Do You Feel Marriage is a Necessity?
 

I'm 29 years old and not married. As I've gotten older and pestered by my Mother to get married and have kids, I've started to come to the realization that I don't want to get married ever.

Now this doesn't mean I want to be a bachelor my whole life. I would love to be serious with a great girl, live together for a long time (maybe forever), and have kids. Essentially live the life of a married couple without actually being married. Marriage to me never seemed appealing. A big grand ceremony and some extra paperwork that I don't really feel I need. Essentially creating a binding agreement with someone you've known for a few years that you're supposed to keep for the next 50+ years. I just never felt like I could ever honor something in the future when I have no idea what I'll be like (or she'll be like for that matter).

So my question is, can you get by in society without marriage? Would I be shunned if I showed up to a little league game with my kid if I'm just living together with the mother? Can families accept that? It seems like it's becoming more accepted in society, but I'm wondering if anyone else has done it or feels it can be done without too much hassle.

You'd be fine in my eyes. A better answer is probably that it depends on where you and your non-wife are raising the Little Leaguer.

I don't think it is a necessity at all and believe that as long as you and your potential mate agree to the terms then more power to you. Since a lot of companies now recognize domestic partnerships/common law marriages you can still received the benefits of being married in many areas, without the formalities.

I know a lot of people say marriage changes things and I can't say that is true reality or an expectation that turns into a perception. I will say that my current wife and I went over 3 years together without so much as a cross word betwen us and within a couple of months of being married had a couple of fairly heated arguments. I have thought a lot about the reason actually and can only come up with the idea that once it is "official" both sides tend to alter their expectations somewhat and what was once a serious, yet casual relationship tends to become a bit more serious. Things that were once done freely can be looked at as suddenly becoming obligations, which shouldn't really occur, but seems to happen quite a bit.

I am not complaining about my marriage at all and can't say I would do it different, but I would probably give it some thought. I would say that if you live with someone out of wedlock and things are wonderful and neither of you feels the need to marry, don't do it. In end it is all about what works for you. Society now of far more open to alternative arrangements than it once was and if the commitment is strong being married, or just living in "sin" won't affect it.

I was already living with my ex wife before we got married, we were already handling everything as we would later when married, the difference was zero to me. In my mind, marriage changing everything goes back to an older stereotype where the man and woman didn't move in together until they were married and of course, never had premarital sex.

Also, my ex had a 5 year old from a previous relationship when I got involved with her. Once we were close enough I started getting involved in youth sports with him. Most people knew that we weren't married and I don't think anyone ever said anything about it. The only thing about that worth mentioning at all was that everyone knew kiddo's last name and just called me "Mr " instead of using my actual last name. Not worth explaining that one every time it comes up, I just started responding to it, and just introduced myself by my first name only. Not because of any backlash, just to avoid confusion, especially with the kids on the teams.

I don't think marriage is essential at all - I'm married but thats mainly because my wife is religious rather than any 'need' on my behalf - to me it was a statement of 'intent' to stay with my other half nothing more nothing less.

My sister has been with her other half for over 15 years now and they've a lovely little boy together and have never bothered to get married and I don't think it makes any difference at all to them.

(please note I'm probably somewhat biased in this regard because my mom had nearly as many marriages during my teenage years as I had girlfriends ...)

A lot of the laws do not favor men in this country especially divorce. After reading JK's thread I can not imagine having my wife tell me its over and she is taking my stuff to be with another man. The since of entitlement has created a mess that hopefully in time will be corrected.

I am deeply afraid of committing to a woman and having her tear my heart out. The idea of having children with a woman without marrying her sounds good to me and I wouldn't care what other people thought.

+1

Pre-nup

I don't see marriage as that big a deal, and if anyone gives you any crap at little league games tell them to mind their own business.

But one point:
You were just talking about having kids. Marriage is a piece of paper that you can get out of with a trip to a lawyer. Having kids makes it a lot tougher to go anywhere, or at least it should. Not impossible, but pretty darn tough. Please don't have kids if you're that worried about commitment.

As a wise man once said, "When you get married you think 'wow, now I can't leave'. Then you have kids and think "wow... I could have left!'"

