• SeanRenaud said on Jul 27, 2008....

  Marked.

• Fallyn said on Jul 27, 2008....

  i watched a movie last night.....Juno....
  the girl that gets pregnant and gives up the baby.....she finds the perfect couple....and then finds out they aren't going to stay together.....the woman in the movie very much seemed like she wanted to get married for the sake of having children. it was her only concern in life.
  
  maybe some women are just like that. i don't understand it....i still don't think i was meant to be a mom.....but there is always that pull.
  

• tbs230 said on Jul 27, 2008....

  I've gone back and forth about wanting children. And I know I'm still young yet. But next year I'll be the same age my mom was when she had me. She wasn't ready, but she had me, and she married my dad because of me. I guess she wanted stability for me.
  
  I know that's a little different than marrying for the sole purpose of settling down and having children, but the end result is the same.
  
  And yet, knowing all of this, I still wonder if maybe settling for, "better than nothing," isn't such a bad thing...
  

• RollingC said on Jul 27, 2008....

  If you want kids that bad that you're willing to marry someone and have children with him.....or even if you already have a kid but no husband and you want one for the child's stability....I guess it's ok to do it but only if your level of commitment is as important and as strong. 
  Doing something like that and then not going through with it till the end kinda sucks as you're already setting yourself or someone else up for a hurt and I would assume that it's detrimental to the child as it shows no willingness for commitment because that's the message the kid will pick up.
  Rc

• Fallyn said on Jul 27, 2008....

  tbs i already have kids to the issue isn't the same....but sometimes the thought crosses my mind of just settling to not be lonely anymore.
  
  rolling ......i agree. if you're going to do that ...then you need to stick it out. though....if the guy finds out you only married him to have kids......well....good luck getting him to stick around.
  

• RollingC said on Jul 28, 2008....

  Not necesseraly....if the kids are his also....well, some guys would...I know I probably would.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 28, 2008....

  Gotta side with RC here.  I'd either make it work for the kids sake or I wouldn't have married you in the first place.

• cntlvmenuf said on Jul 28, 2008....

  You know us women....we are on a race to beat the biological clock...and most of us cant afford all those expensive fertilization procedures that have women bearing children past their child bearing years! I think that does play a part, and then for some of us its sorta hard to find A man leave alone thee right man so when that biological clock starts ticking ever so loudly, we settle for any man and hope he is not shooting blanks. I also think that some women crave that unconditional love that kids tend to give...before they grow up and start trampling on their moms' hearts, their mothers ARE the world to the kids.
   
  I dont have any kids myself...neither have I been married before...am at that stage where I can hear my biological clock ticking and has even flirted with the idea of instead of looking for potential mates, may be I should start looking for a baby daddy. Its a misconception...or is it a miseducation that women tend to have...that the way to completeness is thru a man, or a kid...and if we get so lucky the complete package aka the nuclear family.
   
  As for happiness, I think we screw ourselves up when we think of it as a destination instead of a journey...happiness does take work ya know. I dunno Fallyn...I've seen enuf and been thru so much that in some cases, its good to be and let be...

• uniquely-ironic said on Jul 28, 2008....

  There are tons of reasons to get married.  Love being among them.  Obviously marrying  because you love someone is the best situation.  But even marrying for love does not always work out.  That being said, why do we make marrying for children, security, companionship, etc sound less noble?  I'm not saying to go run out and get married because you're lonesome and some guy is good company but  if you're at least honest with yourself about why you're getting married than you go into it with open eyes.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 28, 2008....

  To Can't Love Me Enough? (that's the only way my brain processes that combination of letters) I tried for years and years to put that idea out of several of my female friends minds, the I want a baby because he'll love me.  Not only is it insulting to the men in your life because it implies we don't, but to me it's also a horrible reason to want to have a child, if you want to feel loved go buy a puppy. 
   
  @U-I, because marriage for any reason other than love is at best flawed (I won't call getting married for a child ignoble) but it is dumb.  Honestly I'm against marriage in most cases anyway but if you are going to be married it should be for love and you should do it ONCE.  I mean c'mon it's gotten to the point now where it's ok to joke about looking at a girl and saying we'll there goes my future ex-wife, or girls saying oh he's such a bad boy he'll make a great first husband.  And people think I'm evil.

• uniquely-ironic said on Jul 28, 2008....

  SR - I agree, marriage without love is flawed, but sadly it's reality.  Not too long ago women married for security, social standing, etc.  In some cultures love is a luxury in marriage since a person seldom picked their spouse.  All I'm saying is that it's naive to assume that love is the only motive for marriage.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 28, 2008....

  To be fair that was a different world.  Women were property to be bought, traded and sold.  For a woman to marry for less than love was expected, it was literally her duty.  It was her job to give children to men.  For a woman to marry for less than love TODAY is a step backwards.  Personally I like my women submissive so by all means set the clock back but that's what it accomplishes.  In those countries where marriage is arranged, again women are property.
   
  There is a difference also between assuming that love is the only motive for marriage (some times its money, particularly guys in the military) and trying our best to discourage marriage for the wrong reasons which seems to be what people are doing.

• uniquely-ironic said on Jul 28, 2008....

  SR - I hear "Personally I like my women submissive so by all means set the clock back " from time to time from men.  They think if they had a marriage where the women fussed over them and keeping an immaculate home that they'd be happy.  If that's true, I'm very disappointed with them.  I personally would like to find someone I so enjoy being with and who enjoys me that much that their personal flaws seem acceptable.  Be that dealing with a messy house or whatever.  Compliance and servitude are cold companions to the heart, no matter how clean the house is and how delicious the meal.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 28, 2008....

  I said nothing of home and hearth (though I wouldn't complain about either)  I'm not sure where I stand on the personal flaws things, my personal opinion tends to lean towards if you loved them you would help them overcome their shortcomings not ignore them (though how best to do this is a question of intense debate, obviously nagging isn't an option.)  I said I like submissive women. 
   
  That said in general I encourage women to live up to their full potential and all that.  Doesn't mean I like it.

• cntlvmenuf said on Jul 28, 2008....

  SR: Thats me alright (the full username not the later). I do agree that getting a baby to keep a man or get a man is purely selfish....and not only that, the baby may be subjected to a miserable life just coz things didn't work btw the parents. One day the mother might turn around and tell the kid "I did not want you!" Even end up resenting the kid because shes now stuck with a child and the man is nowhere to be found. I think its because the family unit in our society today has lost much of its footing and respect that it used to have in years back, thats why we are seeing such an increase of single parenthoods...and I wont even touch teenage pregnancies. Its also gotta do with how convinient we've become as a generation....the microwave generation where we want everything yesterday. As you said, people will joke "their goes my future ex-spouse" and what do they go out n do??? Marry their future ex-spouse so it comes as no surprise when the future ex becomes a current ex and off they go in pursuit of future soon to be current ex. Actually I think they'd be surprised if the future ex remained their one and only.
   
  People no longer wanna suffer things through...they don't wanna go thru the pains of a long courtship to weed out any reasonable doubt they have before they get married....they do know you can get a divorce with a snap of your fingers. Seriously, in all our wrong relationships there were telling signs that this not gonna work yet proceed we did. The other thing is that society does stigmatize single people. You cant be alone alone ya know...if you not married, be in a relationship, if not in a relationship start dating but please don't be single!! Us women get so many mixed signals that we end up making decisions in haste. Also there is that subliminal message that to some extent, we are still inferior to men. And then the idea that there are so few men to go around.
   
  Anywhos....

• silverwhisper said on Jul 29, 2008....

  i firmly believe that it's too easy to get married. if it was harder, i think we'd see a lot less of this stuff, to be honest.
  
  ed

• RollingC said on Jul 29, 2008....

  Not only is it too easy to get married but it's also too easy to get divorced.  I don't know to what extent making divorce difficult if not impossible would cure, or even send, the message to take marriage more seriously or even improve relationships. 
  I know the Catholic church is now asking young couples to take a class or course in preparation for the married life and it's been going on for some years that I know of.  I think it's too little too late of an effort to educate (which is the real solution I think) people on the ups and downs and meaning of commitment for a married couple to make a lasting marriage and raise a family.
  Rc

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 30, 2008....

  Or maybe marriage itself is the problem.

• RollingC said on Jul 30, 2008....

  Absolutely not.... I don't think marriage itself is the problem. 
  The expectations thereof from each individual is the problem.  Everyone should go into marriage with their eyes open and fully aware of the commitment it takes to make it work before giving in to lust and/or infatuation thinking  "castles in the sky " only to have it come crashing down later when reality or " the Honeymoon's over " phase kicks in.
  Rc
  

• Fallyn said on Jul 30, 2008....

  what of relationships without marriage?
  i mean.....i wasn't even married and we were living as though we were married for ten years....most people who knew us thought we were married.
  
  and i think that the nuclear family being glorified only happened for a very short time in the 50's and early 60's......before that it was clans........aunts uncles cousins grandparents....all living in close proximity of each other.......it wasn't till all the men started coming home from the war in the late 40's that people started living away from their families in any significant numbers. there aregood and bad sides to this.....i mean....it's a lot easier to go against the grain when you aren't living smack in the middle of "the grain"
  
  
  

• silverwhisper said on Aug 01, 2008....

  rollingc: i don't know, i think that some divorces (e.g., las vegas-style) are pretty easy to get, to the best of my understanding. :>
  
  ed

• cotterall&elaineadams said on Aug 02, 2008....

  because they are stupid and only have themselves to blame.

• RollingC said on Aug 03, 2008....

  Silver: That's what I mean.  Divorce is becoming too easy to get. If the we went back to the old fashioned days where divorce was illegal and everybody knew it  (everybody that followed Catholic church laws) don't you think they'd think twice about getting married, thereby making everybody conciously re-evaluate themselves and the situation concerning marriage, that  people would make a concentrated effort to make stronger commitments?
  At least that's my trend of thought which doesn't take away from the fact that miss-marriages would still happen and people would still indulge in extramarital affairs or that one of the married members would make a concious decision to end it by leaving thereby finding what they really want somewhere else.
  I mean people are still going to be people just like always.  I guess the old saying is true that the more things change the more they stay the same.
  Rc

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 03, 2008....

  If divorce was harder to get AND sex and children outside of marriage was destigmatized you'd see less divorce.

  If we kept our current customs though it would probably just result in more miserable people.  Really it's clear that marriage is the problem here and that we in the modern world have no more room for this arcaicpractice

• RollingC said on Aug 03, 2008....

  If it involves children and/or the raising of a family thereof....I favor marriage.
  Rc

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 03, 2008....

  Why?  There doesn't seem to be evidence to to support the hypothesis that people who marry because of children stay together any longer.  There is evidence however that children who's parents get divorced blame themselves. 

• RollingC said on Aug 03, 2008....

  It's my belief that children have a more stable background with two parents (loving parents) than with only one.  Granted kids don't know or care at an early age if parents are married or not but legally it would be better for the children for parents to be married as that's the way society (and laws) are set up on a worldwide basis really.
  Example:
  When my father passed away there was no will.  He had been legally married twice and automatically his properties became the ownership of all surviving members (the current wife, my stepmom, and all children of both marriages). The children of the first marriage ceaded (spelling?) the rights of said properties and business to the second batch of kids (which was the right thing to do). If he had never married the second (or first) time those children (and mother) would have been legally excluded right off the bat.
  Years later my father admitted that he had really wanted a divorce from my mom but because of the children he stuck it out.  30yrs.  The second marriage lasted almost as long.
  Rc
   

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 03, 2008....

  1.  I agree that children have a more stable background with two parents, I'm disagreeing that marriage is required.
   
  2. The legal issues abound, but honestly once you get past a certain age you SHOULD have a will.  I know marriage makes it redundant but still.  I can halfway cede your point. 
   
  3.  The point about your father "sticking it out" for however many years in a marriage he obviously wasn't happy in is EXACTLT my point.  Nobody any where, ever should stick out a marriage.  If you and that other person don't make each other happy anymore then it is time to move on and out of that relationship. 
   
  It doesn't mean that you should abandon your children, but it having children shouldn't be a burden you bear.  Staying in a bad relationship shouldn't be a punishment you suffer for having had kids.

• RollingC said on Aug 03, 2008....

  I see your point about staying in a bad relationship.  My parents were married 'bout 30yrs and how many of those years were happy years and how many were not is beside the point but I do know if it hadn't been for us, the children, it would have been less than that by half maybe.
  Even after the divorce he set a good example. So that gives more value to your argument but he did make sure the kids were old enough to fend for themselves before making the move towards divorce and that's the example of parenting that I have imprinted on as " good " behavior so to speak. 
  But I still would emphasize that in the early years of a child there should be a constant presence of both parents in the household....at least until the child was old enough to be able to handle  it but that's still a touchy issue as what kid wants their parents separating.  Maybe careful explaining/counseling might be the answer to that, I truthfully don't know.
  Rc

• SeanRenaud said on Aug 03, 2008....

  1.  How many years were good an how many were not isn't at all beside the point, in fact to a large degree it is the point.  Which you further back by saying he continued to set a good example even after the divorce.

  2.  Marriage really isn't a prerequisite of living in the same house despite social stigma to the contrary.   We've really changed the world considerably over the last say forty years.  Womens liberation changes damn near everything about how the world functions on a fundamental level and in a lot of ways we're still figuring out exactly what it means.  (Honestly the more and more I listen and pay attention to women I'm begining to think it was largely a mistake just nobody knew then and nobody wants to admit it now.)  But what's done is done so we work with what we have.

• RollingC said on Aug 03, 2008....

  It's a shame that change doesn't come fast enough although I'll concede it's probably for the better.  I've been raised a Roman Catholic all my life but only recently...last 12 years or so...have I really paid attention (or tried to) their teachings.
  Old fashioned they may be and seemingly outdated by today's standards, moral or otherwise, but they are a comfort zone to me.  I do not attempt to judge anybody for that would be imposing my standards on them and frankly I don't care for that either.
  I'll concede...I've done it in the past...that living together and sleeping in the same bed even (!) for a period of time getting to know one another seems, and in practical aspects is, a better way to go before committing yourself legally.
  I'll even admit that the strict rules that the church has about that apply best to the younger crowd...but the word commitment applies to other things beside marriage.
  Once I commit myself to following the rules & regulations of the church what other choice do I have than to follow them as best as possible (heh...perfect I'm not) otherwise I'll actually be a hypocrite trying to fool myself if not others.
  The church believes in marriage so I'll be standing by that.  Sure you don't necessarily have to put up with an unhappy relationship but I still think that marriage is best for raising a family (or reasonable facsimile thereof).
  Hope I'm making sense...
  I just got up and need my breakfast soon...    :^)    Rc
  

• silverwhisper said on Aug 06, 2008....

  rollingc queried:
  if the we went back to the old fashioned days where divorce was illegal and everybody knew it (everybody that followed catholic church laws) don't you think they'd think twice about getting married, thereby making everybody conciously re-evaluate themselves and the situation concerning marriage, that people would make a concentrated effort to make stronger commitments?

  
  yes, they would think about it--for about half a second.
  
  rollingc, i don't think any sensible person gets married without thinking they're gonna beat the odds. and sadly, many of them are wrong.
  
  you seem to be suggesting that we should make people live with the consequences of what might be a momentary decision for the rest of their lives.
  
  me, i think that getting married should be harder, myself. i'm thinking that would have the desired effect of discouraging "novelty"/"for the hell of it" weddings, of which i suspect there are altogether too many--esp judging from the divorce rates.
  
  ed

• RollingC said on Aug 06, 2008....

  Marriage to me was never a momentary decision.   
  And yes everyone thinks they'll beat the odds when they get married and I can attest to that.
  :^)
  Rc

• cotterall&elaineadams said on Aug 07, 2008....

  I figure if men and women are equal, then the same moral standards apply to both along with the same right to personal choice and personal responsibility. This negates blaming someone else. Patriarchy and double standards have passed on. Maybe I sympathize with a victim of human trafficking, domestic violence or sexual harassment/assault.
  
  I do not sympathize with (or judge or hate or even care about) some poor upper-class housewife who divorces a man for no reason, plays the 'innocent martyr' and claims to be perfect and blameless through the marriage when she did things: adultery, verbal abuse, hitting, abandonment, spending large amounts of money, drug addiction, theft, reliance on others for caretaking of children, refusal to work, making man work seven days a week, refusing to cook and clean, etc. And then this woman demands custody of the kids and the house and half his income. Alimony and child support are really for middle class and working class women to get back on their feet. Alimony should be only for those who need it and to get back on their feet. I think what you bring into the marriage you should get out of it, not someone else's share.
  
  You can work. You want to make money? Keep working. For someone to expect the right to stay at home forever dependent on someone else in this age is just arrogant. And then to expect lifetime maintenance and get upset about working after a divorce (eighty-five percent of divorces filed by women, some for good reason, others for not). Ridiculous. It is like being on welfare and having five kids in ten years to avoid work...most single mothers do not do this. Insist that perhaps teenage pregnancy is a bad idea, that men have a right to see their kids, that sometimes they should get custody or joint custody, that they shouldn't be paying alimony five years after a divorce, that some single mothers on welfare abuse the system (ALL OF WHICH IS TRUE) and for some reason you are anti-feminist when you support equal pay for equal work, the right to work, abortion rights and support the anti-pornography, anti-human trafficking movement started by feminists who seek to establish sensitivity and justice on these issues while also pointing out unfairness towards battered women, etc. All of that is supportive of feminism.
  
  Some women are just stupid, arrogant and selfish. They are not a majority but it is better to point them out and make them responsible for themselves instead of feeding the argument that they 'suffer through their plight', a plight that is nonexistent.

• RollingC said on Aug 07, 2008....

  And I also believe that people are responsible for their decisions...momentary or not.
  And thereby suffer the consequences thereof.
  Rc
  

Comment on "marriage, and doing it for the wrong reasons"

Currently tagged	marriage family children women settling Settling Down (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment