Is there any reason to get married nowadays?

[Wadders]

Because such horror stories are born of bad statistics, unrealistic expectations, and social pressures. Marriage itself can be quite nice, and it is certainly better for raising children.

Whilst I don't doubt that marriage can be nice - I myself would like to be married - I disagree that it is necessarily better for raising children in every case. Sure there will be some families who will benefit from the support and financial benefits, but my parent are unmarried, still together, and never once have I doubted their abilities as parents to support me morally or financially. We are not rich, but they have spent and saved shrewdly - were pretty comfy don't want for much.

For you it may have worked. For you it may have been the best way to do it. But generally that is not so, and here we are not talking about specifics, but generalities.

It does not do well to generalise, but I see your point. An old friend from high school had a kid last year, aged 21, whilst still in university. For him and his partner marriage was of course a sensible move.

Sociology, one of my favorite fields of study, is entirely generalizations. I love it. It can do incredibly well to generalize, as long as you remember that what you are doing is just that, generalizing.

Fair enough, point made. Your statement that marriage is "certainly better for raising children" seemed to infer that you thought unmarried parents were, as a rule, inferior at raising their offspring, but you cleared that up. Probably I just misinterpreted you.

As a related issue though, I still disagree with the idea that people should marry just because it's seen as the done thing. If a couple do not deem themselves to be in need of the financial benefits, and have no religious convictions, then why should they need a ring and the word of a clergyman to attest to their commitment to one another?

Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not arguing against marriage. I'm saying people ought not to marry if they themselves see no reason, just because it is the normal thing to do.

I'd argue the social value is reason enough. There really isn't a reason not to in the case of people who plan on staying together anyway is essentially my point.

Aye, and my point is they shouldn't have to marry, just because of a social norm or whatever social value is assigned to marriage. The fact that a couple are unmarried should not belittle their relationship in the eyes of others and society at large, as long as they are committed to one another. I accept that marriage denotes commitment, both within the couple and society, but it should not be perceived as the be all and end all of a relationship.

I can see this going round in circles though

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Those numbers are dropping. They also are misleading as they include people who have been married one year and fifty with the same weight. Divorces per thousand marriages is far less misleading. And it is generally a sign of lack of commitment, and when it isn't, then the question immediately becomes "why the fuck not?" and the answer is either no reason or a lack of commitment. If you're ready, get married. If not, you aren't ready to fully commit, so you aren't committed, so you are not in the best situation to have kids. To be completely fair though, this is a generalization and does not apply to every situation.

But 'Why not?' isn't much of a reason to do it, either. I'm not saying people shouldn't get married or that they're wrong to do it, I just don't get why you would ever get married when you don't seem to gain anything by it over just staying unmarried with your would-be spouse.

I am interested to know if you have any evidence to back up the theory that married parents are generally better for kids, and in what ways.

It shows a lack of confidence in the relationship I suppose. It also means that you may lack some support from the rest of your friends and family. There are many possibilities as for why, but the numbers are what they are. And my reason for why has been provided, social value outweighs no reason not to. Any reason at all outweighs a lack of reason not to.

As for evidence I can go grab my sociology books. This is literally first year stuff.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Because such horror stories are born of bad statistics, unrealistic expectations, and social pressures. Marriage itself can be quite nice, and it is certainly better for raising children.

Whilst I don't doubt that marriage can be nice - I myself would like to be married - I disagree that it is necessarily better for raising children in every case. Sure there will be some families who will benefit from the support and financial benefits, but my parent are unmarried, still together, and never once have I doubted their abilities as parents to support me morally or financially. We are not rich, but they have spent and saved shrewdly - were pretty comfy don't want for much.

For you it may have worked. For you it may have been the best way to do it. But generally that is not so, and here we are not talking about specifics, but generalities.

It does not do well to generalise, but I see your point. An old friend from high school had a kid last year, aged 21, whilst still in university. For him and his partner marriage was of course a sensible move.

Sociology, one of my favorite fields of study, is entirely generalizations. I love it. It can do incredibly well to generalize, as long as you remember that what you are doing is just that, generalizing.

Fair enough, point made. Your statement that marriage is "certainly better for raising children" seemed to infer that you thought unmarried parents were, as a rule, inferior at raising their offspring, but you cleared that up. Probably I just misinterpreted you.

As a related issue though, I still disagree with the idea that people should marry just because it's seen as the done thing. If a couple do not deem themselves to be in need of the financial benefits, and have no religious convictions, then why should they need a ring and the word of a clergyman to attest to their commitment to one another?

Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not arguing against marriage. I'm saying people ought not to marry if they themselves see no reason, just because it is the normal thing to do.

I'd argue the social value is reason enough. There really isn't a reason not to in the case of people who plan on staying together anyway is essentially my point.

Aye, and my point is they shouldn't have to marry, just because of a social norm or whatever social value is assigned to marriage. The fact that a couple are unmarried should not belittle their relationship in the eyes of others and society at large, as long as they are committed to one another. I accept that marriage denotes commitment, both within the couple and society, but it should not be perceived as the be all and end all of a relationship.

I can see this going round in circles though

I'm talking about reasons why one would that don't break down to religion, not why they should have to.

 

[Frission]

Beats me. I think recently enough in France, most young couples sign a paper marriage. It was originally made for homosexuals, but it's popular now because it's faster, easier and makes divorce proceedings far less complicated.

 

[Saladfork]

Those numbers are dropping. They also are misleading as they include people who have been married one year and fifty with the same weight. Divorces per thousand marriages is far less misleading. And it is generally a sign of lack of commitment, and when it isn't, then the question immediately becomes "why the fuck not?" and the answer is either no reason or a lack of commitment. If you're ready, get married. If not, you aren't ready to fully commit, so you aren't committed, so you are not in the best situation to have kids. To be completely fair though, this is a generalization and does not apply to every situation.

But 'Why not?' isn't much of a reason to do it, either. I'm not saying people shouldn't get married or that they're wrong to do it, I just don't get why you would ever get married when you don't seem to gain anything by it over just staying unmarried with your would-be spouse.

I am interested to know if you have any evidence to back up the theory that married parents are generally better for kids, and in what ways.

It shows a lack of confidence in the relationship I suppose. It also means that you may lack some support from the rest of your friends and family. There are many possibilities as for why, but the numbers are what they are. And my reason for why has been provided, social value outweighs no reason not to. Any reason at all outweighs a lack of reason not to.

As for evidence I can go grab my sociology books. This is literally first year stuff.

Well, when I did sociology we mostly looked at crime, suicide and socioecnomics, I ask because I don't remember anything about marriage and parenthood.

I really am interested to see it, though.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Those numbers are dropping. They also are misleading as they include people who have been married one year and fifty with the same weight. Divorces per thousand marriages is far less misleading. And it is generally a sign of lack of commitment, and when it isn't, then the question immediately becomes "why the fuck not?" and the answer is either no reason or a lack of commitment. If you're ready, get married. If not, you aren't ready to fully commit, so you aren't committed, so you are not in the best situation to have kids. To be completely fair though, this is a generalization and does not apply to every situation.

But 'Why not?' isn't much of a reason to do it, either. I'm not saying people shouldn't get married or that they're wrong to do it, I just don't get why you would ever get married when you don't seem to gain anything by it over just staying unmarried with your would-be spouse.

I am interested to know if you have any evidence to back up the theory that married parents are generally better for kids, and in what ways.

It shows a lack of confidence in the relationship I suppose. It also means that you may lack some support from the rest of your friends and family. There are many possibilities as for why, but the numbers are what they are. And my reason for why has been provided, social value outweighs no reason not to. Any reason at all outweighs a lack of reason not to.

As for evidence I can go grab my sociology books. This is literally first year stuff.

Well, when I did sociology we mostly looked at crime, suicide and socioecnomics, I ask because I don't remember anything about marriage and parenthood.

I really am interested to see it, though.

You must have only taken the macro-sociology part of the series then. Family is generally covered in micro-sociology. To be fair, I also took a class specifically on the family from the same professor so I may be mixing things up.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The social value is significant. There is a massive value to following traditions, though there can be some negative consequences, a lacking of those is certainly reason enough. And I would not argue that it is the end state of all relationships. It is the beginning of a relationship one intends to be permanent. And I don't pity you. I may, at my worst, pity your lack of understanding, but no more. And marriage does generally allow for far more functional families. It is arguably among the biggest factors in raising children. It's not just replicating the old ways, the nuclear family is in fact comparatively modern.

In what way does the social contract of marriage create permanence if that commitment did not already exist in its absence? Is that a desirable permanence, if the only reason it exists is the contract as opposed to the will of the participants?

This is the language that makes me irate. You and I have differing values when it comes to the function and importance of marriage in relationships. My assumption would be that your perspective stems from those values, and not from a lack of understanding. As in we can both believe different things, and those differing things can be right for each of us. Not one of us is clued in, and the other is just a dolt.

