Marriage Contracts

[Zythryn]

Aha, follow up to life expectancy. Some very interesting information.

Here is one resource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_over_human_history

 

Seems infant mortality is one big reason for the low life expectancy.

The article also mentions that the Bronze age saw a decrease in life expectancy. This is believed to be as a result of the larger congregations of humans that came about as a result of animal domestication.

 

Sorry, I am getting on a bit of a tangent I suppose, I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread :hihi:

[cwes99_03]

No, I thank you for straigtening my short sightedness out. Yes of course infant mortality.

 

Thus if 50% of society died at birth, the remaining 50% would average a lifespan of 36.

 

This still isn't old enough for my posits though. Grandparents would barely be able to be grandparents, and at 36 I still can't believe that life would be so hard that you couldn't take care of yourself (and that takes into consideration that life was a quite a bit harder than the modern cityfolk life.

 

At 45 I can understand needing someone to take care of you, much like many over 70 today need to have someone take care of them.

 

Doesn't 50% seem extremely high for infant mortality? I don't know, maybe that is right, but it still doesn't jive with my meek background in history.

[InfiniteNow]

Check post 58.

Perhaps you could reference the exact quote you are referencing. Clearly I am missing your point. I have looked for this "Because I say so" quote you state that I made, but have been unsuccessful.

 

Actually, never mind, no need to be combattive. I know I didn't say that, and you are paraphrasing. Let me ask a question per your quote:

 

You say, you can truly love someone without the religio/financial/governmental contract tieing you down. Perhaps, but how is anyone else ever to know that you've made such a commitment. You say "because I say so". Then say so under oath and put it to paper.

Why is it important to the strength of the bond discussed, true love, to have others know that I have the bond? How is my love strengthened by putting it to paper and making an oath which holds only in the eyes of the church or the state, or by taking steps to ensure others around me are aware of the bond?

My love is between myself and the person with whom I share it.

 

Now, for clarification on your next point:

 

I don't disagree that mutations occur randomly. However, evolutionists don't call them mutations, they call it microevolution, and microevolution is not random according to theory, but causal (radiation being one of those causes).

Wow... all of them, huh? Talk about an improper generalization.

Check the definition of evolution. It isn't improper. By the very definition of the theory of evolution, this is truth. If an evolutionist were to attribute some traits to simple mutation and say that simple mutation is not the same as microevolution, then they would be defeating their own point. Because then they are selecting only that data which supports their theory and not all of the data, which would of course make evolution a laughing stock.

My reference was to the fact that you speak of all evolutionists, all individuals who ascribe the theory and support it's validity, as if they speak with one voice. Sure, some have this stance, but others don't. Hence, the response.

 

Now which do you want it to be, either they are random and have no cause, or they are causal and have to fit in with the theory of evolution.

Per my clarification above, this question is irrelevant, as this was not the point I made.

 

Would you attribute the desire for variety with the commonality of divorce? Carefully consider that.

No, I'd say that people too often participate in marriage when they shouldn't, hence, the commonality of divorce. While the evolved desire for variety may be a factor, ultimately what contributes to the commonality of divorce is the commonality of marriage between individuals who are not truly in love.

 

Connected with the lack of love already mentioned is the desire to change one's mind (or the desire to have greater variety).

No, not at all. I fail to see how you can make such a statement. The desire for variety and this lack of love about which you speak are not one and the same. Lack of love could be the result any number of possibilities.

 

Does that [the desire to change one's mind based on evolved tendencies] not then attribute the commonality of divorce today to evolution?

Love and marriage are not always one and the same, and this is the problem we're having understanding one another. I see love as distinct from marriage, as more important, and the marriage as a social convention that is far removed from the concept of true love.

[cwes99_03]

Certainly that was way less problematic than humans changing their mind and deciding to end their religiofinancial contracted bond with another human.

 

I suppose I extrapolated your reference to it as a religio/financial bond to mean that it was nothing more than that, a contract, thus not being necessary. My bad if that is not at all how you feel. It however does not deny the point I associated with that thought, which was:

If you truly do love someone, then why not put it in writing?

 

Why is it important to the strength of the bond discussed, true love, to have others know that I have the bond? How is my love strengthened by putting it to paper and making an oath which holds only in the eyes of the church or the state, or by taking steps to ensure others around me are aware of the bond?

My love is between myself and the person with whom I share it.

 

Would you likewise say that about any contract you enter into?

Would you also not get upset by another person pursuing your love interest because you have nothing of public record stating your intentions?

Do not most imperfect (as we all are) humans feel that if something isn't in writing that it is less binding, thus the get it in writing idea in the first place?

Some lands do not require a certificate. In these lands do not people still stand before a large crowd of friends and family and others and recite vows, or participate in some ceremony to signify their relationship?

