Notices
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: Do we have to be criticized for not getting married?

  1. #1 Do we have to be criticized for not getting married? 
    Forum Junior ArezList's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    229
    Do we have to be critisized for not getting married?

    There are various of reasons account for marriage, but I wonder should someone be criticized for not getting married? In other words, is marriage compulsory?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Most everyone I know either looks down on marriage as an archaic tradition, or sees it just as something fun to do.

    My views on marriage are simple and somewhat traditional. I don't think it's compulsory, but I do think it's disrespectful(and that implies a curtain degree of psychological hindrance) to each person involved if curtain boundaries are crossed without due consideration for the future. Legal marriage doesn't constitute "due consideration," either. Marriage is simply commitment, without that commitment the most a relationship can be is infatuation. There is nothing wrong with that, but it seems to be the preference of people who favor carelessness over discipline, and thus broken hearts ensue.


    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior ArezList's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    229
    Thank you very much for your detailed reply.

    So do you think getting married is a duty or responsibility for every human being , and why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by ArezList
    So do you think getting married is a duty or responsibility for every human being , and why?
    Nope. You define what your responsibilities are, not tradition, not "the rest of humanity", not the Teapot (or Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster), nor your mother and father. They may assist in your decision-making, but ultimately, it's down to you. Do not let people confuse social pressure with moral weight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Yes, I think it's the responsible thing to do, but it's complicated. Some people enter into marriage expecting something unrealistic to happen. Some people suffer in marriage for reasons they do not understand.

    I think that, for the most part, people should be more commited to eachother and their families, but expect less. One should marry because they have the intentions to stick together, but then again, if you have the intentions to stick together, why marry?

    I think the sex outside of marriage is not responsible, because in changing lovers frequently it lessens the value of it all. This can hinder the importance of future relationships to you, which can have negative effects on your lovers if they value the relationship more than you do.

    It is very complicated, but for the most part, it's up to the society. I wouldn't mind one bit if it was compulsory, I might mind if it was forced, but I'd learn to deal.

    Marriage is good for growing as an individual, our relationships define us immensely, and in a world that can be very lonely at times, it wouldn't be a bad thing to know someone is there for you always, unless of course they don't agree.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior ArezList's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    229
    well...

    We sometimes stick to our ordinary "friends". Is it irresponsible to dump or change your friends who value the relationship more than you do?

    Do you mean to say that people who do not want to have sex should thus not be criticized or there won't be the so-called responsibility.

    I think the sex outside of marriage is not responsible, because in changing lovers frequently it lessens the value of it all.
    I wonder why the one who have sex with ought to be called "lover"? Do they love them, say, the sex workers? Or you are going to say they "love" them during the sex?
    arezliszt.net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    "lover" is actually a figure of speech, no one is saying "I am your lover, you must call me your lover"

    it is generally seen as infatuation: an attraction and desire for intimacy without the commitment to a lasting relationship... if this is not how you understand it fine, but this is how I am currently using it

    just having sex with someone does not make you a lover, although I suppose some may use the word in such a way, they are corrupting the meaning of love.

    I specifically used the term "lover," here, because it possesses all the characteristics of a relationship except the one that is most conducive with marriage: commitment.

    "Do you mean to say that people who do not want to have sex should thus not be criticized or there won't be the so-called responsibility. "

    In such a society that values marriage, indeed, since marriage is usually for the purpose of having children, which usually involves sex. Marriage shows the community who "belongs" to whom, if you don't "belong" to anyone, then marriage is theatrical.


    "Is it irresponsible to dump or change your friends who value the relationship more than you do? "

    How do you measure this value?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Bottom line, it's a completely cultural thing.

    It's not a matter of "we should do such and such because it's right"

    In doing one thing, it is conducive to a certain type of culture

    in doing another, it is conducive to a different type of culture

    the question is, what do cultures that force marriage have in common? what do cultures that ridicule or exile sexual deviants and bastard children have in common?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior ArezList's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    229
    In such a society that values marriage, indeed, since marriage is usually for the purpose of having children, which usually involves sex. Marriage shows the community who "belongs" to whom, if you don't "belong" to anyone, then marriage is theatrical.
    NO no, things will be even more complicated if your take the children into consideration.
    Also, the DINC families are very common nowadays. Marriage does not equal to having kids.

    Even if it's true that marriage is to have children, it's like you are saying marriage is to be loyal to your person with who you created a children. If so people should condemned
    those people who get divorced...

