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.
I wasn't backtracking, I was attempting to clarify what I meant, since I admitted I should have been clearer. It was never my intention to denigrate people in a committed relationship who were not married.
Your personal situation sounds wonderful. Again, I was referring to those who have children with no father present. My personal belief - which seems confirmed in general by various psychologists and family counselors - is that children do much better with two parents in a committed relationship - married or not. So we agree there.
Both my parents were alcoholic and my father was abusive to my mother (never to us kids but that is trauma, having to witness that, nonetheless, as I'm sure you know.) They were married in the church - a church that never stood by my mother when she wanted to leave my father early in their married years and according to her, foisted blame for his angry violence on her. So I don't believe that being married in a church is a guarantee of anything. I was relaying what Dr Peterson articulated about taking a vow, which clearly is not required to be taken in a church.
Yep, there's trauma just being in a dysfunctional environment. My parents were very loving to me and I wanted for nothing. Decades later and I still can't stand the sound of a slamming door.
It pains me to read of your mother. I sincerely hope she found happiness.
It's so critical that people take their time in choosing a life partner and the parent of their children. It's so easy for it to go wrong.
Remember history is written about rich folks. Poor folks, which were the majority of the population, lived by different rules. Still interesting reading.
IMO marriage has been weaponized against men, especially in this day and age when women earn just as much, sometimes more than, men.
Also tbh I can't solemnly promise to do anything until death to me part. I'm not interested in taking on that kind of responsibility. I'm also not interested in inviting even more government into my private life.
Marriage needs to be and remain a religious institution. The Government should have no interest in it.
Family formation is an economic and financial arrangement, no different than setting up a corporate joint venture. As such it should be a legal arrangement involving lawyers and lots of papers.
Initially I typed this as a response in the "Men in Crisis" thread, then I decided it needed it's own thread.
I have wondered for some time how much longer the institution of marriage, as we know it, will survive.
One man + one woman, completely faithful to each other for life, has not been the historical norm. Humans have lived in clan communities, in multiple spouse arrangements, in marriages as a business arrangement (with much straying expected or at least tolerated), and in relatively recent US history, husband-wife relationships with very clearly divided gender roles, yet straying still fairly common.
With women thrust into the workplace during WW2, the availability of the birth control pill, longer life spans, and no-fault divorce, the entire dynamic of marriage (and I believe, the expectations thereof) has changed.
It's not particularly easy for me to sit through a wedding anymore, hearing promises of "for better or worse" and "til death do us part." How much longer are young couples going to continue making such promises when their real-life experience shows them the opposite?
I'm not generally a cynic, but the expectation that one mate for life will meet a person's sexual, emotional, logistical, and every other kind of need, does not seem to be working for a large percentage of people.
(Statistics vary, but some surveys show 40% of marriages are effected by infidelity, and about 45% of marriages end in divorce. Feel free to Google. I'm sure you will find other stats, but infidelity and divorce is not a small percentage, that's for sure.)
Do you think marriage as we know it will eventually die out, and if yes, what do you think will replace it?
Didn’t read replies yet but speak for yourself with your attitude on it. I have a stable marriage and provide a stable household for my children to grow up in. No wonder the world is going to hell in a handbasket. You either are committed or you’re not. You need to be all in for marriage and children. The divorce rate is laughable and shows the sad state of morality nowadays.
Do your friends a favor and don’t attend their weddings if you can’t bear to see others hopeful and happy.
I don't remember where I read this, and it was awhile ago, but a magazine article argued that the concept of marriage will evolve from one spouse for a lifetime into serial monogamy - much more widely than occurs already. The article stated that it's one thing to say "until death do us part" when the average life expectancy is 40-50, as it was in 1800. It's another when life expectancy extends into the late 70s as it does now.
But either way, marriage isn't going anywhere, even if people choose to marry once, or in a serial fashion, or if they choose what used to be called common-law marriage - "without benefit of clergy", if you will. There always will be people who commit to each other for a lifetime, but don't feel the need for a ceremony, religious or civil.
Except that the life expectancy really wasn’t 40-50. They have child deaths averaged in. If you go to any old graveyard, you will see people regularly in their 60s, 70s, even people close to 100.
And sorry but once you have committed all your adult life to someone, what’s another decade? Do you really mean to argue that committing from age 20 or 25 till age 70 or maybe 80 or so is vastly different from age 15-20 to 40-50, even if you were actually correct about the life expectancy? It’s like when people are appalled that I have five kids. The honest truth is once you hit the third, adding more isn’t a giant lifestyle change. It just isn’t. Same can apply for the above. You grow old together, be it age 50 or age 80.
