Romantic commitments and marriages

[Brian63]

When a pair (or more) of people are dating and decide to commit exclusively to each other, what more specifically does that imply, and what would it entail? The same is especially true when they would take the extra step and decide to marry each other.

I have always been uncomfortable with the idea of entering into a committed relationship. What would be the advantage of making an exclusive dating commitment to any woman that I was dating at a certain time? In effect, it would be saying “Okay, I promise to commit to being in this relationship with only you. Even if another woman was to cross paths with me who was available and mutually interested and would be a better match for me than you are, I will still stick with you anyway just because we happened to meet first. Just a matter of unfortunate timing.” From a romantic angle, why should a person commit to dating a particular person, when later in life you may enter someone else who is better for you? Couples break up for a multitude of reasons anyway, and it seems that making a vow to commit to someone does not guarantee that you will actually remain committed to them, it instead means that you are making it harder for yourself to un-commit even if you wanted to. When you vow to marry someone, that does not guarantee that you will remain married (since couples can divorce), it just makes it more difficult for you to break up, even if you wanted to.

The exact opposite direction was always more appealing for me, even as a late entrant into the dating world. If I was in a romantic relationship with a woman, I would always want to make it as easy as humanly possible for either of us to exit that relationship, if either wanted to. There would be no (or as little as possible) financial or legal complications involved. There would be little emotional or psychological distress. She would not be staying with me because she had entrenched so much of her past with me, and overhauling our lives is difficult to do. If she always had a (relatively) easy path to leave me if she desired that, and then I saw with my own eyes that she actually remained with me, then I could be more confident that she had a genuine desire to be with me. She valued me as a friend and a romantic partner. I likewise would always want to make it as easy as possible to leave a relationship with a woman, if I so desired. If I stayed, it was not because I actually desired to leave but just found that path too bothersome. Instead I stayed because I wanted to be with her.

Especially---why should any 2 people decide to become legally married to each other? There are legal and financial benefits to being married, but when a person chooses to become married they are not marrying the institution of marriage or an abstract idea of it. They are marrying another specific human being. Why choose to marry John, when 20 years from now you may get tired of that relationship and want to become romantic with Larry instead, or just be single for awhile?



It seems significantly that people have an appeal to being in a generic relationship, and so will prematurely enter into one, and then be too hesitant to leave it, even if they would benefit from doing so. When people get married, they will be “marrying marriage” because they want that lifestyle, even if the specific human being they decide to marry is not really a good fit for them. Too bad though, you made that choice 20 years ago in what began with a glamorous ceremony, and so you are now stuck with it, even if you regret it and want out.

Similarly, I do not like seeing when couples announce that they have been married for [X] number of years, and then other people respond with congratulations on that achievement. Everyone has good and charitable intentions, and I am not denigrating their intentions. It is only that we are celebrating the length of time that a couple remained together, even if it was a miserable marriage that both of them would have benefitted from ending earlier. It would be more important for a person to have a brief 6-month emotionally uplifting relationship (even if it ended amicably) than a 30-year marriage where they just became tolerant of being around each other, but may have even disliked each other. Quality should matter over quantity.

To me it has always seemed like a mistake in judgment for any people to commit to being in a relationship with each other, and especially to marry each other (which introduces other factors, and your romantic feelings for your partner now become legally binding on you).

Agreeing and disagreeing comments are welcome. Thank you.

 

[Toni]

I think I look at things differently than you.

I never expected to marry---I was dead set against it right up until I actually got married. Not because I thought someone 'better' might come along. I'm not really wired that way. For me, it was more a case of most of the marriages I saw being set up so that either the man ran the whole show or the woman did but in such a way as to allow her husband to believe that he was in charge. Neither option nor the option of the woman openly running the show appealed to me. I simply saw zero examples of equal partnerships and I wasn't interested in limiting myself by subjugating myself to some man or by pretending to do that in order to make him/society feel good about things. True story: hubby and I got married at the county court house with as little preparation as possible. We didn't even think to bring witnesses and had to grab someone from the hall. Anyway, the JP handed us printed vows and I read them over carefully, looking for anything that even hinted at me (or him) obeying anybody. I thought it was wrong to start a marriage out with a lie and I wasn't going to do it. But the word 'obey' nor anything like it appeared and we did indeed get married. And have been married for many years now.