    This can hinder the importance of future relationships to you, which can have negative effects on your lovers if they value the relationship more than you do.
    I'm here say a person don't want to get married in the future. There won't be any effect for the future as he/she won't get married..
    arezliszt.net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Lyn
    Lyn is offline
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    109
    Here's an interesting take on the situation from one woman's perspective: "Marry Him!" by Lori Gottlieb. Here's an excerpt:

    To the outside world, of course, we still call ourselves feminists and insist—vehemently, even—that we’re independent and self-sufficient and don’t believe in any of that damsel-in-distress stuff, but in reality, we aren’t fish who can do without a bicycle, we’re women who want a traditional family. And despite growing up in an era when the centuries-old mantra to get married young was finally (and, it seemed, refreshingly) replaced by encouragement to postpone that milestone in pursuit of high ideals (education! career! but also true love!), every woman I know—no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure—feels panic, occasionally coupled with desperation, if she hits 30 and finds herself unmarried.

    Oh, I know—I’m guessing there are single 30-year-old women reading this right now who will be writing letters to the editor to say that the women I know aren’t widely representative, that I’ve been co-opted by the cult of the feminist backlash, and basically, that I have no idea what I’m talking about. And all I can say is, if you say you’re not worried, either you’re in denial or you’re lying. In fact, take a good look in the mirror and try to convince yourself that you’re not worried, because you’ll see how silly your face looks when you’re being disingenuous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior ArezList's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    229
    For the unmarried or let's say non-married group, it's probably true that women are just a small proportion. However, as she said :

    And despite growing up in an era when the centuries-old mantra to get married young was finally (and, it seemed, refreshingly) replaced by encouragement to postpone that milestone in pursuit of high ideals (education! career! but also true love!), every woman I know—no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure—feels panic, occasionally coupled with desperation, if she hits 30 and finds herself unmarried.
    This is too absolute...

    but it just recalls my idea of "Sex and the City" which is much the same as her opinion.
    arezliszt.net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Traditionally, love was just a happy side effect of marriage. Marriage was about so much more than that.

    I think that marriage was, and should be, a promise to the families and networks of people joined... certainly the community if not larger society. The message is of settling down and being ready to support dependents whether those be offspring or relatives in need. I think that government (AKA "the public" or "society") could be more demanding of married couples.



    In my case, marriage was a package deal with sponsoring my wife as permanent resident (pseudo citizen). That included a vow I'd ensure she becomes a productive citizen and not a burden to "the public". Meanwhile I had to consider moving to her home country, in the inevitable event her aging parents require care. So there are good deeds promised... and I think most couples' wedding vows could be more detailed than we pretend them.

    Should society expect good deeds of individuals? Is the normal married life story just "pulling our own weight"? Then should we criticise those who don't?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Junior ArezList's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    229
    well...I didn't get too much what you mean.

    But there is an interesting phenomenon when it comes to 'talking' about marriage, almost everyone try to make marriage a totally holy thing with words like "responsibility", "promise" "vow" or whatever decorated ...

    But has anyone perceive the ever-growing divorce rate? You are saying that being divorced is the biggest unfaithful and irresponsibility to your parents and your family...then I wonder how do you take people who have a second marriage?
    arezliszt.net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    The divorce rate grew because generations of late have married for love... to be happy individuals. Many even married to escape family or the anonymous pressures of society. So when these individuals aren't happy they end the marriage.



    I know "responsibility", "promise", and "vow" may sound pretentious and surely there are newleyweds who bandy those words without fathoming them. "Contract" is better.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Junior ArezList's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    229
    I mean people broke the promise when they get divorced... And there are a number of people broke that promise....

    That included a vow I'd ensure she becomes a productive citizen and not a burden to "the public".
    This is interesting, so you think people getting married to control each other, and to make them productive? lol
    arezliszt.net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Lyn
    Lyn is offline
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by ArezList
    And despite growing up in an era when the centuries-old mantra to get married young was finally (and, it seemed, refreshingly) replaced by encouragement to postpone that milestone in pursuit of high ideals (education! career! but also true love!), every woman I know—no matter how successful and ambitious, how financially and emotionally secure—feels panic, occasionally coupled with desperation, if she hits 30 and finds herself unmarried.
    This is too absolute...
    I agree, it is a rather sweeping statement. I don't imagine the author herself would totally disagree. But she is giving voice to a common concern among non-married 30+ year-old women (or at least common among my own acquaintances), and that is the biological clock. I have three very close female friends who each tried to conceive after the age of 35, and there were four miscarriages between them. To the extent that the issue of marriage is related to the issue of children, I imagine the pressure to marry is in large part due to this biological pressure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by ArezList
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    That included a vow I'd ensure she becomes a productive citizen and not a burden to "the public".
    This is interesting, so you think people getting married to control each other, and to make them productive? lol
    That particular vow was a legal "undertaking" required by Canada Immigration. So please don't think I'm just projecting my values by reporting that. In our case it was an explicit part of the marriage package... which I personally don't resent at all.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    "Among the findings:

