Clarification on my beliefs.

Post Reply New Topic

Well, I guess my problem with your point is that your definition of living together and mine are very different. Marriage - what marriage is supposed to be - implies permanence. Living together - my definition - doesn't imply permanence. Really, people move in together all the time, without much more concern than when their leases end. Why aren't they just running down to the courthouse to get hitched with the same frequency? I'm assuming that it's because marrying the wrong person carries greater consequences than moving in with the wrong person. Don't people cohabitate with ease because they know that if it doesn't work, they're free to go their separate ways without much fuss? To me, that's the definition of impermanence.

I don't see marriage as a governmental "rubber stamp" - I see it as a profound, solemn commitment to stay together, no matter what. (And while I'm not an atheist - or a fundamentalist, for that matter - I'm definitely liberal.) One of the reasons that I prefer marriage to cohabitation is that the concept of what constitutes a family is not beyond the law. All those protections you raised in your first post are granted via marriage. And those protections are just that - they protect each spouses' interests and rights, and the interests and rights of the children. (And again, I completely support same-sex marriage. Not "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" - marriage. There's nothing inferior about the commitment two people of the same sex make to each other, so the same terminology and laws should apply - no matter who it bothers.)

So....if many people cohabitate because (at least one partner desires) the impermanent nature of cohabitation, that can create real problems: one partner may be giving their everything to the relationship; and one partner may or may not be - after all, he/she didn't vow to do that....he/she promised to live under the same roof - for a short period of time. People get into the day-to-dayness of living together and maybe being a family, and time goes by - and then something happens: maybe it's job loss, illness, death, bad investment, temptation, unexpected pregnancy, whatever. It's an awful thing to be in a crisis, and to realize you're in it by yourself (or maybe with kids, as well).

So for me, "impermanent" and "commitment" are mutually exclusive. I don't believe cohabitation and marriage are equal, because marriage involves a legal commitment, and each partner making a promise to stay together for life. It's supposed to be harder to walk away from than any other type of relationship. I have absolutely no illusions that everyone who gets married is committed, however. Clearly, that's why there's a very high divorce rate in this country. But I don't think the solution is to throw marriage out the window. I think the solution is for people to pick partners who understand what marriage is supposed to be, and are willing to do the very hard work it takes to make a marriage work.

I think I understand your issues with my post. You feel as committed as you would in a marriage - and I'm assuming you believe your partner feels the same level of commitment; and you have political reasons for not getting married. Look, it's your life, and I don't mean to be an alarmist, but what if one of you gets flattened by a bus? Have you taken the necessary steps to protect each other legally? I think you can do that pretty effectively via contracts, powers of attorney, etc. without getting married. Just a thought.

I'm basically a misanthrope that has a weakness for women that I find physically attractive. I wouldn't find a match anyway even if I didn't have any looks standards whatsoever. I don't drink at all, like my free time and privacy, obsessed with being online, have a Seinfeld-like personality as it relates to people that aren't my family or close friends, listen to Don Henley and other 80s/early 90s music, watch Cheers, Frasier, Who's The Boss, X-Files, and Married With Children, hate basically anything 21st century, don't see any reason to leave the house unless it's to go out to eat, visit family, play pick-up football, shop, travel, go to a concert or participate in a concert. Never intend to work, even if I could (which I'm not able to unless we're talking 10 hours a week stocking shelves at Barnes and Noble), don't intend to change for anyone, not even my physical ideal of a woman.

If hypothetically a woman that fit my physical standards and truly accepted me for me, and didn't think "oh he's so cute because he's awkward" but actually looked at me as an equal, I'd reconsider, but you can put that in the "more likely to win the lottery" department.

That solid dose of honesty is pretty refreshing.

So ... I wish you luck. You never know.

I don't think many people on this forum are honest with themselves...their weaknesses, faults (not just Aspie-related weaknesses and faults)...what would turn off a potential partner about them. I've been told that I sound arrogant and self-assured on the board. I've never once said I was perfect or that I'm in love with myself. I like myself a lot, like my life (other than the lack of physical intimacy) but I'm not Bill O Reilly or Glenn Beck or Bill Maher or pick your "I sh*t ice cream" pundit.

Cross posting, especially to criticize another member is against the rules, or I'd re-quote some of your posts where you make assumptions about other members's (in)ability to interest and date attractive partners, and seem to be saying that you're somehow more romantically successful than most people posting here. That would be my guess as to why you're catching flak.

@HopeGrows

I guess it's a mindset thing. Some people are just never going to understand your point of view. If Marriage is so much about commitment why is there such a thing as divorce?

Why don't people just stick it out no matter how useless, abusive, unfaithful their partner is?

A lot of people get married because it gives legal/tax advantages and because it seems to be what their society expects.

The vows are pretty meaningless. While the option to divorce is open to you they are not really vows. It is just a contract full of escape clauses.

While is may be nice to hear those words that doesn't seem worth the stress and expense.

I honestly cannot see how performing this ceremony can change a person from one thing to another.

@BigK, I agree with every point you've made. If a person doesn't mean the vows, they're worthless. People who are insincere about their vows are the ones who cheat, abuse, lie, etc. (and no, I don't think anyone is obligated to remain in a marriage with abusers, cheaters, alcoholics, etc.). But that's why a committed marriage requires two people who are sincere about their vows....if both people are willing to put the needs of the marriage ahead of their own, abuse and cheating don't occur.

So I don't believe - at all - that a ceremony will change a person's character. Instead, I'm suggesting that you have to consider a person's character and willingness to make a commitment long before you decide to marry. In short, pick a better partner.

yes, this.

@hyperlexian, I'm not really sure what else I can say to clarify my perspective. That people choose to ignore the vows and the intended permanence of marriage doesn't mean that it's appropriate to do so. If a couple stands in front of their families (or a judge or whatever) and makes promises they don't intend to keep, why is anyone surprised when the promises aren't kept, and the marriage fails? I guess a lot of people have twisted marriage into just another reason to have a big party, but the promise, the vow, the commitment to each other - that's what's supposed to make you hang in when the party's over.

i think marriage can be kind of pointless for a lot of people. some many people, there may be good reasons for marriage - if their religion insists on it, or if they refuse to be exclusive until the knot is tied, or if they are saving themselves for marriage. these things make sense - they are cultural choices. but i also respct the cultural choice to cohabitate and never marry. if two people are living together and consider themselves a couple, who am i to judge that?

BUT i do find big weddings especially ridiculous because of the number of people who divorce. i think it is better to quietly make a choice as a couple (get married or not), and quietly ease out of it if it isn't working. why involve a bunch of other people?

But I'm not saying people shouldn't live together. I'm just saying that marriage and living together aren't the same thing. We kind of branched off into this discussion about whether marriage is really marriage at this point in our society - and I think a healthy dose of skepticism is absolutely necessary.

But my perspective is that if you don't believe the vows, and you're not in it for the long haul, why get married? I think it would probably be healthier for our culture if people who didn't really want the responsibility of marriage stopped getting married - maybe marriage would be as meaningful as it should be. But my original point was that a lot of people who live together make the mistake of believing that their partner shares their level of commitment (whether it's high or low). Unfortunately, they usually learn about this disparity when they need their partner the most.

i believe that many people do see cohabitation as a permanent arrangement. i also think that since marriage often isn't permanent, perhaps we should stop expecting it to be. maybe in our society it is an outdated concept.

Well, I don't agree that marriage is an outdated concept. There's tons of empirical data that supports the idea that marriage (real marriage) benefits our society as a whole.

While some partners may see cohabitation as a permanent arrangement, society and the law doesn't. Equal protections don't exist for people who cohabitate, as they do for spouses, or for the children involved. So they're not equivalent.

What I don't understand about your point is that it doesn't seem to take into account that most people live together because they both don't want to be married (whether their reasons are political, religious, etc., or because both people don't want to be married). So, since people choose cohabitation over marriage, there's got to be a reason for that choice - there has to exist a fundamental difference between the two choices.

in canada cohabitation is legally treated as marriage, whether the partners wish to be treated as such or not. income tax audits are often performed on people who do not declare themselves as a couple. under the law, if you live together a certain amount of time as a couple, you are married in canada.

i think people have lots of reasons to choose either way - marriage or cohabitation. some couples live together in harmony for years, then as soon as they marry, their marriage falls apart. other people see marriage and cohabitation as equal choices. sometimes people just don't want the fuss of a wedding. there are tons of reasons to choose either way, and i don't think either one is superior.

what are the stats that show marriage is beneficial to society?

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this, then. I did include some links to studies that measure the impact of marriage on society below:

Marriage increases the likelihood that children do better and go farther in school; married men earn more money than their single male counterparts; married couples build more wealth; marriage increases the likelihood that parents have good relationships with their children....etc., etc.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs31.pdf

Marriage positively impacts physical and psychological health ("The size of the health gain from marriage is remarkable. It may be as large as the benefit from giving up smoking.")
http://ideas.repec.org/p/wrk/warwec/728.html

Higher rates of marriage dramatically reduce child poverty
http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... ld-poverty

the second paper notes that there IS a beneficial health effect from cohabitation as well. people who live together are healthier and happier than single people, but marriage has a larger positive effect.

there is some good data here, but the link between marriage and health and psychological benefits is a correlation, not a cause and effect. notably, some researchers in that second article also state that the positive effects seen in married couples are declining over time.

we don't know whther one leads to the other (healthy well-balanced individuals may be more likely to marry, for instance), or whther they are both caused by a third factor such as higher socioeconomic status. that article notes the problems of sorting that out.

funny note from that article:


child poverty can definitely be reduced by marriage, absolutely. two households are moer expensive to maintain than one. but that is not a reason to get married or to stay married - sometimes the welfare of the parents and children are more important than the money. do you know what else would reduce child poverty? a system that would properly support families in poverty, or a system that eliminates 'deadbeat parents', or a system where the female single parent earns a fair salary instead of 75% of a male in the same field.

i don't see any reason from these papers that cohabitation is bad, in and of itself, or that marriage should be a goal for all couples. not everybody wants to be married, or see the point, and there is room for all the beliefs in our current systems.

Last edited by hyperlexian on 28 Aug 2010, 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.