A debate on marriage

Note: Possibly inflammable thread on account of unapologetic unconventional perception- mainly mine. I've come across people getting judgmental and personal so a request to censor oneself before committing any unnecessary accusations. Having said that, here we go.

I dislike marriage. As an idea, as a concept, as an institution, as a norm and mainly as a way 'to fit in the society'. It just doesn't make any sense to me. If you must know, I am no disillusioned child of ever squabbling parents and their irreparably strained ties, I just have found a comfortable perspective.

In the Indian society, marriage is a necessity to leading a un-frowned upon life. An old bachelor raises whispers- earlier about divorce, then about sexual problems and latest about his sexual orientation (nope, legalized stuff doesn't help much when you have to endure a derogatory outlook by your acquaintances). The idea of marriage is idealized- it is supposed to celebrate commitment and love. The Indian definition is however a bit deviant- you marry because you should, nay, you must. The question is not 'why', its 'why not' or 'what's wrong with you'? It's a basic way of leading a convenient life with responsibilities being divided, kids being raised, family values and name being relegated and hierarchy being formed so that one day your kids can do the same. But what if somebody wants to grab a dais and question with a quivering eyebrow- how is it necessary?

Just because something is a tradition doesn't necessarily mean it's a right thing. The grudge I hold against marriage is not as a concept but on its questionable feasibility. More often than not, it is a forced commitment. And when it comes to countries like India, it certainly is an obligation of the much under-the-thumb children to their bossy me-is-right parents. Here, marriage isn't about love, but as mentioned earlier, convenience. But convenience is not all what matters when it comes to spending life with another person. I have personally known people from even affluent families imparted with modern liberal education and culture being forced to marry against their choices. When the 'generation gap' is blamed the culprit out of proportionately and even hands being raised, one is asked the unanswerable question more out of its ludicrousness- "How can you do this to us?" As you might guess, it's asked in a bizarrely shame-n-senseless way by parents to their children instead of the other way round.

Love marriage is of course brow beaten with "Even your daddy's and mine was an arranged. We're still fine, aren't we?" Two explanations- feminism wasn't a mainstream notion then and it ran more on suppression than compromise- an essential element of every successful relationship. Even if you choose to chuck these two ideas and argue that the relationship bloomed in a perfectly healthy way, you my friend, either are supremely lucky or have closed eyes on reality.

Now, with my anti-marriage stance having sunk in to form quite a foundation, let me tell you what I do believe in. Live-in relationships: not exactly the order of the day, but certainly a potential norm- a sweet norm.

Marriages are forced commitments with legal obligations intervening at every stage- whether it is change in surnames, bank accounts, land holdings, wills or even divorce wherein many a celebs are looted of their hard earned wealth- case in quote- Heather Mills and the Beatles legend Paul Mccartney in which Heather brazenly asked for a compensation of 125 million pounds of Paul's fortune before divorce slashed their marriage of a mere 4 years. Live-ins whereas involve no such strains. The basic concept of a live in relationship is based on mutual trust, affection and willingness to experience togetherness without it being enforced. It is a basic psychological analogy- you pester a kid to study and he might be turned off at the very notion but the moment you let off his leash, his self protective instincts will overpower and he will voluntarily choose to study. Live in is not for commitment-phobics. Even that involves commitment and infidelity is as much a no-no as a marriage, it's just that the society can't question you on that, there is more space and a broader definition of personal life. An estranged live in doesn't permanently bolster you with a burning seal of 'divorced'. It just means- things didn't work out. How and why is none of your business.

A hooter here- do NOT confuse a live-in with open-relationship. Open relationship is where even physical experiment is allowed with the consent and knowledge of both the partners in order to avoid the sex life from becoming dreary. I personally am not bold or generous enough to accept or propagate this ideology though I don't have a problem with the practitioners. But unlike mass perception, live-in is not depraved western culture invading Indian traditional beauty, it is just sense knocking at our doors. You may have stopped globalization but that wouldn't have stopped someone from innovating the concept of live in.

Pop culture references-
Live in: Salaam Namaste
Open Relationship: Mixed doubles

My point- marriage is more a society thing and live-in a personal, the way a marriage was formerly meant to be. So even in a love marriage, the garland exchanging time is showered with the rice encrusted with self-belief and 'happily ever after' inscriptions but even they have a possibility of wearing out. Live in is a culmination of 'Better safe than sorry' and 'Its human to err'. And that is why it is a preferred choice.

Opine, please.

When you only look at the pros, the Live in relationship seems ideal. But imagine this scenario:

In a world where live in relationships have become as commonplace and acceptable as marriage...

