Is marrage irrational?

[El_Machinae]

It is irrational to swear that you'll love someone for the rest of your life, because anybody should be able to look at the odds and realise that they could very well be entering an oath they cannot keep.

That said, many people are happily married and continue to be happily married their whole lives. There's a bonding effect that can occur when you're with someone (or forced away from someone) that's really powerful.

Finally, as lifespans and independence creep up, we can expect people to no longer need each other as much. And sometimes familiarity can breed boredom or contempt.

It would be rational for people to realise that someday, they'll not think that their oath is actually binding any longer. As well, the harm inflicted upon divorcing someone can go down, if you're careful and gentle when filing for divorce. (too many divorces are hostile, and so we should work on the mindset that they should be amicable)

 

[happy_Alex]

It is irrational to swear that you'll love someone for the rest of your life, because anybody should be able to look at the odds and realise that they could very well be entering an oath they cannot keep.

????


That's the point of an oath, it is a committment not to break the relationship. It's up to the parties to make it happen, within their power.

 

[IglooDame]

To quote Ambrose Bierce:

Marriage, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.

Some of us don't follow that definition. In my own marriage, we've kicked the mistress and one of the slaves out of the community, though it still makes "in all, two."

Though I'll readily concede that it isn't for everyone, and though as MobBoss notes "for better or for worse" isn't just a toss-off line in a book, neither is "love, honor, and obey" - which is why many couples are leaving the latter one out of the exchange of vows.

 

[Rik Meleet]

The literal text of the wedding vow in the Netherlands is: (of course the woman gets the same question with the 2 names switched).
"<man's full name>, verklaart u aan te nemen tot uw wettige echtgenote: <woman's full name> en belooft u getrouw alle plichten te zullen vervullen die de wet aan de huwelijkse staat verbindt.Wat is hierop uw antwoord? "

Translation:
"<man's full name>, Do you declare to accept to be your legal wife: <woman's full name> and do you promise to honour all duties that the law attaches to marriage. What is your answer to this ? "

So it's a legal document and thus rational.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yeah, the law is never irrational . . .

 

[Rik Meleet]

Yeah, the law is never irrational . . .

- there certainly are irrational laws but that's not what I said ...

 

[Swedishguy]

Two people falling in love and wanting to be together is one of the most natural things about the human experience.

And so is supressing and killing each other.

I voted yes.

 

[MobBoss]

It is irrational to swear that you'll love someone for the rest of your life, because anybody should be able to look at the odds and realise that they could very well be entering an oath they cannot keep.

Some animals keep it, thus its perfectlly natural.

That said, many people are happily married and continue to be happily married their whole lives. There's a bonding effect that can occur when you're with someone (or forced away from someone) that's really powerful.

/agree.

Finally, as lifespans and independence creep up, we can expect people to no longer need each other as much. And sometimes familiarity can breed boredom or contempt.

It can, but there are plenty of ways to combat that.

 

[Elrohir]

Is there an authoritative definition of "rational" for this thread? Because it's really dependent upon how we define rational behavior.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not sending you $19.99 for "Mobboss's Hints on Keeping a Marriage Spicy". I already bought Bozo's "10 Deep Insights to End an Arguement"

 

[Bill3000]

Is there an authoritative definition of "rational" for this thread? Because it's really dependent upon how we define rational behavior.

I'm going to have to agree. What exactly is meant by "rational" here? What is the point of labelling it as such? And most importantly, what definition of marriage? I'm not just talking about "man and woman" here, but the actual purpose of being married, realistically speaking, which may or may not include love (marriage for the sake of romance is a modern construct, IIRC).

Heck, I could come up with the example that marriage was an extremely rational - if not a powerful weapon - when it comes to dynastic marriages back in the day, but once again, it entirely depends on what we are defining both "marriage" and "rationality."

 

[MobBoss]

I'm not sending you $19.99 for "Mobboss's Hints on Keeping a Marriage Spicy". I already bought Bozo's "10 Deep Insights to End an Arguement"

Awww, come on. Just knowing that Chapter 3 is titled "Paprika and its usage in the bedroom" should be enough to sell thousands of units.

 

[LuckyAC]

I think it's "irrational" in a purely logical sense, and certainly I would never get married, but it's also a human instinct that has become an institution in pretty much every society (whether monogamous or polygamous marriage). To ensure the survival of one's genetic code, the man must claim his women so that he knows he is not wasting his resources providing for a bastard child. With no ties of commitment at all, men would not have had the proper incentives to share the fruits of their labor with woman or children. Of course, in modern society, that has little relevance, but our evolutionary past determines our present nature.

 

[MamboJoel]

That's not necessarily true. In France, you are married not by the Church, but the State: a Judge is the one who presides over the ceremony. You can get "married" in a Church also, if you wish, but its only a legal marriage if its performed by a Judge.

The civil mariage is the one recognonized by the French Republic and it's ceremony is presided by the mayor of your town. It's a very official public ceremony with all the relatives (wouldn't be exactly the case if it was a judge). This is civil mariage, currently for a men and a women.
A majority of couples mary at the Church at the same time (often the same day), but this ceremony has no meaning however...

On Topic. Mariage ? Love for life with one person ? I'd love too. But the reality is more subtile. There is sex, love, passion; then you have children, and they grow etc... "Il y a un temps pour tout"

 

[Sephiroth]

And so is supressing and killing each other.

I voted yes.

my thoughts exactly...