quote:Originally posted by Strider: The problem with all this is that that is the way marriage is "supposed" to be. But with the divorce rate at 50% can you really look at marriage as "Knowing that you can always count on the other person to be there and be your partner"? To many people in this country, marriage is just something you do, and divorce is just as easy as getting married. The signing of the marriage document doesn't promise commitment. Only you as a person can promise that, with or without the marriage to go along with it.
I completely disagree that the 50% divorce rate means that people think that marriage is just something you do. I'm sure some people feel that way, but having done a little bit of study of the causes of divorce, I would say that most people enter into marriage thinking it is going to be forever. Then, a lot of things go wrong, including the fact that a lot of people go into marriage thinking that it's all about feelings and that the love will last forever. Marriage isn't a fairy tale -- it's hard work. [/QB]
but then you're not exactly disagreeing with me are you? You agree that marriage is about a decision and a commitment(which is how i view it), and you say that the divorce rate is so high because people are going into it for the wrong reasons, or are not fully aware of what they're signing on for. So those people are not viewing marriage the same way you do. Those are the people that get divorced at the first sign of problems, or when the love they feel isn't so strong anymore which may or may not lead them to cheat, and in the end leads to divorce anyway.
Maybe i worded it badly. My main point wasn't that most people get married because "its just something to do" though i think a lot do, but that many people don't view marriage as a life long commitment, and even if they do, don't value the commitment to the extent intended by the institution of marriage.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: When you have the option, there's little reason NOT to get married once your commitment level matches the requirements of the institution: if you've found someone you want to be with from then on, then you should get married, so you can have the legal benefits. The marriage doesn't change the relationship, it reflects (and rewards) the commitment of the relationship.
Not taking advantage of the legal benefits suggests to me one of several things:
1) Intentional rebellion against tradition (OK, if that's what you want, but it's not as neutral as not needing the label). 2) Can't, legally. 3) Not ready for THAT much commitment.
I'm sure there are many other reasons, but those seem like the big three to me, in order of increasing prevalence.
I've got two pretty big reasons for not getting married, even though my bf and I are going on 9 years together.
2) taxes. Yes they are supposed to have removed any marriage tax "penalty" but especially when it comes to housing and property tax deductions we get more money back in refunds, being single than we would if married.
1) Family baggage and the giant hassle and expense of a wedding. If elopement wouldn't hurt the feelings too many people in our familes we might would have done it by now, although #2 is still an issue.
In the societal institution of marriage, there is a still a certain amount of expectation of both families coming together at the time of the wedding to recognize the union. His mother would be extremely upset if she wasn't there, and I'd be extremely upset if many of my relatives *were* there. Putting the members of both of our families in the room with each other would be a recipe for disaster. The day would not be "our" big day. It would be me being a wreck because I'd be trying to arbitrate between all of things that all of the other people want, and him holding me together so that I didn't have a nervous breakdown. Not really enjoyable for either of us.
Also the logistics and planning of it all, even if it was done on an extremely low budget would be a giant pain in the patootie. Low budget weddings often take more planning in order to compensate for the budget. And we haven't gotten anywhere near the alcohol issue, which would also cause much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth from the rabidly tetotalling branches of the family.
I'd just plain rather not deal with the giant headache. I probably don't value the institution of marriage enough, but in my current situation I don't have any overwhelming benefits I'd gain by marrying him. In retirement, if he stays with his current position for the next 30+ years, he'd have the better health care benefits, but right now my own job has better benefits than he does.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: But with the divorce rate at 50% can you really look at marriage as "Knowing that you can always count on the other person to be there and be your partner"?
This has maybe been asked/said before, but what does a 50% divorce rate really mean? People always seem to say that it means you have a 1 in 2 chance of ending up divorced, but what about the people who get divorced several times? Wouldn't that skew the findings?
In other words, a marriage may have a 50% chance of failing, but that doesn't mean that a particular couple does.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But given how bastardized the system is I don't think it's fair to make that divide...
Not only is it fair, it's the only way to fix the system. Unless marriage is treated as something meaningful, it will become meaningless.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Unless marriage is treated as something meaningful, it will become meaningless. [/QB]
Tom, I'm not sure I agree with you about it being the only way to fix the system, but I would agree with the above.
However, as Strider said "marriage" clearly has wildly different meanings to different sectors of society already. So how should a diverse society like the U.S. "normalize" (for lack of a better word) the meaningfulness of marriage, in a societal sense in order to make it fair? Or is the legal status quo acceptable to you?
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think marriage, as a general institution, has become essentially meaningless. I would argue that very few people are actually willing to stay with a person, not through the "bad" times, but through the changing times. People grow and their interests and passions change, and what naturally drew them to a person when they were 22 isn't always going to remain when they are 42. I think for most people, it's unreasonable to expect that "loving feeling" to continue on, for years at a time. There are people, however, who find happiness *in* the commitment, not just in being compatible, (i would actually lump myself in with these people, to a certain extent) and these are the marriages/relationships that work, when both people are the commitment-loving people. Some people find great joy in staying together and making something work, in having one person to rely on. Others find that they don't, or that they never did. 50% of the time, in fact. And even if you ARE one of those people that wants the stability and commitment, it doesn't mean you're going to be "right" about the person you chose to marry. Things change, you change, they change -- you can't help these things, and sometimes people grow apart just by growing up.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: I think marriage, as a general institution, has become essentially meaningless. I would argue that very few people are actually willing to stay with a person, not through the "bad" times, but through the changing times. People grow and their interests and passions change, and what naturally drew them to a person when they were 22 isn't always going to remain when they are 42. I think for most people, it's unreasonable to expect that "loving feeling" to continue on, for years at a time. There are people, however, who find happiness *in* the commitment, not just in being compatible, (i would actually lump myself in with these people, to a certain extent) and these are the marriages/relationships that work, when both people are the commitment-loving people. Some people find great joy in staying together and making something work, in having one person to rely on. Others find that they don't, or that they never did. 50% of the time, in fact. And even if you ARE one of those people that wants the stability and commitment, it doesn't mean you're going to be "right" about the person you chose to marry. Things change, you change, they change -- you can't help these things, and sometimes people grow apart just by growing up.
