Is Marriage Becoming Obsolete?

Eliot Rosewater · 24-11-2010 11:03PM #1

Time Magazine ran a fantastic article this week about the state of the American marriage. The article was a collaboration between Time and Pew Research Centre, who recently published a study about marriage and an accompanying pubic opinion poll. Some of the very interesting poll results can be found on these three pages: page 1; page 2; page 3. They're presented in a very nice format.

The poll shows an unsurprising shift way from marriage. Page 1 shows how different groups responded to the question "Is marriage becoming obsolete?". College graduates mainly said no; unmarried parents living together mainly said yes.

An interesting point made in the article was that people are now marrying their social and economic equals: whereas before a doctor might marry a nurse, doctors are now marrying doctors, for instance. Despite this trend there is still a demonstrable difference in what is expected of either gender in a marriage.

So, is marriage relevant in the 21st century? Is it still a worthwhile bond, or merely a leftover from the past? Do you think it has a part to play in peoples' relationships, or has it become unnecessary and indulgent?

And is there still a perception that the husband and wife have different (unequal?) roles to play?

Wolfe Tone · 24-11-2010 11:08PM

Eh, just to be clear, are we talking about marriage in strictly a social sense, rather than the legal ramifications that go with it?

25-11-2010 12:18AM

I'm not married. Have never been married. Have proposed to a woman once before, but luckily for both of us she said no. So my views on marriage are those on the outside.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So, is marriage relevant in the 21st century? Is it still a worthwhile bond, or merely a leftover from the past? Do you think it has a part to play in peoples' relationships, or has it become unnecessary and indulgent?

I believe in marriage. Not as some legal requirement but rather a promise to another person. A placement of trust in someone else that ties together with the feeling of mutual love. But then, being single I'm also a hopeless romantic.

And is there still a perception that the husband and wife have different (unequal?) roles to play?

Different roles, sure. Unequal, no. But then I believe those roles are not predetermined, but created during the first few years of living together. I tend to base my view of marriage on my parents. They have a very equal set up, with neither being the dominant parent or worker. A meeting of equals in many respects. Will my marriage be similar? I hope so, but it will entirely depend on when I get married as opposed to any preconceived notions.

Zulu · 25-11-2010 10:59AM

Personally, I think there's always room in society for a "permanent" commitment.

Is it becoming Obsolete - I don't think so.

It's definitely declining in popularity in the western world, as I'd imagine religion is, but I reckon this is more because a "choice" now exists (clearly the choice always existed, but it's easier to take now). It's socially acceptable now for a couple to raise a family without marrying - where it wasn't so much before, and I think people are availing of this option now more than ever. However...
I don't think this will lead to marriage becoming obsolete. I think people like the (supposed) security that marriage offers. I don't see that changing.

prinz · 25-11-2010 02:44PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Despite this trend there is still a demonstrable difference in what is expected of either gender in a marriage.

Only one seems to have any noteworthy difference and that relates to the importance of providing a good income. Or perhaps I am taking that up wrong. Anyway we still very much live in a society that assumes the male is the, at least primary, breadwinner, and both sexes perpetuate this.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So, is marriage relevant in the 21st century? Is it still a worthwhile bond, or merely a leftover from the past? Do you think it has a part to play in peoples' relationships, or has it become unnecessary and indulgent?

Marriage isn't a CD player. On what basis could it be considered indulgent? Then again I'm not long married so I may be biased :pac: Obsolete, already? Nooooo.

Very relevant in my view, however it's difficult to express quite why as it's such a broad topic.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

And is there still a perception that the husband and wife have different (unequal?) roles to play?

Yes. Different yes, unequal no IMO.

The Corinthian · 26-11-2010 10:11AM

All the romantic nonsense aside, the historical concept of marriage was essentially a social, biological and economic contract between a man and a woman.

As part of the contract the man would gain the following:

Conjugal rights. Regular sexual services of a woman.
A 'guarantee' of his own biological offspring. While paternity fraud is as old as sin, a married man could in general be fairly certain that the children he was providing for were his own.
A homemaker. He would gain the services of someone who would take care of the home, himself and children.

A woman, on the other hand, would gain the following:

Conjugal rights. Regular sexual services of a man.
A provider. While engaged in homemaking, a woman could rely upon the services of a man to provide economic resources - put food on the table and a roof over her head. This was very important given that women either could not or were prevented to do so for themselves.
Fidelity. Not so much the fidelity of monogamy (although this was implied in many marriages), but the fidelity that the marriage was permanent and would not be terminated at a later date.

The last of these is important, because up until relatively recently a marital breakup affected a woman considerably more than a man - as she would lose the services of a provider, leaving her destitute.

Divorce evolved slowly over the centuries, eventually reaching a point where a man could not simply leave a woman destitute if he left her. Nonetheless, divorce (or annulment) remained a rare occurrence, due to social stigma, until the second half of the twentieth century, when 'no fault divorce' was introduced - creating the situation where marriage became the only contract that can legally be broken unilaterally without any penalty.

Custody of children in divorce also shifted, whereby in the 18th century they would go to the man, by the 20th they would almost automatically go to the woman.

When this happened, and combined with the provisions to maintain the provider's commitment to protect what was a small relative number of divorces, the dynamic changed dramatically. Not only was marriage no longer a permanent union, but fidelity was no longer needed by a woman and the provider role was still guaranteed. No such provision was ever introduced for the duty to be a homemaker.

Rates of marital breakup then exploded with the majority, unsurprisingly, being initiated by the woman. Men financially became the big losers, are not compensated for the loss of a homemaker and, if children are involved, lose them as well.

What this has resulted in is two things; firstly that men will increasingly marry only their own economic equals, so as to limit any economic downside. I've personally known of a number of examples of where men have considered this a priority - and the more successful the man, the more this appears to be the case. The second is that many men simply refuse to marry (the so-called 'marriage strike') and this has resulted in a dramatic increase in cohabitation couples, children born out of marriage and ultimately led to the cohabitation bill, which was as concerned with reintroducing the financial obligations via the back door as anything to do with the gay marriage question - this was almost certainly done so as to shift financial responsibility away from the state in such cases.