    * Divorced or widowed people have 20 percent more chronic health conditions such as heart disease, diabetes or cancer than married people. They also have 23 percent more mobility limitations, such as trouble climbing stairs or walking a block.
    * People who never married have 12 percent more mobility limitations and 13 percent more depressive symptoms, but report no difference in the number of chronic health conditions from married people.
    * People who remarried have 12 percent more chronic conditions and 19 percent more mobility limitations, but no more depressive symptoms, than those who are continuously married.
    " http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0727135523.htm



    Never Marrieds Run Highest Risk Of Early Death
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Junior ArezList's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    229
    So..as such... You mean getting married makes people healthy?

    interesting...
    arezliszt.net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    No, these are just the results of some studies.

    I have not seen the studies, so i don't know what they mean. I'd be more reluctant to attach meaning to anything scientific.

    Married people tend to be healthier, so there is a correlation, it doesn not mean that one causes the other. For all we know healthier people are more likely to stay married, or that there is a third cause and that the two are not directly linked in any way.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Junior ArezList's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    229
    yeah fair enough..

    I also post a relevant article on my blog

    http://arezliszt.wordpress.com/2009/...age-optional-2

    feel free to comment on it..
    arezliszt.net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Just one thing about your article

    After this quote

    "Until the 1960s, divorce has been a relatively rare phenomenon. Certainly there have always been some couples who have considered divorce an option. But fundamental changes in our society in the last few decades have changed divorce from being rare to routine.

    During the 1970s, the divorce rate doubled (and the number of divorces tripled from 400,000 in 1962 to 1.2 million in 1981).(2) The increase in the divorce rate came not from older couples but from the baby boom generation. One sociologist at Stanford University calculated that while men and women in their twenties comprised only about 20 percent of the population, they contributed 60 percent of the growth in the divorce rate in the 1960s and early 1970s.(3)"

    you said

    "Obviously, there is a trend when relationship becomes optional"

    It's not so obvious, because there are more factors in the real world model than just "relationships are practically forced" and "relationships are optional."

    You can use that same quote above to support the following statement
    "In the US there is a correlation between: drug use, crime, welfare, eastward migration, urbanization, and divorce rates" etc etc because all of these things occurred steadily over a period of time, accelerating, like most things, since the second industrial revolution.

    I'm going to put it simply, since this post is getting long, and it's getting late.

    As industry accelerated, goods became cheaper. As communist ethics spread, equality becomes more popular. Relationships don't suddenly become "optional" they always have been, what suddenly happens is that free spirited individuals can now identify with a larger culture, which is very empowering. I'll go so far as to say that the only thing preventing marriage from seeming "optional" is that to choose the uncommon option was to be exiled from your culture, but with the presence of an alternative culture, you have much less to loose, and it seems, your whole life to gain.

    But more came with this movement than just equality and a free spirit, as I've already mentioned.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Junior ArezList's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    229
    Actually, I mean to say because of the development of modern society and so on.

    Perhaps, I should make it more concrete as you suggested.

    Thank you, and can I use your statement as a quote to revise my article?
    arezliszt.net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Quote Originally Posted by ArezList
    Actually, I mean to say because of the development of modern society and so on.

    Perhaps, I should make it more concrete as you suggested.

    Thank you, and can I use your statement as a quote to revise my article?
    I'm not an authority on the subject. I can give you my word that my word is not very credible, lol. I'd prefer you do the research for yourself, everything I've mentioned is basic American history, nothing you can't learn in an hour or two on Wikipedia. If you want to quote me, your going to have to show me what your quoting. Sorry, but I'm a stickler for context.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Junior ArezList's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    229
    well can I quote your statement like this:


    An online user called marcusclayman has a clearer opinion, "In the US there is a correlation between: drug use, crime, welfare, eastward migration, urbanization, and divorce rates" etc etc because all of these things occurred steadily over a period of time, accelerating, like most things, since the second industrial revolution.

    As industry accelerated, goods became cheaper. As communist ethics spread, equality becomes more popular. Relationships don't suddenly become "optional" they always have been, what suddenly happens is that free spirited individuals can now identify with a larger culture, which is very empowering. I'll go so far as to say that the only thing preventing marriage from seeming "optional" is that to choose the uncommon option was to be exiled from your culture, but with the presence of an alternative culture, you have much less to loose, and it seems, your whole life to gain."
    By the way, actually I don't mean to do too much research on the history, it's just your general point relating to the industrial revolution, I've been thinking about this factor but I forgot to write this a clear stance as you did above, so just a make up for the lost. I just want to quote to give the reader another point of view to marriage becoming less important.. Is this ok for you?

    Thank you [/quote]
    arezliszt.net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    alright, just be sure to include a link to this conversation
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    There is one thing I tend to see alot of. Single mothers bring their kids into my Karate school with the excuse of "Oh he has ADD" or "Oh he doesn't pay attention".

    I've learned to keep my mouth shut about asking if she's a single parent, because then they take offense and leave.

    But the kid buckles down mighty fast with no problem. The mother goes off thinking martial arts must be a miracle that western society has no clue about; it works some kind of magic.

    Kids need structure and strictness in some measure. They need a strong male figure to fill that role. If a couple gets divorced and the father buggers off, it doesn't help a young kid. In our modern society, a male doesn't need to stick around for awhile to reasonably ensure that the offspring reaches teen years at least. This works against the kid.

    My problem kids all don't have a male around the house. If a chick can't stand to be with the father, then getting a new boyfriend to shack up with will help the kids.

    Finding a quality guy might be a bit difficult...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Junior ArezList's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    229
    yeah... some divorced parents are not qualified....

    Diveating from the topic for a while, I believe thsoe one-parent kids who still struggle for their own pursuit, enduring the difficulties coming from the on-parent thing, will absolutely be extremely smarter and thoughtful in a certain aspact in the future..

    Well, let come back to the main topic...any new idea?
    arezliszt.net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    Do you have any studies to share that support your claim that a new father figure will help children? I can assume it's generally true, but I'd like to see some studies to better understand exactly what about father figures helps children. Not all men are strong role models, in fact, very few of them are authentically so. Some parental figures lead a double life of "Do what I say, not what I do" and tend to be very weak mentally and emotionally, but are just really good at hiding it. Is this what a good father figure is? Someone who is good at hiding their childishness?

    I don't think so.

    Some men look for single mom's who tend to be "weaker," in general. Single moms need more help financially and tend to need more help emotionally(which is often the reason for having the kid in the first place)

    So men with a natural tendency to look for weaker women(such men are also weaker, oftentimes abusive) may not be the best replacement father figure. So telling single mothers to go out and find anyone to serve as a father figure, is naive at best, and quite dangerous if taken to heart.

    I think one of the best rules of thumb to go by is for single moms to look for single fathers. This does a lot to confront the child's sense of themselves, or their parent being replaced by the "newcomer," since there will be two children on two sides of the fence, experiencing the same thing.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman Incoming Dessert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Posts
    81
    I don't see why marriage is strictly necessary for people. My uncle and 'aunt' have been living together for about eighteen years now without being married, which actually outlasted my parents' marriage. They don't have any kids, so I don't know whether that affects anything, but I still don't think you need marriage. It's a good symbol of two people's affection and all that, and it signifies the fact that they want to be together always, but you can be a perfectly rounded person without it.
    The wise man believes half of what he reads. If he knew which half to believe, he'd be a much wiser man.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Junior ArezList's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    229
    Yeah..It's right..

    but it's not what you should tell the "loner" marriage is. It's how can we let those conservatives shut up by convincing them.
    arezliszt.net
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    I said a quality man. No doubt that's what they see immediately when there's a black belt around my waist, or when some guy steps out of an expensive car, or is dressed well, etc....

    It really is the hugest laugh when I hear "Oh my childe has ADD...he needs some special attention!..." Ya, the 'special attention' YOUR kid needs, lady, is a good firm tone, and loads of frikkin PUSH UPS. Then he learns something new: there are some people left who don't take shit from kids.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    I know what you said, but invariably when you say "quality man" you mean "the type of man I respect"
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •