Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Means you're single, and there's nothing wrong with not being in ANY sort of relationship. People can survive just fine on their own.
That doesn't make it preferable. To use the earlier phrase, it's not natural. Human beings are very much social creatures, and a lifetime partner is the pinnacle of that. Hopefully one's goals in life include more than just "surviving."
Quote:
Other people create the problems.
So if you're not in a relationship, there are no problems?
Quote:
Why not get married? Because I don't need government interference to prove whether or not I'm committed to someone else.
I don't get how marriage is "government interference," but to each their own. If not marrying or being in a permanent relationship - or even any relationship - works for you, fine. That is by far the exception though.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 06-08-2010 at 05:00 PM..
Reason: Deleted off-topic comment
That doesn't make it preferable. To use the earlier phrase, it's not natural. Human beings are very much social creatures, and a lifetime partner is the pinnacle of that. Hopefully one's goals in life include more than just "surviving."
I"m ANTI-social. I like being alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joey2000
So if you're not in a relationship, there are no problems?
Hell is other people--Jean-Paul Sartre. I'm inclined to agree with this.
Because I don't need government interference to prove whether or not I'm committed to someone else.
I think it's worth clarifying that a wedding can be a religious or civil ceremony. In the eyes of the law, my spouse and I were "married" when we signed a contract in front of witnesses. We then went on to have a ceremony in front of our loved ones that met the requirements of our faith tradition. You can have one without the other. One can have a religious ceremony and be "married" without the contractual agreement. It's really a bit of a tragedy that our language doesn't allow us to differentiate easily between the two.
Of the two, the latter. Means you're single, and there's nothing wrong with not being in ANY sort of relationship. People can survive just fine on their own. Other people create the problems.
Why not get married? Because I don't need government interference to prove whether or not I'm committed to someone else. And, if she wants to leave, she can leave of her own volition when the terms are no longer acceptable. That much is just fine with me.
Like if she REALLY wants kids, then she shouldn't even bother with me, hoping that she can change my mind. She can't. If she wants to get a job as a stripper, instead of staying home and taking care of me and the house, she should be looking elsewhere. I'm pretty set in my ways, but I want someone on my terms, so she had better agree to those terms upfront. Or look elsewhere.
It's not like I NEED someone else in my life, it's just a nice addition to it.
many times being in a relationship is expensive without mariage. Without when you have assets and children it can be very expensive on leagl cost.Divorce is pretty well set in law. A partnership can be quite different;even proving the type.
Yes, but the animals that take a mate for life, usually don't live for 70 years either.
Most humans married, had children, and died by their 50's and 60's, just a few decades ago. Not to mention that many times, the women died in childbirth. Widowers were quite common back then, not so today.
I have often said that marriages should last for 20 years tops, and at the end of that 20 year stint, you have the option for renewal, or to walk away with no penalty. Divorce used to be lower, because people died a lot sooner.
Excellent post.
Love your theory. I think the expectation to stay with one person for an entire lifetime is a hefty one that less and less people enter into and you have to ask yourself why? USATODAY.com - Divorce declining, but so is marriage
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,700 posts, read 41,758,476 times
Reputation: 41381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bennie Flowers
As most people know, Al Gore and his wife of 40 years have declared that they are going through a divorce. Are marriages just not "natural" for this society anymore? Were they ever natural? Most people within the United States marry another person out of so called love, but what is love? Is lust confused with love? Is loving your partner out of convenience or out of genuine emotion? There are SO many questions that seem to come out of love and maybe that is why the divorce rate is so high, out of unsureness of their meaning of love. Maybe the people who "fall out of love" were never in love to begin with...
What do you think? What are your theories of "love" and divorce?
I think there are three problems with marriages today:
1. People who have no business marrying each other (in some cases anyone else) get married anyway so divorce is a given in those marriages.
2. People don't realize that marriage is a commitment that requires time and ongoing care and work.
3. People get married at the wrong time. Some marry too young, some too quick, some after living together too long.
many times being in a relationship is expensive without mariage. Without when you have assets and children it can be very expensive on leagl cost.Divorce is pretty well set in law. A partnership can be quite different;even proving the type.
Bringing lawyers into anything is expensive. But if you don't need lawyers, then it's not so expensive. You just come to an agreement without bringing other people into it.
I think it's worth clarifying that a wedding can be a religious or civil ceremony. In the eyes of the law, my spouse and I were "married" when we signed a contract in front of witnesses. We then went on to have a ceremony in front of our loved ones that met the requirements of our faith tradition. You can have one without the other. One can have a religious ceremony and be "married" without the contractual agreement. It's really a bit of a tragedy that our language doesn't allow us to differentiate easily between the two.
I know of people married in the church who had to have the clergyman sign a marriage certificate for "legal" proof of the marriage. There's always a paper trail unless you simply declare to each other that you are married. Fewer people are willing to recognize this--even common law marriage is getting harder and harder to attain. Some states that used to accept it no longer do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
