Political Crossfire Forums

F'losrix

I'm just curious how one's marital status or future plans with regard to marriage line up with how you view the importance of marriage to society. Do you think it's essential, plays an important but not essential role, or is a dinosaur ready for extinction?

StrawHat · Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 364 Location: New York, NY

Well, I think that marriage is essential to a civil society. Religous beliefs aside, I think that it provides a very good system for child-rearing, and thus provides the next generation. Continuation of a people tends to be good for society, wouldn't you say. The only other way that I can see of raising children would be like, giant state-sponsored day-cares. I don't think that;d be such a great idea for some reason. One might argue that people get divorced, so marriage doesn't provide as good of a system as I state. However, being married to someone and havng a child with them at least fosters some sort of responsibility towards the child in question. It also discourages men from going around and siring more kids than they can handle (generally).

Plus, who doesn't love wedding receptions? :)

Aqualung · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 2260 Location: Washington

I think it's important for society. I believe that in marriage you can learn and grow in ways you would never be able to in a co-habitation setting or being single.

Winchester · Joined: 23 Aug 2005 Posts: 7644 Location: Montana

Ideally, children should be raised in a stable two parent household, whether or not the couple is legally married matters not to me. Society is neither benefited nor hurt by marriage between couples who do not have children.

As far as me, my wife and I will be celebrating our 18th anniversary in about a month.

George W Bush · Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:48 pm Post subject:

screw society.

a new paradigm: learn to live without worrying about your neighbors decisions to marry/not/have kids.

a single parent may have a more difficult time at child rearing. But, its not society's business of what constitutes a "stable household" especially when most single parents are responsible. The point is, dont use what some irresponsible single parents do, as an example of the overall. most of all: mind your business not theirs.

thats all.

F'losrix · Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:57 pm Post subject:

CrossEyedMary wrote: I think it's important for society. I believe that in marriage you can learn and grow in ways you would never be able to in a co-habitation setting or being single.
I can understand how being married can lead to a type of personal growth one doesn't get from being single. On the other hand, I think being single - and by that I mean totally on your own for a while - can help a person to grow in important ways, too.

But I'm really honestly curious as to why you think marriage makes a difference in this versus cohabitation. What is it about marriage that changes things? Would the amount of time a couple has been together make any difference in your view?

StrawHat · Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 364 Location: New York, NY

Quote: I can understand how being married can lead to a type of personal growth one doesn't get from being single. On the other hand, I think being single - and by that I mean totally on your own for a while - can help a person to grow in important ways, too.

But I'm really honestly curious as to why you think marriage makes a difference in this versus cohabitation. What is it about marriage that changes things? Would the amount of time a couple has been together make any difference in your view?

I think it's beacuse marriage is just more binding. That would seem like the reason. Fosters a greater degree of loyalty one would think.

Quote: screw society.

a new paradigm: learn to live without worrying about your neighbors decisions to marry/not/have kids.

a single parent may have a more difficult time at child rearing. But, its not society's business of what constitutes a "stable household" especially when most single parents are responsible. The point is, dont use what some irresponsible single parents do, as an example of the overall. most of all: mind your business not theirs.

thats all.

You know, a lot of single parents are responsible. I certainly wouldn't deny that. However, at the same time, I think that we can all agree that it's best for a child, and arguably the parents, to raise a child in a stable, two-parent home. As for screwing society, I feel that social pressure can be a negative force, but it is not inherently so. This is one of those cases. If society smiles upon having stable, two-parent homes, why would it be in my, or anyone's interest to "screw society"?

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 18289

Skeptical Mystic wrote: I'm just curious how one's marital status or future plans with regard to marriage line up with how you view the importance of marriage to society. Do you think it's essential, plays an important but not essential role, or is a dinosaur ready for extinction?

From a biological point of view, it's in the best interest, I think, of a species with a protracted developmental period to protect the offspring.
At least until very, very modern times, the best way to protect human offspring was through marriage. Paternity remains of critical importance even in our socially diverse society, IMHO.

Here's a question for you and part of a difference of opinion I've had with my daughter, who's a lesbian. Lesbian couple hook up while one of them is pregnant (usual boy-girl way). Baby has now been born, but the last name given on the birth certificate is not the biological father but, rather, the current girlfriend's.

I think this is absolutely outrageous. What do you think?

Winchester · Joined: 23 Aug 2005 Posts: 7644 Location: Montana

Lumina wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: I'm just curious how one's marital status or future plans with regard to marriage line up with how you view the importance of marriage to society. Do you think it's essential, plays an important but not essential role, or is a dinosaur ready for extinction?

