Marriage & Parentship

[flatron 83]

Hi, I don't know if such a thread exists, but I just wanted to know if you think that marriage and having children go hand in hand.

For example, my parents never got married, but they are still together and have raised me and my older brother, which is the reason why I don't think marriage is as important as some people think. Therefore, I also do not understand why gay marriage (a very stupid term imho, is there gay coffee, too, or gay driving?) should do any harm to society. In austria, for example there are no fiscal benefits for married couples, they simply tax the household, just like France.

[Duke87 1,070]

Fundamentally, if two people (whether it is a man and a woman or two of one or the other) want to raise a child together they need to realize that that is a lifelong commitment - you will always be that kid's parent, and it hurts the child if you cannot stay together in a stable loving relationship at least until they've grown up.

 

This is why I have a problem with the idea of raising children without a marriage. How can you be ready to make the lifelong commitment to having a child if you are not first willing to make that commitment to each other? There are way too many children in this country whose parents are separated and that is to society's great detriment.

 

True, you don't need to be married to stay together for the rest of your lives, but if you're going to do the latter, what is your reason to not also do the former? A desire to shun tradition?

Although, depending on what your incomes are getting married may mean paying more in taxes. Okay, so that's a reason not to. Still, there are other legal benefits to being married that outweigh that. For one thing, there is no estate tax when you inherit something from your spouse.

[Ceafus 88 1,794]

I agree with Duke. If you are in a relationship, and say you have the responsibility to have a child, then you really need to commit to that person. I have a lot of friends who have step siblings because their parents are not committed. It is a tough life to live, and it really shows non-responsibility to say you are ready to have a child, but not ready to commit to your partner to raise the child together.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The greatest cause of divorce is marriage.  However, if you are going to raise children, yours or someone else's, in North America there is definitely an advantage to marriage. 

 

The basic problem in our society as it is changing is that people rush into marriage without really being in love.  The four stages of a relationship are like, lust, love, and loathing.  If you've achieved the first two, and then get married it is probably for all the wrong reasons and you will soon find yourselves in stage four. 

 

Love is an indefinable transition to wanting more for your partner than you want for yourself.  It just happens, and these unions, when the feelings are mutual, tend to last for life and you never reach stage four.  Been there, done that. 

 

Would it surprise anyone to know that I got married at age 50?  I'd known the girl I married for 20+ years before that.  She passed away some 6 years ago, and I have no on-going relationship with anyone.

[FreewayofFlight 41]

I am the child of divorced parents. Although they did not offically divorce until I was about 10 years old, they lived seperately since I was 6 or 7. The most difficult part of it is feeling like you have to choose between one parent and the other. On top of that you have each parent blaming each other for the family falling apart.

 

With that said, I agree that a lot couples rush into marriages without really taking the time to really get to know each other. That senerio gets more complicated when kids are in the picture. I think those two conditions create the broken home.

 

Regardless of sexual orientation, marriage needs to be about love and commitment. Don't have children unless you are mentally capable of handling the responsibility. It seems like a lot of people nowadays do not have the willpower to put the effort in to making marriage work, which is the real reason why that institution is failing.

[Bdub01 201]

I am the child of divorced parents. Although they did not offically divorce until I was about 10 years old, they lived seperately since I was 6 or 7. The most difficult part of it is feeling like you have to choose between one parent and the other. On top of that you have each parent blaming each other for the family falling apart.

With that said, I agree that a lot couples rush into marriages without really taking the time to really get to know each other. That senerio gets more complicated when kids are in the picture. I think those two conditions create the broken home.

Regardless of sexual orientation, marriage needs to be about love and commitment. Don't have children unless you are mentally capable of handling the responsibility. It seems like a lot of people nowadays do not have the willpower to put the effort in to making marriage work, which is the real reason why that institution is failing.

My parents are still together after 42 years. I on the other hand stayed married a little over one year then we tapped out! We did rush into it. She had been married before and had to children, one in college and the other was 12 when we got married. She liked being married and wanted someone to marry ie me.

