Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Morpheus Laughing]

To put it simply and bluntly (which I am great at apparently) everyone is cynical about marriage until they actually experience love i.e. a connection with someone they would want to spend the rest of their life with above all others that they know or could imagine. You don't 'understand' the idea of marriage because you have simply never experienced love.

I was ready to marry someone once.
I disregarded my beliefs, I let him slip a ring on my finger.
I don't see that as "love". I see that as losing myself. Love is not something strictly between romantically involved people. Saying someone hasn't experienced love is like saying someone who hasn't experienced oxygen.

There is more than one kind of love. The kind I am describing isn't all that common. I don't think it's a completely unfair assumption to say someone hasn't experienced it yet, I know I haven't. I'm not talking about sensual passionate love, familial love, platonic love or general affection. I'm talking about absolute ideal love, or 'Agape' as the Greeks called it. A reciprocated feeling that there is no one better out there, where all an individuals needs are being met. It is much more than a simple romantic attachment which are fairly common throughout someone's life. It is neither a guarantee nor a necessity that everyone in the world should find such a person, but usually an experience with some kind of deeper romantic love opens up peoples eyes to the possibility that such a relationship with a person exists. Have you ever been in a situation in which you know against all 'supposedly' rational reasoning that you're with the ideal person and you want to spend as long as you possibly can with them?

I think it’s easy to see why a person would possibly want to spend the rest of his or her life with someone. I don’t see why it requires a rare kind of love. Marriage is a little different but still quite straightforward especially since it has become far less binding.

So-called “perfect love” helps thrust people towards marriage but it isn’t a prerequisite for approaching marriage without cynicism. Some people are content with the ritual/ceremony whilst others find it cumbersome and unnecessary. It seems wrong to throw pragmatic people in the cynic category just because their love, which might otherwise be “perfect love,” doesn’t lead to marriage or change their attitude towards it.

[Andy Pants]

To put it simply and bluntly (which I am great at apparently) everyone is cynical about marriage until they actually experience love i.e. a connection with someone they would want to spend the rest of their life with above all others that they know or could imagine. You don't 'understand' the idea of marriage because you have simply never experienced love.

I was ready to marry someone once.
I disregarded my beliefs, I let him slip a ring on my finger.
I don't see that as "love". I see that as losing myself. Love is not something strictly between romantically involved people. Saying someone hasn't experienced love is like saying someone who hasn't experienced oxygen.

There is more than one kind of love. The kind I am describing isn't all that common. I don't think it's a completely unfair assumption to say someone hasn't experienced it yet, I know I haven't. I'm not talking about sensual passionate love, familial love, platonic love or general affection. I'm talking about absolute ideal love, or 'Agape' as the Greeks called it. A reciprocated feeling that there is no one better out there, where all an individuals needs are being met. It is much more than a simple romantic attachment which are fairly common throughout someone's life. It is neither a guarantee nor a necessity that everyone in the world should find such a person, but usually an experience with some kind of deeper romantic love opens up peoples eyes to the possibility that such a relationship with a person exists. Have you ever been in a situation in which you know against all 'supposedly' rational reasoning that you're with the ideal person and you want to spend as long as you possibly can with them?

I think it’s easy to see why a person would possibly want to spend the rest of his or her life with someone. I don’t see why it requires a rare kind of love. Marriage is a little different but still quite straightforward especially since it has become far less binding.

So-called “perfect love” helps thrust people towards marriage but it isn’t a prerequisite for approaching marriage without cynicism. Some people are content with the ritual/ceremony whilst others find it cumbersome and unnecessary. It seems wrong to throw pragmatic people in the cynic category just because their love, which might otherwise be “perfect love,” doesn’t lead to marriage or change their attitude towards it.

Unless it's simply a relationship of convenience or dependence I would argue that the act of wanting to spend the rest of your life with someone is the kind of love I am talking about. Why would anyone want to spend the rest of their life with someone who doesn't meet their needs? Would anyone genuinely feel like they wanted to spend to rest of their life with someone if they believed they could do better?

