I Don't Believe In Marriage - Here's Why I (Grudgingly) Got Married Anyway

[Hissyspit]

http://www.alternet.org/sex/141446/i_don%27t_believe_in_marriage_--_here%27s_why_i_%28grudgingly%29_got_married_anyway

I Don't Believe in Marriage -- Here's Why I (Grudgingly) Got Married Anyway
By Amy Williams, AlterNet. Posted July 22, 2009.

I was tired of the blatant social pressure and disapproval. And even more tired of facing legal and economic discrimination.

The last wedding I attended was in June 2008, and I remember standing there after the ceremony with pangs of jealously and confusion as I thought about my own long-term relationship. At that point, I had been living with my partner for two years, and we were getting ready to move out to Ithaca, N.Y., so he could start work on a Ph.D. at Cornell University.

I considered myself to be in the same ranks as my wedded friends because I too was part of a stable, long-term partnership. Even so, my diamond-free left hand left friends, colleagues and family members scratching their heads, questioning why I hadn't (or when I planned to!) shimmy down the aisle.

- snip -

Opting out of marriage hardly seemed subversive -- at least while we were in the cozy bubble of our private home. Outsiders, however, weren't quite as thrilled with our makeshift union.

While my friends' and cousins' engagements were praised with unquestioning "CONGRATULATIONS!!!" on fancy cards and Facebook wall posts, my relationship was rather unremarkable, if not cause for concern. Many seemed to think that my partner just needed a little encouragement in the marriage department, as though I were a damsel in distress, and that I (really) was just dying for the day that I too could dress up in white and say "I do!" in front of smiling loved ones.

- snip -

The legal terrain for unmarried heterosexual couples living in the U.S. has been rough. In Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage, author Nancy Polikoff writes about Bonnie Cord, a law-school graduate who was deemed "morally unfit" to take the Virginia bar exam because she was living in a home that she shared with her male partner.

- snip -

The cost of a "nontraditional" relationship status is great because it directly impacts the economic, and even physical, well-being of many unmarried partners. Cohabitating, heterosexual partners are still excluded from protections like partner sick leave, hospital-visitation rights, automatic inheritance, and a slew of other incentives afforded to married couples.

They're also significantly less likely than their wedded counterparts to receive employer-provided health insurance. In fact, a Williams Institute study found that they are three times more likely to be uninsured than married partners, meaning that they're more likely to forgo preventative medicine and more likely to rely on emergency-room care.

While cohabitating "singles" have certainly made some legal gains in the last decade -- unmarried couples living in North Dakota are no longer considered to be criminals on par with rapists, thanks to a 2007 House decision, for example -- progress has been slow, and discrimination still exists in varying forms.

MORE

[sam sarrha]

1. no primate is monogamous

[Teaser]

2. not every marriage is monogamous, either.

.

[tavalon]

3. Some of them are openly not monogamous

My triad marriage is an open one. Sure, we have rules about how outside engagements happen but they aren't difficult rules to follow, really.

Half the time, when my husband sees his girlfriend, he brings her over and then he usually has to contend with the girl talk for a while before he gets her undivided attention. My boyfriend regales me with his latest exploits as a newly "single" poly person. He's a kid in a candy store right now and he knows he will get laughs for his wild stories and lots of encouragement. I know this sounds weird, but it's the life I chose a couple of decades ago and the only thing weird about it is how very normal it feels for my family.

The only reason I have utilized marriage is for the ability to provide insurance for one of my partners and our son. I don't need the government to tell me I'm married. I'm married.

[GoesTo11]

62. What percent of people do you think could deal with that situation?

I really don't know any polyamorists (at least that I know of). Is it a smaller percent of people who go that route who are just inclined to be comfortable with it, or does it feel like our wiring - whether genetic or socialized - is so flexible that most monogamous people would be at least as happy if they become poly?