I had never been married before and wanted to, to see what it was like. Needless to say we made better ummm lovers than spouses. I don't regret it mind you but it did set me and her back a year or two I am sure.

Our reasons for getting married weren't the best and we probably shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. Personally I don't see what the big deal is whether its "traditional" or "same sex". But whatever...

[lhrob 213]

I'm not sure I can add much more to the discussion over and above what the other posters have already stated.

I don't think the desire to have children should be a prerequisite for marriage.  But I do think if you have children, it's better to be married.  Marriage is a fundamental stabilizing force that affords children the security they need as they are growing up.  Or at least it should be. I know there are too many tragic examples where children are affected by family discord, or are even themselves the victims of abuse in a home.  I myself am a child of divorced parents.  Even though they waited until I was 20 before they got divorced, it still affected me because, in my mind, my family was no longer a cohesive stable unit.  It was broken.  In many ways, even to this day, my family is STILL broken....but perhaps for different reasons, which I won't go into here.

 

I suppose when it comes to your particular example, my only question would be to echo a point brought up by another poster....if your parents are committed to one another, then why have they not made a formal and legal commitment?  What's stopping them?  Do they merely shun the label?  Maybe some people shun marriage for the sake of keeping their options open in a way that makes things easier on them if they should ever choose to split up, but then what kind of commitment is it if they hold that position? 

[Jazzmaster 716]

Honestly the whole concept of marriage just goes right over my head.  I don't understand the desire for it.  It's not that I'm "afraid of commitment" so much as I just don't get the idea.

 

But, I'm a young twenty-something male, so not wanting marriage is probably more ideal for me.  I know a guy who's marrying the first girl he's ever dated....I cannot even begin to comment on that without sounding way too biased, so I won't.

 

As far as children goes, having a family is another thing.  I think in that instance being married makes sense.  But I wouldn't get married to somebody I don't plan on having kids with.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ Perfectly good reasoning.  However, if you do find someone, be sure its real then go ahead.

[Meg 368]

One aspect that people tend to ignore:  marriage is a business partnership.

 

Not romantic, I know, but true nonetheless.

[lhrob 213]

-- I've chosen to delete the comments I made in this post. --

[Meg 368]

"Marriage" takes different forms in different cultures at different times.  You are quoting one particular moral code.  There are many different ones.

 

Many cultures have polygamous marriage:  more than 2 adults.    The current well-known polygamous group involves non-consenting, non-adults which is a problem.   I believe society has a duty to protect the non-adults and the non-consenting.

 

But, among consenting adults, why should the rest of us care how many adults are involved and what shape they are?  How is it our business?

[Easy Bakes 253]

The greatest cause of divorce is marriage.  However, if you are going to raise children, yours or someone else's, in North America there is definitely an advantage to marriage. 

 

The basic problem in our society as it is changing is that people rush into marriage without really being in love.  The four stages of a relationship are like, lust, love, and loathing.  If you've achieved the first two, and then get married it is probably for all the wrong reasons and you will soon find yourselves in stage four. 

 

Love is an indefinable transition to wanting more for your partner than you want for yourself.  It just happens, and these unions, when the feelings are mutual, tend to last for life and you never reach stage four.  Been there, done that. 

 

Would it surprise anyone to know that I got married at age 50?  I'd known the girl I married for 20+ years before that.  She passed away some 6 years ago, and I have no on-going relationship with anyone.

why did you wait 20 years before you married her?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

She was married to someone else.  He had the grace to smoke himself to death (four heart attacks).

[Easy Bakes 253]

She was married to someone else.  He had the grace to smoke himself to death (four heart attacks).

Oh i thought something totally  different

[flatron 83]

It's interesting that most people that are pro marriage are from north america and/or "christians*".

I am not really against marriage and could even imagine myself marrying someone, but I don't see why it should be the default setting for a family to consist of a married couple and kids? Isn't granny+mom+kid a family, too? And why should a person who's dad was an a...hole and ran away be less than another one.