It's a necessity for me to get PAID.

My general feeling is along these lines. I really don't care if someone is married or not, unless they have kids. No two people should ever have a child outside the bounds of marriage. Again...just my opinion.

Then please think long and hard about having children. If you feel the need to be able to bolt, then perhaps parenthood is not for you.

I would agree with this.

I think kids are different. You don't fall out of love with your kids for the most part, nor do your requirements for a mate change. A kid is a serious thing and would be something I did when I was 100% serious that this is what I wanted out of life. But with a wife, how do you know that you'll be attracted to her in 10 years? How do you know that she'll continue to be the person you fell in love with?

We change a lot in our lives. If you were to go back 10 years, I bet the women people here liked were much different than the ones they like now. In some cases, we can't fathom how we ever stayed with the girls we dated many years ago.

I guess I see a lot of people who are together because they are married. They stop trying to do romantic things or even keeping up basic physical appearances. Aren't relationships a little better when there is that risk that the other person could leave you? Don't you try a little harder to impress and make your girlfriend happy? The part that worries me about marriage is that it feels like a reason to stop caring about that stuff. Sure it's more secure, but that removes a lot of the excitement.

First at all, I'm married and have a kid so i guess i'm biased. I'm also a non religious person, so i have no beliefs about marriage being something that lasts forever and can't be broken ever like Christians say.

Said that, now I'm going to throw you the opposite question, if you want to live with the woman you love and to have kids with her, why is getting married that bad? Is the problem signing a lifetime contract? (in fact it's not, you can break it anytime). Also have on mind, that once you start to live with another person, you sign other contracts with that woman/man that will make you way more attached than marriage itself, like mortgages, your house or car ownership, your bank accounts if you share them, etc. Then if you have kids, your attachment with your couple will be even deeper, and you will have to deal with her for a really long time until the kids are old enough.

With getting married i don't mean throwing a big party or having a pompous ceremony, but just signing the paper that says so. Why? Because in our current society, having that paper or contract signed, could mean a lot, at least in my country.

For example, you are working, your couple gets sick and you need to stay with her at the hospital for a few days. If you are married, your boss is forced to give you those days, if you are not, you won't have those free days. If you die, and it can happen no matter if you want to think on it or not, if you are married, your wife can easily inherit whatever you have, else it could be a nightmare for her to try to get whatever you owned. There are way more examples of why that "contract" is useful to have, for example when paying taxes, etc (it could be different in USA).

So in resume, while i totally understand people who wants to live always alone not having any relationship or just sporadic ones, i don't understand those men/women afraid of signing the marriage contract while they are fine with living together, sharing a house, debts, mortgage and even kids that are the things that really tie you. I think it's just a psychological thing, like if signing that paper would ruin their love or life.

I think it's a reminiscent of the concept of marriage from the past, where you wouldn't move to live with a woman until married, and that was that ruined some relationships, that were fine while living apart and broke when they lived together as they couldn't stand that new life. In current society, people have sex before marriage, and usually also live together for a while, so it's not that getting married with be the big change that it was in the past.

For me the life changing events in your relationship are, first moving to live together and second, and specially, having kids. Kids are the real life changers in your relationship, for the good usually, but also for the bad in some couples.

About signing that paper that says i'm married, it didn't change my life or relationship at all, as i was really attached to who is now my wife anyway. We started dating in high school when we were 14 years old, and we are 34 right now.

Of course as it's been said you can't use the marriage excuse to not to take care anymore of keeping your love and relationship always fresh, as for sure you will end loosing it, but the same way that if you don't show your love to your couple if you are not married.

I'm probably the last person to give any advice on this, but, the thing that stands out is, you aren't fooling yourself, which is good. I think the honesty you show by saying that you just never felt like you could ever honor something in the future when you have no idea what you will be like, is important to share with any potential long term/forever term mate. As my thread has shown, not everyone can stay commited to someone the rest of their life even if they have sworn on it. If I knew my wife couldn't commit to me for life, I never would have married her. I would still want to be with her, just wouldn't have married her.

