marrying too young...

[old_gregg]

Does it have to be limited to talking about it??

[Jarid in Cedar]

Does it have to be limited to talking about it??

That depends on many, many, external factors

[wuapinmon]

Preemptive strike. TIC. Fell flat.

They make pills for that.

[RobinFinderson]

I've looked in a couple of times over this long weekend and considered writing something in this thread, but up until now, I haven't been able to pull myself away from the family. I had a few minutes last night, but that depressing Lakers game had me in too deep a funk to think about anything else. After fourteen uncontested points by Kobe, they turn to Gasol in the clutch? Blast Gasol! But Deron Williams was looking like a hall-of-famer, and that was fun to watch.

When wuap bumped this thread I had to scan it, and realized that this was the one where I wrote about my general lack of enthusiasm for the institution of marriage. I don't think I ever really made my point very clear, and after PAC wrote his beautiful ode to the meaning of enduring love, what is probably the foundation of all great marriages, I felt that his post didn't deserve to be followed up by any of my niggling about being misunderstood. Now that the thread has been brought up again, I'll go ahead and say a couple of things.

I totally agree with PAC that the kind of love he describes is probably the basis of most enduring, loving relationships, whether they involve marriage or not. I believe in love. I believe in commitment. I believe that both love and commitment can last a lifetime. I feel blessed in my own life to have fallen into a relationship that really feels like it will endure for as long as both of us are alive.

I'm not convinced that marriage is an ideal vehicle for love and commitment. Just this weekend, the ironically intimate-but-distant FaceBook informed me that yet another couple of married friends had changed their relationship status from 'married to...' to 'single' and 'in a relationship.' Most of my once-married friends are now divorced. There are a few bright exceptions, but if Vegas were taking bets on any marriage lasting a lifetime, smart money would bet on divorce.

I don't think that people are more flawed today than at other times. I think that marriage is a flawed institution. It just doesn't work for too many people. I think that everyone would be better off if marriage didn't exist, and instead we were forced to figure out what our relationships would mean without all of the social baggage that come with marriage.

Anyhow, as imperfect as the marriage institution is, it is nonetheless what we've got, and I wish for the happiness and success of all people that choose to give it a try. May everyone find enduring love and commitment in their life, and if for you that happens to come in the package of marriage, you are one of the lucky ones.

[RC Vikings]

I'm not convinced that marriage is an ideal vehicle for love and commitment. Just this weekend, the ironically intimate-but-distant FaceBook informed me that yet another couple of married friends had changed their relationship status from 'married to...' to 'single' and 'in a relationship.' Most of my once-married friends are now divorced. There are a few bright exceptions, but if Vegas were taking bets on any marriage lasting a lifetime, smart money would bet on divorce.

I don't think that people are more flawed today than at other times. I think that marriage is a flawed institution. It just doesn't work for too many people. I think that everyone would be better off if marriage didn't exist, and instead we were forced to figure out what our relationships would mean without all of the social baggage that come with marriage.

Where do kids figure into this? I may be taking this wrong but you seem to be making a case for drifting in and out of relationships looking of love and I'm just not sure how you think this would affect the kids.

[New Mexican Disaster]

I'm just not sure how you think this would affect the kids.

As a family law attorney I feel that I can tell you "not well."

[cowboy]

...I don't think that people are more flawed today than at other times. I think that marriage is a flawed institution. It just doesn't work for too many people. I think that everyone would be better off if marriage didn't exist, and instead we were forced to figure out what our relationships would mean without all of the social baggage that come with marriage...

You may have a point. Perhaps society should learn from its mistakes and keep marriage unavailable for homosexuals. No sense in burdening them with a flawed institution.

[wuapinmon]

I totally agree with PAC that the kind of love he describes is probably the basis of most enduring, loving relationships, whether they involve marriage or not. I believe in love. I believe in commitment. I believe that both love and commitment can last a lifetime. I feel blessed in my own life to have fallen into a relationship that really feels like it will endure for as long as both of us are alive.

Yeah, but your words betray you. You can't totally agree with PAC and then say that you've "fallen" into a relationship.

You may call marriage flawed, but one look at the crime rate in populations with high single-parent birthrates really does a lot more to convince me of the power of marriage than any other philosophical argument out there. Love is an active verb, and I still think you're saying that we are mostly incapable of keeping that up for life.

[fusnik]

RF is telling us he's a swinger.

As for sexual relations, I think its important to kick the tires and check the hood. The wife and I have multiple friends with sexual relations problems that could have been figured out with a couple nights at the local Motel 6.

[RobinFinderson]

You may have a point. Perhaps society should learn from its mistakes and keep marriage unavailable for homosexuals. No sense in burdening them with a flawed institution.

Extending marriage benefits to all worthy couples has always been about fairness, and from my perspective, has never been about what is good for gay people.

Where do kids figure into this? I may be taking this wrong but you seem to be making a case for drifting in and out of relationships looking of love and I'm just not sure how you think this would affect the kids.

I guess you are saying that kids are better off witnessing unhappy marriages? Personally, I would rather that parents separate than play out their misery in front of the children. The best situation for kids is to have a loving adult support network that is invested in their success. When a marriage becomes a distraction from the needs of children, and when at least one half of the couple is no longer willing to work for the success of the marriage, I think that it is best that it end.

One problem with the institution of marriage is that there are many reasons to get married other than the sealing of a couple's mutual love and commitment. Some marry for security. Some marry for status. In the LDS culture, there are strong social and sexual forces that pressure young people toward marriages that may not be based on mutual love and commitment.

RF is telling us he's a swinger.

Funny. I lack three basic needs to be a successful cheater/swinger -- time, money, and drive. Being a good cheater takes a lot of work, and I'm just too busy, broke and apathetic.

Yeah, but your words betray you. You can't totally agree with PAC and then say that you've "fallen" into a relationship.

When I think about the series of events that led up to my happy marriage, I feel like the luckiest person in the world. When I say 'fallen' into a relationship, that is just my way of acknowledging my luck. Far better men than I have failed in marriage. Many things contribute to our marital happiness, but it was luck more than all else that brought us together in the first place.

You may call marriage flawed, but one look at the crime rate in populations with high single-parent birthrates really does a lot more to convince me of the power of marriage than any other philosophical argument out there.

To compare apples to apples, you would need to compare the crime rates in populations with high marriage rates to populations with high levels of non-married, mutually loving and committed couples with children.

Love is an active verb, and I still think you're saying that we are mostly incapable of keeping that up for life.

I'm not saying what you think I'm saying. I do believe in love and commitment for life. To a couple that has a lifelong mutual love and commitment, marriage is superfluous.

[RobinFinderson]

Just curious RF if your parents divorced, or if you grew up in a family where your parents had an unhappy marriage. If you grew up in a fairly functional family, I think it is pretty audacious of you to weigh the value of divorce or not to divorce as it relates to the effect on children. IMHO, children are better off on most measures even in a mostly dysfuntional marriage relationship than living in a single-parent family. Once children are in the picture, marriage couples have an inviolable responsibility to put aside selfishness. Having made the choice to bear children, they better damn well take good care of them. Marriage is a lot of things, but raising children is the primary purpose for preserving that institution in civilization.

Interesting that you would highlight the part where I say that parents would be better to divorce than to play out their misery in front of the kids, but then completely ignore the part where a refine what I mean by that -- "When a marriage becomes a distraction from the needs of children, and when at least one half of the couple is no longer willing to work for the success of the marriage..."

Apparently you think that a marriage so painful that it causes parents to ignore the needs of children is still good for the children. Weird.

[creekster]

Interesting that you would highlight the part where I say that parents would be better to divorce than to play out their misery in front of the kids, but then completely ignore the part where a refine what I mean by that -- "When a marriage becomes a distraction from the needs of children, and when at least one half of the couple is no longer willing to work for the success of the marriage..."

Apparently you think that a marriage so painful that it causes parents to ignore the needs of children is still good for the children. Weird.

Ignore is not distraction; you are changing your position and giving yourself the benefit of the doubt. Lots of things distract parents from the needs of children (jobs, church, message boards, etc.) but that is far different from ignoring those needs. Moreover, I assume you mean long term and systematic ignoring of the needs of children, as opposed to from time to time or here and there. I think SOP's point is that divorce is rarely, if ever, an option that should be pursued 'for the children.' Apart from instances of physical or psychological abuse, it is my opinion that children are almost always better off with both parents at home than with divorced parents, even if the parents are done with each other. Children really don't care too much about the notion of a 'successful' marriage.

In the spirit of disclosure, my parents were divorced when I was 11.

[UtahDan]

Just curious RF if your parents divorced, or if you grew up in a family where your parents had an unhappy marriage. If you grew up in a fairly functional family, I think it is pretty audacious of you to weigh the value of divorce or not to divorce as it relates to the effect on children. IMHO, children are better off on most measures even in a mostly dysfuntional marriage relationship than living in a single-parent family. Once children are in the picture, marriage couples have an inviolable responsibility to put aside selfishness. Having made the choice to bear children, they better damn well take good care of them. Marriage is a lot of things, but raising children is the primary purpose for preserving that institution in civilization.

Respectfully, you must be totally ignorant of how harmful and hurtful it is to children to be raised in a home where parents fight and don't love each other. Where that is the relationship modeled for them and the idea about marriage they take into adulthood. No two situations are alike and I agree with what I think the spirit of your post is, that adults should try to work things out for their kids. But to say that kids are better of in a dysfunctional home than they are splitting time between happy parents just flat wrong.

[UtahDan]

My parents divorced when I was 3. My spouse's parents were divorced when she was about 11.

Divorce has awful and lasting effects on children. Do children of divorce cope? Some do well enough, but I don't personally know any child of divorce who wouldn't have preferred that their parents fix their personal problems and fulfill their roles as parents rather than throw in the towel.

I think I see where you are coming from. But you realize I'm sure that in many cases it just isn't possible. When it isn't possible, it is much better for kids to have happy but separate parents.

[UtahDan]

Hmm. My mother married 5 times, and I had some fairly good first hand experience of decent, awful and average (step)parents, and of single-parenting.

It's ignorant of you to suppose I am ignorant, let alone totally ignorant of this. I am well aware of the damage of abusive relationships on spouses and children. A physically abusive father, for example, has far reaching affect on his children, particularly the males, and their future spousal and parental roles.

To be clear, I am referring to dysfuntional families short of pervasive, chronic abuse.

Fair enough, I made that post before I knew your back ground. My perception is that you are longing for what you didn't have as a kid and assume that it would have been better than what you did have. Based on what you have said here, maybe it really would have been.