WHOA, is this true ??? Or is it just an opinion>>>???

Question

Marriage protects the woman and her child by binding the man by contract of marriage to provide and protect them both....

This was from someones answer about "is marriage a culture or a human thing" (er something like that)

What do you think of that statement???

HEY don't put a damper on me. I didn't ask it. I was just wanting to see what ya'll thought of it. A marriage is NOT a binding contract for a man to provide FOR the woman and her child, it's a MUTUAL thing for EACH OTHER...BOTH, husband and wife provide all that they CAN for each other, not just the man! I wouldn't put that trip on my man any day. I take care of him TOO! he just makes the money! (is that what that question could have been about?)

Answer 1

Well, the assumptions are not universal. The assumptions would be that the man does NOT want to care for the women and child while the women and child NEEDS the protection.

For one thing, women in todays culture do not need to rely on men. Of course it works better to have both man and woman but there are successful single mothers.

Second, while it does bind to provide the child until he is 18, one can assume some men welcome the task of providing instead of seeing it as a burden to his life. THe man also has something to lose as he has to do household chores and regular work if he were to have a kid but not contribute to the family.

There are benefits to mother, child and father, spiritually and financially. The statement makes it seem that the mother and child are the only ones that benefit from marriage. So to conclude - yes, its true only to some cases.

Marriage is a cultural issue but as someone mentioned above, why not just live together? because you do not feel the weight of responsibility as much as if you werent married. It is the symbolic meaning we as a society give to marriage. Without marriage, the symbolic meaning of marriage and the assumed responsibliity that comes with it, does not apply as being not married also implicates freedom to do anything he/she wanted.

Answer 2

That was the original concept behind marriage.

Think about how long ago the concept of a marriage was invented. Obviously no one was around to marry Adam and Eve or Cavemen but at some point society elected to 'join' a couple and become soley committed.

During those times and until fairly recent history women did not own property or have jobs or means to protect themselves from danger.

Laws were written to define 'marriage'. The fact is it is accepted as fact by almost all of society in some manner that committment should precede sex. Yes now this is unlikely and sex often comes before or totally without any commitment from either side beyond basic dating.

These laws became the accepted defacto definition of marriage and if you look you may even find valid laws on state law lists or other countries that still read exactly that way.

This is why a divorce requires legal settlement of property and monetary support for the spouse and or children. Today we weigh who the wage earner is and who is seeking the divorce and why in property and support requirements. Pre nup's are a contract in 'addition' to the marriage that can supercede the 'defacto' default status.

We obviously don't force men or women to 'protect' anyone once divorced but not too long ago even couples that 'split' the men were expected to protect the women and children. Think frontier days and wild early america and you will see where and how those laws came into affect.

Answer 3

I think it was probably true at one time, but society has changed over the years, with everyone getting more permissive, and not feeling the need to honor their obligations, even to the point of not fulfilling Promises made. Maybe due to the fact that a lot of parents don't teach character education anymore, or don't even know where to begin on this? I think the first person who ever wrote or said this had the right idea, a lot of people nowdays just have bad follow-through.

Answer 4

I believe that we ALL need to learn NOT to lean so heavily on our spouses. A woman should know that she will be able to provide for herself & her child JUST IN CASE!!!
Even without a divorce, what happens if the husband dies or is injured & unable to provide????
I feel ALL women should learn to lean on themselves before commiting to a marriage. No man should have to carry the entire load.
I know that I can lean on my husband for support when things go bad or when things get tough, just like he knows he can do the same with me. But neither of us leans tooooo heavily............ So we don't both tip over......

Answer 5

It's probably an opinion but a right one. The wife and child are the man's family so why shouldn't he protect them? Come on, that's a no brainer.

Answer 6

hell------o

marriage does not mean S..H..I..T....

it just a piece of paper.... that can easly be reversed in divorce....

marriage does make the man responsible to provide and protect...

marriage is not binding.... and i am not sure why people marry any way.. when they are more then likely going to get a divorce...

easier just to live together..... then there are not attorney fees and such.

Answer 7

its true......a man is someone what responsable to protect his family. Why the shocking reaction? If you loved someone wouldnt you want to protect them?

Answer 8

Marriage is a gift from God and to let society change or demean it makes me sick.

Answer 9

Not with the people I know.

Answer 10

only in principal do I agree, the man must want it too