Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Do we really need marriage? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter bosoxs45
- Start date
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
I've never been married - I am happy - as are all the women that dodged my bullets.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
As a legal arrangement or spiritual coupling?
D-Day
Footballguy
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I don't see what purpose this fence serves. We should tear it down.
Last edited by a moderator:
ConnSKINS26
Footballguy
I don't see a need for it, for most people. I don't think there's anything wrong with it. I think for some people, the legal entanglement makes them think twice (or forever) about leaving and starting over, possibly making them put the necessary amount of effort into a relationship they otherwise wouldn't have, because it's "official" and all. I have friends that would fit that description probably. Those people probably shouldn't have gotten married ironically.
I've been in the same relationship for almost 10 years, after meeting in college. We've lived together and split everything 50/50 for over 8 of those years, moving away from home.
We have almost every interest in common and never fight. We're on the same page about kids (doubtful, but maybe some day). We have a better relationship than most of our married friends and have been together longer and lived together longer than most of the married people our age that we meet. We aren't in any hurry to get married, though we've talked about it often over the years in terms of being on the same page and keeping communication on it open. We'd both be perfectly happy to be married, and I doubt it would change anything. It's just not something either of us place a lot of value on. I'm sure each having divorced parents is part of it.
Honestly we'll probably just get married someday because of how lame it is to refer to someone as "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" after a certain age. Feels so childish given the weight, length, and seriousness of the relationship, and how happy we are.
I've been in the same relationship for almost 10 years, after meeting in college. We've lived together and split everything 50/50 for over 8 of those years, moving away from home.
We have almost every interest in common and never fight. We're on the same page about kids (doubtful, but maybe some day). We have a better relationship than most of our married friends and have been together longer and lived together longer than most of the married people our age that we meet. We aren't in any hurry to get married, though we've talked about it often over the years in terms of being on the same page and keeping communication on it open. We'd both be perfectly happy to be married, and I doubt it would change anything. It's just not something either of us place a lot of value on. I'm sure each having divorced parents is part of it.
Honestly we'll probably just get married someday because of how lame it is to refer to someone as "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" after a certain age. Feels so childish given the weight, length, and seriousness of the relationship, and how happy we are.
bosoxs45
Footballguy
-OZ-
Footballguy
Me thinks you misunderstand the concept.
Generally speaking marriage is for the benefit of society, not the individuals.
I mean, I'm happily married. But if the legal ramifications didn't exist we could be just as happy dating these past 23 years. It does have a tendency to keep people committed who might not be otherwise but that's far from certain. But when the marriage dissolves, society benefits by making one party take care of the other instead of the poorer one falling flatly on society's door.
Judge Smails
Footballguy
It’s the difference between being all in and having an easy foot out the door. If you want everything separate including finances then no marriage might work.
Some people just can’t make a commitment. Others commit too easily. Up to the parties involved
Some people just can’t make a commitment. Others commit too easily. Up to the parties involved
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
I'm a happily single guy. I've had several long term relationships--but have been very upfront with all of my gf's that marriage was not for me. I don't need the state or federal governments acknowledgement of my personal relationships to validate them.
Jayrod
Footballguy
You are asking two different questions.
Do we need marriage? I say yes. Primarily for the kids and less employable spouse who need legal recourse from deadbeat parents. Also, a good marriage is a great thing, but that isn't a legal issue, so "need" is too strong of a bar in that sense.
Necessary to be happy? No.
Jayrod
Footballguy
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
What is the difference between a long term relationship between two non married people vs that of two married people? People can say all they want--but all marriage does is invite government (both on the state and federal level) into a personal relationship.
Mrs. Rannous
Footballguy
Jayrod
Footballguy
It creates a contractual obligation to another person or persons as a result of being a family, so that the weaker parties have more of a legal recourse for "deadbeatism".
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
I'm not sure why you are choosing to talk around my point. That contractual obligation that you are referring to is achieved through state/federal government intervention/involvement/acknowledgment in a personal relationship. Effectively what you are saying is that marriage basically invites the government into a relationship to provide protection to a person in the case that they chose to be in a relationship with a bad partner. I personally don't think the state or federal government should be a safety net for people selecting to be in relationships with bad partners.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mrs. Rannous
Footballguy
And that is precisely why The State should be a party. That is the function of The State. Also, it protects the innocent parties- ie. the children.
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
Maternal and paternal obligation does not require the presence of marriage to exist. There are lots of children that are born out of wedlock. The state and federal government can and should enforce paternal and maternal obligation equally--regardless of if the parents happen to be married or not. Not only that--not every marriage necessarily involves children.
Could you please expand on the bolded? You think the function of the state is to be a third party in personal relationships beyond that of paternal/maternal obligations (if kids are involved). Keep in mind--there are pre-existing laws against things like violence and abuse--and the existence of marriage does not effect those things. Not arguing--just wondering.
Last edited by a moderator:
Max Power
Footballguy
I think we as a country do a horrible job at enforcing parental obligations. Child support and alimony are two areas that could probably be revised.
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
Oh--I totally agree with you that the government could do a far better job enforcing parental obligations. No argument there. Parental obligations and spousal obligations are completely different things in my opinion. I just don't think that marriage and parental obligation are things that the government can and should see as mutually exclusive. I do think governments should be involved in relationships when it comes to maternal and paternal obligations. However, I don't think that government needs to be involved in relationships beyond paternal and maternal issues.
My point is that governments should not exist to force good behavior in personal relationships between two consenting grown adults. Keep in mind--there are already laws against things such as abuse/violence--and those laws apply regardless of marriage--so I'm not talking about things of that nature. I'm strictly talking about government creating a "contractual obligation" in a relationship between grown adults. Consenting adults in a relationship should not need the presense of a third party referee (the government) to validate and strengthen that relationship. If government involvement in a relationship is really playing a part in helping keep a relationship together--then that relationship is not a very strong one.
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries
Footballguy
I like being married 
Do we need it - I think I’d ask in what context. Do we need it for the survival of the species - obviously not. Do we need it to make civilization better - arguable but I don’t think I could say yes because even with it there’s bad stuff that goes on. I agree with others that protection of spouses is probably the best answer.
As for it being necessary for happiness - all depends on the person. I do think emotional and physical connection with another is a key ingredient to happiness but even that doesn’t require marriage.
Do we need it - I think I’d ask in what context. Do we need it for the survival of the species - obviously not. Do we need it to make civilization better - arguable but I don’t think I could say yes because even with it there’s bad stuff that goes on. I agree with others that protection of spouses is probably the best answer.
As for it being necessary for happiness - all depends on the person. I do think emotional and physical connection with another is a key ingredient to happiness but even that doesn’t require marriage.
Scott Tenorman
Footballguy
What would stay at home moms do?
jwb
Footballguy
If you look at marriage as forcing good behavior or as a way to force people to stay together... well, that's just odd to me. Clearly marriage does not do this.
In the way we currently live (I say currently in a several thousand year sense), there are social / societal benefits to a couple saying "we want to be viewed as a unit as well as two individuals".
Once two people decide they're going to be an exclusive couple, they've already taken on an "obligation" and applied a label to the relationship. We have words for that - boyfriend / girlfriend / partner / etc. Marriage is simply that same basic thought, but taken to the next level - you want the various legal entities (and society in general) to recognize your relationship.
Do you "need" marriage to have a great / strong / enduring relationship? Of course not. Do you need it if you want society in general to recognize your partnership? In the way we live, yea, you do. Whether you want that or not is up to you. But before you say you don't care about societal approval / recognition, remember that almost all people already take a small step to societal recognition by using the boyfriend / girlfriend moniker. I mean, why use ANY label if you truly don't care how others view your relationship? Just say "this is Mary" (etc) and leave it at that.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
I think this article is interesting, partially because it says out some pretty clear statistics and then tries to make the argument they actually want to make while ignoring the actual statistics seemingly.
But the polling data says that those that are married report a much higher rate of being happy than non-married individuals.
There is also pretty good data that shows that married folks have more sex than non-married folks.
