Marriage within & outside religion

[Midwest88]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

How to answer the following claims?

(1) Marriage outside of a religious context is pointless. It’s just a piece of paper. Unless you are religious a woman or man wanting to get married serves no true purpose. Your relationship can survive without it.

(2) “Dual partnership” - the act of cohabitating without getting married - is a much better deal than marriage. This is because there is no legal infractions within a relationship that is outside of the judiciary system. One can have kids within this makeup without the pressure of having government involved.

On other sites that supported marriage, I have read that making divorce more difficult to obtain can be beneficial to the institution of marriage. First, it would discourage those who may not see marriage as a serious undertaking, and a pivotal life stage, to not enter and second it would keep those already married, married, for the kids and it would diminish the already divorce percentage. The third benefit would make divorce regain its societal taboo.

 

[Bradski]

How to answer the following claims?

(1) Marriage outside of a religious context is pointless. It’s just a piece of paper. Unless you are religious a woman or man wanting to get married serves no true purpose. Your relationship can survive without it.

(2) “Dual partnership” - the act of cohabitating without getting married - is a much better deal than marriage. This is because there is no legal infractions within a relationship that is outside of the judiciary system. One can have kids within this makeup without the pressure of having government involved.

On other sites that supported marriage, I have read that making divorce more difficult to obtain can be beneficial to the institution of marriage. First, it would discourage those who may not see marriage as a serious undertaking, and a pivotal life stage, to not enter and second it would keep those already married, married, for the kids and it would diminish the already divorce percentage. The third benefit would make divorce regain its societal taboo.

I tend to agree with your first point. I made a lifetime commitment to my wife (and she did the same to me). The fact that we were later married (just 3 or 4 days later as it turned out and it wasn’t a ‘ceremony’ rather simply signing the requisite paperwork to make it legal) wasn’t important to me. But my wife thought it would be better if we went through the process if we were to have children - it might maker things easier fro ma legal viewpoint. I wasn’t going to argue so the paperwork was duly signed.

Having said that, a lot of people, if not most people, would like their commitment to be made public. To celebrate it with friends and family. Big party. Lots of champagne. Speeches and dancing and a chance to make your commitment to each other in front of those who are closest to you. To each his (or her) own.

The second point follows from the first. If you are not committed to each other in the first place, or you are but something happens to your relationship that means that your feelings for each other are not the same, then being married doesn’t seem to be such a big deal in preventing you both from going your own way.

On the other hand, if you are committed and nothing happens to change that, then not being married shouldn’t make it easier to go your separate ways. There’s not much point in making a lifetime commitment (whether married or not) if you don’t commit to it.

 

[MarcoPolo]

(1) Marriage outside of a religious context is pointless. It’s just a piece of paper. Unless you are religious a woman or man wanting to get married serves no true purpose. Your relationship can survive without it.

Claim does not confront what a marriage is. Although I am sympathetic to the view that the state should get out of marriage, particularly an overly-secular state that is too immature to recognize the societal pillars that the state should foster.

(2) “Dual partnership” - the act of cohabitating without getting married - is a much better deal than marriage. This is because there is no legal infractions within a relationship that is outside of the judiciary system. One can have kids within this makeup without the pressure of having government involved.

This makeup is bad for kids. Non-committed relationships foster instability for kids and adult participants. Cohabitation also frequently devolves into a relationship illusion because sexual chemical addictions cloud the participants’ judgment. See 4 ways pre-marital sex is harmful. Not a better deal. The assertion is just gratuitous.

 

[Bradski]

Non-committed relationships foster instability for kids and adult participants.

I think that’s acceptable. But I also think the OP was talking about people who are not married yet in a committed relationship.

If you don’t think that’s possible, there are many examples to show that it is. Using my own example, I doubt that what my wife and I went through you would consider a marriage. Yet here we are in a committed relationship that has stood the test of time.

If marriage can be a 10 minute paper signing exercise, that is hardly strengthening the ties that bind.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I think that’s acceptable. But I also think the OP was talking about people who are not married yet in a committed relationship.

If you don’t think that’s possible, there are many examples to show that it is. Using my own example, I doubt that what my wife and I went through you would consider a marriage. Yet here we are in a committed relationship that has stood the test of time.

If marriage can be a 10 minute paper signing exercise, that is hardly strengthening the ties that bind.

It sounds like you are asking me how i can think a non committed relationship is bad if there are committed “non married” relationships? Which seems an odd response to me. But I guess I have to ask what do you mean by committed? Life long commitment? How does that differ from marriage? You believe it is the paperwork? ?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

(1) Marriage outside of a religious context is pointless. It’s just a piece of paper. Unless you are religious a woman or man wanting to get married serves no true purpose. Your relationship can survive without it.

I asked about this three years ago.

With marriage there are certain legal benefits that are granted. And under many religions marriage is a requirement for a person to be allowed to engage in sex. But for some one that isn’t bound to what various religions have to say on marriage are there any benefits to marriage beyond the legal benefits that cannot be achieved without marriage?

I was talking to some one about this last night and we had a hard time identifying any. There are benefits to monogamy, but being married doesn’t guarantee your partner will be monogamous. Also an unmarried couple can be monogamous to. Any other benefits we explored were pretty much evaluated the same; not guaranteed in marriage and achievable outside of marriage.

 

[Midwest88]

Thanks for all the answers.

I still think this is a topic worthy of more discussion, so I shall bump this without shame.

I’ll add this:

• I simply wish that most people could critically deconstruct the concept of marriage in the modern day, and truly decide if it is worth it or not. Few are those out of the group that wants to get married, whom I converse with, that can actually articulate why they wish to do so in the first place. I say it is rightfully so because this decline is focused on marriage, and not on relationships, which brings me faith that people are looking at their needs and wants, and whether or not marriage is in any way relevant to them. Many MGTOWs still have heterosexual relationships.