The odds were against us: we were very young, we were poor and I was pregnant. Not exactly a recipe for success. But we were also very much in love, had good prospects for a brighter financial future and that was enough. Looking back, I shake my head at our naivete. It didn't cross our minds that we couldn't do this thing: be young, far from family, him in grad school, me working and with a baby on the way. Never crossed my mind that we couldn't. It also never crossed my mind that if things didn't work out, I couldn't just up and leave, taking the baby and starting over somewhere else. Ah, to be young and dumb. It isn't as though we didn't know that bad things could happen. My own parents' marriage had recently ended, ugly. But honestly, we never looked at anything, including having very little money, as a bad thing. We were lucky. We were able to move into subsidized grad housing and we had insurance. That provided us with enough stability that other things like having to make the same ratty jeans and sneakers last a lot longer than ideal was not even an issue. Really, we thought a lot more about how lucky we were than about how little we had. I remember my father coming to visit and looking around the apartment at the cinder block/board bookshelves we had set up and the single sofa bed we had and the rocker and just shaking his head. I was a little offended, actually, that he thought we had it so hard or that we weren't tough enough. Truth is: it wasn't a struggle at all.

Yeah, I know that sounds like a fairy tale but it is the truth.


I've never wanted to marry anybody else. The thought just never crossed my mind. Oh, I won't lie and say that divorce has never crossed my mind because it has. But when things are going well, it never occurs to me that I would ever even think about another man. And when they aren't going well, the idea of another man is simply horrendous to me. Why start over again with someone else who would certainly be unlikely to be as open minded and accepting of my shit as my husband? I certainly don't want to start putting up with some other man's shit. No thanks. I put up with enough already and I'm not putting up with more or new shit.

It will probably not surprise anyone to learn that I am not particularly easy to live with. I am opinionated and stubborn and like to have my own way. I'm independent enough that it ended more than one early relationship because the guy just couldn't tolerate that I was never going to be anybody's clinging vine. It's not in me and it's also not in me to pretend to be something I am not. Oh, sure, I have company manners and I know when to keep my mouth shut in public and at work and even at home (most of the time). Not that I would ever intentionally hurt someone else's feelings or deliberately be mean or obtuse or even selfish. I am under no illusions about just how very flawed I am.

I think that when people put on a big celebration honoring decades of marriage, it is worth celebrating. I'm sure that sometimes it was a sham and they should have never married or never stayed married. But that's their choice. It's a shame, sure but still no one ever really knows what happens in someone else's marriage. Most people fall in and out of love many times over the course of decades worth of marriage. I certainly have. And I dare say so has my husband, although he's too polite to mention it to me. Fortunately, we've never fallen out of love with each other at the same time, or at least not for very long--maybe an hour or two.

I do believe that we made a commitment to each other, but I don't believe that commitment entails either of us being miserable or dissatisfied with our marriage.

I don't believe my husband is responsible for my happiness or for my satisfaction with my life. He may be a big part of it but I'm in charge of my own happiness and my own satisfaction--and he is in charge of his, as well.

After so many years together, we've faced some difficult challenges, including a couple of serious health scares. We're at ages where we know that more will likely come. Suppose today or tomorrow or this weekend, we had a terrible fight and I knew I hated him and wanted to divorce him and start my life over, separately--and I really meant it! And suppose that while I was organizing my independence, something terrible happened and he was in a bad accident or had a terrible illness: I made a commitment to him and I would not leave but would stay as long as I was needed and convinced it was better for him that I stayed than if I left. I don't know if he would do the same for me but that doesn't matter to me. What matters is that I would do my best to do what I thought was right and at least now, when I am not actually faced with these circumstances, I would stay.

