What is lost when getting married?

[Arcana XV]

The only freedom I would lose were I to ever be crazy enough to marry or live with someone again (same exact thing in my opinion), is the freedom to make decisions for myself, with no input from anyone else whatsoever. This is a huge thing for me because I am pathologically independent and the main reason I will never share a home with anyone ever again. When you live with someone, the other person has to be consulted about practically everything. I got married way too young to realize what I was really giving up. Not making that mistake again.

 

[DDD]

I do not think much gets lost really. I guess it depends on how different your lifestyle was before you got married. I did not lose anything except venturing new business ideas. Had to be more caution and take less risks since I would no longer be the sole person to receive the negative consequences.

What gets lost is taking greater risks. This should be what is meant with "settling down" also.

 

[maquiscat]

I actually gave this question a bit of thought. The only thing I could come up with that a person loses in marriage is selfishness because it is no longer just about you. And if you don't learn that life lesson early on in your relationship, then there's a good chance you won't be married long.

That could be said of pretty much any relationship from "marriage" to business. If you maintain a sense of selfishness within any relationship the relationship will crumble. So I would say that this argument is "invalid" only in the sense that I, as the OP, am looking for that specifically lost from marriage and marriage itself. Now I have stated that it could be a purely legal marriage with no romantic/intimate love between the spouses.

Come to think of it, this is true of virtually any relationship. Any time your actions affect others, you have a responsibility to be mindful of that and choose accordingly - whether it's a spouse, a roommate, or your children. That's just part of being an adult.

Wow this goes perfectly with what I just responded to vesper with. Which BTW I wrote my response to before reading this post. So far you are supporting my argument even more so. I am looking for that which specifically is lost to marriage, not that which is lost to relationships in general, which can range from roommate to familial, to friends to lovers.

Agreement and consent are not relevant to this thread. This is about what was lost, not if the loss was given away or taken.

Given that I am the OP I'm pretty sure that I have a good idea of what is relevant to this thread. Look back at post #1. Part of my argument is:

There is no personal freedom that one would lose getting married that one does not agree to before hand.

Now I am willing to revise that argument to a point at this point in the thread. I would have to say that one could possibly not realize that there is something in their life that they have been unconsciously regarding as a personal freedom. But with regards to my original intent of the one person who is making the claim of loss of personal freedoms, they obviously are aware of what these personal freedoms they would lose are and thus they can only lose them by agreement. But a lack of agreeing to give them up does not necessarily exclude a marriage from taking place, legal and/or social.

Legally, you do give something up, and you put yourself at risk in the event of a divorce. As a creator, knowing there are many states where a spouse owns half your intellectual property rights, I am not willing to take that risk, and I also resent the concept. Every wonder why there was such a huge gap in the Star Wars series? Ugly divorce, that's why.

Are there states where pre-nups are not allowed/enforced? I am not aware of any but then I am also not up on such laws so there well could be. Either way that loss is still a choice that doesn't preclude marriage. As you can choose to marry and reside in a state that doesn't have those laws. For that matter under the premise of my arguments, the spouses cold live in separate houses and even in separate states. I even allowed for a purely legal marriage where the two (maybe a roommate or best friends situation) get the paperwork done for the benefits.

I also don't agree with the idea that my relationships need to be rubber-stamped by the government in order to be legitimate. The government has nothing to do with my relationship, and I don't feel a need to ask their permission. I honestly don't think it should exist -- there should simply be contracts (broad like marriage if you like, or individual packages, or write your own -- whatever). The government doesn't get to say who I can deligate my rights to, based on their judgement of the legitimacy of my feelings. Who on earth are they? I will deal with my affairs in other ways.

My .02, for whatever it's worth.