Is marriage becoming obsolete? Essentially yes, although it's not there yet. In Ireland, the numbers of people cohabiting and children born out of wedlock has exploded in the last twenty or thirty years, prompting the government first to change illegitimacy laws, introduce the cohabitation bill and before long it will also have to reform the laws relating to paternity rights. However, fundamentally, it is still trying to keep the same marriage model under another name, and so this will continue to remain unattractive to men, who will continue to find new ways around it.

And increasingly women will find it unattractive too. As they more commonly become the breadwinners, as men find it more socially acceptable to become homemakers and as the bias in favour of women with regard to children is worn away, many women will find that it simply is too much of a risk to marry too. Indeed, it's probably already too high a risk for many women to marry, for the same reasons as men, because if they do end up divorcing, they probably won't for a number of years by which time the above will have changed the playing field.

I do believe that for marriage to survive, there will have to be a recognition that it is now a temporary union masquerading as a permanent one; that the scenario where you can marry at 20, divorce at 35 and find yourself paying spousal maintenance up until you die at 80 is unsustainable. Either that or return to making it legally or socially unacceptable to split in the first place.

Zulu · 26-11-2010 11:25AM

TC, would I be correct in paraphrasing: you understand that marriage is becoming obsolete because couples do not wish to make a life long commitment to each other, for financial reasons?

I would have thought that the drive to create a family would encourage a drive for a life long commitment. Although, I concede that most people probably reference their own family, & as marital breakdown increases, then this would only lower expectation....

...oh.

The Corinthian · 26-11-2010 11:56AM

Zulu wrote: »

TC, would I be correct in paraphrasing: you understand that marriage is becoming obsolete because couples do not wish to make a life long commitment to each other, for financial reasons?

No, I think people do want to make a life long commitment to each other, the problem is that marriage no longer provides, let alone guarantees, it.

Remember, one of the principle reasons cited by men for avoiding marriage was the consequences of it failing, not the consequences of it succeeding.

I also stress that while I believe that marriage is presently a bad deal for men, I do think that this will change in the next few decades and the fears that many men have will become more evenly spread out to women - thus making the issue more gender neutral. When that happens, you'll start seeing marriage strikes on both sides - to a degree that is already beginning to happen.

Zulu · 26-11-2010 12:11PM

The concept of marriage strike is very interesting.

pickarooney · 26-11-2010 12:21PM

The graphs, if they accurately represent the questions asked, are largely meaningless. Given a straight choice between 'single' and 'married' without any in-between option, of course the majority are going to choose 'married' on questions of child-rearing and sex lives.

The Corinthian · 26-11-2010 12:50PM

pickarooney wrote: »

The graphs, if they accurately represent the questions asked, are largely meaningless. Given a straight choice between 'single' and 'married' without any in-between option, of course the majority are going to choose 'married' on questions of child-rearing and sex lives.

I would also take into account that those responses represent American attitudes. Marriage and children within marriage, there are taken far more seriously than in Europe and attitudes are considerably more conservative.

The Corinthian · 26-11-2010 12:57PM

Zulu wrote: »

The concept of marriage strike is very interesting.

Indeed. The three reasons cited in the 2002 report for men avoiding marriage were:

'They can get sex without marriage'.
They can enjoy "a wife" through cohabitation'.
'They want to avoid divorce and its financial risks'.

It is interesting to note that the recently passed cohabitation bill effectively seeks to curb the second (and to a lesser degree the first) reason, without dealing with the third. Under this legislation, cohabitation for five years automatically 'activates' the same financial rights and responsibilities as marriage. A contract may be signed to avoid or curb this, however even then such a contract can be overturned.

The logic behind this legislation, in my mind, is simple. With more and more couples choosing to cohabit rather than marry, and with 1-in-4 children born outside of marriage, a break-up (involving children) would previously result in child maintenance, but no spousal maintenance and thus a custodial partner would end up seeking state assistance. Putting the responsibility upon the non-custodial partner to support the custodial one would result in a significant saving in government spending.

Other countries deal with this differently, of course. Germany, for example, will expect a custodial partner/parent to support themselves and will push them to get employment. Ireland differs both in terms of resources and ideology; child care is expensive and often impractical (leading often to situations whereby a lone parent will lose income if they get a job and pay for daycare) and the 'right' to be a stay-at-home parent is still an accepted part of the Irish system.

Nonetheless, I think you'll see more contracts being signed, people breaking up before the five-year mark and others 'taking breaks' so as to avoid the consequences of the legislation. And others will simply see it as yet another reason to leave Ireland.

Overall, as I suggested earlier, marriage has become a temporary union masquerading as a permanent one. As such, people are going to become more and more careful about entering it or opting for alternative workarounds, and unless this divorce law is reformed to reflect this reality, marriage will decline.

Mits · 26-11-2010 01:04PM

"The Corinthian" you described it very well.

I think it is the fear of a marriage failing and the ensuing financial implications. That stop a lot of men from committing to marriage. Also if women want marriage they should hold out and not get involved in cohabitation.

I believe in marriage. I’m married 20 years and have four kids. I could not think of a better way to raise a family than in a loving nurturing marriage. If I had not being married our relationship would never have survived. I look forward to the time when the kids have grown up and my wife and I have more time for each other.

Eventually it will be the companionship and friendship that will keep us together. To be honest I dread loneliness as I see my Mum, who is alone now after my Dad died a few years back. I would hate to end up alone.

When I got married there was no divorce in Ireland and I think it was a mistake to allow it in. I think people should only be allowed to marry once in a lifetime. People might then take the commitment more serious. When a marriage does fail I think divorce should also end the commitment, with the settlement being the final payment. Obligations to the children would also need to taken care of, but that should be seperate to the breakup.

token56 · 26-11-2010 01:04PM

Personally I'm not sold on the whole concept of marriage. I dont think its obsolete because people will always want to make the lifelong commitment to each and thats perfectly acceptable and they should have the right to do so. However I'm not sold that making such a lifelong commitment is a rational or natural thing to do. Its a noble sentiment indeed and if people can make the lifelong commitment then fair play its indeed an accomplishment. But in relality it seems to me the a lot of marriages ended up becoming about co-existence more than anything else, in particular for the sake of children that might be involved or for fear of not having a partner.