I'm not sure exactly what to refute here, but my marriage isn't like any of this.
Let me try it this way...there is a theory out there that there are 4 types of marriages:
Harmonious: skills without commitment Traditional: commitment without skills Vitalized: skills AND commitment Conflicted: neither skills nor commitment
I say skills rather than love because you don't always feel that passionate love about someone all the time. But you can build a relationship based on communication, friendship, shared interests, compromise, etc. These require skills. They can even be taught, if couples are willing to work at it.
Commitment simply refers to a desire to stay together. The "traditional" type of marriage has a couple with no skills who are desperate to stay together simply because they think they should. These marriages are together, but I would hardly say they work.
So I guess here are a few places where I disagree with you:
1. Lack of divorce is not the best way to measure how effective a marriage is.
2. That most people aren't committed. (At least 50% are. And for the record, FIRST marriages stay together more often than 50% of the time. People who get divorced, don't tend to have successful second marriage either...they drive up the overall rate.)
3. I don't think this is a point of disagreement, more like rephrasing for clarity -- I think that people cannot find joy in a commitment when they lack the skills to work on a relationship. THey may stay married, but they are probably miserable.
I had another point but the baby's crying so I'll have to try again later. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: 2. That most people aren't committed. (At least 50% are. And for the record, FIRST marriages stay together more often than 50% of the time. People who get divorced, don't tend to have successful second marriage either...they drive up the overall rate.)
That's what I was trying to say, but I was looking for some statistics to back it up.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Divorce statistics are easy to misinterpret. The 50% number is generally obtained by taken the number of divorces in a given year and dividing it by the number of people who got married that year. But this is highly fallacious since the people who got divorced in say 2007, are by in large not the same people who got married in 2007.
If we tracked all the people who were married in 2007 and found out how many of them got divorced before 2057 (I'm presuming that the number of people who get divorced after 50 years of marriage is vanishingly small), that would be closer to the right metric but a number that is virtually impossible to get even if we were to look at people who married in 1958 (rather than 2008).
The most relevant number I could find was that 65% of children live with both of their biological parents for their entire childhood -- which suggests that roughly 35% of marriages end in divorce in less than 20 years. That number has lots of problems as well. For example it doesn't account for parents who weren't married but lived together at least until their children reached the age of majority and doesn't include any childless marriages.
[ November 19, 2008, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I went out with her last night and she was really nice to me. Plus I had a bad day for various reasons and I was glad I had her to talk to about it; she actually suggested a useful way to solve one of my problems. So maybe I wasn't thinking straight when I started this topic.
I still feel she doesn't show the same degree of interest in things I want to talk about as I show in things she wants to talk about. She doesn't seem to have learned the conversation strategy of asking people questions about things that they bring up.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: Well, I went out with her last night and she was really nice to me. Plus I had a bad day for various reasons and I was glad I had her to talk to about it; she actually suggested a useful way to solve one of my problems. So maybe I wasn't thinking straight when I started this topic.
I still feel she doesn't show the same degree of interest in things I want to talk about as I show in things she wants to talk about. She doesn't seem to have learned the conversation strategy of asking people questions about things that they bring up.
Ultimately, only you can decide, but I would point out that just because someone is a nice person, doesn't mean you are compatible. I have two very nice ex boyfriends that were just not meant to be for me. I am so glad that I found my husband and if I had stayed with them, I never would.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some couple's differences can be a burden to a relationship, while others can be an enhancement. More often than not that changes daily.
Anytime either person feels unappreciated though, you seriously gotta open up the lines of communication. If you're only telling us and not talking to her about it the only thing that can happen is for it to remain exactly the same as it has.
The majority of people here are very good with advice, but the one who really needs to know what you feel and how it's effecting you is her. Hopefully that'll bring good changes to your relationship...it could just as easily not. If you're already unhappy then all you got to lose is something that's not working for you anyway.
Posts: 115 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I broke up with her after our last date, during which I kept trying to make conversation and had it go nowhere. Here's how it went, more or less:
Me: I'm just not feeling very happy in our relationship. Her (nervously): Well, do you think you're supposed to feel happy all the time in a relationship? Me: It seems I feel less happy than I once did. Her: So, are you breaking up with me? Me: Well ... Her (angrily): I'm not doing this again! Goodbye!
I think the "again" referred to the time a few weeks ago when I first brought up the doubts I was having but backed off when she didn't seem interested in talking about them and when she started crying and telling me how we got along great compared to her previous boyfriends, two of whom cheated on her. In any case, the fact that she didn't respond with something like, "Oh, really? What's wrong? Could we talk about this more some other time?" suggests that she wasn't that concerned with me, either.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: In any case, the fact that she didn't respond with something like, "Oh, really? What's wrong? Could we talk about this more some other time?" suggests that she wasn't that concerned with me, either.
Not to get onto you or anything, because you probably made the right decision. But if a guy told me he wasn't happy in our relationship and was considering breaking up, that's how I would have reacted, too. Now, if he'd said he wasn't happy in our relationship and wanted to work on it, that would be a different story.
I mean, why would she suggest talking about it some more later if you didn't seem interested?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I haven't missed her yet. I miss not having someone to be physically affectionate with, but that was the only thing working out between us (and we were never affectionate as often as I would have liked; she once complained to me that I was the first boyfriend she'd had who was "always on").
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
