Odds of a good marriage and risks of getting married

[Thorns]

I can think of a million reasons why I got married, and my reasons are pretty universal as far as the secular people in my life. As for no purpose of having children, are you serious? Would you not love your children and take joy in your role as a father without your faith? Don’t you consider your kids the best, most important thing in your life? Is this only because of your religion?

As for reasons to marry: life is hard. Really really hard. There are so many bad things that we can be sure will happen to us in our lives, and many more that we haven’t even pictured yet. No one wants to tackle it alone. We have a need as people to bond closely with others, and marriage and family is a part of that.

My husband wasn’t planning on being diagnosed with cancer in his 20’s, and if he didn’t have a wife, it would have been 1000x harder and more lonely.

Please correct me if I wrong and perhaps your definition of what love is.

And for the record, the gay people that I know who have married could care less about the statement their marriage makes to you, but they care a lot about the things I listed.

So basically you got married out of convenience and to avoid loneliness, not out of love.

 

[Thorns]

Married men live longer healthier lives than single men.

They also earn more.

However in the case of the OP, he is better off staying single if he feels he cannot trust women.

Happily married men live longer, and maybe.

Single men seem not to let themselves go, are more self sufficient, and are stress free.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

So basically you got married out of convenience and to avoid loneliness, not out of love.

Yeah. Totally. That’s why I got married young, after a cancer diagnosis, took time out of law school, and gave up a lot of money for law school by getting married.

It was absolutely all for me and boy did I make out like a bandit!

Here’s an idea: instead of insulting the marriage of a perfect stranger, read some of my posts on marriage. You’d find yourself surprised.

 

[mommamaree]

So basically you got married out of convenience and to avoid loneliness, not out of love.

This is quite rude. I doubt it was convenience that led BEL to care for her then-fiance when he was diagnosed with cancer. BEL has shared many wonderful insights to married love here.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

So basically you got married out of convenience and to avoid loneliness, not out of love.

That is way out of line, and I don’t see how you can take that out of what she said. She clearly loves her husband very much. And when you love someone, you want to be there for them in good times and in bad. Plus, one of the primary reasons why God created marriage was for companionship (see Genesis) - “It is not good for man to be alone; I will create a helper for him.”

 

[Thorns]

Yeah. Totally. That’s why I got married young, after a cancer diagnosis, took time out of law school, and gave up a lot of money for law school by getting married.

It was absolutely all for me and boy did I make out like a bandit!

Here’s an idea: instead of insulting the marriage of a perfect stranger, read some of my posts on marriage. You’d find yourself surprised.

convenience isnt only in the form of material wealth, people also see convenience in the way someone makes them feel emotionally too.

Anyway, what is your definition of love?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

convenience isnt only in the form of material wealth, people also see **convenience in the way someone makes them feel emotionally too.
**
Anyway, what is your definition of love?

So marrying for love by common definitions?

 

[Thorns]

That is way out of line, and I don’t see how you can take that out of what she said. She clearly loves her husband very much. And when you love someone, you want to be there for them in good times and in bad. Plus, one of the primary reasons why God created marriage was for companionship (see Genesis) - “It is not good for man to be alone; I will create a helper for him.”

Sometimes love includes loneliness and inconvenience. Would a person be justified to stop loving because of this?

I do realize it was a bit harsh. I apologize BlueEyedLady.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I think the following quote answers the OP’s concerns well and in accordance with Catholicism.

“There is no safe investment. To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to be sure of keeping it in tact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket- safe, dark, motionless, airless- it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable… The only place outside of heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell.” CS Lewis, The Four Loves

 

[Thorns]

This is quite rude. I doubt it was convenience that led BEL to care for her then-fiance when he was diagnosed with cancer. BEL has shared many wonderful insights to married love here.

Speaking only from and for my past experience, sometimes people find it convenient to be “inconvenienced.” Comprehend that for a sec.

Sometimes people lack self esteem or have nothing to do and being present in bad times can be a way of fulfilling that void for the other person.

My ex GF was always present in bad times, not out of concern for me, but out of fulfilling her own needs instead.

Again, only giving an example of MY experience.

 

[marymary1975]

You keep repeating that a woman is entitled to half of “the man’s stuff”. That’s telling. It is not his stuff, it is theirs, so of course she gets half. Until you let go of the idea of his vs. hers, you aren’t ready for marriage.

I have to agree with you on this one Blueeyedlady.

 

[marymary1975]

Didn’t you get the memo? If a man is the sole breadwinner because he wants a “traditional family” and then they divorce because of his infidelity it is totally outrageous that she gets half the stuff acquired during marriage because it is “his” and also it is mad to think he should support her for a time not to exceed the length of the marriage.

.

Wrong, wrong and more wrong. What you are saying here to BEL is totally incorrect. How do I know you are wrong? Because I am a lawyer and I did domestic law for quite enough to know very well how divorce works. Divorce by adultery is extremely rare, starting by that, so rare that I would be extremely surprised if it even reaches 5%. I have never seen a divorce for adultery in probate court and I know many lawyer who have practiced for 30 and 40 years who can count with their fingers the cases they see for adultery. Any property obtained within the marriage is not “his stuff”. Moreover, 90% of divorces are settled which mean both the husband and the wife agree to the division of the property so she doesn’t get “half of the stuff” they BOTH agree to it. In cases that are not settled every state has a different way yo determine how the division occurs and many factors play into it. The idea of “the woman gets half of the stuff” is a myth. Also, alimony is strictly regulated by states and not all women get alimony. Your idea of alimony is another myth which is not real in the actual world of divorce.

 

[mommamaree]

Wrong, wrong and more wrong. What you are saying here to BEL is totally incorrect. How do I know you are wrong? Because I am a lawyer and I did domestic law for quite enough to know very well how divorce works. Divorce by adultery is extremely rare, starting by that, so rare that I would be extremely surprised if it even reaches 5%. I have never seen a divorce for adultery in probate court and I know many lawyer who have practiced for 30 and 40 years who can count with their fingers the cases they see for adultery. Any property obtained within the marriage is not “his stuff”. Moreover, 90% of divorces are settled which mean both the husband and the wife agree to the division of the property so she doesn’t get “half of the stuff” they BOTH agree to it. In cases that are not settled every state has a different way yo determine how the division occurs and many factors play into it. The idea of “the woman gets half of the stuff” is a myth. Also, alimony is strictly regulated by states and not all women get alimony. Your idea of alimony is another myth which is not real in the actual world of divorce.

Uh, Joie de Vivre was being facetious, marymary1975.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I can think of a million reasons why I got married, and my reasons are pretty universal as far as the secular people in my life. As for no purpose of having children, are you serious? Would you not love your children and take joy in your role as a father without your faith? Don’t you consider your kids the best, most important thing in your life? Is this only because of your religion?

As for reasons to marry: life is hard. Really really hard. There are so many bad things that we can be sure will happen to us in our lives, and many more that we haven’t even pictured yet. No one wants to tackle it alone. We have a need as people to bond closely with others, and marriage and family is a part of that.

My husband wasn’t planning on being diagnosed with cancer in his 20’s, and if he didn’t have a wife, it would have been 1000x harder and more lonely.

And for the record, the gay people that I know who have married could care less about the statement their marriage makes to you, but they care a lot about the things I listed.

I have no issues with anything you have written except to ask why marriage needs to be involved at all? Two people can be together without marriage.

As for the OP I just meant that I would not advise anyone to get married on secular reasons alone. Not saying that people don’t, but rather that I would not advise anyone in this day and age to get married for a secular reason. BTW I would argue that “love” is not a secular reason.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I have no issues with anything you have written except to ask why marriage needs to be involved at all? Two people can be together without marriage.

As for the OP I just meant that I would not advise anyone to get married on secular reasons alone. Not saying that people don’t, but rather that I would not advise anyone in this day and age to get married for a secular reason. BTW I would argue that “love” is not a secular reason.

From an emotional standpoint, legal marriage doesn’t matter. Obviously, there’s something to be said for celebrating with family regardless. But I can think of more secular reasons than religious for why that piece of paper matters. Being legal gives you many more options for protecting your spouse in all sorts of ways, from health insurance to death benefits. Who doesn’t want to protect the one they love?

I would argue that love is a secular reason, though it depends on the religion. Many religions don’t believe that love is important for marriage, and some even on this site say that it isn’t relevant to a Catholic marriage. I think that whether or not love is a secular or religious reason for marriage varies by couple. However, there is a strong argument to be made from either perspective that while love should be an enormous part of marriage, it is not a good “reason” to marry.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Uh, Joie de Vivre was being facetious, marymary1975.

But her response was quite informative and gave the OP some awesome info.

 

[Groo]

The divorce rate of Catholics is no different from any other religion - at least in the US.

 

[Estevao]

1. your statement that your “wife will end up with half of your stuff” is plain wrong. First no one ends up with your stuff, even in states where they do an equal division of marital assets what gets divided is the property that came to be part of the fabric of the marriage. Also there a million laws and regulations over how property gets divided and it depends on many things from years of marriage, whether there us a prenup, etc. Division if property is subject to many variables, depends on which state you are, who did what and who is your judge so that statement could not be farther from reality. You are basing your statemt simply in one case your uncle, in which you probably don’t have any idea as to the details of their marriage, the laws in your state and no idea what was negotiated. You cannot make a general judgment when you have only 1/5 of the knowledge needed to make that judgment.

Oh joy, a divorce lawyer is in our midst. I would like to pose a few simple yes or no questions to you. Please no prevarication or getting us tied down in legal loopholes.

1)Does the divorce system tend to award wives custody of the children?

2)Does the divorce system tend to award wives substantial child support?

3)Does the divorce system tend to award wives the marital home?

4)Does the divorce system tend to award wives half the couple’s assets?

5)Does the divorce system tend to award wives heavy alimony payments?

6)In your opinion, are the divorce laws in the USA biased against men?

 

[Xantippe]

BEL said:

“You keep repeating that a woman is entitled to half of “the man’s stuff”. That’s telling. It is not his stuff, it is theirs, so of course she gets half. Until you let go of the idea of his vs. hers, you aren’t ready for marriage.”

Right.

When my husband and I got married, I didn’t own so much as a spoon. I had a very few material possessions, mostly clothes and books, plus a few thousand dollars in the bank (which was budgeted to pay for a visit from friends from overseas). My husband brought some more cash and the contents of a small studio apartment (including his bachelor wardrobe of about two dozen white shirts–???). Over the past 16 years, we have had three children, bought a car, bought a house (in which we have about 25% equity), saved a decent sum toward retirement, built up a moderate emergency fund, and acquired literally thousands of odds and ends belonging to various members of the family (I have no idea what half the stuff in the garage is). While I have not worked full-time in quite a few years, our success in budgeting and saving has been very much a team effort. None of this happened accidentally.

 

[Jared2914]

Sounds like you are called to live the single life. There is nothing wrong with that. I personally like many aspects of the single life but also love many things about marriage. The way I see it you can spread your love equally between everyone you encounter (the single life) or you can channel most of your love into one person (marriage).

Even though I’m single, I personally prefer marriage. I believe marriage is the closest thing on earth to experiencing heaven, and I really want to get to heaven. If I can get a taste of it early, I’m am very interested. I can’t love everyone perfectly like God does, but maybe I can love one person perfectly. Some men won’t want to take the risk. I understand that. There are many single people that have done great things with their lives.