 

[Brian63]

I think I look at things differently than you.

Yeah, my opinion will probably be the minority here. I fully expect that to be the case, and there probably will not be any married person who rushes out after work to get a divorce from their spouse either (even if they still remained romantic with each other).

I do believe that we made a commitment to each other, but I don't believe that commitment entails either of us being miserable or dissatisfied with our marriage.

To be clear, neither do I believe that. What it does though is establish that the longevity of a relationship with another particular person is given a high priority, much higher than I think it merits. As said earlier, I would think it vastly better for a person to be in a relatively brief 6-month relationship where they learned a lot about themselves and found it emotionally and psychologically fulfilling, than a 30-year-old marriage that you were sick of (either one of you, or both). The length of time that a relationship survives is a very poor measure of how good or bad that relationship is, and it should not be widely celebrated like it is.

Basically, people should not remain in an unmarried relationship because they feel emotionally trapped in it, and people should not remain married because of any sense of legal trappings either. Just do away with the whole concept of legal marriage to begin with, frankly. If people stay with each other, it is because they desire to be together. The law will play no role in it, or at least as little as possible.

 

[Toni]

I think I look at things differently than you.

Yeah, my opinion will probably be the minority here. I fully expect that to be the case, and there probably will not be any married person who rushes out after work to get a divorce from their spouse either (even if they still remained romantic with each other).

No idea if your opinion is minority.

I do believe that we made a commitment to each other, but I don't believe that commitment entails either of us being miserable or dissatisfied with our marriage.

To be clear, neither do I believe that. What it does though is establish that the longevity of a relationship with another particular person is given a high priority, much higher than I think it merits.

I don't see it that way. I see marriage as a commitment meaning that people decide upfront to weather the ups and downs and to view them as temporary, when possible rather than a life sentence, no matter what, no time off for good or bad behavior.

I don't think people should struggle or endure bad marriages. I also think that when people break up at the first sign of trouble, they're missing out on a lot, mostly in learning that everybody sucks sometimes and that it is often/usually transitory.

As said earlier, I would think it vastly better for a person to be in a relatively brief 6-month relationship where they learned a lot about themselves and found it emotionally and psychologically fulfilling, than a 30-year-old marriage that you were sick of (either one of you, or both).

You realize that those are not the only two options, right? In fact, few people fall into either category, at least between the ages of 22 and 70?

The length of time that a relationship survives is a very poor measure of how good or bad that relationship is, and it should not be widely celebrated like it is.

The length of time a marriage survives is one indicator of how good a marriage is but only one and not the definitive.

I'm not big on celebrations for myself, but I really enjoyed a friend's significant wedding anniversary which happened to coincide closely with my own. I never felt the desire to have a big party for myself but I sure did enjoy theirs.

Basically, people should not remain in an unmarried relationship because they feel emotionally trapped in it, and people should not remain married because of any sense of legal trappings either.

I agree mostly, but legal entanglements do not disappear because someone says I divorce you 3 times.

Just do away with the whole concept of legal marriage to begin with, frankly. If people stay with each other, it is because they desire to be together. The law will play no role in it, or at least as little as possible.

I absolutely get that you aren't into being married and I have no desire at all to convince you otherwise. Nor do I have any desire to make the type of relationship you prefer impossible or not legal.

So, lay off marriage. If it's not for you, don't do it. Please. But for those of us who want a legal marriage, with all the rights and responsibilities that involves, leave us the hell alone.

Marriage confers a number of rights and responsibilities and I embrace them all in this marriage that I have with my husband. Marriage provides a stable structure and confers legal rights regarding the raising of children, for one thing, something that I think is extremely important to society.

 

[DrZoidberg]

When a pair (or more) of people are dating and decide to commit exclusively to each other, what more specifically does that imply, and what would it entail? The same is especially true when they would take the extra step and decide to marry each other.

I have always been uncomfortable with the idea of entering into a committed relationship. What would be the advantage of making an exclusive dating commitment to any woman that I was dating at a certain time? In effect, it would be saying “Okay, I promise to commit to being in this relationship with only you. Even if another woman was to cross paths with me who was available and mutually interested and would be a better match for me than you are, I will still stick with you anyway just because we happened to meet first. Just a matter of unfortunate timing.” From a romantic angle, why should a person commit to dating a particular person, when later in life you may enter someone else who is better for you? Couples break up for a multitude of reasons anyway, and it seems that making a vow to commit to someone does not guarantee that you will actually remain committed to them, it instead means that you are making it harder for yourself to un-commit even if you wanted to. When you vow to marry someone, that does not guarantee that you will remain married (since couples can divorce), it just makes it more difficult for you to break up, even if you wanted to.

The exact opposite direction was always more appealing for me, even as a late entrant into the dating world. If I was in a romantic relationship with a woman, I would always want to make it as easy as humanly possible for either of us to exit that relationship, if either wanted to. There would be no (or as little as possible) financial or legal complications involved. There would be little emotional or psychological distress. She would not be staying with me because she had entrenched so much of her past with me, and overhauling our lives is difficult to do. If she always had a (relatively) easy path to leave me if she desired that, and then I saw with my own eyes that she actually remained with me, then I could be more confident that she had a genuine desire to be with me. She valued me as a friend and a romantic partner. I likewise would always want to make it as easy as possible to leave a relationship with a woman, if I so desired. If I stayed, it was not because I actually desired to leave but just found that path too bothersome. Instead I stayed because I wanted to be with her.

Especially---why should any 2 people decide to become legally married to each other? There are legal and financial benefits to being married, but when a person chooses to become married they are not marrying the institution of marriage or an abstract idea of it. They are marrying another specific human being. Why choose to marry John, when 20 years from now you may get tired of that relationship and want to become romantic with Larry instead, or just be single for awhile?



It seems significantly that people have an appeal to being in a generic relationship, and so will prematurely enter into one, and then be too hesitant to leave it, even if they would benefit from doing so. When people get married, they will be “marrying marriage” because they want that lifestyle, even if the specific human being they decide to marry is not really a good fit for them. Too bad though, you made that choice 20 years ago in what began with a glamorous ceremony, and so you are now stuck with it, even if you regret it and want out.

Similarly, I do not like seeing when couples announce that they have been married for [X] number of years, and then other people respond with congratulations on that achievement. Everyone has good and charitable intentions, and I am not denigrating their intentions. It is only that we are celebrating the length of time that a couple remained together, even if it was a miserable marriage that both of them would have benefitted from ending earlier. It would be more important for a person to have a brief 6-month emotionally uplifting relationship (even if it ended amicably) than a 30-year marriage where they just became tolerant of being around each other, but may have even disliked each other. Quality should matter over quantity.

To me it has always seemed like a mistake in judgment for any people to commit to being in a relationship with each other, and especially to marry each other (which introduces other factors, and your romantic feelings for your partner now become legally binding on you).

Agreeing and disagreeing comments are welcome. Thank you.

We can just turn to nature. There's no animal capable of behaviours that is unnatural to it. The same can be applied to humans of course. Sexual and mating behaviours is extremely strongly coded for. Since we're clearly capable of both monogamy as well as polyamory, we should be doing one of them, depending on what feels right for us in the moment.

So if everybody just does what feels right for them, at all times, we can't really fail. Of course, only the behaviours that aren't hurting anyone else of course. But otherwise.... go for it.

 

[rousseau]

Marriage and commitment is ultimately about kids.

Given the opportunity, most men would likely remain happily unmarried (even if committed), but women require a commitment because they bear the burden of children. They need to know that if they have your child you'll stay and help raise it. This is why marriage exists as an institution. If you won't commit to marriage, you may not commit to parenthood, and the other party can move on. In an ideal world the legal institution isn't necessary, and relationships are built on trust, but reality doesn't work that way.