As far as worrying(sp? i'm drunk so forgive my spelling) about what others think if you bring your kids or kids to their little league game or soccer game or whatever, people don't care. There may be a couple of stuffy dicks (name of my new band by the way) that are 'offended', but, the only thing that I ran into was that everyone thought that my step daughters were my own daughters and the confusion that ensued when they (my step daughters) introduced everyone to their 'dad'. Everyone thought I was their dad because of how I treated them and took care of them. So, no, don't ever worry about it. Sleep overs, shopping trips, all that stuff, parents just care that their kids are in a safe environment, married or not.

As far as never getting married, hey you never know man, you never know. I think what helped make our day special was, we pretty much did everything on our own. we made the center pieces, I made the boutiniers and crosants, croshettes, whatever they are called that the women wear. I put up the lights and decorated the center pieces. We spent maybe 4K on our wedding and it was the best wedding I've ever been to. Granted I'm biased, but, I looked back at other weddings I've been to and while some were very nice and obviously very expensive, they just felt forced. We included the girls in our wedding and had special vows that included them and our commitment to them.

Sorry, got a bit off topic, I guess my point is, you do what makes you happy and never be scared to share your feelings with that special someone. If they love you for who you are, it shouldn't matter if you get married or not and don't worry about what other people may think, most people just care if you are 'good people'.

I lived with my husband for a year before we got married. It was a great way to get to really know each other. After we got married, our relationship deepened. Marriage showed a legal commitment to each other and I think that allowed us to open up with each other more. See, I did worry that after an argument that he could just take off at any time before we got married. I guess I was just insecure that way. So I was a bit guarded before we got married. It's weird how much a piece of paper meant to me. It meant that if one of us wanted to leave now, we had to involve the legal system. That actually made me feel so much better.

We have been married for almost 11 years now and have 2 sons. I couldn't imagine being happier in a relationship. So, no marriage isn't a necessity but I think it's great.

What you're telling me then is you'll be prepared to have kids but not prepared to stay with the mom. To me, it's just unacceptable that anyone would think that way. You've already decided you would be perfectly fine leaving your kids in a broken home and no matter what folks say about being a great parent, not abandoning kids, etc. research CLEARLY shows that kids from broken homes have some odds against them in many ways.

Before anybody starts clamoring, I turned out great and I was from a broken home, they are odds...not certaintities.

I wouldn't worry too much about what people think. While I don't necessarily agree that it should be a requirement, I think people who love each other and have children to together should get married and that is probably because that is what I was raised to believe.

My sister has kids with a dude and they're not married. They both think along the same lines as you do. The piece of paper means nothing to them.

I wouldn't want my daughter to be in a situation like this. I think marriage makes you each legally responsible to the other. If you're not married and things go bad, then the other person has no legal requirement to make sure you're taken care of. If you're in a situation where the man makes all of the money and you're not married, I don't think you have any legal recourse when they decide to leave.

The Bible does give support for Christians to get divorced. The list of reasons is rather small though.

As I recall it gives support for the man divorcing (it states the 'man' but I presume it works for both?) ...

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery (Matthew 19:9).

Or if you're abandoned ..

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances (1 Corinthians 7:12-15).

but thats about it really. HOWEVER you can always cop out by divorcing regardless and using 'Gods Grace' to forgive you .....

PS - I've always wondered the first of these were 'edited into' the bible as a cop-out for medieval people to use, seems a bit odd the whole 'what God has brought ..." diatribe to have such a cop out so blatantly attached to it (although it wouldn't exactly be alone as a massive contradiction in the bible).

Yeah, you've just described the quintessential male viewpoint on marriage. Good luck finding a woman that agrees with that...and isn't a complete wackjob.:D


Works great until your "hip & cool" girlfriend of 7 years changes her mind (as they tend to do) and believes in getting married as a sign of commitment to her. And doesn't want to be an old lady with only a few cats to visit her on holidays. And thinks (out loud of course, to you) that "You must not really care about 'me' if you aren't willing to sign a stupid piece of paper saying you're with 'me'." I better stop....

Seriously though...if you find a mate that is exactly what you think you want and agreeable to your views on marriage...who the hell is anybody else to question your life choices? F-em.