This is one of the reasons I make a point of noting the differences between a social/religious marriage and a legal one. While they both can be applied to the same given relationship, they are not mutually inclusive. You can have any one of the three without the other two, with the stipulation that the social/religious can be more subjective while the legal is purely objective. I do see the marriage laws and such of the government to be one of the few efficient legal solutions out there. That statement stands regardless of the stupidity of who it currently gets applied and not applied to. It is the argument of mine that the legal state should be applied to any two consenting adults, which yes includes blood related individuals. Again on the premise that the legal marriage is different from the social/religious. Any reall argument should probably be taken to another thread as they would be long and involved and not relative to this thread. Kind of like why I made this thread.

I don't believe any freedom is lost, as much as some autonomy is sacrificed for the sake of uniformity. Where there was one and one, there is now two who become as one. It's simply a different way of coexisting with someone on a personal level.

Or three or four or more. Note that I didn't limit this to monogamous marriages and thus there is no assumptions that a legal marriage is in place where a social/religious one is. The rest of your post I pretty much addressed earlier with others who said similar things.

Marriage itself - just committed relationships in general - come with many built in expectations that the law enforces and spouses often expect.

Such as fidelity, openness, financial support, personal accountability.

You can no longer just do whatever - whenever - and however you like. You are married.

If you aren't giving anything up then marriages wouldn't fail as often as they do.

I disagree. You are holding a presumption of love and co-habitation. And while I would not deny that such are the basis of a super-majority of marriages, they are not a requirement of a legal marriage.

The only freedom I would lose were I to ever be crazy enough to marry or live with someone again (same exact thing in my opinion), is the freedom to make decisions for myself, with no input from anyone else whatsoever. This is a huge thing for me because I am pathologically independent and the main reason I will never share a home with anyone ever again. When you live with someone, the other person has to be consulted about practically everything. I got married way too young to realize what I was really giving up. Not making that mistake again.

But would you get the legal paperwork done with someone just to get the legal benefits, not even co-habitating? No loss of freedoms there.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

That could be said of pretty much any relationship from "marriage" to business. If you maintain a sense of selfishness within any relationship the relationship will crumble. So I would say that this argument is "invalid" only in the sense that I, as the OP, am looking for that specifically lost from marriage and marriage itself. Now I have stated that it could be a purely legal marriage with no romantic/intimate love between the spouses.



Wow this goes perfectly with what I just responded to vesper with. Which BTW I wrote my response to before reading this post. So far you are supporting my argument even more so. I am looking for that which specifically is lost to marriage, not that which is lost to relationships in general, which can range from roommate to familial, to friends to lovers.



Given that I am the OP I'm pretty sure that I have a good idea of what is relevant to this thread. Look back at post #1. Part of my argument is:



Now I am willing to revise that argument to a point at this point in the thread. I would have to say that one could possibly not realize that there is something in their life that they have been unconsciously regarding as a personal freedom. But with regards to my original intent of the one person who is making the claim of loss of personal freedoms, they obviously are aware of what these personal freedoms they would lose are and thus they can only lose them by agreement. But a lack of agreeing to give them up does not necessarily exclude a marriage from taking place, legal and/or social.



Are there states where pre-nups are not allowed/enforced? I am not aware of any but then I am also not up on such laws so there well could be. Either way that loss is still a choice that doesn't preclude marriage. As you can choose to marry and reside in a state that doesn't have those laws. For that matter under the premise of my arguments, the spouses cold live in separate houses and even in separate states. I even allowed for a purely legal marriage where the two (maybe a roommate or best friends situation) get the paperwork done for the benefits.



This is one of the reasons I make a point of noting the differences between a social/religious marriage and a legal one. While they both can be applied to the same given relationship, they are not mutually inclusive. You can have any one of the three without the other two, with the stipulation that the social/religious can be more subjective while the legal is purely objective. I do see the marriage laws and such of the government to be one of the few efficient legal solutions out there. That statement stands regardless of the stupidity of who it currently gets applied and not applied to. It is the argument of mine that the legal state should be applied to any two consenting adults, which yes includes blood related individuals. Again on the premise that the legal marriage is different from the social/religious. Any reall argument should probably be taken to another thread as they would be long and involved and not relative to this thread. Kind of like why I made this thread.



Or three or four or more. Note that I didn't limit this to monogamous marriages and thus there is no assumptions that a legal marriage is in place where a social/religious one is. The rest of your post I pretty much addressed earlier with others who said similar things.




I disagree. You are holding a presumption of love and co-habitation. And while I would not deny that such are the basis of a super-majority of marriages, they are not a requirement of a legal marriage.



But would you get the legal paperwork done with someone just to get the legal benefits, not even co-habitating? No loss of freedoms there.

So what - to you - IS a marriage?

Sounds to me like a marriage to you is just two people living together and nothing more - nothing less. Just a state of existence.

That's not a marriage - that's just being roommates with benefits.

Just living in the same house with someone curbs your freedoms - and if you don't say it does then that just makes you a dick of a roommate that people come to hate.

 

[maquiscat]

So what - to you - IS a marriage?

Sounds to me like a marriage to you is just two people living together and nothing more - nothing less. Just a state of existence.

That's not a marriage - that's just being roommates with benefits.

Marriage is multiple things depending upon the context that the word is used in.

Legally, marriage has nothing to do with love or feelings or anything but what the laws outlines. It's who has the legal right to speak for another and how property is handled and being exempt from testifying against one's spouse, etc.

Religiously, it gets rather nebulous, as religious things are wont to do. Many are the couple who have been married before the eyes of their god(s) or goddess(es), yet never really form any kind of healthy relationship as we know it today.

Social marriages aren't really much better historically. Even if a couple are married in the eyes of their community, sans any legal documentation, that doesn't really mean that there is a "marriage" as you imply in your post.

Ultimately a marriage is the joining of two or more individuals at some level. The reasons can be as varied as the grains of sand on a beach. Right now we have arguments going on as to whether or not two individuals of the same gender could ever actually be married. We've argued in the past about two individuals of different races. We argue now about whether or not more than two people can be in a marriage. That's a generalized "we" BTW, not specifically you and me. So yes roommates with benefits can be a marriage. And for that matter there is no reason that roommates with no sex (as implied) benefits can't also be a marriage or even two closely blood related individuals can't be a marriage. Sex does not make a marriage. Love does not make a marriage. No one thing or one set combination of things makes a marriage. Marriage is what we make it.

Just living in the same house with someone curbs your freedoms - and if you don't say it does then that just makes you a dick of a roommate that people come to hate.

This actually highlights part of my point. The act of marriage, at the very least in the legal sense, is not, or maybe better to say need not be, a cause of any loss of freedoms. Co-habitation on the other hand, whether marriage is involved or not, does.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Marriage is multiple things depending upon the context that the word is used in.

Legally, marriage has nothing to do with love or feelings or anything but what the laws outlines. It's who has the legal right to speak for another and how property is handled and being exempt from testifying against one's spouse, etc.

Religiously, it gets rather nebulous, as religious things are wont to do. Many are the couple who have been married before the eyes of their god(s) or goddess(es), yet never really form any kind of healthy relationship as we know it today.

Social marriages aren't really much better historically. Even if a couple are married in the eyes of their community, sans any legal documentation, that doesn't really mean that there is a "marriage" as you imply in your post.

Ultimately a marriage is the joining of two or more individuals at some level. The reasons can be as varied as the grains of sand on a beach. Right now we have arguments going on as to whether or not two individuals of the same gender could ever actually be married. We've argued in the past about two individuals of different races. We argue now about whether or not more than two people can be in a marriage. That's a generalized "we" BTW, not specifically you and me. So yes roommates with benefits can be a marriage. And for that matter there is no reason that roommates with no sex (as implied) benefits can't also be a marriage or even two closely blood related individuals can't be a marriage. Sex does not make a marriage. Love does not make a marriage. No one thing or one set combination of things makes a marriage. Marriage is what we make it.



This actually highlights part of my point. The act of marriage, at the very least in the legal sense, is not, or maybe better to say need not be, a cause of any loss of freedoms. Co-habitation on the other hand, whether marriage is involved or not, does.

