Conference quark::human_relations-v1

What civil marriage contract?

Right now it's very easy to get married and very difficult to get divorced.
If it were the other way around, perhaps things would change.  Whether the
change would be for the better, I can't say.

				Steve

    Two ridiculous (in my opinion) routes that the government could take to
    promote marriage and discourage divorce would be:

    Make divorces illegal.  (Wouldn't promote marriage, but would most
    			     assuredly discourage divorce)

    Subsidize marriages.    (Receiving a gov't grant for being married
    			     might be an good incentive)

    On a more serious note, free pre-marital courses might help two
    individuals ask the kinds of questions that should be answered prior
    to marriage.  Or pass a "Brady bill" for couples - something like a
    mandatory seven day/week/month waiting period prior to receiving a
    marriage license. :-)

      - Larry

    the civil marriage contract is the one every citizen adopts upon
    marrying in the court or by public official vested with power to
    marry.  This contract is void by only maybe 8 rules.  Yes, marriage
    is a contract.
    
    All a divorce entails is that one of the partners wants out.  It's
    called "no-fault" divorce.  Now the "settlement" is another story.
    Y

    How about teaching in junior high school and high school how to relate,
    how to build a relationship, how to nurture a relationship, and what
    one can and cannot expect out of a relationship.
    
    Just like VERY few schools actually TEACH students how to study or take
    notes, none of them really teach anything about relationships, and the
    way parents are divorcing nowadays and mixed/blended families are
    becoming more numerous it's hard to "learn by example" about a solid,
    long-lived relationship for some of them.
    
    -Jody
    

I think "promoting marriage" and "discouraging divorce" are two goals inherently 
at odds with each other.  Encouraging people to think longer and harder 
before they get married about the committment they're making would probably 
help the divorce rate, as would changing some of the "incentives" that lead 
some people to get married (health insurance policies, joint tax returns, etc.)
On the other hand, doing that would not promote marriage, although making
marriage less of an economic decision (or one of social "belonging") would 
probably help foster longer-term partnerships.

In my opinion, marriage is over-promoted in our culture, mostly through peer
pressure (My mother, for example, loves to talk about "when you're just out
of college and first married", as if the two necessarily go together.  It's 
finally dawning on her that in thinking like this she's been assigning her 
late-twentysomething daughter to an extended state of limbo for the past few
years).  Divorce, perhaps, is the flip-side of the hard-sell advertising:
unlike our ancestors, many people today get married before they have a clear
idea what they want out of life or what their priorities are.  Then down the
road they discover that their goals/priorities and their spouse's are at odds,
or that marriage is more work than anyone had let on.

On the other hand, what kind of marriage is it that you want to promote?

    Sharon

Re: .3

I don't think that anyone who was married for any significant length of time
and then divorced, no-fault or otherwise, would ever say it was "easy"!  In
some senses, divorce never ends.

				Steve

    I think everyone has some very good points.  I especially agree
    with .4  Why don't our American schools teach relating.  There are
    many misconceptions about marriage.  I think if we could prevent
    the bad marriages in the first place, perhaps divorce would decline.
     I don't think, for the most part, that anybody plans divorce when
    they first marry.  The expectations when one is in love is way out
    of porportion to the actual realities of life.  With anybody.
    
    Maybe sexuality, birth control and human relations, and even the
    family can be discussed in our schools.  Maybe in this way, when
    our children come home from the island that teaches how to survive
    in the world, they really will have learned how.  
    
    I'd like to hear new love songs that were written by people
    experiencing love after the first bite.  You know when the clouds
    are gone.  "I can't live without you or You are my everything" are
    kinda of dangerous lirics.  
    
    I love to be in love.  It's fun.  I feel high!  It's the dissillusion
    that can be so bad.  I think blended families live a lot of that.
    
    UMM, where's my happy pill?

    	I really have to disagree with .7's, "Why don't the the schools
    teach relating?"  It seems that every damn time there's some problem,
    real or perceived, someone feels that we need another government
    program to deal with it.  Hell, the schools can't even teach the three
    R's!  They really don't have the time or funding to teach "relating". 
    I gotta admit that if I heard that schools in my area were teaching
    "relationships", I'd hit the roof.  My kids (ages 17 and 15) seem to
    have no concept of American history, and they are better(!!!) students
    than most kids their ages that I've spoken to!  I've tried to bring
    things up in conversation (dinner-table quizzes and discussions) to
    fill in some of their gaps because I feel the schools just aren't doing
    it.
    	Personally, I don't think that teenagers are really interested in
    learning relationships.  They're entirely too awash in hormones at that
    age and it's really easy to confuse lust and love.  Actually, I think
    that even at my age (mumbley-mumble) that's a tough distinction to
    make.  Anyway, even when the kids live with only one parent (mine live
    with my ex), the parents take responsibility for educating their kids
    about relationships.  I see my kids frequently, and relationships are a
    frequent topic of discussion.  I've been fortunate enough to give my
    kids insights (so they tell me) into themselves, and my kids comments
    and questions have given me some insights into what I go through; it's
    a two-way street where everyone benefits.