But think long and hard on the choice of whether to have kids if you do not change your view on marriage (not religiously speaking). And realize it is a completely different set of 'skills' to raise children than it is to 'make' children.

I babysit two little girls whose parents aren't married. The parents have been together for over 20 years. The Dad proposed to the Mom about a month ago. I asked her why he proposed after all this time and she said that he told her "I was stupid. I let you give the girls my last name before I had the decency to give you mine."

You are right, we do change a lot in our lives. Before you bring children into the world, you have to be willing to put in as much effort as it takes to work through the changes.

There will be good times and there will be bad times. If there are children involved, you can't feel like you can just bail when times get bad.

We dated for 5 years before getting married and we've both said we didn't change hardly at all due to the fact of getting married.

We have changed, however, during the course of the 12 years we've been together, which is important, and is something I think too few people realize is going to happen whether or not they get married. But the act of getting married itself didn't change us.

Why did we get married? In some ways, we're both pretty traditional, and so it was naturally something we wanted to do. Plus, we wanted to have the big and fun party (and it turned out to be the biggest and most fun party we've ever had - totally worth it). :D

Now, having a kid? That changed things. Oy veh....

I'm not married, so I may be biased, but I don't consider it a necessity. Not like air-conditioning, or cable TV.

Every relationship is different. That said, I think that on the whole it is important for there to be a verbal commitment between two people so that both understand that the other will be there for them when things are down. Whether that is a formal marriage ceremony or something more simple is immaterial. Both sides should have a little time to think about what they are committing to before doing it. I think it is especially important to have a verbalized commitment before kids are involved.

Thats actually a really nice sentiment imho - I went 'ahhh' in my head when I read that, what can I say I'm soppy :D

I think THAT is the main cause of divorce, people change over time - its natural whether you're married or not. If two people CHOOSE to share their lives together then its very hard to ensure that things work out and takes a lot of effort and commitment from both partners imho.

Society doesn't emphasise this and instead the media tends to promote a 'if you're not happy now move on' message which isn't at all healthy and doesn't give people realistic expectations imho.

PS - Just read that .... I think I'm turning into a grumpy old man early ;)

Yeah, I teared up a little when she told me that.

I believe the latest issue of TIME or Newsweek has its cover story on the problems with marriage, how to fix it, and the huge impact it has on children.

Great point Marc. I think it's part of the whole "what have you done for me lately" thing instead of looking at the whole picture. Yeah, things may suck right now, but, it won't always suck.

Actually, I thought the guy sounded like a real tool, but to each their own, I guess! :)

What is worse for a kid though? Parents who don't live together but have happy lives and project that on to their kids. Or parents who are staying together strictly for the kids but fight all the time and perhaps engage in infidelity.

Just because you didn't sign a piece of paper at the courthouse doesn't mean you will automatically be putting a child in a broken home.

I would argue that marriage is an absolute necessity for creating the best odds for a healthy family.

(Quick disclaimer: Intentional singlehood can be an option, too, but since we're talking about a significant other and children, then that's another topic.)

Why do I say that?

1. I don't believe marriage is something merely practical or social, but spiritual. Let's be honest: I'm a Christian and have all kinds of reasons for believing God designed marriage intentionally with a purpose and plan. You may not accept my faith, nor my reasons, but I'm being up front about this much.

2. I believe there is a tremendous maturity and "growing up" demanded by a life-long commitment. It demands that you learn to live with a person, demands that you learn to love unconditionally, that you forgive, that you give, that you change unselfishly to live in communion with another. Both "living together, for a while, see how it works" and easy divorce don't demand or require this. It allows a person - if they wish - to remain adolescent forever, a trait our society seems to admire, but I don't. That's not to say unmarried or divorced people are immature or juvenile, only that the very demanding nature of marriage - just like the very demanding nature of parenthood - matures a person.

3. I believe children are best raised by people who are learning marriage's hard lessons (see #2 above): namely unconditional love, forgivenes, and the ability to commit so strongly to another that you're willing to change for their betterment. If children don't see these traits growing up, then why should they adopt them? Heck, if Dad doesn't have to change his ways to please Mom, why the heck should I allow my parents to correct MY behavior?

