Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    I was married much to my dismay only a whole 7 months before my
    step son swung a butcher's knife at my throat. that ended my marriage.
    my ex when put to a decision of putting his child in a school for
    which helps deal in truant/trouble children, he told me to get lost.
      As of today me and my yuppie younger brother who is going through
    a MESSY divorce agree. Marry only when you wnat children, otherwise
    just live with'em. They only difference we can see is the piece
    of paper.
      As a reply today after I opened my eyes the hard way- Marriage?,
    only if my boyfriend and I want kids which is highly unlikely.

    Marriage == Security
    
    Which probably explains why some couples transition into couch tubers
    after a while; they have their security and don't see the need to keep
    putting new excitement into the relationship.  
    
    I think there does appear to be something societal at work which causes
    women to have a higher emphasis, *not* need or desire, for marriage.
    This seems to be esp. true for younger people, although I'll decline to
    give an age here.  Whenever I've been asked, "So when are you going to
    get married?" its always been a woman asking, and usually someone
    who's been married.  If you're ever around little, age < 13, kids
    notice that there is a much stronger emotion on the part of guys
    against the concept of marriage than it is for girls.  As a general
    rule, of course, and mainly in their outward manners.
    
    As for a need to get married and the statement that "marriage does not
    mean stability."  Statistics are one thing; feelings are something
    completely different.  I betcha that if you ask couples about to get
    married most will say that "We plan on this lasting forever."  A major
    goal behind marriage is that it at least indicates the illusion of
    stability, which is something many people like to cling to.
    
    Personally, I don't want to get married just yet.  Although I do find
    myself wondering as I get to know a person if I'd like to spend all of
    my time with them.  As I get older the idea isn't as repulsive as it
    used to be, and a large reason behind that is both security and a
    desire to be around someone I'm completely comfortable with.  My ex-SO
    told me not too long ago that she was surprised I didn't have another
    girlfriend, "You always seem to like getting into relationships where
    you spend most of your time with one person."

       I don't think I'll ever get married again but I would like a
       fairly steady sex/friendship relationship. I was married 15 years
       and some of it was good and some of it was bad. Now that it's time
       to eventually do something about a divorce I wished we'd just
       stayed living together and not gotten married.

       It's strange, we haven't lived together for a year now but
       neither one of us seems to get around to doing anything about the
       divorce. In a way it keeps me safe, I can't fall off the deep end
       about somebody and get married cause I already am. For all the
       hurt that has happened we still talk on occasion and seem like
       friends, laughing at each others jokes and discussing problems.
       We just don't do it often. 

       There is a song with the line "if I could be 16 again and know
       what I know now". The ultimate wish. I'd know marriage is more
       for children than adults. If you aren't going to have kids I
       wouldn't bother. Of course, we thought we were going to have kids,
       it just didn't happen, so I guess that's the breaks. I have
       learned one thing, you make your own security and happiness. No
       one else can do it for you. liesl

         I was all ready to respond, extolling the virtues of...
         not marriage in general perhaps, but at least *some* marriages,
         considering I have been married 16+ years and resemble neither
         a couch potatoe nor a zombie...[grin]
         
         And then I realised that I could not do that for two reasons: 
         
         First...I have a healthy respect for the whim of the "Gods" and
         prefer not to tempt them into prooving how frail is my hold on
         success....
         
         Second...and more importantly...[to me anyway...]...I realised
         that I would never marry again, if unfortunate circumstances were
         to make me available....[what a term!]
         
         I have worked and he has worked seemingly every hour of every day,
         [unrealistic numbers but it sure *seems* that way sometimes], to
         make *it* work...sometimes it flows smoothly and other times it
         ressembles a blasting zone...[humor...one *must* maintain a sense
         of humor...]...he remains my best friend and a considerate lover
         and a sometimes unpredictable foe...[husbands are people too, they
         can be the *other* guy as well as anybody else...]
         
         But I am absolutely certain that I would never relinquish pieces
         of my individuality to another again...I am too old and unbending,
         and have come too far down my own road [with his blessing I might
         add..] to ever be able to make the sacrifices necessary to get
         over the bumps for another ride...
         
         I am not even sure...[in fact fairly sure that I wouldn't, actually]
         ...that I would want a steady love interest...I would want friends,
         [I have some of those now...really!]...and I am not about to give
         up sex...but they would have to be apart from me I think...solitude
         appears such a lovely thing from my current perspective..
         
         So, Thank you (.0)...you really made me think about this, and I
         find I was not alltogether sure of my own mind...neat experience!
         
         Melinda

    Emotionally I don't think it matters, love and commitment shouldn't
    change just because you have a piece of paper that says you went
    through a ceremony to say you love each other and are commited to
    each other.  I have friends who have lived together for about 
    6 1/2 or 7 years and couldn't have a much better relationship, a
    lot of married couples could probably learn from them.
    
    On the legal side there are numerous pros and cons...
    
    I know people who have gone through h__l because of their divorces
    and some people who are staying in a situation they aren't happy
    with because they don't want to have to go through divorce.
    
    I have a friend who recently lost their SO and had to wait for a
    family member to fly to Boston from N.J. to make the funeral
    arraingments because they couldn't sign anything, even though
    they had been living together for a number of years.
    
    There can be financial advantages either way, tax advantages, social
    security benefits, etc.
    
    IMO everyone should decide for themselves what is best.  You just
    have to THINK things thru (What if _____ happens???)

    I think the older you get, the easier it is to appreciate marriage.
    I remember saying, "i'll *never* get married."  Now I know never
    say never!  I'm one of those woman dying to get married.  And let's
    be fair to marriage.  Anything worth having, is worth working for.
    
    Notice how hard some people work at their jobs to achieve success!
    
    Nothing in life (with the exception of nature [excluding people])
    is perfect.  It's unrealistic to think that two people can have
    a relationship for a lifetime without problems.  
    
    Don't you have disagreements with your friends?  Don't they aggravate
    you at times?  It doesn't mean you give them up.  You tolerate their
    differences and points of view, because that's what attracted you
    in the first place.
                       
    
    Sure, many times, I've told my friends that my SO was a ding-bat
    for doing such and such.  Big deal.  It doesn't mean I don't love
    him.  It means he did something I wasn't crazy about.  And, I'm
    well aware that this situation works in reverse.  If he tells his
    friend that I'm a pain in the *ss, I'm not going to consider terminati
    ng my relationship, because I know.....I *can* be a MAJOR pain in
    the ass.  But that's part of being in a relationship, any relationship!
    
    Think about it.....friends, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters,
    children, coworkers........
    
    So why do people get married?
    
    Why am I getting married?
                            
    There is a difference between living together and being married.
    Living together = no committment.  The doors always open, and you
    know it because you're tho one who left the door open.
    