Nobody used the phrase "perfect love" so I really have no idea what you're talking about there. Unless someone has a warped sense of idealism or is some kind of miserable sadist their ideals should not equate to perfection. Otherwise they're dooming themselves to failure and disappointment.

Finally I understand perfectly that some people may see the ceremony of marriage as meaningless ritual, but the question which was initially posed in this thread was "Why do people get married?" not "Why should everyone believe in marriage?" and I answered the former question, not the latter. People get married because they want some kind of public and ongoing expression of their attachment and commitment to another person. It comes down to wanting to make an indefinite commitment to someone and if that's something you can't understand then you simply haven't experienced the kind of love that would bring about that desire. It also serves both a symbolic purpose for the couple and has cultural weight in the eyes of the greater community. Many even view it as having religious significance, not to mention the legal rights married couples have that unmarried couples don't have access to. So "unnecessary" is not a word I would use to describe it. In fact I'm going to go out there and say that anyone who believes marriage to be unimportant or without value is a fucking moron.

[Morpheus Laughing]

To put it simply and bluntly (which I am great at apparently) everyone is cynical about marriage until they actually experience love i.e. a connection with someone they would want to spend the rest of their life with above all others that they know or could imagine. You don't 'understand' the idea of marriage because you have simply never experienced love.

I was ready to marry someone once.
I disregarded my beliefs, I let him slip a ring on my finger.
I don't see that as "love". I see that as losing myself. Love is not something strictly between romantically involved people. Saying someone hasn't experienced love is like saying someone who hasn't experienced oxygen.

There is more than one kind of love. The kind I am describing isn't all that common. I don't think it's a completely unfair assumption to say someone hasn't experienced it yet, I know I haven't. I'm not talking about sensual passionate love, familial love, platonic love or general affection. I'm talking about absolute ideal love, or 'Agape' as the Greeks called it. A reciprocated feeling that there is no one better out there, where all an individuals needs are being met. It is much more than a simple romantic attachment which are fairly common throughout someone's life. It is neither a guarantee nor a necessity that everyone in the world should find such a person, but usually an experience with some kind of deeper romantic love opens up peoples eyes to the possibility that such a relationship with a person exists. Have you ever been in a situation in which you know against all 'supposedly' rational reasoning that you're with the ideal person and you want to spend as long as you possibly can with them?

I think it’s easy to see why a person would possibly want to spend the rest of his or her life with someone. I don’t see why it requires a rare kind of love. Marriage is a little different but still quite straightforward especially since it has become far less binding.

So-called “perfect love” helps thrust people towards marriage but it isn’t a prerequisite for approaching marriage without cynicism. Some people are content with the ritual/ceremony whilst others find it cumbersome and unnecessary. It seems wrong to throw pragmatic people in the cynic category just because their love, which might otherwise be “perfect love,” doesn’t lead to marriage or change their attitude towards it.

Unless it's simply a relationship of convenience or dependence I would argue that the act of wanting to spend the rest of your life with someone is the kind of love I am talking about. Why would anyone want to spend the rest of their life with someone who doesn't meet their needs? Would anyone genuinely feel like they wanted to spend to rest of their life with someone if they believed they could do better?

Nobody used the phrase "perfect love" so I really have no idea what you're talking about there. Unless someone has a warped sense of idealism or is some kind of miserable sadist their ideals should not equate to perfection. Otherwise they're dooming themselves to failure and disappointment.

Finally I understand perfectly that some people may see the ceremony of marriage as meaningless ritual, but the question which was initially posed in this thread was "Why do people get married?" not "Why should everyone believe in marriage?" and I answered the former question, not the latter. People get married because they want some kind of public and ongoing expression of their attachment and commitment to another person. It comes down to wanting to make an indefinite commitment to someone and if that's something you can't understand then you simply haven't experienced the kind of love that would bring about that desire. It also serves both a symbolic purpose for the couple and has cultural weight in the eyes of the greater community. Many even view it as having religious significance, not to mention the legal rights married couples have that unmarried couples don't have access to. So "unnecessary" is not a word I would use to describe it. In fact I'm going to go out there and say that anyone who believes marriage to be unimportant or without value is a fucking moron.

You mentioned “absolute ideal love” or 'Agape'” and that is where my “perfect Love” analogy was drawn from…

I don’t think that all needs have to be met, just more needs than prior to the “Love.” Other people can fulfil any other needs there are and there might not be any need for thoughts of  “I could do better.” This doesn’t mean that the person necessarily loves beyond what a cynic can imagine. It just means that they are loving more than before… What is there to say that there are not many marriages based on that? In summary: I don’t see the need to invoke the notion of a love beyond-what-a-cynic-can-imagine when in reality it is a broader needs-motivated arrangement that might include all kinds of love or no love at all.
 
In your first post you said that everyone is cynical until they fall in love and that falling in love reveals to them why people might want to be married. I explained that for “pragmatic” couples it doesn’t necessarily have to open their eyes to the solution of that mystery – therefore indicating (in a jocular sense) that they would still be lumped in with the cynics despite having a great love. That’s all I was saying…  As for why that might be… Perhaps I’ll return to that.

As for marriage being unnecessary, unimportant or without value; it has value to the people who choose to do it, and by net effect, cultural value. However you don’t have to really understand the “why” to realise that people value something. This can leave onlookers witnessing an effect without known cause. The cause might be love but it could be other things.

I’m not sure if that covers everything or not?

[Andy Pants]

To put it simply and bluntly (which I am great at apparently) everyone is cynical about marriage until they actually experience love i.e. a connection with someone they would want to spend the rest of their life with above all others that they know or could imagine. You don't 'understand' the idea of marriage because you have simply never experienced love.

I was ready to marry someone once.
I disregarded my beliefs, I let him slip a ring on my finger.
I don't see that as "love". I see that as losing myself. Love is not something strictly between romantically involved people. Saying someone hasn't experienced love is like saying someone who hasn't experienced oxygen.

There is more than one kind of love. The kind I am describing isn't all that common. I don't think it's a completely unfair assumption to say someone hasn't experienced it yet, I know I haven't. I'm not talking about sensual passionate love, familial love, platonic love or general affection. I'm talking about absolute ideal love, or 'Agape' as the Greeks called it. A reciprocated feeling that there is no one better out there, where all an individuals needs are being met. It is much more than a simple romantic attachment which are fairly common throughout someone's life. It is neither a guarantee nor a necessity that everyone in the world should find such a person, but usually an experience with some kind of deeper romantic love opens up peoples eyes to the possibility that such a relationship with a person exists. Have you ever been in a situation in which you know against all 'supposedly' rational reasoning that you're with the ideal person and you want to spend as long as you possibly can with them?

I think it’s easy to see why a person would possibly want to spend the rest of his or her life with someone. I don’t see why it requires a rare kind of love. Marriage is a little different but still quite straightforward especially since it has become far less binding.

So-called “perfect love” helps thrust people towards marriage but it isn’t a prerequisite for approaching marriage without cynicism. Some people are content with the ritual/ceremony whilst others find it cumbersome and unnecessary. It seems wrong to throw pragmatic people in the cynic category just because their love, which might otherwise be “perfect love,” doesn’t lead to marriage or change their attitude towards it.

Unless it's simply a relationship of convenience or dependence I would argue that the act of wanting to spend the rest of your life with someone is the kind of love I am talking about. Why would anyone want to spend the rest of their life with someone who doesn't meet their needs? Would anyone genuinely feel like they wanted to spend to rest of their life with someone if they believed they could do better?

Nobody used the phrase "perfect love" so I really have no idea what you're talking about there. Unless someone has a warped sense of idealism or is some kind of miserable sadist their ideals should not equate to perfection. Otherwise they're dooming themselves to failure and disappointment.