4. I believe there is still a societal value in marriage, in that it protects elderly women from being discarded and financially cast upon the welfare system when their husbands decide to upgrade to a newer model. For that matter, the same may be true of wives discarding their husbands, though it is still statistically true that men - on average - retain a higher earning potential through life.

5. Children benefit from the security of knowing mommy and daddy will never part. In families where divorce is not an option, children benefit. But if divorce is threatened, children hear "You keep doing that, I'm leaving!" etc. - there's emotional/developmental damage done.

6. If I'm not mistaken, the statistics support children of married couples tend to grow to be healthier emotionally than children of cohabiting or single-parent homes.

No, but if the reason for not signing the piece of paper is that you are not sure that you can honor a life-long commitment then I'd say the odds are far greater than those couples who do think they can.

I respect your honesty and wish everyone went through this soul-searching.

I started a response but as I was doing it I started thinkg that I know I'll never end up agreeing with you on this. So, ather than going back and forth, I'll just agree to disagree.

I still can't believe that gays are fighting for this "right".

:)

You are against a binding agreement of 50 years (or so) with somebody you chose?

What are your feeling then about a binding agreement that includes (roughly) an 18-20 year committment but with somebody you've never met? (future children)

That's a very nice writeup, Revrew, especially the quoted section above. I agree that the value in marriage has a lot to do with choosing to stay with that person, despite the fact that people change and lives change. That's a huge thing and very different than just being in a romantic relationship with someone while it works. It asks a lot of a person, and I agree that the relaxing of marriage vows, along with a lot of other things, has combined to make our society less mature and more adolescent over the decades.

Thoughtful post by revrew. I'm not sure I agree 100% with all of it, and will wait to digest it more before following-up.

Ive been with my woman for over 10 years and we have no intention of getting married if we can avoid it but we also dont plan on having children so I am not sure my opinion is of any value here :)

Funny, you were actually the first person I thought of when I read this thread.

But most people don't honor that commitment which was my point. You can't possible know how you'll feel about the person in 30 years.

Marriage is a necessity, until your wife gets fat.

Haha, me too, but I didn't want to be a bringdown.

Well, I don't think "most" people is accurate, but I'm not going to dig any stats up. Clearly a lot of people don't.

But the point isn't knowing how you'll feel about that person in 30 years, it's a question about what you're going to do about living with that person for those 30 years. It's not a process that doesn't involve you, or something you're powerless over. In my opinion making that commitment means deciding that you're not just going to sit back and let each other grow apart, or things fall apart. You're going to make things work. Commitment means recognizing that you don't know how things are going to be in 30 years. I mean if we all knew we'd still feel the same about our partner in 30 years, who wouldn't get married? The bold step of committing is about saying, even if things are different we're going to keep at this thing.

That's why I added the smiley. You're never a bringdown if you add a smiley!

But isn't that essentially saying that love doesn't matter. That passion or natural instincts play no role in your marriage.

The unconditional love would seem to be the easier way out. You no longer have to be romantic or maintain a spark in her life. You don't even have to be nice. Shouldn't marriage be about love between two people? Not a contract you signed 20 years ago that you feel obligated to stand by.

It is absolutely NOT true that most people do not honor that commitment.

While it my be true that something like 50% of all marriages end in divorce. It is nowhere near close to 50% of FIRST marriages that end in divorce. The people who get married multiple times skew that stat tremendously.

+1

The only legitimate source I found stated 43% of first marriages end in divorce within 15 years. Doesn't say what the number is across a lifetime but I have to imagine it closes in on 50%. I bet if you throw in those who commit adultery and either don't get caught or work it out, it pushes that number even higher.

http://www.divorcerate.org/

This has two statistics from different sources for first marriages ending in divorce: 50% and 41%. It doesn't seem like the multiple divorced people are skewing the results too much.

Respect > Love at a certain point, imo.

EDIT: To clarity or even contradict myself, passion and infatuation will always fade at some point, but I also do not believe that is not love but a human emotion tied to newness. Real "love" becomes a type of respect and want for companionship and trust. This is why most marriages/relationships fail upon a cheating partner. That is what I believe makes marriages work, not the occasional lusting and thrusting.

