Originally posted by: mkzara
The climbing divorce rates don't mean that marriage as an institution has failed because even today, only a percentage of marriages are ending in divorces.
The marriage of families is not just desi, it is an Asian concept because the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc all believe that marriages leads to an extended family getting formed. I think you are taking a Euro-centric view whereas Asia is where the larger part of the world lives. I am not saying that marriage as an institute has failed, i am just saying that it is an unnecessary institute. There are of course marriages that work out but to say that a relationship will definitely work out if it is a marriage and a marriage gives u a better chance of succeeding in ur relationship is unfair. Even if places like Japan, Korea, China, etc, do believe that marriage is between families that doesnt mean they are as vehemently opposed to no marriage and live-ins as desis are. They are relatively accepting of this. this agitation against live-ins is a mainly desi thing. (I am desi so i am not saying this to insult anyone, simply speaking from experience)
I think marriage does give a higher probability that a couple will try to make the relationship work. In a live-in relationship, it is easy for a man or woman to just pack up and go away. With marriage comes a certain responsibility and a desire to make the relationship successful. I dont agree with that. I dont believe that just because two people signed a paper they are more likely to work on their marriage. It is not easy to end a relationship if u care about a person, with or without marriage. The desire to make a relationship work comes from love rather than the fact that u married someone. People walk out on their partners all the time, i have seen cases where men have walked out on their wives simply because they cant handle the stress of marriage and children. there is no pressure to make it work for them even though they're married. the pressure to make a relationship work comes from the way u feel about someone and i think we can agree that marriage doesnt mean that somene cares about their partner more. Marriage doesnt connote love, love connotes love. thus it can exist even without marriage.
I have often seen that live-in couples get married when they decide to have a baby or because they are going to have a baby. They need the badge of marriage to gain social acceptability after becoming parents.
Certainly, there is no ONE right way of doing things, but there could be one "largely accepted way" of doing things. Marriage is still a highly popular concept all around the world and will be for a long time to come. Again people are more accepting of people having live-in relationships and kids out of wedlock. Certainly there are some conservatives who cant deal with it but generally people are starting to accept live-in relationships. Marriage doesnt mean that two people will be better parents than those who are not married. That comes from the people themselves. I keep insisting that the institute of marriage in itself doesnt mean anything. it is the people that make the institution work and if these people dont want to get married but spend their lives with each other without it than why not? What people do with their lives or to their partners matters rather than what institute they are following.
I am not saying that marriage is not a popular concept or a wrong one. It is very popular and to some people very right but my question was if its necessary. I dont believe marriage is necessary, if two people want to get married then they should but they dont need to. Marriage offers nothing moe than a live-in relationship with an extra piece of paper.
When you say that marriage is unnecessary, you are implying that the institution of marriage is redundant, which is not the case at all, because even today, there are more marriages than divorces. Why are so many people entering into marriage if it is unnecessary? Why is that scrap of paper as you call it, so important to many people? Are people so foolish that they don't realise love is all that matters, marriage is only a ritual?
When a man and woman decide to cohabit and to produce children together, it is the most momentous decision of their lives. The formalisation of this relationship through rituals, paper-signing, witnessing by friends and relatives is something that exists in almost every culture in the world. It's a declaration to the world by the couple that they belong to each other, to view them as one entity in future.
I agree with you that the people who marry or live-in are the ones who will determine whether the relationship will work. That is a no-brainer. No one will argue on this.
But you seem to be indicating that marriage is a conservative approach and living-in is a modern, enlightened approach. You have also mentioned that non-desis are more accepting of live-ins, making it sound like they are more enlightened.
I would like to stress that living-in is a primitive approach while marriage is an evolved approach.
Unless you formalise a relationship, it becomes difficult to divide properties, monies, have a line of inheritance without conflicts, establish a framework for caring of children when the couple separates and so on.
The people who devised the institution of marriage in every culture were not foolish, conservative people. They were highly pragmatic and forward thinking!
Members Lounge
82