Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
Can someone explain to me why marriages (civil partnerships etc.) are seen as making relationships stronger, better, more stable etc?
I'd have thought the quality of a relationship was down to the people involved, their personalities and how they interact, rather than a peace of paper that may, or may not have legal mumbo jumbo attached to it.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:45, 6 replies, latest was 16 years ago)
marriages were originally stronger because divorce wasn't an option. It's not necessarily true anymore because you can divorce at the drop of a hat, but I personally still want to get married because I like the idea of it. I know it's only 'a piece of paper' but I would want my kids to all have the same name and when I get married I intend it to be forever, so I think of it as signifying a strong union.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:49, Reply)
that's why I'm doing it. I'm not intending to have any kids, so the name thing isn't an issue, but if I was, then it would be.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:51, Reply)
because it does to me. One of my friends said she was surprised that I wanted to get married because she thought I was more sensible than that which really pissed me off because it might be a silly tradition that doesn't have the same value as it did 500 years ago, but I still think it's the strongest of committments. She described it as a person's way of making sure the other person never leaves, which was cynical and not really true now that divorce is so easy.
Really I just want a massive dress and for everyone to pay attention to me for the day.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:56, Reply)
I love Mrs V, and a very good way of showing that is marrying her. so I'm going to.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:00, Reply)
she shall have to choose between us.
I challenge you to a duel!
*glove slaps*
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:04, Reply)
Ever since I pointed out the Matt Bellamy thing in Wiggy the boys* are lining up to have me killed.
*May only be Darth Foxtrot
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:10, Reply)
he is a colossal dirt-road bandito
Darth Foxtrot that is
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:18, Reply)
speaking as someone who's going through an uncontested divorce, it still takes a year or 2 and costs a few hundred quid, but relatively speaking, point taken.Point about signifying a strong union also, although personally when I had the commitment to a lifelong relationship I didn't feel I needed the marriage to formalize it, and at the point that things broke down irretrievably, that commitment was lost, and the marriage, was again, irrelevant.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:55, Reply)
but I still like the idea of having a husband and being someone's wife rather than just 'boyfriend and girlfriend' forever, as that seems so casual and almost teenager-like. I understand why people think you shouldn't have to have a big ceremony to be committed to someone forever, but sometimes it's nice to be traditional.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:58, Reply)
nor mocking you for it. My question, I suppose is more, is my commitment to be counted for less because it does not come with the same ceremony.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:00, Reply)
except in a legal sense, which is unfortunate but that's the way it is
the law frowns on my close relationship with Mary Jane, but that doesn't stop it going on.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:02, Reply)
it's a bit unfair that things like insurance go down if you're married, but unfortunately that's the way the law works in this country at the moment.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:05, Reply)
I am woefully ignorant of the financial implications of being married.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:17, Reply)
dunno why, but heard it somewhere.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:25, Reply)
until the marriage breaks down and then you strap the kids into the back, telling them you're going for a picnic when really you're going to take them deep-lake diving without the scuba gear.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:38, Reply)
but it's not the piece of paper that does it, but what the paper represents, a strong and binding commitment between two people, financially (because weddings are usually fucking expensive) and otherwise.
in practice this is not quite the case, as any old twat gets married to some bint these days *looks at NakedApe*
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:50, Reply)
but I confess when you were telling me all about it I simply wasn't listening, sorry.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:53, Reply)
Staring, and pitying your poor under-serviced fiancee.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:56, Reply)
both remain very satisfied
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:58, Reply)
My mother when I take tea with her, and your missus when I backscuttle her in Morrison's car park.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:09, Reply)
it's someone else in drag. I suspect Al
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:14, Reply)
Marriage indicates at least your intent to try and stay together whether there are children or not. A lot of people view it as more than a piece of paper,- as an actual committment
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:54, Reply)
and if you lose such a commitment, what good does having it written down do?
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:57, Reply)
it's what it represents. the actual certificate is irrelevant except in a legal sense.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 16:59, Reply)
marriage is more than a piece of paper having 'marriage' written on it. It's an open and visible symbol of committment- sometimes an expensive one true, but always a clear symbol of the regard you feel.
If you lose such a committment, it's sad, but I can't see the harm of having had it in the past
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:00, Reply)
The commitment is what matters, the paper, the ceremony, all the rest are just symbols.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:02, Reply)
and having been through the process of displaying these symbols, the theory is that it will make for a stronger relationship.
That isn't necessarily the case though.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:03, Reply)
merely questioning their necessity.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:11, Reply)
But it's brilliant and I hereby pledge my commitment to our relationship
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:13, Reply)
it's easy to say you have a committment. To follow that through and make a lasting acknowledgement in the form of an open/honest committment whether in a religious or civil ceremony is more of a leap
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:03, Reply)
symbols are symbols for a reason, they are physical objects that are created to represent untangible things such as emotion and in this case committment. Like when people are given Medals of Honour.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:07, Reply)
I am disagreeing with you, which is not quite the same thing.Your point seems to be that my feelings are some how more valid if "make a lasting acknowledgement in the form of an open/honest [statement or display of] commitment" My contention is that the feelings involved are more important than how they are publicly expressed or solemnified.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:08, Reply)
How can I be wrong. :)
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:13, Reply)
not really. it's more a case of debating slightly different things.
The emotions aren't more valid either way, but a marriage is more than just a piece of paper, it is an outward display of commitment to the emotions.
It's not necessary, but some people want to do it and the theory is that having some kind of commitment while make for a stronger relationship, although that is not always the case.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:11, Reply)
you were missing the point because you kept asking why it should be written down, and I answered that 2 or 3 times
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:11, Reply)
what you did not do, was explain, why the paper (or any of the rituals and legal formalities) were necessary, in addition to the commitment they symbolise.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:23, Reply)
My uncle Terry for one was over the moon with all that wedding stuff.
My auntie could have taken it or left it.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:29, Reply)
but his girlfriend doesn't.
In my opinion she should take what she can get.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:39, Reply)
that it's a strange state of affairs where my parents would be financially better off if they chose to divorce, than by staying together as they currently are
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:02, Reply)
the selfish bastards.
they can sod their 40 years of marriage.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:04, Reply)
my mother would get so much more money if she was a single mother, and my time at university would be much easier.
There was almost a point where the difference was so overwhelming they were thinking of getting seperated because of it. Luckily they didn't
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:06, Reply)
See you, you're the most brilliant person in my world. I'm not just going to GO OUT with you or LIVE with you, I'm going to MARRY you.
We'll be each other's Mister/Missus.
And to everyone else: See this cracker here, this cracker is the best thing since sliced bread. We are getting married, that how boss we each think the other is. We're bothering to do all that 'I do' biznizz.
Then we're going to Llandudno to have all of the sex.
I thank you.
(, Wed 12 May 2010, 17:07, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread