Philosophy Now Forum

What makes a good marriage/partnership? Is it in essence an ethical tie?

What is needed to keep two people together and what would be the unpardonable "sin" in your opinion that would be the cause of a break up.

Can one person really provide everything the other person wants and needs?

reasonvemotion wrote:What makes a good marriage/partnership? Is it in essence an ethical tie?

To a large extent - maybe 50% - yes.

What is needed to keep two people together

A variety of interdependencies and complementary reinforcements, but basically: affection, respect, mutual goals and values, stability, acceptance, communication and comfort.

and what would be the unpardonable "sin" in your opinion that would be the cause of a break up.

Again, that's determined by many factors and varies greatly. For me: betrayal or abuse.

Can one person really provide everything the other person wants and needs?

No. We also have family and friends, careers, avocations and outside interests.

Humans distance themselves from nature via their sexuality. Are animals involved in sexual perversions, do they have sexual obsessions for each other. Do humans no longer make love to procreate, are they too entrenched in the complex rules of seduction and marriage, or is marriage as we know it today on the way out.

When one thinks about it, marriage is an odd contract, by means of which two parties legally bind themselves to a course of action, which is precisely to give up their (theoretically speaking) freedom and autonomy. If one looks at it from this point of view, its longevity is doomed from the words "I do".

I don't really understand marriage, it seems such a preposterous thing to do, all ritualistic and no sense at all to it. Why not just sort out what one wants with each other and work with that instead of ancient traditions?

A common project of having and raising children together.

duszek wrote:A common project of having and raising children together.

Yes but why do you need marriage to do that? Should be quite possible to do that without marriage and with only benefits of not having married.

The Voice of Time wrote:

duszek wrote:A common project of having and raising children together.

Yes but why do you need marriage to do that? Should be quite possible to do that without marriage and with only benefits of not having married.

Yes, and people do that, as well as women having and raising children without the father, and leaving children with the grandmother while the mother works elsewhere, and other arrangements. The reason it's easier done in a two-parent household is the sharing of resources, labour and responsibility. Kids take a lot of time and effort! The formal contract is a legal framework to insure that both parties fulfil their long-term obligations. It works exactly as well as the legal system of the given country works.

A less practical but equally compelling reason is that most people live in a community of relations, peers, neighbours and friends and the couple want their couplehood recognized and approved by those other people in their lives. Celebrated, even.

About community I'd say that if they need recognition people should give it to them without a marriage, and those people would be mean not to (unless they have some business in not seeing those two particular people together, where it can be more understandable, like jealousy, or that they simply aren't friends or are enemies).

If they need a legal contract there seems to be a lack of trust between them, and maybe the coupling (with or without marriage) isn't a good thing to begin with.

And yet, in spite of detractors' criticisms and suggestions, people continue to do what they have traditionally done, for the same reasons and from the same motives. Seems to work pretty well for a lot of us.
Go, figure!

Some feminists see marriage as playing a crucial role in the oppression of women and also the debate over same sex marriage is highly charged as marriage is viewed in a traditional sense of man and woman.

Aristotle argued marriage is properly structured by gender, the husband, “fitter for command,” rules. The sexes express their excellences differently, “the courage of a man is shown in commanding, of a woman in obeying,” a complementarity which promotes the marital good".

There is some recent research that found that U.S. marriage rate is 31.1, or 31 marriages per 1,000 unmarried women. That means for every 1,000 unmarried women in the U.S., 31 of those previously single women tied the knot in the last year.

For comparison, in 1920, the national marriage rate was 92.3.

Some feminists see marriage as playing a crucial role in the oppression of women and also the debate over same sex marriage is highly charged as marriage is viewed in a traditional sense of man and woman.

I don't quite see those two issues as belonging in the same sentence - or the same political platform. Some feminists - I should imagine the childless and /or professional ones with a high enough income to provide their child(ren) with a nanny (i.e. a woman with low expectations) oppose marriage. Some feminists refer to the historically oppressive role of marriage, but only want to reform the laws. Some feminists are married to men. Some feminists are married to other feminists.

In the world, right now, there are hundreds of different kinds of marriage, many of them unworkable, many of them miserable and oppressive, many of them pragmatic, many of them happy. No single statement or policy covers the subject adequately.

(Aristotle has no vote.)

.







...............................







.

The Voice of Time wrote: If they need a legal contract there seems to be a lack of trust between them, and maybe the coupling (with or without marriage) isn't a good thing to begin with.

you misunderstand the nature of legal contracts

they are not solely or even primarily in there in case of a dispute that has to go to court

rather it is there so that both parties know what exactly is agreed to - which is helpful even if both are entirely honest

btw, my gf and i have our wedding date set - and my brother has his and his gf's. We will have church ceremonies here - even in the rural bible belt there are churches that will perform same sex wedding. Both ceremonies will be on the same day, in the same church.

then we will head to Canada for the legal part as we are not in a state that has legal same sex marriage - and my brother could do the legal part here but he and his fiancee want to do it with me and my fiancee in canada - we will be going to Montreal so that we will be able to drink legally while we are there! yay! garcon, donne moi plus tequila sil vous plait! tabernac! je vais vomir!

Kayla wrote:you misunderstand the nature of legal contracts

they are not solely or even primarily in there in case of a dispute that has to go to court

rather it is there so that both parties know what exactly is agreed to - which is helpful even if both are entirely honest

But can't they just write it down on an ordinary paper? Why legal contracts?

The Voice of Time wrote:But can't they just write it down on an ordinary paper? Why legal contracts?

you would have to do an awful lot of writing if you wanted to cover everything a marriage covers

you have another thing backwards

if someone says 'we do not need a legal contract you can just trust me' that is a very strong sign that you should not trust them

and if they say 'if you really loved me you would not care about having a contract' it is time to find someone else