I fail to see how any twist or application of the concept doesn't result in an altered lifestyle.

There's no way to enter into a religious / legal / social marriage without changing and conforming to some state of existence that involves others.

 

[maquiscat]

I fail to see how any twist or application of the concept doesn't result in an altered lifestyle.

There's no way to enter into a religious / legal / social marriage without changing and conforming to some state of existence that involves others.

Because you seem to be presuming a the state of existence change didn't occur prior to the marriage. Obviously in order to marry someone, I have to have some sort of interaction with them. That in and of itself presumes some sort of change, or limitation. In order to even get to such a point as talking about marriage, for whatever reason, there has to be some level of trust and cooperation. But this level can be seen in business relationship, long term dating relationship and many others. What is required to change in order to get the legal marriage (just to start there)?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Because you seem to be presuming a the state of existence change didn't occur prior to the marriage. Obviously in order to marry someone, I have to have some sort of interaction with them. That in and of itself presumes some sort of change, or limitation. In order to even get to such a point as talking about marriage, for whatever reason, there has to be some level of trust and cooperation. But this level can be seen in business relationship, long term dating relationship and many others. What is required to change in order to get the legal marriage (just to start there)?

Well here you're just trying to go 'well life changed - but it happened before you got married - so that's not the same thing'.

I mean seriously - come on. :lol:

Give it a rest. Just because a few people don't think their lives changed after they married (in any of the many ways marriage can be 'obtained') doesn't mean it doesn't for MOST people. That's the point for most people, that's the appeal and the challenge.

You're trying to take a rare exception and make it a generic default - it just doesn't' work that way. Or, as your'e doing in this quote, you're trying to contrast it to a business contract. roll: So even a business contract doesn't alter or inhibit your life?)

And so if some guy out there hates the idea of marriage because of all the many constraints it will undoubtedly place - then there's no debating that. The thing you are expected to give up are apparently the things he doesn't want to give up.

 

[maquiscat]

Well here you're just trying to go 'well life changed - but it happened before you got married - so that's not the same thing'.

I mean seriously - come on. :lol:

No not really, although I can see where you might get that from. Life changes from all sorts of relationships. Marriage might be one of them but those changes are not required to happen nor is there any set changes that will happen.

You're trying to take a rare exception and make it a generic default - it just doesn't' work that way. Or, as your'e doing in this quote, you're trying to contrast it to a business contract. roll: So even a business contract doesn't alter or inhibit your life?)

And so if some guy out there hates the idea of marriage because of all the many constraints it will undoubtedly place - then there's no debating that. The thing you are expected to give up are apparently the things he doesn't want to give up.

Actually I'm attempting to come at it from the other direction. I won't say that I am necessarily being successful. My point is that if we have certain freedoms that we do not wish to give up, we don't have to give them up just because we got married. Now, granted, this does presume that one has to find a partner or partners that will agree to the given freedom(s) not being given up. For example, I still have my freedom to have girlfriends and have sex with them. That was a freedom that I was not going to give up and said as much to my (now) wife. And for the record, she also retains that freedom even though she doesn't excerise it. She's only found one person so far that interested her as much as I did/do and he sadly was transfered by his work before the 3rd date. There is nothing anywhere that requires me to lose that freedom. This is my whole point. We only "lose" that which we are willing to give up, or that which we don't realize we have.

In the case of the individual who insisted that they would not marry because of the freedoms they would lose, it is obvious that they have specific freedoms that they are consiously aware of that they do not wish to lose. There is nothing factually anywhere that would require them to lose those freedoms when they got married. People have these expectations but those are simply social constructs and not absolutes.

 

[Maenad]

At my current stage of life, I just don't see how my life would be enhanced with having an old man to take care of. Just more dirty drawers in the laundry!