So yea, if you don't intend on having kids marriage has no real practical purpose, if you do intend on having kids it's really about that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Marriage and commitment is ultimately about kids.

Given the opportunity, most men would likely remain happily unmarried (even if committed), but women require a commitment because they bear the burden of children. They need to know that if they have your child you'll stay and help raise it. This is why marriage exists as an institution. If you won't commit to marriage, you may not commit to parenthood, and the other party can move on. In an ideal world the legal institution isn't necessary, and relationships are built on trust, but reality doesn't work that way.

So yea, if you don't intend on having kids marriage has no real practical purpose, if you do intend on having kids it's really about that.

We can solve that. Evolutionary we're designed for short pair-bond relationships and once the child can walk the couple breaks up. But raising children isn't supposed to be just the parents job. It's a shared responsibility for the whole tribe. Since we don't live in small tribes any more we need to use politics to compensate. So heavily subsidised daycare. It's a pretty simple solution. It's working great for Scandinavia.

 

[rousseau]

Marriage and commitment is ultimately about kids.

Given the opportunity, most men would likely remain happily unmarried (even if committed), but women require a commitment because they bear the burden of children. They need to know that if they have your child you'll stay and help raise it. This is why marriage exists as an institution. If you won't commit to marriage, you may not commit to parenthood, and the other party can move on. In an ideal world the legal institution isn't necessary, and relationships are built on trust, but reality doesn't work that way.

So yea, if you don't intend on having kids marriage has no real practical purpose, if you do intend on having kids it's really about that.

We can solve that. Evolutionary we're designed for short pair-bond relationships and once the child can walk the couple breaks up. But raising children isn't supposed to be just the parents job. It's a shared responsibility for the whole tribe. Since we don't live in small tribes any more we need to use politics to compensate. So heavily subsidised daycare. It's a pretty simple solution. It's working great for Scandinavia.

I wouldn't say we're designed for short pair-bond relationships, but instead to adapt to whatever culture we're born into. Human nature is quite flexible, and many have no problem staying committed long-term.

Would they have more sex given the opportunity? Probably, but that's a different issue entirely.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Marriage and commitment is ultimately about kids.

Given the opportunity, most men would likely remain happily unmarried (even if committed), but women require a commitment because they bear the burden of children. They need to know that if they have your child you'll stay and help raise it. This is why marriage exists as an institution. If you won't commit to marriage, you may not commit to parenthood, and the other party can move on. In an ideal world the legal institution isn't necessary, and relationships are built on trust, but reality doesn't work that way.

So yea, if you don't intend on having kids marriage has no real practical purpose, if you do intend on having kids it's really about that.

We can solve that. Evolutionary we're designed for short pair-bond relationships and once the child can walk the couple breaks up. But raising children isn't supposed to be just the parents job. It's a shared responsibility for the whole tribe. Since we don't live in small tribes any more we need to use politics to compensate. So heavily subsidised daycare. It's a pretty simple solution. It's working great for Scandinavia.

I wouldn't say we're designed for short pair-bond relationships, but instead to adapt to whatever culture we're born into. Human nature is quite flexible, and many have no problem staying committed long-term.

Would they have more sex given the opportunity? Probably, but that's a different issue entirely.

Most marriages break down. They break down faster when they have kids. It does seem that we are designed for short pair-bond relationships. That's what statistics suggest. The only thing that can prevent it is draconian conservative religious type societies. Where divorce is heavily socially punished. The moment we don't punish it, the prevalence goes up. Which strongly suggest we're not built for it.

 

[Toni]

Marriage and commitment is ultimately about kids.

Given the opportunity, most men would likely remain happily unmarried (even if committed), but women require a commitment because they bear the burden of children. They need to know that if they have your child you'll stay and help raise it. This is why marriage exists as an institution. If you won't commit to marriage, you may not commit to parenthood, and the other party can move on. In an ideal world the legal institution isn't necessary, and relationships are built on trust, but reality doesn't work that way.

