6 ms·

> trivialising of marriage Maybe we've taken marriage too seriously for hundreds/thousands of years, and we're finally progressing as a global society to reali

> trivialising of marriage Maybe we've taken marriage too seriously for hundreds/thousands of years, and we're finally progressing as a global society to realize that till-death-do-us-part might be too big of a commitment for some 20-somethings. After all, what's really the difference between being married and living with your significant other besides some laws that are based on the old views of marriage. (Granted, with kids things get tricky, but making sure parents stick around and help raise kids to me seems rather independent on whether a couple was married or not - seems more to do with someone's inner beliefs)

thrden 6y ago
Even if we set aside any potential spiritual, or child-rearing value. Marriage is a very important institution in helping people achieve economic mobility, it increases your household income significantly, as well as seriously reducing your cost of living. Anecdotally, my cost of living was drastically reduced when my girlfriend and I moved in together (thereby splitting a 1BR), however given that we aren't married we individually have to save a good amount of money in cash accounts in case of a breakup. If we were married, we could reduce our cash savings by 50% and instead invest that money into the open market. Moreover, we would be far more likely to take care of the other financially if one went to school if we were married. Marriage, and the commitment it entails changes the attitudes of individuals towards each other by ensuring that we can plan for a combined future. all that exists outside of societally constructed benefits like joint taxation and healthcare.
- bluedevil2k 6y ago
  But all your examples of "planning for the future as a married couple" could immediately be for naught if one of you decides to divorce. No different than if your girlfriend decides to move out. Economic mobility could be achieved with an official document saying "You're Married" or without it. It's about the commitment to each other, a commitment that can be as strong or as weak as the two people are willing to make it.
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    But all your examples of "planning for the future as a married couple" could immediately be for naught if one of you decides to divorce. No different than if your girlfriend decides to move out. Marriage is not girlfriend/boyfriend. It's far more serious, and making it a commitment to be contemplated deeply before entering - and not easily breakable - is the whole point of highlighting the problem of trivialising it.
    - bluedevil2k 6y ago
      > It's far more serious, and making it a commitment to be contemplated deeply before entering - and not easily breakable Marriage is rooted in religion, for better or worse, and these thoughts about making marriage some unbreakable for-life bond are based on religious beliefs hundreds of years old. Catholics couldn't divorce, ever! We live in a more enlightened age, one where religious thoughts have less to do with forging our societal beliefs. Can't we progress with our thoughts on marriage as well? Marriage for life would mean for many an unhappy and unfulfilling life. Perhaps a life of violence or depression. Is that we want to force people into? A life without choice, a life without happiness?
      - sukilot 6y ago
        "religion" is a legal system f government that isn't grounded in a geographically-defined military. It can do good or bad just like a political system.
      - nobodyandproud 6y ago
        I think this is a shallow analysis. In the past and in many societies it’s fair to say that religion and social order were one and the same. So it’s not wrong to say marriage has its roots in religion, but the cause to create marriage hasn’t gone away even if religion isn’t a factor: Can you imagine how difficult it was for a single parent (especially women) to raise a child alone, a few millenia ago? I think it’s fair to say that it caused major problems. Even today raising children is still extremely difficult. Raising a productive citizen is another order of magnitude of difficulty.
- yencabulator 6y ago
  You're not describing marriage, you're describing a dedicated long-term relationship. Marriage is some religious nonsense on top of that.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    Marriage is a contract with dozens to hundreds of legal implications.
    - yencabulator 6y ago
      Sure, and a prenup is a contract that nullifies the bits you don't want.
- balfirevic 6y ago
  > If we were married, we could reduce our cash savings by 50% and instead invest that money into the open market. How come you suddenly need 50% less emergency cash per person just because you're married?
  - waterhouse 6y ago
    I'm guessing they want enough emergency cash to last them for N months if all income disappeared, and that their expenses are dominated by rent and other things whose costs don't increase with a second person.
    - balfirevic 6y ago
      The original comment was comparing cash savings in situation where the couple lives together but is not married vs. when they marry. It specifically mentioned the possibility of breakup before marriage, but people divorce all the time and if you get into that situation you'll need those savings.
- op03 6y ago
  Well intentioned comment, but that works when people share the same optimizing view towards life. Think about how many people within your own extended family do this? Take a guess, deliver this talk to them and track through life how many follow the path. We chimps display a wide spectrum of Personality traits and an even wider spectrum of Needs, which are constantly changing through life and the events that effect it. Dangerous to assume whatever system you have accepted will be accepted by all. Its easy to come up with all kinds of theories about "what works" and "how things should be" but that is usually based on our limited awareness of the spectrum.
SomeHacker44 6y ago
Personally I think marriage should be a la carte. Choose which legal benefits and obligations you want, what timeline (renewable) and so forth. The problem is that the legal one size fits all rule of marriage doesn't fit most. And, that size differs from country to country and even within countries (eg US states).
NateEag 6y ago
The obvious difference is that in Western traditions, a married couple has explicitly vowed to stay with one another through thick and thin, until death separates you. If you trust your partner to keep their word, there is comfort in knowing you are a team, no matter what crazy stuff happens. If your partner refuses to make that promise (that promise being what makes it a marriage, IMO), well, you might want to re-evaluate how much you trust them and why.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  History has shown that a sizable chunk of those promises were either lies, or unrealistic. Many who refuse to marry do so out of an acknowledgement of how effed up the marriages they have seen are. People who are truly untrustworthy are just as likely to lie about their level of commitment to a relationship anyway.
  - NateEag 6y ago
    Yes. People are mostly not trustworthy. Refusing to commit yourself seems more like perpetuating that problem than addressing it, to me. Maybe I'm missing something.
    - waterhouse 6y ago
      Consider the "unrealistic" part. How certain can you be that it will work out? Do you think all marriage-ending issues are foreseeable? One source tells me that 41% of first marriages end in divorce. Divorce today is not generally considered a pleasant process, yet they go through with it, which is evidence that there was something seriously wrong with the relationship. Put differently, 59% of marriages were sufficiently correct choices. Suppose couples spent an additional year on scrutiny before getting married. How much would that improve the success ratio? To 70%? 80%? What about the remaining 20%? Once they discover their choice was sufficiently wrong to want to go through with one of today's divorces, what should they do? Stick it out no matter how bad it gets? Really? Or if they do divorce, then what have you achieved? If they delayed by three years and got to 90%, would that be worth it?
uhguvku 6y ago
The current concept of marriage is very recent, maybe 200-300 years old. Marriage was never romantic but it was a political and business deal. Historically, very few people married their lovers. Powerful men married powerful women and then they had harems. Not only that wives often recruited younger women for their husbands' harems. Most peasants were married through arranged marriages that benefitted their families.
52-6F-62 6y ago
For those reasons and others my partner and I haven’t married, but we file our taxes here in Canada (and are legally considered, in Ontario specifically) as a “common-law” couple. We wear rings and have decided on what works for us, between us. It’s working quite well for us for now. We’ve been together longer than any of my old, married (and since divorced) friends have. https://globalnews.ca/news/6532711/common-law-vs-marriage/ https://globalnews.ca/news/6532711/common-law-vs-marriage/