 

[rhinefire]

Freedom is the sole reason I never married. I felt it challenged in many but not all of my relationships with different women. It is impossible to mean the same for all persons. I cherished my freedom to go or stay from the time since I was a child. If freedom is compromised in a marriage then the marriage should never have happened. It would be crazy to knowingly go in to a marriage with freedom being tops in your priority. Does "give and take" ring a bell? I have a very close friend that married after high school to his high school sweetheart and they now have grandchildren after three of their own. We talk and he acknowledges he felt his freedom challenged but his marriage took top shelf. He has said he envies me and I respond I envy him. We simply made the choice and neither of us regret it. Personally, my folks I think never even gave freedom a thought. They met, dated for six years, married, lived and died. We sometimes are asked to help out in relationships and that always seemed like an impossible task as we are all unique.

 

[maquiscat]

At my current stage of life, I just don't see how my life would be enhanced with having an old man to take care of. Just more dirty drawers in the laundry!

Make him do the laundry. I do it for our household

 

[Jerry]

At my current stage of life, I just don't see how my life would be enhanced with having an old man to take care of. Just more dirty drawers in the laundry!

I never wanted my wife to do my laundry. I like everyone to be able to take care of themselves, and then when we work together were oh so much more better

 

[DiAnna]

Independence. As I look back to where I once was, and where I am now, it is my lost independence I mourn most.

 

[Gipper]

Sanity.

 

[maquiscat]

Sanity.

You have to have it first before you can lose it.

 

[SCitizen]

I do not know. For a disabled person providing for a family would be impossible.

 

[maquiscat]

I do not know. For a disabled person providing for a family would be impossible.

Could you provide some context to this comment as it seems to have nothing to do with the topic without said context?

 

[Arcana XV]

But would you get the legal paperwork done with someone just to get the legal benefits, not even co-habitating? No loss of freedoms there.

No. That is still legally tying myself not to mention my personal fortune to someone else. I honestly can't think of a single legal benefit of marriage that would justify giving up having complete control over my life, myself and my finances. Pre-nups only go so far. My next of kin right now is my adult daughter and that is the way it's going to stay. I trust her implicitly to do the right thing were I to become incapacitated and if anything happens to me she inherits everything I have.

 

[SCitizen]

Could you provide some context to this comment as it seems to have nothing to do with the topic without said context?

I have a severe disability -- autism combined with depression.

 

[maquiscat]

No. That is still legally tying myself not to mention my personal fortune to someone else. I honestly can't think of a single legal benefit of marriage that would justify giving up having complete control over my life, myself and my finances. Pre-nups only go so far. My next of kin right now is my adult daughter and that is the way it's going to stay. I trust her implicitly to do the right thing were I to become incapacitated and if anything happens to me she inherits everything I have.

Now under the assumption that it would be legal, would you marry, in purely the legal sense, your daughter? There would be advantages such as no inheritance tax and many others that she does not have now. Would there be any losses in doing so, give how you have stated you have set your life up. Again I want to stress I am looking purely at the legal.

 

[Arcana XV]

Now under the assumption that it would be legal, would you marry, in purely the legal sense, your daughter? There would be advantages such as no inheritance tax and many others that she does not have now. Would there be any losses in doing so, give how you have stated you have set your life up. Again I want to stress I am looking purely at the legal.

Marriage was invented to legally join people together who aren't already immediate family. I'm really not sure what you're trying to accomplish in this thread. There is no benefit in marrying your parent when you're an only child. As for the inheritance tax, it's really not that high where I'm from. :shrug:

 

[maquiscat]

Marriage was invented to legally join people together who aren't already immediate family. I'm really not sure what you're trying to accomplish in this thread. There is no benefit in marrying your parent when you're an only child. As for the inheritance tax, it's really not that high where I'm from. :shrug:

Actually that was a tangent purely off of what you had posted.

 

[DA60]

What do you give up?

Complete independence.

I will (hopefully) never knowingly give that up again.

 

[maquiscat]

What do you give up?

Complete independence.

I will (hopefully) never knowingly give that up again.

So how complete is your independence, currently?