Is Marriage a Necessity?

[Draka]

I'm talking legal marriage here. Do you feel that it is a necessary thing to have when dealing with family or sexual relations? Must two people be married to have children? To have sex? Is legal marriage a requirement for a commited couple in your opinion, or would just the personal commitment between the two be good enough in your eyes?

Do the ring and the paper really matter?

 

[cardero]

I'm talking legal marriage here. Do you feel that it is a necessary thing to have when dealing with family or sexual relations? Must two people be married to have children? To have sex? Is legal marriage a requirement for a commited couple in your opinion, or would just the personal commitment between the two be good enough in your eyes?

Do the ring and the paper really matter?

The ring? No. The paper? It depends on what union you belong to and whether they will give your partner "bennies" without marriage.

 

[McBell]

I'm talking legal marriage here. Do you feel that it is a necessary thing to have when dealing with family or sexual relations?

No

Must two people be married to have children?
Interesting question.

I have to say no because I know a lot of people who have had children with out being married.

To have sex?

Kinda hard to have kids before your married if you don't have sex before your married.
But to answer the question: no.

Is legal marriage a requirement for a commited couple in your opinion, or would just the personal commitment between the two be good enough in your eyes?

in my opinion no, it matters not if they get married.
It is their choice and none of my business.

Do the ring and the paper really matter?

Nope.

 

[JamBar85]

I'm talking legal marriage here. Do you feel that it is a necessary thing to have when dealing with family or sexual relations? Must two people be married to have children? To have sex? Is legal marriage a requirement for a commited couple in your opinion, or would just the personal commitment between the two be good enough in your eyes?

Do the ring and the paper really matter?

I'm not a huge fan of the marriage thing.

I think if a couple love each other and are commited to each other for the rest of thier lives, they shouldn't have to have a piece of paper to prove it.

However If that's what a couple wants, then that's great. I just don't think it needs to be done.

The fact that they love each other is the most important thing and they should be able to choose to celebrate it in any way they want.

 

[Fluffy]

I think the wedding is more important than the marriage for many.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm talking legal marriage here. Do you feel that it is a necessary thing to have when dealing with family or sexual relations? Must two people be married to have children? To have sex? Is legal marriage a requirement for a commited couple in your opinion, or would just the personal commitment between the two be good enough in your eyes?

Morally or intrinsically, I'd say no.

Legally, I'd say it'd depend on the law in the place in question. If not having a marriage licence would cause major headaches, then it might be beneficial.

Dealing with family relations, it might be necessary. I shudder to think how my Catholic in-laws would have reacted if my wife and I had "shacked up" instead of getting married.

 

[Hema]

I think that the ring and paper are only physical representations.

Heh heh, this reminds me of something funny.

My husband's wedding band is a little too big for him and the guard that kept it snug broke off not too long ago. My husband never replaced the guard so sometimes his ring falls off. It fell off recently when were on top of a small hill and although we found it eventually, at first we thought that he had lost it for good. His little nephew looked at him and asked, "Does this mean you and Hemee are divorced?"

 

[trinity2359]

I think the paper is very important. I go crazy when I read of couples agreeing to a 30-year mortgage but not marriage? What?!! If you are going to commit 18+ years to raising a child, you might as well commit to marriage! As a person who has lived with my fiance before marriage (!!!) there is a HUGE difference once that little ceremony is done and over with. It makes it more real. That is probably why homosexuals are fighting for there right to marry becuase they recognize that the piece of paper does matter both within society and the relationship itself.

 

[Draka]

Yeah, I'm not even talking about legal benefits here. If a couple wants the legal benefits of marriage then that's a seperate issue. I believe that any couple that wants to have the legal umbrella of benefits that marriage provides, then of course they should (and should be able to) get married.

What I'm most interested in is the thought that marriage is somehow required for a loving family to work or succeed. It has been brought up to me before on this forum, by one particular person, that one shouldn't have children with a person unless they are married. That marriage (somehow) gaurantees longevity to a relationship. That without it you really don't have a gaurantee that a person will stay with you or that you will enjoy real stability in your relationship.

I, personally, think this is hogwash.

 

[Draka]

I think the paper is very important. I go crazy when I read of couples agreeing to a 30-year mortgage but not marriage? What?!! If you are going to commit 18+ years to raising a child, you might as well commit to marriage! As a person who has lived with my fiance before marriage (!!!) there is a HUGE difference once that little ceremony is done and over with. It makes it more real. That is probably why homosexuals are fighting for there right to marry becuase they recognize that the piece of paper does matter both within society and the relationship itself.

I disagree that it makes it "more real". It certainly does lock you into that person and make it harder to get out of the relationship should things go horribly awry. But I don't think the love or personal commitment is any "more real". If it wasn't real to begin with, if the love and commitment to each other wasn't there before the ceremony, then they won't be there after either. All you lock in are legal aspects. Not all of them are good either.

If you want a "before god" ceremony to exchange vows, that can also be done without any legalities to it as well. The paper isn't necessary.

 

[Draka]

Legally, I'd say it'd depend on the law in the place in question. If not having a marriage licence would cause major headaches, then it might be beneficial.