The problem with marriage is that you are not just making the lifelong commitment to a person as there are at that moment in time, but you are agreeing to be with the person they will become in 5, 10 or 20 years time. And invariably people and relationships do change etc. People might say if you really love them you will love them unconditionally etc, but lets be honest that is just fairly tail stuff for the majority and naive. I think its the exception more so than they rule of people who can keep all the different aspects of the relationships going for a lifetime. I'm not saying people should just break up once something in their relationship changes etc, just that in my opinion a lifelong commitment is not a rational decision in the majority of cases.

There is the whole legal side of things which adds a completely different twist to things, but excusing that the above are my views.

The Corinthian · 26-11-2010 01:28PM

Mits wrote: »

I think it is the fear of a marriage failing and the ensuing financial implications. That stop a lot of men from committing to marriage. Also if women want marriage they should hold out and not get involved in cohabitation.

I think the dynamics of society have changed in this regard and a woman who 'holds out' like that is going to have trouble finding a man willing to accept this - at the very least, it will decrease her pool of potential mates substantially.

Eventually it will be the companionship and friendship that will keep us together. To be honest I dread loneliness as I see my Mum, who is alone now after my Dad died a few years back. I would hate to end up alone.

I've never accepted this argument, because the only people who don't die alone are those who die first, and that's hardly something to aim for.

When I got married there was no divorce in Ireland and I think it was a mistake to allow it in. I think people should only be allowed to marry once in a lifetime. People might then take the commitment more serious. When a marriage does fail I think divorce should also end the commitment, with the settlement being the final payment. Obligations to the children would also need to taken care of, but that should be seperate to the breakup.

I agree with you on both counts. Either it is a lifelong commitment or it isn't. And it isn't then it makes no sense to maintain commitments to a spouse that is no longer a spouse, especially in this modern age.

token56 wrote: »

But in relality it seems to me the a lot of marriages ended up becoming about co-existence more than anything else, in particular for the sake of children that might be involved or for fear of not having a partner.

When I entered my thirties, I began to see this happen. People would meet, often were living together within a few short months, engaged within a year, married and finally pregnant by the second anniversary of their meeting for the first time. Many of these marriages are already miserable, a decade on.

The problem with marriage is that you are not just making the lifelong commitment to a person as there are at that moment in time, but you are agreeing to be with the person they will become in 5, 10 or 20 years time.

Very true, but it's amazing how few seem to think about it. Personally, I blame the culture of romcoms, that have sold us the romantic fairy tale, yet inevitably their tales end once the ring is on the finger. What happens next is never explored and becomes a rude awakening to those who do not consider it themselves.

seamus · 26-11-2010 01:51PM

In the context of the United States, there could be a cultural dimension to it that we don't see as much.

I know it varies from place to place, but overall in the US marriage is seen as something which should be committed to as soon as life is stable and you're in love.
They appear to get married younger than we do (straight out of college is common), and they appear to be under significant familial pressure to get married much sooner than we are.
Two years from meeting to engagement and a further 6-12 months to marriage seems to be commonplace and the norm in the states. Having at least one child before you're 25 is almost essential.

Contrast that with here, where long relationships (5+ years) are considered essential before committing to marriage. And once the proposal is made, there's rarely any rush - sure why not 18 or 24 months before marriage. Certainly if someone told me that they were marrying their girlfriend of 12 months, most people would say, "Way too soon". I don't think you'd get the same attitude in the states, and it would be considered "odd" if you were going out for 5 years without a proposal, even if you're only 21.

I think the cohabitation figures on the last page there bear this out. 5.5% of couples over 20 cohabitate versus 8.7% in the UK indicates (to me) that fewer Americans choose to live with a partner, unmarried. For whatever reason.

Permabear · 26-11-2010 02:22PM

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater · 26-11-2010 04:39PM

In my defence, I quoted the Time article because it's interesting in it's own right, and provides a basis for discussion. I wasn't suggesting that America and Europe are comparable in this regard - in fact, the statistic that stuck out most for me was the low co-habitation rate of 8%, which seems to be very small.

I find the marriage strike stuff very interesting. It's interesting that an institution like marriage - which is theoretically about a bond between two people - is plagued by such gender conflict, and that bond is not sufficient to overcome this.

The Corinthian · 26-11-2010 04:49PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I find the marriage strike stuff very interesting. It's interesting that an institution like marriage - which is theoretically about a bond between two people - is plagued by such gender conflict, and that bond is not sufficient to overcome this.

With respects that's a pretty silly statement; regardless of whether the conflict is gender based or not, if the bond between the two could overcome it, then there would be no marital breakup.

The modern reality is that marriage is not a permanent bond. That is simply a fantasy. It is only a bond as long as both parties choose to keep it that way. The problem is that many still suffer under the delusion that being married somehow makes it so.

Marriage does not make a permanent bond. People do.

Permabear · 26-11-2010 04:56PM

This post has been deleted.

Eliot Rosewater · 26-11-2010 05:37PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

With respects that's a pretty silly statement; regardless of whether the conflict is gender based or not, if the bond between the two could overcome it, then there would be no marital breakup.

That was my point!

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yup, fair point! It's ironic really that some of the government regulation in this area seems to be an attempt to encourage marriage (tax benefits, for instance), but that the sum total acts as a disincentive.

The Corinthian · 26-11-2010 05:47PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That was my point!

Mine was that it's not really about gender conflict. The only reason it is presently is that divorce gives men a worse deal in general, but this will likely change over time. What it is about ultimately is the cost of failure of marriage for the financially more productive party, as they have considerably more to lose.