Another question. What happens if a couple decides to become polyamorous but then one of them does really well playing the field and the other is a wallflower? Other than providing sitcom fodder, that seems like it would be really awkward. But it must happen sometimes.

It's not my bag, but I'm not against people finding happiness in this life and it's interesting to hear about how people deal with different situations than my own.

[tavalon]

79. Good questions!

You didn't even ask who sleeps with who. So refreshing!

There is an ongoing debate in the polyamorous community around whether it's nature or nurture. I think humans are flexible enough that they can choose but yeah, some aren't ever comfortable with it and some are just a little comfortable with it and then there's those of us who would have a hard time going back to monogamy. I was serially monogamous for the first decade of my dating life but I've been poly for about 20 years now and I don't see any reason I might want to go back.

The second question: My hubby and his first wife (who was my wife too before she left us) had exactly that dynamic. She was the life of the party and he was a wallflower. He worked hard at learning how to be less shy and the first person he went out with was someone who was quite popular in the poly community. She turned out to be a lot deeper than he thought and he's been with her, um, me, now for going on eight years. I've watched him come out of his shell massively in those eight years. I can still be the life of the party but I'm more the soccer mom these days, but I get vicarious pleasure from his exploits and I adore his current girlfriend. I know another couple where the wife never comes out to any events and her husband is the main instigator of parties and get togethers and they've been together almost twenty years so I guess it works well. I've also seen just that dynamic tear apart couples so I think, just like in the monogamous world, there are differing levels of comfort.

One thing I've definitely seen first hand is that any problems or issues, whether within one's self or with one's partner or partners, in a live-in multipartner situation, everything, good, bad and in between is magnified. It's like being in a pressure cooker for relationship issues - they bubble up quicker and more extreme. And you've got far more relationships going at once so it makes sense that it might be way intense.

[Mariana]

4. That's not true. Gibbons are monogamous.

Some lemurs and monkeys are, too.

[Yupster]

91. Easy way to tell is

sexual dimorphism.

If the male is much larger than the female, they are not a monogamous species. If the two sexes are the same size, they probably are.

We're kind of in the middle as men are larger, but not nearly the difference of say gorillas.

[truedelphi]

94. Now you tell me. If I only had known that back when dating a gibbon,

I'd be set for life!!

[GoesTo11]

7. This one is.

[sam sarrha]

43. .. doesn't count the males are terribly "Monkey Whipped" .... 6% of primates are monogamous..

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/behavior/Spring2004/eppolito/matingsystem.html


We are mammals, and if we look to the mammalian world, just 3 to 5% of the about 5,000 species of mammals form lifelong, monogamous bonds http://news.softpedia.com/news/Humans-Are-Not-Made-Monogamous-83227.shtml

maybe it isn't Monogamy that the problem.. maybe its our misconceptions of marriage

[AtheistCrusader]

44. +1

But I don't mind the existence of polygamy, polyandry, or same-sex marriage, as long as it's all between consenting adults.

I can't believe society is still having this damn conversation.

[Kalyke]

8. Bullshit.

Monogamy can be achieved and quite frequently is.

If something as "undeveloped" as a wolf can do it, why can't the highly developed human do it?

BTW, you're wrong... Gibbons mate for life.

Of course, there are many examples of serial monogamy, but staying true to a partner is not that difficult.

[Mad_Dem_X]

11. +1

I'm so sick of heraring the "monogomy is not realistic" meme.

If you want to see more than one person, or if you can't be faithful to your partner, then don't get married.

[FreeState]

17. Why does marriage have to be monogamous? n/t

[sarcasmo]

51. Excellent question which I do not have the answer for.

[redqueen]

53. If both parties agree it doesn't, then it doesn't.

I'm sure you've heard of open marriages. Why play dumb?

[FreeState]

70. Not playing dumb

just replying to "If you want to see more than one person, or if you can't be faithful to your partner, then don't get married." Many people seem to think marriage means monogamy - so I was challenging that assertion with a question - that obviously the poster never replied too.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. OR marry someone where monogamy is not an interest/concern/value.

Plenty of marriages do not have an expectation of monogamy.

But you're correct, the argument distracts from the core issue of equal rights.

[Mimosa]

77. Mad Dem, I agree!

That is one dumb OP. I've read more lately for some reason. *rolleyes* Is it a heterosexual thang?

[misanthrope]

13. Wolves are forced into monogamy via intimidation in social hierarchy...

...Were humans like wolves only the alpha male and female would be allowed to have sex. Is that what you want? Because unless you're in the top 5%, that means you better get used to celibacy forced by physical threats.

[apocalypsehow]

20. I've seen a lot of dumb posts on DU. This is one of them. n/t.

[misanthrope]

29. Only dumb to those comfortable with ignorance...

...Wolf behavior is well documented.

[apocalypsehow]

36. Dumb to those who understand the moral difference between wolves & human beings - which you don't.

[apocalypsehow]

37. And isn't that just the cutest little DU nick? A self-proclaimed loather of people on a discussion

board chock-full of 'em. And it interacts, too! The Cluniac Orders would be much, much disproving..

[misanthrope]

74. The moral difference? LOL!!**nm

**

[apocalypsehow]

78. Last wordism at its finest - says nadda, refutes not a thing, and of course, the ubiquitous "LOL!"

apropos of...nothing.

You're really not very good at this sort of thing, yah know it? :shrug:

[misanthrope]

80. Which of the Lupine Ten Commandments is transgressed most?...

..."Thou shalt not howl out of turn?"

You're a card, you know that?

[apocalypsehow]

83. It's no great shakes given the low level of intellect opposite, but thanks for the compliment. n/t.

[redqueen]

21. Thank you.

I too am sick of that bullshit being flung around as if it were true.

[WildEyedLiberal]

41. +1

I do not intend to enter another relationship without the understanding that it will be monogamous and life-long. Unlike some people, I am not saying that others' choices are "unnatural." Gee, now who does that line of argument remind you of?

More proof that there's NO difference between lefty and righty extremists in terms of critical thinking, rigid dogmatism, and misuse of science to fit their own agenda.

[Hissyspit]

60. Why is everyone in this thread confusing And conflating monogamy with marriage.

They are not the same thing.

[ProfessorGAC]

49. I Am

So, you're wrong.
GAC

[Hissyspit]

66. He's talking about species not individuals.

[ProfessorGAC]

99. That's Not What The Post Said

If that's what he meant, he should have said EXACTLY that.
GAC

[seabeyond]

52. you are full of shit... and to take it a step further. it is easy... n/t

[Fire1]

61. Bullshit. n/t

[One_Life_To_Give]

5. Unmarried Father would have no legal status

An unmarried Father would have no legal status with any kids that might come along. That is he could not authorize them to be treated for a broken arm or any other where a legal parent or guardian is required. Granted this woman has no kids but for those that do or plan to the legal status can make a big difference.

[csziggy]

30. No necessarily true - it would depend on the state

Some convey paternal rights if the father is listed on the birth certificate.

[fishnfla]

6. maybe her vocabulary includes the words "we" and "our" more often now

and less "I" and "me"

doubtful. I feel sorry for them both

[Kalyke]

9. Me, too.

Arbitrarily hating commitments is a sign of some bigger wrong.

[NashVegas]

10. I Feel Sorry for Her and Her Husband

For deciding to get married in spite of what looks like a pretty lack-luster relationship. When one or the other experiences passionate romance outside of the marriage - and it will be, by the look of how she writes about this relationship - the divorce papers will fly fast and hard.

[smalll]

95. That was my first reaction too - especially for her husband.

They way this writer trashed her marriage like that publically. Unless this "Amy Williams" is mad hot, he's getting serioiusly screwed (or not, as it were.)