 

 

*of course not catholic/orthodox nor lutheran/calvinist, but members of dangerous cults*,as otherwise they wouldn't take it that serious

 

*with members of dangerous cults I meant scientologists(do I need a copyright sign here?), members of universal life, and such.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Before I could give a serious answer to this, you would need to define "marriage" for me first.
Also flatron, I'd remove that ref to Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists being dangerous cults, as it could easily offend and be misinterpreted.

[flatron 83]

yeah, you just misinterpreted it I'm a catholic myself, and would never call my religion a cult. I was talking about the so called christians in america.

Marriage for me is the civil union two people close at the townhall/courthouse/church/... and that is registered in official papers. (marital status and such)

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Let's just keep in mind that even with the advent of smileys, sarcasm is easily misinterpreted on the net. You may go about your business, but please keep that in mind.

Please imagine this post in snazzy Moderator Blue, because my phone can't find the colors. I think it might be colorist.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

I think we can just say "the WBC". Not hating them is taboo, it seems.

[Architechnid 186]

Fair warning: This post is long.

 

Their are a few questions I think you could be asking here:

• Are kids necessary for a marriage?
• Is a marriage necessary to raise a kid?
• Should you be married before raising a kid?

You also sort of implied the question of whether 'gay marriage' is damaging to society, and if so how.

 

My answers to these questions are as follows:

1. Kids are absolutely not necessary for a marriage.  Marriage as I understand and practice it (I'm married...) is a public commitment to God to hold your spouse above all others under God.  It is a commitment to Him because He is the rightful center of everything in life.  I could probably write a book just unpacking the previous statement as it sort of requires a whole understanding of the Gospel message (again as I understand and practice it).  I'm happy to expand upon it if anyone wishes, but will move on for the purposes of this forum topic. 

 

Ultimately I think you should marry someone only when you are willing to love them as Christ loves you, put them before yourself, and to work through anything that comes you're collective way.  For my wife and I, divorce is not an option.  We made that clear to each other before we were married, and made sure we were on board with it.  Their are no take-backs, reneging, etc.  We're on the corner of 'Can't Stop' and 'Won't Stop', and we're on this train till the end of the line...

 

2. Marriage is not required to raise a kid, or even 'properly' raise a kid.  I would, however, advise it.  I am the product of divorced parents, you (flatron) are a product of unmarried parents (although here in Texas they would be considered married by common law if I am to understand their relationship correctly).  I don't subscribe to the idea that marriage has to be legally acknowledged, but simply publicly so (i.e. witnesses like friends and family, for the primary purpose of keeping you accountable to the commitment you are making to God & your spouse).  There are countless examples of people who grow up to become productive members of society raised by unmarried, single, divorced, etc. parents.  Marriage does provide an excellent framework, however, to raise a kid, and is probably the singe most effective, efficient, and I'd argue, appropriate way to raise a child, particularly in conjunction with extended family and friends.  That by no means is to say that marriage guarantees anything when raising a child.  You still have to be intentional in your relationship with your child, and what you teach, expose, and exemplify with your daily life, marriage only being one part of that.

 

3. Really, I already answered that above.  Refer to previous paragraph...

 

On the question of 'gay marriage', I obviously don't subscribe to the notion in general.  Another post describing God's point of view, from a self described gay man no less, provides excellent insight as to my reasoning.  I won't expound upon it based on the author's wishes at the end of that post. 

 

As a larger question in society, particularly American society (not to count you guys to the north out Nonney) the whole public message coming from LGBT groups advocating gay marrage suggests that they are not afforded the same rights as anyone else.  I disagree for the simple fact that they or anyone could just as easily choose to marry someone, in the legal sense. Further, no one in society, gay or not, can choose to marry someone of the same sex.  That is universal to all citizens here, and I assume many other places. 

 

I'm also an advocate, however, of limited government, (not to a libertarian degree, but much less then our gov. is today)  I don't believe my, or any government, should be in the business of saying what marriage is or isn't, and who can or can't be married.  Further, I am not in favor of the taxes, etc. that make the status of marriage so important in a legal sense to same sex couples and heterosexual couples alike.  These decisions should be made on a much more local, if not individual basis.  What would make sense in San Francisco is different than what makes sense here in West Texas.  Further, I am absolutely an advocate of the idea that someone should be afforded the rights a spouse currently holds in matters involve medical decision making, etc. where the victim and the person have mutually, explicitly, and legally agreed to that status, be it their gay spouse, or best friend, or whomever.  If I want my cousin's brother in law to be that person, and he agrees, then their shouldn't be anything to stop us from doing so.  This is people of wealth and power trying to control everyone else. 

 

Ultimately, the topic as it stands in my country's political discourse, is not about providing more rights to more citizens.  It's about gaining greater support of a greater percentage of the population by partisans, and almost everything now-a-days is such.  So, IMO, 'gay marriage' is harmful to society because it is giving manipulative people more power to abuse, and is basically one of many weapons to inflict more tyranny on citizens.

 

Further, it is fundamentally in opposition to how God would have us live, and secularism in general is degrading the values of our society.  Not everyone has to be a Christian in this country to ascribe to the values of freedom, responsibility, and a service mentality.  Among many other things, and certainly not to the greatest degree, gay marriage is putting one's own desires above that of others, and therefore, is culturally harmful if promoted or seen as 'okay' or viable.  This is why I would not suggest it, but not a reason to 'ban' it, certianly not in a legal sense.

 

If you're still reading this post, props to you.  If you disagree, I'd love to here how and why (no sarcasm here).  Hopefully you got as much out of reading this as I did in writing it. 

[Architechnid 186]

It's interesting that most people that are pro marriage are from north america and/or "christians*".

I am not really against marriage and could even imagine myself marrying someone, but I don't see why it should be the default setting for a family to consist of a married couple and kids? Isn't granny+mom+kid a family, too? And why should a person who's dad was an a...hole and ran away be less than another one.

 

 

*of course not catholic/orthodox nor lutheran/calvinist, but members of dangerous cults*,as otherwise they wouldn't take it that serious

 

*with members of dangerous cults I meant scientologists(do I need a copyright sign here?), members of universal life, and such.

 

Okay I realize I just put this ridiculously long post on this topic, but thought I had one more thing to add:

 

My wife is actually completely estranged from her 'father' specifically because he was an 'a-hole'.  Her mother raising her bother and her wasn't exactly ideal.  She turned out okay despite this, not because of or indifferent to this fact.  She in fact has many emotional issues that will probably never be resolved due to her 'father's' actions.  Also, social statistics show that success, achievement, etc. drop dramatically for those raised in a household without a father/male role model, particularly for minorities (in the U.S. at least).  As stated in my rant, practically speaking, marriage is probably the most efficient and effective way to raise a productive, contributive member of society, but isn't the only way, by any means. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ could have used the edit button to add the comment.

---

Marriage is a commitment for life between two people, sanctified by a church or not.  It means that the two people will effectively act as one.  If it falls apart at some point and each goes his own way, that was not a marriage.  The proof a marriage is the survival of the relationship until the death of at least one partner.  At that point one becomes widowed, like me.

 

Whether you make public vows or not is totally up to the couple.  As for children, in the case of a heterosexual couple they can be got in the usual way, or in any case adopted.  There are certainly enough orphans around that need a better guarantee of succour than provided by the state or, heaven forbid, the streets.

 

Now some people believe that group or plural marriage is possible, but in my view this is against nature to a certain degree.  If a man has more than one wife, how can he be committed to each of them individually?  If a group considers itself married how can they be committed to each other individually.  This is only possible in a convent or monastery where there is no direct relationship between the participants.  Convent or monastic life is a retreat from life by those who wish never to be committed to any fellow.  They pretend to be committed to the deity.  But who knows if the deity cares?  The commitment is a one-way street.