You enter into a live in relationship with someone. You may even have kids... but some years down the line your partner decides to cheat on you and maybe even leaves you. What is the support structure then? If you are suddenly left to be a single parent with perhaps no independent source of income and maybe even no place to live? (This is assuming the philosophy of removing all legal considerations and also assuming that only one partner holds the deed to the home.)

---X---X---X---

You my friend... are only looking at the pros of a Live in relationship and the cons of the institution of marriage... and as such it is easy to dismiss marriage as an old and 'useless' institution. The very legal considerations that you berate form a fundamental support structure for the person who may be wronged by his/her better half.

Also you seem to have a beef with arranged marriages... as most young people do... while there are often cases of parents pressurizing their kids to get married to someone of their choosing... it is not always the case... and whether it is a compromise or not, the institution of arranged marriages in India has (in my experience with my family) generally yielded lasting, stable and happy relationships... much more so than Live in relationships anywhere in the world.

Now you will argue that it is because of family pressure etc etc that those relationships 'appear' to be successful.... Sure... that may be true in some cases, and it is an issue that needs to be addressed, but it is by no means sufficient reason to discard the institution of marriage altogether...

This is not to say that I am advocating marriages where one partner is browbeaten in to marrying someone... that is not my definition of an arranged marriage at all...But if two parties are being introduced to each other in an arranged marriage setting and decide to 'take the plunge' OF THEIR OWN VOLITION then I see nothing wrong with the system of arranged marriages... or just marriages in general...

My opinion in short:

1] Marriage is a sacred institution (IMHO). It is not something I would discard in favor of Live in relationships... and certainly not for the reason that it removes certain legal complications...

2] There is nothing wrong with arranged marriages as long as both parties have been introduced to each other, have had an opportunity to interact in person and have both consented to the marriage of their own volition.

Aw Kyo, aren't you always a delight! Let me counter argue you.

kyo wrote:When you only look at the pros, the Live in relationship seems ideal. But imagine this scenario:

In a world where live in relationships have become as commonplace and acceptable as marriage...

You enter into a live in relationship with someone. You may even have kids... but some years down the line your partner decides to cheat on you and maybe even leaves you. What is the support structure then? If you are suddenly left to be a single parent with perhaps no independent source of income and maybe even no place to live? (This is assuming the philosophy of removing all legal considerations and also assuming that only one partner holds the deed to the home.)

---X---X---X---

You my friend... are only looking at the pros of a Live in relationship and the cons of the institution of marriage... and as such it is easy to dismiss marriage as an old and 'useless' institution. The very legal considerations that you berate form a fundamental support structure for the person who may be wronged by his/her better half.

Also you seem to have a beef with arranged marriages... as most young people do... while there are often cases of parents pressurizing their kids to get married to someone of their choosing... it is not always the case... and whether it is a compromise or not, the institution of arranged marriages in India has (in my experience with my family) generally yielded lasting, stable and happy relationships... much more so than Live in relationships anywhere in the world.

Now you will argue that it is because of family pressure etc etc that those relationships 'appear' to be successful.... Sure... that may be true in some cases, and it is an issue that needs to be addressed, but it is by no means sufficient reason to discard the institution of marriage altogether...

This is not to say that I am advocating marriages where one partner is browbeaten in to marrying someone... that is not my definition of an arranged marriage at all...But if two parties are being introduced to each other in an arranged marriage setting and decide to 'take the plunge' OF THEIR OWN VOLITION then I see nothing wrong with the system of arranged marriages... or just marriages in general...

My opinion in short:

1] Marriage is a sacred institution (IMHO). It is not something I would discard in favor of Live in relationships... and certainly not for the reason that it removes certain legal complications...

2] There is nothing wrong with arranged marriages as long as both parties have been introduced to each other, have had an opportunity to interact in person and have both consented to the marriage of their own volition.

What I mean when I'm dissing 'Marriage' as a whole is that its too idealized to be practical. I agree there are exceptions, a LOT of exceptions that is, but my question is how many of them would really want to make it work. Alas, there are no secret surveys conducted that I can quote about 'If you get an opportunity to desert your partner and still let the world around you behave as if nothing happened, would you do it?'

I agree when you say marriage is sacred. It is sacred, but it is so divine that it is almost perfect form of a relationship. And nobody's perfect that's a fact. Half and half may add up to one but that doesn't mean imperfection and imperfection neutralize and override each other's flaws and create perfection. So why take a chance?

Sadly, your argument covers all the points I have overlooked. And I can't argue the merit of your statements, though it doesn't change me favoring live-ins. But after all, to each his own, eh?

I had actually not read much of your post earlier because I was being hard headed... but now that I have...

I dislike marriage. As an idea, as a concept, as an institution, as a norm and mainly as a way 'to fit in the society'. It just doesn't make any sense to me. If you must know, I am no disillusioned child of ever squabbling parents and their irreparably strained ties, I just have found a comfortable perspective.

Good for you! (The fact that you fond a comfortable perspective that is)

In the Indian society, marriage is a necessity to leading a un-frowned upon life. An old bachelor raises whispers- earlier about divorce, then about sexual problems and latest about his sexual orientation (nope, legalized stuff doesn't help much when you have to endure a derogatory outlook by your acquaintances). The idea of marriage is idealized- it is supposed to celebrate commitment and love. The Indian definition is however a bit deviant- you marry because you should, nay, you must. The question is not 'why', its 'why not' or 'what's wrong with you'? It's a basic way of leading a convenient life with responsibilities being divided, kids being raised, family values and name being relegated and hierarchy being formed so that one day your kids can do the same. But what if somebody wants to grab a dais and question with a quivering eyebrow- how is it necessary?

True. Society on a whole accepts that being married is the norm and categorizes unmarried people as deviants. But if we apply the Tom Sawyer scenario here (as I like to call it) then if we made it so that:

1] Being married was deviant behavior
2] Live in relationships were the norm
3] Married people were subject to the same kind of 'persecution' as unmarried people are in the 'real' world

Then would we raise a similar argument in favor of marriage?

More often than not, it is a forced commitment.

Not necessarily true. Maybe in some cases, but not all. I refuse to believe it unless you have statistics to show for it. This has certainly not been my experience.

And when it comes to countries like India, it certainly is an obligation of the much under-the-thumb children to their bossy me-is-right parents. Here, marriage isn't about love, but as mentioned earlier, convenience. But convenience is not all what matters when it comes to spending life with another person. I have personally known people from even affluent families imparted with modern liberal education and culture being forced to marry against their choices. When the 'generation gap' is blamed the culprit out of proportionately and even hands being raised, one is asked the unanswerable question more out of its ludicrousness- "How can you do this to us?" As you might guess, it's asked in a bizarrely shame-n-senseless way by parents to their children instead of the other way round.

Yes. Emotional blackmail and other pressure tactics are wrong. But this has nothing to do with marriage itself does it?

Love marriage is of course brow beaten with "Even your daddy's and mine was an arranged. We're still fine, aren't we?" Two explanations- feminism wasn't a mainstream notion then and it ran more on suppression than compromise- an essential element of every successful relationship. Even if you choose to chuck these two ideas and argue that the relationship bloomed in a perfectly healthy way, you my friend, either are supremely lucky or have closed eyes on reality.

Feminism has been booming in India and it has been booming everywhere else in the world for a long time now. I fail to see how the likelihood of the development of a successful relationship between married partners is going to be any different from that of a Live in couple... given that in both cases the partners had been given the rights to choose their respective better halves.

Marriages are forced commitments with legal obligations intervening at every stage- whether it is change in surnames, bank accounts, land holdings, wills or even divorce wherein many a celebs are looted of their hard earned wealth- case in quote- Heather Mills and the Beatles legend Paul Mccartney in which Heather brazenly asked for a compensation of 125 million pounds of Paul's fortune before divorce slashed their marriage of a mere 4 years. Live-ins whereas involve no such strains. The basic concept of a live in relationship is based on mutual trust, affection and willingness to experience togetherness without it being enforced.

I believe I have given an example about this point already. Note that trust seems to be in short supply everywhere these days.

It is a basic psychological analogy- you pester a kid to study and he might be turned off at the very notion but the moment you let off his leash, his self protective instincts will overpower and he will voluntarily choose to study.

Assuming he/she realizes that it is a good idea for him to study, that it is for the sake of his/her own future.

Live in is not for commitment-phobics. Even that involves commitment and infidelity is as much a no-no as a marriage, it's just that the society can't question you on that, there is more space and a broader definition of personal life. An estranged live in doesn't permanently bolster you with a burning seal of 'divorced'. It just means- things didn't work out. How and why is none of your business.

Society can and will question you even if you are someone who has had a failed live in relationship. Thats just the way things work. Whether it is your friends or family or passers-by. You can be damned sure they WILL ask you why your relationship failed. This is especially true for potential new partners who WILL want to know why your last relationship failed... and yes... you may choose not to answer... but you could do that even if you are a divorcee from a failed marriage... The 'tag' will stick with you in both cases... it might just be a little easier to hide the 'tag' when its only a Live in relationship... but thats about it...

My point- marriage is more a society thing and live-in a personal, the way a marriage was formerly meant to be. So even in a love marriage, the garland exchanging time is showered with the rice encrusted with self-belief and 'happily ever after' inscriptions but even they have a possibility of wearing out. Live in is a culmination of 'Better safe than sorry' and 'Its human to err'. And that is why it is a preferred choice.

