Do You Feel Marriage is a Necessity?

[Castlerock]

Originally Posted by Autumn

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.

+1

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Castlerock

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.

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.

[lurker]

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.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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.

[clemsonfan]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Respect > Love at a certain point, imo.

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

[Castlerock]

Originally Posted by Autumn

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.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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.

[RainMaker]

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.

[lordscarlet]

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.

[clemsonfan]

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.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Castlerock

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.

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.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

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.

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.

[Castlerock]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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?

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.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

[path12]

Originally Posted by Castlerock

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.

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

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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.

[path12]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

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

Wise thought.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Shouldn't marriage be about love between two people? Not a contract you signed 20 years ago that you feel obligated to stand by.

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.

[Karlifornia]

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

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

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.

[path12]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

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

Ah, youth.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

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

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

[path12]

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

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

Yes, correct. Thanks for catching that.

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

[Drake]

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.

[Swaggs]

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).

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

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

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.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

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

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?

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

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).

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.

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

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.

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.

[clemsonfan]

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.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by clemsonfan

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.

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

[revrew]

Originally Posted by clemsonfan

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.

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.

[clemsonfan]

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

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Drake

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

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

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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

+1

Not even close in my experience.

[Ajaxab]

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

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Autumn

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.

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?

[clemsonfan]

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.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by revrew

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.

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

[rowech]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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?

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".