Marrage and Independence.

[Technosoul]

Everyone needs a little space to be their self and to follow their own private dreams - but should one of the partners in a marrage give that up to for the sake of the other?

Can one be married and still feel and be independent? It that wise or unwise?

Is it better for a married couple to do everything together during their off work schedlues?

Now I am sure that our religious folks will pull out a few scriptures that would normally say no (as the scriptures seldom say yes). And that at least the woman should give up all her rights for independence when she takes the marrage vow.

So it is up to the philosophy members of the forum to come up the pro and con ideas about this topic.

Whatcha think?

PS - But Christians are not banned from stating their viewpoints also.

[Jack]

This addresses a situation best left to each couple. A general rule is sure to piss off at least 50% of those affected. Personally, I prefer an equal as a partner. If I want a subservient companion, I'll go play with my dog.

[Technosoul]

This addresses a situation best left to each couple. A general rule is sure to piss off at least 50% of those affected. Personally, I prefer an equal as a partner. If I want a subservient companion, I'll go play with my dog.

You might even agree with this - often sage advice (a word to the wise) can be useful but then someone attempts to make it a rule - a commandment. So any rule would natch - be objectionalble to anyone who loves indendence (unless the rule keeps someone else off thier back by making more regulations).

Rules are for other people. Who do not already know how to be wise. Which no law maker would agree with.

I am happy your dog knows how to wash dishes and can iron your shirts. Yo hoo.

But I like your neat way of seeing things. Only did you change the topic a bit too much?

[Technosoul]

Do we have a rule about how to spell independence?

[Technosoul]

Now if a guy prefers a partner that is a equal, when it comes to who is the boss of household happenings, then that demand in its own right is a domination of the situation. In other words the bossman is making a rule that his wife must be his equal. So he is still running the show by making that his established platform for his personal marrage. His law - but such a rule of thumb is in fact a contradiction in it'self because his idea is still the dominating one. If you get my drift.

For example if the girl who would be his wife did not want such an arrangement then she is "out in the cold again". As his non-equal.

Don't you just love logic and philosophy?

[tinybear]

The man, of course, is head of the house. No doubt about it. The woman is only the neck which turns it. :)

Here's an interesting Christian viewpoint: http://www.christianitytoday.com/mp/7M1/7M1066.html

[SteveA]

I think ideally marriage shouldn't be much different than a long term friendship. The real difference between marriage and friendship, in my opinion, is when children are involved and marriage differentiates itself by being more an explicit commitment. I don't see marriage as a prison sentence. Though you'd expect it to be more enduring than a friendship, treating marriage as if it were simply a friendship, with a few more commitments, I believe actually makes a marriage more enduring. In a friendship, people stay together simply because of the enjoyment and benefit they receive from the other, not because of prior commitment they've made and feel obligated to fulfill. Marriage should be based upon a similar thing.

I guess you could also have a marriage, without children or the expectations of them, if there's a mutual desire for a long term binding commitment, but to put my political views in there, that should be something done via. personal marriage vows and not decided by lawyers/legislators.

I've heard people say that prenuptual agreements can be overwritten by laws. In my opinion that's bogus and likely propaganda. The reality is that as long as we're still operating under the Constitution, everyone has a right to trial by jury, and if people feel such marriage arrangements are appropriate and should be respected, then that's how court cases will generally be ruled on. Simply because a few legislators say they have a right to intrude on the private commitments people have between themselves doesn't truly give them any right to do so, IMO.

Overall, my personal view is that marriage is about family and commitments. Certainly people are free to consider themselves married if they meet each other and 2 days later head to Las Vegas for a quick drive through marriage, but I think that's a good example of why marriage is best left in private/social/religious hands instead of being legally defined. To be safe, Family Law should be tossed out too. Criminal law alone should be adequate enough to deal with family issues.

[Technosoul]

[QUOTE=SteveA]I think ideally marriage shouldn't be much different than a long term friendship. The real difference between marriage and friendship, in my opinion, is when children are involved and marriage differentiates itself by being more an explicit commitment. I don't see marriage as a prison sentence. Though you'd expect it to be more enduring than a friendship, treating marriage as if it were simply a friendship, with a few more commitments, I believe actually makes a marriage more enduring. In a friendship, people stay together simply because of the enjoyment and benefit they receive from the other, not because of prior commitment they've made and feel obligated to fulfill. Marriage should be based upon a similar thing.

I guess you could also have a marriage, without children or the expectations of them, if there's a mutual desire for a long term binding commitment, but to put my political views in there, that should be something done via. personal marriage vows and not decided by lawyers/legislators.

I've heard people say that prenuptual agreements can be overwritten by laws. In my opinion that's bogus and likely propaganda. The reality is that as long as we're still operating under the Constitution, everyone has a right to trial by jury, and if people feel such marriage arrangements are appropriate and should be respected, then that's how court cases will generally be ruled on. Simply because a few legislators say they have a right to intrude on the private commitments people have between themselves doesn't truly give them any right to do so, IMO.

Overall, my personal view is that marriage is about family and commitments. Certainly people are free to consider themselves married if they meet each other and 2 days later head to Las Vegas for a quick drive through marriage, but I think that's a good example of why marriage is best left in private/social/religious hands instead of being legally defined. To be safe, Family Law should be tossed out too. Criminal law alone should be adequate enough to deal with family issues.[/QUOT)

Interesting you should say that you would prefer a marrage that is based on friendship because now I must speculate on what the other non-friendship marrages are.