A lot of people have decided that the permanency of marriage is a flaw and causes problems by forcing unhappy people to stay together. But there are lots and lots of reasons why that permanency is a feature that not only benefits society, but benefits individuals by giving them stability and the ability to plan long term. There are very real financial, health, social, and psychological benefits to knowing that you have a permanent partner to rely on and help carry the load.
But the polling data says that those that are married report a much higher rate of being happy than non-married individuals.
There is also pretty good data that shows that married folks have more sex than non-married folks.
A lot of people have decided that the permanency of marriage is a flaw and causes problems by forcing unhappy people to stay together. But there are lots and lots of reasons why that permanency is a feature that not only benefits society, but benefits individuals by giving them stability and the ability to plan long term. There are very real financial, health, social, and psychological benefits to knowing that you have a permanent partner to rely on and help carry the load.
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
Those are all very good and very valid points ---and I don't disagree with them. I just think that there is a really good chance that the benefits of so called "government" acknowledged marriage could exist today without the "government" involvement. With the ease of spreading information with things like the internet,social media, and such-- I think that the same benefits can be achieved without the government being involved. Heck--people can change their names without getting married--and it's not like the government is "spreading the news" to the rest of society about the existence of ones relationship. The societal recognition of a relationship still very much depends on the people in that relationship to inform society of it--even in the case of marriage. You mentioned that yourself in your post with the use of terms like "boyfriend" and "girlfriend". Basically I am of the belief that many of the positive things that you mention that are a byproduct of "marriage" are true and exist---but that those effects are no different than the positive side effects that a placebo could have. I absolutely think that two people that are genuinely happy with one another can achieve those same benefits without government involvement.
I just think that two people that are truly happy in a relationship would still be truly happy without reporting that relationship to government institutions. I absolutey think they would feel many of the same benefits that you mentioned in your post. I also think that there are many instances where people that are not truly happy with their lives/relationships stay in one because of the consequences of divorce. I don't think that is right and I don't think it's necessary. If you look at how divorce rates are looking now versus maybe 30 years ago--my understanding is that they are higher--so maybe marriage is becoming less "necessary" to some. In any case--I do appreciate the discussion and I hope that I'm not coming across as being "anti-relationship".
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
No, we could always go the Brave New World method of raising children.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
From an economic standpoint, marriage is a contract in which two people merge themselves into a single unit. The benefit of that is that now the two members of the household can specialize and take advantage of division of labor. One partner typically specializes in advancing their career and maximizing their income, while the other specializes in raising kids and taking care of the home. The result is that the household "produces" more and both partners enjoy a higher quality of life than if they lived separately and had to do everything on their own. It's literally the exact same Econ 101 argument for why international trade is a good thing.
The reason why the government has to be involved is that one of the indispensable jobs of the government is to enforce contracts. And marriage contracts absolutely need enforcement. When a woman sacrifices her own career and spends 25 years as a stay-at-home mom, she's made a huge long-term commitment and needs to be made whole if her VP of Marketing husband runs off with another woman. If the government can't or won't provide this service, then people won't make those investments in the first place and everybody is worse off.
rockaction
Footballguy
Nobody has really touched on the spiritual edification of marriage, where the joining of two people in holy matrimony is a covenant before God.
Contracts are the function of the State, the promises and vows the covenant between the two people and God, making their union a holy triad. Marriage is necessary, in many religions, for the sanctity of the unity of two people and the sanctity of procreation.
So for some, yes, marriage is very necessary.
Contracts are the function of the State, the promises and vows the covenant between the two people and God, making their union a holy triad. Marriage is necessary, in many religions, for the sanctity of the unity of two people and the sanctity of procreation.
So for some, yes, marriage is very necessary.
Jayrod
Footballguy
I absolutely believe this, and if this were a conversation between solely Christians then I would have taken that tone. However I know the majority of the people on here are not and so I went with the legal/state issues.
shader
Footballguy
You are free to do what you want. Why would you ask if all of humanity "needs" an institution that most of them use. If you don't feel you need it, don't use it.
Also, what the heck does "it seems foolish in modern times" mean?
