The ridicuously committed and deliriously single thread

[Foofoogal]

why stay married? What's to keep them together?

The point is why get married in the first place then if the religious factor is taken out?

Actually Doran you are correct as this year it was shown that more people are living together than are married in traditional marriages. I think it was 60/40.
The one thing that concerns me is this.
I know in Texas where I live if a couple live together and even if the father states on the birth certificates he is the father if he dies without marrying the mother in a traditional marriage then the minor children cannot get his social security. Common law marriage does not count in this instance. An insurance company told me this not too long ago and I was amazed.

 

[killertomata]

To answer the original question, I am very committed but not yet married or engaged. Is that the kind of thing you're asking about?

All I know is that I've had a lot of fun in my life, and I was ready to find someone who was ready for a more serious relationship, and I found him. We are just starting life together. I have no reason to believe we won't end up married, but we're not ready yet. At least I'm not. It's nly been six months!

We wouldn't have moved in together yet but life necessitated otherwise. It happens.

 

[jamespowers]

Well ... I'm not sure if I can blame them. Marriage arose as a durable institution in response to certain pressures and some of those pressures have been lessening in some places in the world.

If religion is removed from the equation (i.e. the idea "the gods want us to respect marriage as a sacrament and a sacred covenant") and there are no children present who would benefit from a stable home with two parents, and the two people are a bit tired of each other after several years and are attractive enough to find new exciting people (note how long people stay youthful nowadays, if they are in an industrialized country, are fairly comfortable economically, and have good medical care) especially from a pool of attractive friends with whom they can be quite sure they will get along, and -- obeying the greatest lesson in Zen, to not rely on anything -- thus do not really rely on each other, and are eager for more experiences out of the human love of variety, then ... why stay married? What's to keep them together?
The financial annoyance of splitting up? If they are both earners, then that problem still exists, but it's not debilitating.

I predict this happening more and more for childless couples. I also predict couples who, although they are with children, are neither very religious nor terribly traditional, making civilized arrangements for little vacations from each other.

Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong. But when one looks at Kinsey reports and such, many people in the technologically advanced nations, even married people with children, are "monogamous except for a few exceptions over the years." At the moment it is still considered dishonest (the term "cheating" comes to mind) but I suspect terminology and conceptualizations and expectations will shift a bit to reflect what is actually happening anyway.

I have no idea if this will be ruinous or not, nor am I approving or disapproving of it -- only predicting it. For a subculture, at least, and if it works for those people, it may spread. I imagine it happening in places with a lot of luxury, a lot of emphasis on personal choice, and not much tradition. THE DESIRE FOR VARIETY IS INTRINSIC TO THE HUMAN CONDITION.

The situation you describe solves itself in the long run really. Childless couples don't really change the culture because they are not raising the next generation and their "subculture" is not passed on to the next generation. [huh]
In the end, their lines just die out and the married with children continue on--- except in the married case you mention.
As my anthropology professor once said: "If the concept of marriage were erased from the world, it wouldn't take long to be reestablished."
How about them ruins eh?

Regards,

J

 

[carter]

I know in Texas where I live if a couple live together and even if the father states on the birth certificates he is the father if he dies without marrying the mother in a traditional marriage then the minor children cannot get his social security. Common law marriage does not count in this instance. An insurance company told me this not too long ago and I was amazed.

Living in Texas, I was not aware of this. However, since I have sole custody of my children, it really wouldn't apply.

It's interesting that this legality may force a couple into marriage in order to provide for the minor children should the spouse pass away. Does this also apply in a double-income situation?

This also raises some interesting questions concerning other alternative lifestyle choices.

 

[Foofoogal]

I don't know the other answers to your questions.
Whether anyone likes it or not our laws are based on Judeo Christian values. This is why once upon a time one would put the hand on the Bible and swear to tell the whole truth etc.
Texas is also a community property state and things are split 50/50 with limited alimony which use to be nonexistent in Texas.
A woman has to be married to a man for 10 years to get his social security. I don't care if he is married 10 times after that. The first 10 year wife gets it. lol

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Do we mean, committed while contemplating engagement on the road to marriage? Or just plain old shacking up?

We have a Dr. Laura listener here!

.

 

[carter]

Whether anyone likes it or not our laws are based on Judeo Christian values.

I don't know that whether anyone likes or dislikes a particular law or laws is really germaine to the discussion, However, to some extent, laws are influenced by society, It's as simple as looking at the US Bill of Rights or Supreme Court decisions that reverse the decisions of earlier incarnations of the court. Obviously, legality is reflective of changing social structures, values, and mores.
I wouldn't see this discussion as an attack on Judeo-Christian values but as an open discussion of the changing state of personal relationships in society.
This thread was initiated as a rather lighthearted discussion of what is not an uncommon situation in our society. No threat, no platform, no bully pulpit, just civilized discussion.

p.s. Watch out for the couple in the corner. They are so intense. Anyone want another beer?
Carter

The last comment is not intended to portray any person deceased, living, or to be born.