So yea, if you don't intend on having kids marriage has no real practical purpose, if you do intend on having kids it's really about that.

It’s not all about the kids. Primarily originally it was about kids and about property and property rights.

Now it also includes rights and responsibilities re: medical decisions, something that is now fairly important in ways it wasn’t thousands of years ago.

Lots of people get married never intending to produce children. Some dealt long for children and are not able to have them—and they are just as married as if they had a dozen.kids.

Some people want to marry specifically to confer legal and financial and property rights on their psrtner. Some simply because they want to make a public commitment that also involves the same legal rights and responsibilities.

 

[Brian63]

No idea if your opinion is minority.

I do, as I have expressed similar sentiments in a couple other venues, and my opinion was the small minority one each time. Some people eventually related better to it though as the discussion went on.

I see marriage as a commitment meaning that people decide upfront to weather the ups and downs and to view them as temporary, when possible rather than a life sentence, no matter what, no time off for good or bad behavior.

So how should a person decide *who* to go through that commitment with? What if initially at age 20 we decide that we want to go through those ups and downs with Linda, but then later on in life (as we all change) we decide we would rather go through those ups and downs with Susan? Or maybe weather the ups and downs on our own, and be single instead? Or engage in a 3-some or 4-some, etc.?

Why should Patrick say, at 20 years old (for example), that he will weather the ups and downs with Carol Smith and only Carol Smith for the remainder of his life? Even if he would be better off changing his partner at some later point to Samantha Jones?

So, lay off marriage. If it's not for you, don't do it. Please. But for those of us who want a legal marriage, with all the rights and responsibilities that involves, leave us the hell alone.

I am not forcing myself on you in any way. This is a discussion thread on a discussion forum. If you want all the legal obligations and benefits that marriage provides, then fine. I think the government should not in any way though be giving preferential treatment to married couples over unmarried couples or singles. So no tax advantages, for instance. I could see the benefit of reducing taxes for parents for each child they have dependent on them. If 2 people just have really strong romantic feelings for each other however, the government should not intervene. Those couples can make civil contracts with each other, but it again should not be in the government’s business to intervene.

Marriage confers a number of rights and responsibilities and I embrace them all in this marriage that I have with my husband. Marriage provides a stable structure and confers legal rights regarding the raising of children, for one thing, something that I think is extremely important to society.

Agreed. As mentioned, I could see grounds for government granting benefits to couples (or singles) for children they have. Married couples should not be granted privileges over unmarried couples or singles though, just for making a romantic commitment to each other that others chose not to do with their partners.

 

[rousseau]

Marriage and commitment is ultimately about kids.

Given the opportunity, most men would likely remain happily unmarried (even if committed), but women require a commitment because they bear the burden of children. They need to know that if they have your child you'll stay and help raise it. This is why marriage exists as an institution. If you won't commit to marriage, you may not commit to parenthood, and the other party can move on. In an ideal world the legal institution isn't necessary, and relationships are built on trust, but reality doesn't work that way.

So yea, if you don't intend on having kids marriage has no real practical purpose, if you do intend on having kids it's really about that.

It’s not all about the kids. Primarily originally it was about kids and about property and property rights.

Now it also includes rights and responsibilities re: medical decisions, something that is now fairly important in ways it wasn’t thousands of years ago.

Lots of people get married never intending to produce children. Some dealt long for children and are not able to have them—and they are just as married as if they had a dozen.kids.

Some people want to marry specifically to confer legal and financial and property rights on their psrtner. Some simply because they want to make a public commitment that also involves the same legal rights and responsibilities.

Yea I know there are other reasons for marriage. My point was that it makes no sense to talk about the logic of commitment and marriage outside the context of child-rearing, because children are the reason marriage exists in the first place (or now, legal rights, or whatever other reason)

So if you don't want children (or legal rights or whatever else) then no, there is no point of getting married. But if you do want children then there is a point. It doesn't really make sense to rationalize committed relationships without further context.

