Anony has commented 19/11/2010 05:33:23> The problem with marriage today is people don't want to work at it.
That only makes sense if you actually mean relationships. Marriage is a civil contract. You sign it, that's it, it's in force until or unless you officially change that state. No work required. It's in a file drawer somewhere, and probably a few computers as well.
Relationships, however, contain all of the things one needs to work at -- and they do so no matter if you are married or not.
> People revere marriage because they realize what it represents.
Oh, yes? And what would that be, outside of who gets to visit who in the hospital room, or who will be accepted on the insurance contract?
My *unmarried* relationship has lasted many years longer than any number of current marriages, and is still very strong indeed. I am at a loss as to what marriage "represents" that would be of value to me (other than those state-arbitrated benefits I gave examples of.) Please enlighten me.
> So, they play house, have live-in lovers, have kids who they DO screw up
Hmmm. We (she, actually) own this house, no mortgage; we built the interior into it ourselves; it took years of co-operative work. I own two other homes elsewhere in town. Are we "playing house"? We are completely faithful to one another; are we just "live-in lovers"? All three boys have degrees (one has three), all three are in comitted relationships, two of three have children, all are ranked martial artists, all are kind, intelligent and funny, and are socially and financially quite well off. Did we screw them up?
On the other hand, I can point at innumerable marriages that are horror shows worthy of their own "point-and-screech" reality series. Marriage isn't what you think it is. In fact, the mistake many people make, thinking that marriage will "improve" their relationship in any interpersonal fashion, is one of the first rocks most people's ships founder against. If you're married, that's fine, but there is not one whit more or less care you need to exercise in maintaining your relationship (not your marriage, the county clerk maintains that) than do any random unmarried couple.
I would also counter: Relationship is the word you want to pay attention to here, not love. Love is a component; the relationship is a much broader thing, requiring great care on many other fronts as well. Anony has commented 19/11/2010
You have failed to answer the questions, M. That's no way to be taken seriously.
Anony has commented 19/11/201004:53:22 Marina (and Mindy), I own many suits and a few hats, as it happens, and do wear them. I also wear a formal uniform when the occasion calls for it (less often these days), and I have an entire collection of almost 19th-century formal politenesses I very much enjoy applying to life. Opening doors, hand-writing notes, etc. My partner is the #1 recipient of all of this, of course, and she reciprocates with a sensuality, playfulness and passion that puts the vast majority of today's women into a "couldn't possibly compete" category with no doubt whatsoever. Among other things, she runs a lingerie shop and is gifted with exquisite feminine taste; I'm almost embarassed to admit how much better I have it than the average fellow.
To both you and Mindy, as for masculinity, here's my thinking. Be almost agressively feminine. From there, show your interest in those you consider to be masculine, desirable, interesting. In this way, you can encourage the adoption of that which you think is worthy. I suspect that you would be far more successful in such an undertaking if you forego the jeans. Most fellows are very prone to notice what the sexiest lady in the room is interested in, and we do take mental notes and adjust our behaviors.
> A woman that is feminine, will be so in pants, jeans, dress, heels, flats, hair down, hair up, nails red, nails natural, what have you.
I don't think that follows. Take it to the extreme to see why the idea fails: Is a man or woman dressed in rags, dirty face, shoes with holes, as generally sexy as one in evening dress (by which I mean, the way someone dresses when they're out with someone they *really* want to "catch")? I think if you're being honest, you'll admit that such is rarely (if ever) the case. If you're still with me, we've established that there is a line somewhere between rags and evening dress that when approached, one's interest becomes more likely to perk up. You are contending that the very things that women have the most leeway in remain irrelevant -- dress, heels, hair, nails, makeup -- thus effectively moving the presumed location of the line towards the rags; I submit that this is the wrong direction. On the contrary, I think you want to move the line towards the evening dress, because this is where I perceive the peak of attractiveness to be. In my outlook, one should not only try to dress to attract one's mate, but also to keep them. Just my 2c.Anony has commented 19/11/201003:51:13 All relationships count.
I reject your assertion that he would have been less committed outside of marriage. Unless he says otherwise, I assume that his success is the result of their efforts as a couple. Anything else is outright insulting.Anony has commented19/11/201003:35:35 Who does? I don't - and I certainly am not under any impression that the erosion of this particular social artifact is in any way responsible.
