# Why do we still need marriage?



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

I am not trolling. Really why? It was important for a cave man. As I explained once already - wife in the cave cooking dinner, watching kids, sawing cloth, man is in the woods hunting. It would be really tough to hide the kids so wild animals wouldn’t get to them, then go hunting, then cook the dinner etc. Nowadays we all work, we can leave kids with babysitter; we don’t need to do so many things at home. If father and mother didn’t get alone they can live separately. So why do we marry? 
I thought it is because we got an overwhelming chemistry with someone, and we want the great sex with this person as long as possible. Basically we don’t need marriage for that too tho.
Now I am reading that it is all animalistic instincts. And we actually humans and we are above it and we need marriage to have a special spiritual bond sorta… correct me if I am wrong. What’s that?
There are of cause other aspects of life besides sexuality. 
Common hobbies. Well we usually have friends that are always willing to share certain of our hobbies. It is not like we have to marry somebody for that. Of cause if I have a great sex with someone I usually like to share his hobbies too just because I like to be with that guy and feel his sexual chemistry. 
Common interests: We have colleagues at work and in the rest of professional world (internet, meetings, conferences) and ofcause we discuss all the professional interests we have and nobody could be better at that. Doesn’t mean we have to marry them.
Common views: Is it really important that you vote for the same party and listen the same news program and share the same viewpoints on gun control? For me and for most of my friends it is not. Moreover we like to argue, trying to defend different points of view but we never would break a friendship over views on abortion or gun control or religion. Ok, here I guess all the guys who think that they have right to control his woman on abortion issue, religion or other issue are out. But basically most of modern families are quite tolerant to the spouse’s views. Although I see few that upset that husband is not Christian for example etc.
So what’s left? Sexual chemistry basically. I don’t see any other basis for “special bond” between husband and a wife.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

There are a few reasons why marriage is, I believe, still relevant. And most of the reasons are the same as they have been for a very long time.

Married men and women live longer than those who are single. Single people are 46% more likely to die younger than a married person. Married people are over all healthier than single people. The studies that show this believe it’s because married people have someone who loves them and takes care of them. So obviously marriage is very good for a person’s health. 

Children, as a rule, do better when raised in a two parent home with a mother and a father. The influence of both a man and woman seems to be very important. Plus when there are two parents to help care for the children, it’s not a likely that one will get exhausted physically and emotionally as often happens in a single parent home. Most single women and their children live in poverty. So the income from the children’s father is important just as the daily influence of a father is important to children.

It’s also a well-known fact that most people who end up in prison did not grow up with a father in their home. Yes there are people who grow up to not be criminals who do not have a father at home. But a person is more likely to grow up to be a criminal if they do not have a father at home.

When a couple is married (and the marriage is good) they have each other’s back. For example if one loses their job, they can fall back on the financial support of the other until they get a replacement job. Try that with a friend and even with family members. It’s not very likely that they will take you in with all of your children and support you.

On average, married people accumulate more wealth and live at a higher level of comfort than two single people. The children of a married couple also start out life at a higher level financially and with opportunity then the children of single people. Apparently two people working together is more financially beneficial than two people working, each for their own gain.

“A study by an Ohio State University researcher shows that a person who marries — and stays married — accumulates nearly twice as much personal wealth as a person who is single or divorced.”


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

All the arguments goes back to the ‘cave man’s problem”. So you are saying basically that not everyone can be successful they need someone to help if he or she will lose a job. Women in US are not that independent as we are thinking. Most of them actually picked up the old family model where woman’s only purpose is to breed and raise kids. They are not interested in career and that’s why if they are not married they are in poverty, and their kids as well. 
Kid’s achievements. What do they consider achievement? A kid of wealthy parents doing as well as parents did, because parents paid his education and used their connections to get him a good job??? Duh. I would like to see then kids actually got better than their parents, let say like Oprah. I am not her fan but for me it looks like an achievement. 
Accumulated more wealth. Well, during the divorce they spend most of savings on lawyers…. Duh, again. If they’d stay friends … well maybe divorce lawyers wouldn’t be so successful LOL 
So, again, what is if we are not cave people anymore? What if we can provide ourselves? What if we have friends that would help you better than your spouse? Let say you can have friends in your area of business that would recommend you to another position in case you lost a job. Not because of some sexual favor of cause just because they know you and know your skills and know that you maybe could help them eventually too. Basically, friends are the only people I really can rely on. That is what I was doing then I felt like I should change a job because it is not going well. I asked colleagues for recommendations and found another job before things started taking ****. I guess I could send husband to look for a job instead but it didn’t look as a smart choice to me. 
So, why do we need marriage if we are doing fine in the society, we have enough social and other technical skills to make a career and to find a career that we like? We really have friends that hold your back. Well I guess a woman can marry a guy “with potential” (that is translated as “much better in making money than she”, I guess) and then each time she loses her job she can rely on him. Most likely she would have to compromise on chemistry. And it is a huge sacrifice. Overwhelming sexual chemistry is such a pleasure that probably nothing else can be compared to. Nothing on the Earth could be as great as that!


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

The Cave Man didn't have marriage.
That's what made him a neanderthal and dangerous.
After discovering farming , caveman realized the importance of land.
But because there were no legal binding contract between caveman,cave women , and his hundreds of cave kids , after caveman died, he was unable to pass on his land and this led to his cave kids fighting with other cave kids for land.
Land = agriculture = food = survival.
Those days were chaotic. There was no law and order. Every man did what he felt was right in his eyes much to the detriment of weaker men , defenceless women and vulnerable children.
Life was " brutish and short."

A group of cavemen decided that in order to bring order to their cave societies, they needed to come up with some sort of agreement or law regarding the relationship between cavemen , their multiple cave women and their hundreds of cave kids.

In came marriage and the birth [ no pun intended ] of civilization.

The main purpose of marriage is a foundation of any civilized , stable society.

Civilization are built on societies, which are built on communities, which are built on families,which are built on marriage.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana (Jan 1, 2013)

Being married to someone you love(and I mean reeaaaally love) is superb. You don't have to deny overwhelming sexual chemistry to get married, just get married to the one that you are both extremely attracted to and makes rational sense to be with.

Nuff said.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Caribbean Man said:


> The Cave Man didn't have marriage.
> That's what made him a neanderthal and dangerous.
> After discovering farming , caveman realized the importance of land.
> But because there were no legal binding contract between caveman,cave women , and his hundreds of cave kids , after caveman died, he was unable to pass on his land and this led to his cave kids fighting with other cave kids for land.
> ...


Yep, sorry, my bad, actually nobody know exactly how caveman did, but agricultural society developed institution of marriage. F. Engels “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”. Basically you are telling the same things that Engels said. So still it was surviving plus needs to pass property etc. 
Now we have DNA you can check it and pass your property to your son if you want. Most likely he would just sell it and use money in a completely different business. The typical family that was created by agricultural society is gone. Children don’t have to continue the parent's business. Most businesses are sold when the owner is going to retire. 
We have law and order that already goes beyond those ancient concept. Now it defends kids from their parents and sometimes it makes sense because parents not necessary are acting in the child's best interests, it defends wife from her husband. It is the society that now protects the individuals. So what is the purpose of marriage? Ok, it was a sort of ancient prototype, same as a wagon driven by a horse was a prototype of a modern vehicles.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Being married to someone you love(and I mean reeaaaally love) is superb. You don't have to deny overwhelming sexual chemistry to get married, just get married to the one that you are both extremely attracted to and makes rational sense to be with.
> 
> Nuff said.


I basically agree with that. That is why I think that sexual chemistry is the most important part. Nothing will work without it.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana (Jan 1, 2013)

Well, there is the fact that kids need nurturing physically and emotionally from a male and female role model so they can have a basic and healthy understanding of life. That cannot be replaced in any way.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

hekati said:


> Yep, sorry, my bad, actually nobody know exactly how caveman did, but agricultural society developed institute of marriage. F. Engels “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State”. Basically you are telling the same things that Engels said. So still it was surviving plus needs to pass property etc.
> Now we have DNA you can check it and pass your property to your son if you want. Most likely he would just sell it and use money in a completely different business. The typical family that was created by agricultural society is gone. Children don’t have to continue the parent's business. Most businesses are sold when the owner is going to retire.
> We have law and order that already goes beyond those ancient concept. Now it defends kids from their parents and sometimes it makes sense because parents not necessary are acting in the child's best interests, it defends wife from her husband. It is the society that now protects the individuals. So what is the purpose of marriage? Ok, it was a sort of ancient prototype, same as a wagon driven by a horse was a prototype of a modern vehicles.


If you have really studied Friedrich Engles, Karl Marx and Bertrand Russell's views on Socialism , you would have understood that the working class families were central to their ideology and social theories.
The family is the foundation of any society. How it is structured determines to a large extent, social order.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> *Well, there is the fact that kids need nurturing physically and emotionally from a male and female role model so they can have a basic and healthy understanding of life. That cannot be replaced in any way.*


^^YES,
Very correct.
Hence marriage and family.


----------



## Hortensia (Feb 1, 2013)

I'm married, but don't care much about marriage as an institution. We don't NEED marriage to have a healthy relationship or to have kids. To me and H, it is a validation of our love. The wedding rings tell the world " this woman / this man is mine ". I love this symbol. But otherthan that, to me a relationship lasts as longs as the love lasts. If that wilts , the rest is just a contract. Obligation. Compromises. After the love is gone, many want to leave, but they are trapped by fears : losing custody of the children, having to share assets, etc. So they stay in a loveless/ sexless situation where they became two roomates. Sometimes they can work their way back...but other times hey don't. Should the contract not existed,they would leave. What they have left is not a marriage anymore - it's a signature on a piece of paper and a living arrangement. 
Does the marriage contract prevent your spouse to cheat on you, or to stop loving you? No. We are the sole responsible to keep the flame alive. The document won't do this job for us. 
So, as I said the relationship lives as long as you don't let the love die...married or not. My Husband feels the same.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Yes, I am familiar with those authors. And they develop their theory in 19th century. The society was very different back then. It was not very common for a married woman to work. It was a full time job to do all the necessary work at home. It was common to pass your business to your kids. 
Nowadays, women work, we have all kind of technique that help us at home, kids are free to chose their career and business that they like. We have a very different society. Is a family still a basic unit cell of this society? I don’t know. I see that it is more like the individual is a basic unit cell. The society slowly developing to the one where husband and a wife don’t form a single unit anymore; they are separate individuals. Society sees their interests separately. And the goal is shifting from survival to fulfill individual growth and completing individual creative ideas. 
It doesn’t mean that kids wouldn’t have both parents. I think society will be more and more tolerant to divorce and divorcing couples will become less vengeful. They would more likely stay friends after divorce and kids still will see mom and dad.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Hortensia, yes, it is close to what i was thinking


----------



## Jasel (Jan 8, 2013)

Don't think we "need" it personally. It works for some people and for others it doesn't. 

I just wish society didn't put such an emphasis on needing to get married and if you don't something must be wrong with you (seems worse for women). Especially when there are so many people out there who obviously suck at it, yet still feel it's some kind of necessity.


----------



## KeepLoveGrowing (Feb 1, 2013)

Marriage is not "needed" anymore, but I think most couples feel it is important to make the commitment. I know many couples that have been together many years and are in love and will never get married for various reasons and no one is going to make them. 

It's a personal decision. For me, marriage is a trust given to your partner, a promise that is stronger then words. Also, it makes the taxes and paperwork in life easier


----------



## KeepLoveGrowing (Feb 1, 2013)

I'll also add that society seems to agree with you. Marriage rates in the US have consistenly dropped.

Marriage Rate Falls to Record Low in U.S., Pew Says - ABC News

"In 1960, 72 percent of U.S. adults age 18 and older were married compared with 51 percent today. The median age when adults decide to finally take that big step is also the highest its ever been for both men and women — 26.5 and 28.7 respectively."


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

> *Jasel said :* It works for some people and for others it doesn't.


It indeed does work for some.....

I genuinely







being married....we dated for years before our vows.....we longed for it (call us archaic - we waited for







)... He knew I didn't marry him for $$ (he worked in a Grocery Store) & I knew he loved me ~ for more than my skills in the sack. 

We're 2 affectionate Hopeless Romantic fools who believed in the Fairy tale & we've made our own ~ together hand in hand. 