In this regard, what you'll find is that while now it's men who are on a marriage strike, in the future it will simply be the wealthy, regardless of gender.

It's ironic really that some of the government regulation in this area seems to be an attempt to encourage marriage (tax benefits, for instance), but that the sum total acts as a disincentive.

Which is why, with legislation such as the recent cohabitation bill, they turned their strategy to encourage marriage from the carrot to the stick.

looksee · 05-12-2010 02:45PM

I think it is important that children should be born into a secure relationship and home, and it is also important to children to know who their parents are.

I wonder if we are getting to a stage where people should be expected to make some sort of commitment to the child's upbringing, either by a legal and moral commitment to each other, or a legal undertaking as to how they will rear the child. One or other or both, with financial commitments from the start so that parents do not have to chase each other through the courts.

It should not have to be the State's responsibility to support one parent families. There are two people involved which should be enough to raise a child. If people continue to produce children that they cannot or will not support then maybe there should be some sort of sanctions.

I know all that sounds as though I am advocating marriage by another name, but I feel it should be more child-centred. It doesn't really matter what two adults do, but it does matter how children are supported.

If two parents have jobs/careers then one should not have to support the other in the event of a home break up. But they should have to support the children. The home should be equally divided even if one parent has been a home maker and the other the wage earner. What happens if one earner becomes incapacitated though, and is not able to work? Could they be abandoned?

Would it help to have a partnership agreement like a pre-nuptial agreement to specify all this. If two people have a child outside a partnership agreement, then it is assumed that a standard agreement is in place, and anyone can only have one agreement at a time, in other words, more children is the same as bigamy.

I am just thinking out loud here, and there would be loads of reasons why this kind of thing would not work, but I think there needs to be some sort of social regularisation of producing children, for the sake of the children.

The Corinthian · 06-12-2010 07:48AM

looksee wrote: »

I think it is important that children should be born into a secure relationship and home, and it is also important to children to know who their parents are.

I think you're confusing parenting with marriage or commitment. There are plenty of relationships and even marriages without children and plenty of children born of one-night-stands or brief flings.

I wonder if we are getting to a stage where people should be expected to make some sort of commitment to the child's upbringing, either by a legal and moral commitment to each other, or a legal undertaking as to how they will rear the child. One or other or both, with financial commitments from the start so that parents do not have to chase each other through the courts.

Both parents are already expected to make a financial commitment to the child's upbringing (at least unless the mother chooses not to keep the child). What you are suggesting is a commitment to the other parent - this is quite a different thing, especially if you may hardly know them, let alone have chosen to make such a commitment to them.

It should not have to be the State's responsibility to support one parent families. There are two people involved which should be enough to raise a child. If people continue to produce children that they cannot or will not support then maybe there should be some sort of sanctions.

It should not be the State's responsibility to support one parent families, but that is how it has worked out largely due to the culture of welfare dependence that it has fostered since the formation of the State (not only with one parent families, I may add), rather than encourage any impetus towards self-support.

If two parents have jobs/careers then one should not have to support the other in the event of a home break up. But they should have to support the children.

This is already legally the case. Sort of. If unmarried, both parents have a duty to financially support the child, but not each other.

Would it help to have a partnership agreement like a pre-nuptial agreement to specify all this. If two people have a child outside a partnership agreement, then it is assumed that a standard agreement is in place, and anyone can only have one agreement at a time, in other words, more children is the same as bigamy.

The introduction of the cohabitation bill essentially does this, automatically giving both partners the same rights to assets and maintenance as a married couple, once they are cohabitation for five years (less if they have children, although one would have to confirm this). They may draw up their own agreement, but this is an opt-out, rather than opt-in, and also may be overturned.

I am just thinking out loud here, and there would be loads of reasons why this kind of thing would not work, but I think there needs to be some sort of social regularisation of producing children, for the sake of the children.

As I pointed out at the start of this post, the problem with what you propose is that children and relationships are not the same thing. I can see your logic where a couple is together for years and have a child, but what happens with one-night-stands or a couple who are only dating a few weeks or months and not even living together? How do you define a committed relationship?

In essence, what you are proposing is not so much marriage by another name, but shot-gun marriage by another name.

looksee · 06-12-2010 09:00AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you're confusing parenting with marriage or commitment. There are plenty of relationships and even marriages without children and plenty of children born of one-night-stands or brief flings.

As I pointed out at the start of this post, the problem with what you propose is that children and relationships are not the same thing. I can see your logic where a couple is together for years and have a child, but what happens with one-night-stands or a couple who are only dating a few weeks or months and not even living together? How do you define a committed relationship?

In essence, what you are proposing is not so much marriage by another name, but shot-gun marriage by another name.

I agree with much of what you have said, but I was not confusing parenting with marriage. I am trying, possibly not very well, to move the emphasis of commitment from the couple to the children.

Yes, I suppose what I am suggesting is shotgun marriage by another name, but not for the sake of a marriage, more for the sake of the children. I am not suggesting two people should be forced to set up home together, but if they produce a child they should have total commitment to it, and not just go off and produce more children in different relationships. I am trying to remove the situation of one night stands casually producing children.

As it stands, relationships are about the couple, the children are incidental. I am aware of the existing legalities, I am talking more about a change of attitude.

I am aware of a situation (in the UK) where a young woman drug addict had a child, miraculously the child is healthy. She wants nothing to do with the child. The child was being well cared for by the grandparents until the drug dealer/addict father realised that child = (he thought) better accommodation and state money, and he was awarded care of the child. Meanwhile the girl asked to be sterilised but was refused on the grounds she was too young, and now has another child.

This is entirely true, and demonstrates how the 'rights' of the parents are more important than the rights of the child. The system has let the child/children down, but mainly because the parents' rights were paramount. The father had a 'right' to his child even though the grandparents were giving it a loving, stable home. Both parents are dependent on the State for support, they cannot support children - both now have at least two children each -but they have a 'right' to continue reproducing.

The whole area is far too complex to sort in a chat-room, but while marriage is probably obsolete it has to be replaced by something that will protect children, and this will require a change of attitude towards 'rights' and replace it with 'responsibility'.

