When he is actually in a long term relationship, but does not believe in marriage (parents went thru divorce)? Also monogamous and very supportive? Is there really a difference between a marriage and a long term commited relationship?
2007-07-18 08:13:00 · 8 answers · asked by Miss Anthrope 6 in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
Honestly, I've been thinking about the same issue, and I don't see a difference.
I don't know why having a piece of paper saying "the law" recognizes you as a couple makes a relationship any more or less valid than those who choose to stay together without the binding contract. Actually, when you think about it, all that piece of paper does is make it harder to leave. When you think about all the traditions and ridiculousness that goes into marriage, it's all a bunch of hot air. I don't need to "own" someone to love them, not do I want to be owned.
I think people pump up the whole marriage thing for a variety of reasons. It is, afterall, the norm - and most people have a really hard time thinking outside the box. Society at large takes a longggg time to change. But I think it's starting to happen.
Modern marriages are supposedly built on emotional fulfillment; you're supposed to look for your soul mate or "the one" - that one person who somehow is going to make your world "incredible" or "amazing" or any other number of cliche adjectives. Barf. No one person can add this kind of enhancement to your life, nor should they. Call me individualistic, but I don't expect my guy to "fulfill" me, or complete me. We're with each other because we truly love and respect each other; we share a life, we share values, we are great friends, but we still maintain our own identity and interests separate from each other. IF that should ever change, I don't want to create a hostile situation in which it makes it hard for either one of us to move on and find happiness elsewhere. To marry just to acquire legal rights seems pretty foolish to me. In my case, I don't think a split will ever happen; he's never given me reason to think that it would in all our time together. But being a smart woman, I accept that I can't control anyone but myself, so in theory it's possible. ANYTHING is possible. To tell yourself otherwise is to be naive.
Basically, I don't see him surrendering his right to "leave" me as an indicator of greater commitment. I see it as a security blanket, one which only an insecure person in an insecure relationship would need. Making it harder for us to split up doesn't signify strength to me...
I'm not against marriage. For some people it makes sense and matters, and I wish them happiness. For others it doesn't. I just wish people would stop getting so caught up in the formality and tradition of things, start caring about each other and themselves, and be more accepting of others' - and just be HAPPY. Somewhere along the way marriage has been equated to status, and I just think that's wrong - not to mention pushes people to make unwise decisions in life.
2007-07-18 08:38:47 · answer #1 · answered by Courtney 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Basically, his point is that marriage causes divorce. Well, it is true that people who don't get married can't get divorced! His logic is faulty, however. In essence, what he is saying is that full commitment is bad because it risks extremely hurt feelings in the event of failure.
If a person felt as committed, in his heart, as a married person feels in his heart, then it is obvious that a "breakup" in a non-married situation would be just as painful as a divorce would be in a marriage. Since the pain would be the same, then the fear of divorce goes out the window as a reason for not getting married. Therefore, we can only conclude that the reason he is not marrying is because he is not willing to commit fully to the relationship.
He fears the pain of loss so intently that he cannot commit fully. Fear is the meaning of the Latin suffix "phobe". Therefore, he is is loss-phobic or divorce-phobic, not commitment-phobic, so the people who call him that are technically incorrect. The result, however, is the same: lack of total commitment.
2007-07-18 08:26:30 · answer #2 · answered by Happy-2 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because there are some people that just love to label others, and label conditions to satisfy their own bitterness that they can't change the other person to conform to their wishes.
If he's a good man, but has a fear of marriage, and the woman is content with that, noone should care (in theory).
2007-07-18 08:18:05 · answer #3 · answered by Starry Eyes 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Of course there is a difference. Going through with a marriage is like sealing the deal even further. Just dating still makes it easy for him to leave without the hassle of who gets what, etc. Marriage is a WAY bigger comittment and he is either comitted to life to you or he isn't. If he hasn't married you it's because he fears it might not work out and then he can bail.
2007-07-18 08:18:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The only difference is a piece of jewelry. From what you describe, the commitment is there, so if he and his girl are ok with a long-term relationship minus the rings, more power to them!
2007-07-18 08:22:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
So what does getting married change? If it's "just a piece of paper" then why won't he just say okay and sign it if that's what his woman wants? Also, with shacking up, you have NO legal rights.
2007-07-18 08:36:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
As an aging divorcee I almost do not see the difference either, unless you want to have kids...then I think marriage should happen.
2007-07-18 08:16:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
No difference except the license.
2007-07-18 08:25:11 · answer #8 · answered by gypsy g 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