The nuclear family was a response to industrialization. The concept of "marriage" and "family" has always been mutable, and subject to various pressures. Cultural pressures, religious pressures, economic pressures. There is no "one correct model" that is universally applicable to all peoples and all situations.

As for the first year sociology stuff, that's great. I enjoyed sociology a lot too. It's a pretty soft science though. This isn't physics. There is no universal sociological argument that "marriage is good" or "marriage is essential" or "marriage leads to happier families", because it's not something you can prove. You can use statistics to demonstrate trends, but you can never look at social phenomena in a vacuum, divorced entirely from contributing factors. To suggest that marriage is a causal factor in good parenting is a scientifically demonstrable fact is a wee bit absurd.

 

[hazabaza1]

That's about all the reason you need, really.

 

[rbstewart7263]

Finances, ownership and parental laws, religious reasons, and psychological reasons. Any one of them is more then enough reason to get married. You must be utterly confused as to why gay couples fight so hard to be able to marry and then are so happy when they can do so. You have my pity.

I understand why they want the right to, and I fully support it, but why exactly they'd go through with it once they can is what I don't get.

If i was gay i wouldnt care unless i had a partner that it mattered too. In principle is not enough me.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

The social value is significant. There is a massive value to following traditions, though there can be some negative consequences, a lacking of those is certainly reason enough. And I would not argue that it is the end state of all relationships. It is the beginning of a relationship one intends to be permanent. And I don't pity you. I may, at my worst, pity your lack of understanding, but no more. And marriage does generally allow for far more functional families. It is arguably among the biggest factors in raising children. It's not just replicating the old ways, the nuclear family is in fact comparatively modern.

In what way does the social contract of marriage create permanence if that commitment did not already exist in its absence? Is that a desirable permanence, if the only reason it exists is the contract as opposed to the will of the participants?

It is a statement of their will. It is both a symbol and a method of reinforcing that will.

This is the language that makes me irate. You and I have differing values when it comes to the function and importance of marriage in relationships. My assumption would be that your perspective stems from those values, and not from a lack of understanding. As in we can both believe different things, and those differing things can be right for each of us. Not one of us is clued in, and the other is just a dolt.

No, I said I would pity you for not understanding why someone else would value it. Never said you didn't. I also said "at my worst."

The nuclear family was a response to industrialization. The concept of "marriage" and "family" has always been mutable, and subject to various pressures. Cultural pressures, religious pressures, economic pressures. There is no "one correct model" that is universally applicable to all peoples and all situations.

I never said it was universally applicable. I said it was modern. And it is arguably a response to the growth of the service industry after world war two, at least as far as the current form of it is concerned.

As for the first year sociology stuff, that's great. I enjoyed sociology a lot too. It's a pretty soft science though. This isn't physics. There is no universal sociological argument that "marriage is good" or "marriage is essential" or "marriage leads to happier families", because it's not something you can prove. You can use statistics to demonstrate trends, but you can never look at social phenomena in a vacuum, divorced entirely from contributing factors. To suggest that marriage is a causal factor in good parenting is a scientifically demonstrable fact is a wee bit absurd.

All science relies on shaky causality, just to differing degrees. Nothing exists in a vacuum (here I am talking metaphorically like you, not literally). I have made it clear I am talking about generalities, not absolutes. I am talking about how generally marriage contributes to a better upbringing, not that good child rearing necessitates marriage, and statistics can show what I am saying. Also, stop being defensive, I am not talking about you specifically, as I cannot do that. For all I know marriage could be a horrible choice for you.

 

[Atrocious Joystick]

It depends on the law in your particular country.

Usually it has huge benefits when it comes to things like inheritance, custody and taxes. Sometimes it concerns some laws. Take here in Sweden for example, if your significant other dies you will inherit all of his/hers assets. (Unless he/she has children with another person, in which case they first receive 50%). Should you however not be married it won't matter much if you lived together in a marriage-like relationship for 40 years. You'll at best get the house. Evevrything else will go to the children. Which might not matter much if they are your children. But if they're his from another marriage and they don't like you much, you're screwed. As the girlfriend of late author Stieg Larsson learned when he died and she didn't get diddly squat.

It might be unfair. But Marriage is the best way to indicate to the powers that be that this is the person you intend to spend your life and share all your assets with. So, if you're going to go through the effort of living together, having children, growing old, together with another person you can damn well go through the process of signing a piece of paper.

And come on, assume you've spent 30 years with a person, raised three kids together and had four dogs. Isn't it kind of lame to introduce that person as "Oh hai, this is my girlfriend so and so" like you're a bunch of teens? Man up, make that ***** your wife.