ShooterSF · 06-12-2010 09:27AM

@looksee
You realise the logical outcome of such thinking is to give parents no legal right to their child. Instead giving it to the best family that applies to take the child..

The Corinthian · 06-12-2010 09:34AM

looksee wrote: »

I agree with much of what you have said, but I was not confusing parenting with marriage. I am trying, possibly not very well, to move the emphasis of commitment from the couple to the children.

You're not really though. You've not considered the child where it comes to a woman's right to choose whether she wants to keep the child or not, only said that she (not the child) has a right to be financially supported if she chooses to keep it. Hardly sounds like the child's interests are being served TBH.

Yes, I suppose what I am suggesting is shotgun marriage by another name, but not for the sake of a marriage, more for the sake of the children. I am not suggesting two people should be forced to set up home together, but if they produce a child they should have total commitment to it, and not just go off and produce more children in different relationships. I am trying to remove the situation of one night stands casually producing children.

You can't force anyone to have a total commitment to a child though. Can, or should, you force a woman to keep a child and not, say, put it up for adoption? Can you force either parent to love a child if they did not want it?

People will end up producing more children in different relationships, but this is not always the anti-social scenario of a man with children by multiple flings or single mothers with a litter of half-siblings. Sometimes it can be that a relationship simply ended - are you suggesting they may never have children again should they enter a new relationship in the future?

As it stands, relationships are about the couple, the children are incidental. I am aware of the existing legalities, I am talking more about a change of attitude.

No, as it stands relationships are about the couple, the children are separate. The financial responsibility to support a child exists regardless of whether the couple were married or a one-night stand - and it is exactly the same. Child maintenance is separate to spousal maintenance.

I am aware of a situation (in the UK) where a young woman drug addict had a child, miraculously the child is healthy. She wants nothing to do with the child. The child was being well cared for by the grandparents until the drug dealer/addict father realised that child = (he thought) better accommodation and state money, and he was awarded care of the child. Meanwhile the girl asked to be sterilised but was refused on the grounds she was too young, and now has another child.

This is an extreme case, but most are not. Should you legislate with only such extreme cases in mind? This seems to be the greatest flaw in what you are suggesting - you are basing everything on a particular, extreme scenario and assuming it will work for all scenarios. It won't.

This is entirely true, and demonstrates how the 'rights' of the parents are more important than the rights of the child.

Not really. The law seeks to have a balance between the rights of all three, because at the end of the day all three are people and equally deserving of rights.

The system has let the child/children down, but mainly because the parents' rights were paramount. The father had a 'right' to his child even though the grandparents were giving it a loving, stable home. Both parents are dependent on the State for support, they cannot support children - both now have at least two children each -but they have a 'right' to continue reproducing.

What are you suggesting then? Enforced sterilization? If you fail a credit check you get your tubes tied or the snip?

The whole area is far too complex to sort in a chat-room, but while marriage is probably obsolete it has to be replaced by something that will protect children, and this will require a change of attitude towards 'rights' and replace it with 'responsibility'.

The law already does this, albeit imperfectly. Ultimately you have to have rights when you have responsibilities, otherwise you are forcing people into indentured servitude, which is hardly the formula for loving parenting.

It is a complex topic, but to simply suggest you cannot have it in a chat-room is a bit of a cop out. It's like saying; "I have my opinion and don't intend to defend it here, even though I'm happy to give it".

vibe666 · 06-12-2010 09:40AM

i've heard about and been to more weddings in the last couple of years than ever before (including my own), so i don't think marriage has had its chips just yet.

maybe its because i'm approaching my mid-thirties and have settled down and started to get more and more 'couples' friends, but i think marriage is great as long as nobody rushes into it and does it properly.

i think its much more likely to last if people don't rush into it and get to know each other before they take the plunge. its surprising how long it takes to get to know someone properly to the point where you know you are made for each other and want to spend the rest of your lives together.

The Corinthian · 06-12-2010 09:54AM

vibe666 wrote: »

i think its much more likely to last if people don't rush into it and get to know each other before they take the plunge.

One thing I noticed when I entered my thirties though is how many people do rush in. The number of people who are married with a baby on the way within two years of meeting is scary.

To me it seems to point to people settling because they want to get married rather than settling because they want to stay with this other person for the rest of their lives.

looksee · 06-12-2010 10:06AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

It is a complex topic, but to simply suggest you cannot have it in a chat-room is a bit of a cop out. It's like saying; "I have my opinion and don't intend to defend it here, even though I'm happy to give it".

No, I am not trying to cop-out, I am quite prepared to defend my opinion, I just realise that the whole area is too huge and complicated to come to a realistic conclusion here. That doesn't mean it can't be discussed.

I am not saying that my ideas are definative, but sometimes ideas are worth tossing to and fro to see if there is any merit in them, rather than just dismissing them. Maybe there is no merit in them, maybe there is a tiny bit that can be built on.

I am not formulating all my ideas based on the one example, I agree it is extreme but I still contend that it demonstrates some of the problems that can arise. It is a little frivolous to suggest that a child should be given to a family best able to care for it, in the vast majority of cases it will be fine with the natural parent/parents. But given the choice between drug addict parents who do not actually want the child except for financial gain, and a sound family, why should the father's 'rights' be more important than the child's well-being?

There are no clear cut answers, and if you have decided, for the sake of argument, that I am wrong at all levels, then it is easy to give the opposite view. But I suggest that instead of trying to patch up a system that still uses marriage as a basis for society, a change of attitude is needed that reflects the changes that have taken place in society.

In reality I think this change of attitude will come, and then changes will be made, but I think it will be based more on the inability/unwillingness of the State to support increasing numbers of children born out of a supportive relationship than concern about how people conduct their lives.

The Corinthian · 06-12-2010 10:28AM

looksee wrote: »

No, I am not trying to cop-out, I am quite prepared to defend my opinion, I just realise that the whole area is too huge and complicated to come to a realistic conclusion here. That doesn't mean it can't be discussed.

Fair enough. Having said that, you didn't address any of the points I made.

I am not saying that my ideas are definative, but sometimes ideas are worth tossing to and fro to see if there is any merit in them, rather than just dismissing them. Maybe there is no merit in them, maybe there is a tiny bit that can be built on.

Then we should examine and discuss them and find what that tiny bit is.

I am not formulating all my ideas based on the one example, I agree it is extreme but I still contend that it demonstrates some of the problems that can arise.

Yes, but the danger is that in trying to solve those problems you end up creating even bigger ones.

It is a little frivolous to suggest that a child should be given to a family best able to care for it, in the vast majority of cases it will be fine with the natural parent/parents. But given the choice between drug addict parents who do not actually want the child except for financial gain, and a sound family, why should the father's 'rights' be more important than the child's well-being?

If that is the case, many mothers should not have custody because of the same reasons. If both parents are like this, are you suggesting enforced adoption?

There are no clear cut answers, and if you have decided, for the sake of argument, that I am wrong at all levels, then it is easy to give the opposite view.

No, I am testing your arguments, if they survive such tests, or better still may be amended to deal with them, then they are valid. It's how such discourse works.

I understand where you are coming from, which is to seek a more child-centered system which is woefully broken. Where I disagree is that I think that you've not really thought through many of your ideas and as such they're really easy to shoot down.

In reality I think this change of attitude will come, and then changes will be made, but I think it will be based more on the inability/unwillingness of the State to support increasing numbers of children born out of a supportive relationship than concern about how people conduct their lives.

I think it already has begun to go in that direction with the cohabitation bill. Given this, there is a limit to how much can be done, because ultimately you are talking about not one, but three people, all of whom deserve rights and protection.

vibe666 · 06-12-2010 10:44AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

One thing I noticed when I entered my thirties though is how many people do rush in. The number of people who are married with a baby on the way within two years of meeting is scary.

To me it seems to point to people settling because they want to get married rather than settling because they want to stay with this other person for the rest of their lives.

yeah, i think so too. my wife and i have 10 years together now and we were only married this yea, so i'm happy we got to know each other as well as we could before taking the plunge.

now we're on to the baby race to complete the picture and shut up our parents who seem to be baying for a few grandchildren.

Tim Robbins · 08-12-2010 02:34PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

All the romantic nonsense aside, the historical concept of marriage was essentially a social, biological and economic contract between a man and a woman.

I see you still haven't met the right woman :-)

Tim Robbins · 08-12-2010 02:37PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Marriage does not make a permanent bond. People do.

As I stated to you before, there is clinical evidence which shows that if you make a public declaration on a matter you are statistically less likely to change your mind on that matter.

A priest is less likely to become an atheist, because amongst other things his public declarations; a FG TD is less likely to join FF because amongst other things his public declarations.

A married couple are more likely to stay together for the same reason.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2010 03:13PM

Wow, that would make me HAPPY to hear marriage is becoming obsolete if indeed it is... because of all the reasons I have ever heard for people staying together for life… fear of publicly losing face has to be up there as one of the worst ones I can imagine.

Let alone that it is also one of the worst reasons I have heard for staying on as a priest or as a member of a political party.

Zulu · 08-12-2010 03:18PM

Doesn't make his/her point any less valid.

If someone is prepared to make a public commitment to something, they'll most probably work even a tiny bit harder to keep it. Everyone like to save face - everyone.

seenitall · 08-12-2010 03:18PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

As I stated to you before, there is clinical evidence which shows that if you make a public declaration on a matter you are statistically less likely to change your mind on that matter.

A priest is less likely to become an atheist, because amongst other things his public declarations; a FG TD is less likely to join FF because amongst other things his public declarations.

A married couple are more likely to stay together for the same reason.

I wish you supplied a link to your clinical (?) evidence, so that we can have a look at how the dissolution of marriage has gone from strength to strength in the West in the last few decades, all the public declarations notwithstanding.

Marriage is doomed in the West. Sorry!

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2010 03:28PM

Zulu wrote: »

Doesn't make his/her point any less valid.

Nor, I think you will find, did I claim it did.

Zulu wrote: »

Everyone like to save face - everyone.

Speak for yourself. Peoples impression of me rarely, if ever, figures in the choices I make. I make the choices I do solely based on them being what I feel is the right thing to do at the time.

Tim Robbins · 08-12-2010 03:37PM

seenitall wrote: »

I wish you supplied a link to your clinical (?) evidence, so that we can have a look at how the dissolution of marriage has gone from strength to strength in the West in the last few decades, all the public declarations notwithstanding.

Marriage is doomed in the West. Sorry!

I had this debate with the corinthian before and he ignored this point.

the link is a book called: "irrationality" by Stuart Sutherland.

Another advantage of marriage is that it send out a clear signal that you are off the game. This means if you are single and are the pull you know who not to waste your time chatting up and it also means when you are married you don't have to break hearts and be called a tease. You're be straight up with people.
The corithian previously attempted to refute this point by saying you could achieve this with a clada ring.
Which I thought was ridiculous. When you hear someone is married it has special significance. A lot of people don't even know what a clada ring looks like.

I think the instituition of marriage needs protection. It is a serious committment. In this state, you have to register for marriage 3 months before actually getting married. Maybe that needs to be extended.

The family unit is oldest and most natural form of a society. It is important for all the reasons why a cohesive society are important. It needs as much protection as possible. No more anti family policies such as indivualisation -please.

Zulu · 08-12-2010 03:42PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Speak for yourself. Peoples impression of me rarely, if ever, figures in the choices I make. I make the choices I do solely based on them being what I feel is the right thing to do at the time.

This is silly. I said everyone likes to save face. If you don't like it at all, then fair enough. :rolleyes:

Everyone like to save face except nozzferrahhtoo.

Ironically, you felt the need to correct my comment feeling that it misrepresented you - which is just saving face.

nozzferrahhtoo · 08-12-2010 03:50PM

No irony at all. I corrected your error because it is an error. No other reason. No other reason required either. You simply do not have the statistics to hand to talk about "everyone", it is wholly assumption on your part, the kind that is usually caused by extrapolating generalisations from a hand full of personal anecdotes... something people are all too willing to do alas.

Suffice to say however, to get the thread back on topic before we derail it, if people are feeling compelled to stay in marriages because of fear of losing face then this would be an argument against marriage, not for it, in my opinion. I can think of few situations where I could consider it a good thing that people are compelled to remain in an unhappy relationship by such a pointless pressure.

seenitall · 08-12-2010 04:14PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I had this debate with the corinthian before and he ignored this point.

the link is a book called: "irrationality" by Stuart Sutherland.

Another advantage of marriage is that it send out a clear signal that you are off the game. This means if you are single and are the pull you know who not to waste your time chatting up and it also means when you are married you don't have to break hearts and be called a tease. You're be straight up with people.
The corithian previously attempted to refute this point by saying you could achieve this with a clada ring.
Which I thought was ridiculous. When you hear someone is married it has special significance. A lot of people don't even know what a clada ring looks like.

I think the instituition of marriage needs protection. It is a serious committment. In this state, you have to register for marriage 3 months before actually getting married. Maybe that needs to be extended.

The family unit is oldest and most natural form of a society. It is important for all the reasons why a cohesive society are important. It needs as much protection as possible. No more anti family policies such as indivualisation -please.

Eh?

Anything in that book that can dispute/negate the rising rates of divorce in the West? Reading from the link you supplied, it is a few very general reviews of a book, where the institution of marriage is not even mentioned.

I am sure the institution of marriage has some wonderful aspects to it. As did the snail-mail, as did the horse drawn carriage, as did working the land. But, little by little, individually and in ever greater numbers, people move on, inventions are replaced by other inventions, and institutions by other institutions, reflecting the current needs of a society. Civilisations are in a constant flux, although sometimes it appears very slow. "Oldest and most natural" doesn't mean a bean to a teenager who wants an X-box instead of sitting in front of the fire. And it certainly doesn't mean much in an affluent, throwaway society where the supposedly permanent (but not really any more) contract of marriage has ended up being out of step with the needs of ever greater numbers of people.

Families come in all shapes and sizes nowadays (hey, how PC am I!

). Marriage is increasingly becoming an aggravation instead of a facilitation in family dynamics (by virtue of striving for unreal ideals, resulting in more and more divorces). I'm not even going to go into financial implications of that aggravation, it has been covered on-thread already.

Changes that come about organically in a society are usually for the good; they reflect the need for a different approach to an issue at hand.

The Corinthian · 08-12-2010 04:36PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

As I stated to you before, there is clinical evidence which shows that if you make a public declaration on a matter you are statistically less likely to change your mind on that matter.

None of this has anything to do with the argument I put forward.

To begin with you really would need to show this 'clinical evidence' that shows that the public commitment of marriage makes it statistically less likely for a couple to break up, rather than any other reason. Earlier in the thread I already cited that a principle reason for men not getting married is the consequences of failure and the line "I can't afford to get divorced" is not that uncommon unfortunately.

But even that is irrelevant to my point, because I made no claim to marriage being more or less statistically likely to end than a non-marital commitment.

My point was simply that marriage is not a permanent bond. Nowhere near, unfortunately. Either party can end it unilaterally. And both the chances of it failing and the consequences if it does are too high for many to contemplate it. Your 'clinical evidence' would not change that.

Now, I'd prefer if you simply did not respond to me, especially after your opening post was an ad hominem attack, which I reported but the mods appear to be napping. I've told you before I've no interest in debating with you because I consider you a time waster. Even if you do not agree with why, please try to respect that I've no interest in engaging in further discussion with you.

Tim Robbins · 08-12-2010 04:42PM

seenitall wrote: »

Eh? Anything in that book that can dispute/negate the rising rates of divorce in the West? Reading from the link you supplied, it is a few very general reviews of a book, where the institution of marriage is not even mentioned.

The book doesn't mention marriage or divorce but has a lot of information how people made their mind up on things.

Changes that come about organically in a society are usually for the good; they reflect the need for a different approach to an issue at hand.

Sometimes they are; sometimes they are not. Marriage is certainly not everyone's come up of tea - kids isnt either. But the institution helps long term relationships work which is better for children; both parents and society.

It also helps relationships that don't work in that people will realise in cases of failed marriage; the state and society can be a bit more helpful with a good reason. For example, there used to be a law you didn't have to pay stamp duty if you were divorced. This was to help you get back on your feet again.

Marriage is not a fail safe way of ensuring people stay together and it can certainly make things much worse for some people. There always needs to be a bit of sensitivity here and proper mechanisms for people to co - parent who are better suited to co - parenting and proper mechanism for people who are better suited marriage to marry.

It's seem very totalitarian to get rid of instituition without any sort of good reason.

Tim Robbins · 08-12-2010 04:50PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

None of this has anything to do with the argument I put forward.

To begin with you really would need to show this 'clinical evidence' that shows that the public commitment of marriage makes it statistically less likely for a couple to break up, rather than any other reason. Earlier in the thread I already cited that a principle reason for men not getting married is the consequences of failure and the line "I can't afford to get divorced" is not that uncommon unfortunately.

It's not just marriage it's anything there is a public declaration of - including divorce.

But even that is irrelevant to my point, because I made no claim to marriage being more or less statistically likely to end than a non-marital commitment.

Well you claim that marriage is pretending that something temporary is permanent.

My point was simply that marriage is not a permanent bond.

There you go.

Nowhere near, unfortunately. Either party can end it unilaterally. And both the chances of it failing and the consequences if it does are too high for many to contemplate it. Your 'clinical evidence' would not change that.

The clinical evidence doesn't change the consequences of Paul McCarthy getting fleeced but that wasn't my argument.

Now, I'd prefer if you simply did not respond to me, especially after your opening post was an ad hominem attack, which I reported but the mods appear to be napping. I've told you before I've no interest in debating with you because I consider you a time waster. Even if you do not agree with why, please try to respect that I've no interest in engaging in further discussion with you.

Well the opening comment was a joke that's what the smily face was for.

If you have no interest in debating with me, then why did you just post?
Please do not try to engineer a situation where you spout your points and there is no right to reply.

seenitall · 08-12-2010 05:08PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The book doesn't mention marriage or divorce but has a lot of information how people made their mind up on things.

You can use one clinical trial to show that the marriage means that people have a better chance of staying together. Similarly, you can use the same argument to show that divorced people have a much better chance of staying apart.

Sometimes they are; sometimes they are not. Marriage is certainly not everyone's come up of tea - kids isnt either. But the institution helps long term relationships work which is better for children; both parents and society.

It also helps relationships that don't work in that people will realise in cases of failed marriage; the state and society can be a bit more helpful with a good reason. For example, there used to be a law you didn't have to pay stamp duty if you were divorced. This was to help you get back on your feet again.

Marriage is not a fail safe way of ensuring people stay together and it can certainly make things much worse for some people. There always needs to be a bit of sensitivity here and proper mechanisms for people to co - parent who are better suited to co - parenting and proper mechanism for people who are better suited marriage to marry.

It's seem very totalitarian to get rid of instituition without any sort of good reason.

OK, I get it; you like marriage!

As for "very totalitarian" and "without good reason", well, I guess the changes that are being statistically reflected in the most socially progressive societies of this day and age paint a "very totalitarian" picture of those societies.

That's no reason for us to stop extolling the virtues of marriage, though.

Good luck with it!

Tim Robbins · 08-12-2010 05:21PM

seenitall wrote: »

OK, I get it; you like marriage!

As for "very totalitarian" and "without good reason", well, I guess the changes that are being statistically reflected in the most socially progressive societies of this day and age paint a "very totalitarian" picture of those societies.

That's a bit wishy washy.

Firstly I'd lilke to see some evidence. Secondly defining things like social progressive objectively isn't very easy. There can subjective difference on these matters. Thirdly you'd need a cause and effect between your stats and your socially progressive societies. Correlation isn't always causation.

Based on life experience (not logic or clinical trials) I think marriage is something a bit like having a kid. You change your mind on the matter depending on what age (and dare I say it level of maturity) you are at in life.

seenitall · 08-12-2010 05:47PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's a bit wishy washy.

Firstly I'd lilke to see some evidence. Secondly defining things like social progressive objectively isn't very easy. There can subjective difference on these matters. Thirdly you'd need a cause and effect between your stats and your socially progressive societies. Correlation isn't always causation.

Based on life experience (not logic or clinical trials) I think marriage is something a bit like having a kid. You change your mind on the matter depending on what age (and dare I say it level of maturity) you are at in life.

Some evidence of what? Could it be the widely known fact that the rates of marriage are falling in favour of the rates of co-habitation, while the rates of divorce have been on the rise for a few decades now (not in Ireland obviously, as it was only introduced in 1996, AFAIK)? Or do you mean the kind of evidence that you have supplied with your link on "irrationality"? Talk about wishy-washy. :rolleyes:

Subjective difference on socially progressive societies? Hmmm, let me see... yes, because it is not entirely clear that Western societies are the most socially progressive ones in the world, starting with the acknowledgment of human rights onwards... it is apparently a very subjective viewpoint of mine. OK, you got me there. Not.

Correlation is good enough for me, thanks (but then again I am no professional debater, and I am getting very weary of this particular discussion too - it is like trying to talk reasonably to a religious person; it simply doesn't work, as faith not reason, and their faith based values is all they are capable of discussing or seeing).

The bolded bit I do agree on: the more I matured (aged

), the more I realised that only the truly young, and/or innocent and/or idealistic people could possibly seriously contemplate such a rigid and out-dated contract, which has such a high chance of falling through and bringing very widely ranging and very stressful consequences in the wake of failure.

Tim Robbins · 08-12-2010 05:56PM

seenitall wrote: »

Some evidence of what? Could it be the widely known fact that the rates of marriage are falling in favour of the rates of co-habitation, while the rates of divorce have been on the rise for a few decades now (not in Ireland obviously, as it was only introduced in 1996, AFAIK)?
...

Yes rate and cohabitation and divorce are going - but that doesn't mean societies are getting more progressive. And if they are that could be because of other things, education rates are better now for example.

The bolded bit I do agree on: the more I matured (aged ), the more I realised that only the truly young, and/or innocent and/or idealistic people could possibly seriously contemplate such a rigid and out-dated contract, which has such a high chance of falling through and bringing very widely ranging and very stressful consequences in the wake of failure.

Any time you go out with anyone (outside marriage) it surely has a higher chance of failing. So no 15 year old should ever go on a date.

You don't have a good argument to suggest marriage is "out-dated". In fact there is no society that I know of which has no form of marriage. So maybe you should wait until that happens before making a ridiculous claim.

Just for a laugh I'm guessing you <26. Would I be correct?

seenitall · 08-12-2010 06:13PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Any time you go out with anyone (outside marriage) it surely has a higher chance of failing. So no 15 year old should ever go on a date.

You don't have a good argument to suggest marriage is "out-dated". In fact there is no society that I know of which has no form of marriage. So maybe you should wait until that happens before making a ridiculous claim.

Just for a laugh I'm guessing you <26. Would I be correct?

Eh? Are you seriously comparing a social contract (nay, an institution!) such as marriage to a date? OK...

Yes. I am the one presenting bad arguments and making ridiculous claims on here. I'll just let anyone who's reading be the judge of that.

Alas, I'm 36. I only wish your were correct!

Tim Robbins · 08-12-2010 07:25PM

seenitall wrote: »

Eh? Are you seriously comparing a social contract (nay, an institution!) such as marriage to a date? OK...

Well it was you're logic about things that end in failure aren't worth it.

Alas, I'm 36. I only wish your were correct!

yeah right.

Is Marriage Becoming Obsolete?

Comments