Last edited by a moderator:
jwb
Footballguy
No, not at all - you're not coming off that way. But I do find vehement anti-marriage arguments almost always eventually include two things:
1) They always bring up replacements. Like you did with the internet / social media. We can announce our relationships there, and (I guess) when we want to visit our partner in the hospital where it's "family only", tell the nurse to check your facebook page to confirm your status? In other times I've argued this with people, they bring up living wills / other legal documents that could replicate many of the other legal rights of marriage (to which I answer "isn't it easier and less paperwork to just get married?")
2) The arguments against always include a "two people can be happy without it", which you did as well. But I don't think anyone ever said they couldn't.
It almost seems to me like you're the one with the issues with it. Your very first post in this thread mentioned the validation. Do you feel your past relationships have not been validated by others? If you do feel that way, you are definitely seeing one benefit of marriage - the validation of the state and society. You are recognized as a unit in the USA, and (generally) all over the world. Even by people not on your social media feed.
Ivan summed up a big part of it very well also - it's a "contract" that seals the "we're building a life together" thing, and offers legal protection if it does not work out. I'm 52, and this year will mark 20 years of happy marriage. It pleases me that we're in this together for the long haul, and that we both (essentially) said "govt contract is fine by me". I'm totally, 100% fine with "I can't just take my bank account and go" if I get tired of her (or vice versa).
Now, you can have the exact same relationship as I do without marriage. I'm not saying you need what I have. You don't. But let me ask: when you do business, is a handshake deal the same as a contract? You're kind of arguing that it is. Sometimes the handshake deal works out, most times it doesn't. Now, contracts don't always work either, but with the contract, there are rules and recourse.
Now, I hope I'm not coming off as argumentative to you. I too appreciate the discussion.
Last edited by a moderator:
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
I absolutely agree with you to a very major extent and I do think that out of every post made so far in regards to "do we need marriage"--yours is the strongest. With that said--I do think that there has been a huge transformation in how "households" are set up now versus 20,30 and even 50 years ago. The workplace has changed dramatically and is continuing to change dramatically. Far more people are able to work from home either full time or at least a few days a week. I don't see the number of households where one person works in an office full time and the other is home full time---increasing as time goes by. In fact---I see it diminishing more and more as time goes by. For cases like you mention--I can absolutely agree that marriage might make a ton of sense in terms of it being a requirement. However--I think the pool of people entering relationships like how you mentioned is shrinking year after year.
I also think that families that can maintain dual income to where one person is not basically locked into working and the other is locked into being relegated at home is a very healthy dynamic. There are many people that can be awesome parents--but maybe they aren't great spouses. I believe that if both parents are able bodied enough to work and have control over their finances--while both can participate in raising their children--everybody benefits from it. I think that in many cases--many horrible relationships are still held together because of the financial ramifications of divorce to where every party involved (including the children) are suffering. Maybe it was the way I was raised with parents that both worked--but I have always been raised with the belief that no matter what--you should always put yourself in a situation where you are never fully dependent on anybody else. I personally feel that marriage gives some people the mindset that they can and should be fully dependent on somebody else--and I am not a believer in that. I do understand that I'm the weird one in regards to this topic by the way.
Last edited by a moderator:
jwb
Footballguy
I find this odd. Like I mentioned, I'm married 20 years, and it gives me comfort to feel like my wife and I have built / are building together for the long term, and the contract part makes that more solid than without it, but we're both incredibly self-sufficient, and do not need the other at all to survive. And I do feel most folks are that way - I know very few marriages these days where one is fully dependent on the other.
ETA - I totally agree with you that it's healthy to not be "fully" dependent. That stated, in any partnership, there is a division of duties/etc. And it's not always going to be neatly equal. Maybe one takes a "lesser" job with awesome benefits, because it works better for the partnership as a whole.
Last edited by a moderator:
doowain
Footballguy
Sounds more like you are anti-government than anti-marriage.
I don't think you get the point that having the "government" involved is needed, unfortunately.
Let me give you an example that doesn't involve minor children.