We are Old Fashioned/ more Traditionally minded.... I am thankful for a man who wanted the "piece of paper" / what it represents ...commitment, faithfulness, to honor & cherish till death do us part.... we wanted a larger family....Parenting has been a Joy along with the chaos... we wouldn't trade it for anything....

I wanted to be Barefoot & pregnant (being a Mother & wife was my greatest desire)...My husband has worked hard to provide for us - while I, his helpmate, was there to offer my hand every step of the way (on the roof, in the cement, digging ditches, body work, tool belt around my waist)....he the Main Provider & Protector ...feeling this is his Purpose as a man, husband & Father.....and we're as happy as ......

We have amazing Compatibility, the "chemistry" is still there after all of these yrs, he's been my best friend since our teens....

I really hope the institution of Marriage does not die in our Modern society....we still hold the torch for it's goodness, for those who believe it in. 

My feelings are similar to this >> 


> Marriage is more than a piece of paper. It’s more than love, support and convenience. Marriage is going the distance; it’s loving through inconvenience; its putting someone before yourself; it is (or at least it should be) an ultimate show of selfLESSness. With all of the hills and valleys that come with marriage it is definitely more than a piece of paper.


----------



## mrstj4sho88 (Sep 5, 2012)

SimplyAmorous said:


> It indeed does work for some.....
> 
> I genuinely
> 
> ...


:iagree:


----------



## mrstj4sho88 (Sep 5, 2012)

*Someone must have cheated on the OP JMO. IMHO the OP is not given us the real reason he is so against marriage. I wonder could it be the OP thinks by getting married he loses something ? It just seems like alot is missing here.For him maybe marriage is not allowed in his state? *


----------



## Anubis (Jul 12, 2011)

Many of the reasons given here are not actually provided by marriage per se, but by a being involved in a long-term, stable, mutually satisfying and beneficial relationship.

Marriage is, and should be understood as, a contract between two people and the state. It is essentially the forming of a legal entity by the two people, which confers a number of rights, privileges and obligations, defined by and coming from the state. ("State" in the sense being the highest form of applicable government, with addendums from lower levels for government).

Growing up, as part of our socialization, we are subjected to a lot of confusion as to what marriage actually is. At the individual level, we most often prefer to think of it in terms of the personal relationship, but the truth it that when we get marriage most of what changes involves things what contracts we can enter into on the others behalf, what rights we have to represent/agent for the other, and rights we have to things acquired and done by the other during the duration of the contract. This covers a wide range of things from the ability to change one's name, rights to children and property, sharing of obligations with creditors, rights of inheritance and probate, ability to make medical decisions for the other, eligibility for insurance, and on and on.

In practical life, Marriage is both a Social and Legal institution, but the Social side lacks the power to enforce and compel that the Legal side enjoys.

I'm going to quit now before I get started on the changing landscape of risks and rewards for men that marriage in the USA is.


----------



## mrstj4sho88 (Sep 5, 2012)

Anubis said:


> Many of the reasons given here are not actually provided by marriage per se, but by a being involved in a long-term, stable, mutually satisfying and beneficial relationship.
> 
> Marriage is, and should be understood as, a contract between two people and the state. It is essentially the forming of a legal entity by the two people, which confers a number of rights, privileges and obligations, defined by and coming from the state. ("State" in the sense being the highest form of applicable government, with addendums from lower levels for government).
> 
> ...


*This is a very nice post* :iagree:


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

So, those who disagree now saying they wanted the commitment. Ok, why? Commitment for what? To love till you die? Ok why do you need this commitment and do you have moral rights to give it? If you’ll keep the chemistry that’s great, but then you didn’t need a commitment. It was not because of commitment it is just a pure luck. If you can’t keep the chemistry than you just gave a promise to do something that is not in your power. You can give a promise to love someone as a human being, that means to understand, to help, same as you do love your friends. Actually after several years living close and helping each other a certain love is formed. But it is completely different. It is like you feel hurt then a person you shared your life with is hurt. And it is not a unique bond between a husband and a wife. There is the same bond between mom and a child, or sisters and brothers and friends. But there is different love, the chemistry that produces those chemicals that some people here said it is a sorta animal instincts, that human should be able disregard. But those chemicals give the biggest pleasure. If the nature gave it to us we should enjoy it. You can’t promise to anyone that you will be able to give that pleasure till you die. 
And again, some people say they want to give a role of provider to a husband and role of a housewife to a wife and then they put themselves in the situation where divorce will be tough. So they need a commitment to stay together and be nice to each other because of the type of family they have. Or do you mean a commitment to stay in love (feel chemistry) too?

And “amazing Compatibility” has nothing to do with chemistry. Well two self-sufficient independent people are compatible very well. Compatibility for me never was a problem at all.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

mrstj4sho88 said:


> *Someone must have cheated on the OP JMO. IMHO the OP is not given us the real reason he is so against marriage. I wonder could it be the OP thinks by getting married he loses something ? It just seems like alot is missing here.For him maybe marriage is not allowed in his state? *


Well… I am a woman, I am not a lesbian. I had a temptation to cheat on someone... with a male. I do have problem with chemistry. It is like I can feel it only to a few people. When I feel it t is the greatest experience I had in my life. 
And well… ok legally we know what marriage is about. So basically it useful if we need something from the state, like we need to help a friend to share a medical insurance. That probably will not be a reason soon too. But most of people don’t have any reasons to get married.


----------



## KeepLoveGrowing (Feb 1, 2013)

Hekati... It seems like you see marriage as an affront of some kind. All of your arguments seem to point to "marriage means nothing" - but if it means nothing to you then why are you so against it? 

It it makes 2 people who love each other feel a stronger sense of partnership, then why shouldn't they? Anything that enhances a relationship has value - whether you feel it SHOULD enhance the the relationship is simply a matter of perspective and personal choice. Love has never been known to be logical.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

KeepLoveGrowing said:


> Hekati... It seems like you see marriage as an affront of some kind. All of your arguments seem to point to "marriage means nothing" - but if it means nothing to you then why are you so against it?
> 
> It it makes 2 people who love each other feel a stronger sense of partnership, then why shouldn't they? Anything that enhances a relationship has value - whether you feel it SHOULD enhance the the relationship is simply a matter of perspective and personal choice. Love has never been known to be logical.


I am not against marriage. I am against ugly divorces, spying on a spouses, attempts to scare them back to marriage when they have so called EA, revenge. Sometimes people just stop feel this chemistry or start feel it to someone else and I think we need to deal with it in a more humane way. Well… I don’t mind to talk about how to keep the chemistry and is it possible. Exactly it is not logical, that is why you can’t promise a thing here, simply because you can predict nothing.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Living together is good, two people love and appreciate each other and so forth is ok.

But there is a historical reason for marriage. 
Marriage is legal and binding. There are laws that dictate how the spoils are shared if the two people should part ways.
When two people live together, the woman has very little protection under the law. When they get married, she is fully covered by the law.
If they should part ways, she is legally entitled to a portion of her husband's financial worth, even though she was never on a payroll .
The law covers her and the kids even better than the man because when kids grow up feeling disenfranchised ,they wreak havoc on society.
Multiply that by a million times and you get the picture.
Ever since the dawn of civilization, during the Mesopotamian era, the Summerian and the Akkadian peoples had almost the exact same laws regarding marriage , divorce and property as we do. The Babylonian and Egyptian civilizations had the same laws and the Greeks copied it from them , and promoted monogamy along with Democracy. They recognized that it was important in order to satbilize their society . 
The Romans took it from the Greeks and the church adapted it as its own. What we have today is an exact replica of what has worked to build the greatest civilizations in the history of the earth.

he only difference is that now, in the West ,we tend to focus on the romantic parts as a precursor to marriage. 
Back then, the main reasons for marriage was for passing on inheritance and preserving the bloodline.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Caribbean Man said:


> Living together is good, two people love and appreciate each other and so forth is ok.
> 
> But there is a historical reason for marriage.
> Marriage is legal and binding. There are laws that dictate how the spoils are shared if the two people should part ways.
> ...


That is what I was saying and why basically it is useless. In modern society woman is independent, she wants to build a career because she wants to achieve something, she wants creates, she wants recognition. Paycheck is also a sorta recognition, because you know that you can sell your skills. So the woman is protected married or not. Inheritance is another problem that I was talking about. But basically nowadays it is also not so important to be married for that. And yes, the romantic part is coming forward. And it is a good sign, I think - the sign that the society if shifting from the surviving to actually fulfilling individual needs. And a quality emotional life is one of the needs.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

hekati said:


> That is what I was saying and why basically it is useless. In modern society woman is independent, she wants to build a career because she wants to achieve something, she wants creates, she wants recognition. Paycheck is also a sorta recognition, because you know that you can sell your skills. So the woman is protected married or not. Inheritance is another problem that I was talking about. But basically nowadays it is also not so important to be married for that. And yes, the romantic part is coming forward. And it is a good sign, I think - the sign that the society if shifting from the surviving to actually fulfilling individual needs. And a quality emotional life is one of the needs.


Spoken like a true First Worlder.

In other parts of the world, things are NOT so rosy for women.

But let's walk back a little bit. How many women with careers and kids, once divorced for non abusive reasons, feel it was a mistake or are desperately attempting to forge a new relationship?

How many single mothers would agree with your description of not having a help mate as something 'unnecessary'? Very few! I think if you ran a poll 'looking back, if your husband had developed into a slightly better spouse, would you prefer to be back in that relationship or where you currently are?' most of them would say 'back'.

The emotional and support advantages which you seem to be dismissing are HUGE. My wife, who for reasons we won't get into, is raising the kids alone for now, feels that way and is quite vocal about it!

SHE WANTS ME HOME and for reasons which have nothing to do with sex and emotion. We can do emotion and soft romantic words over the internet.

Nope, she wants my ass home to fix things, to raise the kids, to watch the kids etc.

This is not lightly dismissed...unless you are an apartment dwelling person without kids. Then it seems...superfluous.

But to get back to your main point: for MOST of the world, there is no Social Security. There is no 'retirement program'. There is no 'Medicare'.

I'm in India. Marriage is critical here. And the government and culture is VERY pro marriage. (not pro GOOD marriage...just pro marriage)

Now...politically and culturally, marriage has taken a big hit in the States. I am on the fence about advising my son to marry because marriage is such a BAD deal for men.

And some cultures, I wouldn't marry if I was a woman. Japan and Korea come to mind immediately. There is no benefit to them except to have kids and be able to be a abusive mother in law when they have kids...

Do not mistake the fiscal aberation that is First World America as 'the world', or even as long term sustainable. Right now, we have social institutions which can make up for a lack of marriage...somewhat.

There are a lot of unhappy, stressed and very poor single American moms out there. How do you fit that into your philosophy?


----------



## chattycathy (Aug 19, 2011)

We need it because it can be the most magical relationship, the best teamwork and a smart financial move all in one.

It is the best-est thing in life when it works well and even though it doesn't always work well........it is still worth hoping for.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

If I had a choice again, nope, would never have married.
Too late now though, might as well make do with what we've got and try to make the best of things.



> a smart financial move all in one.


I question the "smartness" financially in marriage, I stand to lose either my house or my business that I spent the last 4 years establishing if my wife and I divorce. No thanks!

It's a horrid financial move. Granted, I started taking work seriously only after marriage, but I give credit to my daughter who inspired me rather then my marriage.


----------



## Cee Paul (Apr 11, 2012)

Marriage to me is a symbol of two people making a serious committment and a bonding that says "we're gonna tackle life together side by side - hand in hand", and hopefully you find someone who will honor that and put up with all of your b.s. for a lifetime.


----------



## sandc (Dec 15, 2011)

I'd hate to think of the alternative to marriage. Two people who form a loose bond to share resources and breed? They tire of each other and form new partnerships with new people? And the children have nothing but this lack of security. Wonder how long mom is going to keep this guy around? When is dad trading this one in? What would an alternative to marriage look like to children?


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> If I had a choice again, nope, would never have married.
> Too late now though, might as well make do with what we've got and try to make the best of things.
> 
> 
> ...


In America as structured now, it's a horrible fiscal move.

But...would you have been able to have focused so much on your business without having to deal with

cleaning (Laundry, dishes, housework 10 hours a week)

cooking (two hours a day easy)

shopping (call it three hours a week)

babysitting (what is your business for if you don't have kids?)

trolling single bars for sex (ENORMOUS TIME SUCK)

Just as described, it's a minimum of missing a day off your week.

So you reaped the reward of marriage, even if you didn't see it.


