Marriage - Still Relevant?

[Fotographer001]

With rates of cheating and divorce, you wonder if marriage is s valid today compared to centuries ago. When we were in medieval times and only lived to 25, things were different. Then a few decades ago marriages were husband-centric and the man sort of 'ran' things, and whatever he 'wanted', he got. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying for back to that. Progress in progress and those were dark times. The question is, "is marriage still a valid social construct?"

 

[marriedasian]

i personally think so. there are still a lot of people out there with hard-traditional upbringings that still want to be married and monogamous. it's just harder now to find those people plus the fact that people do and can change over time so even if you find someone like i mentioned, they could still be a ticking time bomb waiting to go off at any any moment.

a big contributor would be technology (for good and for bad). technology has allowed humanity to be more connected now than ever and growing. for the first time in the history of humanity, we actually have "options" at our fingertips for potential mates. technology has made it so easy to get a mate, drop a mate, trade a mate, and do all three of those at the same time even! this ability to have options has given us the audacity to feel entitled to "better" when we feel like it cause we can always go and find better when we want (cause it's so easy). obviously, it's more complex than what i just said as it gets worse the deeper you dive into the idea of what i mentioned and there's not enough time or space here to discuss all of that.

i still believe in marriage hence why i got married. there are still good marriage-material people out there. it's just harder nowadays to find them and keep them.

 

[stustu]

Marriage, like many other institutions, is only important to the people who cherish it.
There are more options available to people in today's time (just living together ).
Some areas of the world do not feel it necessary to marry to have children.
It is a personal choice. Some factors such as tradition, religion, families etc
would probably like them offspring to marry.

 

[halcyondays]

Marriage is a religious sacrament. It's the only religious practice still sanctioned (licensed) by secular governments. Here in the US it's a hold over from when we were English colonies with a state religion. Birth, baptism, first communion, confirmation, marriage and death--all steps the sacramental life--were documented with the government in parish records because church WAS state. With the separation of church from state all religious records were dropped by government except marriage. States began requiring birth and death certificates but nothing else outside marriage.

Religion was never completely removed from marriage was it? (Anyone remember when Clinton signed that ridiculous Defense of Marriage Act into law in 1996?) Only heterosexual marriage was legal because religious scripture says homosexual behavior is an abomination to the Abrahamic god. So much for separation of church and state.

That religious law remained civil law until 2015 when SCOTUS handed down Obergefell v. Hodges on a 5-4 vote. Same sex marriage was finally legal everywhere here in the US.

In my opinion the term "marriage" should have been replaced with "civil union" when the US was founded as a secular nation. It would have saved a lot of confusion in the way we think. A sharp demarcation between religious law and civil law is required.

"Marriage law" is family law. It's licensed for two primary reasons: to control who marries whom and making married persons subject to divorce law, i.e. how do we divvy up the money and the kids when a couple splits. By law a license makes marriage a business contract. A prenup is a better contract but that's another topic.

Now I'll answer your question. Marriage is NOT a valid social construct when it requires a lifetime vow to forsake all others.

The reason for this is biological. Our species forms pair bonds but rarely lifetime or even long term ones.

Proof. If we formed lifetime pair bonds instinctually no social taboos would exist to enforce the bond. We don't. So religion (again) burdens us artificially with punishments of shame and guilt all the way up to and including the death penalty for any sexual behavior outside a lifetime heteronormative pair bond.

More proof. The rates of cheating and divorce to which you refer. Our species is not naturally faithful to one mate for long and the effort to conform to a religious/moral/social norm often makes people miserable.

Addendum. Look up the difference between pair-bonding species and tournament species and see where our species falls in that spectrum.

 

[Sagittarius84]

I think its still a necessity, as non secular civil unions aren't as ingrained into our infrastructures...I appreciate that younger and younger generations are waiting longer to get married and more fully fleshing out beforehand what it is either expects to get out of the experience....in terms of family stabilization, specifically responsibility and access marriage cant be beaten...
I think there's something inherent to humanity about the life pairing process, as such I dont think marriage will ever become irrelevant, but I think slowly but surely, the traditional trappings of marriage(heteronormativity, monogamy, and patriarchal dogma, just to name a few) are what are being questioned as defaults.

