Marriage and Atheism

[FBM]

I am a hypocrite- I married in a Cathedral- what a show-off!
I have no objections to it as a legal institution. My evil ex-wife could have caused me somewhat less aggravation if we hadn't been married. But, with the right woman I wouldn't say no. But she'd have to ask very nicely!

I vaguely recall an old joke about "an attachment you screw on the bed that does the housework", or something like that.









Of course, I totally disagree with the sentiment!

[Beatsong]

I think the only point of marriage is to do with child-rearing, but that is an important point.

Really this was ALWAYS the point of marriage, it's why the institution was invented. Going from being a single young adult to being a parent, in charge of the lives of young children and bound to live and make decisions as part of a family - ultimately for someone else's benefit (this children) - is the single biggest change in most peoples' lives. All the stuff the goes with marriage - the vows, the jokes about the ball-and-chain, etc - is about making the affirmation that one has decided to make that change and is prepared to live by it. And that one wants to live with one's partner in the context of that change. Which is a very different thing from just loving somebody in a relationship without children.

Whether children can be just as well off in "non-traditional" families I don't know. I've known a few kids of single parents who were just fine - mostly in situations where that parent had plenty of money and/or extended family support - and an awful lot who aren't. But it's certainly true that children are better off when the adults in their lives have made a commitment to put them first, and are prepared to follow through that commitment absolutely and without exception or hesitation. Within the context of monogmous straight relationships, that commitment is the essence of what marriage is about.

Why people get married when they don't want to have kids I never understand. I actually think it's counterproductive. Relationships thrive on the ongoing regeneration that they receive, out of the free choice of both participants, from day to day. Not on some big ceremony designed to impress the relatives and set love in stone for all time. Most of the people I've know who have made the most fuss about their wedding are now divorced. So much of it is just an ego trip.

[floppit]

I think the only point of marriage is to do with child-rearing, but that is an important point.

Really this was ALWAYS the point of marriage, it's why the institution was invented. Going from being a single young adult to being a parent, in charge of the lives of young children and bound to live and make decisions as part of a family - ultimately for someone else's benefit (this children) - is the single biggest change in most peoples' lives. All the stuff the goes with marriage - the vows, the jokes about the ball-and-chain, etc - is about making the affirmation that one has decided to make that change and is prepared to live by it. And that one wants to live with one's partner in the context of that change. Which is a very different thing from just loving somebody in a relationship without children.

Whether children can be just as well off in "non-traditional" families I don't know. I've known a few kids of single parents who were just fine - mostly in situations where that parent had plenty of money and/or extended family support - and an awful lot who aren't. But it's certainly true that children are better off when the adults in their lives have made a commitment to put them first, and are prepared to follow through that commitment absolutely and without exception or hesitation. Within the context of monogmous straight relationships, that commitment is the essence of what marriage is about.

Why people get married when they don't want to have kids I never understand. I actually think it's counterproductive. Relationships thrive on the ongoing regeneration that they receive, out of the free choice of both participants, from day to day. Not on some big ceremony designed to impress the relatives and set love in stone for all time. Most of the people I've know who have made the most fuss about their wedding are now divorced. So much of it is just an ego trip.

I couldn't disagree more - plenty of people choose to marry without plans for kids and their relationship, promises and motives are not just as valid, they are arguably more so.

[JimC]

In terms of bringing up kids, irrespective of marriage, one thing I know is that it's bloody hard work, and I shudder at the thought of doing it by myself...

[Beatsong]

I couldn't disagree more - plenty of people choose to marry without plans for kids and their relationship, promises and motives are not just as valid, they are arguably more so.

I certainly didn't suggest that their relationship is any less "valid". Neither are their promises, as far as promises go.

As for their motives, the whole point of my post was that I don't understand what those motives are. What does marriage add to a relationship? How does it make it better, or more likely to endure in a positive way? (I don't personally regard the sheer fact of endurance per se as an advantage, as plenty of people spend their lives "enduring" in marriages that slowly and painfully tear both them and their children to pieces).

People on this point usually say something like "making a commitment in front of one's community". But I'm suspicious of ideas like that. It's almost like they don't quite trust their own honesty enough to know that they're just doing what they know to be right, being in the relationship they're in, and they need to sign up to something so someone else can verify it for them and place limits on their free choice over it in the future. Then instead of renewing that relationship day to day out of love and free choice, they can just regard it as a formality because they signed something about it 20 years ago.