 

A special note on the foregoing:  I have no use for the ancient practices mentioned in some of the ancient writings.  We've been fruitful and multiplied to the point where it is becoming unmanageable and starvation is getting to be a huge problem.  Nature hasn't created enough control mechanisms.  So be it!

 

And some may wonder why I happen to be a born Catholic, no longer practising, who is utterly against priestly celibacy.  Hah!  That decree was a moment of theological insanity, and it has caused many more problems than it ever solved.

[timmie 988]

But that doesn't mean I subscribe to every facet and principle of gay ideology.

 

Just a small remark, I don't think there is a thing as 'gay ideology'. There is no such thing as a gay interpretation of the condition of the world and a gay view on how it should be (is there a straight ideology?). Being gay doesn't come with a set of ideas you adhere to. Gay people can be left, right, libertarian, authoritarian, they can be Nazi, communist, racist, materialist, post-materialist,... Being gay is one element of your personality and not something that defines what you think or what your preferences are. What you think and want is defined by a complex set of things, your situation, your education, your family, your personality,... Being gay might have an influence (I can imagine gay people might be more pro an inclusive society instead of an exclusive society, for example).

 

No-one ever defined what gay people should think and want and do (luckily!). It is simply impossible, because the gay population is as diverse as the rest of the population, because being gay is simply not the only element of one's personality.

[Duke87 1,070]

Just a small remark, I don't think there is a thing as 'gay ideology'. There is no such thing as a gay interpretation of the condition of the world and a gay view on how it should be (is there a straight ideology?). Being gay doesn't come with a set of ideas you adhere to.

 

I don't think it's a question of whether all gay people think alike (obviously they don't). "Gay ideology" is a thing, but it just means a desire to have homosexuals be accepted by society and granted equal rights. There is no implication that all gay people subscribe to the ideology or that all people who subscribe to the ideology are gay (both also obviously not true). The issue is that not everyone considers such tolerance to be a good thing and most people who use that term are on the opposing side - as such, the term has a negative connotation. But, connotation aside, what the term is describing does nonetheless exist. If it didn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

"Straight ideology" is not so much a thing because there isn't an analogue - straight people are not denied legal rights or societal acceptance on account of being straight, so there is no need for a movement in their favor.

[Meg 368]

. . . divorce is not an option.   

 

Sometimes it is better, for both the individuals and the couple, if divorce is an option.

 

Case in point:  I have a cousin who is a drug addict.  When he is clean, he is a fine husband, father, and employee.  His wife has made it clear that, if he starts using again, she and their kid are out of there.  If they had decided that divorce was not an option, I doubt that he would still be clean.  

 

 

A special note on the foregoing:  I have no use for the ancient practices mentioned in some of the ancient writings.  We've been fruitful and multiplied to the point where it is becoming unmanageable and starvation is getting to be a huge problem.  Nature hasn't created enough control mechanisms.  So be it!

 

Maybe homosexuality is one of nature's control mechanisms. (In general, gay people tend to have fewer children than straight people.)    Just a thought . . .

[Duke87 1,070]

. . . divorce is not an option.   

 

Sometimes it is better, for both the individuals and the couple, if divorce is an option.

 

Case in point:  I have a cousin who is a drug addict.  When he is clean, he is a fine husband, father, and employee.  His wife has made it clear that, if he starts using again, she and their kid are out of there.  If they had decided that divorce was not an option, I doubt that he would still be clean.

 

I agree with the statement "divorce is not an option" but I see it a bit differently than this interpretation. By saying that, I am not saying no one is entitled to a divorce if their partner is breaching the marriage contract. I see it more as a statement that "we both take this contract seriously and neither of us is going to breach it". For example, applied to your cousin's case, divorce "not being an option" would mean he would be serious about staying clean permanently so as to keep his marriage intact.