I think this is key to a lasting marriage. Love can only take you so far.

Ok... I stand corrected. It is much higher than I thought. Assume it is 50%. I'll bet that a given couple has a much better chance of ending up in the non-divorce group if they think like Autumn (above).

Maintaining a lifelong commitment is hard work. I don't see how it can be accomplished if you think you are going to fail going in.

Then why not just go toward the route of arranged marriages? I mean love doesn't matter in a few years and it's all about finding ways to co-habitate and respect one another. Some of you make marriage sound like it's finding a lifelong roommate instead of having passionate feelings toward someone.

Marriage does not mean what we think it means.

Amazon.com: Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage: Stephanie Coontz: Books

Well, at least not until the last dozen decades or so.

Romantic relationships start out as passionate love and as they go along they can either die (when the passion is gone) or mature into a respectful partnership. It is still important to be romantic and show your love, but it's not going to be the same passion that was there at the beginning it will be just a bit different.

Yes, I think one of hte biggest problem people have is misunderstanding how marriage, or relationships in general, are going to work over the long term. You don't fall in love and then boom you're all set. It's continuous work. If you don't put it in, things fall apart eventually. That doesn't mean it's toil, it just means you can't expect things to coast without input. I think we all start with that misconception and it leads to a lot of bungled relationships.

Probably for the same reason we do not have arranged friendships. In this country/culture, we respect a person's individual right to associate with whomever they desire or even not to associate with anyone at all.

In other countries/cultures, it's very different.

Also, it might just be your definition of "love". I view love as something a little bit different than you do, apparently. Also, passion has many different forms. People grow less attractive as they get older, but that does not mean you stop looking foward to being with them or spending time with them. You can have passion with out the carn.

Well, for the first point, I think choice plays a large part. It really is important who you choose as a partner. There are plenty of people in teh world that I could never stay married to. Not just people I dislike, but people I might fall in love with but just could not work long-term. So arranged marriages would fare poorly there I think.

Also, I think we're suffering from a lack of words. There is still love in a long-term marriage, it's just something very different from what you have in the first few years, just as your love for your kids is completely different than your love for a spouse or a parent.

But in some ways marriage is like finding a lifelong roommate, to exaggerate the issue. As I said above, there are plenty of people you could fall in passionate love with, but a marriage would not work with them. Being able to live intimately with someone and share your lives has a very different set of needs than just loving/dating someone.

I mean a long, long relationship is going to go through many phases. Some of them may be less loving than others. It's not some gradual decline into grumpy people who never kiss. But there are stages where passion and love and affection will not be high. It's other things like respect and commitment that will get you over those chasms.

Arranged marriages in other countries have much lower divorce rates and raise well rounded, succesful kids. I mean if the issue is about standing by your commitment and less about your desires and emotions, it would seem that arranged marriages would be a more optimal route. Save the time and energy of romancing the person and trying to win them over.

The friendship comparision I think is good though. Why would we not treat a companion like a friendship? We value it, go through the ups and downs, but if we grow apart to a point where we don't enjoy being friends with the person, we move on. We certainly wouldn't sign a contract with a best friend that says we'll be pals for life.

My definition of love would be someone I feel passionate about. Someone who I enjoy spending my time with and who I felt I couldn't live without. Someone who makes me feel good about myself and makes me happy to be around. Now if all that fades, why would you want to be with that person anymore? Why would you not want to move on and find someone else who can make you feel that way?

The definitions I'm seeing around here about marriage seem to be more of an obligation and less of something that makes your life better.

Because children are involved.

It looks to me like you want someone to tell you it's OK to have kids and move on when you no longer love their mother. You'll need to find someone else to tell you that is OK.

See, the counter-argument is that most of those arranged marriages last because their culture frowns upon divorce. Remember that in many of those countries, virginity is considered a woman's most treasured "asset" and loss of that makes here extremely unmarketable to future suitors. So, no thanks to that.


Not to get too personal, but I just had a long-term relationship end simply because we grew apart and had much less in common. It happens in marriages, relationships, friendships, all walks of life. By the same token, there are life-lasting friendships which last from childhood into old age where there is no physical attraction or marriage.

