What’s the point of marriage if it’s going to go to shit anyway?

[A Welsh Cake]

Hello is this the Kiwi Farms?

 

[Bonesjones]

What's the point of living if you are just going to die anyways?

Life and true happiness are about investment. The more time and energy and care you invest into things the more you can appreciate it. Relationships are like gardens, it only takes a little time and energy to keep them up unless you ignore them and let them to to shit. Then it takes exponential more effort to get them back to what you want.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

They can't compel couples to continue to live together after the fact. They can make examples, both to married couples as well as those considering state-recognized marriage. Pre-selection, in short.

And what makes that any of the state's business, much less their responsibility? If your spouse cheats on you, the mature thing to do is to take responsibility and work the issue out between yourselves. It's not the government's job to babysit adults and manage their relationships, and anyone who thinks it ought to be is quite frankly pathetic.

If you're so out of depth when it comes to maintaining a relationship that you need the government to offer you assistance, then you may as well accept the fact that you're not cut out for a relationship, period.

"A ban on adultery would allow domestic violence to persist."

What?

If you ban adultery and make it an auto-lose condition in divorce/family court, it has nothing to do with domestic violence.

You really haven't thought this through, have you?

Suppose you were to end no-fault divorce and criminalize adultary, what do you think the most likely outcome would be for those who are stuck in abusive marriages? They can't leave their spouse because they know that their spouse will refuse to grant them a divorce, and they can't turn to anyone else for support because then they'll run the risk of being accused of adultary and face legal consequences.

Abusive relationships are rarely equal, and by making it harder for people to leave abusive relationships, you're giving abusive partners more power over their victims. It's that simple.

Except that several first-world countries struggle with matters like loneliness, mental illness, depression, civil unrest, etc. Being dirt poor is detrimental, but my point was that you don't have to be anywhere near the top in order to find fulfillment or mere happiness.

First World countries struggle with loneliness and mental illness because they're wealthy enough that people can isolate themselves without starving to death. It has nothing to do with First World countries being less functional, and the level of civil unrest in developing countries frequently dwarfs that of their more developed counterparts.

A lot of this goes back to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Once the basic needs of food, safety, and shelter are provided for, people then need a purpose in life. That many people in developed countries fall short of that is not necessarily the fault of their society.

To keep more people from committing those acts and generating the societal damage that those acts bring, of course.

Except this doesn't work. People who commit crimes generally don't count on getting caught, which is precisely why criminologists reject severe deterrence as a method of combatting crime. If you actually want people to behave a certain way, the most effective method is to provide them with the incentive and the opportunity to do so.

 

[big ups liquid richard]

Aw the boys who are terrified of women are ranting that they'll never get married. Don't worry, nobody's lining up to hitch themselves to you.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

And what makes that any of the state's business, much less their responsibility?

They produce the marriage licenses that many of these couples sign, which is why they're even able to go to divorce/family court when they decide to separate legally. The state is invariably implicated in the standard marriage, and it has an active interest in marriage and the creation of family units so that it can maintain societal stability. Barring that clear interest, rather than criticizing the idea of having the state be involved in "managing relationships" (which it already does, thus divorce/family courts), you should go one step back and criticize the idea of any government involvement in marriage.

You really haven't thought this through, have you?

Suppose you were to end no-fault divorce and criminalize adultary, what do you think the most likely outcome would be for those who are stuck in abusive marriages?

No, you haven't thought this through. You keep jumping from "ban adultery" to "abusive marriages", because you seemingly don't understand that "fault divorces" aren't just conducted because of adultery but because of whatever the state considers a valid reason for divorce (which often includes domestic abuse and even long-term abandonment). The flow of your logic implies that adultery is somehow implicated in the context of domestic violence, like the abused will engage in an extramarital affair.

We're talking about the prospect of the criminalization (or at least the illegalization) of adultery. Domestic abuse is already illegal.

They can't leave their spouse because they know that their spouse will refuse to grant them a divorce

The spouse isn't the one granting the divorce, it's the state that grants them the revocation of the license that they granted in the first place. You don't need your spouse's cooperation to file a fault divorce, though you do need your spouse's cooperation in at least some jurisdictions for a no-fault divorce in the first place.

and they can't turn to anyone else for support because then they'll run the risk of being accused of adultary and face legal consequences.

Turn to someone trusted for support and call the cops to report a domestic violence case. Perhaps just flee to a police station in the first place to do this. Now you have record that you made an attempt to rectify a hostile situation from which you had to flee, casting doubt on the notion that you committed adultery (which the spouse would still have to prove). Not only that, but even if adultery was actually committed, being able to argue that one was "provoked" into adultery on account of seeking safety from said abuse is an adequate defense from such a charge in fault divorce.

Not only that, but perhaps those considering marriage should be more discerning about who they decide to legally join themselves to, in the first place.

First World countries struggle with loneliness and mental illness because they're wealthy enough that people can isolate themselves without starving to death. It has nothing to do with First World countries being less functional

I don't know what point you're trying to make. I'm telling you first-world countries still have problems such as the aforementioned despite being technologically, academically, and economically advanced. You're agreeing that they do but you're trying to justify this... by saying that those advantages cause the very problems that I talked about... while the other part of my point is that lack of fulfillment and happiness can still exist with those advantages.

You've argued that these advantages caused the problems I brought up. I only said that they can still happen. And I wasn't even talking about the macro-functionality of a country in the first place.

Except this doesn't work. People who commit crimes generally don't count on getting caught, which is precisely why criminologists reject severe deterrence as a method of combatting crime.

What does their expectation of getting caught have to do with anything? People don't commit crimes to get caught committing them in the first place.

If you actually want people to behave a certain way, the most effective method is to provide them with the incentive and the opportunity to do so.

So, what does this mean in the case of criminals? Because I was of the understanding that "not being dead" or "not living a sizable chunk of your life in a jail cell" were largely adequate incentives in a civilized society.

 

[Enjoy_the_Soylence]

If you are not committed to making it work for a lifetime, you should never get married. Too many people do it lightly.

 

[Bonesjones]

Uhh.

We joke, but existentialism is a thing.

IMHO, the fact that we, as humans, have a sense of mortality is the cause of so much dysfunction.

Sorry you are an idiot

 

[Uncle Phil]

If you're in a position to ignore the financial breaks and you're going purely on lifestyle choice, marriage makes sense only if kids are part of your plan.

If you're parents together, that's the reason to work on a relationship that isn't working anymore. Absent that, people should be free to move on when the magic is gone.

 

[KittyGremlin]

Uhh.

We joke, but existentialism is a thing.

IMHO, the fact that we, as humans, have a sense of mortality is the cause of so much dysfunction.

Feel free to prove your point by pulling out your dick and spinning it like a helicopter in front of a retirement home since morals are so stupid and all. If you do that, we'll maybe consider your argument.

 

[Mr Snek]

50% of marriage ends in divorce, husband complains the wife is too naggy and uptight, wife complains husband dosent love her like he used to, one of them end up cheating and the kids are forced to witness it all crash and burn.

I recall many people sharing stories of how their friends have dead eyes ever since they got married or how they are so miserable bein stuck with their horrible spouse and you don’t really get appreciated enough in the relationship and your partner unfortunately takes you for granted.

Being a wife or a husband sounds like a thankless job so why do people still bother doing it?

All I'm gonna say is that back in highschool, my class had a discussion and realised that 3 out of the 20 or so students had parents that weren't divorced. I'm aware that's probably a disproportionate ratio compared to society at large, but that always left an impact on me and effectively ruined my view of marriage and relationships as a whole.

 

[FatalTater]

Marriage can be useful when it comes to inheritance and stuff, but it's not magically going to make a relationship last.
If you get married, remember that a person can still walk out the door at any time. (Assuming you aren't keeping them in a cage in the basement or summat.)

 

[T0oCoolFool]

In my experience, most couples that ended up divorcing were really not surprising or unexpected cases. I can't tell you the number of friends, families, and co-workers I have witnessed that decided to get married when it was very obvious the relationship would not last. Couples that fight and break up all the time. Boyfriends that are known cheaters, or girlfriends that are known shit stirrers. etc. These are couples that should have broke up with each other long ago, yet instead they decided to get married, and later decide to bring kids into the mix.

You can avoid divorce by being honest with yourself when you consider your marriage partner. Don't marry someone right away, and don't ignore red flags. Don't settle with someone you know deep down you don't like just because you think you can't do any better.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

They produce the marriage licenses that many of these couples sign, which is why they're even able to go to divorce/family court when they decide to separate legally. The state is invariably implicated in the standard marriage, and it has an active interest in marriage and the creation of family units so that it can maintain societal stability. Barring that clear interest, rather than criticizing the idea of having the state be involved in "managing relationships" (which it already does, thus divorce/family courts), you should go one step back and criticize the idea of any government involvement in marriage.

This is a very paternalistic view. In a modern context, the state doesn't grant marriage licenses to couples for the benefit of itself, but for the benefit of the couples who want to get married. Those couples are still free people, and it isn't the state's business to regulate their relationship beyond what the couple are willing to agree to themselves.

No, you haven't thought this through. You keep jumping from "ban adultery" to "abusive marriages", because you seemingly don't understand that "fault divorces" aren't just conducted because of adultery but because of whatever the state considers a valid reason for divorce (which often includes domestic abuse and even long-term abandonment). The flow of your logic implies that adultery is somehow implicated in the context of domestic violence, like the abused will engage in an extramarital affair.

We're talking about the prospect of the criminalization (or at least the illegalization) of adultery. Domestic abuse is already illegal.

The point I think you're missing is that by creating legal consequences for infidelity, you're adding weight to the notion that a monogamous relationship should be upheld by some degree of coercion, and no one is going to like that idea more than an abusive spouse who enjoys victimizing their significant other.

Whether someone has actually committed adultary, or is likely to be prosecuted for it, is irrelevant: a sufficiently meek person who is trapped in a toxic relationship isn't going to be empowered, or have their lives made any easier, by the idea that manipulative accusations could carry the additional stress of legal consequences, especially if they lacked the confidence to defend themselves.

I don't know what point you're trying to make. I'm telling you first-world countries still have problems such as the aforementioned despite being technologically, academically, and economically advanced. You're agreeing that they do but you're trying to justify this... by saying that those advantages cause the very problems that I talked about... while the other part of my point is that lack of fulfillment and happiness can still exist with those advantages.

You've argued that these advantages caused the problems I brought up. I only said that they can still happen. And I wasn't even talking about the macro-functionality of a country in the first place.

My point was not that First World living standards create dysfunction, but that they can make dysfunction more visible since people's basic needs have already been met. For example: a society which is so destitute that most people don't live beyond the age of 40 obviously isn't going to have the same degree of people suffering from dementia as a wealthy society where people commonly reach the age of 90; this doesn't mean that wealth causes dementia.

Similarly, mental illness is more visible in the developed world because it's presence, while often debilitating, is generally not fatal. A depressed/anxious/lonely person in the developed world might abuse prescription medication and live as a NEET all day; while a similar person in the developing world will simply die from lack of support.

I should really be the one asking you what your point was, because saying that First World countries have the problems you mentioned is about as profound as saying that someone who isn't dying of cancer can still be unhappy.

So, what does this mean in the case of criminals? Because I was of the understanding that "not being dead" or "not living a sizable chunk of your life in a jail cell" were largely adequate incentives in a civilized society.

There is nothing civilized about severe deterrence or retributive justice. Civilized societies attempt to identify the social causes of crime, and work to provide people with opportunities that will steer them away from it. When that fails, they invest in rehabilitation for those who can be rehabilitated, and provide sanctuary for those who cannot.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

This is a very paternalistic view.

You can call it whatever you wish-- that is fundamentally implied in a state issuing marriage licenses to married couples instead of having nothing to do with the institution like they arguably should. The state involves itself in institutions because it has an investment in it or wants to develop such, so that they can develop more control within it. The state doesn't provide marriage licenses and privileges (such as tax breaks, which is effectively the feds shorting themselves) just to make people happy-- that's a naive notion at best for an act that technically doesn't need the state at all, especially since we're talking about money in addition to the institution of marriage that they manage.

The point I think you're missing is that by creating legal consequences for infidelity, you're adding weight to the notion that a monogamous relationship should be upheld by some degree of coercion, and no one is going to like that idea more than an abusive spouse who enjoys victimizing their significant other.

1. The coercion of the state is incomparable to the coercion of an abusive spouse, which is already outlawed and is additionally grounds for fault divorce.
2. The "illegality" of adultery, as I've so far discussed it, has been strictly in the sense of it being a due cause for fault divorce in a scenario where it completely supplants no-fault divorce.

Whether someone has actually committed adultary, or is likely to be prosecuted for it, is irrelevant: a sufficiently meek person who is trapped in a toxic relationship isn't going to be empowered, or have their lives made any easier, by the idea that manipulative accusations could carry the additional stress of legal consequences, especially if they lacked the confidence to defend themselves.

In addition to what's already been said, domestic violence only accounts for ~25% of all divorces in the States, and the majority of domestic violence cases are known to be reciprocal (i.e. the relationship is globally toxic). We're largely not talking about domestic violence cases when we talk divorce and you're describing a minority scenario on top of that.

My point was not that First World living standards create dysfunction

That's what you argued, though.

First World countries struggle with loneliness and mental illness because they're wealthy enough that people can isolate themselves without starving to death.

I understood you describing a cause for loneliness here. How am I mistaken? The example that you give about dementia is one where dementia doesn't manifest because early death doesn't allow it to manifest in the first place, but in what I just quoted, you argue that loneliness and mental illness is something first world countries struggle with because they have the means to isolate without starving to death. At the very least, you're arguing here that wealth an exacerbating factor, but you didn't argue about mere visibility.

I should really be the one asking you what your point was, because saying that First World countries have the problems you mentioned is about as profound as saying that someone who isn't dying of cancer can still be unhappy.

You're right. It's as profound as what you describe, but it's still a salient point to make when your original argument was a false correlation between divorce laws and arguably superficial quality of life metrics such as wealth and "innovation".

There is nothing civilized about severe deterrence or retributive justice.

According to whom? Civilizations of past and present have handled crime in various ways, whether it be through "severe" deterrence/retributive justice (are you really going to argue that Mesopotamia wasn't a civilization?) or whatever it is you're describing.

 

[DNA_JACKED]

As a man, I have to be in the top 10% of earners, be ripped, 6' tall, handsome, and willing to be the primary breadwinner as well as handle home chores and help raise the kids. But my wife isnt expected to cook, clean, or maintain the home at all, in fact she is encouraged to work and avoid learning any household skills. I will be expected to prioritize my wife's interests and hobbies over my own. Major purchases will be expected to pass her muster.

If she decides to divorce me, the family courts have a greater then 90% chance of giving her primary custody of our kids. Over 50% chance she gets sole custody, even if she is a shit heel of a human being. I will likely have to hand over 55-60% of my yearly earnings, plunging me into poverty, between child support and alimony. If I get a raise, she'll come for it, but if my wages get cut I'm told to eat shit. She will more then likely either get the house I PAID FOR, or I will be forced to give her half the value of said house. If she feels particularly nasty, she can easily lie about things I've "done" to her, and I'm guilty until proven innocent. Oh, and she gets a chunk of my pension as well.

When a man marries in modern day America, he loses. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose. Even if you find your perfect woman, once you get married get ready for her personality to change radically over the next 3-5 years. I see others here advocating "oh well if you're not a boomer the rate is REALLY only 30-40%.". Is that supposed to make me feel better? In the professional world, a failure rate of 5% is considered catastrophic, but in the marriage world where half of everything you will make for the next 30 years is at state a 40% failure rate is suddenly acceptable?

The modern world of no fault divorces and women who have no idea how to cook or maintain a house any better then most bachelors, combined with the atrocious family courts, create a situation where you are betting your financial life on the other party never changing or wanting to take advantage of you, and after literal decades of watching this happen over and over again to countless men, from the gentleman down the street to jonny depp, I have to wonder who is dumb enough to get married today.

In the past there was social pressure to avoid things like adultery. Women who slept around or were unfaithful were ostracized by society. Having children out of wedlock? Same thing. Getting divorced was a MAJOR ordeal and did not happen just because one party got bored of the other. Today there is no social penalty, in fact quite the opposite, women who "liberate" themselves from their husbands are celebrated. You cant even cover your wife on your health insurance these days. Outside of "muh true love" there is no reason for most people to marry.

All I'm gonna say is that back in highschool, my class had a discussion and realised that 3 out of the 20 or so students had parents that weren't divorced. I'm aware that's probably a disproportionate ratio compared to society at large, but that always left an impact on me and effectively ruined my view of marriage and relationships as a whole.

Out of the 94 students in my graduating class, there were *7* whose parents had not divorced. If you go through the student list of any large public school, you'll see that a good 80+% of the children enrolled do not have the same last names as their parents or siblings. Nearly all of my coworkers are either divorced or fall into the "happy wife happy life dead eyes" categories.

And people wonder why I think marriage is a total sham.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

You can call it whatever you wish-- that is fundamentally implied in a state issuing marriage licenses to married couples instead of having nothing to do with the institution like they arguably should. The state involves itself in institutions because it has an investment in it or wants to develop such, so that they can develop more control within it. The state doesn't provide marriage licenses and privileges (such as tax breaks, which is effectively the feds shorting themselves) just to make people happy-- that's a naive notion at best for an act that technically doesn't need the state at all, especially since we're talking about money in addition to the institution of marriage that they manage.

In a democratic society, the state is responsive to the needs and wants of it's citizens, which is precisely the reason that in many jurisdictions marriage comes with tax breaks: political parties obviously want the votes of married couples, since they tend to constitute the majority of the population. Personally, I don't believe that marriage should come with tax breaks, so I'm not that interested in arguing this point. I'm more interested in why you seem to think that the state should seek to intervene and manage people's personal relationships, irrespective of those people's wishes.

In addition to what's already been said, domestic violence only accounts for ~25% of all divorces in the States, and the majority of domestic violence cases are known to be reciprocal (i.e. the relationship is globally toxic). We're largely not talking about domestic violence cases when we talk divorce and you're describing a minority scenario on top of that.

Only? That's literally a quarter of all divorces in the United States. Hardly an insignificant minority.

I understood you describing a cause for loneliness here. How am I mistaken? The example that you give about dementia is one where dementia doesn't manifest because early death doesn't allow it to manifest in the first place, but in what I just quoted, you argue that loneliness and mental illness is something first world countries struggle with because they have the means to isolate without starving to death. At the very least, you're arguing here that wealth an exacerbating factor, but you didn't argue about mere visibility.

It's not a cause, but an effect. Depression, anxiety, and loneliness are all an inherent part of the human condition, just as dementia in old age is. They appear to manifest more frequently in developed countries for the simple reason that developed countries provide the material conditions for such people to survive; plus, developed countries are better prepared to diagnose and treat such afflictions because all of the more pressing concerns have largely been taken care of.

You're right. It's as profound as what you describe, but it's still a salient point to make when your original argument was a false correlation between divorce laws and arguably superficial quality of life metrics such as wealth and "innovation".

There is nothing superficial about wealth and innovation as it relates to quality of life. A society without wealth and innovation is destitute and stagnant, while a society with an abundance of those things is dynamic and empowering. I also reject the implication that there is no correlation between the quality of life a society is able to provide for it's citizens and the philosophy which underpins it's laws; the common denominator is how enlightened the society is.

According to whom? Civilizations of past and present have handled crime in various ways, whether it be through "severe" deterrence/retributive justice (are you really going to argue that Mesopotamia wasn't a civilization?) or whatever it is you're describing.

According to anyone who has studied history. The definition of civilized is an advanced state of social and cultural development (read: more enlightened), and if you have to go back thousands of years to point out a time when your ideas could have been considering thus, you're losing the argument.

 

[Sperghetti]

You have to remember there’s a lot of people out there who, when their relationship is going poorly, will try to fix it by upping the commitment level.

Having problems with your significant other? Let’s get married!

Your marriage isn’t the greatest? Let’s have kids!

Surely this major new obligation on you both will make everything better!

 

[Don't Tread on Me]

stop listening to dumb boomers who instead of owning up that they've played a part in their messed up marriage decide that it's best to talk shit about the whole institution even though there are plenty of happily married people.

I have a large family. Happy marriages are very rare.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

I'm more interested in why you seem to think that the state should seek to intervene and manage people's personal relationships, irrespective of those people's wishes.

The simplest answer is that they could have just decided to not have a state-recognized marriage in the first place, but chose to submit their marriage to the interests of the state, which usually involves keeping stable and growing family units.

You appear to fail to understand the consequences and implications of the state issuing marriage licenses, facilitating divorces, and drafting laws around marriage as they recognize it, or the consequences of opting into this system. You certainly fail to understand the consequences inherent to someone giving you money or lessening your debt ostensibly free of charge (there is no such thing).

If you want to argue that the state shouldn't be involved in the institution at all, then we need to have that conversation, because we are not starting from there-- we are starting from a position where the state is already involved in the marriage and has investment in the institution, and are therefore talking about how it uses leverage we already grant it by opting into their system.

Only? That's literally a quarter of all divorces in the United States.

Read that again-- that's arguably less than 13.5% of marriages that fit the "sufficiently meek" bill you were describing earlier.

It's not a cause, but an effect. Depression, anxiety, and loneliness are all an inherent part of the human condition, just as dementia in old age is. They appear to manifest more frequently in developed countries for the simple reason that developed countries provide the material conditions for such people to survive; plus, developed countries are better prepared to diagnose and treat such afflictions because all of the more pressing concerns have largely been taken care of.

That explanation flatly assumes that there could never be anything particularly wrong with a given society even if it's "sufficiently advanced", or that there's no problem with the providence of said material conditions in and of themselves that would contribute to the breeding of said mental disturbances.

According to anyone who has studied history. The definition of civilized is an advanced state of social and cultural development (read: more enlightened)

What metric are you using? I'm using the very definition of the term "civilization":

And "more enlightened" than what? Again, Mesopotamia was certainly more advanced than the hunter-gatherer arrangements prior to it.

and if you have to go back thousands of years to point out a time when your ideas could have been considering thus, you're losing the argument.

I didn't have to go back in time at all, but I used Mesopotamia as an example in order to make a point: you're trying to cast a wholly relative expectation in stone when the truth of the matter is that civilized society comes in all kinds of collections of attributes and it's in fact a lower bar in the context of this conversation than you believe it to be.

 

[Wright]

@Hellbound Hellhound exactly how many times have you committed adultery