The Marriage Crisis
uvamagazine.org/features/article/the_marriage...Posted Jun 19, 2012, 6:24 PM UTC
158
uvamagazine.org
"People who get married have an expectation of sexual fidelity, and that fidelity tends to engender a sense of trust and security"
Normal couples don't?
3
Not that I've ever noticed.
1
Well, you can say the same for married couples and their high divorce rates.
2
[deleted]
2
I know it's probably just a matter of general wording, but I can't help but wonder, after reading your comment saying "marriage used to have an actual purpose: money, kids, religion, expectations", whether you thought "love and commitment" did not constitute a 'purpose' or 'expectations'?
I would contend that the purposes and expectations have changed, but not that there is no actual purpose or need for marriage nowadays. As the article notes, there appear to be psychological benefits to marriage (often, but of course not always). Might we not term these as purposes and expectations? One purpose, generally speaking, for marriage in our current time might be happiness. An expectation, likewise, might be that one's spouse will be emotionally supportive and faithful. However, it does seem a bit odd that individuals would need to go through a formal legal process to ensure these things in their relationships -- hence why I think marriage is on the decline.
0
It's a bit outside the scope of the article, but I've frequently wondered when multiple partners or shifting of partners will start to become, if not common, then not unheard of.
When gay marriage finally becomes fully legal in the US, I expect there to be another controversy to eventually start up. Other than religious reasons, what reasons are there against group marriages? Why should marriage be between just two people and not three or four or six? At some point the concept is going to break down, especially if the US takes the same path the European countries have and subtract out any tax or other benefits to being married.
I've often wondered the same thing and indeed attempted to discuss it with others (more liberally-minded folks, generally). It's interesting to note that there are basically two reactions I've seen to this idea: 1. the inability to really say anything against it, which is perhaps attributable to the surprising/unusual nature of it (I gather most people haven't considered it as a legitimate option before?), or 2. something approaching a basically emotional negative reaction and denunciation of the idea based largely on very speculative theoretical arguments/concerns.
I think part of the issue is that it's so uncommon that people are just very unfamiliar with it and don't know if/how it might possibly work, so they simply assume that it can't/won't/shouldn't work and reject it as a valid possibility without thinking about it very thoroughly.
The biggest problem in my opinion is a technical one. You'll have to rewrite tons of laws. Divorces become much messier. Does everyone sign a single contract or do they sign partners with each other member? What about if one person wants to leave? Can siblings get married? (think same sex siblings with multiple other partners.)
It's not something impossible but it's a hell of a lot of work.