Hmmm...

Post #388,390 by hnick 4/9/14 6:55:26 PM Reply	Hmmm... My first wife bagged me after 10 years marriage after my first year at Case. I didn't want to have kids until I had an education and a career going. She figured her clock was ticking and bugged out; dropped a frog 15 months later. My current wife and I got married after I graduated and got a real job. We'll be married 30 years in November. We were both pushing 34 when we got married. After a year we bought a 4 bedroom house assuming 2 kids. Kids never happened. I'm not heart broken, but the alternative would have been ok. I'm fine with both situations. My primary relationship is with my wife. In both cases I wanted them to be happy. They both are (I think. I haven't seen #1 in about 28 years.) I consider that everyone deserves a sustaining relationship with somebody they love. That relationship should be equally supported by society, by which I mean that automatic next of kin status applies as well as tax benefits and all the other bells and whistles. I have gay friends and extended family. I would not wish them to be second class citizens because of the way they are wired. That's about all I got... YMMV (and obviously does...) "Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable." ~ AMBROSE BIERCE (1842-1914)
Post #388,409 by mmoffitt 4/10/14 2:35:10 PM Reply	Mine doesn't really vary much. Actually, your stated experience is completely in line with my thoughts: It is rational to get married with the expectation of children. My wife and I were married 7 years before our first was born for precisely the same reason you "didn't want to have kids." That is, I was still in school. I concur with you that everyone should have a sustaining relationship. Where we differ (perhaps) is that our shared value that everyone deserves such a relationship necessarily means that everyone should have the right to marry. I see "marriage" and "committed relationship" as two distinct things (Aside: I am supported by the evidence in this as roughly 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce. It immediately follows that 1/2 of all marriages have nothing at all to do with sustaining relationships). At least until this new type of marriage was defined, I think I can say without objection that going into a marriage you know, intellectually, that you've only got a 1 in 2 shot at having it last. Given the enormous personal toll, financial toll and legal toll a divorce entails, that's quite a risk. So, for the couple with no expectation of children, I cannot see why they would assume it. The tax advantages are negligble. The end-of-life, inheritance and similar concerns can be achieved with relatively painless boiler plate Durable POA documents and wills. Sure, there's outlier benefits like pension plans that only pay a spouse survivor benefits, but those are few and far between and the last of a dying breed. Further, for at least 1/2 of those entering such a relationship, the inevitable termination of the relationship would be greatly simplified and far less painful financially and otherwise. Which is easier? Tearing up a couple of POA documents and editing a couple of wills? Or a divorce? So, marry in the absence of intent or desire for children? Why bother? When I said I wasn't sure if I'd have asked my wife to marry me if I knew she were sterile, some took that to the fantastically inaccurate conclusion that I was saying I wasn't sure if I'd have wanted to spend my life with her. Of course I would have. But that does not mean (or require!) that we wed. That Marriage != committed relationship in the presence of marriage's failure rate is obvious to all but the most myopic of minds.
Post #388,430 by hnick 4/10/14 8:02:46 PM Reply	Call it a flapjack for all of mine... Where we differ (perhaps) is that our shared value that everyone deserves such a relationship necessarily means that everyone should have the right to marry. I see "marriage" and "committed relationship" as two distinct things My point is that two people in love who publicly and ostensibly permanently define their relationship, should have exactly equal rights and liabilities with respect to family identity, property, and tax laws. If you want to make the claim that marriage is a religious function, then remove all legal power from it; it's the same as going to church with your whatever. Put the family breaks in a civil relationship. Which the clergy already have the power to do. They require marriage licenses and such. They are doing a civil ceremony anyway. Treat them equally and I'm happy. Everybody should be able to pick who they are happy with and not be penalized if Mrs. Grundy doesn't like it. "Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable." ~ AMBROSE BIERCE (1842-1914)
Post #388,434 by Another Scott 4/10/14 8:45:26 PM Reply	Well said.
Post #388,445 by mmoffitt 4/11/14 9:30:51 AM Reply	Then we agree, I think. Me: If this whole "marriage equality" question had instead been posed as, "Should homosexual civil commitments (or whatever phrase) receive all benefits under the law and be recognized as being the equal of marriage?" you'd have heard nary a peep from me. You: Put the family breaks in a civil relationship. ... Treat them equally and I'm happy. I may be thick (and I don't understand the meaning of your subject), but I don't see a material difference in those sentiments.
Post #388,436 by pwhysall 4/11/14 3:55:09 AM Reply	You keep asking this question. People keep answering it. Are you going to just keep asking it until the rest of the world breaks down and goes "Oh, OK, Mike. Fuck it. You're completely right. Marriage without children is pointless."?
Post #388,448 by mmoffitt 4/11/14 9:46:54 AM Reply	Hmmm... I still don't understand why anyone would want to marry in the absence of a desire or ability to have children. 30 years ago, I would have thought that no one would marry today. The prime reason (back then) I thought marriage before children was a good choice was because, back then, children born out of wedlock were stigmatized and that never seemed fair to me. Cohabitation in the absence of marriage was another violation of social mores back then. But I could see that changing. In 30 years, I thought it would be gone completely and there would be no reason for anyone to get married. A couple is either committed to one another or it is not. Being "married" speaks fuck-all to the level of committment. At best, marriage encumbers the dissolution of a relationship. And it doesn't even do a very good job of that since a 50% failure rate is nothing to brag about. But it clearly does nothing to strengthen nor define a level of committment.
Post #388,453 by Another Scott 4/11/14 10:17:48 AM Reply	A few things... 1) The US divorce rate has never been 50% and has been falling since ~ 1980 - http://www.nytimes.c.../19divo.html?_r=0 Interestingly, divorce rates fall dramatically with increased education. Since education levels continue to increase over time, divorce rates are likely to keep falling. 2) You're posting a whole bunch of binary choices. People get married and divorced for lots of reasons - not simply lack of "commitment". My dad knew a couple that lived together for 15 years (and had kids IIRC) and then got married. Why? Health insurance. Similarly, sometimes there are sensible financial or reasons other than "commitment" why people get divorced. E.g. People often change after a few decades and want to do other things with their lives. People who make those choices aren't somehow, (probably the wrong words here) morally defective. 3) Just because you don't understand why people would make other choices doesn't mean that their choices aren't legitimate. People are different and have the right to make choices that are sensible for them. If someone wants to be married, and they don't want kids, and they end up getting divorced 20 years later, they aren't somehow worse people than people who don't marry, do have kids, and stay together for the rest of their lives. You can't determine anything about commitment from the two cases - you can have a cowed spouse and a wife-beater in either case. You don't know. They've simply made different choices about marriage. 4) Having some paper that says you've got Durable Power of Attorney and so forth for your family member is supposed to be legally sufficient in many cases, but in practice it isn't always. And even in cases when it is, it's a hassle in terms of time and money. (Personal experience here with J's parents.) If "marriage" means something different for hetero couples than for gay couples, then "civil commitment" isn't good enough. Separate but equal isn't. We've got lots of history showing that to be a fact. Society should let people make their own choices and not say they can't. Treating people equally is just and more efficient. What I agreed with most about Hugh's post was: My point is that two people in love who publicly and ostensibly permanently define their relationship, should have exactly equal rights and liabilities with respect to family identity, property, and tax laws. When are you going to finally accept the brilliance of my arguments?!?! ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #388,470 by mmoffitt 4/11/14 12:55:23 PM Reply	How can we agree? We aren't even arguing the same issue. ;0) To your quoted point, I'm not arguing that such should not be the case. I'm arguing with you (if at all) about whether or not "marriage" should be the sole method of achieving that equality. I don't think it should, but as Ashton pointed out, it might have to be given the current "real world" situation. I don't think people who divorce are defective, bad or morally inferior in the least. I do think it's pretty clear their choice to marry was ill advised assuming the traditional until death do you part. If marriage is evolving (or has evolved) to mean "a temporary living arrangement carrying some legal benefits" then IMO marriage has outlived its usefulness, not withstanding the fact that it never really lived up to its stated ideal for everyone who entered into it. I don't think it is fair to the legions of single mothers out there (or cohabitating gay couples for that matter) to define "family" solely through wedlock, so I reject the notion that only through wedlock can a family truely be said to exist or be accepted as such by society. I concede I might be outside the "real world" again in that sentiment. Cheers, Mikem Oh, and thanks for the nitpick about 50 percent. 41 percent then, or whatever it is. ;0)
Post #388,474 by folkert 4/11/14 1:03:37 PM Reply	That nitpick is 34,200,00 HTH. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #388,479 by Another Scott 4/11/14 2:57:10 PM Reply	The nits, they must be picked!
Post #388,512 by mmoffitt 4/12/14 8:43:09 PM Reply	Math is not your strong suit is it? But, no matter. ;0)

Welcome to IWETHEY!