Finally I understand perfectly that some people may see the ceremony of marriage as meaningless ritual, but the question which was initially posed in this thread was "Why do people get married?" not "Why should everyone believe in marriage?" and I answered the former question, not the latter. People get married because they want some kind of public and ongoing expression of their attachment and commitment to another person. It comes down to wanting to make an indefinite commitment to someone and if that's something you can't understand then you simply haven't experienced the kind of love that would bring about that desire. It also serves both a symbolic purpose for the couple and has cultural weight in the eyes of the greater community. Many even view it as having religious significance, not to mention the legal rights married couples have that unmarried couples don't have access to. So "unnecessary" is not a word I would use to describe it. In fact I'm going to go out there and say that anyone who believes marriage to be unimportant or without value is a fucking moron.

You mentioned “absolute ideal love” or 'Agape'” and that is where my “perfect Love” analogy was drawn from…

I don’t think that all needs have to be met, just more needs than prior to the “Love.” Other people can fulfil any other needs there are and there might not be any need for thoughts of  “I could do better.” This doesn’t mean that the person necessarily loves beyond what a cynic can imagine. It just means that they are loving more than before… What is there to say that there are not many marriages based on that? In summary: I don’t see the need to invoke the notion of a love beyond-what-a-cynic-can-imagine when in reality it is a broader needs-motivated arrangement that might include all kinds of love or no love at all.
 
In your first post you said that everyone is cynical until they fall in love and that falling in love reveals to them why people might want to be married. I explained that for “pragmatic” couples it doesn’t necessarily have to open their eyes to the solution of that mystery – therefore indicating (in a jocular sense) that they would still be lumped in with the cynics despite having a great love. That’s all I was saying…  As for why that might be… Perhaps I’ll return to that.

As for marriage being unnecessary, unimportant or without value; it has value to the people who choose to do it, and by net effect, cultural value. However you don’t have to really understand the “why” to realise that people value something. This can leave onlookers witnessing an effect without known cause. The cause might be love but it could be other things.

I’m not sure if that covers everything or not?

I understand what your trying to say but I disagree with your last comment. It isn't up to personal interpretation whether marriage has value. Anyone who believes it doesn't is quite simply wrong. It is not a tradition which is valued for the sake of tradition or given a sense of importance for simply symbolic reasons, although that might be one of the major motivating factor for couples getting married. It has real-world consequences. I'd like to see someone who believes marriage to be unimportant tell that to someone in a homosexual couple who doesn't have permission to visit their partner in the emergency room or have them taken off life support if it comes to that, or decide what happens to their property, or receive proper superannuation and social security, or (as it was in Australia recently) inherit property from their deceased partner or receive their pension, or aren't welcome to joint income assessments and therefore don't receive proper government benefits or any other number of rights married couples have access to that unmarried couples don't.

[Paul Jon]

I understand what your trying to say but I disagree with your last comment. It isn't up to personal interpretation whether marriage has value. Anyone who believes it doesn't is quite simply wrong. It is not a tradition which is valued for the sake of tradition or given a sense of importance for simply symbolic reasons, although that might be one of the major motivating factor for couples getting married. It has real-world consequences. I'd like to see someone who believes marriage to be unimportant tell that to someone in a homosexual couple who doesn't have permission to visit their partner in the emergency room or have them taken off life support if it comes to that, or decide what happens to their property, or receive proper superannuation and social security, or (as it was in Australia recently) inherit property from their deceased partner or receive their pension, or aren't welcome to joint income assessments and therefore don't receive proper government benefits or any other number of rights married couples have access to that unmarried couples don't.

Excuse me, but that's a circular argument. If society constructs a legal or institutional edifice around marriage, believing it to be important, then citing this fact as proof of its importance doesn't work.

[virtual~mary]

what keeps people together (in a "marriage" or other committed relationship) or drives them apart is a far more fascinating question to me.

[Andy Pants]

I understand what your trying to say but I disagree with your last comment. It isn't up to personal interpretation whether marriage has value. Anyone who believes it doesn't is quite simply wrong. It is not a tradition which is valued for the sake of tradition or given a sense of importance for simply symbolic reasons, although that might be one of the major motivating factor for couples getting married. It has real-world consequences. I'd like to see someone who believes marriage to be unimportant tell that to someone in a homosexual couple who doesn't have permission to visit their partner in the emergency room or have them taken off life support if it comes to that, or decide what happens to their property, or receive proper superannuation and social security, or (as it was in Australia recently) inherit property from their deceased partner or receive their pension, or aren't welcome to joint income assessments and therefore don't receive proper government benefits or any other number of rights married couples have access to that unmarried couples don't.

Excuse me, but that's a circular argument. If society constructs a legal or institutional edifice around marriage, believing it to be important, then citing this fact as proof of its importance doesn't work.

Wrong, society has given marriage legal significance and marriage has therefore been given importance to everyone, not just those who recognise it's cultural and symbolic value.

[[CPCTC]Mrs.Picklez]

I understand what your trying to say but I disagree with your last comment. It isn't up to personal interpretation whether marriage has value. Anyone who believes it doesn't is quite simply wrong. It is not a tradition which is valued for the sake of tradition or given a sense of importance for simply symbolic reasons, although that might be one of the major motivating factor for couples getting married. It has real-world consequences. I'd like to see someone who believes marriage to be unimportant tell that to someone in a homosexual couple who doesn't have permission to visit their partner in the emergency room or have them taken off life support if it comes to that, or decide what happens to their property, or receive proper superannuation and social security, or (as it was in Australia recently) inherit property from their deceased partner or receive their pension, or aren't welcome to joint income assessments and therefore don't receive proper government benefits or any other number of rights married couples have access to that unmarried couples don't.

Excuse me, but that's a circular argument. If society constructs a legal or institutional edifice around marriage, believing it to be important, then citing this fact as proof of its importance doesn't work.

Wrong, society has given marriage legal significance and marriage has therefore been given importance to everyone, not just those who recognise it's cultural and symbolic value.

I"ll agree with Andy on this one.
Marriage has value wether you believe or interpret it to or not.

[VipersGratitude]

what keeps people together (in a "marriage" or other committed relationship) or drives them apart is a far more fascinating question to me.

Wang Chompers

[Morpheus Laughing]

I understand what your trying to say but I disagree with your last comment. It isn't up to personal interpretation whether marriage has value. Anyone who believes it doesn't is quite simply wrong. It is not a tradition which is valued for the sake of tradition or given a sense of importance for simply symbolic reasons, although that might be one of the major motivating factor for couples getting married. It has real-world consequences. I'd like to see someone who believes marriage to be unimportant tell that to someone in a homosexual couple who doesn't have permission to visit their partner in the emergency room or have them taken off life support if it comes to that, or decide what happens to their property, or receive proper superannuation and social security, or (as it was in Australia recently) inherit property from their deceased partner or receive their pension, or aren't welcome to joint income assessments and therefore don't receive proper government benefits or any other number of rights married couples have access to that unmarried couples don't.

Those observations are considerations that become “objective” in the perspective of someone like a political planner or a person who generally thinks about political ramifications (either for fun or because the issues are of personal concern). You have to be aware of the predicaments before you can see why people might value solutions to them and that means the issues are of subjective origin (even if this type of subjectivity occurs quite widely and is possible to empathise with if you gain awareness of it). Broadly occurring subjective experience is the reason why things can become culturally valuable in the first place but it doesn’t ensure an absolute value that is independent of the collected subjectivity.

When I say “awareness of the predicaments” I don’t merely mean never having heard of the predicaments. I also include how readily these ideas can be bought to mind or if these factors can surpass other observations about a relationship. For instance, if the relationship looks off to an observer the legal values don’t compensate for formalising a disastrous looking relationship. 

In reality there are marriages that will be puzzling and marriages that make sense, it depends on the people you know. Some of the more puzzling marriages might be too incomprehensible to even make sense of even with the additional rights added. If people have only experienced marriages that don’t make sense they will intuitively have a low opinion of it.   

