Marriage is a business partnership. (Indian, honest, relative, respect)

[Mikala43]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

I'd argue that "being a good fit" is more enduring and more essential for marriage, than "love".



And this is the problem with modern divorce.... if the partnership can be dissolved for slight causes, or no causes at all - then the "guarantee" aspect of marriage is nullified.



The "business" is quite simply the business of life. We can live as solitary, self-sufficient individuals. Or we can form partnerships, partitioning tasks and specializing. Likewise, we can have a society of subsistence-farmers, where everyone produces food for themselves, with little excess production or room for specialization. Or we can have an advanced civilization, where comparatively few people are involved in agriculture, and most are in the services or the arts or the sciences or whatnot.

I can survive tolerably well as a solitary person, but my life would be richer, more fulfilling and arrantly more enjoyable in a partnership where not only are tasks compartmentalized and labor specialized, but where the two people offer mutual emotional support and complementary - how shall we say? - plumbing. If I do this in a formal way, where society officially recognizes the partnership, we call this marriage.

When I married I didn't only consider love, I considered "being a good fit." It's not a mutually exclusive situation.

I have a hard enough time living with someone I love, let alone someone I don't.

[ScarletG]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

I can survive tolerably well as a solitary person, but my life would be richer, more fulfilling and arrantly more enjoyable in a partnership where not only are tasks compartmentalized and labor specialized, but where the two people offer mutual emotional support and complementary - how shall we say? - plumbing. If I do this in a formal way, where society officially recognizes the partnership, we call this marriage.

But why would you want to spend your life with someone that does not care for you and you do not care for them? You can't trust them to have your back in the long run....what you describe is not marriage.

[cyphorx]

Originally Posted by reneeh63

97% of alimony is paid by men but nowhere near 97% of women GET alimony so don't try to make it sound like that! This source says alimony is only awarded in about 15% of divorces (and a few of those are men) - also, alimony doesn't last as long as it did in the past.

depends on what state you live in, though some states are slowly doing away with alimony many states have not updated those laws since the 40-50's. a guy should not get divorced in caliroenia, Georgia, kentucky, or mississippi for example.

As for child support, if you don't trust the woman you CHOSE to have kids with to actually take care of YOUR kids then maybe you should fight for equal custody! Child support is only paid until the kids reach 18 so yeah, if you divorced on the day your wife gave birth, you'll pay child support for 1.8 decades. Puuuhlease, indeed!!!!

Often child support lasts much longer than 18 years, especially if you fall behind to to lay offs and unemployment(traditionally good paying typically male jobs are in china now and the few left are performed by immigrants at half the wages). and not all states allow equal/joint custody and many states that do still award primary care giver to one parent even if both parents have said children for equal time, and in many cases where one parent makes more than the other the one earning more has to pay child support even in joint custody cases.

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by ScarletG

But why would you want to spend your life with someone that does not care for you and you do not care for them? You can't trust them to have your back in the long run....what you describe is not marriage.

This is the crux of our misunderstanding! Of course I'd wish for my putative future partner to be thoroughly trustworthy, and for her to trust me in turn. Of course it would be imperative to mutually care and to "have each other's back". But that is NOT congruent with "love", and doesn't even need to much overlap with "love".

It is entirely possible to have intense and abiding mutual trust, but not love. It is also possible to be in love, but to have suspicions and to not fully trust.

My whole point is that trust is more substantial and more enduring than love. I'd much rather marry on the basis of trust, than on the basis of love.

[Dewdroplet76]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

This is the crux of our misunderstanding! Of course I'd wish for my putative future partner to be thoroughly trustworthy, and for her to trust me in turn. Of course it would be imperative to mutually care and to "have each other's back". But that is NOT congruent with "love", and doesn't even need to much overlap with "love".

Really? Because to me, I can't imagine trusting someone, having their back, and caring for someone through thick and thin if I didn't love them.

It is entirely possible to have intense and abiding mutual trust, but not love. It is also possible to be in love, but to have suspicions and to not fully trust.

I agree with the second part but not the first part.

My whole point is that trust is more substantial and more enduring than love. I'd much rather marry on the basis of trust, than on the basis of love.

I completely disagree. I think if you have a deep true love with someone that is not merely infatuation or lust - there is nothing more substantial nor more enduring.

[Mikala43]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

My whole point is that trust is more substantial and more enduring than love. I'd much rather marry on the basis of trust, than on the basis of love.

Once again, the two are not mutually exclusive. That's not a choice that has to be made.

[nald]

Originally Posted by Mikala43

If it is a business partnership, what is the business? You say not love or money.... so I'm not understanding the point of getting married.

Unlike the Dr House-type scenarios that are frequently thrown in this sub-forum (and can easily be neutered anyways), here's what being married generally makes different in average person's life, things that will likely happen at some point during marriage:
1. Spousal inheritance rights. Without marriage and no other forms of common-law marriage applied (and it's generally a lot harder to prove the latter), surviving spouses won't get any inheritance rights upon death of their spouse.
2. Social security - this is especially important for the elderly folks and folks who happen to need their medical bills covered by insurance. It greatly reduces costs because these costs are actually re-distributed to everyone else. One spouse can claim these benefits from the other, in case of need.
3. Introduction of "joint ownership" over personal property on an arbitrary basis (which actually makes marriage into a criminal contract and in direct violation of basic human rights of a capitalist society that we live in).
4. Default paternity. Husband is automatically obliged to cover medical/childbirth expenses of any child born by a married wife, plus he's automatically subscribed to another legal concept known as "fatherhood" (this concept is also defined very arbitrarily by legal system).


