In your opinion, is marriage a natural arrangement for two people?

[Writer]

If two people meet, do you believe marriage is a natural output of their love? In other words, do you believe humans are naturally monogamous?

A part of me wonders, at times, if marriage is a societal creation for the sake of order and the raising of children but not always for the sake of the couple. Does love endure in marriage or are we just fooling ourselves?

Discuss...

[skygazer]

1. First of all, marriage is not about love

It's about money and property. You can have love, monogomy and commitment without marriage. Marriage is a legal arrangement dealing with the ownership of property and the inheritance of wealth. So I don't feel marriage is a natural thing in any way, shape or form.

As for monogomy, I don't think it's particularly natural to humans but being thinking, reasoning creatures, we are able to adjust to it. It's a choice, not an instinct. IMO, of course.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

2. Agreed. (nt)

[Deja Q]

26. But they say it's about love. But you're right.

No marriages. Each one being an individual; tread water or drown. Nobody helps.

That's cool.

:sarcasm:

We're supposed to work together as a species. Not separate ourselves via these silly credos.

Trouble is, we had. A long time ago. We've been so caught up in our self-made mores that we cannot break out, because the rest of the society compels you to its confines.

[skygazer]

39. Nonsense

Where in my response did I say that we should all be individuals and tread water or drown? Or that no one should help each other? Or that relationships are an evil or something?

I have no quibble with those who want to marry and I think solid relationships are important. I am also monogamous by choice and have been involved with my partner for five years now in a happy, firmly committed relationship. All I stated was that marriage is not necessarily about love - you can have love and partnership and commitment and children and security and sharing and all that is good and supportive in a relationship without being married. Marriage is about financial security for both parties. I have no argument against financial security either but feel I can achieve that through my own written contracts rather than being forced into one that is not of my writing (i.e. the standard marriage contract).

Anyone who wants to marry is welcome to in my book and I firmly believe that it's a travesty that this country will not allow gay marriages to take place. I don't necessarily feel there's any right or wrong here - if you desire marriage, all power to you. If I do not, I should not feel compelled to do so. But recognize exactly what marriage is - a partnership, yes but also a legal contract between two people dealing primarily with property.

And your last remark about society compelling us into its confines is absurd if you're saying that society is anti-marriage. Though it's looser than it was when I was young, marriage is still the expected conclusion of relationships and THAT is the status quo that is more often stuffed down our throats.

[Blue-Jay]

37. Bullshit.

[merh]

45. couldn't agree with you more.

great post, thank you. :thumbsup:

[Susang]

52. Maybe not for you

But thank you for generalizing and speaking for all of us. :eyes:

Listen, just because marriage is obviously not attractive to you, does not mean it does not hold an appeal other than legal one for others. My husband and I have virtually nothing, no money, no property, and we don't really expect to own much in our lifetime. We have no children. Yet, we decided to get married when we were in our thirties. Why do you suppose we did this?

I'm always amazed at how people who claim to be liberal and progressive are so narrow and restrictive in their views and definitions. Marriage is what the two people involved decide it is, period. So if you think it's about wealth and property, that's what it's going to be. If it's about a formal committment to the person you want to share your life with, that's what it becomes.

[skygazer]

56. Marriage is NOT what the two people decide it is

It is a legal state. Your reasons for marrying can be whatever you want them to be and I'm delighted that you're happy in your marriage. But marriage is a legal bond and legal bonds ARE very narrowly defined. It is pure nonsense to tell me that because you are married for love, that's all it is. You may not own much but if you were to be divorced, you would find that you have to divide those few things according to your marriage contract. That's not my opinion, that's simply fact.

I've stated elsewhere in this thread that I'm not against marriage and I don't see how my pointing out the historical and legal ramifications of it say otherwise. The OP's question was whether marriage was a natural state and lumped it and love together. I simply pointed out that one doesn't necessarily mean the other - you can have love and committment without that formal legal contract. Just because I do not choose to enter into the state's contract doesn't mean my relationship is somehow uncommitted nor does it mean that I feel marriage is wrong. Quite honestly, I like the idea of a formalized committment but not as written by the state and my partner and I have long contemplated holding our own committment ceremony without that particular contract.