[SomewhatDamaged]

I know I am incredibly cynical but there is nothing positive about marriage, only negatives.
 A marriage brings nothing new to a relationship, I know people have stated that it is a sign of commitment to their partner & there are plenty of long, happy marriages out there. These are relationships that would last regardless of marriage. You don't need a ceremony or a piece of paper to show your feelings towards your partner, if it's right, it's right. However if a relationship isn't quite right from the start or deteriorates over time then that piece of paper opens a world of hassle & grief & prolongs the pain of separation. Let's be honest, relationships fail, a marriage certificate only complicates this. It becomes a matter of law instead of the heart.
 Two people do not need a certificate or ceremony as proof of their feelings, how they are with each other each day is what counts. Not a piece of paper & a fancy ceremony. 

[Tiervexx]

I know I am incredibly cynical but there is nothing positive about marriage, only negatives.
 A marriage brings nothing new to a relationship, I know people have stated that it is a sign of commitment to their partner & there are plenty of long, happy marriages out there. These are relationships that would last regardless of marriage. You don't need a ceremony or a piece of paper to show your feelings towards your partner, if it's right, it's right. However if a relationship isn't quite right from the start or deteriorates over time then that piece of paper opens a world of hassle & grief & prolongs the pain of separation. Let's be honest, relationships fail, a marriage certificate only complicates this. It becomes a matter of law instead of the heart.
 Two people do not need a certificate or ceremony as proof of their feelings, how they are with each other each day is what counts. Not a piece of paper & a fancy ceremony. 

You are right from a romantic standpoint but there are some very good legal reasons to get married.  If your partner hast to be hospitalized and is in bad condition the hospital staff is supposed to refuse to let you visit unless you are a family member or their spouse.

There are a number of other legal protections given to married couples.  For example, they can not be required to testify against their spouse.

Also, if your spouse suddenly dies you'll be the first they contact.  If this is not the case you might be left in the dark till the rumor mill works its way around to you.

[Bad Kitty]

Also, if your spouse suddenly dies you'll be the first they contact.  If this is not the case you might be left in the dark till the rumor mill works its way around to you.

...what?

the first person they (hospital staff, police, whoever) would contact would be the person you put as your "in case of emergency" person (if you had one) or whoevers contact details you had on you at the time of your death. It wouldn't make any difference if the person was your wife/husband, boyfriend/girlfriend, mum, housemate, landlord or lawyer.

also, (re: the other points) the legal benefits of marriage (in my opinion) are discriminatory and wrong. And are shitty reasons to get married.

[Andy Pants]

...what?

the first person they (hospital staff, police, whoever) would contact would be the person you put as your "in case of emergency" person (if you had one) or whoevers contact details you had on you at the time of your death. It wouldn't make any difference if the person was your wife/husband, boyfriend/girlfriend, mum, housemate, landlord or lawyer.

also, (re: the other points) the legal benefits of marriage (in my opinion) are discriminatory and wrong. And are shitty reasons to get married.

So your suggesting that all of these legal rights be attributed to people merely in De Facto relationships? That creates a much greater possibility for unfairness and manipulation of the law. How is any government supposed to determine the difference between someone who actually wants their spouse to have all of these rights and someone who has just been fucking/living with someone for a pre-determined amount of time (as happens quite frequently)?

People would have to file some kind of form to register the seriousness and/or legitimacy of their relationship with the relevant authorities, hey, maybe they could call it a "marriage certificate" and maybe the process could be called "marriage". I know, pretty out there huh? Of course there would have to be witnesses as a document such as this could be easily forged. Maybe people could have some kind of "marriage ceremony" or "wedding ceremony" to reduced the likelihood of the union being contested or "annulled". We don't have to call it "marriage" if you don't like the ring of it, maybe we could call it "wiffle", but it would serve a very legitimate and important real-world purpose either way.

[virtual~mary]

what keeps people together (in a "marriage" or other committed relationship) or drives them apart is a far more fascinating question to me.

Wang Chompers

deal maker or deal breaker