What was the original purpose of marriage?

[Alex_Sanders]

I've been quite potty these days and started couple of new threads, so I don't mind start another one, and I believe PF would very likely welcome such behavior. (Bring in potential clicks and members, although this is a little bit far out notion)

You see, for every custom human society would evolve, it evolved with a good intention. Marriage is also the case. The first tribe that invented marriage most certainly didn't want it to become a torture chamber, but there are certain design flaws in such mechanism at the very beginning.

What was marriage supposed to do? To bound loved ones together? This is sheer laughable. If two birds want to say together, then marriage really doesn't matter. However, if 2 people hated each other, marriage became a shackle, particularly, if the two had the 2nd generation, marriage pretty much became the hell. Over half of the american family are dysfunctional, like a famous sociologist Christopher Titus said, We (the dysfunctional families) became the normal ones.

So the only thing marriage is good at, pretty much would be keeping two enemies together, another perfect example of derailed train fueled by good intention, like the fake Cpt.Planet who couldn't fly himself thus resort to private jet relocating from places to places spreading the good words... and more fumes of engine exhaustion.

Also, will it kill the idea for males to seek more fun? As a male myself, I'm very very skeptical about that. Not to mention good men like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins are quite outward on this issue.

So, any believers who would like to refute?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Strictly speaking, marriage is a legal contract. Beyond emotional bonds, there are considerations such as children, property, and medical and legal powers of attorney in the event of a crisis.

After ~ 25 years of marriage, my opinion is that many people get divorced simply because they quit when the going gets tough. This is not to say that all marriages are workable, but it does take work. The formal commitment of matrimony not only provides an incentive to work through difficult problems, but it also seems to provide the emotional security that many or most people want in a relationship. Note that many people experimented with open relationships in the 1970s, and for the most part they didn't work.

I don't think marriage is the problem. The real problem is that divorce is too expensive. People become bitter, or they get greedy, or the lawyers scare them into maximally protecting their position, and the only winners are the lawyers. I have heard that the typical divorce cost each party about 75% of their personal wealth. This implies that about 25% of the combined wealth of the couple goes to the lawyers.

 

[FlexGunship]

I don't think marriage is the problem. The real problem is that divorce is too expensive. People become bitter, or they get greedy, or the lawyers scare them into maximally protecting their position, and the only winners are the lawyers.

That's really interesting, actually. That seems to jive with my personal (limited) experience. If it weren't for the bitter process of divorce, it seems that (in at least once case I know of) the newly-divorced could even have remained friends (or friendly).

 

[story645]

Time had an article on marriage that pretty much boiled down to marriage is becoming a luxury of the rich.

The key point was that:

"Marriage is the capstone for both the college-educated and the less well educated," says Johns Hopkins' Cherlin. "The college-educated wait until they're finished with their education and their careers are launched. The less educated wait until they feel comfortable financially."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2031962,00.html

 

[Q_Goest]

Marriage is like a deck of cards…

In the beginning all you need is two hearts and a diamond.
By the end, you wish you had a f***ing club and a spade.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Marriage is like a siege. Those who are out are trying to get in and those who are in are trying to get out.

I don't think that you could call marriage a luxury of the rich. This article says that 95% of Americans get married at some time in their lives.
http://www.meninmarriage.com/article05.htm"
Well, maybe you could call it that. On a global standard, probably 95% of Americans are rich.

The Time article says:

In 1960 the median household income of married adults was 12% higher than that of single adults, after adjusting for household size. By 2008 this gap had grown to 41%. In other words, the richer and more educated you are, the more likely you are to marry, or to be married

Given that 95% of people marry, I doubt that they could support that statement without the saving phrase at the end "or to be married." Consider, for instance, those elderly who are poor and widowed. As for the difference between 1960 and 2008 (12% vs 41%) consider that there are more two income families now than there were then.

 

[jobyts]

My thumb rule for successful marriage is,
"If you are given a chance to go back in time, would you marry the same person?" If both think "yes", I call it a successful relationship.

How often or less you had arguments etc are irrelevant.

 

[rolerbe]

That's really interesting, actually. That seems to jive with my personal (limited) experience. If it weren't for the bitter process of divorce, it seems that (in at least once case I know of) the newly-divorced could even have remained friends (or friendly).

Almost all US states now have provisions for 'mediated' divorce, in which the participants work with a single lawyer or other mediator to create a settlement. If the two can do it, this is MUCH cheaper than a contested divorce.

As for your last, friendly - yes, friends - that's asking a lot.

Now, how would I know all this??

 

[JaredJames]

Over half of the american family are dysfunctional, like a famous sociologist Christopher Titus said, We (the dysfunctional families) became the normal ones.

Can I ask where this figure comes from? Does anyone here have a source for it?

 

[FlexGunship]

As for your last, friendly - yes, friends - that's asking a lot.

Now, how would I know all this??

Well, I assume you've been divorced; though I don't know that. But I know two people who got married and simply decided to get divorced. It was the legal costs that ultimately ripped them apart. Perhaps they had better options that they weren't aware of.

 

[drankin]

You know why divorce is sooo expensive? "Cause it's wooorth it". LOL

 

[Alex_Sanders]

Can I ask where this figure comes from? Does anyone here have a source for it?

