Well, I don't think fictional speculation counts as an 'answer', exactly. It's one guy's opinion of how it would work, within a certain set of parameters. Not a definitive solution. I've got a book coming out in April that plays with a similar 'no marriage' idea. It's in a fantasy world, with some ideas taken from the Spartans, but a lot of others just made up. (And it's an m/m romance, which puts a bit of a pro-gay spin on everything...) There's no marriage in my world b/c men are dedicated to war, dying in large numbers, and there are therefore lots of 'extra' women. Polygamy would be one solution, but I opted for a different system, where the women live in the walled city and run the economy, form partnerships with other women to raise children, and call on whichever man they want for reproductive purposes as desired. The men live in the barracks outside of town, form strong bonds with other men and have sex with whomever they want (mostly other men b/c of proximity, but also women when the women are willing). Everyone seems fairly happy with the system. There are lots of different ways to imagine a culture without marriage. Huxley's was just one version.
I think we're both biased on the subject. I don't like usually telling people this but my family fostered. I lived with some of these failed-adoption kids. I hate bringing it up because it was very rough lifestyle ( nothing like the movies ), but I also don't want my opinion ( and that's all it is mind you ) to be taken as unexperienced. Not all children are ditched because they have serious problems. Sometimes their parents are a$$holes. A lot of failed adoptions were for the stupidest reason - the kid was homely. And IMHO knowing your parents helps you with your identity - there are biological issues that get passed on and it's a relief ( even if it's also annoying ) to see those same traits in your parents. But when there's no one to turn to and recognize those traits you can feel odd-one out. It totally depends though on the family involved, the traits , and the child. I watched one adoption fail because the go-getter family allowed a gap to grow because the boy they adopted was laid back and withdrawn. He couldn't identify with them and always felt as though he was in the wrong. I'm not saying adoption doesn't work. I've seen it work. I said when it goes wrong - it really goes wrong.
Well hello. Pleased to meet you, stranger. Glad to see I can still stroke a few flames while I'm gone. Pardon me if my answers are a bit short. This is arguing semantics. I know what the Church says. An assumption, a baseless assertion. You're entirely welcome to your perspective. I won't tell you you're wrong.
I think you may have touched on something real here. How many people get married because they want to have a big wedding? I personally know two couples who went through with a huge, expensive wedding (which had been over a year in planning and preparation) simply because they didn't want to 'back out' and disappoint people. They felt it would be easier to just get a divorce afterwards! One couple did divorce soon afterwards. The other couple is still together, a couple of years later, but not happy, and considering divorce. Both couples (or at least the brides, whom I've spoken to) said they knew beforehand that it was a mistake, but they felt trapped. I think society might do well to stop promoting these lavish, often unaffordable marriage ceremonies that lock couples into something they feel they can't, or shouldn't, back out of. A simple church wedding with a few guests or a similar ceremony elsewhere or in a registry office would probably make more sense. It can be a special day, but without all the expense and the expectations.
There was a piece in my paper recently (I only read it in passing so don't know the validity of the research); but it suggested a clear correlation between the cost of a marriage and the length of time couples stay together: The more expensive the marriage, the quicker the divorce. It doesn't surprise me a great deal; if my other half wanted to waste £15k on a wedding it would be a clear sign that we aren't compatible.
1) I agree about huge, lavish weddings -- they're useless. Maybe it's just ego boost or something. 2) Marrying someone just because either society, both parents, friends or whoever the f*ck expects it is the most bullshitty reason to marry in the 21st century. Pardon me but in your words I sense you're putting the responsibility on society's pressure on the couple. I admit the pressure may be very strong and harsh, but still. It's the couple that will live together, not the people around. The two people are those who are supposed to want to marry. I see a positive side in it though; by very act of being with someone for an extended period of time you say something. You say "there are hundreds of other potential partners, but I'm with this one here." The longer such state prevails the more serious it inherently becomes. And it teaches a person to re-evaluate and re-assure their position in a relationship. It is my honest opinion that every person is aware of this notion and they either agree with it, resulting in marriage (being together) or they don't which might result in breaking up OR nothing at all, which is where the problem lies. My few cents worth. I've been in that situation -- it did take some time to break up with a girl after I had realized I didn't love her. I knew by being with her I'm heading in some definite direction I wasn't happy about. And there was some pressure from her side... This might be against sb's grain but when two people are together, they are heading toward a definite point in their lives. They just have to realize it.