It's also valid to observe divorce in this story and notice that it's nothing else than an "exit strategy", the one that doesn't involve trying to make marriage invalid or void on some term defined by marital laws (i.e. fraud, being forced to marry, any of the spouses still being married, etc). This merely makes divorce into one of the "routes" that a marriage can take, since the business contract (marriage) doesn't end the moment one party filed for divorce or the moment they are legally divorced. This is why i.e. alimony is paid for a dissolved marriage, thus the "exit route" may not be finalized to make marriage effectively void through divorce. Marital contract is made to last indefinitely in legal sense and divorce merely tries to alter the contract in order to eventually make its regulations "void" in legal sense, while not declaring the marriage as void/illegal. This route makes marriage effectively void when six months have passed for any side can remarry (in states where "waiting period" is defined), when alimony is no longer paid, when marital property is dealt with, etc. Some marital contracts (or some of its norms) will have indefinite effect.

Please notice that marriage doesn't define or mandate any of the following: love, affection, sexual intercourse or its frequency, children, respect, etc - unlike the opinion held by general audience around here that it does. This is why NONE of these things legally matter since day one, not since the moment the couple meets in court to discuss divorce.
In fact, adultery is also de-regulated for many decades as well. This means that sexual exclusivity doesn't matter either and society also condones cuckolding of unsuspecting husbands if that's what suits mother's best interest (not the child's, either), thus the victims of a fraud are then further burdened by legal system.


There are also valid points why marriage as a business contract is literally broken in the form that we have today, especially for guys and even more when you look at biological realities and social norms: Marriage is a contract that can be signed and "broken" unilaterally without any sanctions, yet if you read the previously mentioned things, you'll see that such legal practice is deliberately structured to favor women (as evident that the only issues dealt with in modern marriage re-making were related to women's issue, not issues experienced by guys, as if those issues don't exist) and to generally screw even more guys who see the world in an idealistic light of their religious indoctrination is stopping them from seeing marriage for what it really is and to act accordingly. This is what makes it into an outrageous business contract and why people are literally FORCED to start seeing it for what it really is - a business contract.

[Dewdroplet76]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

This is the crux of our misunderstanding! Of course I'd wish for my putative future partner to be thoroughly trustworthy, and for her to trust me in turn. Of course it would be imperative to mutually care and to "have each other's back". But that is NOT congruent with "love", and doesn't even need to much overlap with "love".

It is entirely possible to have intense and abiding mutual trust, but not love. It is also possible to be in love, but to have suspicions and to not fully trust.

My whole point is that trust is more substantial and more enduring than love. I'd much rather marry on the basis of trust, than on the basis of love.

Another question for you and the OP - so, in this loveless marriage - do you have sex with each other? Are you attracted to each other? If you don't have sex - can you have sex with other people? Are you allowed to have romantic relationships with other people? Or do you forego sex, passion, and love for the rest of your life?

[Jay100]

Originally Posted by jerseygal4u

I work with a large amount of nurses from 3rd world countries,and what do you know,they taught me that marriage is not for love,but its really a business partnership.

Think about this....why do people in other countries have marriages that last decades,but over 50% of American's divorce because of $$$ issues?

If i get married,i have to look at it as a business arrangement.

No matter how much i love a man(which i doubt will EVER happen) he has to be able to keep the marriage afloat financially,but so do i,and we have to do that together.

On nurse said that if 2 men approach you,and one has better finances,but you do not Love him,marry him instead of the guy you do love,because she said there is no such thing as love at first sight. That is infactuation.
She said that only happens in Disney movies.

love grows.

As you see your husband taking care of business,you will grow to love him.

Marriage is supposed to be 2 people bringing their resources together to create one household.


I get their point,but i am not convinced all the way.

I am going to try to look at potential partners from a business perspective.

Sounds like she loves the mans' money. If one can find a guy dumb enough to marry somebody for the money then go for it. It does make business sense. I say life's too short to live a lie.

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by Mikala43

Once again, the two are not mutually exclusive. That's not a choice that has to be made.

Not in the least do I assert that they are mutually exclusive. The growth of one, does not mean the withering and rejection of the other. Merely, it seems to me that the one is accessible and practical, while the other is neither. I trust a number of people in my life, and presumably they trust me. I love no one.

Originally Posted by Dewdroplet76

Another question for you and the OP - so, in this loveless marriage - do you have sex with each other? Are you attracted to each other? If you don't have sex - can you have sex with other people? Are you allowed to have romantic relationships with other people? Or do you forego sex, passion, and love for the rest of your life?

Presumably there indeed is sex, and the sexual relationship is exclusive to within the marriage. It is not, however, the passion of a Tristan and Iseult, or Lancelot and Guinevere.