From a biological point of view, it's in the best interest, I think, of a species with a protracted developmental period to protect the offspring.
At least until very, very modern times, the best way to protect human offspring was through marriage. Paternity remains of critical importance even in our socially diverse society, IMHO.

Here's a question for you and part of a difference of opinion I've had with my daughter, who's a lesbian. Lesbian couple hook up while one of them is pregnant (usual boy-girl way). Baby has now been born, but the last name given on the birth certificate is not the biological father but, rather, the current girlfriend's.

I think this is absolutely outrageous. What do you think?

Depends on the father. If he went into the relationship knowing this would be the outcome so be it.

Azuresidus · Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 183 Location: Somewhere Else.

I honestly don't find marriage to be any better than simply choosing to be with someone that you love without religious or governmental validation. If you can't stay together by your own choice and volition, without some legal or "spiritually" binding document or ceremony, maybe you shouldn't be together anyway. And you still may not be together too long.

That said, I don't believe that our society would want to give it up as a social or religious convention. People like the validation, and there is nothing wrong with that. If I were with someone who wanted to marry, I would do it for them. It harms me not at all to get a piece of paper saying that I will be with them forever. I just don't need it to confirm what I feel. So, no, I don't feel the need to be married. But, yes, I do think that it is important to our society as it is right now. Which, society itself will show you. If it wasn't, people would stick to cohabitation. The option is there.

Aqualung · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 2260 Location: Washington

Skeptical Mystic wrote: I can understand how being married can lead to a type of personal growth one doesn't get from being single. On the other hand, I think being single - and by that I mean totally on your own for a while - can help a person to grow in important ways, too.
What ways do you think it would help them grow? With a marriage, it solidifies the commitment, and the fact that you'll actually have to Do stuff, and perhaps even CHANGE :shock: to keep it working. IMO, with co-habitation, you just sort of are yourself, and if it doesn't work, fine, because we're not married or anything. It is a less change-producing environment. I'll agree that today's views of marriage kind of offset that a little bit, to where marriage is more like co-habitation than it used to be, but I still think, for the majority of people who get married, that it's more of a commitment and more of something they are willing to work and change for than simple co-habitation.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Hm.... I guess the traditional term marriage (man and woman being legally married in order to have a family and raise kids) is probably on its way out, at least in the terms of majority acceptance within western culture (meaning: it is a good idea legally, but not required to raise a healthy family). I see it as being around for tradition only.
It is not necessary to be married to have a family and raise children. People rely too much on the accepted term 'marriage' and not on their own actions - there needs to be more individual responsibility within relationships.
People raise children, not marriages.

Protostar · Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 7:47 am Post subject:

I voted the last option. Marriage makes no sense because if you are in a committed relationship, then there is no need to make it legally binding. Also, if the relationship sours then it is easier to go your separate ways. Marriage is just an excuse by alot of women to spend outrageous amounts of money on silly things like engagement rings, weddings, dumb sh!t like that. And as a male, marriage benefits me zilch and fact it could even be a danger. As far as I'm concerned, any girl who is looking for marriage is not one worth my time or effort. I just want a long term cohabitating relationship (not now, eventually after I finish screwing around). I don't want the government involved or any sort of contract, and I don't want to waste (A HUGE WASTE) thousands of dollars on some stupid rock so she can watch it glitter. If she wants something that glitters, I'll give her a pile of broken glass. It glitters and its free (big plus).

Selfish_Meme · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 726

I am married , but don't think its that necessary to society. I got married because of my wifes parents, and also to observe social rules that would otherwise take a lot of explaining in later years.

I think from a legal point of view marriage is a good thing as it gives a solid start date to mutual responsibilities.

I don't think I would have bothered getting married if there were not pressures from parents and others to be married.

I would think that polyamorous relationships would be a preferred method in the future as raising children and buying property continues becoming less and less affordable. Three or more people sharing the responsibility and debt, child rearing burden makes sense.

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:37 am Post subject:

I chose: "While I might get into a committed relationship, I don't plan to marry. I just don't think marriage is all that important to society."

--

I don't plan to marry. I think that being in a committed, loving relationship is enough for me and I don't need a government, religion, or title to validate something that for me is quite personal. I might consider being married in the future because of all the legal ties that I might want my significant other to have. I want it to be perfectly legally clear who has proxy over me if I happen to go Terry Schiavo, or if I die, etc. All this could be done in theory with some sort of contract--and as long as that contract is marriage, I may have to go with it anyway despite my personal opinions about the institution.