@Andrae Smith You're entirely welcome to your perspective. I won't tell you you're wrong. Dunno for sure if that was directed at me but anyway, nice of you.
I mean, I don't want to justify any pressure on the couple, but to be fair, if the two have been together for some time, everybody around will assume they're serious about each other. And if they're not, well, whose mistake is it then?
I think I read the same article. It had lots of those little factoids. The two I found most head-scratching were this one about cost of the wedding and then the "fact" that more people at the wedding equated to a longer-lasting relationship. So, according to this article, have the big wedding but be stingy about it.
I think the best way to evaluate marriage is to read the Bible, read history, read modern politics. It chronicles a very sad path of human relations. It is almost linear in self-destruction, not dissimilar to Revelations. Which brings science back to Theology. If you act immorally, the world will burn. How much science do people need? But it's this, but it's that.. No it's people-- you & me.
If you have a big family and want to gather as many of them together as possible, which happens really rarely, a big wedding is the perfect excuse. It's just the excuse a lot of people really like. I have nothing against small weddings, to each their own, but just because you put some money into a great party doesn't readily warrant prejudice against the future of the couple. I have several friends and cousins who threw a big shindig, and they're very much happily married, even after several years. I've only got 4,5 years under my belt, but the wedding forecast isn't particularly stormy despite many external challenges we've faced, despite the big party. It was a great party, not done so we could post cool FB pics (I haven't posted any, actually) or because the wedding magazines said so (I didn't read a single one before the w-day), but to celebrate Love.
Would you want to live in a Logan's Run world? Everyone just milling around what seems to be a great big shopping mall until they keel over and die? What a fulfilling life that is...NOT.
Oh, I wasn't implying that big weddings can't be fun, if the couple is truly committed to each other. (Provided they don't go into debt they can't afford in order to stage it.) Of course a big wedding can mean as many guests as you want, but the venue doesn't have to be lavish. People can even come informally dressed. The reception can be a big dance and potluck. (One very memorable one took place on the groom's farm, followed by a barn dance that lasted all night long.) The ceremony can be performed inexpensively by whatever body the couple chooses. (In this case, a country church.) I've been to a few of these weddings, back in the USA, and they were the most memorably fun of any I ever attended. And the guest list was massive—all ages in attendance. (And the couples are still together, over 30 years on.) I do feel that there is a pressure on people to have a 'big' (expensive, formal) wedding these days, and some people will engage in this with the first suitable candidate who comes along. They can get trapped. My best friend here in Scotland is a dressmaker, whose specialty is wedding dresses ...for brides, bridesmaids, mother of bride and groom, etc. She's been in this business for over 40 years, and has done MANY brides more than once. First marriages fail, and people bop straight into the next one, again with all the fluff and trimmings. The lavish ceremony itself (limo rides, hen and stag parties, hundreds of guests, lavish matching outfits) seems to be the point of the exercise in some cases. The strength of the relationship comes second. My friend has also seen what happens when an expensive wedding gets cancelled because either the bride or groom gets cold feet at the last minute. Not a pretty sight either. And a VERY expensive mistake, because the ceremony must be paid for despite the wedding not happening at all.
Didn't the hippies in the late 60's already try this? Cannot remember the last time I saw a hippy! Too those advocating the importance of religion. Marriage is about making a commitment to each other, remove the barriers to following through on that commitment and it cheapens the institution, religion is of no importance in that regard.