Better safe than sorry? Human to err? Same can be said for marriage and Live in. The success of both types of relationships primarily depends on the choice of partner... and their families... and I dont think those will be different whether youre in a Live in relationship or married...

I find it sad when I see some people break off or (for that matter) enter into relationships simply because its 'easier' or because of some things they dont want to deal with... because then it means the relationship did not mean enough to them to try and stick it out through a rough patch...

---X---X---X---X---X---

But youre right... to each his own... I respect that... but as with you... my position remains unchanged... No hard feelings I hope...

Okay, I'm no good with long posts; my attention span is rather limited and I can't think beyond a certain point. But I would still like to drop in my views, so here I go.

I strongly support and respect marriages. And that's not because I'm surrounded by happily married couples or anything of the sort. I have also seen a decent number of marriages around me crumble....but that had nothing to do with marriage as an institution. I believe they would have walked away even if they were simply living in together, and I'm also certain it would have been a great deal messier than the divorces were. Being a divorce, the legal aspect of it all was pretty neat and no one could walk away just like that, without taking responsibility of their actions.

Just the other day, I was talking about a case to Kyo where a popular Japanese celebrity was living in with her boyfriend and got pregnant. The couple was supposed to get married but the guy dropped out on the last minute saying that he didn't want to marry her. The lack of legal provisions surrounding live-ins made him leave her easily and he didn't even care to get involved with their child. So, while a lot of couples dig live-ins for this very reason, I just don't think that's fair. If you're planning to get involved with someone, you have to take responsibility for your actions.

I agree that simply focusing on the pros or cons of either marriage or live-ins isn't right. Both have their positive points but I side with marriage, and always will. It's probably because I'm too traditional in my thought-process but I would always want to be involved with someone, knowing that my relationship is heading somewhere, that somewhere being marriage.

As far as arranged marriages go, it's not something I would opt for by myself....though I don't think I can speak much on the subject...my own parents haven't had an arranged marriage so I don't see myself being forced into one either...

I'm surprised I even had this much to say....

Love it... very debatable topic...
Lets see... You think live-in is the solution. My sociology book taught me there are companionship marriage which means marrying but not having children till you settle down properly or experimental marriage wherein the couple can live in the setup of a normal marriage but not enter into any social commitment until and unless they decide their compatibility... much like your concept of live-in. huh? So don't diss marriage in general.. there are types of marriage which I think you will find acceptable...
Now coming to the normal endogamous/ exogamous monogamy prevalent in the Indian society- yes, marriage is more of a contract today than a sacred institution. But you can't rule out against marriage as a useless custom just because of the change of the mentality of the people. Marriage is the basis for a family, and a family is the nucleus of a society. Destroying marriage is the first step towards destroying the institution of family, which i don't find particularly desirable!
Let me tell you something else. A society exerts some informal control over its members by means such as gossip, ridicule, name calling etc. A human being is naturally inclined towards doing such activities which will earn him praise. So when one gets into a marriage, he will be naturally inclined to maintain it in the best possible way. Cheating, adultery etc will earn a man social wrath so he will naturally think twice before giving in to temptation. But these controls are exercised on marriage because it is a socially approved institution. In case of live-in, these controls will be lax because the Indian society is nowhere close to accepting live-in. So basically, this will end up with a very thin veil between live-in and open relationship, tripping over which will not only be extremely easy but also routine!
And finally, because this is an upcoming lawyer's post, here's the legal view: When live-in just came into the Indian scenario, there was no legal provisions for the couples. But now, a child born out of a live-in relationship cannot be called illegitimate. Moreover, after a long term live-in, if the male partner moves out, the female partner is entitled to alimony. And this is just the beginning. As time advances, there will be more legislation on live-in, that will make it practically like a normal marriage. So why not marry instead? Its the same thing, just that it gives your mom and dad a reason to celebrate. And trust me, they deserve it!!

Marriage is a society concept. It gives two individual who either love each or agree to be with each other, a legal premise and security (wrt to kids and some loyalty if there is likelihood of divorce)

I respect Marriage and yes, its important wrt the context given above : )

" I am who I am, your approval isn't needed "

......................
well everyone has a diffrent ideas on getting married
1. IF you wanna get married get married it's your own choice but don't diss it cause ...well there are thousand of married couples who are happy
some of them may not be happy but life isn't a bed of roses but it partnership and love which pull them through
2.In India an arranged marrage is the most common thing and most ppl do WANT it ,some don't they and they do stupid stuff FYI running away with there loved ones?personally i don't wanna have my parents find someone for me i rather find someone in my own
3.marrage is a partnership that well are closely bonded and emotional tied to each other "live in realtionships are something i don't find decent ''
something i read '' gettting married is like searching for a person to annoy you for the rest of your life'' i guesse i WANT some one to annoy me for the rest of my life ^_