³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

This confirms everything I've thought since before getting married 9 years ago. My relationship with my wife works extremely well... but it isn't because of the piece of paper legalising it as "marriage". I'm a hundred percent sure that we would have the same quality of relationship if we were just cohabiting (which in our case was impossible if we wanted to be together... she was from California and I from Northern Ireland and our governments would have made it very difficult to stay on the same continent without marriage).

So if the quality of the relationships can be identical, what explains the difference between the longevity of marriages and the longevity of cohabiting relationships? Simply that people who intend to stay together tend to get married. And the principal reason for that simply that marriage is a social more. That appears to be what the study confirms, if I'm reading it right.

An excerpt from a paper I wrote several years ago on the subject:

--------------

I can’t find much in the way of complaint that young people have chosen not to be promiscuous, and to save sexual intercourse until marriage. It is, of course, something to celebrate. But I find myself wishing to define "marriage" a little better here. It's not particularly inspiring to save ones’ virginity for a fancy-dress ceremony, a certificate and a vacation for two; there must be more to marriage than that.

My marriage, in its legal form, is separate from what it is in all other respects. I say this because a legal ceremony, signed document and evening party took place APART FROM our understanding that we wished to be together. A ceremony can take place without any intention to honour the vows uttered, and a legal document can be signed and then revoked with no period of relationship (‘marriage’) in between. So it seems to me that the private acknowledgment of the relationship between couples is more important. As defined by the nature of such a relationship, marriage is that period during which a man and a woman come to corporately know that they wish to coexist together in a loving, sexual, habitual relationship for as long as they feel the same way, possibly as long as their lifetimes make possible. Any engagement, marriage ceremony, evening party, signing of marital legal documents or any other such acts happen independently of that defining occasion. Myself and my wife; a) wished to be together, b) pledged that desire, verbally or otherwise, in each others’ company, and c) put it into practice, in that order. That was the act of marriage - the ceremony was merely a culturally convenient, suitable and timely means of attesting to what we had decided to do; a formal means of making consensual promises in public. But the act of marriage happened in private between two consenting parties, at a time other than the wedding. In a fundamental way, therefore, marriage as defined by law is merely a legal contract (like any other) which lawfully pledges togetherness for a man and a woman. I consider that part of my marriage which goes beyond cohabiting simply a civil union.

At this point the question may be asked by marriage advocates: if such a couple were really serious about their pledge of togetherness, why would they not wish to have it legally recognised in marriage? My answer to the question would be twofold: firstly, having established the above criteria which recognises the relationship with or without a legal or public acknowledgement, it is neither here nor there whether such a marriage is made either legal or public. And, in the light of that actuality, there are any number of reasons why a couple may choose not to take that route: from financial constraints, from not comprehending its conventions, from not agreeing with its conventions, for other legal reasons, in lieu of alternative arrangements, from lack of ability to make such arrangements, from lack of family support, or a thousand other considerations. The point is that marriage is an entirely separate participle of understanding from the cultural connotation we have ascribed to it - marriage consists primarily of a consensual long-term relationship made between a man and a woman.

It is ludicrous, in my judgment, to base the validity of a relationship for the purposes of when and in which circumstances to permit sexual intercourse on a nice ceremony and signed document.

-------------------------------------

Let’s keep it simple, Oh I forgot, maybe we are not expected to do so in these incorrigible "lets make it all very complex" blogs. The answer is if both people want it to well why not! Must we complicate and delve into the unanswerable thought process of such subjects or do a lets impress everyone with deep philosophical unnecessary thought matter.

Marriage factors are all relative, and they are all dependent, they are all changeable, because of the way you were designed, your circumstances, age, how you were brought up, trained, influenced, beaten, mesmerised, abused, whatever the case may be etc. etc. All factors bar none are connected as to whether you can or in fact will survive in a marriage scenario. So why try to look at whether it works at all in such general terms. Oh by the way for those who want to delve deeper into confab I have a friend in an Indian arranged marriage. Everyone is happy so it seems, as long as the old dowry was paid. He said he was delighted she was not too plain looking on their wedding night having not seen her before that!!!

Just pondering - Does the lack of comments/responses on this post say more about the question "Does Marriage Work?" than the words that are written!!??
Maybe we should ask the partners of those on the blog! eg what would Mrs Crawley say? Mrs Helio, Mrs 2MP, Mrs Parr etc :-)

On a different note: what does it mean for a marriage to 'work' before considering whether it is achieving that or not. What might 'work' for one couple may not 'work' for another. In the past it may have been considered to work if children were brought forth irrespective of the quality of the relationship per se. What was accepted as 'working' in the past is different to what is accepted to 'work' today. Staying together use to be an external sign of it 'working' although internally it may have been far from working. Perhaps it works if people come together for a period of time, learn from each other and grow and if that stops it may still 'work' to end it and start the process with someone else??
What is the highest level of what can be achieved by a marriage in terms of it working or not? What if the highest purpose of marriage is so that we get to master love with one person such that we can 'be love' or be the presence of love for all people!! On that criteria - it's not working at all!! Perhaps a bit of a tall order given that many find it challenging enough with one person! Just stirring up the discussion! :-)

Perhaps it is worth a reminder that God designed marriage for the good of the human beings He created, and incalculable problems have been caused by our messing about with it.

Of course, all human beings are fallible, and marriages do break down. My contention is that we need to teach our children and young people about the importance and value of marriage, both for their own sake and that of the stabilty of society itself. Building the fence at the top of the cliff will mean there is less need for an ambulance at the foot of it.

pastorphilip,
An maybe it is worth a reminder that god does not exist and designed nothing. It is an odd thing that your words remind me that evangelical protestants used to tell us interracial marriage is wrong because we were messing about with gods plans and designs.

Marriage is a construct developed by humans which has been hijacked by churches for their own social engineering purposes. God is not necessary for lifelong commitment.

A man was crying at the graveside. "Why did you have to die"? Someone passing by asked "Is it your mother or father who's dead". The man said "No it's the wife's 1st husband". Seriously though marriage is something that was instituted by God and involves a man and a woman in a relationship devoted 1st to God and to each other working together to help each other and the world and community in which they live. Unfortunately a lot of people don't see marriage in that light. Some people for various reasons don't get married but these people aren't less in importance because they don't get married.

William

I'm far from convinced that you have fairly represented the purported positions of "government and churches" ....that marriage makes relationships between more stable.

It almost seems you have created a strawman to knock down.

In fact, the conclusion of the research would most likely agree with any thinking churchman with a biblical worldview;-


Money money quote;-

"...different sorts of people choose to get married and have children, rather than to have children as a cohabiting couple, and.... those relationships with the best prospects of lasting are the ones that are most likely to lead to marriage".


In other words, if you are the type of person who would have broadly conservative values and consciously aspire to lifelong committment and a stable home for rearing children, you are likely to get married.

But on the other hand, as I heard some commentator saying recently, the alternative today is frequently drifting into parenthood without much forethought or consideration regarding the aforementioned issues or the future.

It makes sense that if "the sort of people" cohabiters are decide to get married their relationships would not be more stable.

But one major point appears to have been missed; the "sort of people" cohabiters are can decide to become the "sort of people" marrieds are.

That is an entirely different proposition with probably a much better outlook for relationship stability.

There is nothing new under the sun, it is said;

From what I understand, these two different positions are broadly the traditional [neo]pagan view of relationships, (ie that they are very temporary) and the judeao christian value of lifelong committment.

If we all think back to our own childhoods, which arrangement would we have ideally preferred from our parents?

-----------

If you don't mind me asking Will, have you an axe to grind?

It seems that every other entry on this blog since its inception challenges "biblical" values at every possible opportunity.

Of course you are perfectly free to do so, but what is the motivation and why is it such a one way street?

And after all these years of strenous searching (im thinking of your recent tv documentary), are you closer (or further away) from a real destination?

sincerely

OT

OT: I think it's great that William has a blog that challenges the bible and its teachings/interpretations - especially here in NI where so many people are stuck in the traditional fundamentalist view and anyone who dares to say something different is derided/a heretic/unhinged etc. People elsewhere have already woken up to the fact that the traditional fundamentalist view isn't it(not South USA!!) and more and more are doing so in NI and indeed some did along time ago - so I'm not tarring all people in NI with the same brush.
Bring it on I say - about time there were more views than the traditonal Christian one of sinner and repentance and hell etc. People deserve much better than those untruths that are very harming - in my view they deserve to know who they are and it's not a sinner!! (And I don't mean imposing onto people - giving them a choice/knowledge which they are free to accept or not).

OT, get over yourself. With the wide variety of views among the people posting on this blog, it is impossible for William not to occasionally post something that doesn't match with the world view of some here. You don't need to display such intense persecution syndrome over it and accuse Will of having an agenda and the BCC of pushing an atheist, liberal, anti-chritian pro-gay world view.

The atheists here could be knocking Will as much as you do, but they just don't. When Will describes the codex sinaiticus as "one of the most important documents in existence", do you hear non-believers crying out that it's just some old fables way past their disposal time? Or look the Plantinga vs Dennett thread. Will praises Plantigna to be this influential academic philosopher when actually he is mostly just a high profile public cheerleader for jesus who is ignored by most academic philosophers. Compare Helios occasional small bits of sniping at Will for his over-regard for Palntigna to your martyr complex on display in post 7.

I suppose you are a true christian in that sense, as persecution syndrome and having a martyr complex are foundational to christianity. Just look at the thee urls below:





You'd almost think that suffering persecution is an exclusively christian thing. Persecution syndrome has been made into a christian money maker, pr exercise and group bonding tool.

And you are a fine demonstration of that, OT.

Eunice

What sort of home upbringing would you have preferred; what sort of upbringing would you prefer for your own children, in an ideal situation?

A stable lifelong marriage or one where you had little of no contact with your father, and other men come through your mothers live every few years, perhaps leaving half brothers and sisters?

Im not judging individuals; I am asking what we aspire to.

Leave the bible aside for a minute and ask which model you think is more desireable for you, your family?

I know a man of almost 50 who is really really messed up and keeps coming back the fact that he never knew his father and that he has almost 50 half-siblings that he doesnt know.

Raol Moat also lamented that he didnt have a father.

Is planned deliberate absent fatherhood something we really want to affirm as an ideal for our own child and their lives after they leave us?

Interested in your thoughts Eunice....what would you prefer for your own family? and your childrens children.

OT

OT,

I think you a mixing up marriage and parenting.

A lifelong committed marriage does not necessarily make good parents. I am sure there are mass murderers and child abusers who came from such lifelong stable relationships.

There are perfectly well adjusted people who have lost a parent before they were aware of them. A recent survey revealed that the most well adjusted children were from families in which the two parents were women in a committed relationship.

I think all this reveals is that children are a product of good parenting and parental choices. If someone has several partners it is a test of their parenthood to create the stability and consistency that a child needs.

Your point really alludes to the fact that people have children as of right, not because they are good at bringing them up.

OT What sort of home upbringing would you have preferred; what sort of upbringing would you prefer for your own children, in an ideal situation?

In an ideal situation I would like parents who understood and lived according to the ways of love. I would distinguish the needy emotional love that we tend to associate with love from true love that does not need. So parents who value and respect themselves and others, who are not emotional, who are responsible for themselves and who look after themselves - not out drinking/smoking etc Who give each other the freedom to follow their own hearts desires and who are not needy of each other. Who are able to demonstrate the ways of love to the child by how they live and make choices and nurture the same in the child. Who bring up the child to know that they are loved just for being, being present, not for what they do. SO many of the subliminal messages we receive as children are that love is conditional upon being good and doing good.

There are plenty of messed up people who had the traditional father/mother - so there presence can be as just as or even more harming as their absence.

What matters is whether the child feels loved and is loved. Of course parents do their best and they are products of their parents etc and so much gets repeated down the line unless we stop and really consider what is love, what is good parenting. As children we learn that we get love for what we do - not just for being there. ANd this feeds into choices later in life - doing and doing, achieving etc