 

These individual questions demonstrate the need for a meaningful contract. Now should that contract have no more meaning than a piece of paper that can be destroyed, then the marriage bond likewise has no meaning.

 

I'm stating that both parts are needed in a real marriage, written for significance and posterity, and devotional, as set forth by sticking to your oath.

 

Limiting that oath with a "unless the law of the land allows me to do otherwise" makes that oath, spoken or not, worthless. Thus today marriage is devalued by both people and secular law.

[InfiniteNow]

My point is that the contract itself is silly. Marriage is not something I hold in high regard, but love very much is. You make an anology to land contracts, or others trying to take the person with whom I share love away... They are not property to be protected or lossed, they are an individual sharing a connection with me (if I'm lucky enough to love and be loved that is). If the connection is true, then I don't have to worry about it being lost to someone else.

 

Now should that contract have no more meaning than a piece of paper that can be destroyed, then the marriage bond likewise has no meaning.

:cup:

 

I recognize my stance is not that taken by many, but it is still my stance.

 

Limiting that oath with a "unless the law of the land allows me to do otherwise" makes that oath, spoken or not, worthless.

You see, I saw it as worthless before you spoke of these limits.

 

Love is the connection, not the contract or recognition.

[InfiniteNow]

Granted, our feelings are dynamic, and I referenced this in my evolved tendency toward variety comment, but that's just something that happens, and is also removed from contractual obligations.

[cwes99_03]

Okay, but why do you feel that a connection with someone you love should not last forever? This is very contrary to human actions for milennia. Jealousy is a raw emotion that has been described among all human civilizations. Even when it was common for men to have many wives, they did not share them. They wanted to be bound to them and have them bound in return for life.

 

Do we not have need for continuity/stability? One stabilizing means is the marriage bond, is it not?

 

I earlier equated divorce with laziness, at least in today's terms. Divorce it taken too lightly. It is seen as a way out when you don't want to try anymore. For millenia it has not been that way. While other things have changed, particularly with respect to how women were treated in the marrital relationship, the idea that divorce was not acceptable did not change much at all. Even when the church of England was set up to allow for the king to divorce, people did not run out and divorce their wives regularly. The major part of the populace maintained the stigma associated with divorce for hundreds of years more.

I don't attribute the changes in the marriage contract with evolution, partly because I believe evolution to be false. I attribute these changes to man's inability to rule himself and his lack of love for all other people including his "spouse".

This same lack of love is evident elsewhere, and human history is the evidence for man's inability to rule himself.

[CraigD]

… why do you feel that a connection with someone you love should not last forever? This is very contrary to human actions for milennia.

 

I earlier equated divorce with laziness, at least in today's terms.

I too have often equated divorce with laziness – or contrapositively, successful marriage with hard work.

 

I believe, however, that there is critically more to the cause of the success or failure of marriage than this.

 

The most critical factor effecting the success or failure of marriage is, I think, the theory, or model, of love and marriage to which the spouses subscribe. By this I mean what sociologists call a “folk theory” – a typically never explicitly stated explanation of the way a particular thing – in this case, love and marriage – works.

 

Clearly, people who’s theory of love is that it is a temporary state of attraction lasting rarely longer than is required to mate are unlikely to live together long. However, I believe it’s also possible for TOLs that includes the belief that marriage should be eternal to result in short-lasting cohabitation. This can happen if the theory is so flawed that it’s ineffective in providing what any successful theory must provide – helpful explanations and predictions about its subject. I think most failed marriages in the US, and throughout the First World, are the result of flawed TOLs.

 

I believe the most common TOL flaw is the belief that each human being has one – and only one – ideal mate. Despite the statistical nonsense of this idea, it’s one that even well-educated parents, such as my own rational, well-educated parents, encourage in their children. It’s widespread in our popular fiction, in such archetypal stories of the princess rescued from an unjust marriage by her “one true love”. It’s evidenced by our culture’s contempt for arranged marriage.

 

Sometimes, such a theory includes the supernatural to circumvent its implausibility – there’s only one idea mate for each person, but a benevolent deity assures that, despite the odds, one always meets, recognizes, and is recognized by, one’s IM.

 

The reality, I believe, is that nearly any two reasonable people from similar cultures are capable of excellent and permanent marriages that are in no way – emotionally, sexually, or any other – less fulfilling than a marriages between people who each believe the other to be their only possible acceptable mate.

 

Cultures with low divorce rates, I believe, have a predominance of TOLs that lack this “ideal mate” principle. A indicator of the lack of this principle is widespread acceptance of arranged marriage, a trait found in “biblical times” societies in which divorce was uncommon. This is consistent with evidence that, in such societies, while divorce was uncommon, remarriage after the death of a spouse was also common, or even required. The people of these cultures appear to have followed the principle of “love the one you’re with”.

[cwes99_03]

While I don't think I agree with all the above as I have read it in two parts this morning separated by hours, I do reject the "ideal mate" or "one true love" theories as well. These theories are based off of two misconceptions. 1) that things are predetermined/predestined (at least I can tell you this is not a Biblical idea, though other religions may say otherwise)

2) the idea that there is someone perfect out there for you, perfection is obviously wrong, no one is perfect, so no one can be perfect for you. People change, they grow. The point is that marriage is forever, and as you grow you may realize you made mistakes, or chose badly, but you have to learn/grow to love that person anyway because you entered into this contractual agreement (with or without the actual paperwork.)

[HydrogenBond]

The marriage contract allows one to let their hair down with less fear of the other just getting up and leaving. Without the ball and chain, one of the partners may decide to run away at the first sign of a severe storm. With the ball and chain they can only run so fast, allowing time to catch and smooth rough feathers.

 

I had a friend who dated a girl for about 7-8 years before marriage. They fought a little but resolved things quite easily. They were good friends. After they got married, she began to want to him to change into what she thought was appropriate and was no longer inhibited to become a battle ax to ge the job done. He didn't want to adapt himself to the changes but stayed in the happier past. Their balls and chains were not heavy enough to keep them both from running in the opposite directions. In this case, the marriage contract was very counter productive to their original adult relationship that used a lighter rope of friendship.

[cwes99_03]

Blah blah blah blah.

 

I'm sorry Hydro, not to make light of the problem that existed between the two, but they both missed the point of marriage.

No two people should date that long. If it takes that long to get to know each other well enough to want to get married, then they should not get married to each other for whatever reason it took that long to decide.

 

Marriage is not a ball and chain. Marriage is when two become one. As one they make decisions, take care of the other half etc.

Your friend and the girl he was with both need to become responsible adults. They tried to do so, but marriage is not the first step in becoming an adult, it is a much later step. The first step is to stop casually treating another like they are your play toy or something you can casually fool around with.

[Freddy]

Blah blah blah blah.

 

I'm sorry Hydro, not to make light of the problem that existed between the two, but they both missed the point of marriage.

No two people should date that long. If it takes that long to get to know each other well enough to want to get married, then they should not get married to each other for whatever reason it took that long to decide.

 

Marriage is not a ball and chain. Marriage is when two become one. As one they make decisions, take care of the other half etc.

Your friend and the girl he was with both need to become responsible adults. They tried to do so, but marriage is not the first step in becoming an adult, it is a much later step. The first step is to stop casually treating another like they are your play toy or something you can casually fool around with.

 

I am so glad that you do not get to decide how long two people may date. My best friend dated a nice Catholic girl from the summer of 1971 until the summer of 1980 when they were married. Since that time they were blessed with three children and a happy marriage. After 25 years of marital bliss just as special as any other married couple they are very happy today. But like you said, "no two people should date that long." Just think what might have happened if the priest at Pre-Cana held your opinion! Perhaps there is a statistical analysis of the length of dating periods and divorce.

[cwes99_03]

Maybe there is, but I believe you missed the point.

 

Was it necessary for the two of them to date that long?

What did they do while "dating" for that long?

How much did each of them change during the time period that they were "dating"?

How old were they when they began "dating"?

 

What good does it do for any 13 year old to "date"? Do they learn important lessons in life about dating at that age? Some may, such as how painful it is to be raped by your friend, or how stupid it is to have sex when you are that young.

Do they learn the pain of rejection? I'll say no. What? Surely they feel pain after a break up. Sure. But do they fully understand what it means to have an adult relationship? No. Thus when they become an adult, does that experience really teach them anything about an adult relationship? No. If it does, it is only because they experience one of the above horrible things a child should not have to go through.

 

At 25, I realize that I felt the urge to date people back when I was that age. I wanted to feel like I was someone special back then. Now, I realize I was someone special. I was a friend and that is all I needed to be. I am eternally grateful that I wasn't like one of the guys that got a girl pregnant, nor did I want any of my family to suffer the problems of a girl who got pregnant and had to make some really heavy decisions (or have them made for them by their parents.)

 

When one dates someone, but is not ready to make a commitment to anyone, then they are not learning anything about a real relationship. Once they are ready, then the dating takes on new meaning. That one then begins to treat their boy/girlfriend differently. They realize the need for give and take. They begin to analyze the other to see if they are the type of person they want to be married to. But if their minds and experiences are tainted by years of fruitless relationship experience they won't know how to act or what to look for.

 

You don't teach a man to become a hard worker by letting him play video games all day long until he turns 21, and then throw him into the real world. Yet sadly, this is what is happening in all facets of "Western" life around the world today.