Normally we have lots of friends but only one special person that we love or are romantically attracted too and we assume that love affair is greater then being "just friends". So we end up not hanging with the "old gang that sang heart to heart" and spend all our time with our special one (which results in wedding rings and marrage). You mentioned lawyers and courts so I guess a marrage could be a business arrangement also.

If I got married and had a lawyer I would make her sign a document so that I can also have a doggie as part of our family unit. Others would sign a statement that their children will all be members of a certain religion so that the marrage can be authorized by their God. Others sign documents that state what property will remain seperate from the marrage - so that in case of a break-up the x partner cannot claim half of your property that you had before getting married.

An explaination of what a marrage is - is interesting - but that is not the topic I intended to talk about when formulating this post.

But I have learned by now that topics here never stay on track and so "let the four winds blow".

[SteveA]

Interesting you should say that you would prefer a marrage that is based on friendship because now I must speculate on what the other non-friendship marrages are.

Some people see marriage as a social obligation. In some cultures it's frowned upon marrying someone that is selected for you by your church or parents.

Others see marriage similar to a prison sentence - it's got a one way door and basic for better or worse you're suppose to remain married "until death do you part".

I know Mormons see marriage as an eternal institution that remains intact even after death.

Some people see marriage as something that can apply to groups of people and not simply one man and one woman.

Some see marriage as a legal institution with few social implications - to them marriage is a way to write off some taxes or gain citizenship etc.

Marriage can sometimes be a formal public recognition of sexual relations occuring between two people and have little meaning beyond that. (Similar to a "shotgun wedding" )

Normally we have lots of friends but only one special person that we love or are romantically attracted too and we assume that love affair is greater then being "just friends".

And that's how I think it's suppose to be. Many people would agree but these views aren't the only ones that motivate people to get married.

The two major differences I have with many other people over marriage are that 1) though a long term commitment should be made, I think marriage is better viewed as a relationship that's not strongly binding - neither partner should see the other as any form of property or feel a perogative to take advantage of the other, just as you wouldn't do this to a friend 2) marriage isn't much about legalities. Though I think the idea of prenuptial agreements or written personalized wedding vows aren't a bad idea and could be considered binding, the legalities and binding contracts aren't really where the value of marriage arises from and it shouldn't be viewed in those terms either as it seems to devalue the institution and turn it into something that's simply shafing and restrictive. (Sure, commitments can be made and be binding but promoting those aspects doesn't seem beneficial)

But I have learned by now that topics here never stay on track and so "let the four winds blow".

In a more focused response, a marriage that provides a relatively large amount of freedom to the people involved seems more valuable and sustainable than one that is treated as binding, restrictive and unbreakable.

The reason why I compared it to friendship is that I believe the value of marriage arises from similarities to a long term friendship and that retaining this value improves marriage. So though marriage is about commitments beyond a simple friendship, these should be minimized as they don't provide much of any inherent value in themselves, except for possibly some security. Also, trying to take advantage or abuse these commitments devalues marriage as well.

[shield772]

I as a former married person would say that while the majority of time should be spent doing things as a couple/family it is healthy to have activities that do not include your spouse/partner

[tinybear]

Do men REALLY want an equal partnership? I mean most men I've encountered do not. They want an obedient wife who stays at home and tends to the family and kids and not have any say on what they do as long as they bring home the bacon. If you've seen the movie 'The Stepford Wives', you'll know what I mean.

[Technosoul]

Some people see marriage as a social obligation. In some cultures it's frowned upon marrying someone that is selected for you by your church or parents.

Others see marriage similar to a prison sentence - it's got a one way door and basic for better or worse you're suppose to remain married "until death do you part".

I know Mormons see marriage as an eternal institution that remains intact even after death.

Some people see marriage as something that can apply to groups of people and not simply one man and one woman.

Some see marriage as a legal institution with few social implications - to them marriage is a way to write off some taxes or gain citizenship etc.

Marriage can sometimes be a formal public recognition of sexual relations occuring between two people and have little meaning beyond that. (Similar to a "shotgun wedding" )



And that's how I think it's suppose to be. Many people would agree but these views aren't the only ones that motivate people to get married.

The two major differences I have with many other people over marriage are that 1) though a long term commitment should be made, I think marriage is better viewed as a relationship that's not strongly binding - neither partner should see the other as any form of property or feel a perogative to take advantage of the other, just as you wouldn't do this to a friend 2) marriage isn't much about legalities. Though I think the idea of prenuptial agreements or written personalized wedding vows aren't a bad idea and could be considered binding, the legalities and binding contracts aren't really where the value of marriage arises from and it shouldn't be viewed in those terms either as it seems to devalue the institution and turn it into something that's simply shafing and restrictive. (Sure, commitments can be made and be binding but promoting those aspects doesn't seem beneficial)



In a more focused response, a marriage that provides a relatively large amount of freedom to the people involved seems more valuable and sustainable than one that is treated as binding, restrictive and unbreakable.

The reason why I compared it to friendship is that I believe the value of marriage arises from similarities to a long term friendship and that retaining this value improves marriage. So though marriage is about commitments beyond a simple friendship, these should be minimized as they don't provide much of any inherent value in themselves, except for possibly some security. Also, trying to take advantage or abuse these commitments devalues marriage as well.

Thanks for adding to the actural topic with your reasons why married couples really have a duel role of doing things together and that each person should likewise have time do their own hobbies or whatnot. I guess the key is balance and you indicated that idea.

Managing our time and schedule so we have "quality time" for each part of our life might be an idea for some people to concider.