    I've found someone who I don't want to be without.  Someone I feel
    connected with.  Someone who can look at me without saying a word
    and communicate a 1000 words.  Someone who will make a good father,
    lover, friend, companion.  Someone who will always think I'm a pain
    in the *ss, but regardless, will still be hanging around when I'm
    old and gray.              
    
    We want to tell the world 'we love each other.'  We want committment.
    
    Life doesn't end when you get married.  It's two individuals, each
    being who they want to be, together.

    re .6
    
    You commented that the difference between living together and marriage
    was that living together = no commitment, while marriage = commitment.
    
    I don't agree.  I've been living with my SO for longer than most folks
    I know have been married.  I see our commitment as being renewed
    every day that we're together.  We have an active commitment.  The
    door is always open, yes, but I like it that way.  I like knowing that,
    despite the fact that no law says "you must" to my SO, every day he
    chooses to stay.  And every day I do also.  In addition, knowing that
    we CAN walk out tempers our treatment of each other.  We don't feel
    confined by a legal commitment, which reduces frustration - we're not
    stuck with the situation.  Also, we each know that the other can
    choose to leave if things get too bad, and leave without too much
    legal hassle, and that means we tend to patch things up and SOLVE
    problems rather than letting things fester.
    
    Things are not perfect - I have never seen a perfect relationship.
    Our solution would not work for everyone.  But I don't see marriage
    as a way of providing commitment, or ensuring that commitment will
    continue.  And I don't think you are correct in thinking that not
    being married indicates a lack of commitment.
    
    PS.  I'm getting gray, and he's still here.  ;-)
    
    --Louise

    I was, what I would call, single from age 17 to 23, happily married
    from age 23 to age 30, unhappily married from age 30 to age 35,
    and divorced from age 35 to age 39 (the present).  I would honestly
    have to say that the happiest so far was being happily married,
    the unhappiest being unhappily married with being single and divorced
    somewhere inbetween!!  So, maybe I think that with marriage you
    can get either the best or the worst, but if you want a chance at
    the best you have to be willing to take the risk.
    
    Aside from personal feelings, I want to mention what .5 touched
    on, and that is that certain laws need to be changed in order to
    make long term live-together relationships as desirable as marriage,
    legally speaking.  As .5 mentioned if an unmarried SO dies, legally
    if you are not married, you are nothing, and you can do nothing.
     Not to be materialistic, but if you are married and your spouse
    dies without a will you will automatically inherit everything. 
    (My mother did.)  But, if you are unmarried, you'll inherit nothing
    not stated in a will, and even then his or her children or parents
    could contest it.  Also, if your unmarried SO is seriously injured
    you won't even be the one notified - it's next of kin.  You may
    not even be able to get in to see them before they, perhaps, die
    because you weren't related by law.  Morbid thoughts, but true.
    
    Another fact is that if you are married and have children the husband
    of the mother is automatically held legally responsible for any
    children she has (even if some other man is biologically the father).
     But, if a woman is unmarried and has children she has to either
    get the man to agree that he is the father, and agree to putting
    his name on the birth certificate, or she has to go after him with
    a paternity suit.  A messy situation for everybody.
    
    Also, if a woman is married and her husband dies she is eligible
    for widow's benefits.  Even if she doesn't have minor children she
    gets a small lump sum.  Unless some of these laws change, marriage
    is going to be desirable to some women (especially since most women
    still earn much less than most men- hey, if you can't get industry
    to pay you a decent wage, maybe you can marry a guy who does get
    a decent wage - all women can't be engineers, doctors, or truck
    drivers).  Most women don't make enough money to raise kids, so
    if they want children it's best to get married first so you have
    a guy who will legally be forced to support them even if he doesn't
    want to.  You guys shouldn't be too hard on young women for wanting
    to get married.  Society is set up for women to be married, and
    a lot has to change before it will seem truly undesirable to the
    average woman.
    
    Aside from the above, and on a more personal level.  Since I've
    been divorced I've lived with 2 different men, and I've noticed
    that live-in non-married relationships are just not taken as seriously
    by anybody I've dealt with - their family, their friends.  When
    I got married to my ex, even tho I didn't get along well with my
    ex-in-laws, I was still to a certain degree, embraced into the family.
     I was their daughter-in-law.  It meant something to them.  I had
    become a person to be reckoned with in their life.  Not so the two
    live-in boyfriends families.  They were nice to me, but I always
    had the feeling (deep inside) that I was really "some woman so and
    so has shacked up with."
    
    Two incidents stand out in my mind about living together arrangements.
     First, one live in boyfriend was philosophically opposed to marriage
    (to put it mildly).  Fine.  But, when his mother called one night
    to say that his younger brother had just married a young woman he
    had only known for a couple of months, my former SO said, "Well,
    what's her name?  What's she like?  Now that she's going to be my
    sister-in-law I may as well know something about her?"  Afterwards,
    I said, "Hey, since when does sister-in-law mean anything to you?
     I thought you didn't even believe in that stuff?  Now, all of a
    sudden there's significance that your brother married this girl?
     What's the score?"  He said, "OK.  OK, Sometimes I'm a victim of
    society's thinking, too.  Alright?  Give me a break!"  (Still I
    was hurt.  I thought, "Ah, so it *does* still "mean something" to
    him.)
    
    Another scene with another SO:  relationship agreed to as living
    together, non-married, monogamous, I found out possible attempt
    or acceptance of date with another woman may have gone on behind
    my back, I question it, only to have SO scream at me, "I'm not married
    to you!"  Oh, OK.  I get it.  Monogamy is only a joke, then, if
    you're not legally married?  Fine.  I'll remember that.  (I've
    remembered it.)
    
    I've always wondered about this:  if a man really, really, loves
    a woman, does that mean he'll want to marry her?  - despite what
    his views on marriage are.  What other way do we really have in
    our society to tell somebody that we really are committed to them,
    and really do plan to spend the rest of our lives with them (unless
    we get sick of each other first), but that we at least would like
    it to last forever, that we really mean it - except to marry them?
    
    Given that, is not wanting to marry somebody, regardless of our
    views on marriage, just another way of saying - I don't really love
    you that much?   I don't know.
    
    Do I ever want to get married again?  I don't know.  I don't know
    if *I'll* ever love anybody that much again myself.  I want love,
    friends, and good sex, but I'm not sure about marriage.
    
    Lorna
    

Several of the replies so far have mentioned the desire to have children as
being the reason for marriage. Even if you are planning to have children, why
get married? 

The desire to have children as a reason for getting married seems a bit like
stating a desire to wear a tuxedo or bridal gown or a wedding ring is a reason
to get married.  Not quite but the idea is there.

I know two women who wanted to bear children but didn't want to marry. Both are
now mothers and one has not seen nor had contact with the father of her son
since the night of conception.  Somehow I admire that over the told-again story
of the couple who "had to get married".  And it makes far more sense than
marrying someone because he fathered her child or she is bearing his.

And what's so great about commitment in a society where promises of commitment
usually have an unspoken disclaimer:  "'Til death do us part.. (or something
better comes along, or I get tired of your nagging - your friends - your
sloppiness - being tied down - sleeping with the same person - your snoring -
your bad breath - your cats - your Patrick Swayze / Sybil Danning blow-up
doll...)  I dont' think, as Lorna mentioned, that not wanting to marry
someone necessarily means that you don't love them.  Perhaps you'd rather
not see something good decompose into something bitter.

I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade (or outdoor wedding ceremony),  but I
gotta call 'em as I sees 'em. 

Kris

    

     My SO and I have been living togethe for almost 15 months now and
    we have discussed the "WHAT IF PREGNANCY" I said no big deal your
    the dad and I'm the mom and the kid has 3 stepbrother/sisters and
    x amount of aunts and unles and most important he/she is going to
    be loved alot.
     He posed a problem, "Do I have insurance to pay for the dr.'s bills
    or the hospital's bills? I replied no but you (SO) have BC/BS and
    he replied that the insurance i only good if he is married to the
    woman having the baby. 
      Just another reason why I think marriage is to hve kids only. 

    
    I think the person that said their relationship with their SO was
    "enriched" by the fact that they *weren't* married had a valid point.
    I also "live in sin" (ha ha, my favorite expression) with my SO,
    and I think our relationship is also strengthened by the fact that
    we aren't married.  Like she said, we stay together because we *want*
    to, and not because we are "legally bound" or whatever.  With a
    live-in situation, each person feels much freer to leave than in
    a marriage, which has both pros and cons.
    
    Living together isn't held together with the same cement as a marriage.
    This helps a lot when the inevitable feelings of being "trapped"
    or "missing out" come along.  That's how it works well for me. 
    I've seen (though not firsthand) what divorce can do, and I'm kind
    of leery of marriage for that reason.  Sometimes I find myself feeling     
    a little overwhelmed by it all, butI can keep those feelings under
    control by reassuring myself that I'm not "bound" or "stuck with"
    anything, and the door is open if that's what I want.  It keeps
    me sane.  If we were married, I think I'd be very overwhelmed by
    the commitment/finality of it all and would drive myself and my
    SO crazy over it, possibly ruining the relationship in the process.
    With living together, if it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out.
    One of you moves out, you divide up any communal property and that's
    that.  There isn't a big cloud over your head that you "failed"
    at marriage.  I don't know myself, but I think that there must be
    a big sense of failure in divorce, that you took eternal vows and
    couldn't keep them.  That the "forever" you banked on didn't happen.
    With living together, I don't get all wrapped up in "forever."
    Living together makes a big statement about a relationship.
    
    It's harder to "hold onto someone" when you aren't married, you
    haven't made the Final Commitment to each other. But, on the
    other hand, if the relationship isn't strong enough to stay together
    without the piece of paper, do you really want it anyway?  It's
    easier for someone to walk out of the relationship, but if that's
    what they want, it's best for both parties if they are able to.
    
    "Playing house" with my SO works for our relationship.  It offers
    both freedom and commitment at the same time.  We both know we're
    there because we want to be.  If things continue the way they are,
    someday we might get married, but anything can happen.  I think
    it's good practice for marriage, we know that we *can* live with
    each other in harmony.  We've already made the compromises and
    acceptances that come with marriage.  If we ever do, I know we'll
    be good at it and it will last.
    
    Stacie

    Re .9, Kris, most women still do not make enough money to raise
    a child on their own income.  The only way to make sure that the
    father is committed to help financially (without going to court)
    is to be married to the father.  Therefore, most women cannot afford
    to have babies by themselves even if they want to.  Also, if all
    women stayed single and kept their babies to themselves and raised
    them alone, how would men who want kids get them????  Unmarried
    birth fathers have to go to court to get legal rights to visit their
    children, if the mother doesn't want them involved.
    
    Re .11,  my experience is that people with your attitude towards
    commitment and love just want to "have your cake and eat it too".
     You really don't want to be committed to anybody.  You want to
    be free to take off alone whenever you want yet, in the meantime,
    you want all the benefits of love, marriage and commitment.  If
    you're both happy with that then *I* certainly have no problem so
    no flames, please.  But, my experience in life leads me to view
    the situation the way I do.
    
    I see nothing wrong with living together lifestyles.  I just give
    them the amount of commitment and loyalty that my life has taught
    me they deserve.   (Of course, I think everyone who gets married
    should live together first as a trial run.  Crazy not to.)
    
    Lorna
    

         The following is part of my reply to this note when it was
         placed in the SINGLES file....following it are additional
	 comments...
	  
                <<< HIT::USER9:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SINGLES.NOTE;10 >>>
                 -< DEC Singles Employee Interest Conference >-
================================================================================
Note 2191.1                How important is marriage?                     1 of 8
SSDEVO::GALLUP "UA -- u'r hot, 'Cats!"               37 lines   6-JAN-1989 19:25
                  -< she's DELIRIOUS....shoot her.....  8^) >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


	 oh....rik sawyer....where are you?  a topic JUST FOR YOU!
	 8^) 8^)  8^)  8^)

	 

	 I, too, have known a lot of people who's goal is "to be
	 married."  Personally, I figure if that was my goal, I've had
	 more than enough opportunities...  8^)

	 Seriously now, I would love to be married......someday,
	 because commitment is important to me.  I love that feeling I
	 get when I know someone loves me and is committed to me.  I
	 like to know someone special is there and needs me to care
	 for them and vice versa. Being married for the sake of being
	 married is wrong to me, though.  I've seen it happen too many
	 times and not once have I seen it work out well--unfortunately.

	 Now, we can get into this rigamoroll about how you don't need
         marriage to have all that....just LIVE together for goodness
         sake. A piece of paper, to me, is important...It makes you
         take an even harder look at the relationship before you break
         it up...because WHEN and IF I get married, its going to be to
         someone that is VERY VERY special and important to me...if
         the relationship is going to end, I want the security of
         knowing that we've both taken a good hard look at
         it...instead of just walking away when the going got tough. 

	 IMHO.....

	 kath

	 ********************************************************

	 First of all, as expected, this note is getting completely
	 different views than it did in the SINGLES
	 file...understandable because the majority of the people
	 replying in here have been married or are currently in a
	 live-in type relationship.

	 The responses in here have been VERY eye-opening to me.  I,
	 for one, do not want children, so why should I get married?
	 Well, my feelings still hold as stated above, but I think
	 when the time comes for me to consider either sort of
	 relationship, I'll have to take a good hard look at what I
	 want out of it and which is better for me at the time.

	 Right now I seem to be getting just a little confused... More
	 comments on this subject would be GREATLY appreciated!

	 Hummmm..........