 

[cherryboom66]

I would love to get married. But even now in 2019, I find the whole thing so sexist. The woman is given an engagement ring but the man isn’t. Claiming ownership? To show that the woman is taken? Then there is the marriage - the woman is given away. Really? Oh god and don’t get me started on ASKING the woman’s father for permission - what the hell does it have to do with him?

However. Yes, I believe in marriage and my god I want to find my lobster.

 

[Sagittarius84]

I would love to get married. But even now in 2019, I find the whole thing so sexist. The woman is given an engagement ring but the man isn’t. Claiming ownership? To show that the woman is taken? Then there is the marriage - the woman is given away. Really? Oh god and don’t get me started on ASKING the woman’s father for permission - what the hell does it have to do with him?

However. Yes, I believe in marriage and my god I want to find my lobster.

I think you downplay how many women expect these things as some form of tribute, a way for men to prove their "worthiness"..It took me yrs to be comfortable with the concept of marriage to my wife, precisely because I had no such sexist expectations for how such a thing should play out, and she took said unwillingness to adhere to such traditions as evidence of my lack of love for her.
There's no denying the sexist origins of common marriage traditions, but that hasnt stopped legions of women from coopting them to their own ends.

 

[cherryboom66]

I think you downplay how many women expect these things as some form of tribute, a way for men to prove their "worthiness"..It took me yrs to be comfortable with the concept of marriage to my wife, precisely because I had no such sexist expectations for how such a thing should play out, and she took said unwillingness to adhere to such traditions as evidence of my lack of love for her.
There's no denying the sexist origins of common marriage traditions, but that hasnt stopped legions of women from coopting them to their own ends.

Oh! I forgot the biggest one - the woman changing her name. Anyway, your wife is crazy heh heh.

 

[Sagittarius84]

Oh! I forgot the biggest one - the woman changing her name. Anyway, your wife is crazy heh heh.

Shes not alone..just about every woman friend, associate, family member, acquaintance she came across had something crappy to say about me and my unwillingness to simply capitulate and propose after yr 2-3 of our relationship. Men who dont subscribe to at least some of the sexist trappings of relationships and marriage get a bad rap from women on a collective basis...comments about "leading on" and "unwillingness to commit" are tossed about freely and well received

 

[cherryboom66]

Shes not alone..just about every woman friend, associate, family member, acquaintance she came across had something crappy to say about me and my unwillingness to simply capitulate and propose after yr 2-3 of our relationship. Men who dont subscribe to at least some of the sexist trappings of relationships and marriage get a bad rap from women on a collective basis...comments about "leading on" and "unwillingness to commit" are tossed about freely and well received

That’s shitty. One of my friends was the complete opposite, she didn’t want to get married and only did it ten years down the line for legal protections and “meh, it’s been ten years. Fuck it.” She didn’t want to change her name and her hubby decided to change his. Which was pretty awesome. They get a lot of stigma tho, people see him as “weak”, people just assume it was his name, she is a doctor and gets called Mrs. Isn’t it strange how men are always Mr but it changes for women.

 

[693987]

I would love to get married. But even now in 2019, I find the whole thing so sexist. The woman is given an engagement ring but the man isn’t. Claiming ownership? To show that the woman is taken? Then there is the marriage - the woman is given away. Really? Oh god and don’t get me started on ASKING the woman’s father for permission - what the hell does it have to do with him?

However. Yes, I believe in marriage and my god I want to find my lobster.

Not married yet, but I got my (male) partner his ring way before mine. Like, still budgeting for mine. Fuck societal norms. We intend to elope, too.

For the OP...

I think marriage is still relevant for the individuals that it means something to. It isn't important to everyone and that's ok too. It does offer certain legal benefits that a couple might not otherwise have, though. Not everywhere has common law marriage, as an example. I want my partner to have say if something happened to me, not the rest of my family. Now, I could go through giving power of attorney and all that jazz, or we can get married. Neither of us are religious, but between the legal benefits and my personal stance that marriage is the last major logical step when a monogamous couple wants to spend their life together..? I'm down for that documentation.

Edit: I changed my name last year, completely unrelated to my relationship with my sweetie. I'm not doing all that shit again, it's a pain in the ass and neither of us cares about last names.

 

[cherryboom66]

Not married yet, but I got my (male) partner his ring way before mine. Like, still budgeting for mine. Fuck societal norms. We intend to elope, too.

For the OP...

I think marriage is still relevant for the individuals that it means something to. It isn't important to everyone and that's ok too. It does offer certain legal benefits that a couple might not otherwise have, though. Not everywhere has common law marriage, as an example. I want my partner to have say if something happened to me, not the rest of my family. Now, I could go through giving power of attorney and all that jazz, or we can get married. Neither of us are religious, but between the legal benefits and my personal stance that marriage is the last major logical step when a monogamous couple wants to spend their life together..? I'm down for that documentation.

Edit: I changed my name last year, completely unrelated to my relationship with my sweetie. I'm not doing all that shit again, it's a pain in the ass and neither of us cares about last names.

Love it! Fuck the norms!

 

[Sagittarius84]

So religion (again) burdens us artificially with punishments of shame and guilt all the way up to and including the death penalty for any sexual behavior outside a lifetime heteronormative pair bond.

I do think religion has contributed to the shaming of non paired sexual behaviors, but I think its origins run much deeper and closer to social realities...beyond what any sort of "God" would say about it there are specific, privilege and advantage seeking reasons, probably formed in our primate-to-hominid prehistory, why either gender would have an issue with the other engaging in sexual activity outside of their particular pairing.

 

[Sagittarius84]

That’s shitty. One of my friends was the complete opposite, she didn’t want to get married and only did it ten years down the line for legal protections and “meh, it’s been ten years. Fuck it.” She didn’t want to change her name and her hubby decided to change his. Which was pretty awesome. They get a lot of stigma tho, people see him as “weak”, people just assume it was his name, she is a doctor and gets called Mrs. Isn’t it strange how men are always Mr but it changes for women.

Lol there's a low key joke in that about how only women get stuff in marriage, we give away "r"s and our last names

But my wife was on that track too...all about changing the last name..when the only last names I was concerned about was children's. I wouldn't characterize any man that changed his last name as "weak" per se, but it's not a lane I ever would consider.

 

[cherryboom66]

Lol there's a low key joke in that about how only women get stuff in marriage, we give away "r"s and our last names

But my wife was on that track too...all about changing the last name..when the only last names I was concerned about was children's. I wouldn't characterize any man that changed his last name as "weak" per se, but it's not a lane I ever would consider.

And herein lies the sexism which has been bred into people. The woman carries the child, feels it grow inside, goes through labour....Then the man gets the name. It’s madness.

 

[Sagittarius84]

And herein lies the sexism which has been bred into people. The woman carries the child, feels it grow inside, goes through labour....Then the man gets the name. It’s madness.

I think the intention was that was the trade off..in that her carrying the bond was cemented to her no matter what, so the name was intended to motivate the father to be as involved. The other side of that unfair coin is the reality of "Mommas baby, poppas maybe"

 

[cherryboom66]

I think the intention was that was the trade off..in that her carrying the bond was cemented to her no matter what, so the name was intended to motivate the father to be as involved. The other side of that unfair coin is the reality of "Mommas baby, poppas maybe"

The foolish man shouldn’t need motivating. I haven’t heard of that phrase before.

 

[Sagittarius84]

The foolish man shouldn’t need motivating. I haven’t heard of that phrase before.

Im sorry are you purporting that a child's paternity that was concieved and born within the scope of a relationship should be of no consequence to the man that is deciding to take care of said child?

 

[cherryboom66]

Im sorry are you purporting that a child's paternity that was concieved and born within the scope of a relationship should be of no consequence to the man that is deciding to take care of said child?

What? I’m saying that he shouldn’t steal their name for ‘motivation’.

 

[Sagittarius84]

What? I’m saying that he shouldn’t steal their name for ‘motivation’.

I dont think it was ever stolen, I think it was more of a given from the female to assure paternity in lieu of no surety being historically available. Which is why typically there is much less empasis on step children's names being realigned.
Im not doubting some sexist shit has gone on with it, but I dont think the practice of naming children for the father is a specifically sexist one, just one borne of necessity.