Commitment is important, but marriage? I'm not so sure. In particular for my partner and I, his student loans (law school, so big $) and their impact on his credit score and our financial risk assessment are a big deal. We can accomplish most of the legal benefits through other documents.
I'm also an adult, so there's absolutely no reason for me to change my name.
For me, I just have to wonder what is in it for me to actually get married? I mean, we can throw ourselves a party and go on a great vacation whenever we want without the wedding markup.
I got married at the courthouse for practically nothing. We went to a beach close by for a night and then he had to come back for dental surgery while he had vacation time off. Forget about going into debt for a wedding.
Sure, you can accomplish quite a lot with various legal instruments but until the govt gets out of marriage entirely, the automatic benefits of marriage make sense.
What’s the issue with changing your name? Pretty much everyone getting married is an adult, so what’s your point? Many professionals just append the new name onto their email signature (after changing it legally) and call it a day. Don’t you want your family name to be one name and not hyphenated, especially after you have kids?
and what is a reason why marriage is dying institution. because usa sociaty made gays marriage priority in sociaty. i mean since beggining of time straight man/women marriage was what drove sociaty and civilizations forward and when you move away from that you get sociaty we have today in america there is nothing really cool or interesting and that will benefit sociaty if you prioritaze gays trans lgbtq+ but chaos
I am probably going to be a bachelor for the remainder of my life. I never found the right woman. And now that I'm in my mid 30s, most of the women I see out there aren't worth marrying. Too interested in partying, too much drinking, too much baggage from exes, loose morals, etc.
Some might say "look for a woman in church". I go to church every Sunday (on occasion I will skip Sunday morning and go to church on Saturday night). I've learned that there are hardly any single women in church (at least my church). Nearly all the women in my church are married/married with kids.
Basically, those who share my morals and values are already matched up. Those who are single, it's a shot in the dark. Interestingly, I know a few women, whom I went to high school with. Several of them managed to have children but never got married (or got married and then divorced before turning 30). I notice something about them. Many of them come off as jaded, or sort of vulgar. I have my own issues to deal with. I don't think I could deal with more baggage.
My husband and I got married when I was 22 and he had just turned 36. There are mature 20-somethings out there. Also consider that everybody does have baggage, just depends what kind and how much.
Not everyone needs a spouse for financial well-being, nor does everyone want to raise a family.
Not for emotional abuse? Infidelity? I can think of a dozen reasons where a marriage would become unsustainable. Why would anyone stay in a relationship without love and respect?
People change if they are motivated and dedicated. Problem is that we have the feminists trying to say women shouldn’t put up with nonsense while at the same time also giving nonsense to the man. It goes both ways. Marriage is a commitment and it takes work. Bottom line. This is not hard to comprehend.
Initially I typed this as a response in the "Men in Crisis" thread, then I decided it needed it's own thread.
I have wondered for some time how much longer the institution of marriage, as we know it, will survive.
One man + one woman, completely faithful to each other for life, has not been the historical norm. Humans have lived in clan communities, in multiple spouse arrangements, in marriages as a business arrangement (with much straying expected or at least tolerated), and in relatively recent US history, husband-wife relationships with very clearly divided gender roles, yet straying still fairly common.
With women thrust into the workplace during WW2, the availability of the birth control pill, longer life spans, and no-fault divorce, the entire dynamic of marriage (and I believe, the expectations thereof) has changed.
It's not particularly easy for me to sit through a wedding anymore, hearing promises of "for better or worse" and "til death do us part." How much longer are young couples going to continue making such promises when their real-life experience shows them the opposite?
I'm not generally a cynic, but the expectation that one mate for life will meet a person's sexual, emotional, logistical, and every other kind of need, does not seem to be working for a large percentage of people.
(Statistics vary, but some surveys show 40% of marriages are effected by infidelity, and about 45% of marriages end in divorce. Feel free to Google. I'm sure you will find other stats, but infidelity and divorce is not a small percentage, that's for sure.)
Do you think marriage as we know it will eventually die out, and if yes, what do you think will replace it?
Number one reason for the divorce: "This is great house, and I want it."
Number two reason: "I married you for security based on your profession."
Number three reason: "Doing what my mother and grandmother did."
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.
Its my experience it should be.