[misanthrope]

12. There seem to be some responses here...

...that bear traces of judgmental attitudes and certainly conservative ones.

As far as the monogamous behaviors of non-human animals, studies over the last decades have revealed that lots of species previously thought to be monogamous are not. The same might hold true for the primates mentioned in this thread.

As far as humans go, evidence in our own bodies -- from the shape of the glans penis, to testicular size, to hidden fertility in females -- lends itself to the belief that humans are no more monogamous in nature than our closest genetic relatives, the chimpanzee.

[Liquorice]

16. We are more than just our bodies. nt

[redqueen]

22. Monogamy is a choice, not a condition (such as blue eyes).

Evolution did favor partners having more than one mate. We have plenty of diversity now.

No need to cook up junk science in order to defend wanting to sleep around... just be honest with your partner (if you have one) that you don't intend to be monogamous... that's all.

[misanthrope]

26. Junk science? You might want to go talk to some physical anthropologists...

...before you start spouting accusations.

[redqueen]

31. I think you misread.

The science proving that more than one mate is the norm is vaild.

The intent behind using that information to try to paint humans as being non-monogamous is where the junk part comes in.

[misanthrope]

33. The intent? How, pray tell, did you divine that?...

...The intent is to arrive at the conclusion to which the evidence points.

Your first sentence is all that counts. "The science proving that more than one mate is the norm is valid."

[redqueen]

35. Uh... from your post.

"As far as humans go, evidence in our own bodies -- from the shape of the glans penis, to testicular size, to hidden fertility in females -- lends itself to the belief that humans are no more monogamous in nature than our closest genetic relatives, the chimpanzee. "

:rofl:

[girl gone mad]

38. They do it all the time.

They use whatever research is at their disposal to try and "prove" that monogamy is a social construct which is somehow impossible for humans (partticularly human males) to achieve, regardless of whether the research is relevant or meaningful. In doing so, they ignore the abundance of evidence from around the globe that shows humans of all socio-ethnic and religious backgrounds participate in monogamous relationships with remarkable regularity.

[redqueen]

39. Oh yes... it's nothing new or rare... which is why I posted this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6124091

:)

[seabeyond]

47. lol lol... such a huge ass duh, ignored. from beginning of time, all cultures

all times people have gravitated to connection to one...

and then today, you have the evo pshyo babble working so hard to disprove with guesses, supposition, assumptions.... everything but cold hard facts, since those dont exist.

[misanthrope]

75. So who is the arbiter of relevance and meaning?**nm

**

[misanthrope]

76. And...? How does that evidence deny polyamory?**nm

**

[redqueen]

85. *sigh* Did I say it "denied polyamory" (whatever that means)?

No, I didn't. Try again.

[truedelphi]

96. Thank you for that. More and more, as we have scientists unravel the

mystery implied inside our genes, we learn that more and more things are linked to genetics.

A show on the Science TV network the other day had a scientist explaining that he and his group of cadres were examing the nervous impulses and nervous structure of black flies. They decided to agument the nervous structure genetically.

So they also decided to affect the flies that were altered in a way that "marked" them as having been altered. They decided that genetically making these flies to be "white eyed" rather than having black eyes would do the trick.

So they attempted that genetic manipulation as well. And the flies with the genetically altrered nervous structures also had white eyes.

But guess what? The "white eyed" flies wanted only to mate, male upon male. And not in single incidents of copulation like normal flies, but in gangs.

[WildEyedLiberal]

42. Hmm... bullshit "science" to support a political agenda?

Isn't that freeper logic?

[seabeyond]

48. guesses, assumptions, supposition to support agenda. everything but the facts

since those dont exist. a fact that is there for us to see is from beginning of time, people have a need to connect with one.... thru all cultures, all times.... yet you chose to ignore that take make guesses to support we are not meant to be monogamous. you dont want to be, dont. my hubby wouldn't go for it. to each their own.

[misanthrope]

81. Wrong. All cultures haven't always embraced monogamy...

...Be your own Google monkey for a change.

[Boojatta]

73. "humans are no more monogamous in nature"

Do you mean "in nature" as in the "essence" of human beings? Do you mean "in nature" as in outside of civilization (i.e. human behavior before agriculture and written language)? Do you mean neither of those, but something else by "in nature"?

[misanthrope]

82. No, I meant in "essence"...

...Also, there have been Native Americans who might differ with agriculture and written language as a yardstick by which to measure humanity.

[ieoeja]

14. "Moral" issues aside, how would you determine standing on legal issues?

Consider some of these you quote: "Cohabitating, heterosexual partners are still excluded from protections like partner sick leave, hospital-visitation rights, automatic inheritance, and a slew of other incentives afforded to married couples."

If we extend "automatic inheritance" to someone without some form of legal partnership, then what is to stop me from perusing the obituaries and swooping in to claim inheritance?

If you oppose Marriage, do you also oppose Incorporation, S-Partnerships, Limited Legal Partnerships, etc? Or do you only oppose Marriage? If so, what makes Marriage so much worse than other forms of legal partnerships?

Bottom line: I am accusing you (j'accuse!) of wanting the legal benefits of a legal partnership without doing the necessary legal work.

Compare this to licensing a car. Every year my car's license plate expires requiring me to mail in payment for a renewal sticker that I then have to stick on my car. If you think having to get married one time without ever having to do anything again is too much of a hassle, you must really hate the DMV!

Okay, everyone hates the DMV. So maybe that wasn't a good analogy.

[MoonRiver]

15. Been happily, and monogamously, married for 20+ years.

The institution can definitely work.

[gleaner]

63. Been happy and monogamous......

for 35 years this October. I'm still madly in love with my husband and I wouldn't want it any other way.

A very important factor in a monogamous marriage is that you both go into it with the same expectations. If you don't think you can be monogamous discuss it before hand and don't marry a person to monogamy is important. If it is equally important to both of you, then you're cooking.;)

Relationships between people either openly or subliminally have terms that are set by the individuals going in. As long as they both have most of the same wants and expectations it goes well. Just don't set yourself up to fail by thinking you can change another person. You can only change yourself.

Now as to monogamy between humans and animals in relationships, I have no thoughts.:shrug:

[Romulox]

18. Isn't it silly for cohabitating heterosexuals to complain that they don't have all the benefits

of marriage? They may get married if they want "partner sick leave, hospital-visitation rights, automatic inheritance, and a slew of other incentives afforded to married couples,"-- at least one of the purposes of marriage being apportioning these sorts of benefits, rights, and legal presumptions in the first place. :hi:

[cbdo2007]

19. If there's one thing I've learned from my parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles,....

family friends, teachers, pastors, etc. it's that marriage wasn't meant to last forever. Sure some of them do, and that's great for those people, but most of them I've been exposed to during my life have not lasted.

You get married then 2-15 years later you get divorced. That's just the way it works.

My dad and stepmom even gave me a good talking to once when my ex-girlfriend and I moved in together. That it wasn't the right choice and that only married couples should live together. I said, "Why? You taught me to get divorced after I get married so how is that any more of a commitment than just being bf/gf?"

[redqueen]

23. Oh please. For half the people, that's how it works.

For the rest, it works another way.

[Fire1]

55. They'd be hard pressed to prove 'half.' I'd venture to say

a FAR less percentage. I would further speculate that the majority who ARE NOT monogomous don't have a choice, at least at this point.

[Liquorice]

24. That hasn't been my experience at all. nt

[kimmylavin]

27. Broad brush much?

Just because your family hasn't done well with marriage doesn't mean "marriage wasn't meant to last forever."

There are plenty of other families that not only don't have such a high rate of divorce, but actually feature partners who - gasp! - love each other.

[Lorien]

88. You just restated what he said

"Sure some of them do, and that's great for those people, but most of them I've been exposed to during my life have not lasted". Did he say that people can't love each other? No, he did not.

[kimmylavin]

92. I did no such thing.

The partners comment was to illustrate that its possible to be both married and in love - crazy, I know.

[cbdo2007]

34. I'm not talking about anyone else's experience just mine.

And I was just brought up to believe that marriage isn't suppose to last forever so for my family to tell me it's going to work out is stupid.

I still got married and have a great relationship with my wife. It's funny because the only girls I've ever dated are ones who's parents weren't divorced. Not something I planned, just happens to be what I'm attracted to I guess seeing how much my own broken home effected me.

[Lorien]

87. I believe that your experience is the norm, not the exception

"more than half of all marriages end in divorce" has been a cited statistic for quite a few years now.

[seabeyond]

89. interesting....

http://www.divorcerate.org/

What is the current divorce rate in America?
It is frequently reported that the divorce rate in America is 50%. This data is not accurately correct, however, it is reasonably close to actual. The Americans for Divorce Reform estimates that "Probably, 40 or possibly even 50 percent of marriages will end in divorce if current trends continue.", which is actually a projection.

"50% of all marriages in the America end in divorce."
The above statement about the divorce rate in America hides all the details about distribution, however.


According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%




i was thinking that if one family has a strong majority of divorce and one family has few or none, then may be skewed representation. but i saw this

seems like the easier to divorce, the more there are.

[seabeyond]

50. and in my family and my hubby family there is only one couple that cheated

i am talking extended families as in cousins too. the one that cheated didn't divorce. one divorce that had nothing to do with monogamy in two families.

i think i would question other things from your perspective instead of trying to make it a reality for all.

[Lorien]

86. My dad and stepmom lasted 27 years together cohabitating

which is at least seven years longer than pretty much everyone else in my family.

[Echo In Light]

25. My wife and I have been together since 88'

...and we didn't marry until 96. Neither really believed in it while we were younger/teenagers, but changed our tune once we realized the various benefits of marriage.

[localroger]

28. Me Too

I lived with my partner for 20 years before we got married. I have been monogamous and I am fairly sure my wife has been too, and we were obviously quite committed to one another. But the usual supposed advantages did not apply to us; inheritance was not likely to be a problem, we were committed to not having children, and we felt that it was a bit insulting that we had to enter a contract to enforce what we felt should be a voluntary commitment. As we liked to tell people, when one of you can just pick up and leave, the other has to be nice. And as we liked to quip to people who were scandalized, we have a perfectly good relationship, why would we want to get the government involved?

Alas, the answer to that last question turned out to be "health care." She's self-employed and her individual policy was costing more than double what the married couple plan did through my employer's group plan. So after twenty blissfully matrimony-free years we joined the mainstream, and other than saving us a few thousand bucks a year it's been the most singular supposedly important non-event of my adult life.

[kimmylavin]

93. I'm not scandalized.

But I do have a comment about the "one of you can just pick up and leave, the other has to be nice."
I've found that in being married, in knowing that each of us made such a commitment to each other, I'm also apt to be nice. :)

[csziggy]

32. I agree with a lot she wrote - I never planned on getting married

We made it official because of legal reasons. I am glad because in some ways it increased our commitment to each other. Sometimes I wish we did not have that commitment because of my ambivalence about having to defer to another person for major and minor decisions. We loved each other before and still love each other though over the years the feelings have changed and matured.

But our 'strictly legal' marriage has stuck. We celebrated our 32nd anniversary last week.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

40. San Francisco solved that problem years ago --

by offering civil Domestic Partnerships -- open to both gay and straight couples who were looking for legal protections for their relationship.

As someone who would never get married but who might enter into a longterm relationship and wanted that relationship to be legally recognized, I have always appreciated that this option is available to me.

[Gwendolyn]

46. What a whiner!

She claims this high moral ground at the beginning and end of her article, expressing solidarity with feminists and gay people.

Throughout the rest of the article she's groaning about not being part of the other herd.

For such a highly principled person, she sure folded fast.

[Fire1]

57. Yeah and this issue has NOTHING to do with

feminism.

[Hissyspit]

65. How social & property rights laws and gender role cultural pressures

affect women's life decisions And status under the law is not a feminist issue?

Not sure I follow you there.

[Fire1]

67. I was specifically addressing the 'monogomy' or lack

thereof.

[Hissyspit]

68. Thanks for clarifying.

Although the ability to be or not to be and the rights and social pressures concerning monogomy are still feminist issues. There are many different feminist schools of thought on it, and the author could have expounded more on this, but I would argue that it is very much a feminist issue.

[Fire1]

69. Respectfully, I totally disagree. n/t

[Avalux]

54. I'm confused as to why she 'grudgingly' got married.

She wanted to live longer?? Wanted better health insurance?? :shrug:

Seriously though; my SO and I have been together for 15 years and are perfectly happy NOT being married.

Certainly not going to let society force us into it as this woman obviously did. She should have told her family and face book friends to shut the hell up and let her live her life.

[Fire1]

56. Most of the marriages in my family worked and mine is

still working and I plan to keep it that way.

[Individualist]

58. Higamous, hogamous, woman’s monogamous; hogamous, higamous, man is polygamous.

[Liquorice]

59. That's ridiculous. nt

[seabeyond]

64. please clarify why percentage of women and men now cheat the same....

cause men are polygamous and women are.....??????

[LWolf]

71. Interesting range of responses, lol.

Rather than arguing over wolf pack organization, or the sex lives of chimpanzees...

I think it's safe to say that humans CAN be monogamous, but are not exclusively so.

It would be fitting if our culture and legal system recognized that.

Edited to add my own disclaimer:

I am a divorced woman of 49. I was married once for 10 years, and once for 11 years. I am monogamous. I would not have ended the first if my spouse had kept his vows, and I didn't want to end the second. I was never, even once, even slightly, tempted to step outside either of my marriages for companionship or sex.

As a single woman between marriages, I had no lack of partners, and felt no need to commit to more than a casual relationship with any of them. Except the one I chose to marry, lol.

[Generator]

72. We got married for health coverage

How topical. I suppose we would have gotten married anyway-but I had teeth issues, and wanted to have a baby. HE had the insurance. There are a zillion other legal and financial benefits to marriage and that's why it's a CRIME to not have those as a right for Gays. (for instance if you marry for TEN years and then divorce-you can get other one's social security benefits) -something to think about for those at the nine year mark-oh my-that's me!)

[IdaBriggs]

84. This woman is an idiot, and she misses the whole point of "marriage."

Her relationship wasn't taken as seriously as a marriage because It Wasn't One. Its not "so why did it matter that a priest/judge/rabbi/pastor hadn't presided over our union?" Its the fact that they didn't stand up in front of their friends and family and say, "we are going to do everything in our power to stay together through thick and thin until death do us part. We expect there will be sickness and health, better and worse, richer and poorer -- and knowing that, we are going to do everything in our power to STAY TOGETHER because we have made a PUBLIC COMMITMENT to BE TOGETHER. And, we expect your support."

The officiant is just the person who walks you through the ceremony; it doesn't matter who (priest/judge/rabbi/pastor/grocery store clerk) has the microphone, its the PUBLIC COMMITMENT that makes a marriage.

Yes, folks can obviously have committed life long relationships (one of my dearest friends has a live in girlfriend of decades, but they've never publicly tied the knot, and they have legal documents drawn up to give each other 'rights' in the event of sickness/death), but despite their PRIVATE commitment, they aren't married, and that means if they decide to walk away, its going to be "easier" than if they had made their commitment "legal" -- they ARE boyfriend/girlfriend, not husband/wife.

Marriage is a choice. It doesn't make a good relationship bad or a bad relationship good; it is simply two people promising to do their best because they CHOOSE TO BE TOGETHER. Its about taking the "easy out" option OFF the table, and acknowledging the importance of the other person in your life. Its about saying, "this is more than sex, more than like, more than money, more than temporary -- this is who I want to be with for the rest of my life; we are partners in life's journey, wherever it takes us."

The truth is that a bad marriage can literally kill you, while a good marriage can extend your life, so people need to pick their life partners with wisdom; that awesome boyfriend who keeps getting fired probably isn't going to be a good guy to hitch your financial future to, while that cute girlfriend who can't be bothered to go to class in high school because she's spending all of her time on her hair might not have the same priorities about attaining job skills, which again, is a big warning sign about your financial future. I personally know of one couple where the wife financially screwed her husband over WHILE HE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL undergoing life threatening surgery -- he's currently living in a car, while she of little loyalty is shacking up with the new boyfriend.

Marriage doesn't change your character; a slacker, scammer, liar, thief, cheat, fill-in-the-blank is still going to be that same person, while a trustworthy, hardworking, honest, loving, supportive, partner/spouse/best friend is still going to be that as well. Interpersonal conflicts will arise, and if you don't have or learn the skills to resolve them, folks can be miserable until they work through them.

Everyday, marriage is a choice. The fancy dress on the big day isn't "marriage" and the party afterwards doesn't mean a couple will be together in two weeks. Marriage is planning on spending the rest of your life together. What the folks IN that marriage decide that means (where they live, if they have children, how many, how they will be raised, etc.) is between the two of them, and hopefully, both will be happy with where the relationship grows. Legally, there will be benefits acknowledging the "public contract" and also responsibilities.

I believe in marriage, and I believe it should be available to same-sex couples. If only we could convince the idiots to take it seriously when they pick their partners....Sigh.

[Dogmudgeon]

90. Humans are flexible. Monogamy, polygamy, what-have-you.

There's a tendency toward non-exclusive monogamy, but individual behavior is mainly self-determined. There's this idea making the rounds that humans are slaves to their primate natures; the word "hardwired" is also used to wretched excess.

Deterministic theories do not work well on humans. Our behavior can be swayed, but it can't be compelled, by nature. Monogamy is just as natural as any other -gamy.

--d!

[SoCalDem]

97. When a country/state give special privileges to a group of people, one must BELONG to that group

in order to receive those "goodies".

It's just that simple.

The solution is to NOT give special "treats" to any one group..

People want to get married? fine
people do NOT want to get married? fine too

I'm no scholar, but perhaps marriage started out as a "friendlier" term for PURCHASE. and to ensure (or try to) that the progeny of males was indeed, his. In order to do this, his woman had to be legally his, and marriage was the "new way"? property was passed down through male heirs, so of course he wanted every assurance that the proper heirs got the goodies.

Women have only NOT been property, for a short time, in the evolutionary sense.

maybe the hoopla & fancy dresses & parties were all about making it nice for the woman/girl, so she did not resent the "being traded/sold" part:)

[mainer]

98. cohabiting just isn't the same thing. It isn't.

There's a different mind-set when you're living with a non-spouse, a mind-set that says: I'm so unsure whether I'm going to stay with this person, why go to the trouble of making it legal? It affects how you plan your future, whether you merge your assets, whether you plan children, whether you actually TRUST your partner to hang around. Because he, at the same time, is probably engaged in the same thoughts and attitude: "I'm unsure."

I also think that cohabiting ends up a negative particularly for women. By the time they realize this is not the guy who's going to hang around permanently, they've wasted years of fertility and may have lost any chance to have children. I see it happen again and again among intelligent, sophisticated women. They really do hit forty and think, "Oh my god. I forgot to have kids."