Is marriage necessary?

A while ago Buffie and I had a debate in which we digressed from the original topic into whether or not marriage was necessary and i wanted to talk about that. I know quite a few people who are in comitted relationships and dont believe in marriage. These people believe in spending their lives with each other and are in love with each other but dont believe in marriage. Since they are in committed relationships, i feel that marriage is not necessary. Marriage is considered to be a strong commitment, in which two people love each other, care for each other and stick with each other in the good and the bad. Now if someone has all that then marriage is simply a piece of paper which has no real significance and only exists to make the government aware of your commitment to each other.

Marriage is a mistake that every man and woman should make!

I think it is...all the single ppl whom I know have been slightly "cuckoo" 😉 so if u wanna stay sane get married! 😛

But on a serious note... I think marriage does provide you with a support system that stays with you for life and it is very gratifying to be able to share everything in your life with a special someone... 😊

As I see everything religiously, I'd say it is necessary.

i guess that since i m not religious...i think that marriage is not a necessity. i think there is no guarantee that in marriage you luv ur partner more than if u do if u arent married

But a monogamous comitted relationship provides the same aspect of sharing ur life with someone. there are people who spend their lives with each other even without marriage and share everything in their lives with each other. marriage doesnt allow for better communication or love than a monogamous committed relationship simply because there is marriage.

I feel it is. For me its partially religion, and partially my personal choice. I have a friend, who lives with his girlfriend, they even have a son. But they arent married. Yet they live together and everything. So if they get married will anything change? NO, they'll still be what they are now, so whats the problem with signing the peice of paper...as you said its just a peice of paper, so why not just sign it? In that way, you'll have what you want, religiously you'll be fine, socially your relationship will be accepted, and that one peice of paper maybe what saves your relationship. Maybe that simple peice of paper, will compel a liv-in couple to re-think getting separting. Saying it over ends a realtionship so fast that you have no time to even think if getting separated is right. But getting a divorce, it compels you to think really hard before getting separated. My main point is dats its just a simple peice of paper, and has nothing to do with your love for the other person, has nothing to do with how committed you are..so why not just sign it? Thast what I feel...maybe Im just old fashioned. 😆 Edited by Desi Pride - 17 years ago

I have nothing to say to the religion comment because people's religion is not up for debate so what one believes based on religion cant be up for debate, but to ur other comments i do have stuff to say.😊

You say why not just sign a piece of paper if you really love each other, but why shud two people sign a piece of paper to prove their relationship to others. I mean if they love each other that shud be accepted socially. and even if it is not shud two people who dont believe they need marriage cave to social pressures and get married simply because society says they shud.

Papers do not save marriages or relationships. In this day with divorce being so easy to obtain a marriage can end just as quickly as a relationship. so i dont feel that there is a point to marriage. Religious reasons are a whole other ball game but if one were to put that aside a marriage offers nothing more than a committed relationship.

No, this is quite a famous quote. I didn't know it was used in Shaan. Looks like many people arrived at this theory independently. 😃

Let's look at the genesis of marriage as a custom. Long long ago, cave men and women would certainly not have had the institution of marriage. Couples would have lived together, had children. But somewhere along the line, there would have been problems because of one man having several female partners and vice versa. There was nothing binding on the couples, so they would generally have lived like animals, breeding and seperating. There would have been lots of conflicts - like two or three men fighting to keep one woman, or two women fighting over one man. I can imagine the bloodshed that would have taken place.

As the rules of society evolved, it would have become clear that it is far better to have a mechanism called marriage. This would avoid many a conflict and enable couples to peacefully co-exist. No third party can claim a married man or woman as his/her own. Children born out of marriage cannot be taken away by another couple and so on.

Marriage is a SOCIAL custom more than a religious one. It also enables two different families - the boy's and girl's to merge together. It sets up a system by which children are cared for by grandparents, uncles and aunts. It also represents a completely human custom - anumals don't marry!

Certainly, it is possible for men and women to go back to the caveman days and live together. The wrath of God is not going to strike them! They might be able to live happily too.

But let's remember - marriage represents an advanced stage of human civilisation, which has evolved to keep many problems away. No doubt, it is not a perfect institution - how can it be when man is so imperfect? It all depends on the capability of a wedded couple to keep the vows intact.