This is an open-ended question. Marriage looks less and less desirable. The benefit of marriage to men is the (supposed) opportunity for regular sex. The benefit for women is she gets a man that will be with her, her whole life. Security, protection, stability, and other things women need.
It is a bad deal now. That much is clear. Marriages are decreasing across the whole west, and divorces are really bad at this point. Additional issues present themselves. One, legally tying up the man. Two, the woman getting half his shit if he divorces. Three, the fact that the woman actually in most cases gets more out of the marriage than the man. Four, the fact that since most women are the ones to initiate the divorce, she has a tremendous amount of leverage against the man once they are legally married.
I believe there is plenty of utility in marriage, given my conservative background. But things change. I'm still years away from a potential marriage, but I'm thinking there's a better option: not marrying, but having what amounts to a common law marriage, or a situation where you have a long term partner.
The benefit of such an arrangement is immediately clear: it is cheaper, you have more leverage, and the woman can leave at any point without damaging you as much as she could in a sanctioned marriage. Now granted, I'm conservative and see the importance of marriage. But if marriage is a thing sanctioned before God (and not the state--that's a recent innovation in many senses) why should I involve the state in a long term sexual relationship (a third partner...).
The most obvious concern I have is the effect it could have on kids. But then again if it's a fruitful relationship, there will be no "divorce" so to speak.
Thoughts?
I used to be really positive on marriage, but if it is bound to fail, statically speaking, it makes sense to me to look at alternative arrangements.
It is a bad deal now. That much is clear. Marriages are decreasing across the whole west, and divorces are really bad at this point. Additional issues present themselves. One, legally tying up the man. Two, the woman getting half his shit if he divorces. Three, the fact that the woman actually in most cases gets more out of the marriage than the man. Four, the fact that since most women are the ones to initiate the divorce, she has a tremendous amount of leverage against the man once they are legally married.
I believe there is plenty of utility in marriage, given my conservative background. But things change. I'm still years away from a potential marriage, but I'm thinking there's a better option: not marrying, but having what amounts to a common law marriage, or a situation where you have a long term partner.
The benefit of such an arrangement is immediately clear: it is cheaper, you have more leverage, and the woman can leave at any point without damaging you as much as she could in a sanctioned marriage. Now granted, I'm conservative and see the importance of marriage. But if marriage is a thing sanctioned before God (and not the state--that's a recent innovation in many senses) why should I involve the state in a long term sexual relationship (a third partner...).
The most obvious concern I have is the effect it could have on kids. But then again if it's a fruitful relationship, there will be no "divorce" so to speak.
Thoughts?
I used to be really positive on marriage, but if it is bound to fail, statically speaking, it makes sense to me to look at alternative arrangements.