Dancers Anonymous > What's the best reason to get married?

Discussion in 'Dancers Anonymous' started by pygmalion, Nov 13, 2005.


What's the best reason to get married?

  1. Love

    33 vote(s)
  2. Money

    0 vote(s)
  3. Sex

    0 vote(s)
  4. Power or political alliance

    2 vote(s)
  5. Friendship/companionship

    17 vote(s)
  6. Shared family, social, cultural or religious background

    0 vote(s)
  7. Arranged marriage

    0 vote(s)
  8. Other -- please discuss.

    5 vote(s)
  1. pygmalion

    pygmalion Well-Known Member

    Or choose a long-term life companion, based on what you've seen or experienced? I'm assuming, of course, that you want to maximize your chances for long-term success. I'm not necessarily asking what you did, but perhaps what you think people ought to do.

    (And no, I have no such plans. Just wondering what you think. :wink: :) )
  2. fascination

    fascination Site Moderator Staff Member

    I think that I am leary of polls b/c they are never qualified enough for short, ...if love is to be more than a feeling...but a pattern that lasts in spite of ones feelings on any given day...frinedship is is when people stop talking stop respecting stop enjoying each other's company that everything else goes....and nearly all of those other qualities are fed by friendship and the qualities neccessary to maintain one.....
  3. pygmalion

    pygmalion Well-Known Member

    Yeah. Polls are pretty black and white. But they can also be the starting point for a fairly good conversation, at least sometimes. :cool:

    Truth be told, this poll doesn't capture my thoughts adequately, either. But I don't want to share everything too soon. A lot of the time, that kills the conversation. :lol: Asked and answered (in TV litigator-speak :lol: ) is bad for bulletin boards, IMO. :wink:
  4. Pacion

    Pacion New Member

    Hmmm. This is a difficult one in the sense that it depends on what you think your life's purpose may be (aka ambitions) and a number of factors come into play - love, friendship, someone who shares similar values/aims as yourself which may involve being in the "background". I see it as a partnership and I think this is even more apparent where the wife is a public figure and the husband is there as a "backbone". eg. Margaret Thatcher and her husband Denis. (It is taken for granted that the wife is the one in the background.)

    In a nutshell, mutual compatibility, a "merger of two lives/backgrounds" with hopefully, love and affection.

    I believe that it definitely helps if the couple know themselves/have an understanding of themselves first.
  5. diputs

    diputs New Member

    I am a hopless romantic, and because of it, I am single.

    I am looking for my tue love.


    I believe all three are important.
  6. FTL

    FTL New Member

    Other than tradition and religious implications, IMHO it is not necessary. It's love that will eventually keep two people together, not paper, promises, expensive rings or tax deductions. My $0.02.
  7. Joe

    Joe Well-Known Member

    Where's the "all of the above" option?
  8. pygmalion

    pygmalion Well-Known Member

    Agreed. I think, if you pick any one of the above, you may well be out of luck, in the long run. The more of the above that match, the better off you are, IMO.

    And, if I'm going to be truly honest, here, I think love is the weakest of the reasons.
  9. Pacion

    Pacion New Member

    Sorry, I don't quite understand. Are you saying that marriage isn't necessary? If that is the case, then I think it depends on where you live. A couple living as "common law husband and wife" in the UK has fewer rights/benefits than a similiar couple living in Scandinavia. Therefore, if something should happen to one of them, the other person has little say in the eyes of the law - this could be the kind of medical treatment to receiving the pension/insurance should the other person die. The remaining partner has to rely on the "generosity" of their partner's family, to remain involved in the process should something happen.

    Similarly, if a couple go separate ways after a long period of time, 5-10 years or even more, and there are children involved, the woman can't take "half the man's assets" which she may otherwise have been able to, if they had been married - same applies for the man, if the woman was the more financially successful one yet, may have done his bit to achieve that success (cooking dinner, massaging her feet when she came home, making sure the kids didn't run wild etc etc).

    The concept of not getting married is, IMO, still a fairly new concept which the law hasn't caught up with as yet. Today, based on what I have seen, read, heard, that alone, is one reason why I want his "grubby thumbprint on a piece of paper" :lol:
  10. pygmalion

    pygmalion Well-Known Member

    Oh. I didn't read FTL's comment that way originally, but it does seem that FTL is saying that marriage is unnecessary. :cool:

    That's okay. In the original post, I did give people the option of discussing spouses or long-term life companions. So either applies, in this context. :cool:

    I do agree with what you've said, though, P. In a lot of places, the law doesn't see non-married, committed relationships as binding.

    For example, several years ago, a gay friend of mine relocated across the country because his job was moved out of state. All of his expenses were paid, but his life partner, with whom he'd lived for ten years (and who was financially dependent upon him) had to find a way to finance his relocation. Nothing was covered. And, when he got to the destination, the financially dependent partner was left without health insurance, because he couldn't find a new job that offered benefits. There is no trailing spouse support, if you're not married. If you're not married, you're not a spouse, right? :cool:

    And no, please, please let's not get off on a validity of gay relationships tangent! :lol:

    My point is that non-married relationships may well be morally or emotionally binding to the people inside. But I agree with you, P, the outside world often doesn't see it that way.

    I also wonder whether love, in many cases, really is what keeps people together. But I guess that's another thread... unless someone cares to discuss.
  11. FTL

    FTL New Member

    The post seems to be asking for reasons for long term companionship or marriage. All I'm saying is that the latter is not really necessary for a long term relationship. Sure there are benefits to being married but I don't believe those benefits can really prevent a union from going awry. I've observed enough divorces despite the wealth, children, or political power. I'm all for reasonable spousal benefits if divorce happens, I don't disagree with that.