I'm not denying anyone's right to do it or saying they shouldn't. Just that I don't really understand the mentality involved, and it goes against what I've observed about healthy marriages and relationships. Most of the couples I know who have really powerful and secure long term relationships had tiny informal weddings, sometimes just for legal reasons like tax or immigration, sometimes well after they'd had a child. In fact the strongest, healthiest, most resentment-free couple I know - of 25 years now - are two gay men who aren't married at all. When guys start telling me how they've found the girl of their dreams and want to give her the day of her dreams - and girls start talking about all the attention and validation they're going to get from The Biggest Wedding In History - then I know they're getting wrapped up in something quite external to what having a relationship is really about, and their days are likely numbered.

[floppit]

I'm not denying anyone's right to do it or saying they shouldn't. Just that I don't really understand the mentality involved, and it goes against what I've observed about healthy marriages and relationships. Most of the couples I know who have really powerful and secure long term relationships had tiny informal weddings, sometimes just for legal reasons like tax or immigration, sometimes well after they'd had a child. In fact the strongest, healthiest, most resentment-free couple I know - of 25 years now - are two gay men who aren't married at all. When guys start telling me how they've found the girl of their dreams and want to give her the day of her dreams - and girls start talking about all the attention and validation they're going to get from The Biggest Wedding In History - then I know they're getting wrapped up in something quite external to what having a relationship is really about, and their days are likely numbered.

Reading the above I suspect we are talking about very different things. If you define marriage by all the trappings, ie anything but tiny and informal then the discussion changes somewhat. There were 16 people at my wedding, me + hubby were 2 of them, the whole thing cost less than a jalopy! Whether or not others are suspicious of a declared promise (in my case a handful of people who I respect the most) is certainly up to them - I can't see it has any bearing on what is being said or why.

What you have shown though, something that can't be understated, is the individual nature of marriage, a marriage starts and ends as the accumulation of two people's understanding of it - you can't get 2 the same. It, marriage, is not the thing done on one day, the day is just a communal part of something which community care about (even teeny 14 strong community!), a chance to say cheers and be a part of something for that one day, marriage is the bit lived afterwards and the bit lived by many who decide against a day to mark it.

[Beatsong]

Agreed.

[camoguard]

I couldn't disagree more - plenty of people choose to marry without plans for kids and their relationship, promises and motives are not just as valid, they are arguably more so.

I certainly didn't suggest that their relationship is any less "valid". Neither are their promises, as far as promises go.

As for their motives, the whole point of my post was that I don't understand what those motives are. What does marriage add to a relationship? How does it make it better, or more likely to endure in a positive way? (I don't personally regard the sheer fact of endurance per se as an advantage, as plenty of people spend their lives "enduring" in marriages that slowly and painfully tear both them and their children to pieces).

People on this point usually say something like "making a commitment in front of one's community". But I'm suspicious of ideas like that. It's almost like they don't quite trust their own honesty enough to know that they're just doing what they know to be right, being in the relationship they're in, and they need to sign up to something so someone else can verify it for them and place limits on their free choice over it in the future. Then instead of renewing that relationship day to day out of love and free choice, they can just regard it as a formality because they signed something about it 20 years ago.

I'm not denying anyone's right to do it or saying they shouldn't. Just that I don't really understand the mentality involved, and it goes against what I've observed about healthy marriages and relationships. Most of the couples I know who have really powerful and secure long term relationships had tiny informal weddings, sometimes just for legal reasons like tax or immigration, sometimes well after they'd had a child. In fact the strongest, healthiest, most resentment-free couple I know - of 25 years now - are two gay men who aren't married at all. When guys start telling me how they've found the girl of their dreams and want to give her the day of her dreams - and girls start talking about all the attention and validation they're going to get from The Biggest Wedding In History - then I know they're getting wrapped up in something quite external to what having a relationship is really about, and their days are likely numbered.

Marriage means whatever you want it to mean and that's the issue I have with marriage. If it means nice things to someone I can see staying with, it's not a bad idea, but it's still objectively useless. There is no component of marriage that can't be had outside of marriage and done just as well except the tradition with its name. So is that named tradition important because of its traditional status?

[goodboyCerberus]

I always sit at the very back of a church for funerals now so I don't have to do any standing, kneeling or praying. When I hear a priest speak I'm usually face-palming and to be honest the whole thing is next to an ordeal for me. I can't stand a priest talking about a loved one and how they are now with the Father in heaven when they can't possibly know. I came really close to walking out on my grand-father's funeral but I knew it wouldn't go down well with the family and it wasn't the time to be making a theological point. I can't really express how much I hate the institution.

My great aunt's funeral was horrible. I can only hope I wasn't alone in thinking the priest was over the top throughout the entire service.