 

[Asita]

Personally, I see no reason why and quite a lot of reasons why not.

To be fair, the horror stories of guys getting thrown out of their houses and made to pay support to boot are probably in the minority, but it does happen, and often enough to make it a concern.

Further, there isn't much advantage to it even if everything works out. There are a few tax benefits, sometimes, but live together for any significant amount of time and you'll be considered common-law for those purposes anyway (Well, here in Alberta anyway, I'm not actually sure about other places come to think of it).

So why get married? I suppose there can be religious reasons for some people, but are there any others?

A few benefits? Maybe it's different in Canada, but here in the states, a legal marriage comes with around 1500 rights (usually around 400 from the state and 1100 from the federal government), many of which are exclusive to marriage and range from next-of-kin status to inheritance through right of survivorship to the capacity for joint adoption. That's more than a few benefits.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It is a statement of their will. It is both a symbol and a method of reinforcing that will.

It's definitely a statement of will, yes. Whether or not it is effective as a reinforcement is debatable, and highly individual. Like many people, I have personal anecdotal experience of relationships improving via marriage, and also relationships collapsing via marriage. I probably have a larger cross section than most of adult friends who have gone through disastrous marriages and come out the other side with rather dim views of the institution, but I don't have a particular bias against it.

No, I said I would pity you for not understanding why someone else would value it. Never said you didn't. I also said "at my worst."

Fair enough, let's chalk that up to a misunderstanding.

I never said it was universally applicable. I said it was modern. And it is arguably a response to the growth of the service industry after world war two, at least as far as the current form of it is concerned.

That's why I struggle with the concept of it as a tradition. If it's a social mechanism, it needs to be in a state of constant evolution, which is not something that goes hand in hand with tradition. And I guess I need to contradict myself here, because I DO have a bias against marriage *as a tradition*. I don't like pressure to conform to social traditions. At all. Pressure to conform to marriage tradition is more benign than some, but I'm not a big fan of conformist ideology in general. We live in a world where if you're in a long term relationship and you're not married, you will need to deal with occasional people openly questioning why your relationship is defective and why you have not chosen to endorse their tradition. And given it's a tradition that revolves heavily around largely metaphysical symbolism, I find it rather indistinguishable from being harried about religion. Yet, people who would never THINK to bully a friend about their choice of god will not hesitate to promote marriage as the only sensible destination for a proper relationship (read through this thread for plenty of examples of this precise behavior, I won't bother quoting people...they know who they are). I find advocates of marriage tend to be ideologues, and particularly brazen and unapologetic ones at that. So I tend to ASSUME a defensive position with them, much in the same way I would assume a defensive position with a theological zealot. I apologize if it seemed like I was jumping down your throat.

 

[Darks63]

Well one reason and im not sure how employers are in Canada but in some careers not being married can be held against you causing your rise to the higher level of the company to be stunted.

 

[kenu12345]

As some people said earlier its love. When I find someone im absolutely positive i love i cant wait to marry him or her.

 

[Callate]

...Because you want to establish a permanent bond with someone in the hopes of creating a stable union within which you can build a home, raise children, and have someone you can count on for the rest of your life...?

Yeah, yeah, I know. Divorce rates. Infidelity. Celebrities behaving badly. I'm the product of a marriage that was the second marriage for both parties. That's still the reason you do it, dammit.

 

[Rex Fallout]

Because such horror stories are born of bad statistics, unrealistic expectations, and social pressures. Marriage itself can be quite nice, and it is certainly better for raising children.

If both parents were around to raise them, I wouldn't think it would make much difference if they were married or not.

As someone raised by a single mother who remarried and saw my father fairly often I can say this is BS. If the parents aren't married, it messes with the kid. You have no idea how many times growing up I went to weeping, not understanding why my father and mother were not together, and I blamed all of my problems on it.

 

[MisterM2402]

"Because we love each other" - can't you love someone *without* getting married? I've never really understood what marriage *is*; you exchange fancy rings, tell your spouse how much you love them, sign a document, then carry on as usual. What does marriage actually *mean*, how are you any different after getting married than before, besides replacing saying "girlfriend/boyfriend" with "wife/husband"?

On another note, are tax breaks really worth it for the people who spend "several months' salary" on an engagement ring, and then lots lots more on the actual ceremony? Surely it can cost a lot more to get married than you save in the long run, for some couples at least. Divorce is pretty expensive too, so I hear.