Also, the situation you describe above is probably what the majority of divorces are. Both parties enter into a marraige with the full understanding and belief that they will be and are the perfect companions for each other. But when that's not the case, this is where divorce comes in.


I guess this the ultimate difference above. In real love, it's no longer I/me; but us/we. If you don't feel that connection, then you don't belong together. If that person doesn't make you love yourself more, then it's probably a poor fit.


The marriage doesn't make the relationship, the relationship makes the marriage.

Yeah, sorry about that. Third time seems to be working pretty well though.

My answer would be similar to that of Revrew's -- because a lifelong marriage is more valuable, deeper than a friendship. Because by challenging yourself to that commitment and keeping it you gain something that you will never have from a relationship that does not include it. We're talking mostly here about the work of a marriage, but there is a reason so many people strive for it. It gives back just as much as it asks of us. I don't know how I could describe it except to say that there's something much more intimate and amazing between people who have shared their entire lives as partners, more so than lifelong friends, and I think we can all see that. It's easier to have a lifelong friend because less is asked of each other, because there's more space and flexibility in the relationship. Having a lifelong spouse is much more demanding, and consequently more rewarding.

As for the second part, the reason to stick with someone who you are not feeling passionate about is because there are things you have to pass through to get to the other side. Just because that passion has faded doesn't mean your relationship is over or that it can't come back. Ending it and chasing after a new relationship with all the thrill and endorphins it brings is just starting over. Eventually that one will fade. Do you really think the person who jumps from relationship to new relationship over and over again is more happy? We're raised to chase that pleasurable feel, so it's natural people do it. We're not raised so much anymore to think that there's something wonderful that can come out of hard work and even suffering.

Wise thought.

I know there have been several posts since this one, but it all seems to come back to this question, which I hope to answer:

I don't believe it's possible to JUST "be in love" with a person for 50 years. But you can be in love with a person - romantically, passionately - for eternity.

To stay in that kind of love takes effort, however. I can't just be whoever I want to be and expect that anyone, much less the woman who lives with me every day, is going to feel passionately in love with me forever. No, I have to work on being a loveable person. And I have to work on learning to love and appreciate her. I have to romance her. I have to keep wooing her, not just until we're married, but until "death do we part."

My wife and I have been married for 16 years, through 12 children, and no, she's not the hottie she used to be. But I love her every bit as much, precisely because I've worked at learning how to love (and I would ultimately give God the credit as well, as the author of love, but not to digress).

Love affairs don't last when the only fuel is the feelings. But the feelings do last when they're fueled by learning to love.

Let's face it: Marriages are nothing more than a ticker-tape parade for a woman who wants to play princess for a day.

While I think Revrew is spot on with his post...I disagree with the word choice of "unconditional" love for anybody but your own child (which has it's own caveats to a degree).

IMHO, no love is technically "unconditional". We say such things...and are genuine at the moment we say them...but I don't believe they are in fact "unconditional" feelings.

There are, naturally, conditions placed on any relationship you have with anybody. It is up to you to keep your relationship with your chosen spouse at the highest priority, and continue to maintain it alongside your relationship with your children (when/if applicable). If you fail to maintain these "conditions", or your spouse does not also believe/do this, you will likely erode your marriage until it becomes a relationship you no longer feel is worthwhile to you.

To RevRew's point in his post...this is where the level of maturity to recognize and address the relationship's needs come into play. Not just bail because "people change" and now my spouse is "ugly"...or some similar thought. Of course people change...thats the point in life...to grow, change, see things in different ways, etc. It's also the reason why your choice in life partner should not be made flippantly.

Ah, youth.

I think you're confusing "marriage" with "weddings". And those are two very very different things.

BTW, I have to say that my two failed marriages greatly increased rather than lessened my respect and understanding of the institution.

Yes, correct. Thanks for catching that.

My comment was (mostly) tongue-in-cheek anyway.

Marriage is the hardest thing you will ever do in your life, not matter what your wife is like.

It will also be either the most painful or the most rewarding part of your life...and even more likely, both.