    You don't teach relationships exactly.  There is a course that teaches
    the facts and the myths on the family.  The course does not teach
    or discuss morals. O.K.
    
    I remember a health class in 8th grade that taught a little about
    the psycology of rationalizing.  Example:  A student who receives
    bad grades may blame that the teacher dislikes him rather than putting
    blame on his poor study habits.  I don't think this is teaching
    morals but rather explains the ways in humans react and think.
    
    Sociology would be a great course in our high schools.  In my opinion,
    by the time a student reaches high school, those basic reading,
    math, writing skills should have been learned.  If not, then why
    in the heck are these students passed.

    If the federal government really wanted to encourage marriage (not that
    I see that as any particular business of theirs anyhow), the income tax
    laws would be changed back so that it is not significantly more
    expensive to be one married couple than two single people with
    identical total income.  It was several years after Paul and I got
    married before our take-home pay was back to what we made when we were
    single, and even longer if you take inflation into account; being
    married costs us several thousand dollars a year in additional income
    taxes, and that was a major consideration when we decided to marry and
    one of the reasons we married after the first of the year (couldn't
    afford both the additional taxes and the wedding).
    
    /Charlotte

Actually, the current tax structure gives a break to single-income married 
couples (or married couples with widely disparate incomes) at the expense of 
dual-income married couples whose incomes are similar.  Singles get taxed 
somewhere in the middle.

In this age where both spouses often have to work to support the family,
I think the original rationale behind this has eroded.

    Sharon  

    I think that marriage could be promoted by formally introducing a
    disinterested third-party to serve as mediator and facilitator. The
    classic marriage is the classic badly-designed committee: there's an
    even number of voters. A tie-breaker is necessary. A disinterested
    participant can serve to point out and disrupt destructive patterns of
    interaction, e.g. the classic dirty fighting.
    
    My wife and I started out our marriage with a third adult in the house,
    a young woman who had baby-sat for my wife's small children for years.
    This woman was intelligent and mature, and she had a much better sense
    of my wife and the kids than I did. My marriage was probably saved by
    this young woman's participation in our early conversations about how
    to raise the kids. My wife and I each had enough respect for her to
    listen and heed when she offered the tie-breaking solution to our
    conflict.
    
    The third-party should know the family well. A live-in baby-sitter is
    good, if she's sharp enough to hold your respect. A member of the
    church or a neighbor might be a candidate. A professional social worker
    or psychologist might serve, if you can afford the time and money to
    get the professional well informed about the family. A family member
    probably is NOT appropriate, because of a tendency (real and/or
    preceived) to be biased.
    
    Just an idea - Hoyt

    Your idea Hoyt, is good, but... what makes you think that an outsider
    is good for a strictly domestic and private matter? you were lucky to
    find someone good or smart enough to help you, but there are not that
    many "good angels" around to help the many broken or troubled
    marriages of today.... (or who want to get involved).
    
    This is just my opinion: there is a lack of family unity these days and
    we're victims of it.  There is too much selfishness around... we think
    of "I" and not "we", we have not learned from our parents to give
    and sacrifice, to do all efforts in favor of marriage... they also had
    divorces back then, (their time). Today it is too easy to say:
    "lets see if it works, if it isn't let's make a clean break, learn from
    it and take it from there" (in other words, start all over again). 
    Love and lust are too close and is "undistinguishable"   normally... we
    make the wrong move!  it is so easy to think we are "in love" when we
    only lust for someone...
    To be in love cann't be helped! to lust for someone... all you need is
    a replacement! and that is the great mayority of cases, people replace
    people in a constant seak of "love" but they not always get what
    they're looking for... what they get is "physical love = lust" which is
    not the best replacement for real love, but again, since we cannot
    programm ourselves to fall in love, we get lust, that we can program to
    get, but it does not FILL all our needs...... it fills a few of them
    only... and there is the constant need to keep on searching, trying,
    and forever looking the for "right one"... and falling into the trap of
    failed marriages, divorces and the like....
    