Very poor educational standards, rampant superstition, out of control wages and home ownership costs, a government wildly out of constitutional compliance, irrational wars, security theater... these are some of the fundamental problems with large negative social consequences. The decline of marriage, in sharp contrast, is one of the better things going on right now.Anony has commented19/11/201003:27:52 > if marriage is obsolete then why do the majority of gay people want the privilage of being married?
Gay people want the same opportunities as anyone else. Marriage presently incurs numerous technical consequences such as insurance eligability and hospital visitation rights; that's part of the reason. They're also very much looking for social validation - the gay community suffers much predudice and the natural response is to look for formal support. It's really no surprise if you think it through. And of course, they don't like the government-sponsored implication that hetero relationships are of higher value than gay relationships. And I can certainly see their point(s.)
> Obamacare
I don't think those numbers mean what you think they mean. Nor do I think you can count on either congress or the judiciary to do anything useful, much less constitutionally compliant. But it (banning marriage) was a lovely thought, thanks for voicing it.
Ideally, validating, and/or enforcing and/or adjudicating any contractual agreement between consenting individuals would be the government's role; while any formal woo-woo in the realm of superstition would be strictly limited to that of the religion(s) involved, if any. Unfortunately, that kind of clarity is far beyond the collection of ineffectives and syncophants in the various legislatures.Anony has commented 19/11/201003:10:27 Way to completely miss the point, son. Received an "F" on a lot of written essay questions, have you?
My point to him - which he will likely understand where you didn't - was that his relationship isn't what it is because he is married. It is what it is because he's made it that way himself, and because of the relative merits of his partner, and what she sees in him. I asked him those questions to illuminate the fact that his wonderful situation isn't a consequence of the county having a record: it's far more interesting than that.
Remember: ready, fire, aim is not a successful life strategy.Anony has commented 19/11/201003:02:56
>This is about what children need and they need parents with the same last name and who agree to stay together.
Neither of those things are unique to marriage. Neither of them are correct, either -- but that's a minor point, given the irrationality of your position in the first place.
No one with half a brain cares about what someone's last name is. Truly.
Second, what kids need is love and support and supervision and education -- these things, and other things like them, are very concrete touchstones in a young person's life. They key isn't freezing an environment in place; it is simply making sure that whatever the environment is, it is made to fold rationally and supportively into the child's world view and experience.
The proof is in the existence of many children of single parents who have grown up to be stable, happy persons. If this were controlled by last name or the presence of the same two people, it would not happen. But it does, and quite commonly.
The opposite is also true: There are many unhappy, unstable individuals who come from married households where the biological parents have stayed together.
The task of raising children isn't magically "fixed" by artificially nailing down the parent's prospects. Quite the contrary; when parents aren't happy, the kids almost always know. And it does them no good at all. Few things make people as unhappy as being married to someone who no longer holds up their end of the relationship.Anony has commented 19/11/201002:49:45 So you're saying she would be worth less to you if you hadn't signed a particular piece of paper? That your relationship would not have lasted? That your love would be less? That you wouldn't take as good care of her? How is anything you said a defense of marriage, as opposed to a defense of your relationship?Anony has commented 19/11/201002:45:20 > It is a God ordained union between a man and a woman.
Oh, please. Humans have been forming relationships and mating for tens of thousands years or more. Your middle-eastern religion is barely two millenea old. How can you sit there with a straight face and babble about your imaginary friend being the cause, much less the arbiter, of our particular society's flavor of legalistic pair bonding?
When this kind of mythological nonsense is trotted to the fore, it's always a failure in some combination of the following three areas:
o critical thinkingo gullibilityo fear
Please try and get a grip. Science continually reveals more of the reasons the world works as it does. Religion reveals nothing.
Marriage in the US is a legal state of affairs. There are social aspects, notably peer pressure and religious overtones, but these add little, if any, value to the actual relationship. The relationships that work well are not driven by the fact that there is (or isn't) a signed piece of paper, or an imaginary man in the sky cheering them on. It's a matter of continuous care and nurturing of each other. Nothing else will work. Every time you try and convince someone that relationship success is part of your magic belief, you have done them a huge disservice by misdirecting them from the actual task at hand.Anony has commented 19/11/201002:22:18 I'm in a stable, non-married, very loving monogamous relationship with a lady two years older than I. We've been together for a decade, and we are happy. She is the beneficiary on my insurance, is the owner of the completely paid-for house, has power of attorney, and is the primary individual named in my will. I am similarly situated. No one is at risk. This is a relationship designed, rather than dictated. She is secure; I am secure; lawyers need not apply. My observations were not made on the basis of my personal situation; I put continuous effort into my relationship so that it will thrive, as does my partner, so despite your optimism, I desire nothing from your, or anyone else's, 17-year old.
My observation is simply that because society limits these young ladies to relationships with young men their own age, their marriage prospects are bleak at this point. There is a strong tendency for them to become parents anyway, as their hormones drive their behavior despite their parent's intent. So instead of creating young, dynamic families with a breadwinner they can depend upon, they often create unsupported, single-parent children, while at the same time reducing their eligability for future relationships to those kind souls who willingly parent another's child(ren) and are willing to deal with all the ancillary issues as well. Either that, or their future relationships fail.
But - I do appreciate you trying to divert the conversation by attacking me instead of the points I made. Nice.Anony has commented 18/11/201022:09:11 So, what you're saying, is that you support relationships that are actually dead inside, but are forced to remain legally intact despite that? The happiness of the children and the spouses, that should be irrelevant? No need for love, we have law? Your sex life is strictly rote, rare, or non-existent, but "oh well"? Mommy and daddy hate each other, but the kids should just learn to "duck and cover", like the civil defense turtle? That because a committment is public, it should have more value than otherwise? What's that idea based on? Embarrassment? Fear? Can you really believe that is even *slightly* healthy? Barring full body paralysis, what legitimate reason could there possibly be for "the sex going away"?
Your version of marriage is a trap. Lure someone in, and they're caged, even when the situation is nigh unto intolerable.
A healthy relationship has many human to human components, all actively nurtured by all participants. Let something go, and it'll come back to bite you. Pretend that a piece of paper can stand in for them, and *that* will bite you. Conversely, if you're being mistreated, you should be able to either speak up and address it until the issue is resolved, or decline to suffer the mistreatment. To the extent that a marriage certificate obstructs these things, it is a travesty.Anony has commented 18/11/201021:33:01 >It has been proven over and over again that children need a mother and a father if they want to grow into mature, responsible adults.
No, it really hasn't -- that's purest nonsense. There are plenty of mature, reponsible adults who grew up in single-parent households, which pretty much destroys your claim. You should learn what "correlation is not causation" means.
Further, marriage does not ensure that either parent will be around; and lack of marriage does not ensure that both parents will not be around. Marriage is paper. Real relationships aren't about paperwork. They're about real acts and issues. Anyone who thinks a marriage certificate and/or handwaving will stand in for actual work done in an actual relationship is a dimwit.
>Kids growing up with a different step-parent every few years have no continuity in their lives; no solid foundation.
What they have is truth, instead of the lie of the stagant, unwanted relationship, bereft of love. And again, correlation is not causation. You're looking in the wrong place for your villain(s.) A single parent can provide an excellent foundation. When they don't, you can be sure there are other factors, which can range from poverty to illness to alcoholism to religion. All of these provide a weak (or worse) basis to raise a child under... none are limited to either side of the marriage question. And those are just the tip of the iceberg.Anony has commented 18/11/201021:12:11 > Friendship, companionship, love, sex, children, family, joy, sharing, some sorrow, consolation ... and stability.
The problem here is that ALL of those things can be had outside of marriage. And more. So now what is marriage good for?Anony has commented 18/11/201021:09:21 In return, let me ask: Why should we have to get a prenup? You're saying, make marriage safer by throwing up some legal boilerplate. Then, if you're lucky, the lawyers won't hurt you as bad.
How about, instead, if you set the relationship up the way you want it, and don't expose yourself to lawyers at all?
Writing a prenup is like wearing body armor. It's a sign you're doing something dangerous. Maybe you should rethink it.
Tweet
Alex News
Nov 19, 2010
Marriage: What's It Good For?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
..Israeli Shekel Exchange
No comments:
Post a Comment