There are a few things about being married that aren't always the greatest. Picture this: your spouse pays child support, they unexpectedly lose their job or become injured and can't work for a while. They get backed up on child support payments. You work your butt off to make up for the lost income just to feed your family, only to have your joint bank account frozen and half taken to pay the child support. You now can't pay your house payment or buy groceries. Why? because while married your money is their money and they owe money = yours gets taken. I know it's not fair to the other parent as well...but if they were together then they would have to make ends meet like you are and at least no one would be freezing their account or taking half their money. (had this happen with an ex-husband of mine)

 

[trinity2359]

I disagree that it makes it "more real". It certainly does lock you into that person and make it harder to get out of the relationship should things go horribly awry. But I don't think the love or personal commitment is any "more real". If it wasn't real to begin with, if the love and commitment to each other wasn't there before the ceremony, then they won't be there after either. All you lock in are legal aspects. Not all of them are good either.

If you want a "before god" ceremony to exchange vows, that can also be done without any legalities to it as well. The paper isn't necessary.

I'm trying to understand, so bear with me, please. Do you belive that a life-long commitment between a child's parents is beneficial? Are the legal hoops and ramifications your arguments against making the union legal? Do you believe 'marriage' exists outside of the standard legal terms? Am I correct in assuming your answer is in the affirmative to all these?

 

[Draka]

I'm trying to understand, so bear with me, please. Do you belive that a life-long commitment between a child's parents is beneficial?

Depends on the parents. If the relationship becomes one full of abuse or angst or constant bickering, then the child is affected and I'd say "no". It wholly depends on the relationship. and that has nothing to do with if they are married or not.

Are the legal hoops and ramifications your arguments against making the union legal?

No, some legal results are very good, some aren't. I have no argument against making the union legal except that it is a personal choice between the partners. Some might not find the need to get married and just view it as paper. If the commitment already exists between them and they don't feel the need to get married to prove it, then why should they?

Do you believe 'marriage' exists outside of the standard legal terms?

Of course. Whether one opts to use that word though is up to them. A couple can be commited to each other and love each other and care for each other just as they would if they were married without having that peice of paper that says they are married. A couple can have a wedding or handfasting ceremony to vow to each other, before whatever god they believe in, that they commit to each other without the state having one darn thing to do about it.

Am I correct in assuming your answer is in the affirmative to all these?

Obviously not.

 

[McBell]

I'm trying to understand, so bear with me, please. Do you belive that a life-long commitment between a child's parents is beneficial?

Yes I do.
However that does not mean that one has to sign a legal contract to show said commitment.

Are the legal hoops and ramifications your arguments against making the union legal?

Not really.
I several people who view the legal contract referred to as marriage as an insult to their commitment.

Do you believe 'marriage' exists outside of the standard legal terms?

Yep.
The state has no more a monopoly on the word 'marriage' than religion.

Am I correct in assuming your answer is in the affirmative to all these?

I already answered the questions.

Yes I know that these questions were aimed at Draka.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

I think the paper is very important. I go crazy when I read of couples agreeing to a 30-year mortgage but not marriage? What?!! If you are going to commit 18+ years to raising a child, you might as well commit to marriage! As a person who has lived with my fiance before marriage (!!!) there is a HUGE difference once that little ceremony is done and over with. It makes it more real. That is probably why homosexuals are fighting for there right to marry becuase they recognize that the piece of paper does matter both within society and the relationship itself.

My husband and I have lived together for 15 years and just got married this last Halloween. It hasn't made the slightest difference. In fact, it occasionally comes as a surprise to me when for some reason I remember that the whole thing is 'legal' now.
If your relationship requires pulped wood to make it 'real', then the difference isn't the paper, it's your mindset. You could have had as 'real' a relationship as the one you had after the paper before it - and to my mind you should have, if you were going to get married - but for some reason you either chose not to, or believed that you couldn't.

 

[Magic Man]

Legally, it's not necessary, but it gives you some rights and breaks that you wouldn't get otherwise. I think Fluffy (Ithink it was Fluffy) said it best that the wedding is more important to most people than the marriage. My wife and I aren't Christian, but it's kind of a rite of passage in our culture even if you're not religious.

 

[trinity2359]

Obviously not.

This is why I asked

 

[cardero]

Draka writes: What I'm most interested in is the thought that marriage is somehow required for a loving family to work or succeed. It has been brought up to me before on this forum, by one particular person, that one shouldn't have children with a person unless they are married.

No. Loving, commited, responsible people are what is necessary for any living arrangement to succeed.
I do not consider marriage necessary. I believe marriage is not sacred, it is not holy and there is no strong evidence that it is important to GOD.

Draka writes: That marriage (somehow) gaurantees longevity to a relationship. That without it you really don't have a gaurantee that a person will stay with you or that you will enjoy real stability in your relationship.

As divorce has shown there is not a Law or a force in the Universe to keep two people together who do not desire to belong with each other.

 

[Draka]

As divorce has shown there is not a Law or a force in the Universe to keep two people together who do not desire to belong with each other.

See, that is something I was thinking about. Being told that married couples stay together longer than unmarried couples made me wonder. I mean, we have recordable divorce rates, but there are no "break-up" rates for unmarried couples. Not to mention, there is no way to judge the relationships that last longer.

I have been with Turk now longer than I had been with either of my two ex-husbands. Now, I was married to them and I am not married to Turk. By this person's logic I should have stayed with my husbands longer than my boyfriend. Shoot, I shouldn't have had a second husband because I should still be with the first right?

Ironically the person who got me started on this subject hasn't made a post in this thread at all. :sarcastic

 

[logician]

Marriage may be necessary but not sufficient.