[MD] until death do us part

[Matt Kundert]

Marsha, you asked, "Is marriage 'just' a social habit that has 
outgrown its usefulness," and I guess it might be easier on 
the question--since social habits aren't to be denigrated as 
such--if it was "Has monogamy seen its day?"

And I guess I'd be inclined to say, "Maybe someday, but I 
doubt in our culture yet."  Like you suggest, the rising 
generations are more and more unconcerned about it, with 
fewer and fewer expectations riding on it, trying out newer 
social arrangements with steady and increasing repetition 
and success.  Culture hasn't disintegrated yet, and I doubt 
it will, but it and social institutions will change 
accordingly--someday, though perhaps not in our lifetimes 
(like how taxes are done, divorce settlements, etc.).  One 
good reason to suspect the rate of change might recently 
have been slowed on this score is how difficult it is to raise 
a family on one income: the neocons, in a cunning if 
unconscious effort to retard progress, have made it nearly 
impossible by eviscerating the American economy over the 
last 40 years and destroying a stable, comfortable 
middle-class that makes progress possible.

As far as personal choice goes, I guess I have to side with 
monogamy, just insofar as it is still difficult to separate 
jealousy from sex.  And as long as that's the case on all or 
any side, in seems preferable--to combat the loneliness and 
preference for close companionship that some of us feel--to 
error on the side of caution and commit.

How's that for romance?

Matt

p.s.  E. M. Forster's Howards End seems to be a book all 
about this issue: romance, love, money, and culture.

> What is a "successful" marriage? Does the fact that they are divorcing
> alone mean that their marriage was not a success?
> 
> Best,
> Steve
> 
> 
> > Sorry about the pinhead remark.  I was trying to get someone
> > beside the most wise John to respond.  I'm happy you did.
> > I personally still do not think I would marry if I had it to do
> > over again.  Marriage is too difficult.  The expectations that
> > often accompany the marriage vows can sometimes ruin a
> > good relationship.  -   Although it might be nice to have a wife
> > to cook, clean and listen to my complaints.
> >
> > Marsha
> >
> >
> >> But to our mutual surprise, we discovered that we actually liked each
> >> other's company, doing things we like doing together, even though
> >> there are also things we each like doing that the other wouldn't be
> >> seen dead - posting on MD for example. It's not that the formality of
> >> marriage provides anything other than some nominal stability for the
> >> kids involved - like, they need it even if they don't know it -
> >> therefore a valuable social (even biological) convention,  but that a
> >> life-long soul-mate has shared-values when all is said and done, and
> >> it's values that matter.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Ian
> >>
> >>> The question today seems not to be 'Should a couple stay together for the kids?'
> >>> It's more like, 'Should a couple get married for any reason?'  Child support can
> >>> be gotten with a dna test.  Do today's kids care if their parents are married?
> >>> Is marriage 'just' a social habit that has outgrown it usefulness?
> >>>
> >>> I wouldn't get married today, not at 20, 40 or 60.  No way!
> >>>
> >>> I knew you would respond, John.  You actually seem to have some real social
> >>> concern.  Where do the rest of you inspectors of pinheads stand?  Do you see
> >>> any value in the social pattern of marriage?
> >>>
> >>> Marsha
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Their story always appealed to me, resonated with something that seems
> >>>> right, that marriage doesn't have to follow any particular pattern to have
> >>>> value.  So Al and Tipper grew apart?  So what?  I think that's perfectly
> >>>> natural and right.  Nobody said we have to turn into carbon copies of each
> >>>> other for the rest our lives, just because we partner up for raising kids
> >>>> and supporting one another.  What I don't get is why they have to divorce.
> >>>> I mean, what's that about?  The only reason they'd need to divorce is cuz
> >>>> somebody wants to what?  Get remarried and have more kids?  Find true love?
> >>>> Silly thing for an old fart to be chasing at this stage of his life.  Poor
> >>>> Al.  Hollywood musta gone to his head.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> John the anti-romantic
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Greetings,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All the buzz on the radio, because of Tipper and Al Gore, is whether the
> >>>>> institution of marriage
> >>>>> is falling apart.   Because of the expanded longevity, can two people be
> >>>>> expected to commit
> >>>>> 'until death do us part'?  Fifty years with one man, or woman?  That is a
> >>>>> long time?  With the
> >>>>> divorce rate above 50%, should this social pattern survive, change,
> >>>>> dissolve?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What say you intellectuals about this social static pattern of value?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Marsha
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2