I actually think the people who are leaning against marriage would in most cases make the best spouses, because they refuse to take the commitment lightly.

I don't know that it is worth giving significant thought to, until/unless you meet a partner that makes an issue of it (be it that he/she feels like it is an important milestone to the relationship or that he/she makes you reconsider or come to terms with your aversion to marriage).

I have assumed it went both ways. Just before that verse the Pharisees asked Jesus if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause. I think that partly shapes the reasoning for the answer.

A can of worms type issue, but it also gets tied into the whole aspect of if God's grace can cover any sin, then why not just sin freely?


There is a stat that gets tossed around Christian circles and I haven't really dug for backing of the stat, but supposedly if you were to take any 10 works of literature(I'm assuming of certain age) and see how inaccurate they were from when they were originally written they would be more inaccurate than what the Bible was from when it was originally written. I would be highly surprised if somebody added in something later on to make it more society friendly. The Bible is pretty much written in a way to piss a lot of people off. :lol:


Actually, a former pastor of mine wrote a book on the topic of love and respect. The short version is guys feel the need to be respected, hence my noticing you saying respect matters in the end assuming you are a guy. Women on the other hand need to feel loved.

I don't know. As a woman, I personally need both love and respect. I expect my husband to be romantic at times but always respectful.

IT'S IN WRITING NOW, MUHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Summarizing down the entire concept to two words: "love" and "respect" necessarily leaves the whole premise open to misunderstanding and arguing about semantics. Obviously, you'd have to define what the author means by "love" and what the author means by "respect." It's probably a lot richer and different than what you're expecting.

Along those lines, I know of and highly recommend this book. It's incredibly insightful into the nature of men and marriage. In a world that beats men up from every angle, husbands desperately need to know their wives consider them worthy of respect. If she doesn't respect him, he'll look for phony fill-ins for respect everywhere - his job accomplishments, his financial status in possessions, or even in the false belief that a young hottie falling for him proves his masculine prowess. Way, way too many wives fail to realize how not understanding this premise undermines both their man and their marriage.

As for wives, how can a man truly "love" her without respecting her? The point is, a woman needs to feel treasured, honored, and obviously that doesn't happen if a man doesn't respect his wife. So there's a lot involved in the word "love" in this book, not just romantic notions.

This book is incredibly, incredibly insightful and a potential marriage saver. I recommend it, even if only for the difference I've seen it make in other people's marriages.

Thanks for the tip! I'll have to pick it up sometime!

In my experience, having a child has been waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay harder.

+1

Not even close in my experience.

Just stumbled an article relevant to this subject: from Time http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...8243-1,00.html.

But can't you have all that without the piece of paper the State gives you? I guess one of my hangups on it is that this ceremony and paper is supposed to magically transform not only ourselves, but our relationship. It just seems fake that I would need a piece of paper to tell me to be commited, respectful, and compassionate.

It's not unlike a Bar Mitzvah to me. That is a ceremony that supposedly celebrates a guy "becoming a man". I don't think a ceremony or some nice words from a pastor can do that. We all "become men" on our own terms and it has nothing to do with reciting a torah. Just as all those things you and others have mentioned about why marriage is important don't happen simply because you can now file joint tax returns.

To those who are married, do you honestly feel that your love and relationship would be different with your spouse if you didn't have that piece of paper and didn't say vows in front of a preacher? If there was no such thing as marriage, do you feel you'd be in the same position you are today with the person you love?

Yes, I honestly feel that our relationship today would be different if we had not stood in front of our family and friends and publicly declared that we are committing ourselves for better or worse, richer or poorer, sickness and helath, and until death do us part. I would be nervous that he would leave me as soon as something better came along. If my husband couldn't publicly declare his commitment to me, I would have been very nervous about spending several years with him.

This is an example of why I enjoy reading posts by you more than just about anyone here.

You aren't saying your vows in front of a preacher. You're saying them in front of God. It's clear you don't believe in any religous aspect of marriage and that's fine...it's your choice and my guess is that's why you don't feel it is a big deal. The marriage is much more than "a piece of paper" just like a Bar Mitzvah is much more than about "becoming a man".