----------



## Gaia (Apr 27, 2012)

For some marriage is needed and for others its wanted. It depends on what part of the world your in. Sure its so easy to say.. "screw this I am moving on to something better" when the going gets tough. Speaking for western culture here. Marriage is a union, ceremony, contract, promise to commit to another permanetly regardless if that one gets sick later on, gains weight, ect. Or rather its supposed to be imo. Its not suppose to be something one does only while its convienant for them or because its convienent for them.

I do see alot of people seem to harp on those who do want to get married and point out divorce rates, expenses, ect but who the hell marries to get divorced?

Yes I understand marriages may fail but imo marriage is a relationship meant to be permanent. Not something you can easily walk away from or should walk away from when the going gets tough. 

In some cases, or alot it seems, divorce seems to be the best option and people do misjudge, make mistakes, ect It doesnt make marriage any less in my eyes. As for the affairs, spying, ect... Again, pelple make mistakes and things do get hard in life. Its not like the couple could see into the future and know things like that would happen.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

JCD said:


> In America as structured now, it's a horrible fiscal move.


I'm Australian 



> But...would you have been able to have focused so much on your business without having to deal with
> cleaning (Laundry, dishes, housework 10 hours a week)
> cooking (two hours a day easy)
> shopping (call it three hours a week)
> ...


I can have all that with a de facto relationship. Sure the courts nowadays will still demand a fair split for de factos and I have nothing against that as it's more based on contribution, and my wife did contribute her own way non-financially, but it's definitely WAY better than her position right now where she has the potential to threaten the ownership of my business!!! It's a fking gold mine to be honest and if I lose it I'm not confident I can establish another with the same level of success.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

JCD said:


> Spoken like a true First Worlder.
> 
> In other parts of the world, things are NOT so rosy for women.
> 
> ...


:iagree:

A few things are missing in his argument.
I live in the Caribbean region and governments down here are also very pro marriage. For example ,in our country the State subsidises alomst everything, even housing. State housing costs the consumer just a fraction of what the exact unit would cost on the open market. It is much easier to qualify for state housing if you were married , and both partners apply jointly for the mortgage.
The philosophy behind it is that if a man is married , and has a shelter above his head , he can become a more stable , productive citizen. Reason being , he must work to pay for the house and feed his family.
In the case of divorce, the wife most likely gets it and the state comes in again and pays for the kids education, as well as other grants depending on the wife's economic condition.
Again, the philosophy is that stable families , create good communities which contribute to the social and economic progress of the country.
Where there are entire communities that consists of people who disenfranchised, suffer from want, hunger and a lack of family values, societies become extremely unstable.
The ideal is to harness the human resource of the country. In order to do that, society must be properly organized.

No country could progress very far without strong family units.
without the marriage contract, the family unit is significantly weaker.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

sandc said:


> I'd hate to think of the alternative to marriage. Two people who form a loose bond to share resources and breed? They tire of each other and form new partnerships with new people? *And the children have nothing but this lack of security. *Wonder how long mom is going to keep this guy around? When is dad trading this one in? What would an alternative to marriage look like to children?


^^^^^
THIS, the bold part is why the state is hell bent on marriages. It ensures that the next generation, the children, have a good chance of becoming productive citizens ,not a menace to society , a drain on the social services and the economic resources of the state.
It cost billions of dollars to build prisons and enforce law and order.

A study was done about the administration of justice and the penal system in our country. One of the most shocking findings as that each prisoner costs the state about $1 Million every year, factoring in the judicial process and everything else.

99% of the inmates of the prison system came from broken homes or single parent families.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

RandomDude said:


> I'm Australian
> 
> 
> 
> I can have all that with a de facto relationship. Sure the courts nowadays will still demand a fair split for de factos and I have nothing against that as it's more based on contribution, and my wife did contribute her own way non-financially, but it's definitely WAY better than her position right now where she has the potential to threaten the ownership of my business!!! It's a fking gold mine to be honest and if I lose it I'm not confident I can establish another with the same level of success.


First, I'm sorry this worked out this way for you.

But let's talk some reality. Do you think a girlfriend is going to come over to your house and clean your toilets?

Well, sure...if she lives with you. In which case at some point the judge is going to start considering her as your wife. But even a live in GF is not going to like flapping in the breeze, unless she is a career oriented woman...in which case those toilets are still going to go uncleaned because she has better things to do than YOUR scutwork.

So what is the most likely scenario (But I admit not the only scenario) is a cyclical series of moderate length relationships with pretty dissatisfying results. See...any SO who has a pair of running shoes under the bed just doesn't get the same connection or emotional and spirtual investment as someone who say 'I do.'

But...some men just want clean toilets and easy sex, so the fact the faces change might not bother you too much. Just bear in mind that whatever age bracket you belong to, you won't be getting the pick of the litter...at least once your marital inclinations become evident.

Just saying.

Just remember Heinrich Schliemann, the discoverer of Troy. He made and lost 3 fortunes over the years. He kept the fourth one and discovered Troy with it. So it's never too late to do well.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Funny, I just had a rather 'heated' discussion with my wife about this heh.

Anyways we're not heading in that direction for the moment, it's just a looming threat while we're still seperated. Cleaning the toilets and the house is easy, I'm doing it by myself these days, well everything... except the laundry, which my wife insists on doing (probably trying to ensure she still has her foot in the door at my place)

In fact, I don't even see much trouble if I proceed to become an official single dad. I didn't have my business before as frankly I didn't see the need - I don't spend much. My daughter changed me however, but not my marriage. In fact I could probably have accelerated my rise to the top WITHOUT my wife as she did not support me when I was working my ass off trying to advance myself in the workplace. Always complaining day in and day out, the crazy sex routine began with that.

I would be less p-ssed if the division of finances are more fair, she'll get her money's worth to corelate with her contributions to housekeeping/nannying, but after finding out she stands to inherit WAY more then what she directly contributed (on top of the fact she's the one who spends almost everything and I'm the sole bacon bringer) after I sought out legal advise I can't help but feel used and cheated.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

hekati said:


> So, those who disagree now saying they wanted the commitment. Ok, why? Commitment for what? To love till you die? Ok why do you need this commitment and do you have moral rights to give it? If you’ll keep the chemistry that’s great, but then you didn’t need a commitment. It was not because of commitment it is just a pure luck.


 Why would I not want commitment...as a Mother of Children?









Why would I not want the Father to marry me... for my children to take his Last Name....to enjoy the benefits given in this Union recognized by the State... this is a part of "security". I purposely sought a man who, by his actions, shown "character"/ integrity... so I could count on such a commitment. 




> *hekati said:* There is the same bond between mom and a child, or sisters and brothers and friends. But there is different love, the chemistry that produces those chemicals that some people here said it is a sorta *animal instincts*, that human should be able disregard. But those chemicals give the biggest pleasure. If the nature gave it to us we should enjoy it. *You can’t promise to anyone that you will be able to give that pleasure till you die.*


 I think what you are saying here is that Monogamy is not natural ...it's probably not ! But shouldn't humans rise above their baser instincts for the better of society ...this is the question?.... Or all Players should just get a vasectomy early on, to cut down on children being raised without Fathers.

I DO feel monogamy is far easier for SOME ....some biological factors explained here ......



> Vasopressin Hormone: The Monogamy Gene?
> 
> In accordance with these studies it is possible that genes may play a role in the predisposition one has to be monogamous or promiscuous, just as in the case with the voles. However, this does not determine whether a person will become involved in infidelity or not. The validity or the monogamy gene has been proven to some extent, but as for the exact effect is plays in humans and how precisely it is attached to monogamous relationships is unclear.
> 
> ...





> Polyamory in the News: "The monogamy gene"?
> 
> There has been speculation about the role of the *hormone vasopressin* in humans ever since we discovered that variations in where receptors for the hormone are expressed makes prairie voles strictly monogamous but meadow voles promiscuous; vasopressin is related to the "cuddle chemical" oxytocin. Now it seems variations in a section of the gene coding for a vasopressin receptor in people help to determine whether men are serial commitment-phobes or devoted husbands.





> Dr. Phil.com - Advice - Will Your Man Cheat?
> 
> Listed was *Physiological factors*, *Environmental*/*Behavioral Factors*: & under *Genetic Factors*..it said this:
> 
> ...





> *hekati said*:
> And again, some people say they want to give a role of provider to a husband and role of a housewife to a wife and then they put themselves in the situation where divorce will be tough. So they need a commitment to stay together and be nice to each other because of the type of family they have. Or do you mean a commitment to stay in love (feel chemistry) too?


 Yes, we happily threw ourselves into a situation where , if we divorced, it could have been UGLY.... and I will even go as far as to say... I personally feel THE HUSBAND gets the shorter end of the stick...I feel the man looses more in such a divorce....if she is a SAHM like myself...

I feel the courts are lopsided here, haven't caught up with the modern times ...Women overwhelmingly get the children....and if that said women was a SAHM, she decided to shut the sex off, or she cheated on her husband- just wanted out...I feel he was done a horrendous injustice ... he stands to loose half of everything he worked for -because he decided to marry. Or a woman could depend on her husband & he turns out to be a Controlling monster abuser, or a workaholic who is never home & she grows lonely, desperate for emotional fulfillment. Such marriages would have been better off to have never been. 

True, men are seeing LESS & LESS of an incentive to marry today - I recall this thread >> 







http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/38499-male-incentive-marriage.html











> And “amazing Compatibility” has nothing to do with chemistry. Well two self-sufficient independent people are compatible very well. Compatibility for me never was a problem at all.


 I am very BIG on compatibility... 







http://talkaboutmarriage.com/long-t...ility-b4-vows-beyond-marital-harmony-joy.html









I tend to feel we are ALL selfish (people just don't want to say this about themselves -but that doesn't make it not so)...so wouldn't it be advisable to seek another who sees life through similar lenses in many areas....this will = more understanding/ less hurtful feelings/ less anger... more enjoying things together as a couple, more bonding.

Then the Romantic / Sexual Chemistry...I see this as the "glue", never discount it. 

Talked to my husband last night...he even said... we don't need the "piece of paper"...said he'd Love me "just as much"/ commitment forever....but he said ..it's best for children, it's best for society... and Yeah.. we needed the health care, since he wanted his wife home with the children. 

If Marriage dissolves here, all of these benefits that some of us enjoy - will go up in smoke, the way of the dinosaur... it's not something I personally want to see for future generations.


----------



## Jasel (Jan 8, 2013)

I'd probably take marriage much more seriously as far as "comittments" are concerned if people weren't allowed to divorce when they do get married. When I see a wedding and hear couples say "till death do us part" I can't even help rolling my eyes anymore. I know it's tradition and plenty of spouses say it without even meaning it, sometimes when on their 2nd or 3rd marriages but still...

Marriage just makes it a bit harder to walk away from a relationship than a relationship without marriage. To me that has virtually nothing to do with comittment. You don't need marriage for comittment, to be comitted or to even show comittment. However I can understand marriage is how some couples choose to show their comittment for one another. I just wish more people would realize their are alternatives and marriage isn't the end all be all to a relationship and doesn't have to be.

Especially when the divorce rate hovers around 50% and has for years, to me that makes it that much harder to take the whole instituion very seriously at all.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana (Jan 1, 2013)

No fault divorce f*cked up the marriage institution very severely.


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> No fault divorce f*cked up the marriage institution very severely.


It was meant to solve a problem.

What if the husband was a very good cheater? Or a very subtle abuser? Evidence would be hard to come by and trap a spouse into a relationship they didn't want...or face the life of a runaway without ANYTHING!

That being said...it's like chemo. The cure brought it's own host of problems.

"Sir...the patient died!"

"Well, yes! But she was cured before she kicked the bucket!"


----------



## Cee Paul (Apr 11, 2012)

To me "happily ever after" is a rarity unless you do happen to find that PERFECT soul mate which again is very rare, so instead you just gotta hope for happiness on a *year to year basis *and hopefully things will continue to last until you both grow old.


----------



## Emerald (Aug 2, 2012)

You pay less taxes to the Infernal Revenue Service if you are married filed jointly. You can also get on your spouses's medical plan to get insurance although here in CA, you can also be a same-sex registered domestic parternship to get benefits. Many pension plans allow a "spouse survivorship" monthly benefit if the spouse that is receiving a pension dies. Also, SS has a spouse surviving benefit as well.

As a tax accountant, the above is what I explain to my unmarried clients who want to know from a financial standpoint the benefits of getting married.

I realize this is a sterile response to the thread but wanted to provide some financial benefits to getting married.


----------



## Coffee Amore (Dec 15, 2011)

What I find so interesting is that the people I know who are so against marriage ("it's an institution that's outdated or it's just a piece of paper") are often the first ones to want the same protections, benefits and recognition for their live-in relationships.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

I support no fault divorce for the very reasons you list above. Very often only the husband and wife know what is really going on in the marriage. A person who is being abused needs to be trusted to judge when their life situation is something that they cannot live with. 

The things that we expect out of marriage have changed. For example in the past abuse was something that women were expect to keep their mouth shut about and tolerate to keep the marriage and family together. Here in the USA we no longer accept that notion. It still holds in many countries in the world today where divorce is considered a shame that harms the entire extended family; but not here in the USA. We as a society are learning how to make marriages work under a new set of rules. And it is working. 

The statistic that we hear all the time is that 50% of marriages end in divorce. It’s not true. There are links below that discuss how this number was arrived at and why it’s false. Unfortunately the reporting of these false numbers have distorted what we believe about marriage and has scared a lot of people away from it.

70% - 80% of marriages do not end in divorce. That’s a pretty good number for a supposedly divorce crazed society.

“The key is that the research shows that starting in the 1980s education, specifically a college degree for women, began to create a substantial divergence in marital outcomes, with the divorce rate for college-educated women dropping to about 20 percent, half the rate for non-college educated women. Even this is more complex, since the non-college educated women marry younger and are poorer than their college grad peers. These two factors, age at marriage and income level, have strong relationships to divorce rates; the older the partners and the higher the income, the more likely the couple stays married. Obviously, getting a college degree is reflected in both these factors.

Thus, we reach an even more dramatic conclusion: That for college educated women who marry after the age of 25 and have established an independent source of income, the divorce rate is only 20 percent!”

Fifty Percent of American Marriages End in Divorce-Fiction!
The Myth of the High Rate of Divorce | Psych Central


----------



## mrstj4sho88 (Sep 5, 2012)

Coffee Amore said:


> What I find so interesting is that the people I know who are so against marriage ("it's an institution that's outdated or it's just a piece of paper") are often the first ones to want the same protections, benefits and recognition for their live-in relationships.


:iagree:


----------



## mrstj4sho88 (Sep 5, 2012)

hekati said:


> Well… I am a woman, I am not a lesbian. I had a temptation to cheat on someone... with a male. I do have problem with chemistry. It is like I can feel it only to a few people. When I feel it t is the greatest experience I had in my life.
> And well… ok legally we know what marriage is about. So basically it useful if we need something from the state, like we need to help a friend to share a medical insurance. That probably will not be a reason soon too. But most of people don’t have any reasons to get married.


*My mistake you are a girl cool ok. Now you don't see the need for marriage (per you). Does that mean you have no problem dating married men? I only ask because you seem to have no respect for it. It is almost like you are looking for excuses to date married men. I could be wrong and you just have never been in love.The temptation and chemistry issue make me question you . *


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

> Most of them actually picked up the old family model where woman’s only purpose is to breed and raise kids. They are not interested in career and that’s why if they are not married they are in poverty, and their kids as well.


http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/66600-ladies-do-you-work-outside-home.html

Current poll results showing 75% of women here on TAM are employed.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

mrstj4sho88 said:


> *My mistake you are a girl cool ok. Now you don't see the need for marriage (per you). Does that mean you have no problem dating married men? I only ask because you seem to have no respect for it. It is almost like you are looking for excuses to date married men. I could be wrong and you just have never been in love.The temptation and chemistry issue make me question you . *


No she's thinking of having, or having an affair with her ex. A link to her thread is below. You will need to look at post #3 because she deleted her OP on the thread.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...6089-ex-bf-marriage-emotional-infidelity.html


----------



## Starstarfish (Apr 19, 2012)

> It was not very common for a married woman to work.


I feel compelled to correct this over-embraced fallacy that seems to be a major underpinning for a lot of arguments. 

If you mean "work" in the sense that people in modern society work - AKA going somewhere else and being paid by someone else to do something for X number of hours. Well no. But then - during the 19th century, especially in Russia if you are talking about Marx and Engels, most people weren't paid to do that work either. 

They were serfs - peasant farms who busted hump all day trying to grow enough potatoes in the Siberian tundra to feed themselves let alone have enough to sell. Men and women in pre-industrial societies *worked* side by side everyday. You plowed the fields, she milked the cows. You sheared the sheep, she wove the yarn and knitted the clothes. Your work was intertwined and relied on one another- on your children, on your spouse, on your extended family. And in some pre-industrial societies, say - pre-Christian Ireland, a woman could be highly praised for that kind of "work" - a well knowledgeable seamstress who could create the intricate clothing for the royalty was praised above others - including men of lesser talent, because of the height and skill of her work.

Only the wealthy or people in major metropolitan areas managed to have women who engaged in no actual "work" themselves. Their task instead was overseeing peasants, servants, or slaves who did the work. And this only worked for that reason - because there was a group of poorer, less privileged people to make do the work for you. 

But - with industrialization that changed. Men and women no longer worked together. They didn't work for themselves - they worked for someone else - the factory the bossman. They had no control over the fruits of their own labor. They earned money, which was usually barely enough to feed themselves or their children. A man, a woman, and their children might work all day, 15 hour day, and still barely have enough to feed themselves in say - Victorian England. And if all of your labor, no matter how tiring, soul-destroying, or difficult at the factory wasn't enough - well, then you became a prostitute, sometimes with your husband's blessing. 

Men and women not working together for a common cause hasn't improved society nor marriage, its weakened it. Industrialization and working for other people for wage labor hasn't somehow relieved us of anything. How many threads are here on TAM about spouses and families abandoned because of someone's over-involvement with their job?

Our lives might by physically easier, but it doesn't mean they are "better."


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

We don't "need" marraige and never did.

Some people want marraige, I haven't a clue as to why.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Married in VA (Jan 6, 2012)

OP,
You will not see the usefulness of marriage because it is standing in the way of you getting something you want as your previous posts state. You want to cheat and the marriage relationship is diametrically opposed to that so you won't like marriage or see its usefulness. Perfectly understandable for YOU, but as for society as a whole, see below.

Marriage consists of two parts:

Part A is the exclusive, loving, passionate relationship that exists between a man and a woman.

Part B is the legal contract that the partners enter into when they sign the marriage license and record it with the court. 

The two parts normally exist together but can exist separately. 
The need for part A is obvious. Part B is there to provide state legitimacy to part A and protect children and spouses against the whims of the other spouse. 

Tell me, what incentive is there to be a SAHM (which most men prefer) unless there is some GUARANTEE of security should the marriage end. That security is alimony, guaranteed by PART B. 

Also, for two working spouses who file their taxes JOINTLY, do you realize that can add up to 10K per year in income tax savings? Part B guarantees that as well.

Now, do realize that Part B is a DOUBLE EDGE SWORD. The SAHM or SHAD can cheat and then leave the marriage for another person and demand their share of the assets and income under part B. 

You see, the state has an interest in this too. Poor children and ex-spouses become a burden on the state and therefore the job of the divorce court is to prevent this from happening. The court is not there to "do justice" to a cheating spouse. They are there to ensure the partnership entered into FREELY under PART B is dissolved fairly. Yours and my definition of fair does NOT enter into the equation. 

To answer your question, yes marriage is necessary to safeguard normal civil society.


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

My read on OP is that she has reflexive emotional reactions to things that she then tries to intellectualize post facto. She doesn't feel like respecting her marriage vows, so she tries to legitimize her lack of respect by bloviating on marriage in general as if it's some grand theory.


----------



## mrstj4sho88 (Sep 5, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> No she's thinking of having, or having an affair with her ex. A link to her thread is below. You will need to look at post #3 because she deleted her OP on the thread.
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...6089-ex-bf-marriage-emotional-infidelity.html


*Now I knew something was off with this one. She is a married woman who is thinking of cheating on her husband with her ex boyfriend. This is just nasty and wrong to do . Plus the ex boyfriend was married too. If she does want her ex boyfriend why did she get married. I went and did some reading thanks. The problem is not marriage it is her being selfish. *


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

> Originally Posted by hekati
> The question is basically could I try to save marriage or I shouldn’t even try?
> I was in love few years ago, madly in love. We broke up basically because he didn’t trust me. 1 He married and I married. My husband is my best friend, we were doing great together. We don’t have children and we don’t have any financial problems. I have a good job. So there are no problems.
> But now my ex wrote me an email. He divorced and that was nasty. Basically his wife was jealous of me and finally of any girl he met. And I don’t want to disclose the details but it was as nasty as could be. Well his wife emailed me several times before trying to figure out if we are still seen each other while we didn’t even correspond by email. Obviously she was a jealous type. 2
> ...


Hekati,


Good news. You don't have to stay married. You can get a divorce. So this is not a one way ticket to relationship unfulfillment.

But...you will be breaking your vows; you will be hurting your husband; and you will be looked askance by society if you bounce into another man's bed before your marital bed is even cool.

These are Choices. If you want to be single: be single. But let's face facts. This argument has little to do with Post Industrial relationships; the changing role of women, and unfair expectations of society.

It is about a woman who wants to change HER role from wife to GF to...did you want to become the ex's wife? Or are you done with marriage totally and not just with your husband?

But with this added context, the problem isn't with marraige per se. It is that people...society...expects it's members to keep their word whether it's an agreement to meet for dinner or a marriage contract.

If you break your word, you have to face the repurcussions.


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

JCD said:


> ...the problem isn't with marraige per se. It is that people...society...expects it's members to keep their word whether it's an agreement to meet for dinner or a marriage contract.
> 
> If you break your word, you have to face the repurcussions.


I agree. We are social animals and there are rules of engagement.


----------



## Married in VA (Jan 6, 2012)

What repercussions is she going to really face? This is the problem with marriage 2.0. She is likely not the "moneyed" spouse so her consequences include:

1. Spousal support paid to her from innocent ex-husband.
2. New man (okay ex) to have lots of fantasy sex with.
3. 50% of marital assets.

Did I miss anything. Since adultery is not a crime either criminal or civil, our "marriage contracts" are without an enforcement mechanism and so are effectively useless. 

Just saying.

Thoughts?


----------



## JCD (Sep 2, 2012)

Married in VA said:


> What repercussions is she going to really face? This is the problem with marriage 2.0. She is likely not the "moneyed" spouse so her consequences include:
> 
> 1. Spousal support paid to her from innocent ex-husband.
> 2. New man (okay ex) to have lots of fantasy sex with.
> ...


Well, the number of people who leave their spouse to have a long term fulfilling relationship with their EX...who was DIVORCED ALREADY...is vanishingly small.

It's like an investment account. You put in a little money over time again and again and in the long term, you are on a beach in Cabo at retirement. If you pull out of the account, there is no accumulation or interest.

So too with swapping partners. This is unfair, but if I was on a date with a divorced woman, a number of questions would go through my mind.

First, 2/3 of divorces are initiated by the wife. So it's probably her who pulled the trigger...which means she's more than willing to walk away from someone who trusted her. She better have a good reason to have pulled the trigger.

But if she's a cheater or a woman who is easily dissatisfied, she's going to lie. So my cynicism is already tripped. Marriage is more than A relationship. It's a series of them, from the kids, to the in-laws to the neighbors. So she walked away from all that. 

And if I find out she cheated...well...let's just say that her sex rank better be appreciable higher than mine and she better be grateful for an opportunity to have an LTR.

But then I have MORE reason to think it won't work out, not less.

So...scott free? I don't think so.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Married in VA said:


> What repercussions is she going to really face? This is the problem with marriage 2.0. She is likely not the "moneyed" spouse so her consequences include:
> 
> 1. Spousal support paid to her from innocent ex-husband.
> 2. New man (okay ex) to have lots of fantasy sex with.
> ...


According to her posts on the other thread, she makes twice as much as her husband. So yes she is the 'moneyed" spouse.

So she is the one who will be losing in this deal depending on how long she's been married.


----------



## alphabravo (Feb 4, 2013)

Marriage is actually a relic from the days when the ruling class sought methods to both tax its constituents as well as provide them enough comfort to be more productive.

Marriage creates all sorts of stability and wealth. This in turn is taxed, in higher and higher increments by the ruling class. 

The ruling class isn't so harsh though. It "provides" comfort for families so they can reproduce and make more candidates for the labor pool.

Once kids are around, the perception is that the family is using more social resources ( doctors, schools, cars, roads...etc..etc) so the concept of taxing the family more goes down quite easy.

This is why being single, or living in sin with children is frowned upon ( and so is "married filing single" ). We are taught and raised to think that being independent is wrong and thus must seek out partners in order to feel good about our lives.


----------



## mrstj4sho88 (Sep 5, 2012)

*JMO this thread is not about marriage. The OP is looking for someone to say it is ok to cheat on her husband with her ex boyfriend. She has forgotten about how the ex-boyfriend drop her . Then he moved on and got married to another woman. IMHO this issues is going to be a nitemare for the OP. I see nothing good coming out of this issue. Just OP hurting her poor husband/bestfriend. If hubby is OP bestfriend how could she hurt him ?*


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

It was very interesting to read the comments especially from the people of different backgrounds. 
1)	Indeed there is a difference between so called first world and the rest of the world. Thank you JCD and Caribbean Man. I thought that USSR was more like India although it was different. It had something like Caribbean Man said – government support for the family institution. It was easier to get an apartment if you are a family with kids. In the same time most of families didn’t have dishwasher or sometimes even a washing machine. But girls didn’t dream to be a housewife, they, the same as boys, dreamed to be a doctors that cure cancer, or a scientist, or engineer that design a new rocket, or pilot, or geologist. We thought it is understandable if a guy wants to be a poet, for example, and we thought that he shouldn’t give up his dreams just because his wife wants more money. We thought that if she needs more money she should try to make more money, it is her problem not his. 
2)	I understand that for many people the main priority is still surviving. That is sad. But I am talking about the tendency. I believe that the technological progress makes the life easier. And not only in US or Europe. The quality of life in India or China gets much better with time. These two countries are already able to compete with US or Europe in many areas. But I think that the society should focus more on individual needs of a person to fulfill his/her creativity. If the surviving would not be a problem that will be a great new civilization with no fear, where each individual is able to pursue his dreams. Isn’t it great?
3)	Well… yes, US is the first world. Women here have great opportunity. They just don’t want to use it. I still was able to buy a house just on my income. I am not sure I getting any benefits as a married woman. If my husband doesn’t work and pursue his dream to be a musician, I guess I pay less tax because he doesn’t have income and I support him and we file joint income. He uses my medical insurance also but I am paying for it more than if I would pay just for mine. And we live in CA with default divorce and almost the same benefits for domestic partners.
4)	Now going back to marriage, and the question do we need it and what’s the commitment. Well, I feel that a) if I promise someone something that is in my power to do I should continue to do it. If I promised to support my husband I should support him; b) I feel like nobody can promise to keep the same chemistry because it is not in your power to fulfill; c) there is a bond that forms during any relations, marriage or friendship, when you helped to another person and he/she helped you and you feel happy to see this person happy and you fill hurt to see this person hurt. It is not the specific for marriage but it is something what stops you from doing something that would hurt another person. 
5)	Now the sexual chemistry… I do believe that it is possible to feel the same chemistry to the same person though all your life. Unfortunately it is hard to find this person. And it is hard to see if the person you have feeling for now is indeed this person. 
6)	I think if chemistry is gone we still can stay friends. So I am more for an open marriage. I think that kids will still have mom and dad and friends of mom and dad. I don’t see a tragedy. My parents divorced. My dad remarried and that was fine with me. I remember when I was about 10yo my mom had a bf that was much younger than her and my grandma didn’t approve him. And then I got to know why he is not allowed in our house I was arguing with my grandma that my mom has a right to be happy and it is not my grandma’s business. Well.. they still had long term relations for about 8 years. After that my mom remarried to a guy that was closer to her age. So I don’t see many bfs and I never had a fear about “if he would stay or leave”. And basically my mom was able to support herself and me and grandma. My dad paid a child support but in USSR it was a percentage from his income (zero income means zero child support legally) and never more than 30% and if he got another family with children percentage was less because something supposed to go to hid other child. My mom and my dad had about the same income so child support was helpful but my mom could live without it.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

JCD said:


> Hekati,
> 
> 
> Good news. You don't have to stay married. You can get a divorce. So this is not a one way ticket to relationship unfulfillment.
> ...


I sorta know the good news LOL. The main problem it sucks. I just can’t say to my husband anything and I can’t go for anything with my ex because I can’t see my husband hurt. It was the best chemistry ever in my life with my ex, I thought it will go away, I thought I would see him and as it usual happens I would feel nothing and would think “why I ever thought I was in love”. Ok, I flew for couple hours to his town just to say ‘hi’. He lives with his mom now. There was nothing between us, we talk for a half of an hour and I went back to airport and left. 7 years pass. He got older, gained weight, got grey hair but the chemistry was the same as 7 years ago. I didn’t flirt and I didn’t say him that I love him. I said him I am married and I love my husband, but I said him that if he would need a help, I don’t know, money, for example, he can count on me. 
It is not very easy to feel chemistry for me. I had that only with few people. Usually each time after I broke up with ex lover about a year later I felt nothing so nothing that I though “why I even though it was something there”. Not this time. I can’t control this type of feelings. All it was not a big deal because I was not married back then. Now I spent 6 years I love my husband as a human being, I just can’t say him something that could upset him. And I can’t forget my ex. I can’t even understand where the chemistry is coming from. There could be a perfectly good looking guy flirting with me and I would feel nothing - simply nothing, same as near the antique statue in a museum. And here is him, maybe far from perfect and I feel chemistry that drives me crazy. 
I really don’t care about status – wife or gf. It all sounds the same to me. *And basically I wanted to talk about postindustrial society, not about my personal problems. That is why I started this tread instead going on with the old one.*
Well… maybe all this what happened made me feel like “why we are lured into marriage at all”. Or maybe even being a bf/gf we still would develop some bond and it would be hard just to come and say “I love you but I am not in love with you”. Any I see people here that heard that are so skeptic about the meaning of these simple words. And in the same time I don’t know maybe I would be able to be in love with my husband and I should just keep all that for myself for a while and this way I wouldn’t hurt anyone? I am anonymous here, that is why I am talking. And nobody can answer this questions except me. That is why I thanks everyone for praticipation in my old tread and stoped it. I don't need advice any more I will think about and decide what to do. 
@ married in VA, well… I made twice money when I met my husband. During the recent crisis he had problems with job. He could find a job but it was stressful and he gave up and last few years he just was an independent musician, and now his money is just for beer. I feel like if I will divorce him I still should to support him. He probably wouldn’t quit his job if I wouldn’t make enough money. And now it is harder for him to find a job. And I feel responsible for that and I don’t want him to be hurt. And he uses my insurance, and basically he needs it more than me.


----------



## sandc (Dec 15, 2011)

We are having that discussion Hekati but your views seem heavily influenced by your personal situation so...

I'm just wondering. If this ExBF is such a wonderful guy...why is he an ExBF? Exactly?


----------



## Gaia (Apr 27, 2012)

tacoma said:


> We don't "need" marraige and never did.
> 
> Some people want marraige, I haven't a clue as to why.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



In my case I want marriage because I want to spend the rest of my life with the man I love. I dont want an "easy" way out.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Gaia said:


> In my case I want marriage because I want to spend the rest of my life with the man I love. I dont want an "easy" way out.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sounds like you want to lock the door and through the key in the window because you are afraid you eventually would like to go out. If you want to stay you will stay even if you’ll have an “easy” way out.


----------



## Gaia (Apr 27, 2012)

No. I am not afraid I will eventually do anything and jaded as you may be I see marriage as a permanent bond and sure one can show time and time again they are dedicated even when not married but for me I see this as another way to prove im in it for the long run. You can come up with a billion ways one can prove this without marriage and good for you if marriage isnt your thing but for me ... The vows, promises, ect are a way of cementing the relationship. Sure you can have all the dedication in the world without being husband and wife but if you fear not being able to walk away so easily then imo your not truly dedicated.


Again my opinion just pertaining to me. Now your opinion/facts pertaining to you will obviously be different and if your not into marriage thats fine. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

sandc said:


> We are having that discussion Hekati but your views seem heavily influenced by your personal situation so...
> 
> I'm just wondering. If this ExBF is such a wonderful guy...why is he an ExBF? Exactly?


It is influenced but only to some degree. 
Well, I have so called chemistry, and it is very strong. I don’t know why. He doesn’t have any specific qualities. 
Ok, then I have a question that is influenced by your question. Isn’t it a common thing that you are in love and you feel chemistry to a person in spite of all? He or she is good looking but there are thousands that are better looking and thousand that are more successful and thousands that have nice personality, but your body reacts in a certain way then you are near - something like a resonance? And there could be someone flirting with you that have a model look and great sense of humor and a kind personality and success but nothing turns you on. And sometime you thought that you had that resonance but with time it disappeared. They say it is chemicals in our brain. But sometimes it doesn’t disappear. Or is it just me?

Oh, why he is an ex? I don’t know. Exactly, you should ask him. He said he didn’t think I was in love with him. I couldn’t live close because I was on visa in another state and my employer was filing for green card for me. I tried to find a job that would be in his state and file for a green card. I told him that another option is to marry me, f… the job and we’ll file green card through marriage. A friend of his that lived next trailer said him that is the only thing I need from him – the green card. This friend of his actually needed a med insurance that she didn’t have, and he had through his job. Ok, we broke up. He married her. He said he thought I am not in love with him. Because as, you guys, always think, he needs to be something special to be loved for and he was making about 4 times less than me. That woman wrote me in a several emails that I should leave him alone. When they married she wrote me that marriage is so much a commitment that I now definitely should leave him alone, although I did already. Then she wrote me to make sure I left him alone. It already started getting funny, but the funniest thing was then he got few years in prison for assaulting her. I am sarcastic here. Well, he said prison was better than marriage.


----------



## Gaia (Apr 27, 2012)

Its not just you hekati. It sounds as if you and ex had a rough patch and perhaps you two did make a mistake by going your seperate ways or at least you feel that way and its normal. Why did you get married if you werent truly in love? If I read right.... Your married now right?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Gaia said:


> Its not just you hekati. It sounds as if you and ex had a rough patch and perhaps you two did make a mistake by going your seperate ways or at least you feel that way and its normal. Why did you get married if you werent truly in love? If I read right.... Your married now right?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


As I said I thought it is over with my ex. I thought I moved on. I met a guy that I had some chemistry with. To some degree he reminded me my ex. Well… now I am thinking why I didn’t wait 7 years… LOL, actually no LOL, I really think it would be easier now if i didn't marry.


----------



## Gaia (Apr 27, 2012)

How long did you know your husband before you married him?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Gaia said:


> How long did you know your husband before you married him?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


About close to a year. I started looking after about little more than a half of a year since I broke up with my ex. I was surprised he proposed in less than a half of a year since we met. But he lived in the same state close to me we moved together and got married in a few months after that. Maybe it was a little bit too soon.


----------



## Gaia (Apr 27, 2012)

Possibly. Are you planning on divorcing?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Gaia said:


> Possibly. Are you planning on divorcing?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don’t know. As I said don’t want to hurt anyone. And that would be if I will do nothing. As I said I could still help financially to my ex if he would need help. I have strong feelings for him but I have strong feelings of the other kind to my husband. I feel that it hurts me then my husband is sad and unhappy. There is a bond that forms just because you lived with someone for years even if you don’t have that strong chemistry. And I feel it now. That is probably what those who say “I love you but I am not in love with you” mean. That they do want their spouse to be happy but the strongest chemistry to someone else drugs them to another direction. And it is easy to say that all this is a bs until you really feel it yourself!


----------



## Gaia (Apr 27, 2012)

Im sure many people have felt what you feel. Do you think that possibly your just deluding yourself and over glorifying "what ifs" when it comes to your ex because you and your husband are in a bit of a rut?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Gaia said:


> Im sure many people have felt what you feel. Do you think that possibly your just deluding yourself and over glorifying "what ifs" when it comes to your ex because you and your husband are in a bit of a rut?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No, I wouldn’t change anything, I love my job and I still will do the same things. It is not my husband who keeps me from changing the routine. We travel from time to time when I have time. Now when he is just a musician and he has plenty of time to play in clubs with his band and if I have time I go to his shows. I am not bored. It would be exactly the same if it would be my ex instead. It is this so called dumb chemistry LOL. Very simple - I feel I want sex with him. It is like if he takes my hand it is like an electric pulse goes through my body. I guess I should try more exciting sexual life with my husband but every time I am trying to make my sex life more exciting I’m imaging my ex. I mean it is not the position, not the technique, it is his image in my brain that turns me on. And it doesn’t work with everyone it works with my husband because there is a lot in common between them.


----------



## alphabravo (Feb 4, 2013)

Hey hekati.....

I think in the next 10-20 yrs more research will come out with regards to "sexual chemistry" And I know exactly what you are talking about re: resonance. 

The resonance is like being smashed in the face with an iron pan when you see someone. It will feel like you've known them for more than one life.

I've had this happen to me about 6-8 times in my life. Now instead of standing there I just go up to them and talk to them to see if they "feel" it too. 4/8 times the person felt nothing. The other times the person was scared to death of me and felt like we were soul mates in another life. I can think about this one woman and it makes my heart race.

BUT........

Not everyone gets the chance to meet this soulmate. You mature. You see your own biological clock ticking and you grab the best bus you can. Over time, over many years ( 5-10) you end up creating what I call " the momentum of marriage."

Which is better? I have no idea. Momentum feels good. I often wonder if with those sexual soul mates if were best just to let them be and chalk it up as destiny. There has to be a reason you are not with them and instead married to someone else right?


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Would be nice if we could figure out this sexual chemistry problem and mate only with soul mates, alphabravo, but then there wouldn’t be all those soap opera… LOL


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

SARL PARC

Series above resonance appears inductive.

Paralell above resonace appears capacitive.

Some folks have a narrow capacity to have relationships and therefore must search for a "soulmate". The holy grail. The unicorn. But there are those who have a greater capacity and learn that it all starts from within themselves and that they have a broader capacity than. I do agree one has to be selective though. 

Define for yourself what a good partner is. Choose wisely. No need to settle. If this is looking for a soulmate then so be it.

The problem with focusing on soulmates is that it is a common rationalization of an unfaithful person to justify their actions by claiming that they are searching for their soulmate. When all that has happened is that they are in the fog of brain chemicals and are in love with a fantasy and are just unable or are just not mature enough to handle a real relationship. Not all people will reach a maturity to handle a faithful marital relationship. Then again perhas they had no good example of a loving and caring relationship and that is truly sad for all concerned.

The best news is that indeed one only needs to find one person they can partner with.

In all sincerity I hope all who read this thread eventually meet a person they can be truly happy with.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Entropy3000 said:


> SARL PARC
> 
> Series above resonance appears inductive.
> 
> ...


:iagree:

That's some deep stuff right there.

However, in addition to what you posted,
Some people get married and then over a period of time, the one they got married to_ becomes their soulmate_........

In the past, some arranged marriages worked out like that. The couple never met before, they are married by parents and through the years ,they bond so closely that they become like soulmates.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

What’s wrong with living in a fog? I love those chemicals my brain produced. Without it sex in never that good. I think it is a common myth that we can use certain technique to make our sex more interesting. No, it is those chemicals that make sex exciting. That is why some couples look porn before sex – to create the fantasies that produces the chemicals. Without chemicals orgasm is like when you hit an elbow right at the nerve. It creates convolutions but doesn’t create any pleasure. That is why in 19th century people thought that women don’t have orgasm. Maybe that is why women get older so soon and had a bad health because they were lacking of some essential chemicals. I’ve seen in my life many women that stopped their emotional affair, got out of fog, focused on kids everyday’s life and soon they got fat, bored, they developed diabetes and heart disease and finally they ended up with catching their husbands cheating on them… 
Don’t confuse soft with hot LOL. For a long time women and men were raised so differently (different toys, even education sometimes) that couples felt like soulmates then they even was able to understand each other. Those myths about Mars and Venus people have the roots here. What a freaking sexual soulmates they could be in 19th century if many Europeans thought that it is inappropriate for a woman even to feel orgasm? Nowadays there is less problems with understanding each other. The problem is with sexual chemistry. Yes, women feel very strong orgasm, and it is a pleasure that nothing can be compared with, only then their brain is in the fog according to your terms.


----------



## anotherguy (Dec 14, 2011)

hekati said:


> So what’s left? Sexual chemistry basically. I don’t see any other basis for “special bond” between husband and a wife.


Laugh. This is hilarious.

so.. how long have you been married? 

Do you know anyone that has been married for say.. 50 years? Think the reasons extend beyond sex?

How about living longer as a simple little example. I would argue however, it can mean much more than simple little factoids...

http://news.msu.edu/media/documents/2012/07/f441a23b-d753-4137-8606-02bccba5e21e.pdf

Just wondering....


(p.s. It is also known however, that a crappymarriage cab *shorten* your life as well. So the knife does cut both ways. )


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

anotherguy said:


> Laugh. This is hilarious.
> 
> so.. how long have you been married?
> 
> ...


I have been marriage 6 years, I don’t want to live that long to celebrate 50th anniversary of marriage LOL. Without sex I don’t see the point, basically we always can be friends with anyone without sex. That is why I think divorce shouldn’t mean the end of friendship. Basically as I said I don’t see any use in marriage at all. But the only thing that is “something special” that I can’t have with friends is … sex.

‘But there are those who have a greater capacity and learn that it all starts from within themselves and that they have a broader capacity than.’ If we are talking about been friends then, once again, it is not a problem, I can be a friend with almost anyone. If it is about sexuality… well… to some degree it is possible to feel orgasm even without a physical contact just thinking about the image of as you say it “OM” or “OW”, that excites you. That is how porn helps. And you are out of “fog” each time your partner does something that in a conflict with your image and it feels like instead of pleasure you hurt yourself. But it is possible to work on it and if your partner close enough you’ll be ok… isn’t it sorta as you say it “EA”?


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> That's some deep stuff right there.
> 
> ...


Yes I agree. I think people can marry for many reasons but because they are loving and compassionate they grow together with their spouse.

Those people have the capacity to love within them.
I just did not express it well.

I do not think a soulmate is this magical person somehwere else. I think I have the capacity to make a quality loving wife my soulmate.

In fact that is why I have put in the effort I have over recent years. I have wanted to learn how to take my marriage to another level. And frankly I have turned into a great husband but I have a long way to go.

So yeah. To make a marriage successful I think the objective is to make your spouse your soulmate.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

My wife and I celebrate out 36th anniversary this month. Sex is a major part of my marriage. But it is not the only part. I think it comes down to people reaching maturiy level. Not everyone can get there.

But indeed her are my goals by priority :

1) I am my wifes exclusive lover

2) I am her best male friend

3) I am her husband

Now in reality they are within the marriage. Inseparable.

But too often I see people say they have just become friends or they are focused on being a husband and not a lover. So I am simply declaring that I will be her lover. I am not going to let things fall back to just good friends.

But yeah there is a lot more to marriage than many can comprehend until they have been their, put in the effort with a quality loving person. Wondermous.

And yes I hope to be marriage to my wife to celebrate our 50th and more.

BTW we have a great gand baby on the way in the next few weeks.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Entropy3000, it is great it worked for you so well. 
Actually if there is chemistry it is very easy to be an exclusive lover. I think there is a possibility to control this chemistry to a certain level. Basically that is why I married my husband because I can make myself feel some chemistry with him. I tried to date many guys after I broke up with my ex and I just couldn’t feel anything with any of them.
Talking about best male friends… well… actually I have more problems with female friends. I have only few they are all have very good education and are interested in science or art. I hate shopping and I just can’t find many female friends. I know few very nice sweet ladies but I just get bored very soon each time we start talking. And I always had many male friends, and sometimes I felt like all of them are my best friend. None of them I had sex with. My husband is my friend too. And my ex is my friend. But maybe because I was attracted physically to both of them I never was able to criticize their point of view as hard as I do it with friends. Something I just can’t help myself and say something like “Oh… it is so cute what you just said! I love you, sweetie”. And actually my husband sometimes gets upset if I argue too hard, he gets emotional, says something like “fine, you have all your degrees you think I am stupid”. And after that I have to spend several hours to tell him that I love him and that he is not stupid and that I never said he is stupid I just said my argument and may be it my argument that is stupid…. So it is better sometimes just say “I love you, honey, you are great!” 
What does it mean “to be a husband”? Means take care of kids? It is actually “to be a father”. To help with work at the house? Hmmm… It is “to be a good roommate”. I actually lived with roommates when I was a student, and then I see some families I think that to live like a roommates would actually be a step up compared with what they have LOL. Definitely for my exbf and his, now ex, wife it would be a huge step up. LOL


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

hekati said:


> Actually if there is chemistry it is very easy to be an exclusive lover. I think there is a possibility to control this chemistry to a certain level. Basically that is why I married my husband because I can make myself feel some chemistry with him. I tried to date many guys after I broke up with my ex and I just couldn’t feel anything with any of them.


hekati,
I haven't read all of your posts, but you sound a bit young and possibly jaded.
While things like chemistry,attraction and sex are important for the long term survival of a marriage relationship , they are not necessarily prerequisites for a great relationship. Sometimes they develop along the way given time and opportunity.

With my wife, we were just good friends for five years before we started dating and finally got married. There wasn't a whole lot of chemistry on my side, but I knew she was crazy over me.
I knew deep down that even though I wasn't crazy over her, she was the one for me. I would be happy with her.
So I gave it a chance.
Over time I too, became crazy over her.
We have been married almost 18 years and I cannot really see any other woman I'm attracted to like I am to her.
This didn't happen overnight , and yes, part of the chemistry I now feel for her, I allowed myself to do so.
Sometimes you just have to let yourself love again.
yes , by all means be selective, but don't judge your future relationships by your past marriage.
Each person and relationship is unique.
Give it a chance to develop positively and,
Therin , you will find that magical thing you call " chemistry."


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

The famous chemistry that people refer to usually denotes the infatuation stuff that attracts people to one another, especially physically.

But I'm with Entropy. My H and I have been together for 35 years & we had very strong chemistry for a long time. We still have chemistry. It's just evolved. Sex is still good, but there is so much more there. And to say it's not chemistry simply because it's different from the feelings of 30 years ago is to deny how physical/biological so much of our feelings and behaviors are. To me, what we have now is chemistry v.2.


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

hekati said:


> Entropy3000, it is great it worked for you so well.
> Actually if there is chemistry it is very easy to be an exclusive lover. I think there is a possibility to control this chemistry to a certain level. Basically that is why I married my husband because I can make myself feel some chemistry with him. I tried to date many guys after I broke up with my ex and I just couldn’t feel anything with any of them.
> Talking about best male friends… well… actually I have more problems with female friends. I have only few they are all have very good education and are interested in science or art. I hate shopping and I just can’t find many female friends. I know few very nice sweet ladies but I just get bored very soon each time we start talking. And I always had many male friends, and sometimes I felt like all of them are my best friend. None of them I had sex with. My husband is my friend too. And my ex is my friend. But maybe because I was attracted physically to both of them I never was able to criticize their point of view as hard as I do it with friends. Something I just can’t help myself and say something like “Oh… it is so cute what you just said! I love you, sweetie”. And actually my husband sometimes gets upset if I argue too hard, he gets emotional, says something like “fine, you have all your degrees you think I am stupid”. And after that I have to spend several hours to tell him that I love him and that he is not stupid and that I never said he is stupid I just said my argument and may be it my argument that is stupid…. So it is better sometimes just say “I love you, honey, you are great!”
> What does it mean “to be a husband”? Means take care of kids? It is actually “to be a father”. To help with work at the house? Hmmm… It is “to be a good roommate”. I actually lived with roommates when I was a student, and then I see some families I think that to live like a roommates would actually be a step up compared with what they have LOL. Definitely for my exbf and his, now ex, wife it would be a huge step up. LOL


Truthfully a husband should be the three things I mentioned, a father for the children and more.

I broke it out though for emphasis. Husband the way I am using it here is more of a catch all. Everything else. For many men being a husband is being a provider and protector. Certainly marriages have different balances. In my marriage we are very much partners. We each take care the the things we are good at.

But so often you see guys that become just another friend of their wife. Or they become just the provider. They are incomplete. I believe in monogamy but often our partners needs get skewed or we only feed them in a skewed way.

I was like this for a good amount of time. I worked crazy hours ... for my family. But that was not entirely good. I meant well. But I needed more balance. 

So I am really saying I do not want to be the responsible guy my wife needs and for her to find a love interest to handle those needs. I am saying if I have to choose I want the fun part. The in love part. I never wanted my wife seeking that elsewhere. Too often a couple loves each other but they become roommates. Not good.

So for me emphasizing the lover part is good. Because the best female friend and me taking care of my family just happens naturally. While being a good lover is drive, other things can get in the way. So I am telling myself not to let that happen.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Late to the party here and I have yet to get past page 2..... but I have an opinion on this matter.....

I think marriage is a very neat and orderly way for society and society's entitiea to deal with individuals.....

by that I mean, since it's relevant to me since my fiancé works for a multinational.....to move with him will be easier when we are married since my visa will be dependent upon his; to share his benefits such as healthcare and retirement will be easier when we are married.

the nice thing about marriage is that all you have to show is a marriage licence.....

for those who are co-habitating, what do they have to show, 7 years of utility bills or mortgage payments or what, oh dear...... if you really love someone, are you going to force them to do that song and dance. 

I once caught my fiance in a mood, since he had been encouraging me to move in with him, I was organising some stuff of his and then he got annoyed....., oh, I said, I'm not spending half my week with you for the next year only for your company to relocate you to another country and leave me behind..... you need to understand what getting married and living together is about.......


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

NextTimeAround said:


> Late to the party here and I have yet to get past page 2..... but I have an opinion on this matter.....
> 
> I think marriage is a very neat and orderly way for society and society's entitiea to deal with individuals.....
> 
> ...


I am always amazed at when a couple buys a home but does not marry first. Ok fine. But truly amazed that they have children first before they are married. I am sure they are taking advantage of some legal situation but I do not know what it is.

If it is not ready to commit then maybe they should have babies.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Caribbean man, it is interesting what you say. My ex told me that he thought his ex wife was crazy about him and he was honest and told her everything about his past and he decided to give it a chance. Although he said deep down inside he thought it will not last. She was very jealous. It was obvious, she wrote me trying to figure out if I was seeing him still. At first I wrote her back something nasty that I regret now because it could trigger her paranoia even more. But later then I was married I wrote her back (I never was writing her first) that I happily married and if my ex chose her that means he loved her. Actually he said he was thinking about divorce at that time. And she made a facebook page that looked like it was mine and said on the page that I was divorce and he found the page and contacted. Yea, sounds like high school drama…. LOL But somehow he got few years in prison for assaulting her. So that funny high school drama turned into a real drama.
Same with me - never worked if the guy was crazy about me and I wasn’t. Well I never tried to give a chance for 18 years. No, I am not sarcastic, I think it is really great it worked this way for you!! It is just really hard and yes, there is another feeling that develops with time then you care about somebody who is your friend. That is why sometimes I prefer never have sex with male friends that are just friends and I don’t feel chemistry. Because now it all mixed together and it is hard to explain why am I going for another male and why do I want another male that I even don’t know so well as my friend and why I don’t want to marry the friend. Well I don’t know, I guess you need to be in the other person’s skin (not even in his/her shoes LOL) to say is it the same chemistry or it is another feeling that is also strong but another type and do you need it.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Entropy3000 said:


> So I am really saying I do not want to be the responsible guy my wife needs and for her to find a love interest to handle those needs. I am saying if I have to choose I want the fun part. The in love part. I never wanted my wife seeking that elsewhere. Too often a couple loves each other but they become roommates. Not good.


I only can agree with you. I also can say that it is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick LOL


----------



## Entropy3000 (May 11, 2011)

hekati said:


> I only can agree with you. I also can say that it is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick LOL


It is better to be poor and healthy than rich and sick ...

But being super rich is really not much better than being well off.

In western society middle income people are wealthy compared to people a few hundred years ago.

Wealth is relative past a point. I would rather have love than money. Both would be fine.


----------



## Hortensia (Feb 1, 2013)

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hortensia (Feb 1, 2013)

Wow the topic heated while i was away
I tend to agree a lot with hekati. I recognize that marriage does ensure financial benefits of wives and children in case of a divorce ( and sadly, sometimes this thing meant for justice is abused and used in evil ways). But , it does not ensure the " till death do us part"
I, for one, would not wish for my husband to stay with me if he is not in love with me anymore, or he loves another. I want him to stay because he wants to,and he loves me, and not because he promised and vowed !
I'm happily married, and when i say " i will always love you" it really feels that way. But in fact, is such a promise only up to us to keep? What if our spouses change, or we change? What if they start to abuse us, or hit us? Is " till death do us part" still standing? No? Because it doesn't suit our needs, right? 
But if we fail to do our part to keep their interest alive, then they can' t leave us, how dare they, they vowed! Lol.. i can' t believe how many people consider their spouses their property , once married. Example: a wife who doesn't put any effort into her looks anymore, because her husband should love her no matter what...there is a popular song in my native language called " good-bye diet, i' ve got a wedding ring! " the lyrics are hillarious if you understand them, but you got the idea. Gaining weight- due to negligence, not sickness,not giving bj anymore once married when you got them used to it, witholding sex are just a few examples of how wives change after the vows, wrongfully believing they are enough to keep them married. It works both ways, husbands not bringing their wives flowers anymore, forgetting anniversaries, not telling their wives that they are beautiful anymore, etc. This kills the flame in time, and if our spouses stray, and even consider leaving, they are bad, dishonest people who don't value their vows. At least this is the idea im gettimg from reading a big part of this forum, not just this thread. 
Maybe im just different from the rest. Maybe my views of life are different, but i dont view my husband as binded to stay with me no matter what. Im not among those who think once the wedding ring is on the finger, the conquest is over. holding onto the marriage takes much harder work than reaching to it. And for them to keep their vows, we spouses should give them reasons to want to. Like honoring them, and pleasing them in and outside the bedroom. Marriage, like any relationship, takes two. Don't take your vows for granted.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Goldmember357 (Jan 31, 2012)

Children could be raised by a community and be just as healthy if not more healthy than a child born/raised by two parents. Marriage, is not an essential to "civilized" societies at all. The future will likely look very different than now. Likely marriage along with religion and many of our beliefs we hold today will be extinct.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Goldmember357 said:


> Children could be raised by a community and be just as healthy if not more healthy than a child born/raised by two parents. Marriage, is not an essential to "civilized" societies at all. The future will likely look very different than now. Likely marriage along with religion and many of our beliefs we hold today will be extinct.


Well if marriage , religion and the family would be extinct in the future then stuff like love , passion , romance and any type of feeling would also be either prohibited or extinct.
I can't see myself or any * normal * human being living under those conditions.

And indeed, children can be raised in a commune, but even in those communes, there are husbands , wives and a family structure. It may not be monogamous l , but the family structure still exists.


----------



## Goldmember357 (Jan 31, 2012)

That's because of how you have been raised, you and most people cannot bear to think of anything else ever existing. Even if the other way is way better for mankind and your future children, people of today will protest it because of our own ignorance/fear.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

I don’t see any reason why love, passion and romance would be extinct or prohibited. Moreover it was religion and marriage that to some degree restricted love, passion and romance. Love, passion and romance would flourish without religion and marriage. I agree religion and marriage would eventually extinct and it will be great society without fear, that will care about individual growth for everyone


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Goldmember357 said:


> That's because of how you have been raised, you and most people cannot bear to think of anything else ever existing. Even if the other way is way better for mankind and your future children, people of today will protest it because of our own ignorance/fear.


Nope.

That's because it has been tried before and failed many times.

Love is based on a moral principle.
Where do morals come from?

Answer that question, you would see the fallacy in your logic, and understand why we would always have religion and marriage.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

hekati said:


> * I agree religion and marriage would eventually extinct and it will be great society without fear, that will care about individual growth for everyone*


As far as I remember, in 1921 Lennin and the Bolsheviks promised to deliver that to the Russians with Communism,and it failed.
Anyone who opposed it were either sent to concentration camps and tortured in the Russian Gulags , or sent to Siberia.

It is estimated that nearly 100 MILLION people who resisted that
" Great new society without fear"
Died.........


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Caribbean Man said:


> Nope.
> 
> That's because it has been tried before and failed many times.
> 
> ...


Excusez-moi! How it ever comes that love is based on moral principles? Romantic love and passion are based on chemistry only. If you are talking about Love in a philosophical spiritual meaning then it is based on sorta moral principals but religion was unnecessary bi-product of them. The principal are developed due to combination of self-consciousness and self-preservation instinct. Some animals also have some principals, it was noticed that wolfs fights but very rare really kill each others. They have sorta a-la knight code of behavior and stop if the enemy admits his defeat. People understand what hurt them and they are trying to cooperate with others so they don’t hurt others and others don’t hurt them. That is how the society develops the rules, laws and moral. And all these are changing with time. Many people with the greatest moral qualities were actually atheists. Ludwig Feuerbach was an atheist and one of the most honest human of his time. 
Where do you mean anything was tried and failed? Sorry. They tried nothing in USSR if you think about it. They supported family same as you said it was in your country. But what they had to deal with now we see the same here in US. It is when a family does not act in the best interest of the child and sometimes even abuses the child. For example they don’t give a child necessary education, or substitute it with religious propaganda, that basically reduces the child’s chances to succeed. I have no problems with an adult that decided to believe in creationism and read only Bible instead of all available knowledge including evolution theory, but a child should be able to make this decision on his own. If after been able to access to all the possible information he decided that the Bible is the only truth so be it. Ok, in USSR the government had really its own agenda that sometimes was not better than religion actually. And that is why it failed. The individual’s rights still were violated; people didn’t feel like they had a free choice. In USA Constitution protects the freedom to exercise any religion or not exercise it at all, means be an atheist. 
We see that the law is changing and moral with it. Many states allow gay marriage now while in the past it even was a crime. 19th century moral and moral nowadays is different in many parts. Come on, orgasm for a married lady was immoral, sex before wedding was immoral. Same way marriage institution will go to the past and nobody would remember it. But it doesn’t mean that love, romance and moreover passion will go away. Passion is pure chemistry! I don’t really think that children will not know mother and father at all. But what already is happening is that the society taking major part in children education and protection. And I do believe that all children should have equal opportunity to succeed. They are not equal because they have different DNA and some are stronger another are smarter but they should have an equal and fair start. That is why in US they everyone can get at least high school education. And if a kid is trapped in a religious family that never gives him to read anything except Bible I think his individual rights are violated.


----------



## Quantmflux (Feb 6, 2013)

It is so ironic to read threads like this where heterosexuals so cavalierly intellectualize over how "unnecessary" marriage is and ask "why do we bother?"

Meanwhile gays fight tirelessly to be allowed this "unnecessary" right and, despite falling marriage rates and all of these "conflicted feelings" on the part of so many, can't manage to win that battle.

For something that is so unimportant and outmoded it's incredible how vital a right it is considered to be by the modern, equally first world, group to which it has been denied, no?

I think people should call their own biases and choices what they are. Just because you think/feel/do something doesn't make it broadly applicable or impugn an institution that is thousands of years old.

If marriage isn't for you then great! If your own marriage is failing then end it and consider that first question before starting another one. But if you're looking for others to help you rationalize your feelings or feel better about them, that's not going to happen. 

Learning who you are, accepting it, and feeling ok with it (or not accepting it and fighting to change it) can only happen from the inside.


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Caribbean Man said:


> As far as I remember, in 1921 Lennin and the Bolsheviks promised to deliver that to the Russians with Communism,and it failed.
> Anyone who opposed it were either sent to concentration camps and tortured in the Russian Gulags , or sent to Siberia.
> 
> It is estimated that nearly 100 MILLION people who resisted that
> ...


I knew that LOL. No, not even close. They just substitute one form of religion with another. It was the same contradictive and illogical and violated people’s rights to think freely. Basically in USA there is a successful experiment – Constitution gives people right to exercise any religion or no religion at all. And it worked – slowly the society is becoming less religious. Well it was a spike of madness in 50th leaded my McCarthy and mainly because of misunderstanding the so called “atheism” in USSR. Read V.Voinovich “Moscow 2042” It is funny and actually shows all the soviet propaganda as a religion.

LOL my whole idea - you can't force anything. (And you are trying to prove me something with an example how it was forced and didn't work) I am not for just eleminating the institution of marriage. Let it be. I just don't accept the idea that once you married all your time belongs to your spouse. And your spouse supposed to love you even if you get 600lb. And that nobody can change his heart once he married. If she is your gf than yep, you can hurt her, play with her feelings for a while and dumb her. I don't see that people realise that it must be about other person feelings not about vow. Anyway I am just trying to say - take it easy, don't push yourself and others too much, try to stay friends if nothing else works. And who knows maybe we will completely forget about all this marriage institution in a several decades


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

hekati said:


> I They just substitute one form of religion with another.....
> It is funny and actually shows all the soviet propaganda as a religion.


