Thread: People's opinions on marriage

A friend used a statistic the other day, but wasn't able to recall it's source.

She said that 80% of women are "against marriage"

I'm not sure exactly what that means. It sounds like 4/5 of all women don't want anyone getting married ever; but Im pretty sure she means that 4/5 of all women don't want to get married themselves, or don't like some or all things associated with marriage.

I've been looking but can't find any survey results saying what people's opinions are on marriage in general. There are plenty on people's opinions about gay marriage, but I'm specifically looking for a statistic about whether people

want to get married
are supportive of marriage but don't want to get married themselves
are against marriage, and others getting married
think that marriage isn't good for either one or both genders

etc etc



I've done a bit of research on the subject, and it seems that women instigate the majority of divorces. but this doesn't necessarily mean they are against marriage, they did get married in the first place, maybe they just didn't get what they thought they would from it.




I think that marriage is a social and psychological tool, and that it has it's uses. People however are using it in ways that it is not designed for, and is not effective as. Like to secure happiness. I think many statistics show that women are less happy in marriage than those out of marriage, this might be a result of expectations as to what marriage will bring. If you expect something to be amazing, and then it's mediocre, then it can seem as though it sucks. But the same thing, if you expect it to suck, and then it's mediocre, it seems that much better.

As I see it, most women wants the romatic side of the wedding itself, the security for their children, but rarely the expectation of it to last forever.
So their vowe of eternal loyalty towards her husband is just a mere symbolic gesture, as with the rest of the ceromony.

What in your experience has made you see it that way?

The meaning of marriage has changed much, especially in European cultures. It was a socio-economic contract, implicitly serving society by uniting and building families. Love between husband and wife was predictable icing on the cake. Today the definition of marriage is basically just two individuals sharing a bedroom long term. This is why gays expect the title equally with straight couples... since they have romantic inward-looking love as well.

I think that if we're going to rationalize and collectivize the traditional outward functions of marriage, like care of seniors, children, social functions, then society really owes couples nothing. I don't see why people should get special titles or privileges for maintaining private monogamous romance.

I would support a new definition of marriage explicitly contractual to social obligations, regardless of what people do or don't do in the bedroom. I think this would work for socially responsible gays as well as "family values" people.

My personal experience formed this opinion, because I simultaneously married my soulmate and sponsored her as a permanent resident. So it was obvious that I was also undertaking a social contract between "the public" and me the responsible citizen. As far as I'm concerned, my vow is also to my wife's family, my own family, and society at large.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

I've done a bit of research on the subject, and it seems that women instigate the majority of marriages. but this doesn't necessarily mean they are against marriage, they did get married in the first place, maybe they just didn't get what they thought they would from it.

Do you mean instigate the divorce? That would probably be because the laws/courts are stacked in their favor such that a divorce may benefit them economically, and they usually get custody of the kids. I say this not from any personal experience, just observation.

Harold, that is what I meant, I'll edit it to prevent possible misunderstandings. Thank you!

Pong, married people don't need to share bedrooms. They don't even need to share homes, or live in the same hemisphere. There are no rules except to willingly enter into the contract of marriage, and willingly participate in whatever the two decide the marriage will be. Even people who are effectively seperated remain legally married sometimes, for whatever reason(s)


They don't need to "love" eachother, because frankly, marriage laws would have a hard time proving who does and doesn't love the other... romantics dont' even agree on what the word love means, nevermind lawyers who are incapable of it. (just kidding) :P

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

A friend used a statistic the other day, but wasn't able to recall it's source.

Was she a creationist?

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

She said that 80% of women are "against marriage"

to which your response should have been that 80% (or whatever figure takes your fancy at the time) of statistics are plucked out of thin air

Well, the statistics also said that people who are married instead of just in a relationship, remain 5 times longer in that relationship.... So.... Who ever is against marriage should think about that too....

Well, the statistics also said that people who are married instead of just in a relationship, remain 5 times longer in that relationship

Did you read the two preceding posts? Do you have a citation for this?

" remain 5 times longer in that relationship.... So.... Who ever is against marriage should think about that too.... "

Yeah, but is it because you are married? as opposed to because you are happy?

And whats the purpose in life to be happy or to look as if things are ok and stay together for the porpose of staying together even if you are miserable?


Im against marriage its an anachonistic relic, and no sex before marriage is retarded, you have to find someone you connect with and you enjoy being with, that sexually compatible and that enjoys living with you, if thats the case you dont need a contrived reason, public ritual or a contract to stay together you just do because you want to, which to me is more natural and healthy :wink:

80% of women are "against marriage"

thats meaningless because it doesnt state where the would-be sample is located, Amsterdam or Little Rock/Ryhad/Hamish-town, or the whole world or country X?
:wink:

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Pong, married people don't need to share bedrooms. They don't even need to share homes, or live in the same hemisphere. There are no rules except to willingly enter into the contract of marriage, and willingly participate in whatever the two decide the marriage will be. Even people who are effectively seperated remain legally married sometimes, for whatever reason(s)


They don't need to "love" eachother, because frankly, marriage laws would have a hard time proving who does and doesn't love the other... romantics dont' even agree on what the word love means, nevermind lawyers who are incapable of it. (just kidding) :P

Governments and lawyers do have nominal definition of marriage. They have to. Basically, marriage is sharing a bedroom long term.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

What in your experience has made you see it that way?

From newspapers, TV, radio, watching most of my irl friends ..and roumers.
IIRC in USA and Denmark, the divorce rate is about 60% after first year.

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

She said that 80% of women are "against marriage"

to which your response should have been that 80% (or whatever figure takes your fancy at the time) of statistics are plucked out of thin air

HAHAHA, marnix... I did!

Originally Posted by Pong

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

Pong, married people don't need to share bedrooms. They don't even need to share homes, or live in the same hemisphere. There are no rules except to willingly enter into the contract of marriage, and willingly participate in whatever the two decide the marriage will be. Even people who are effectively seperated remain legally married sometimes, for whatever reason(s)


They don't need to "love" eachother, because frankly, marriage laws would have a hard time proving who does and doesn't love the other... romantics dont' even agree on what the word love means, nevermind lawyers who are incapable of it. (just kidding) :P

Governments and lawyers do have nominal definition of marriage. They have to. Basically, marriage is sharing a bedroom long term.

BS! Cite something

Canada Revenue Agency - marital status

Okay, by country the terms common law partner/spouse/relationship/union etc. vary, but they mean the same thing: de facto marriage. Many countries limit this to opposite sex cohabitants. All, as far as I know, define it as relationship of prolonged cohabitation. A common way people contest this status is by proving they were just roommates at the time, i.e. they had separate bedrooms.