My parents married young and were married for almost 35 years. My mom was a stay at home mom to me, my brother and my sister. She didn't go to college and, although very smart, doesn't have any highly sought after skills. My mom worked part-time off and on throughout the marriage. It wasn't needed. She basically did it to have something to do and to get really good benefits (worked in the local school district) after my dad started his own business about 20 years into the marriage. My dad leaves my mom after the previously mentioned 35 years, which was a shock not only to her but to everyone.
She entered into a contract with my dad when they married. She was a homemaker that maintained the home and raised his children. Without the government there to protect her in the most trying time in her life, she'd not have been obligated to alimony, assets, etc. Sure, you should expect these two people that clearly loved each other deeply for a long time to be able to come to some agreement, but, we, as human beings, don't necessarily handle things so cleanly. I was privy to all negotiations between their lawyers, so I know exactly what my dad was willing to give and what the law stepped in and said he needed to provide. I'm thankful that the "government" protects those that need protecting under circumstances such as these.
I don't even want to think about what her life would look like right now if things were the way you wish them to be.
doowain
Footballguy
"This is how it was for me so I don't understand why it's not/can't be like this for everyone."jvdesigns2002 said:
That is a very small-minded way of thinking.
Being "able-bodied enough to work" is not really the issue. Many couples choose to have one of them stay home to raise the children. It's important to a lot of people that they are the ones to raise their children at a young age. And this is an agreement between two adults, so why should one of them be dinged for it?
My wife and I both have careers and we discussed her staying at home with the kids. She wanted to do it but chose not to. Thankfully, I get to work from home about half the time, so they only spend half the work week at an in-home sitter. But, had she decided to be a SAHM, I absolutely wouldn't want her to be unprotected.
Weird is an understatement.
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
I am the first to admit that marriage does work for some people and I've said that in many of the posts that I have made in here. I don't appreciate being called small-minded and I don't need you saying that "weird" is an understatement when I fully admitted that my views are not in line with the vast majority. Even with with opposing point of view--I have absolutely been civil and polite with everybody without resorting to unncecessary insults. I've even went into why I feel the way I do because of the way I was raised. Your response on the other hand was nothing short of rude and abrasive.
I'm glad that what works for you and your wife works well. Different strokes for different folks. That doesn't mean that what works for you necessarily works or makes sense for everybody else. Divorce rates are higher than ever---which means that to many people marriage doesn't make sense. That doesn't make them small minded or weird. It makes them different than you.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
doowain
Footballguy
jwb
Footballguy
But you're missing what many have been saying - that the breakup of the relationship is one of the things that makes marriage necessary. Taken in that context (take Doowain's mom as an example), you can argue that the divorce rate (relationships breaking up) makes "marriage" more necessary than ever.
It boils down to handshake deal vs contract, really.
Let me ask you - when you're in a relationship, have you ever felt "yea, we're definitely going to be doing this a long time - maybe forever - in fact, let's start thinking that way" Or is it always one toe in "this is good for now".
If both of you are serious about a relationship then you get married, really is just that simple. She becomes Mrs Jones, you are both needed to make big decisions. Your kids have a mom and dad not shacking up. Your parents who are married are cool with it.
Makes no sense at all to do it any other way. You get married.
And, things were so much better back in the day than they are today. I never ever had to worry about getting shot at school, etc etc etc.
Makes no sense at all to do it any other way. You get married.
And, things were so much better back in the day than they are today. I never ever had to worry about getting shot at school, etc etc etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brunell4MVP
Footballguy
Honestly we should be more like Lions. One strong male to multiple females (whether 'married' or not). The unwanted males and females don't reproduce. And society benefits in the long run.
Fat ### bum men reproducing with fat ### lazy women is what 80% of marriages are. Think of all the costs society bears for these people.
Survival of the fittest is the way to go. The human society has done just the opposite.
Fat ### bum men reproducing with fat ### lazy women is what 80% of marriages are. Think of all the costs society bears for these people.
Survival of the fittest is the way to go. The human society has done just the opposite.
Where are you getting that 80% from? I don't know any fat men/lazy women who are married.
Buying a home, raising a family, doing all you can to be able to retire comfortably and sending your kids to college is what should be going on. Lions have none of those concerns.
So our First Lady could be a shack up? Who can be dumped at any time?
Last edited by a moderator:
