Before I endeavor to express my theory on marriage, I would like to know how you, my fellow philosophers, view marriages/weddings in these current times.
Is it hopeless? Is there still hope?
One of my teacher’s told me that -phsychologically-people who come from divorced families (in all likelihood like half of the U.S) are less likely to hold an upbeat opinion on marriages.
A student in my class mentioned that its just little girls fantasy. That girls daydream about weddings when they’re 12 years old…
THOUGHTS?
Mostly tradition, helps couples to have more motivation to stick together too. Have to watch out for those women that marry then divorce with half of your posessions, hehe.
“The ratio of marriages to divorces is 2 to 1”
For more statistics…
biblenews1.com/marriage/marriags.htm
Marriage: “Is it hopeless? Is there still hope?”
I feel:
-
Every marriage should come with an ‘expiry date.’ You can renew the license but if you don’t the marriage is officially over.
-
Everything regarding material stuff should be half and half during the marriage and not at the end of it. So, even while living together, both will keep what they bring to the marriage in their name all along and the material wealth accumulated during the marriage will be split immediately. If one or both work then half of their money will right away go the other spouse, no ifs or buts. They can still contribute to the marriage/living together, but what is theirs will remain in their name individually.
-
In a divorce, kids will always go with their mom, no ifs or buts. Did they not come out of her tummy? Did she not carry them and ‘lose a tooth with every child borne?’ Is she not the one who bore the labour pain and most of the upbringing too? Sure one in a million mom might be abusive, but life is never perfect anyways and how do you know one in a million child will not be unhappy with their dad? And dad will NOT pay for their up-bringing at all. What kind of nonsense is that anyways that children go with their mom and dad doesn’t have them but is still expected to pay for them, that’s nonsense!
-
Dad will see and have visiting rights at the discretion of the mom. Treat her nicely dad and you get the same.
-
When wealth will be half and half there will be less abuse and more love as no one will be used and so will not be abused, thereby reducing the chances of divorce too. It will also ensure mutual respect and so love may not diminish at all.
-
The fact that mothers gave birth to their children and are inherently nurturing gives mothers an advantage in the decision. But just because the mothers went through all that pain doesn’t make them the better parent of the two. Men have good parenting qualities as well…on a whole, they are much more ambitious than women are, which makes them great providers for their families. Here’s an example: If a man and a women get divorced, a situation might occur where the man works hard at his career, and the women demands a hefty sum for child support, so she doesn’t need to work. So which is the healthier situation for the child? The one where the father shows his child how important it is to be self-sufficient, or the one where the mother shows her child how to leech off of another’s success? Therefore, I think a number of factors must be taken into consideration to decide where the child must go…giving birth shouldn’t be the deciding factor.
I think it’s important to ask the child who he/she would like to live with. It’s hard to get straightforward answers from kids, but getting some feedback is better than getting no answer at all…you get insight into their family’s life. (Kid: “Daddy calls mommy a bad woman, but mommy calls daddy an f***ing workaholic and then punches holes in walls!!”).
I also think it’s a good idea to ask the mom and dad’s relatives and friends. What do the relatives/friends think of them as parents? Who would THEY recommend as the parent to the child? These are the people closest to the child…the child doesn’t always provide straightforward answers, but friends and family can.
I don’t see a point in #1. It would just give another reason for them to break up when perhaps they should stick through it. It seems to be the same principal as a divorce, same things would occur. Please elaborate on the benefits.
I do agree with #2, it would help prevent marriages where the girl is after the money obviously. Also agreeing with what you said in #5.
I disagree with #3, the kids don’t always come from the mom, they could be adopted. More conditions need to be implied, but some sort of new system is probably needed.
psychomusicfreak,
You say that, “But just because the mothers went through all that pain doesn’t make them the better parent of the two. Men have good parenting qualities as well…on a whole, they are much more ambitious than women are, which makes them great providers for their families.”
You don’t understand something here, it is NOT a question of who is the better parent or provider, it is a question of who the kid really belongs to, ok? If A and B are two non-spouse different women and A is a better parent then can we ever give B’s kids to A because A is better? What kind of nonsense is that?
And yes, “giving birth” should be the chief deciding factor unless it’s throgh surrogacy because many a times, dads will turn the kids against mom and these ARE the dads that are particularly harmful for the child. If mom gave birth to the child, the child cannot decide who to go with, the mom takes the child. Also, if kids are adopted at their later age then yeah they should be able to decide who to go with and it should also be dependent upon who spent quantity time with them and not quality time.