	 -k

    Before I start, I feel I must warn you - I am somewhat disgusted
    with many of the replies in this note.  With that disclaimer:
    
    1) I have heard a great deal in here about how living together shows
    the ultimate in commitment.  After all, if the law doesn't say you
    MUST stay together, what else could you call it?  Well, to this
    I say HOGWASH.  To live together and not get married shows the ultimate
    in fear.  If two people are truly in love with each other, then
    they would welcome and cherish being married, no matter what
    difficulties may lie ahead.  To not get married only leaves a
    convenient door to leave "when the going gets tough".  To get married
    shows the other person that you love them so much that you WANT
    to spend the rest of your life with them.
    
    2) TEST DRIVE A CAR?  HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY EQUATE GETTING MARRIED
    WITH TEST DRIVING A CAR?  THAT ANALOGY IS SO LUDICROUS THAT I WON'T
    SAY ANY MORE ABOUT IT.
    
    3) Children - I firmly believe that if a couple plans on having
    children, then they should marry.  There are many reasons for this.
     Some legal ones include that sometimes only one of the parents
    is allowed to permit medical care (see some of the notes about custody
    and the respective rights).  Also, children need the security of
    a solid home.  How solid can a home be if either of the parents
    feels that they can get out any time they want because they are
    not married?
    
    4) Money - It is unfortunate that some women still feel they are
    unable to get competent, well paying jobs.  But I don't honestly
    believe that they are marrying for this reason.  There are many
    other issues arising around money.  For example, the insurance
    discussion earlier.  One person's insurance will not cover the other
    person, because they are not a spouse.  I believe that this should
    remain so.  Otherwise, what is to stop a person from simply claiming
    another person is their SO only for insurance reasons?  Another
    issue around money is the transferring of property.  I don't believe
    that some tax benefits can be taken unless the people are married.
    
    5) Divorce - I have experienced a divorce first-hand.  Not as one
    of the divorcing partners.  No, I have been on the side which has
    no say in the whole matter - one of the children.  I will say that
    divorce can be messy and unkind.  But even after having experienced
    all that is involved in this, I believe that I will marry one day.
     There was a time when I was petrified of getting married.  I didn't
    want the hurt that would eventually come at divorce time (or so
    I thought).  I have since realized that divorce is NOT an inevitable
    destination in marriage.  I only wish that more people could come
    to this realization.
    
    I guess what I am trying to say is that marriage can be and is a
    good institution.  How many couples were having problems and because
    they were married worked a little harder to make it work and were
    glad of it later?  No marriage is all roses.  But there is something
    between people which says that I will work as hard as I can to make
    you happy.  When the people decide not to marry, how can there not
    be some shred of doubt in the back of their minds?  Is this not
    the ultimate reason for not getting married?
    
    I sometimes wonder if our society's problems are the cause of people
    not getting married or a result of it?  In many ways, I think it
    is a result.  The free generation (my generation, by the way) of
    the 60's turned society on it's ear.  I am not saying this was totally
    wrong.  But I am saying that maybe people have gone too far in looking
    for what only makes themselves immediately happy.  Maybe if they
    looked for what would make them happy over the long term?
    
    Well, I have probably not stated my feelings in the most coherent
    manner, but I hope that I have expressed my sadness at the non-marriage
    arguments and my hope that society as a whole will continue this
    move back towards solid families and marriages.
    
    Ed..
    

    i want to get married again...but I will never get divorced
    again...guessthat cuts down my chances, doesn't it??
    
    is marriage really the chief cause of divorce????

    ED,
    	1) I'm not saying that living together is the ultimate in
    commitment.  I'm saying it's the kind of commitment that works
    best for our situation.
    	2) You don't know our situation.  How can you say we're
    afraid of marriage?  How can you say that if the going gets tough
    than we'd split up?  I guess you've never lived with someone who
    gets a long-term unknown debilitating neural illness, if you don't think
    the going is tough for us.  I think a lot of married folks would have
    split up over this a long time ago.  His former wife thought so, too.
    
    --Louise

    Re.16  Louise
    
    Very well said.  Living together works best for me *for now*.
    Can't say what's going to happen in the future, who knows I could
    change my mind tomorrow and want to get married and have a dozen
    kids.
    
    Re. 12  Lorna
    
    No flames.  What you are saying is essentially true.  I want the best
    of both worlds right now.  I want my SO, and a committed relationship,
    and prefer to think of our arrangement as a stepping-stone to marriage.
    Dating/Monogamous dating/Living together/Marriage.  I also want
    freedom to grow and learn in the meantime and be sure that a lifelong 
    commitment to this person is what I want.  We take our relationship 
    very seriously and talk about the future.  We aren't *living* for the 
    future, though.  Taking things day-by-day is what makes our
    relationship work.  
                 
    At this point in my life I feel ready for this type of deeply committed
    relationship,as does my SO, and not a lot would change if we got
    married tomorrow.  But the fact remains that though I love him with
    all my heart, I am only 21 years old (he's 24) and I don't trust
    my feelings not to change.  The past 5 years of my life have been
    growing and changing years, it's only natural.  I have found that
    I can feel a feeling with all my heart one month and a few down
    the road it doesn't even seem like *me* who felt that way.  I have
    to be fairly certain that I am ready to make a decision that (to
    me) is irreversible, and right now, I can't do that.
    
    I might like to have a child in 6 or 7 years, and I'd like to be
    married if I do.  If things stayed the way they are until then,
    I'd be happy as a clam.
    
    Stacie
     

    I think in my heat of disgust, I may have intimated that I was
    referring to a specific reply.  I was not.  I was saying that I
    personally feel that a couple that lives together with NO plans
    of marriage is not willing to fully commit to each other.  As with
    all things, there are always exceptions to the rule, or reasons
    I cannot immediately think of, for not immediately getting married.
    I admire someone who is willing to assist a person that has an illness.
     It is a more difficult situation that not all persons could handle.
    
    Nonetheless, I still feel that those persons who try to make the
    argument that living together is a way of showing more committment
    than getting are only trying to explain away their fear of a different
    kind of committment.  One which shows their spouse how they truly
    feel.  I think the increased use of SO is an unfortunate outcropping
    of this fear of marriage.
    
    One other thing I forgot to mention earlier is that I don't agree
    with the person who said the laws should be changed to encourage
    people living together.  On the contrary.  Why should we encourage
    people living together instead of marriage.  If we were to change
    the laws, there would be too much room for controversy and problems,
    not to mention the fact that it would be in a direction which I
    don't believe is good for the country.
    
    So, if I in any way made anyone feel I was singling them out, I
    apologize.  I was only speaking for my opinion.  I do, however,
    understand, that there are always exceptions to the rule.
    
    Ed..
    

    
    well, i have to agree with ED.
    The feeling i get from most of the replies so far is fear.
    Seems marriage is viewed as some sort of trap, or some relic
    that no longer has any use.
    
    seems to me most of the reasons i've heard people give for 
    getting a divorce are, "*I* grew and he/she didn't", "*I* felt
    like i was drowning/trapped", "*I* wasn't being treated properly"
    and i've even heard "*I* wanted to hang out with the guys more"
    (believe it or not).  seems every reason i've heard begins 
    with "I".
    I don't know....people seem to think the only thing that matters
    in this life is their own self centered gratification (immediately
    if you please).  So the live together situation is ideal for this.
    
    You know its too bad that there seems to be no respect for the
    elderly and ancestors in this society (if its not new fresh and
    happening its not worth bothering about).  What does everyone
    think?  That all our ancestors were idiots.  OR perhaps, we think
    that society today is so very different, well, isn't the old
    saying "the more things change the more they stay the same"
    
    i only hope that within the next ten years or so, society is
    able (with a lot of hard work and self-rightousness) to confuse
    things even more.
    
    bewildered
    

    No, marriage is not necessary; however, there is a real difference
    between being married and living together.  There is a feeling of
    committment that I have never found in a live-in arrangement.  I
    have found that there is more of a sense of building "our" future
    in marriage.  I am not criticizing any of you who prefer the live-in
    arrangement; after all, whatever you feel comfortable with and whatever
    makes you happy is right for you.  I am simply stating what I have
    found to be true for me.  Marriage has offered me a degree of
    companionship that I never found outside the relationship.  It's
    a good feeling, and I feel that I made the right decision.
    
    Barb

    
    re.20 "Whatever you feel comfortable with and whatever makes you
    happy is right for you"
    
    as a book i read once would say, "this is wrong thinking" --
    isn't this basically saying, "As long as you get everything 
    you want then things are great"?
    
    

    
:    re.20 "Whatever you feel comfortable with and whatever makes you
:    happy is right for you"
:    
:    as a book i read once would say, "this is wrong thinking" --
:    isn't this basically saying, "As long as you get everything 
:    you want then things are great"?

	 would you prefer that someone did something they were not
	 happy/comfortable with just to make you happy/comfortable?
	 Making the other person in the relation as happy as possible
	 is definately a commendable thing to do, but in the meantime
	 you cannot compromise your happiness/beliefs.  That would be
	 equivalent to basing the relationship on a lie...

	 kath   
    

    
    re.22
    
    My only concern is my partner's happiness, and my partner's only
    concern is my happiness.
    i would be perfectly willing to compromise my happiness to make
    a loved one happy.
    i don't see this as compromising any beliefs -- if two people 
    don't have the same basic beliefs then they shouldn't be together
    in the first place.
    
    my happiness is an inconsequential thing.
    
    Bob (the hypocrite)
    

    re .19
    
    As you put it, "self centered gratification" seems to me to be the
    reason why many people get married.  The gratification which comes with
    the marriage is at least as self centered as ideas you've expressed.
    "*I* am now married", "*I* am part of something important", "*I* can
    now make demands on my partner and she/he has to comply", "*I* now
    have an alternate source of income so *I* can have babies". Seems every
    reason I've heard for being/getting married begins with "I".
    
    There is no one in the world who is so giving as to not consider
    the impact of any event on their own lives.  Altruistic behaviour
    runs rare in humans as a species not just this generation.  To get
    married rather than live together just because it shows less
    "self centered gratification" sounds rather ridiculous.
    
    The mere fact that you associate gratification with "the live in
    situation" indicates that there is, in your mind, more gratification
    in this arrangement than in marriage.
    
    Questioning the validity of marriage does not indicate a lack of
    respect for the elderly nor for my ancestors.  My ancestors held
    beliefs which I would find laughable (like women are less capable
    than men except when it comes to having and raising babies).  Maybe
    marriage is one of these ideas.
    
    Lastly, hard work is fine but self righteousness is a dangerous
    mode of thought.
    
    Kris

    
    Boy, Kris, we really have the anti-marriage glasses on, huh?
    and a thick pair at that...well, nothing wrong with that....
    well, not any more wrong than me having marriage glasses on.
    (not that i'm dying to get married)
    
    i'd say you made some assumptions about my points in note .19
    that i wouldn't agree with at all, but i don't think any
    points i made would get you off the marriage is useless wagon.
    
    i'd say you've already answered your own question.
    (you enetered the base note, didn't you? not sure now)
    
    Bob
    

    Actually, Bob, it's hard to tell from the notes I've posted here
    but I don't consider myself anti-marriage.  I just need some
    enlightenment to the reason why people think it's a good thing.
    It seems to come up alot with the people I date and I find that
    the attitude a person has about marriage will turn me on or off
    more than just about any other topic.
    
    The first pass diagnosis is that people who maintain sceptical views
    about the motives for marriage are afraid of commitment.  I don't think
    that's the case.  I am committed to many things; excellence in my job
    (are you reading this Mr. Olsen), supporting my parents through their
    retirement, supporting my siblings through their university education.
    From my point of view it's not marriage that gets me going but rather
    the unfounded importance that many people put on marriage that is the
    most irritating.  It is, like I mentioned in the base note, the
    perception that marriage is a goal to be achieved, like graduation day,
    that has me perplexed.
    
    And in the midst of it all I see a mad scramble to snap up elligible
    members of the opposite sex.  As if we could justify our own existence
    in terms of our marital status or the desireability of our spouse.
    
    I'll keep my anti-marriage glasses in the drawer and only wear my
    anti-marriage contact lenses.
    
    I didn't mean to pounce, really.
    
    Kris

    Possibly relevent fact: I am married.
    
    Interesting gotcha of Fed Tax laws:
    
    	Before I got married, I worked out the tax implications.
    	It's costing us two hundred dollars a month to be married.
    	This is hardly evidence of a "pro-marriage" slant in society
    	at large. We got married anyway.

    Historical observation:
    
    	Marriage is a human universal.  My anthropology text had
    	only one example of a society which did not recognize
    	man-woman pairings, and even there, such pairings were
    	the normal rule (they were just not formally recognized).
    
    	Other peoples in other times have had more than one kind
    	of marriage.  During the Roman Republic, you could be married
    	high-style, where divorce was impossible, or low-style, 
    	where divorce was possible.  There were also different
    	laws about property for the kinds of marriabe.
    
    Prediction:
    
    	What we are seeing with "living together" (and the
	de-criminalization of homosexuality, for that matter) and
    	the consequent social pressure for legal recognition of 
    	such pairings for purposes of inheritance, medical
    	emergencies, insurance, palimony and so on, is the creation
    	of a new, "low-style" marriage in our society.
    
    	I predict this will achieve legal form within the next
    	fifty years.
    
    			-John Bishop

::    my happiness is an inconsequental thing    

	 my partner (if I had one) would be my utmost concern too, but
	 a relationship can only last so long when one person is
	 unhappy.

	 k

"I have heard a great deal in here about how living together shows the ultimate
in commitment.  After all, if the law doesn't say you MUST stay together, what
else could you call it?  Well, to this I say HOGWASH."

I don't think that that is what is being said.  What I hear is that some people
think that the pressure of being legally bound would ruin an otherwise good
relationship.   It does not necessarily mean a lack of commitment.  It does not
mean 'scoot when the going gets rough'.

You think that these people are motivated by fear...  Perhaps... but the best
action might not be to get married in spite of that fear, and have it blow up in
your face.  The best action might be to not get married for some people. 

'women need to get married to have children'

This really makes me boil!  I don't see any MEN saying 'I have to get married if
I want to have children', even though it is AT LEAST as necessary for men to
marry if they want to have kids, and legally MUCH more necessary.

Sometimes it seems like the progression is 'women want monogamy', 'women want
marriage', 'women want children'; and TO HELL with whatever men may want. It
makes me think that every male should get a vasectomy at puberty so that they
are the ones who are going to have to make a conscious decision and act on it if
THEY want to have children.  And if they don't want to have children... they are
just fine... no worries about being roped into a situation they don't want to be
in. 

... we now resume our regularly scheduled broadcast...

Sure there are plenty of people who manage a consensus on having children or
not.  But it does also happen that men get trapped into situations they don't
want to be in.   Where do you think all those angry men come from?

Right now... it's the only game in town... either you pay your money and take
your chances with a wobbly wheel, or don't play.  At all. 

"I was saying that I personally feel that a couple that lives together with NO
plans of marriage is not willing to fully commit to each other."

Hang a " ..., Now." on the end of that and you might be closer...

'too much emphasis on immediate self-gratification'

I don't think that the attitude being expressed here is 'I want my happiness,
and I don't care about anybody else.'  I think it's more like 'I'd like to be
happy while living a good, ethical, positive life'.

'Our ancestors weren't idiots' 

Most of our social mechanisms were not planned by our ancestors (you seem
to be assuming this), they just grew like Topsy...

"my happiness is an inconsequential thing."

If that is so, why should your mate bother with an inconsequential thing?
It really *isn't* inconsequential!  You can't ignore your own happiness inorder
to make someone else happy, and expect to have a healthy relationship.

I think that a problem a lot of people run into in relationships is that they
settle for the appearance of a happy relationship instead of a *real* happy
relationship.  It is easier to do this when married.  It is easier to be
complacent when married.

Jim.

                
    	Marriage still carries a degree of social importance and your
    "state", be you a "1=married" or a "0=not" definately effects how
    *you* are percieved in this society. If your age is known, the old
    "by now" attitude may become part of the social perception. Whether
    you're male or female carries with it a well defined set of
    expectations relative to marriage and your age. This comes from
    the old time religions of small towns where everyone in the community
    was socialized around the church and Bible.
    
    	I realize that, once many women realize that I'm not married,
    they immediately nix the possibility of being friendly with me,
    because of what that apparent "desire" might imply. If I was married,
    about 17 walls would come down because it would be assumed that
    being friendly - or any association at all - had no such implication.
    Apparently these women feel "safe" associating with a man who's married 
    and "unsafe" even associating with a man who's not. I've even heard
    that the latest "trick" is to "fake" that you're married, as a way
    to meet more women! I've even heard that it feels "safer" to have
    an affair with another *married* person - if you're not *married*
    you wouldnt even be considered, because you just might come back for
    more too soon, not having to contend with your own spouse, I guess! 
    	
    	I'd be willing to accept marriage as a tool used by society
    to allow for an easier interaction between it's constituant people.
    It's a stabilizing agent, via explicit structuring and rules. I 
    dont believe in it's absolute *necessity*, however. I believe that 
    people can choose to feel "eased" all by themselves in any situation 
    and dont need a social structure so they can "just feel OK" without
    working on it. But that's new age thinking and I forgot that today,
    "everyone's" completely at the mercy of their emotions...especially
    in social situations.
    
    	Joe Jas

>>And if they don't want to have children... they are
>>just fine... no worries about being roped into a situation they don't want
>>to be in. 

>>But it does also happen that men get trapped into situations they don't
>>want to be in.   Where do you think all those angry men come from?


	 Whoa!  Wait a minute, Jim....  Am I reading this right?  Let
	 me tell you a little story...this female friend of mine was
	 told by a man (in the heat of passion) that he was
	 infertile... a month later she found out she was
	 pregnant...are you telling me that SHE wasn't roped into a
	 situation that she didn't want to be in?

	 If men would take the time to practice a little bit of birth
         control THEMSELVES instead of shoving it all off on the
         woman, they wouldn't get roped into ANYTHING...  A man that
         gets a woman pregnant brings it on himself from not
         practicing "safe sex."  I don't wanna hear ANYMORE whining
         from men about getting roped into ANYTHING like that....

	 IMHO (of course)....

	 kath

"are you telling me that SHE wasn't roped into a situation that she didn't want
to be in?"

Sure it happens to women too.  That seems to be accepted fact.  The same thing
happening to men, including after the wedding doesn't seem to have the same sort
of emphasis, yet it probably happens at least as often.

"If men would take the time to practice a little bit of birth control THEMSELVES
instead of shoving it all off on the woman, they wouldn't get roped into
ANYTHING..."

Women have a lot more contraceptive options then men do.  Women have at least a
half dozen options.  Men have a choice between a vasectomy and condoms. Most men
hate condoms, and most women will not accept a man with a vasectomy. IME (maybe
I should do a survey?) 

"I don't wanna hear ANYMORE whining from men about getting roped into ANYTHING
like that...."

Being acused of whining seems to be the traditional response to a social
complaint from a man.  I guess men aren't allowed to complain.  What does that
tell you? 

In any case my earlier note was definitely a "flame" of feeling...  I don't
feel like that all the time, just every once in a while... when I'm in a
bad mood...

JMB

    Jim Baranski,
    
    You spoke of ~getting roped into a[n unwanted] situation~ as something
    "happening to men," "at least as often." and stated that you were
    "including after the wedding" as part of that.
    
    I'm sure you have statistics for this, that it's not just something
    that happened to you so that you assume it's universal, so could
    you point me to your source[s]?  Thank you.
    
    You then wrote about contraceptive options, that "Most men hate
    condoms, and most women will not accept a man with a vasectomy."
    I accept the former as true, but I've never heard of the latter
    as a reason for *not* engaging in intercourse with a man.  Where
    did you learn that?  Also, what makes you think women DON'T dislike
    the contraception they use?  (Pills cause nausea, bleeding, etc.,
    IUDs cause infections and sterility, barrier methods require
    *careful* preparation and it's not painless to have your insides
    stretched for a few hours, and foams... are messy and of limited
    effectiveness.  Pick one.)
    
    						Ann B.

RE: .33

	 I was just trying to point out that we are all responsible
	 for our own actions.... If a man chooses to have intercourse
	 without some protection, he then chooses to take the
	 consequences if they arise... Whining about a choice that you
	 voluntarily made is NOT commendable in anyone....either man
	 or woman... If the problem results, well....as the saying
	 goes "You made your bed....now you have to lie in it."

	 If you took the gamble that DEC stock was going to rise
	 (which it dramatically is today...+5) and bought stock...when
	 the price got high and you sold would you deny that the money
	 you made was yours?  Without protection you are gambling that
	 the women will get pregnant....take the consequences..whether
	 good or bad...they ARE yours.....

	 k

Ann, I don't have any data, aside from personal experience and talking to
other men, and to women.  These are feelings that I get back, not data.

I'm not trying to "prove" anything.

"we are all responsible for our own actions"

Right.  Just watch out for people who will try to cloud that in your mind. Just
watch out for the people who tell you that you are responsible for their
feelings.  Don't let someone else tell you that they will take the
responsibility and take care of it, because then you are putting your life in
their hands to do whatever they want with.  Don't let them tell you that they
would prefer to take care of it.  What that means is that they'd rather have
control of it. 

Jim.

I think I understand Jim's point about women not "accepting" a man who says
he has had a vasectomy, in that it comes down to a matter of trust.  How does
he prove it?  A man could question the woman's veracity about using
contraception, but if she is misleading him, she's the one who gets pregnant,
not him.

I find the whole question rather strange, but then again, I wouldn't consider
having sexual relations with a woman whom I didn't trust or who didn't
trust me.


I have some more thoughts on the general issue, but will write about that
some other time.

					Steve

    How about some of the other legal aspects, like death, or injury
    from a bad accident???  My dad lived on and off with a lady friend
    (As the family viewed it) for 15 years after my mother passed away,
    and when he passed away (age 80) The family took over the burial
    responsibilities which unfortunatly included pussing this loving
    partner of my dads into the background. She had no says in any
    of the plans. 
    
    I know that this in it self is not a reason to get married, but
    I do believe that all aspects of a relationship need to be looked
    at, and if two people still choose to live together rather than
    get married, than thats what they should do.
    
    Nils

Steve, you misunderstand me.  When I say that women will not accept a man who
has had a vasectomy, I mean that this method of birth control is unacceptable to
women because SOMEDAY the WOMAN may want to have children, and they will want
the man in question to father the children and support them.  The women are not
willing to accept the 85% chance of reversal.

The problem is not being trusting enough, the problem is being *too* trusting.
Then you are up sh!t's creek for the next 20 years! 

Jim.

	 RE: .38

	 No offense to you at all....since the law says the live-in
	 person has no rights, but its sad that some families don't
	 realize that since the deceased obviously loved this person
	 enough to live with them, this person show be allowed to
	 participate in the burial responsibilities and such...even if
	 its just in a "behind the scenes" capacity...so many times I
	 see the live-in just pushed to the wayside like a piece of
	 baggage. 

	 The live-in's requests can be made public through
	 caring/understanding family members, but it just doesn't seem
	 to be the case too often....sad but true....after all, in a
	 sense, they are still part of the family (just not legally).

	 

    re .39:
    
    Jim,  I would *definitely* accept a man with a vasectomy!  Then,
          I wouldn't have to take birth control pills (which make me
          gain weight and sometimes feel nauseous), and have a tubal
          ligation when I can no longer take the Pill.
    
    
    As far as other thoughts, I went to a party with my SO, whom I feel
    closer to than I ever felt to my ex-husband.  We had been living
    together for several months, at the time.  The people at the party
    were his friends, most of whom I didn't know.  I heard one fellow
    ask another who I was.  The reply was, "That's Reese's date."  Now,
    call me oversensitive, but I resent being called someone's "date"
    when the relationship (in _my_ mind, anyway) was closer than the
    relationship in my marriage!  
    
    Seems to me if you're living together and not married, other folks
    make light of the relationship unless they know you real well. 
    They look at you as some "chick" he's "shacking up with."  From
    my own point of view, marriage offers more opportunities for
    sharing things which might otherwise be difficult to share, legally.
    It opens up possibilities, and I think it's easier to trust in someone
    who has made that commitment.  
    
    I can see not wanting to get married out of fear of losing one's
    individuality.  I think that in a good marriage, there are two
    individuals, and a couple-relationship.  Maybe some marriages fail
    because one or both of the partners lose their identity - that may
    be one of the challenges of making a good, lasting marriage.  But
    I think if you can do it, it's very rewarding.
    
    Paula, who's still figuring it all out.

Marriage is a word.  That word is tied in our society, and in various religions,
to certain formalities.  But what it really MEANS is the joining of two people
as partners in life.  This joining doesn't require any formalities or documents;
it only requires a mutual commitment.

John Bishop commented a while back that the IRS discourages marriage by charging
higher taxes.  That's not entirely true; it's just that what they're encouraging
is the conservative idea of "traditional" marriage, where a single income is
split between two people.  In that case, the married-filing-jointly rate is
better.  Of course, that kind of marriage is increasingly uncommon.  They're
still trying to push back the tide, though; why else trash the "marriage
deduction" (which was at best a token effort at equalization)?

Large segments of society also make it very difficult on people who get married
without the woman changing her name (I know; we did it... the only good part of
getting divorced is that I don't have to see "Mrs. David Butenhof" any more...
at least never from anyone I need to pay attention to).

The emerging picture is very simple.  Our society likes marriage, it encourages
marriage.  But it doesn't think much at all of marriage between EQUALS.  Sorry,
but that's the only kind of relationship I'm interested in.  So our society's
current concept of marriage has nothing to offer me.

Despite all that, I WAS married for 6 years.  After she left, my wife admitted
that she'd never really felt that she could stay with me "forever".  She decided
to get married "because it was the easiest thing to do at the time".  She also
said she felt outside pressure that relationships must end either in separation
or marriage.  And then there was my mother's final try at convincing us;
switching tactics from "you can't be committed without marriage" to "see, you
can have this nice party for everyone, and get presents..."  None of those are
especailly good reasons for getting married.  She apparently lacked the
commitment when we got started... and failed to  magically gain it through the
marriage ceremony.  

My reasons were very different.  I felt complete commitment to her, and had
every intention and desire that we would be together "forever".  But marriage
had nothing to do with this, and I was entirely satisfied with our two years
together before we married.  What finally convinced me was that SHE decided she
wanted to be married.  I never felt any different after we were married; it
wasn't anything more than a piece of paper, really.  Neither is the divorce
certificate.  As far as I'm concerned, I was divorced the day she walked out.
THAT was when I felt "different"... not when the paper came in the mail.

I went a friend's wedding once.  A very religious ceremony, with lots of talk
about how basically terrible and unreliable people are, and how a relationship
can't hope to succeed without a marriage certificate and the constant
intervention of their god.  Without meaning serious offense to marriage or
religious fanatics in the audience, I call this the "I'm slime without God"
philosophy.  I don't believe it.

There's nothing magical about marriage.  What makes a relationship succeed or
fail is inside the people involved in the relationship; not outside in the words
of some official or on a piece of paper.  If you sincerely believe that marriage
is necessary for a permanent relationship, you're probably right: for you.  But
don't delude yourself that it applies to anyone else.  Everybody is different,
and everyone has to live their own lives the way that works best for them.

There's nothing wrong with marriage, but it's just one external symbol for a
relationship.  It's not the only such symbol, nor is it necessarily the best.
I know people who have been through many marriages in a relatively small number
of years; and people who have been living together happily for decades.

So... How important is marriage to a relationship?  As important as it is to 
both partners... the ones who make or break the relationship.

	/dave

    
    Marriage is very important to my wife and myself. It was a means of
    cementing our commitmemnt to each other. 
    
    What I would like to share
    here is that our being married actually at one time saved our
    relationship. We've been married 13 years. At the 7 year mark or so,
    we encountered a very difficult time that lasted for over two years.
    We no longer seemed able to communicate, didn't care if we did,
    I guess we fell out of love for each other. But, because of the
    difficulty involved in divorce we decided to be patient and see what
    would happen. We both considered divorce to be very very unpleasant
    and something to be used as a last resort. Somehow, and very slowly
    I might add, we started to relearn how to communicate again, we
    started to like each other again and I'm glad to say we fell in love
    again. And our relationship has been great ever since. 
    
    I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if we hadn't been married
    (we both acknowledge that) we would have packed our bags and simply
    ended the relationship. Being married somehow gave us an added reason
    to try our damndest to work things out. 
    
    							Hank 

    re .43:  
    
    Congratulations, Hank, I'm glad it worked out!
    
    Paula

.43: That's nice to hear.  But again, everything varies.  My ex-wife didn't
consider divorce enough of a hassle to bother trying to communicate, and I was
never given any choice in the matter.  Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Like I said... it's the people involved, not the formal institution of marriage,
that really makes the difference.

	/dave

    I've lived with my SO and I've been married to my SO, and neither
    relationship worked, but there are some differences. 
    
    The first live-in relationship lasted almost 4 years.  At that time it
    became clear that we wanted very different things out of life and the
    relationship was preventing both of us from getting those things.
    There was, of course, a certain amount of unpleasantness while we
    determined what to do, when who should leave, what belongings were
    whose.  There was NO discussion of finances - they were already
    separate from the beginning, so that part was easy.  Today I think he's
    an OK person with different goals and preferences than mine, and
    all-in-all a pretty good person. 
    
    The second relationship we lived together for a year, became engaged,
    and were married 3 months later.  1 month after the wedding I would
    have walked away if we were not married.  So, instead, we agreed to
    couples counseling.  This made things better for about 3 more months
    when a rapid downward spiral started happening.  We were still in
    counseling, but it kept helping our relationship less and less, but
    helping both of us individually.  After two months I told him I wanted
    a divorce - he laughed at me.  1 month later he told me he wanted one.
    Now we're getting one, and if projections on when the divorce will
    become final hold our entire married life will have lasted a total of
    11 months - 1 month happy, 3 months pretty good, 2 months not great,
    the last 3 absolutely awful. I don't think it could/would have gotten
    this bad if we didn't have to work with the legal system on getting a
    divorce.  If I had it to do over again I WOULD NOT have gotten married.
    The impact of such never ceases to boggle my mind.  I am responsible
    for all debts that he signs for, whether I co-sign or not, or even if I
    don't know about them!  The legal advise I've gotten says to send a
    memo to all creditors that I am not assuming full responsibility for,
    stating "I am not responsible for any debts of (husband's name),
    effective immediately; divorce pending.  Still, I have no guarantee
    that some won't pop out of the woodwork on me sometime later.  In case
    you hadn't figured out by now, I really don't think much of this person
    as a person. 
    
    I sure won't make this mistake again! 
    
    Elizabeth

    
    
    RE: 0
    
    I haven't even begun to read the 46 responses to your original note,
    which in a way, isn't fair.  After I make my own little statement,
    I will work my way thru.  I apologize if I sound repetitve to others.
    
    
    "How would YOU know the difference, from your oh-so-objective point
    of view??"      
             
    Call marriage in the 80's, as monogamy, if nothing else.  If you
    don't, God Bless you, yours and anyone else that's had the pleasure.
    
    
    Now, back to the replies
    Cheryl
    
    

    Re .47
    
        
>    "How would YOU know the difference, from your oh-so-objective point
>    of view??"      
             

     The difference between what?  Monogamy and marriage?  Happiness
    and marriage?  Life and marriage?
    
    
>    Call marriage in the 80's, as monogamy, if nothing else.  If you
>    don't, God Bless you, yours and anyone else that's had the pleasure.
     
    
    Could you clarify this point please, Cheryl?
    
    Kris

    Actually, marriage in the '80s is often deuterogamy.  You won't find
    that word in the little red american heresy "dictionary".  It means
    one spouse after another.  Monogamy means one spouse, period.
    
    --Louise

Kris,

I have not read the subsequent responses. I can only offer my
view. I read Kushner's
_What_Happens_when_all_you_ever_wanted_is_not_enough; in it, the
rabbi suggests that if you never suffered pain, you will never
know freedom from pain. To me, being marriage is like going
swimming, once you're in the water, you're committed to the swim
OR you drown.

I believe that marriage is not for everyone. I am married twice;
my first ended after my spouse died. It took 7 years to
restructure my life before the tragedy was far enough to be
comfortable to start again. Now, I feel like my life stopped at
32 and started again at 42. The years of singleness was great but
it was moment to moment.

Now, there's a son in my life. I see the future in him or the
social need to see beyond my death as Harold Kushner suggests in
the book I mentioned. Part of the "need" for marriage is culture.
Yours may be a different time and different culture. I just faced
my parent's eventual death; a cultural comfort zone was brought
into play since my folks suggests that their death is not tragic;
it's celebration that they lived such a long life.

When I first married, I reflected the difference between my
parents' generation and mine. I am sure that it might be as
differnt as mine as to yours.

cal
with_an_Asian's_insight

I lived happily with the same woman for 8 years (unhappily for 6 months).  We
didn't get married because:

  - We didn't see the point of getting the state or church involved with our
love lives.
  - We didn't want children.
  - Our friends were mutual friends, so there was no need to "announce" our
existence as a couple.
  - Why bother?  (Some element of superstition here - "don't mess with a
good thing".)

We shared property, had close relationships with the in-laws (my parents
referred to her as their daughter, her parents are close to me, her brother
still calls me "brother"), did everything together, and in the last year even
started to become couch potatoes.

If the difficulties of divorce could've forced us to take the breakup more
slowly, than I would be all for marriage.  But there is no international law
requiring a couple to have counselling before divorce.  That being the case,
the split would have happened and the divorce would have been just another
painful thing to get through.

Some replies here state that marriage shows commitment.  Given
the marriages I've seen, I can't see how the ceremony has any effect one way
or the other.  Some also imply that not being married makes you less
vulnerable in some way.  It probably does, in a legal sense, if the breakup
is hostile.  But otherwise, I don't see where the massive differences come
in.  8 years is no "test drive" (: >,)...

Ray