The insanity of "Starter Marriages". (1 Viewer)

[Ashley Seymour]

Stacie says

If the purpose of marriage is to provide stable environments for children, do you think that those who either can't or don't wish to have children should still have the right to marry?

I hate to quote statistics that can't be readily be backed up, but I'll givce this one because it supports the belief that I had from my late teens. Your chance of having a successful marriage, with reduced incidence of divorce goes up significantly if the couples are in the 26-30 age bracket. Maybe it's 27-31, but my point is that marriage outside of that age range is destined for a lot more turmoil. A married couple always has the potential to have children. Of course they could both be sterile by accident or design, but you start to nit pick by having the government trying to make up a bunch of exceptions to the rule. Gay marriage. The concept is silly, but the government interposes itself is a lot of other dubious behaviors. It doesn't bother me. It is likely to be such a small occurance that my chance of encountering a gay married couple is about as likely as me going down in an airplace crash. And if I did meet one, so what. The networks and tabloids like to cover this scenario, but I find it had to see how you debase such a widespread institution by such miniscule exceptions.
The Today Show had an author on this morning that discussed the high incidence of fatherless homes in the black community. He traced it to the time of slavery when couples were discouraged from marriage. The dehumanizing natue of slavery sowed the seeds of generations that followed who had a lower incidence of marriage than other cultures. I hadn't read the book and I certainly can see that it could stir up a heated discussion, but is there anyone who would argue that prisons are overrepresented by inmates who come from fatherless homes and abusive homes.

 

[Max Leung]

While I'm very happy for those in long-term relationships, the idea that a woman must marry is shoved down our throats from a very early age.

This applies to men too. My parents and my grandmother bug me to find a woman once in a while. And hey, I don't have a problem with that. It is a cultural universal. All parents wish for their children to get "hooked", provided the following conditions are met: Their material well-being is reasonably assured (nobody wants their son or daughter to be destitute), and that they are happy with their partner.
Of course, men have much longer reproductive lives than women...he can successfully inseminate women right until the end of his life. And multiple partners are not frowned upon, and in some societies (ours) downright encouraged. A man who does not have multiple partners is considered a freak, while a woman who does the same is called a harlot. Yep, the oldest of double-standards, and very likely hard-wired into the human brain. But, as with most "innate" behaviors, brainwashing (aka re-education) can be used to beat down the undesirable behavior, so I am not implying that people must behave the same, so you old-school relativists can stop jumping on me now.
For a great commentary on the importance of marriage and the resultant conundrums, watch or read Mansfield Park. A great movie/read to boot, yet Jane Austen's insight into human nature mirrors current scientific discoveries so closely that I would be tempted to use it as a textbook on the subject. Alas, none of the stuck-up old fogies in the scientific establishment heeded her writings. (sidenote: isn't it incredible how the most respected primatologists are women? When you consider that a woman literally risks her life everytime she has a baby, it is no wonder that they have valuable insight into animal behavior).
Also, consider that in virtually all cultures, marriage's purpose is to cement the familial bond. Back when married couples remained physically close to both sides of the family, the whole group would engage in mutual cooperation to ensure their well-being. In other words: Increase the chances of survival. I would speculate that stress in these circumstances would be much lower than the current practice of hopping around the country, following the jobs!
In today's society, where both partners leave the familie's hometown, the whole system breaks down. Without familial support, it is quite a lot harder to raise a family (mitigated somewhat by PTA meetings and other gatherings to strengthen community bonds, but this is seldom practived nowadays). The resulting pressure would indicate a correlation with today's divorce rates in North America.
It would be interesting to see how divorce rates are affected by proximity to the couple's families. If divorce rates are lower in such conditions, is it because of pressure to NOT divorce, or because the added benefit of familial support would remove potential stress factors, resulting in a stable and happy marriage? Probably both. I hope somebody did a study on this...and someone else followed up.
Yikes, I'm rambling again. Sorry about that.