 

[Fast]

The Draft

The term for a child born out of wedlock is ba***rd. It isn't just a word, but the allusion to a crushing reality. Children are conscripts. If you draft 'em, you owe them.
The fact that this debt of the heart (parenthood) is hardly ever paid when the commitment is kinda sorta what it is as long as it is really hurts young people. It damages their minds and souls, and forever. God only knows it sucks when marriage fails, but at least there everybody really tried.

Sometimes it seems we take ourselves far too seriously, and what we do not seriously at all.

Carpe Diem
Fast

 

[Foofoogal]

No threat, no platform, no bully pulpit, just civilized discussion.

I am sorry Carter if I came off strong. I was just stating facts not my opinion. I must talk old, Texan[huh] or something.

 

[Rosie]

We have a Dr. Laura listener here!

.

Dr. Laura, no no no! You all know I am way too ethnic,earthy,eccentric, plain ol' out there for that. That was just a joke, really it was.

 

[Dr Doran]

Great thread, folks. I'm enjoying it a lot. As for the comment about Judeo-Christian values: that is partially true, only partially.

Marriage existed before Judeo-Christian values. The Greeks married. The Romans married. Unlike many Mediterranean societies, they believed in monogamy. A weird concept considering the polygynous ways of many Near Eastern societies. This is way before Christianity was a glimmer in anyone's eye. Moreover, many or perhaps most of our moral ideas have forms in Greek and Roman writings and these authors had no interest whatsoever in the Hebrews and largely contempt for Christians. (Highly cultured Roman authors of about 100 AD such as Tacitus, Pliny, and Suetonius thought the Jews were fanatically religious and bizarre in their ethnocentric and eccentric monotheism and that Christians were fanatics who sacrificed children and practiced incest (the last since they all called each other "brother" and "sister," even calling their husbands and wives "brother" and "sister" which must have made onlookers think it was strange). The novel things in Jewish and Christian culture do not include marriage.

 

[Dr Doran]

The point is why get married in the first place then if the religious factor is taken out?

The one thing that concerns me is this.
I know in Texas where I live if a couple live together and even if the father states on the birth certificates he is the father if he dies without marrying the mother in a traditional marriage then the minor children cannot get his social security. Common law marriage does not count in this instance. An insurance company told me this not too long ago and I was amazed.

A horrible situation for the kids. There is your reason for getting married when there is no religious element present!

 

[carter]

The fact that this debt of the heart (parenthood) is hardly ever paid when the commitment is kinda sorta what it is as long as it is really hurts young people.

So we should judge all persons in a committed relationship as having this attitude? I know a few people who are offspring of a non-contractual union who do not feel damaged by the fact that their parents were not traditionally married. I also know folks who will gladly tell you that growing up in a household where the parents were always at one another was no picnic. Many of them avoid marriage like the plague for this very reason. Often people raised in households like this have equally unsuccessful marriages when they do tie the knot.

God only knows it sucks when marriage fails, but at least there everybody really tried.

Really? Anyone follow the Spears-Federline train wreck lately?

Sometimes it seems we take ourselves far too seriously, and what we do not seriously at all.

True. And this applies to any relationship. Of course, there are those individuals who are one person in church and someone else entirely in the home. What seems is not always what is.

Doran, I appreciate your comments. Insightful and reasoned. This thread has gone far beyond where I thought it would. It's been an interesting forum. Carter

 

[Dr Doran]

So we should judge all persons in a committed relationship as having this attitude? I know a few people who are offspring of a non-contractual union who do not feel damaged by the fact that their parents were not traditionally married.]

Nobody is silly enough to judge ALL PERSONS as this thing or that thing. The sensible core of the argument is clearly that over a long period of time (say, 3000 years) and over many continents worth of people living very different lives in many cultures, there will be, GENERALLY SPEAKING, a greater TENDENCY for parents to provide vital care for their offspring IF THEY ARE CONTRACTUALLY BOUND, preferably with some fear of supernatural punishment (don't look at me, I'm a complete 100% atheist, I'm just talking about HUMAN TENDENCIES OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME) than if they there is no (preferably divinely-ordained) contract present.

Marriage, like most traditions such as morality, is at root all about demography. About keeping a population together and strong. Just like the tendency in human societies to have rules against murder. Societies that don't develop a form of this rule will, OVER THE LONG RUN, lose out.

I am not saying that demographers of the ancient world came up with these rules,* only that these rules organically grew by trial and error. Traditions, like folklore, are subject to semi-Darwinian "natural selection."

* although it is an interesting idea, and I do believe that EXCEPTIONALLY bright individuals with a world-historical perspective like Moses and Jesus and Solon must inevitably have thought in these terms.

 

[carter]

OK folks, what happened to the ridiculous and delirious? I like a good discussion as much as the next guy/gal but can we add some leaven to this loaf? Please. Carter

 

[carter]

Well, that's a whole lotta leaven.

 

[Miss Sis]

Hey Carter, didn't you see my pic I posted?

I think I look quite delirious, if not a little ridiculous!

 

[carter]

Originally posted by Miss Sis

Hey Carter, didn't you see my pic I posted?
I think I look quite delirious, if not a little ridiculous!

Now that's what I'm talkin' about!
I think that photo is lovely and great fun.
Delirious, quite likely.
Ridiculous, never!

We always need MORE great photos of folks having FUN.

All you deliriously ridiculous folks, have a wonderful week.