And I don't "claim" to be liberal and progressive - I am. I resent your insinuation that I'm not, based simply on your misreading of my post.

[applegrove]

59. Marriage is very much about love. You cannot possibly stay together

for a long time if there is no love.

Perhaps marriage is about many kinds of love - not always romantic love - not all the time.

[Broken_Hero]

60. good points, all very valid....n/t

[nini]

3. Depends on the person really

some can control themselves and are happy being commited to one person. Some can't and they shouldn't do so if they can't - especially if their partner thinks they're in a monogamous relationship.



Love may evolve over time in the marriage but it survives if it is real.

[Writer]

5. But it's that requirement that we "control ourselves" that I'm exploring..

If a societal commitment, such as marriage, requires that some of us behave in a way that's unnatural - such as monogamy - is marriage forcing some people into an unnatural arrangement, or is it that those "uncontrolled" types are asocial and psychological misfits?

[nini]

11. I didn't mean 'controlling ourselves' literally

(ack.. I sound like W!)


I find some folks just don't want to be limited to one person - some in a way I find it to be a control issues. (in other words - they'll screw anything they can get their hands one). Others are perfectly content being with the one person that they connect with. This doesn't mean they may not find others attractive - they just don't go beyond that feeling. The thought of intimacy with anyone other than their SO doesn't even cross their mind.


My ex from way back is one of those who simply isn't wired to be monogamous. He actually realizes this and said he will not marry again because of that. Smartest decision he ever made.

[serryjw]

21. Agreed...I never liked being with more

than ONE person. I have a short term memory problem and would forget their names..at the wrong time! :sarcasm:

[insanity]

4. That's a silly question.

monogamy isn't a human trait only, several animals are monagamous. Besides, marriage is a contract to ensure mutual protection (from a lot of things), what is more natural then waching out for your own ass?

[Writer]

6. So you think that humans are naturally monogamous?

Curiously...

[Deja Q]

8. No, but what's the difference between screwing one person or six?

It's the same acts. You found one person. Why need another?

Maybe for bisexuals there is some legitimate leeway as they want to have both melons and sausage for breakfast, but I've never understood why even projection isn't adequate, worst case scenario?

[Writer]

12. This is weird... I didn't see your post until well after I posted mine.

This must be an odd day for marriage, according to the stars. Maybe we need a belated winter solstice party, or something.

[Deja Q]

7. Hmm... this will surprise you:

Marriage may be a societal concept; made because - at the time - SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES had no cures or even treatments. Never mind that infidelity hurts emotionally. I recommend more people who dislike the concept of marriage do it. Then they'll know the utter truth on marriage.


Also, my parents have endured marriage for 30 yrs. Ditto for numerous aunts/uncles... Is it wrong for me to feel that I could get into a relationship and stick it out? Apparently so. Not with the bulk of our McSociety that wants everything here'n'now and piping hot and will abscond the nanosecond they don't get their way.

If there's a problem in a relationship, talk about it. Don't be a fuckin' namby pamby cowardly wanker and vamoose out of CONVENIENCE, which seems to be the American Dream these days. CONvenience. That's my note to the world.

[skygazer]

14. Have you ever been married?

Marriage is indeed a societal concept but it never had anything to do with STD's - it had to do initially with the inheritance of land and titles (titles being passed on to legitimate offspring). Poor people often didn't bother with the nicety of marriage because they had nothing to pass on.

Relationships, on the other hand, are emotional bonds that require honesty, commitment and hard work. But they don't always work out as you want them.

I have been married and those who know absolutely nothing about my marriage would do well not to pass judgment as to why I left it. But I'll give you a hint - it's not because I'm namby pamby or cowardly or a wanker or because I want things here and now. I worked bloody hard to keep it together but ultimately had to admit it was over. Ending a marriage is pretty damn difficult as it is without having people judge you for it.

And that's MY note to the world.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. seconded. too tired to write a real response.

[Deja Q]

25. Well, let's all stop complaining. I obviously need education.

So who on DU will marry me so I can then understand what it's all about?

:D

Providing answers to the wrongs of the world is more fun than just complaining about the wrongs of the world.