    All of the above is probably a practical choice but I still think it dilutes love. When the material things are gone it diminishes the value of the companionship.

    True love has a staying power. Short term love is called infatuation or libido.
  12. pygmalion

    pygmalion Well-Known Member

    I totally agree. :cool: That's why I think love is one of the weakest reasons to get married. The hot and spicy kind of love that gets a lot of folks to the alter is, IMO, a cyclical thing at best. It may or may not mature into the deep, grown-up, sometimes boring kind of love that you can count on for life.

    I also think that a lot of people label all sorts of not-really-love emotions with the name love. Dependency, habit, neuroses, abuse ... You name it. A lot of people mistake various things for love. Just my opinion, mind you, so don't shoot me. :lol:

    So, if and when I'm in the position of making a choice, I'd opt for all or many of the above ... just for insurance. It can't hurt to have a back-up plan. :wink:
  13. FTL

    FTL New Member

    I had all my eggs in one basket, hoping that love encompasses trust. If I fail you might see a lonely man seating alone in a park bench.
  14. pygmalion

    pygmalion Well-Known Member

    Love does encompass trust, IMO. But (here's my annoying two cents rearing its ugly head again :lol: ) trust is another one of the things that grows (or in some cases doesn't) after the wedding. *shrug*
  15. Twilight_Elena

    Twilight_Elena Well-Known Member

    Marriage. Must be the most illogical idea in the world. The only logical reason for getting married would be legal reasons (for instance you and your SO have children together and the law will favour them if their parents are married). Other than that I really can't get the "we're in love/love each other and want to be together for the rest of our lives". I mean, just because you do a fancy ceremony, wear a ring and sign a couple of papers you get to be forever together? That's ridiculous, considering that nowadays there's a little thing called "divorce".
    Let's take a hypothetical case. X and Y are really, really in love and cherish each other ever so much, etc. They're perfect together. Explain to me why they should/need to get married. What would a marriage offer them? Social recognition as a couple? Like it matters! Why do so many people feel that they're not a real couple if they're not married? Are they together for someone else's sake? No!
    I realise that many people get married because they're insecure about their relationship and feel that their SO will leave them. Ridiculous of course. It's not like s/he can't leave his/her spouse just as easy.
    I really, really can't understand the marriage issue. A male friend of mine tried to explain to me once that it's some sort of natural evolution in a relationship and that I can't possibly understand because I've never really been in love. :rolleyes: Which is the silliest thing I've ever heard since neither he nor any of my other 17-year old friends have ever been in love. Really now.
    Oh, and everyone is welcome to try and explain to me why marriage is a natural evolution of a relationship. I so love debates. ;)

    Twilight Elena
  16. pygmalion

    pygmalion Well-Known Member

    Hmm... I don't think that marriage is a natural evolution of a relationship. Sounds like something an intelligent but mostly inexperienced seventeen-year-old would say. :oops: Sorry. But that's what I think. It's not natural. It's a major milestone and decision point, kinda like when you leave high school or university and you decide what to do next. There are many possible paths. All of them seem "natural" after you've taken them. (Edit: Or if everyone you know has taken one particular path.) But, bottom line is that there's a crossroads at which you choose. At least, that's what I see. You can choose to marry. You can choose to be single. You can choose to be committed but not married. You can choose to defer your choice. All those paths are natural, or can be, IMO.

    I do think that marriage is a wonderful institution and that it's dramatically different from non-marriage relationships, even the long-term kind.

    Yes. People are getting divorced in record numbers, it's true. I don't think that's a statement about the validity of marriage, though. I think that's a strong statement about societal change and the relative ease of obtaining a divorce, as compared to times past. (And no, I'm not advocating a return to the days in which divorces were unobtainable. I think those days were terrible for many women and some men, too. )

    That said, I love a good debate, too. But that's a hijack, so start your own thread. :wink:

    I want to know what criteria you'd use, if you were choosing a lifetime companion, whether or not you were planning to marry him. Well? :cool:
  17. Sagitta

    Sagitta Well-Known Member

    Sounds very business like...
  18. pygmalion

    pygmalion Well-Known Member

    I prefer pragmatic. :wink: :lol: And bear in mind that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool romantic.

    Let's just say you marry someone in the first flush of that hot-and-steamy, romantic kind of love. What happens when (not if -- when) things cool down, if you don't have one of the other things listed to tide you over until things heat up again?
  19. Sagitta

    Sagitta Well-Known Member

    We celebrate birthdays, various national days...death years...seasons...why? These have significance, meaning to us. There is a richness and complexity in many of these traditions. In the same way to me marriage is an act that can represent the significance of a couple's relationship to themselves and others. It is what one makes out of it. You can make it a financial arrangement, a security quick-fix for the insecure as TE mentioned....but can be so much more. What you make out of "marriage" is what will determine what you look for.

    Having said that emotional connection is important, as is respect and flexibility to change. Money only with respect that the person realizes that they need to live and in order to do so they must find a way of sustaining themselves. Shared background terms of religion, culture but is not a tie-breaker.
  20. Probably the best reason IMO to get married is if you're planning to start a family (kids). But, even if you're not planning on children it would make you feel a deeper bond with your mate and also part of each others broader family. Of course Love, Sex, Mutually Interests (Dancer!) , common Dreams/Goals & hopefully an appreciation of each other's families would be necessary ingredients. Tough bill to fill, guess I know why I'm single! LOL

    Hey, this thread sounds familiar to an older one!

Share This Page