 

TLDR: "divorce is not an option" doesn't mean a marriage is unbreakable, it means you do what it takes to not break it!

[Meg 368]

 

. . . divorce is not an option.   

 

Sometimes it is better, for both the individuals and the couple, if divorce is an option.

 

Case in point:  I have a cousin who is a drug addict.  When he is clean, he is a fine husband, father, and employee.  His wife has made it clear that, if he starts using again, she and their kid are out of there.  If they had decided that divorce was not an option, I doubt that he would still be clean.

 

I agree with the statement "divorce is not an option" but I see it a bit differently than this interpretation. By saying that, I am not saying no one is entitled to a divorce if their partner is breaching the marriage contract. I see it more as a statement that "we both take this contract seriously and neither of us is going to breach it". For example, applied to your cousin's case, divorce "not being an option" would mean he would be serious about staying clean permanently so as to keep his marriage intact.

 

TLDR: "divorce is not an option" doesn't mean a marriage is unbreakable, it means you do what it takes to not break it!

 

But his wife has to put divorce on the table as a serious option in order to keep their marriage together.  If she couldn't do that, my cousin would still be using.

[Architechnid 186]

 

. . . divorce is not an option.   

 

Sometimes it is better, for both the individuals and the couple, if divorce is an option.

 

Case in point:  I have a cousin who is a drug addict.  When he is clean, he is a fine husband, father, and employee.  His wife has made it clear that, if he starts using again, she and their kid are out of there.  If they had decided that divorce was not an option, I doubt that he would still be clean.

 

I agree with the statement "divorce is not an option" but I see it a bit differently than this interpretation. By saying that, I am not saying no one is entitled to a divorce if their partner is breaching the marriage contract. I see it more as a statement that "we both take this contract seriously and neither of us is going to breach it". For example, applied to your cousin's case, divorce "not being an option" would mean he would be serious about staying clean permanently so as to keep his marriage intact.

 

TLDR: "divorce is not an option" doesn't mean a marriage is unbreakable, it means you do what it takes to not break it!

Duke 87 hit the nail on the head.  When I say 'divorce is not an option', there are a few, extreme examples.  All are cases when one person or both in the marriage are not fulfilling their roles.  Further, it means that no matter what the situation, even the above extreme ones, both spouses will do what it takes to ensure the survival and thriving of the marriage.  Your cousin only staying clean so as to not loose his wife means he's in it for the wrong reasons.  You should marry someone for what they can do for you, but for how you can serve them.  That being said, now that he is in a marriage, he should do whatever it takes to keep it, including staying clean.  Your cousin's marriage is perfectly legit, but wouldn't be what I would call how marriage 'ought' to be.  (No marriage ultimately holds up to this, but that doesn't make striving for it any less important.)

[timmie 988]

Just a small remark, I don't think there is a thing as 'gay ideology'. There is no such thing as a gay interpretation of the condition of the world and a gay view on how it should be (is there a straight ideology?). Being gay doesn't come with a set of ideas you adhere to.

 

I don't think it's a question of whether all gay people think alike (obviously they don't). "Gay ideology" is a thing, but it just means a desire to have homosexuals be accepted by society and granted equal rights. There is no implication that all gay people subscribe to the ideology or that all people who subscribe to the ideology are gay (both also obviously not true). The issue is that not everyone considers such tolerance to be a good thing and most people who use that term are on the opposing side - as such, the term has a negative connotation. But, connotation aside, what the term is describing does nonetheless exist. If it didn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

 

"Straight ideology" is not so much a thing because there isn't an analogue - straight people are not denied legal rights or societal acceptance on account of being straight, so there is no need for a movement in their favor.

 

That makes sense, I didn't interpret it that way (I interpreted 'gay ideology' broader, not limited to what you described, including more). Still, I think 'ideology' is not the right word, because it is, in my opinion, too thin (nevertheless, 'thin ideologies' like nationalism, populism, ecologism exist - although this can be debated). I think 'idea' is a more proper term if it is meant like you explained.