A mom went through everything of making and giving birth and looking after her children and you want to tell me that you would like to bring family and friends in between the decision of whether the kids go with her or not? What, are you stupid? The family and friends suddenly have rights over that of mom’s? What nonsense and what stupidity! Sorry! But I had to say that. And the fact that dad knows that if mom walks out then she takes the children with her will also ensure that he doesn’t abuse her and abuse of mothers in general will disappear, not that this is the reason it should be like this but it will become a side product.
If you ever question the rights of a mother for exclusive custody of the child, also question mother nature why she did not make the father equally adept at bearing children.
Inducement,
No, no 1. will be the reason they actually stay together because one will not take the other for granted if they don’t want to divorce or have it expired and so there will be mutual respect. And if kids are adopted, of course they will decide who they go with but this should be dependent upon who actually looked after them (spend quantity time baby and not quality time with them).
It won’t be the reason for staying together if they’re on the borderline of divorce. It would also be annoying to have to renew it. If you want to give them motivation to stick together at the start of the marriage, how about if they divorce, they state they were married in or church gets to keep the ring. Just a random thought ;o
So I think what you guys are trying to say, in response to my post is marriage is NOT a realistic goal in our current times.
Divorce, it seems, is what everyone is hinting at as if that is what should be expected when people get married.
More Thoughts??
Hey Beenajain,
But, a child is not a possession! He/she is a living, breathing creature… not a piece of candy 2 adults are fighting over! In my mind, the kid’s well-being is so much more important than following up on the “fair” thing to do. To put a child in a situation with an abusive mom (when the kid could be living in better homelife with his father), just because it’s “fair”, is selfish on the mother’s part. I think a good mother would unselfishly put their child’s needs in front of their own. I think it’s important to THINK OF THE KID BEFORE YOU THINK OF YOURSELF!
That does happen. It’s called Child Services. If B is a bad enough parent, maybe she should have her children taken away!
Ohhh…and I’d appreciate it if you didn’t call me stupid for having different opinions than you!
The marriages to divorces ratio is 2:1, that said, marriages are definately worth it. It helps bring people/couples together. It’s a good tradition that will carry on for centuries… untill nearly the year 4,000 when Nostrodomus predicts the end of the world. 
psychomusicfreak,
I never said that the child be considered a “possession” anywhere, but the child can still belong to a mom just like we belong to our country, a group, a society, etc. So possession does not come in here.
And yes the fair thing to do is important here or you needlessly make 3 or 4 million people go through the rig ma role of custody issues, abuse, kidnappings, etc., just for that one or two cases of abuse that may not even remain so after the divorce. Anyway, you cannot take away what a mother’s right is, and having custody of her children is I think a mother’s first right and later a child’s.
Life cannot be perfect, but this does not mean that some stranger can have custody of your child. For an abuse issue like the one we talk, something like “Child services” should not be there.
I’m sorry for calling you stupid.
I still believe in one man one wife for life.
I know it’s no longer in vogue but there is a wisdom in it, both from a personal ethical point of view and also from social perspective.
To make a vow, to pledge faithfulness and loyalty, is an honorable act of a virtuous man. A man is only as good as his word. Unfaithfulness, breaking marriage vows are dishonorable acts worthy of shame.
To father children, is to accept a commitment to nurture and provide for those children until they are adults. It is not only a commitment money but also a commitment of time. It is a commitment to furnish an education, to teach ethics, and to be a role model. Abandoment of children is a dishonorable and cowardly act worthy of shame.
I firmly believe that virtues upon which marriage rests, such as loyalty, commitment, self-sacrifice and dedication are not only beneficial and lead to long-term lasting happiness for a man but also for society. Selfishness is A way but it is not THE way.
My experience teaches me that the relationship becomes ever more rich and rewarding over time. The “cleaving of one to another” that is described as the stubborn, determined will to make your marriage work, is a journey of incredibly delicate and intricate delights that are not easily discovered and that only those men who go the distance with a woman will ever discover the richest of these rewards.
The self-indulgent culture of the industrialized west is a consumer mentality and the consumption of pleasure, the flitting from one relationship to another, the promiscuity and disrespect for the virtue of chastity does not encourage or nurture long-term lasting relationships. Anyone who has been in a long-term marriage knows and understands completely how difficult it can be and how much self-discipline it requires in the face of rampant temptation. But of such is character formed.
The honor and respect that accrues to people who honor their commitments, keep their word, do what they say they will do, meet their obligations and perform their duties, is not simply a matter of personal character, it is equally so the benefits that accrue to society from such actions that make it an honorable thing worthy of respect.
Again, I know this is not the pop culture perspective but I nevertheless feel it has merit.
I think the only marriage people need to make is with happiness. If there is none then they need to re-examine their lives and not live in a vaccum. However I’m not denying that that’s an easy thing to do, to get out of a bad marriage but you should, otherwise you teach your young to do the same i.e. learn to live in a bad marriage and so nobody would have a life of happiness by your standards.
I dare to maintain that, indeed, if a philosopher and another philosopher (either gay or straight) decide to share their lives, that, as a matter of fact, the chances of that relationship surviving are pretty high in comparison to a philosopher hooking up with someone else.
Anyone who sees it differently???
I am very accepting, empathetic and understanding of divorce. Anyone who has been in a long-term marriage knows better than most the amount of effort, energy and just sheer determination it takes to make a marriage work. Marriage is definately not for everyone. However, I disagree as to the cause of the divorce rate.
First, since the masses of people in our society take their vows lightly, they enter into marriage lightly. This is folly. There is really only one reason for a man to enter into a marriage contract with a woman. He is not obligated to do it. He certainly has the option to remain single for life if he chooses. So why would a man enter into a marriage unless he were making a life-long commitment and vow? Otherwise, why choose marriage? I think many people enter into marriages today without making such a lifelong vow and commitment. As I said, there is is really only one reason to enter into a marriage contract and to exchange marriage vows. That reason is because you cannot make any other choice. You are compelled to marry this person and have found the love of your life. You have both found your lifelong mate and cannot live without one another. She is you and you are her. You are one. Short of that, stay single and reduce the divorce rate.
Second, people bring unrealistic expectations to marriage. They think that marriage is some sort of solution to character flaws, that getting married will solve their problems. This is a fairy tale, a destructive myth. Whatever problems you have, you bring into marriage with you. Marriage is just a merging of problems into one bigger problem. So if you are not happy, marriage will not make you happy. People who come into marriage with such unrealistic expectations quickly become disillusioned and increase the divorce rate.
Third, marriage is not for the selfish. If you are a selfish person, do not get married. Marriage requires giving, self-sacrifice, nurturing, careing, kindness, compassion, understanding, and all of those virtues that are about not being selfish. Parenting demands all of those same virtues. Selfish people getting married simply increases the divorce rate.
Fouth, marriage is not for the self-indugent. Marriage requires the virtues of self-discipline, self-control, temperance and moderation. If you are a man who is easily seduced, easily tempted, who cannot honor your marriage vows, and who will not remain faithful or loyal to your wife, then do not get married. Stay single. You will be tempted to stray, it is inevitable. Other women will want you, and you will feel desire and lust for them. If you do not have the strength of character to control yourself, then just say no to marriage. When intemperant, self-indulgent people get married, they are only add to the divorce rate.
Fifth, marriage is not easy. Marriage is hard work. Relationships are hard work. Anyone who thinks marriage should be easy, is doomed to divorce. There are no perfect marriages. The problems that people have always had in making a marriage work, you will have in your marriage. Your problems will not be exceptional or unique to you or even unusual. There is nothing new under the sun and your problems have been shared by married people through out the ages. This is the main benefit of marriage counseling, to show you that your experience is not unique and to offer other peoples experience as a ways and means of learning how to avoid divorce. If you know you will quit your marriage if it is not easy, then don’t bother to get married because you will only aggrevate the divorce rate.
Sixth, it is amazing how many people remarry over and over again, and get divorced over and over again. I would like to see the statistics on what percentage of divorces are first marriages. It is amazig how one woman’s worthless cheating bastard is the next woman’s white knight. Maybe such multiple time failures should look at themselves instead of at their partner. Maybe the flaw is not in marriage but rather in the character of habitual, repeated divorcers.
Finally, even the best marriage candidates with the most virtuous states of character, who have found their life-long mate that they simply cannot live without, even they still face the same challenges and difficulties in making a marriage work as everyone else. They are merely better equipped to work through those problems successfully, and are less likely to resort to divorce.
So you can see that I blame the divorce rate not upon marriage, but rather upon the states of character of men involved. When men of flawed character get married, it highly perdictable they will end in divorce. Unfortunately, few men are self aware enough to recognize the flaws in their characters or to honestly confront their own vices. As the divorce rate of a nation rises, then that nation ought to consider the states of character it is producing in its citizens.