    What could be done?  I wish I knew! but a bit of common sense and the
    patience of waiting for deep feelings instead of setting for a quick
    match would greatly alleviate the current problems...
    
    We long for companionship, friendship, etc, and we just confuse that need
    too often, we think we are in love when WE ARE NOT... we get married
    thinking that "it will work..." and, often, it doesn't! Whose fault is
    it? (those hints of getting "cold feet" should be taken into
    consideration BEFORE taking the final step, not a few years after)
    but as I said before, it is only my opinion...
    
    What do I do in my own private case?  I DO A LOT, my family is
    paramount to me and will take something much bigger than an earthquake
    to "shake" it... (I'm ready to die for it if need be) but thanks God,
    I'm still alive, mighty happy, and plan to live for a long time!)
    
    I wich I had the magic SOLUTION, I don't, but if everybody would think
    of marriage as something "indisolubre", "unbreakable" and as a "sacred
    vow" instead of an everyday agreement that a judge can anule when it
    won't work... we would have a lot less broken marriages and divorces!
    Don't you agree?????
    Ana  

    
    
    If society continues to believe that marriage is a good thing, then
    they should make it illegal to get married before you're 30 years
    old...
    
    that's about the age when you stop thinking with your hormones, and
    realize WHO you are and WHAT you want.
    That's ALSO about the time that you start realizing that you're up to
    your butt in bills and finally get around to taking responsiblity of
    your financial affairs. 
    And hopefully, by 30, you've had plenty of opportunities to kiss alot
    of frogs and realize that there's more to a relationship than a warm
    feeling in your stomach.
    
    cathy
    

    I don't think I want to subscribe to either of the orginally stated
    goals, encouraging marriage or discouraging divorce.  That said, if
    anyone did want to do those things, certainly s/he would be frustrated
    if s/he tried to use the schools to do it.  There are many teachers who
    are hardly competent to teach reading or writing or 'rithmetic, many of
    whom are either never married, never divorced, or both married and
    divorced.  Since competence in human relations doesn't seem to be a job
    qualification for teachers, why try to use them to teach it?
    
    A couple of handsome young Mormon fellows came by the house about 15
    years ago, offering to teach me how to be a good father.  Are you
    surprised to learn that I was rude enough to ask "What could you know
    that I need to learn?  My boys are your age already."?
    
    I think you would find the same reaction from students towards teachers
    who have never been married, never been divorced, never been successful
    at marriage.  
    
    We are all amateurs at human relations.  That's just another way of
    saying, you learn something every day.
    
    Dick

    re: .14

    I disagree with your implication that people who get married at age
    30 are somehow better off or more prepared than people who marry sooner.
    I just turned 23 and I'm in very much control of my finances, fiscal
    responsibilities, AND my hormones.  I'm not convinced of any
    correlation between the magical age of 30 and a person's maturity
    level, sense of financial responsibility, or ability to remain in a
    loving, lasting relationship.

       - Larry 

    
    
    re .17...
    
    yup, I remember when I was 23 ... I would have replied the same way
    you did!
    
    Cathy

    Let's make it more general: I am now age X, and I was an idiot at age
    X - Offset. You pick X and Offset.
    
    I repeatedly have this experience, when I go back and look at journal
    entries written a decade, a year, or even a few days before. Did I
    *really* feel that way? What was I thinking about?!?!? It's a great
    exercise for learning to take one's self less seriously. And tomorrow
    I'll think this is a stupid reply (please don't feel obliged to agree
    with me on this :).
    
    There *is* a difference between before-30 and after-30, for most
    people: the former are much more likely to be making dramatic changes
    in their life-style as they get their education completed and their
    working lives underway. School and job can have a great impact on
    self-concept, values, etc. School and job may motivate relocation, with
    change in social circles, cultural environs, etc. By the age of thirty,
    most of us have found the path we'll walk AT LEAST until our mid-life
    crisis hits! That comparative stability probably helps marriage.

    My personal belief has changed over the years but my current theory 
    (based on many of the comments made in .19 {I too kept journals and 
    tend to amaze myself at how I looked at the world then and now})
    is that a man should wait until he's 35 - 45 before getting married.
    
    In other words, he should spend half his lifetime single, enjoying 
    what being single has to offer, the freedom and peace that is found 
    in being single... before he goes off to explore the freedom and peace 
    in being wed, and having children.  I'm just now 35 years of age, and 
    my life would have been a LOT different if I'd had the wisdom to have 
    lived it then as I would have if I new.
    
    Re... the 23 year old gent... I would have taken offense too when I was 
    married at 21, I was in full control had the world before me and adult 
    enough to take on anything and everything... until my wife died at your 
    age and I realized exactly how UN-prepared I was for real life.  Some
    of us are lucky... we don't have reality slap us in the face while we 
    are growing and learning and never realize how much we can change in 
    that infinate time gap between 20 and 30... (or X and Offset)  I hope
    you can look back at age 23 when you're 33 and say... yeap, I was 
    in full control then and am in full control now.  But only time will
    tell.  
    
    Like a friend once said "We are nothing more then the sum of our
    experiences".  You can get a lot of experience between 23 and 30
    
    Skip 

    Skip, Cathy, et al,

    No doubt I will learn, change, grow, mature, make some mistakes, and
    avoid making others in the next seven years.  I don't, however, foresee 
    this process ending, nor do I see some milestone ahead at age 30 which
    says, "OK, now you are prepared emotionally and financially to get
    married."  Hogwash!  Taken to an extreme, a 40 yr. old might say that
    age 35 would be best, a 50 yr. old might say that 40 is a better time
    to get married, etc.  There is no "right" age.

    I don't want this to become a discussion of ages, that's why I refuted
    Cathy's comment about people not being in control of their lives until
    30.  The fact remains, people who get married later still get divorced
    and many marriages of younger couples do not.  Is there still something
    "magical" about age 30?

       - Larry 
                                                  

    
    no, there is nothing magical about age 30. And I'm sure that when I
    reach the age of 40, I'll think back on what an inmature ASS I was at
    30!! 
    It has been my experience that people who get married at a young age
    (20ish) have NOT experienced enough of life to make a rational
    decision on a life mate. 
    The couples I have seen you have waited until they were in their
    30s to make the big move, have taken time to learn a little about
    life and themselves and even their mate.
    Lots of these folks have been dating (as adults and not high school
    sweeties) for 6 and 7 years before they decide to make it official.
    
    30 is not magic, but as someone said before, that 10 years of
    experience that you gain in that time can sure come in handy when you
    decide to be with one person for the remainder of your life. 
    
    cathy 

    Then Cathy, where did these comments come from?

    [1176.14]
>>  that's about the age when you stop thinking with your hormones, and
>>  realize WHO you are and WHAT you want.
>>  That's ALSO about the time that you start realizing that you're up to
>>  your butt in bills and finally get around to taking responsiblity of
>>  your financial affairs. 
  
    Just for fun, let me make some different comments about 30 yr. olds...

    ...that's about the age when you begin to slow down.  You start
    realizing that you're getting too old to play ball during lunch and
    need a less active life.  You're financially secure, but you've lost
    the spontaneity or drive to really enjoy life, or the things your money
    can provide.  You feel ready to make a lifelong commitment, but you've
    become so set in your ways that you find it difficult to make the
    sacrifices and changes necessary to make a marriage work.

    With these and similar arguments, I could propose that there should be
    a law forbidding marriages beyond the age of 29.  But I won't.  The law
    wouldn't account for persons not fitting the above description, just as
    your law would not account for people not fitting yours.

       - Larry

    
    
    hum....
    
    well geez....your comments remind me of the Doritos commercial about
    a couple of teen agers talking about this 'older woman' (30ish) whos
    life is all but over and how she has no enery left (split screen to
    see gorgious 30 year old out dancing want extrememly gorgious 30ish
    man) and how she can only date dweebs if she gets the energy!
    
    I do stand by my comments in .14.  I know too many of us over-the-hill
    folks (too old to play ball at lunch anymore) who sit around on our
    rocking chairs and talk about growing up. 
    Sorry if you take it presonally. It is nothing that I didn't go through
    and alot of other folks probably did as well. Lets jut resume this
    discussion in 10 years, when you're too old to play ball at lunchtime
    anymore, and you can tell me that you were right and I was wrong!
    
    Cathy ;-)

    
    re my last.....
    make that gorgEous....
    
    they say that the second thing to go is our ability to spell...:-)
    
    cathy

    Actually Cath, I was thinking of the Doritos commercial where the kids were
    talking about older men and they split screen to some 30-something guys
    playing basketball.  Of course I don't believe those comments but I
    wanted to point out that generalizations can often do more harm than good.
    
    In the meantime, I'll still balance my checkbook, keep my hormones
    under control, and look out for Miss Right.  I can't afford to wait
    'til 1998 to get my act together.  See you in ten years.
    
       - Larry  :-)

    
    
    
    maybe Miss Right will be an older woman!!!
    
    :-)
    
    Cathy