbolism.  They say successful people are normally married, have a nice house and beautifull kids.
But many people here believe in long lasting partnerships like a marriage. We don't like to be alone when old.  Grandparents say there's nothing like having a companion when you're old and there are so many memories to recall, so much loneliness, and you get trapped in a tired body.  There's a certain point in life when sex is only a part of the movies and chatting with your husband/wife is the only thing you can do, so you better choose well who's going to be your partner.

I don't know, but getting together is natural in humans, and we also have feelings and memories. We're not animals, are we?


----------



## don maico

Often ask myself why I got married- just seemed the natural thing to do. i guess it implies loyalty to another and a special bond. Dont hold with all the usual moral arguements though


----------



## Setwale_Charm

I am just growing more and more convinced from experience that all those "morals" which we are accustomed to considering just traditional and "religious" in reality contain that eternal universal wisdom which no trends or attempts to alter or "modernise" can really affect. 
 For one thing, being married brings some sort fo responsibility into your relationship and teaches you that one does not just do everything "for fun", but also has to bear with other people and certain responsibilities in the society. You know, on the one hand, the societies which do not practise divorce or where it is frowned upon have more tragical stories of people having to bear with absolutely outrageous partners, but, on the other,  
This is what people are becoming these days. They pick up something, enter into a relationship or what else and feel it is like a toy which can be abandoned at any moment. So people learn to take life "easy" which is not always a good thing. It affects other sides of life as well,people are becoming irresponsible for their own actions. That`s what the whole "moral" intially was about.
 So marriage in general is good not only psychologically as Tvdxer  says, but also for self-discipline.
 The other point is that everybody has freedom of choice and no-one can be forced or should be regarded as inferior for not being married.​


----------



## don maico

I dont wish to enter into generalisations save to say that some cohabiting couples do so very succesfully including gay ones. The real issues is whether they should be accorded the same rights as traditional families


----------