[LostinVA]

33. Thirded.

[Deja Q]

22. You've never read any of my posts, have you?

I can't even get beyond a first date! :D Never mind the man-on-man issue, and the rest of the "poor me" stuff can remain with my other posts of recent. /levity

BTW: You talk of judging others, especially regarding marriage. Try being in my proverbial shoes some time and I'll redefine for you the very concept of "judgment" in a nanosecond. You have no clue... Literally, you have no clue about the things I've been judged and pre-judged on... and I'm talking about my life/personality. Not just marriage, which is only a certain number of years during one's adult life. The two do not compare...

(I wasn't also speaking directly to you re: "namby pamby"; it's the world in general out of abject loneliness and envy. I've always been an observer; never a participant. Never been good at trying to coherently say how I'm not either... but no insult was meant.)

[skygazer]

40. I've read hundreds of your posts

And replied to many of them sympathetically. Of course I have no idea what it's like to be you any more than you have any idea what it's been like to be me. Ultimately, we have no idea what the other has experienced because we only know each other through this medium.

I'm not responding to your other posts, though and the 'have you ever been married' thing was a rhetorical response to your comment that people should get married and find out the reality of it. I'm just responding to what's been written here.

Look, put it this way - every time I take one of these online "what kind of star trek alien would you be" quizzes, I come up as a vulcan. I tend to look at things pretty coolly and logically, rather than emotionally (though I'm capable of a lot of emotion, one of which is compassion). I'm a depressive as well (a logical depressive - go figure) so I can understand despair and bitterness, too. My response to the question of marriage is a logical one - looking at the actual historical root of marriage rather than the emotional aspect of relationships. I see them as two separate things.

The odd thing is, my partner comes up as either a Klingon or a Ferengi and we get along fine. Anyway, I'm sorry if I pushed buttons - and for what it's worth, I think you're pretty neat. I always enjoy your posts and I really believe there's someone out there for each of us. I was 40 years old when I met my Klingon/Ferengi but it was worth the wait. :hug:

[Radical Activist]

24. Or maybe it was made because

there was no reliable birth control?

[SeattleGirl]

9. I think marriage is a concept we have come to accept

to the point where it seems natural to many people. I find your comment about marriage not always being for the sake of the two people involved in the marriage interesting. If the only reason you get married is to have children, and not because you really want to be married, I think a person would be better off being a single parent.

I find your comment in one of your other posts, about monogomy being unnatural for some people (and I do believe that's true) being forced into an unnatural relationship interesting also. If a person knows that monogomy is not for them, they would be better off remaining single. Then there would be no conflict for them.

I think marriage is fine; it fits me. But I also realize it is not for everybody.




Edited because I cannot frickin' type today!

[SOteric]

10. I don't believe it's a "one size fits all" kind of institution.

I think the longing to find a physical, emotional and spiritual mate is an intense one, and ubiquitous. But like just about everything else, people vary on this. Some people are better suited to traditional marriage than are others. Some are better suited to a variation of traditional marriage. Some are better suited to serial marriages. And some are not suited to marriage at all.

[gollygee]

13. Yes

I think it's natural for people who are in love to want to commit to each other and only each other for life.

I'm married for myself and my husband, not for our daughter. We gave ourselves to each other and want to remain together.

This does not mean I expect that everyone would make my choice, or that everyone will find someone they want to spend their life with. But it is natural for people to want to do it if they find someone who fits, personality wise, and if they're emotionally ready.

[Shine]

15. Deep questions. Here's my take.

I think it's entirely up to the two people, themselves, to determine what "natural" means. My opinion on the matter is that it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, ultimately.

I think the emotional/spiritual commitment two people make to each other stands OUTside of any of society's mores on the subject. That is to say, people can be "married in their hearts", without feeling the need to go through the standardized way of receiving recognition. It just depends on how much value they see in the process.

However, that said, I also must say I personally love being married and I see my marriage as a sacred commitment I have declared to the world. There is power in that.

Yes, love endures ,but it takes work. Communication, intimacy, a willingness to be vulnerable and honest.... I see our marriage as a garden that must be nurtured to grow and flourish. It goes through natural cycles, just like the garden does....

It's about the underlying Intention of what I hold possible. What's in the soil, so to speak?

[Radical Activist]

16. Its useful to certain people at certain times.

Marriage is a legal contract.