Alright, I admit I only found this, and it has everything to do with the onion news...

http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-percentage-of-dysfunctional-families-in-america

 

[JaredJames]

Alright, I admit I only found this, and it has everything to do with the onion news...

http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-percentage-of-dysfunctional-families-in-america

I'll take this as a joke then.

But between your salary figure claims in the other thread and this claim here, I'm getting a bit worried.

 

[Astronuc]

Marriage works for me, but then I had good examples.

Both sets of granparents were married more than 50 years, both ending with the premature deaths of my grandmothers.

My parents just passed 54 years of marriage.

Next March will be 30 years since I began dating my wife. We met 30 years ago, this past August.

I don't see a paradox in or about marriage.

 

[Drakkith]

In my opinion, especially seeing what happens here in the Air Force, is that many people get married before they truly understand what it entails or they have misconceptions about what a marriage is supposed to be and how each person is supposed to act in a marriage. Plus, most underestimate how much effort a marriage can be, even without kids.

Now, I'm not married, but I have spoken to more than a few people about it and read up on different reasons why people get married and stay together or get divorced. Many of the ones that get divorced do so because they didn't communicate what they needed to at all stages of their relationship.

I don't want to seem sexist, but I definitely believe in generalized differences between the sexes, based on multiple books and articles that I've read plus my own personal experience. (Keep in mind this is generalized, and not everyone is exactly like this.)

Most of what I've read and heard point to Women being willing to sacrifice their own happiness in a marriage simply because they have kids. This invariably almost never does any good. You can't hide unhappiness for long. A former friend of mine had been having marriage problems for several years, but she refused to actually do anything about it, insisting that she could tough it out till her kids were grown.

Men on the other hand, typically don't communicate to women their emotions in a way that women understand, or they don't do it at all. Either because they are uncomfortable or because they simply don't understand how. They also don't receive "signals" anywhere nearly as good as women do. Many many times a couple has gone into counseling and the man has heard his wife say that she told him or was giving him signals that something was wrong, but because she didn't come right out and say it, he didn't get it. Hence the fairly common reaction of "Divorce? Why?" from men when told by their wives that they want a divorce. They never truly realized things were that bad.

Who's to blame? Both people. Both expected things from their partner that were simply not possible without talking about and getting each other to really understand.

On top of all that, jobs and life stresses can play huge factors as well. For example, in the Air Force we have many many spouses that are suddenly ripped away from all their friends and family because they have to follow their loved ones to whichever base they go to. Imagine suddenly losing all your friends and family and having absolutely no one that you know or trust to go to. And this can happen every 2 years or so for some people. Not pleasant.

Unfortunently, marriage is so much more involved that dating usually is, it's MUCH harder to divorce someone than it is to simply break up with someone you are dating. Very important issues come up, such as who gets the house or car, and who gets the kids and such. My own dad has told me that he *HATES* my mother because she took my sister and I away from him when they got divorced. (I have no doubt in my mind that he absolutely despises her)

I've got so much more to say on this, but I'll end this post now to keep from writing a novel. =)

 

[arildno]

So the only thing marriage is good at, pretty much would be keeping two enemies together,
So, any believers who would like to refute?

Well, historically speaking, that's precisely what the formal marriage was about:
To cement an alliance between two families, so that the barrier of feuding between them should be heightened, oiled by material transactions as well, like the Morgengabe and suitor's gift (the latter one went to the bride's family, rather than to her).

Interspousal love wasn't a significant factor behind marriage, to cohabit out of love was a privilege for the poor and politically insignificant (unless you were so powerful that you could flout the norms of your society without risk, of course..).

 

[cobalt124]

"If two birds want to say together, then marriage really doesn't matter" - this is true and I would say aways comes first and foremost. If you marry for the piece of paper that says you are married you are in trouble from the start. Like a lot of things in life it is what you choose it to be. So, for example, you can choose it to be a life commitment to each other in the eyes of your preferred God. In my case it is a life commitment to each other in the eyes of the world and society. Note I mean these examples to be secondary to "wanting to stay together", if this wasn't the case it wouldn't work IMO. Of course there is so much more to marriage than stating what it means and having lofty ideals about it. It's sharing good times and bad times, sometimes amazing, sometimes hard work, and involves commitment, where the benefits of being together far outweigh the costs. So there is no paradox, only choice.

 

[cobalt124]

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...C11F89AA131E4A30CDF6C11F89AA131E&FORM=LKVR11#

http://wn.com/Daisy_Bell

 

[mugaliens]

When two people remain willing to work things out, little will keep them apart. When either one calls it quits, little will keep them together.

What was marriage supposed to do? To bound loved ones together?

No. It was designed to provide a stable, long-term environment in which the kids could be raised, which provides the best chance for long-term success, while creating at least somewhat of a barrier towards the introduction of genetic material by someone who wasn't willing to stick around.

 

[GeorginaS]

When two people remain willing to work things out, little will keep them apart. When either one calls it quits, little will keep them together.

Absolutely true.

What was marriage supposed to do? To bound loved ones together?

No. It was designed to provide a stable, long-term environment in which the kids could be raised, which provides the best chance for long-term success, while creating at least somewhat of a barrier towards the introduction of genetic material by someone who wasn't willing to stick around.

I thought that marriage originated as a system of land-holding and verified inheritance. Someone with property could know that his wealth and/or title was passed onto someone of their own bloodline.