For example, a relative gave a heart-wrenching life story at the lectern, choked up, managed to finish, and was half-way back to hear seat when the priest stopped her. He made some comment on something she had said: how my great aunt loved art, impressionist art, and that art is an expression of God that we channel, or some bullshit. Then he let her sit down. I couldn't believe it.

...
I haven't thought much about marriage. I always figured I'd do it when it felt right. I wonder if it ever will. (Don't get me wrong, I love my girlfriend.)

[Millie]

Give me a few months.

I have no problem with marriage - or any other way people want to arrange their personal relationships (consenting adults being a given). Only you and your partner(s) know what is best for you.

Warm fuzzies... I has them.

[Fromthehills]

I didn't really want to get married, but it is more practical, in a legal sense, if something were to happen to one of us, the inheritance is less complicated. And we could make medical decisions for the other if one were incapacitated. I think anyone, whatever orientation or situation, should be able to do this for their trusted other. Well, you can, but marriage is the simplest. That or I was tricked.

One day my wife says, " Hey, you want to get married, it would save us a lot of paper work." I said, " alright." We drove to the court house, signed the forms, then we went to the farm and ranch supply to get a pitch fork and horse food.

[pcCoder]

And old coworker of mine married a woman who turned out to be a gold digger, so he worked all types of ours to bring in the money. She cheated on him on multiple occasions and he got sick of it. During the divorce, she still got alimony and half of everything.

My father's last marriage was with a woman who was always so jealous she didn't even want him to spend much time with his other son. They eventually separated and finally got divorced. In the divorce, she got one of his cars (he had two but both were used, she had a fairly new one but still got one of his as well) and some alimony for ~a year.

Franky, I think it is absurd that you can work to achieve a life for yourself and make a good living, home, etc, but you can get it all fucked up royally just by getting married (more specifically the divorce, but that can't happen if you don't get married). If you have a home that you worked hard for, well you could lose it. If you were saving up for a retirement, well you can lose that to as alimony or something while your ex gets a live-in lover but never remarries so they can keep sucking you dry for everything you make. And if you get sick and tired of this institution of legalized slavery, you are always welcome to quit and get a nice home with bars, food, a small bed, etc.

No thanks, I'll pass. I'm sure they aren't all or even most like that, but I'd rather not take the chance. Divorce often has bitter feelings and out of that bitterness one partner can take spite against the other, and the legal system makes it so easy to do. I don't see any real benefits that can not be achieved with a will and power of attorney contracts, short of some tax incentives.

[Fromthehills]

You're right that you can solve the issues with a will and power of attorney, except say in the case one's estate is in the name of the person that dies, they will it to their partner, the partner has to pay an inheritance tax on that estate. If the tax is more than the survivor can afford, it must be sold to pay the tax. If it can't be sold for what it is assessed to be worth, doesn't matter, you still have to pay the tax. For instance, I have a small fortune in tools, equipment, and guns. If I die right now, being married, nothing happens, she can keep it, sell it, give it away, or whatever. The next guy will be a lucky son of a bitch. If we weren't married, and I had it in a will to her, she would have to come up with tens of thousands to pay the tax on stuff she doesn't even know what it's for, so she'd be forced to sell enough of it to cover the tax. Which I think would be unfair. If she died and we were unmarried, our property is in her name, as it was her parents that gave it to us, I'd have to sell it, for the same reason. Which isn't fair because it's her family property, and I have years of hard work that I put in here.

Of course that's my own situation, and not everyone's. I don't think marriage is important, for the sake of getting the government, or a church, involved in your love life, that's ridiculous. However, just because you don't get married, doesn't mean there won't be complications if you split up. A friend of mine split up with his girlfriend after fifteen years, and two children. They owned houses together, they had credit together. Two years later, he's still trying to sort it out. If I were to divorce, it would be much simpler than that. It's all dependent on one's personal situation.

[Apollonius]

Been there, done that once. No plans to try again.

It cost me $90 to get married, and $180 to get divorced at the courthouse, and we had to argue with them a lot.

It's like taking a taxi into Tijuana from the border. There is one price to get in, but a different price to get back.

[maiforpeace]

I live in a community property state. Seems pretty simple to me. Keep what you want separate, separate, everything else you shared in accumulating you split.

If you have a lot of wealth coming into the marriage, you sign a pre-nup.

If everybody made their arrangements about how to divorce before getting married, I'm sure a lot of the issues people have described here as being concerns wouldn't exist. Doesn't it make sense to make these kinds of arrangements when you love and care for each other? The worst time to work stuff out (or to discipline and mete punishment for that matter) is when you are angry and bitter.