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.
You're right, but the way you described that sounds like a business contract? Repercussions? Consequences? Is that how love is supposed to work? Your love should not be defined by a legally binding contract. If that's what marriage is all about (a contract), then maybe that goes to the point that people shouldn't be married. You shouldn't be forced to love somebody or be stuck with somebody that you're not in love with.
Yes, marriage should absolutely be about a contract. And that's what it has traditionally been throughout history.
Love is a very fragile thing to base a long term relationship on. I'll grant you that it's a necessary ingredient, but it's never ever enough all by itself.
Elizabeth Gilbert, bestselling author of Eat, Pray, Love, and most recently a book on marriage called Committed, mentioned what she discovered about stuying marriage in different cultures in a recent CNN interview:
If you look at the history of marriage, anytime you see a conservative culture of arranged marriage being replaced by a more liberal culture of romantic marriage ... you will see divorce rates start to rise immediately.
It turns out that love is a very fragile notion upon which to base a very important and complicated institution. I think most people throughout history would look at the way we choose our marriages today and just think, my God, these people took huge risks. They risk their future, financial stability, property and their heirs on something as fragile and delicate as romantic affection.
It's not that that necessarily means that I advocate a return to arranged marriage, it just helps put in perspective why contemporary western marital arrangements can become so chaotic.
I can imagine that marriage rates are falling. With a combination of the poor economy, rising debts, uncertainties about the futures and debts among college aged students, of course people are marrying less frequently and marrying later. Look at the 1950s, a period of unprecedented economic prosperity and stability, people then were getting married at the youngest ages in recorded history. If you look at marriage statistics, you'll see that marriage rates started to fall more around the 1973-1974, the time of the economic recession and the oil crisis. That was also when the trend towards later marriage became to pick up steam.
I think marriage rates were a lot higher in the 50s because people realized how easy marriage and kids were compared to living through a decade long Depression and then a horrible war. Marriage & kids are a piece of cake compared to that. Subsequent generations (myself included) have become soft and self-indulgent. It seems people only cooperate in times of severe hardship and then they gradually go back to being self centered when prosperity returns.
Marriage is indeed declining in the US, but it's declining most amongst those who are less educated.
This is true. Unfortunately, it hasn't stopped the less educated from having kids out of wedlock, which is the worst possible outcome, IMO (financially, and in many other ways).
So.... if we can have all the benefits of marriage without it why DO we need it? In this day and age, what does legitimacy of birth get you? What is astonishing about being born out of wedlock? (Assuming all other things being equal like good parenting.)
A high rate of out of wedlock births is very detrimental to parents and children alike:
Having unmarried parents can be devastating for children who start out with no cushion in life. In 1999 congressional testimony, Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution said that the increase in single-parent families—mostly due to unwed motherhood in the past few decades—"can account for virtually all of the increase in child poverty since 1970." A recent study found that the stress of early childhood poverty can literally damage developing brains.
Forget Juno. Out-of-wedlock births are a national catastrophe. - By Emily Yoffe - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2185944/pagenum/2 - broken link)
I would also emphasize that the research cited above is from the liberal leaning Brookings Institution.
Being good parents has nothing to do with being married,.......NOTHING. My father is and was an old school, emotionally handicapped man. My parents fought all the time and they still bicker. It's probably because they're married that they go back and forth.
It's not because they're married. It's because, as you mention, your dad (and maybe your mom, too) is emotionally handicapped.
It sounds like you inherited your parents emotional handicaps, which is going to hurt you in life if you don't do something about it. Simply avoiding marriage is not going to heal the emotional wounds you've got. This is one of those instances where therapy could really help you, saving you a lot of time, money, and heartache.
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 08-30-2011 at 03:43 AM..
Even a child out of wedlock is taken care of by both parents. Not being married does not relinquish either person's responsibility in this area. It happens all the time.
In theory. In reality, that's usually not what happens.
Last edited by mysticaltyger; 08-30-2011 at 03:43 AM..
In other countries not being married is normal and they manage to raise kids. The Scandinavian countries in particular have a pretty low marriage rate yet they manage to raise a family quite successfully
This is true but the social context/values are also different in Scandinavia. It's an apples to oranges comparison to the social context we have in the US.
Like it or not- nature has designed that the sexes NEED each other. Even in today's modern times it is tougher for women to earn as much due to child birth, child care, etc. We are seeing signs that society is moving toward the center (slooowly) with more men caring for children and more women working at equal paying jobs- but we are nowhere near a level playing field on either side.
The comments here are incredibly sad.
It's is not fair for either side when a breakup happens. Most women with kids have double the work load and end up close to poverty. Most men end up contributing to two households and not seeing their kids enough.
Wouldn't it make more sense to put all the enegy into MAKING YOUR PARTNER HAPPY instead of whining when it's over? Part of making a relationship work is seeing things from the other person's veiwpoint.
From posts here it is obvious that a lot of people only see how things benefit themselves.
This is the best post on the thread so far. I tried to rep ya but it wouldn't let me
Why would anyone divorce? I don't get it... The people are too sensible these days... In my country in the rural areas people became dependent of alcohol.. and because of it they beat their wives sometimes... (there are to excuses for this...) but the women don't leave them because they know they have to raise their kids with both parents. There's no way a kid can grow healthy (be it mentally or physically) without he's both parents.
In my family my father stop working one day... and refused to get another job... yet my mother didn't divorced because we (me and my brother) needed a family. In the end we all were ok even though my mother had to work a little more (actually... more than a little... about 18-20 hours/day).
And these are two examples ... it happens all the time in Europe and with few exceptions (Britain... that makes me wonder if there's not something wrong with the anglo-saxon culture) all the countries have way much smaller divorce rates... people understand than in a relationship you have to make HUGE sacrifices all the time.
I tend to agree with you that in the UK and the US (and maybe Canada, too) we have really lost the idea of making sacrifices. We've become too self centered.
But on the other hand, I think it's going too far to say the couple should stay married when the man is an alcoholic but won't get help and/or he's beating his wife. Those are acceptable reasons for divorce, in my opinion.
Interestingly, I remember reading a couple of months ago that although fewer people are getting married, young people are getting fewer divorces and more marriages are lasting longer.
This article has similar findings.
Census Numbers Show Fewer Divorces, More Enduring Marriages (http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/7587-census-numbers-show-fewer-divorces-more-enduring-marriages - broken link)
Divorce is dropping because the less socially adept and the less committed don't bother to get married as much as they used to.
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.