 

[Brian63]

Plea here---

Can we not turn this thread into a flame-war please? We can have an interesting and fun discussion about the pros and cons of commitment/marriage without personally condescending to each other. Before this escalates further, let's all cool down please.

Thank you.

 

[rousseau]

I wouldn't say we're designed for short pair-bond relationships, but instead to adapt to whatever culture we're born into. Human nature is quite flexible, and many have no problem staying committed long-term.

Would they have more sex given the opportunity? Probably, but that's a different issue entirely.

Most marriages break down. They break down faster when they have kids. It does seem that we are designed for short pair-bond relationships. That's what statistics suggest. The only thing that can prevent it is draconian conservative religious type societies. Where divorce is heavily socially punished. The moment we don't punish it, the prevalence goes up. Which strongly suggest we're not built for it.

Depends on definitions, I guess. A quick search mentions that average length of a marriage in Canada is 14 years. Is 14 years a short pair-bond relationship? 35% make it to 25 years, not an insignificant number.

I would say that biologically, pairs should only need to stay together as long as it takes to have children, which is why life-time partnerships probably aren't that common.

 

[Toni]

I wouldn't say we're designed for short pair-bond relationships, but instead to adapt to whatever culture we're born into. Human nature is quite flexible, and many have no problem staying committed long-term.

Would they have more sex given the opportunity? Probably, but that's a different issue entirely.

Most marriages break down. They break down faster when they have kids. It does seem that we are designed for short pair-bond relationships. That's what statistics suggest. The only thing that can prevent it is draconian conservative religious type societies. Where divorce is heavily socially punished. The moment we don't punish it, the prevalence goes up. Which strongly suggest we're not built for it.

Depends on definitions, I guess. A quick search mentions that average length of a marriage in Canada is 14 years. Is 14 years a short pair-bond relationship? 35% make it to 25 years, not an insignificant number.

I would say that biologically, pairs should only need to stay together as long as it takes to have children, which is why life-time partnerships probably aren't that common.

Biologically, pairs only need to be together long enough to raise offspring to independence.

As far as society goes, and as far as personal welfare goes, and as far as financial stability goes, those all can benefit from long term or life long marriage commitments--or go down in flames that way, as well.

Marriage does spell out property rights and financial responsibilities and some other legal responsibilities and rights--which is convenient when a relationship dissolves and also when it remains intact.

Again, no one wants to convince people to get married if that's not the way that they are wired. As it turns out, I am wired that way for a specific person. If something should happen and we divorce or my husband died, I cannot imagine entering into another marriage or even a live in arrangement. Partly, I'm just set in my ways and have no desire to bend them to accommodate another person. But if I were to die or if we were to divorce, I would hope that my husband might find someone to marry again as I think marriage suits him. I think this marriage suits me but doubt I would achieve the same luck twice. And am not interested in finding out if I'm right or wrong.

 

[Keith&Co.]

What it does though is establish that the longevity of a relationship with another particular person is given a high priority, much higher than I think it merits.

Which is perfectly valid.
Your relationships have exactly the value you put into them. The oaper doesn't change that.
My wife is the other half of my soul, but i also know people who feel that strongly without being epwed. AND those who are married, but value tge tax breaks more than anything else.

Thing is, the wedding is a declaration. No one ELSE gets to decide how much i do or do not value my relationship with Mrs. &co.

They can't treat her like an infatuation or the flavor of the week. And if i am not present, her opinion on what i want in something weighs more than just someone i spend time with.

 

[Brian63]

Why should the value someone has for another human companion (romantic or friend or otherwise) be any of the government's business though? If 2 platonic friends want to get married, why should that in itself justify them receiving tax benefits?

If it should not justify that, then why should a romantic couple get those benefits? Why is the romantic affection a couple has a game-changer on how much preferential treatment the government rewards them with?