Therin lies the fallacy in your logic.

By banning religion and religious beliefs, we would be in essence making men like ourselves, into gods.

In order for society to carry out any function, there must be leaders.
Where do leaders get the moral authority from to lead? 
Who says that what they say is right?
Does right and wrong exist outside of us or inside of us?
If so , where does it originate?
If it originates inside of us, then what makes your right and wrong morally superior to mine?


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Quantmflux said:


> It is so ironic to read threads like this where heterosexuals so cavalierly intellectualize over how "unnecessary" marriage is and ask "why do we bother?"
> 
> Meanwhile gays fight tirelessly to be allowed this "unnecessary" right and, despite falling marriage rates and all of these "conflicted feelings" on the part of so many, can't manage to win that battle.
> 
> ...


Human Beings are fascinating!


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Caribbean Man said:


> Therin lies the fallacy in your logic.
> 
> By banning religion and religious beliefs, we would be in essence making men like ourselves, into gods.
> 
> ...


Did I ever talk about banning? No I said I like how US Constitution stated it! Should I repeat it third time? Hope not. I do believe that moral and laws are the product of the society. The society changes and moral and laws change with it. Leaders are elected by people or people allowed a leader to take a power. Many kings just set their rules and nobody confronted them. That was also a choice maybe not so much a choice but a circumstance. But the society allowed the king to set his rules. In democratic society it is the majority that sets the rules though public opinion through voting. Right and wrong exists during the interaction between us, nature and the society. You put your hand in the fire and get burned so you know it is wrong. You hurt your neighbor he hurt you back, you understood it wrong and it is better to live in peace and friendship. Sometimes you just can’t get alone about a simple stupid things. Nothing makes me right or wrong. For example I am pro-choice (pro right for woman to do abortion) and somebody else is so called pro-life (antiabortion). Nothing makes anyone right or wrong. Actually nobody ever will solve this dispute. I could say you can do for yourself whatever you want but you can’t violate my right to do what I want. But pro-life people would say that making an abortion I am violating the rights of unborn child. Well… so far looks like the majority of our society are not ready to defend the rights of an unborn person so we don’t consider abortion to be a crime. But it wasn’t the same always.


----------



## Quantmflux (Feb 6, 2013)

hekati said:


> LOL my whole idea - you can't force anything. (And you are trying to prove me something with an example how it was forced and didn't work) I am not for just eleminating the institution of marriage. Let it be. I just don't accept the idea that once you married all your time belongs to your spouse. And your spouse supposed to love you even if you get 600lb. And that nobody can change his heart once he married. If she is your gf than yep, you can hurt her, play with her feelings for a while and dumb her. I don't see that people realise that it must be about other person feelings not about vow. Anyway I am just trying to say - take it easy, don't push yourself and others too much, try to stay friends if nothing else works. And who knows maybe we will completely forget about all this marriage institution in a several decades


I'm right there with you up until that very last sentence where you fall off a cliff and I put on the brakes like Road Runner.

Why does that matter to you? Seriously.

I feel like you are unhappy in your marriage and feel you want to act on that but feel bound by what you perceive as a stigma. And you are blaming the institution for the stigma and so wish it wasn't around.

But here's the thing... The stigma is in your head.

If two people cohabitate in a civil union for five years and then one decides to up and jet, the *outsiders view* will be no different. Each observer will view and judge the situation through the lens of their own biases. And *none* of that should really matter to the people involved.

You don't need for marriage to not exist to bail on a bad relationship, and if marriage had NEVER existed there would STILL be *plenty* of people who would strongly adhere to "thick and thin" and criticize anyone who bailed for any reason short of betrayal or abuse.

Maybe what you should wish for is a society where no one judges anyone for leaving a relationship or cheating. But honestly... Who cares at the end of the day? You only need to be comfortable with yourself.

Maybe you should look at *why* you're seeking these "answers". If you're not actually comfortable with your *own* thoughts and feelings, even if the entire world agrees with you and validates them you're not going to find peace.


----------



## WillPrez (Dec 8, 2012)

Marriage is a social responsibility for human, A family can make more responsible for their society, country and for peoples, so i think without marriage a human life is Incomplete


----------



## hekati (Jan 24, 2013)

Quantmflux, I agree completely. And yes, basically i didn't care really and I don't care really. It is just was a sorta not very easy time and i tried to vent it here. People start talking about commitment of marriage and all that sounded so weird and i simply tried to understand their arguments.


----------



## Goldmember357 (Jan 31, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Nope.
> 
> That's because it has been tried before and failed many times.
> 
> ...


Morals are subjective, and what one views as "moral" another views as "immoral". Religion is not the principle for advanced societies.

Basically Morals are made up by human's, and morals/rules like "don't kill your own" are programmed in us via our evolution.



hekati said:


> Excusez-moi! How it ever comes that love is based on moral principles? Romantic love and passion are based on chemistry only. If you are talking about Love in a philosophical spiritual meaning then it is based on sorta moral principals but religion was unnecessary bi-product of them. The principal are developed due to combination of self-consciousness and self-preservation instinct. Some animals also have some principals, it was noticed that wolfs fights but very rare really kill each others. They have sorta a-la knight code of behavior and stop if the enemy admits his defeat. People understand what hurt them and they are trying to cooperate with others so they don’t hurt others and others don’t hurt them. That is how the society develops the rules, laws and moral. And all these are changing with time. Many people with the greatest moral qualities were actually atheists. Ludwig Feuerbach was an atheist and one of the most honest human of his time.
> Where do you mean anything was tried and failed? Sorry. They tried nothing in USSR if you think about it. They supported family same as you said it was in your country. But what they had to deal with now we see the same here in US. It is when a family does not act in the best interest of the child and sometimes even abuses the child. For example they don’t give a child necessary education, or substitute it with religious propaganda, that basically reduces the child’s chances to succeed. I have no problems with an adult that decided to believe in creationism and read only Bible instead of all available knowledge including evolution theory, but a child should be able to make this decision on his own. If after been able to access to all the possible information he decided that the Bible is the only truth so be it. Ok, in USSR the government had really its own agenda that sometimes was not better than religion actually. And that is why it failed. The individual’s rights still were violated; people didn’t feel like they had a free choice. In USA Constitution protects the freedom to exercise any religion or not exercise it at all, means be an atheist.
> We see that the law is changing and moral with it. Many states allow gay marriage now while in the past it even was a crime. 19th century moral and moral nowadays is different in many parts. Come on, orgasm for a married lady was immoral, sex before wedding was immoral. Same way marriage institution will go to the past and nobody would remember it. But it doesn’t mean that love, romance and moreover passion will go away. Passion is pure chemistry! I don’t really think that children will not know mother and father at all. But what already is happening is that the society taking major part in children education and protection. And I do believe that all children should have equal opportunity to succeed. They are not equal because they have different DNA and some are stronger another are smarter but they should have an equal and fair start. That is why in US they everyone can get at least high school education. And if a kid is trapped in a religious family that never gives him to read anything except Bible I think his individual rights are violated.


:iagree:


----------



## Goldmember357 (Jan 31, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Therin lies the fallacy in your logic.
> 
> By banning religion and religious beliefs, we would be in essence making men like ourselves, into gods.
> 
> ...


There exists this serious misapprehension that "morals" cannot exist "without religion". This is not true at all, morals are culture standards. You seem to be under this belief that humans cannot function unless they believe in a supernatural power that governs their lives. That being/belief which has no evidence and bases its entity on the written passed on works of others. 

"inside of us". Not at all, your brain is the reason you think the way you do. There is nothing inside of you that makes you "feel a certain way". Chemicals in the brain cause certain ways of thinking.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Goldmember357 said:


> Basically Morals are made up by human's, and morals/rules like "don't kill your own" are programmed in us via our evolution.


Then why do humans beings globally spend so much money on researching, manufacturing and purchasing weapons whose sole purpose is to take human life, whilst at the same time millions starve and die for lack of food and basic medication?


----------



## Goldmember357 (Jan 31, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> Then why do humans beings globally spend so much money on researching, manufacturing and purchasing weapons whose sole purpose is to take human life, whilst at the same time millions starve and die for lack of food and basic medication?


Because our greed gets the best of us we are an extremely self destructive bunch and unworthy of our intelligence in many ways. We are not "unique" or as special as we make ourselves out to be, we act like a cancer in many ways. 

What do you think the reasoning behind murder/cruelty is??? Is it "evil?"

No its "evil" from how we perceive and define evil but in reality its just a lack of mixed up priorities, and contempt for those who cannot further our ambitions.


----------



## Caribbean Man (Jun 3, 2012)

Goldmember357 said:


> Because our greed gets the best of us we are an extremely self destructive bunch and unworthy of our intelligence in many ways. We are not "unique" or as special as we make ourselves out to be, we act like a cancer in many ways.
> 
> What do you think the reasoning behind murder/cruelty is??? Is it "evil?"
> 
> No its "evil" from how we perceive and define evil but in reality its just a lack of mixed up priorities, and contempt for those who cannot further our ambitions.


What exactly are you saying?
From whence cometh greed, envy, hatred, lust, mixed up priorities and contempt for those who cannot further our ambitions, if we are programmed by evolution to be moral?

The term " programmed by evolution " suggest that it takes a superior position over our cognitive abilities.
So my initial question still stands.
There must be standard by which we derive right and wrong,and its not just a matter of perception even though right and wrong can be relative.


----------



## Goldmember357 (Jan 31, 2012)

Caribbean Man said:


> What exactly are you saying?
> From whence cometh greed, envy, hatred, lust, mixed up priorities and contempt for those who cannot further our ambitions,* if we are programmed by evolution to be moral?*
> 
> The term " programmed by evolution " suggest that it takes a superior position over our cognitive abilities.
> ...


Our evolution led to how we are today. We are primates with highly evolved brains, certain things/traits we exhibit are reminiscent to that of our cousins/ancestral species. There are many similarities between us and our Cousins physically and mentally, they are not really any "immoral" than us. In-fact we are more immoral given our ability to disregard ourselves/life so easily all in the name of greed. 

You ask were greed comes from? its the result of human mind conflicting with other internal issues and is the prime example of why we are such a young species. 



Caribbean Man said:


> What exactly are you saying?
> From whence cometh greed, envy, hatred, lust, mixed up priorities and contempt for those who cannot further our ambitions, if we are programmed by evolution to be moral?


Being programmed by evolution does not mean we cannot murder or commit (by today's standards) wrong doing. What i meant by the following statement


> Originally Posted by Goldmember357
> Basically Morals are made up by human's, and morals/rules like "don't kill your own" are programmed in us via our evolution.


---- Is that generally speaking humans have adapted/learned that killing one another is something you should not do in ideal situations. Now the act of killing has been rampant in human history as it has been in ancestral history but the meanings behind it were to some degree different than that of today. I cannot think of any species (off the top of my head) that favors killing even the strong of its society out of "greed". Animals are very communal based and the systems they live in are very efficient, its humans that take more than what they need and destroy themselves, their environment and other species. In the end though we ultimately commit wrong doing based off illogical thinking conjured up in our brain.

Do not take me saying "Programmed" in just a literal sense. Evolution does not work by order. Things in life are easily explainable. So what is the question?

Our evolution does not mean we are prevented from "evil"... In addition i do not believe for a second that "morals" need to come from some higher standard. They are simple adapted/learned/and derived off what is efficient for a species to survive. 


What is so confusing?

It seems rather simple to me. Humans are highly evolved primates with highly evolved brains, yet still have many (old way's) of thinking prevalent in our brain. For instance males still naturally feel competitive to other males, (sense of fear to an extent). We have not yet fully evolved/turned away from more primitive instincts that were profound among our ancestors.


----------



## AlmostYoung (May 24, 2012)

hekati said:


> Why do we still need marriage?


What a silly question. If we didn't have marriage, what would we do with all the wedding cakes?


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

AlmostYoung said:


> What a silly question. If we didn't have marriage, what would we do with all the wedding cakes?


We could write birthday wishes on them!!!


----------



## WillPrez (Dec 8, 2012)

Marriage is faith with others, It is certified attachment, I think no reason to not to take marry of your love and faith with others.


----------