thrden 6y ago

Even if we set aside any potential spiritual, or child-rearing value. Marriage is a very important institution in helping people achieve economic mobility, it increases your household income significantly, as well as seriously reducing your cost of living. Anecdotally, my cost of living was drastically reduced when my girlfriend and I moved in together (thereby splitting a 1BR), however given that we aren't married we individually have to save a good amount of money in cash accounts in case of a breakup. If we were married, we could reduce our cash savings by 50% and instead invest that money into the open market. Moreover, we would be far more likely to take care of the other financially if one went to school if we were married. Marriage, and the commitment it entails changes the attitudes of individuals towards each other by ensuring that we can plan for a combined future. all that exists outside of societally constructed benefits like joint taxation and healthcare.

bluedevil2k 6y ago
But all your examples of "planning for the future as a married couple" could immediately be for naught if one of you decides to divorce. No different than if your girlfriend decides to move out. Economic mobility could be achieved with an official document saying "You're Married" or without it. It's about the commitment to each other, a commitment that can be as strong or as weak as the two people are willing to make it.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  But all your examples of "planning for the future as a married couple" could immediately be for naught if one of you decides to divorce. No different than if your girlfriend decides to move out. Marriage is not girlfriend/boyfriend. It's far more serious, and making it a commitment to be contemplated deeply before entering - and not easily breakable - is the whole point of highlighting the problem of trivialising it.
  - bluedevil2k 6y ago
    > It's far more serious, and making it a commitment to be contemplated deeply before entering - and not easily breakable Marriage is rooted in religion, for better or worse, and these thoughts about making marriage some unbreakable for-life bond are based on religious beliefs hundreds of years old. Catholics couldn't divorce, ever! We live in a more enlightened age, one where religious thoughts have less to do with forging our societal beliefs. Can't we progress with our thoughts on marriage as well? Marriage for life would mean for many an unhappy and unfulfilling life. Perhaps a life of violence or depression. Is that we want to force people into? A life without choice, a life without happiness?
    - sukilot 6y ago
      "religion" is a legal system f government that isn't grounded in a geographically-defined military. It can do good or bad just like a political system.
    - nobodyandproud 6y ago
      I think this is a shallow analysis. In the past and in many societies it’s fair to say that religion and social order were one and the same. So it’s not wrong to say marriage has its roots in religion, but the cause to create marriage hasn’t gone away even if religion isn’t a factor: Can you imagine how difficult it was for a single parent (especially women) to raise a child alone, a few millenia ago? I think it’s fair to say that it caused major problems. Even today raising children is still extremely difficult. Raising a productive citizen is another order of magnitude of difficulty.
yencabulator 6y ago
You're not describing marriage, you're describing a dedicated long-term relationship. Marriage is some religious nonsense on top of that.
- sukilot 6y ago
  Marriage is a contract with dozens to hundreds of legal implications.
  - yencabulator 6y ago
    Sure, and a prenup is a contract that nullifies the bits you don't want.
balfirevic 6y ago
> If we were married, we could reduce our cash savings by 50% and instead invest that money into the open market. How come you suddenly need 50% less emergency cash per person just because you're married?
- waterhouse 6y ago
  I'm guessing they want enough emergency cash to last them for N months if all income disappeared, and that their expenses are dominated by rent and other things whose costs don't increase with a second person.
  - balfirevic 6y ago
    The original comment was comparing cash savings in situation where the couple lives together but is not married vs. when they marry. It specifically mentioned the possibility of breakup before marriage, but people divorce all the time and if you get into that situation you'll need those savings.
op03 6y ago
Well intentioned comment, but that works when people share the same optimizing view towards life. Think about how many people within your own extended family do this? Take a guess, deliver this talk to them and track through life how many follow the path. We chimps display a wide spectrum of Personality traits and an even wider spectrum of Needs, which are constantly changing through life and the events that effect it. Dangerous to assume whatever system you have accepted will be accepted by all. Its easy to come up with all kinds of theories about "what works" and "how things should be" but that is usually based on our limited awareness of the spectrum.

SomeHacker44 6y ago

Personally I think marriage should be a la carte. Choose which legal benefits and obligations you want, what timeline (renewable) and so forth. The problem is that the legal one size fits all rule of marriage doesn't fit most. And, that size differs from country to country and even within countries (eg US states).

NateEag 6y ago

The obvious difference is that in Western traditions, a married couple has explicitly vowed to stay with one another through thick and thin, until death separates you. If you trust your partner to keep their word, there is comfort in knowing you are a team, no matter what crazy stuff happens. If your partner refuses to make that promise (that promise being what makes it a marriage, IMO), well, you might want to re-evaluate how much you trust them and why.

nitrogen 6y ago
History has shown that a sizable chunk of those promises were either lies, or unrealistic. Many who refuse to marry do so out of an acknowledgement of how effed up the marriages they have seen are. People who are truly untrustworthy are just as likely to lie about their level of commitment to a relationship anyway.
- NateEag 6y ago
  Yes. People are mostly not trustworthy. Refusing to commit yourself seems more like perpetuating that problem than addressing it, to me. Maybe I'm missing something.
  - waterhouse 6y ago
    Consider the "unrealistic" part. How certain can you be that it will work out? Do you think all marriage-ending issues are foreseeable? One source tells me that 41% of first marriages end in divorce. Divorce today is not generally considered a pleasant process, yet they go through with it, which is evidence that there was something seriously wrong with the relationship. Put differently, 59% of marriages were sufficiently correct choices. Suppose couples spent an additional year on scrutiny before getting married. How much would that improve the success ratio? To 70%? 80%? What about the remaining 20%? Once they discover their choice was sufficiently wrong to want to go through with one of today's divorces, what should they do? Stick it out no matter how bad it gets? Really? Or if they do divorce, then what have you achieved? If they delayed by three years and got to 90%, would that be worth it?

uhguvku 6y ago

The current concept of marriage is very recent, maybe 200-300 years old. Marriage was never romantic but it was a political and business deal. Historically, very few people married their lovers. Powerful men married powerful women and then they had harems. Not only that wives often recruited younger women for their husbands' harems. Most peasants were married through arranged marriages that benefitted their families.

52-6F-62 6y ago

For those reasons and others my partner and I haven’t married, but we file our taxes here in Canada (and are legally considered, in Ontario specifically) as a “common-law” couple. We wear rings and have decided on what works for us, between us. It’s working quite well for us for now. We’ve been together longer than any of my old, married (and since divorced) friends have. https://globalnews.ca/news/6532711/common-law-vs-marriage/ https://globalnews.ca/news/6532711/common-law-vs-marriage/