Again, I am all for people being allowed to make civil contracts with each other. They can declare who they want their inheritances to transfer to upon death, they can declare who they want to make life-and-death decisions for them if they are in the ER, etc. Married couples should not receive tax benefits though that are denied to unmarried couples and singles. Having children (or other dependents) would be grounds for that, but not simply being married to each other.

 

[rousseau]

Again, no one wants to convince people to get married if that's not the way that they are wired. As it turns out, I am wired that way for a specific person. If something should happen and we divorce or my husband died, I cannot imagine entering into another marriage or even a live in arrangement. Partly, I'm just set in my ways and have no desire to bend them to accommodate another person. But if I were to die or if we were to divorce, I would hope that my husband might find someone to marry again as I think marriage suits him. I think this marriage suits me but doubt I would achieve the same luck twice. And am not interested in finding out if I'm right or wrong.

I would probably get married again, but only because I don't think I'd be able to handle the solitude long-term.

My wife and I are an interesting case because I was committed to her long before I proposed. I've been in many relationships, and with her I knew a) I could happily live with her, and b) the time was right to settle down. But we only got married because kids out of wedlock isn't really done in Ontario, and she just wanted to have a wedding / get pictures. We're amicable enough that a break-up would have been fine with or without marriage.

But after the fact I'm glad we did it as a sign of my commitment, and because our wedding was a pretty wonderful accomplishment and experience. I figured out afterward that life doesn't always have to be about efficiency, and sometimes you can just go ahead and spend 15k on a massive party with all of your closest friends and family.

 

[Brian63]

But if I were to die or if we were to divorce, I would hope that my husband might find someone to marry again as I think marriage suits him.

That seems a noble sentiment, your wanting what is best for him.

Recently I was in the company of a husband/wife where the wife was expressing how devastated and miserable she would be if her husband were to suddenly have a fatal accident, and she would not know how to proceed in life. If I was in a relationship where I wanted what was best for my girlfriend/wife, then I would be terrified at listening to those kinds of sentiments. I would rather make sure that she could not only survive the rest of her life, but be very happy in it as well. Even if that meant getting romantically involved with someone else, either after I died or while I was alive but she was not happy in our relationship. That is why I do not think it makes sense to say we will commit to only being romantic with one person for the entire remainder of our lives. The intentions are good, but it is still an error in judgment. We should always be willing to allow for significant changes in our lives, but we still should realize that we change over time and that may include changing how we feel now versus how we felt 10 or 20 or 30 years earlier when we made a commitment.

In the above scenario, if it was not the result of a traumatic and fatal event, but just that she wanted out of the relationship, then she should feel free to go. She should not feel discouraged from leaving leaving because the barrier to do so is very high. If she stays, it should be because she would be able to live independently from me if her life went in that direction, but that she had a strong preference for remaining with me still. The relationship exists because it makes even better what would otherwise still be a good life, not because it prevents a miserable life from becoming even worse.

 

[rousseau]

Why should the value someone has for another human companion (romantic or friend or otherwise) be any of the government's business though? If 2 platonic friends want to get married, why should that in itself justify them receiving tax benefits?

If it should not justify that, then why should a romantic couple get those benefits? Why is the romantic affection a couple has a game-changer on how much preferential treatment the government rewards them with?

Again, I am all for people being allowed to make civil contracts with each other. They can declare who they want their inheritances to transfer to upon death, they can declare who they want to make life-and-death decisions for them if they are in the ER, etc. Married couples should not receive tax benefits though that are denied to unmarried couples and singles. Having children (or other dependents) would be grounds for that, but not simply being married to each other.

You won't get much of a better answer than that laws are built to incentivize child-rearing, so coupling (whether common-law or marriage) entails benefits, and actually having kids entails more benefits. This is the fundamental purpose of a society - to make it easier to have kids.

But I don't know what benefits a single person even could get that would make sense outside the context of a relationship. So it's not that single people are losing out on anything, they just don't gain anything from not being in a relationship. With that in mind I don't know why you'd want couples to lose out on benefits?