Marriage is obviously important to many people and thusly to society. However, I don't think that if the institution disappeared tomorrow that we'd be fundamentally different. People who are committed to a relationship will still remain so. People who are not, will not be guilt-tripped into remaining true to an empty promise. IMO, marriage lost its intrinsic value to the structure of society the moment our oh-so-bright ancestors realized that people with vaginas are people too.

ideal · Joined: 29 Jan 2006 Posts: 213 Location: Wyoming

I think marriage is important for the legal identity of a couple that plans to be together long term(which is doubtlessly best when raising children).

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

George W Bush wrote: screw society.

a new paradigm: learn to live without worrying about your neighbors decisions to marry/not/have kids.

a single parent may have a more difficult time at child rearing. But, its not society's business of what constitutes a "stable household" especially when most single parents are responsible. The point is, dont use what some irresponsible single parents do, as an example of the overall. most of all: mind your business not theirs.

thats all.

While some single parents are good parents, and some married parents are bad parents, more often than not having married parents raise kids is the best alternative. It is extremely hard for a single person to do everything that a couple can do. Also, each gender has it's strengths to give to child-rearing. Moms and dads aren't identical, and don't treat kids the same way. The best thing for a child is to have that combination of a father/mother. Society should encourage the best results for the children. It's not the government's business, but it is society's business.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Lumina wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: I'm just curious how one's marital status or future plans with regard to marriage line up with how you view the importance of marriage to society. Do you think it's essential, plays an important but not essential role, or is a dinosaur ready for extinction?

From a biological point of view, it's in the best interest, I think, of a species with a protracted developmental period to protect the offspring.
At least until very, very modern times, the best way to protect human offspring was through marriage. Paternity remains of critical importance even in our socially diverse society, IMHO.

Here's a question for you and part of a difference of opinion I've had with my daughter, who's a lesbian. Lesbian couple hook up while one of them is pregnant (usual boy-girl way). Baby has now been born, but the last name given on the birth certificate is not the biological father but, rather, the current girlfriend's.

I think this is absolutely outrageous. What do you think?

Is it legal?

Lumina · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 18289

Protostar wrote: I voted the last option. Marriage makes no sense because if you are in a committed relationship, then there is no need to make it legally binding. Also, if the relationship sours then it is easier to go your separate ways.

Unless, of course, you have property of any kind.

Protostar wrote: Marriage is just an excuse by alot of women to spend outrageous amounts of money on silly things like engagement rings, weddings, dumb sh!t like that. And as a male, marriage benefits me zilch and fact it could even be a danger.

Well, if you're going by the biological imperative, I would agree that it's in the male's best interest to sow as much of his seed as he can, particularly if he's the biggest alpha mother in the valley.

But I disagree with you that engagement rings and weddings are silly. I think they both announce to family and community the intention of a man and a woman to pledge monogamy and fidelity.

[quote="Protostar"]As far as I'm concerned, any girl who is looking for marriage is not one worth my time or effort. I just want a long term cohabitating relationship (not now, eventually after I finish screwing around).

Here's hoping that you are upfront with every woman you date with that fact. Not, necessarily, that she'll actually believe you--before they really grow up, most young women really believe that they can make their men
realize that they are, in fact, "the one." (They also seem determined to try to change their men, the #1 mistake, IMO, that women make. NOT, I shouldn't add, that if it's a question of grooming or wardrobe or table manners it wouldn't profit those men to listen, LOL!0

Protostar wrote: I don't want the government involved or any sort of contract, and I don't want to waste (A HUGE WASTE) thousands of dollars on some stupid rock so she can watch it glitter. If she wants something that glitters, I'll give her a pile of broken glass. It glitters and its free (big plus).

Are you just coming off a ditched relationship or something? "If she wants something that glitters, I'll give her a pile of broken glass" is pretty harsh!

The Central Scrutinizer · Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:45 am Post subject:

Lumina wrote:

Are you just coming off a ditched relationship or something? "If she wants something that glitters, I'll give her a pile of broken glass" is pretty harsh!

It's practical. I feel the same way. What the hell does a diamond ring have anything to do with love? There are a million and one better ways to show you love someone than buying them a shiny piece of metal and rock. It's just a ritual ingrained in our society; it's a symbol; it perpetuates a materialistic mindset; and it has no substance.