[SKKY]

17. I am married, and have been so for 6 years, happily...

...but to me, marriage is not natural. I'm still not convinced.

[xchrom]

19. beats me.

my folks have been married almost 70 years.

dad dotes on my mom to no end.

and what's really odd -- this is my mom's second marriage.

dad's mom made it almost impossible for them to stay married -- she really made my dad miserable.

but gumma was from a loveless marriage that lasted better than 50 -- trust me no one would have wanted to be married to her.


me? i have had the privilege a of several, several great loves -- one i bought a house that i live in now -- and i buried him.

i wouldn't know -- but i might have a problem with institutionalizing my relationship -- but i've been told on du that marriage isn't about love -- so what do i know?

i think i'm a great person to have an affair with -- i know that.

[jpgray]

20. For Mormons, it's a natural arrangment for up to two dozen people

[NNadir]

23. Love endures in my marriage.

There is nothing habitual or perfunctory about my marriage. Every damn day I'm trying to be worthy of my wife's love - and I've been at it some decades.

I suppose, no, I know, that not all marriages work but I believe that marriage and fidelity that include profound love are natural arrangements for many, maybe even most people. Nothing has ever felt more natural than the love I have for my wife. I just don't want to outlive her.

[x-g.o.p.er]

35. Beautiful reply.

You have summed up in one paragraph what I've been struggling to put into words for almost 17 years of wedded bliss.

Thank you.

[JudyM]

64. Wow, that is so beautiful. You are lucky to appreciate what you have,

[Benfea]

27. Mammals generally follow one of two mating arrangements:

The harem (one dominant male constantly battling other males for position, females make up the only real social structures, and the vast majority of males are starving and lonely), or monogomy (marriage). Given a choice between the two, I much prefer the latter.

[Deja Q]

28. Other males of species, like guppies, fuck every female they can find.

Some humans are the same way too.

I like to think we're more evolved.

But I think all sorts of things...

[Benfea]

30. I was talking about mammals, not fish.

And being more evolved doesn't have anything to do with it. Some mammals do the monogamy thing, but most go with the harem arrangement (yech). Interstingly enough, some mammals might go through phases of switching from one to the other over the millennia. I'm sure there are some mammals that just sorta mate randomly, but the majority of mammalian species go with the harem thing.

Aside: the whole concept of "more evolved" is wrong-headed. Ask any biologist who specializes in evolution, and he or she will tell you that every life form is as "evolved" as every other life form.

If anything about mating sets humans apart from the other mammals, it's the fact that we have social (non-reproductive) sex. Only three species I know of do that: dolphins, pygmy chimps and us.

[Deja Q]

46. All life is linked. (I think bunny rabbits are just as frisky as guppies)

[Benfea]

63. Rodents are not closely related to us.

How many apes do you know of that are like that? I'm pretty sure all apes besides us and pygmy chimps do the harem thing.

[misanthrope]

29. Please...

...Any anthropologist in the world can tell you that homo sapiens is not "naturally" monogamous.

[Left Is Write]

31. Which two people?

[maveric]

32. Women marry for financial/material reasons. Men marry for sex.

Then reality sets in for the men.

[JudyM]

65. Oh, please. Lots of us marry for sex too (with love mixed in).

[I Have A Dream]

66. I didn't marry for financial/material reasons.

I am more than capable of taking care of myself.

My husband didn't marry for sex.

[Magrittes Pipe]

34. Can't say that I'd call it "natural."

It's a choice. Yes, it's a social convention; but if done right, it's also a choice. I choose to be with her. She chooses to be with me.

Marraige may not be strictly natural, but neither is distillation. It's what you get out of it that counts. ;)

[Susang]

54. As of this year

Ours is heading into the XO phase. :D

[Rabrrrrrr]

36. NO!

[ulysses]

38. marriage is a social construct.

Monogamy isn't the same thing, and I have no idea whether or not it's "natural".

Honestly, I don't worry about it. I've been happily married for almost 13 years, but if it's not your thing, that's not my business. I didn't marry you.

[supernova]

41. I think it can be for two individuals

If monogamy is right for you, then yes, get married.

Marriage is also partly a business arrangement. You can't ignore that aspect of it. You have to run a home, pay taxes, create savings, raise children (if that's your plan) etc. Both parties need to at least share similar outlooks on these topics and both need to understand how to manage them, even if only one of them takes care of most of it. You never know when someone will die or become to ill to function.

So in order to be married, and be content doing so, you have to marry someone (the same applies to gay couples too) who can be both a romantic partner AND a business partner. You have to feel comfortable doing both with that person.

And I know that sounds cold, unromantic, unloving and everything else not sexy. BUT I've been through the ringer that says "trust me, sweetie." when that person didn't give a flying fuck about our well being. So, if I get married again, he'd better be someone who knows how to keep his check book. I'm not saying he has to be a miser or anything like that, just that he understands that money is a tool to be managed, an important one, but a tool nonetheless.

And that's all I have to say about that.

:yoiks:

[billyskank]

42. Yes it's for the sake of order

but that's not a bad thing. If there is no order then there is chaos.

[leftofthedial]

43. marriage is every bit as natural as, say

being trampled by a herd of buffaloes, or being slow roasted by cannibals, or being eviscerated by a sabretooth cat, or having your fingernails torn out in a Turkish prison, or having you soul sucked slowly out through your nostrils, or being embalmed while you're still alive, or being castrated with the edge of a teaspoon, or having major oral surgery with no anaesthetic, or being mounted on a stick using an available preexisting orifice, or finding an insufferable jerk and giving them most of everything you own or ever will own, or gouging your own eyes out so you don't have to look at the same miserable view day after day after day, or eating oatmeal 25,000 breakfasts in a row, or having your knees smashed with a baseball bat, or hitting your thumb with a hammer every day for the rest of your miserable life, or having electrodes stuck to various sensitive places and then hooked up to a car battery with a leering CIA-trained Central American fascist operating the crank . . .

Perfectly natural. Guaranteed to make those in love gradually learn to hate themselves and one another or to become such unimaginative, defeated-by-the-cruel-absurdity-of-life drudges that they can pretend not to feel anything anymore and "happily" somnambulate through the rest of their lives.

But then, I'm just a hopeless and unabashed romantic. Your mileage may vary.

[Deja Q]

49. !

:rofl:

[Deja Q]

44. No. I've changed my mind. If two people are attracted,

let them exchange their fantasies.

With armageddon nigh, why deprive people of what they want?

/d.a.

[LeftyMom]

47. An awful lot of societies have developed something like it

it must be somewhat beneficial to humans on the macro scale, even if on the micro scale it causes a great deal of pain to some people.

What I'm interested to see is how longer lifespans will change our perception of marriage- 'till death do us part is a lot longer commitment than it used to be.

[merh]

48. Most human beings are naturally sexual.

There is nothing "natural" about marriage, as marriage is a social contract, a commitment made by choice and often against "natural tendencies".

Natural, men would be satisfying their johnsons every chance they get and women would be getting their satisfaction and having babies, that is the nature of our beings. We have controlled the natural instincts and have created our own barriers and our norms. We don't run around naked, we don't run around having sex because we want it (well, most don't) or sex with whatever arouses us at the moment. We control our urges.

Marriage is a conscious choice, a committed arrangement where we agree to certain behaviors and monogamy is generally top on that list. I have married friends that have an open relationship, they allow the other to have sex outside of the marriage. They adore each other and are more confident in the bounds of their marriage than most. They trust each other to continue the love, they just don't see sex as being the only defining feature of that love. They know at the end of the day, they still adore each other and they will grow old together, as a loving, married couple. Now that is not for me, I am too jealous by nature and my self-esteem isn't that high (I admit it, I would always be afraid someone would steal my man away, something better will come along). This couple is very happy in their marriage and confident in their love and they have been together better than 25 years.

Love does endure if you accept the fact that love is not all hearts and flowers and if you see love for what it truly is. Like any seed planted, any crop sown, love has to be cultivated and fed, you have to give it attention and sometimes it is hard work to keep the weeds and the stones in the fields from choking off the roots and killing it. The sun doesn't always shine, there may be too much rain, but you do what you can to keep that love alive. It is an endless process, sometimes the efforts are natural and come easy, other times we wonder if it is worth the effort. And love shouldn't define you, it should be a part of you, it should enable and fulfill you, but it isn't all that you are.

We are to love for the sake of love, not for the sake of finding self love in another's view of us, not to love for the sake of being able to say "this is how many people love me so therefore I am special and worthy of love". I don't love you to feel better about myself, but loving you makes me feel better about myself. Love for the sake of love, unconditional love, makes me a better person.

JMHO

[kedrys]

50. It's definitely one of those case-by-case things

We're coming up on our 10th, happily so. No kids, never planned on any. The commitment has deepened our relationship, IMO, because we both work very hard at making our marriage work in good and hard times alike. Splitting up or running away is simply not an option.

That said, I wouldn't necessarily recommend that anyone get married unless they felt strongly about it.

[Wapsie B]

51. No they are not naturally monogamous.

Not as a whole. There are individuals who can go through life with only one partner. But that is not the norm at all. Marriage is a creation for the sake of order. And some of us poor souls, myself included foolishly believed that marriage would lead to a better sex life.

[Fleshdancer]

53. I think some form of coupling is "normal"

I don't necessarily think life long commitments are normal...especially now that humans live so much longer than before. However, it all ultimately depends on the person. Some are just more monogamous than others.

[Nikia]

55. People do want life long companions

In our indivdualistic society, marriage is often the only potential life long companion that people have. Even in socities where extended families stay closer together and best friends have special status, a marriage partner still has an important role in being a companion who will help them in their lives regardless of the circumstances. We are social creatures. We don't want to be alone. Of course, this is an ideal as some people leave their spouses when their spouse needs them the most. Even if the spouse didn't leave, the other spouse could die early or be in a bad condition themselves.
As far as it being naturual, humans evolved to be primarily monagamous for the sake of raising children. Couples who stayed together had a greater chance of successfully raising children who would survive to have children. This is how evolution works. We also evolved to have sexuality that wasn't tied directly to procreation. Aside from modern behavior, evidence for this is women having hidden fertility.
Humans are one of the most learning oriented as opposed to instinctual creatures there are. Regardless of what is naturual, we cannot deny that society and our early family experiences have a big role in our behavior.
As far as love, I think that people are better off not expecting to have that strong "in love" feeling forever and not expecting the other person to meet their every need. Being able to love without being "in love", recognizing the humanity of your spouse, and really trying to get along can help a marriage endure. I also think that people should really consider the implications of joining their lives with another person and whether that person will remain tolerable if their relationship moves to that level.

[El Fuego]

57. I think couple-dom is natural.

[JackDragna]

58. I don't believe we're monogamous.

I think we are when we're in the process of fostering children, but other than that, I think we have enough of a sexual appetite that one person doesn't cut the mustard. Sure, it may for some, but as a rule, I don't think we're monogamous. As for love in marriage, I have yet to see anyone I know be in "love" in marriage more than a year after they tie the knot. People should feel lucky to be with someone they can tolerate, given all the human floatsam in the population.

[Broken_Hero]

61. I'm not entirely sure....but...

In my experience...well, to start off, I have been married for two yrs now, and to tell you the truth, marriage to me, the action and the legal aspects and everything dealing with it, to a certain degree are entirely worthless and unnecessary to "me." I love my wife, and I am committed to her 100% but I didn't need a legal document, or the action of marriage to make that bond stronger.

The main reason why I "got" married was because I "knew" that it would make my loved one feel special, it was what she wanted,it meant more to her, by leaps and bounds, than it did to me...The main thing that made me want, or pushed me over the edge on marriage was that, it meant more to her than me, and marriage to me means next to nothing, so why not get married for her, to make her happy, when in effect it wouldn't change any feelings/or reactions or trepadiations I all ready held.

I don't regret getting married, but I didn't need to get married, if my woman didn't make any mention of it, I never would have gave the "marriage" question a good run around through my thinking pipes...:) I have seen many of my friends get married for the wrong reasons, been peer pressured into it, when in truth they didn't even want it, to me, personally...Marriage is a religious/state pushed union, but thats just my take...

But everyone is different, I am married, but didn't need the action of marriage to prove anything.....so, to each their own. I don't condone it, and if marriage makes you happy, go for it...:)

[zone]

62. I think manogamy is a learned trait

I believe I am biologically wired to propagate the species.