Boogie said:

I still need to be a duo first.

Click to expand...

Well yeah... that's what I meant T_T

bjork said:

If I ever were to get married, I'm only doing it once... the vows are there for a reason. If I'm not positive that I can stay with this person or they're unsure of me, the time is not right to get married.

We'll see.

Click to expand...

That's my goal, with a big emphasis on "if". At the moment, i'm happy dating, no, i'm happy just dating. i see no real advantage to marriage, and it seems like a big hassle with too much that could go wrong. i'm pretty sure my views will change somewhat as i get older, but i'll likely still be cautious.

It's hard for me to see marriage in a positive light when there's so many people who are married and miserable, or married and seemingly content/apathetic towards their broken relationship. My uncle is married, and has been for like seven years, but last year his wife up and left for New York to stay with some friends. They were having money problems (classic), and from what i could see she was at fault. She would do things like run up phone bills in the hundreds talking to her family in Puerto Rico and then have no way to pay for them herself. i haven't really asked about her since she's been gone (i do really miss her), but i know it's killing him as he's still committed to the marriage. i hope she is too.

Boogie said:

I still need to be a duo first.

Click to expand...

:lol :lol :lol

Thanks Boogie, I was purposely scrolling to see if you had anything funny to say.

I got married about ten days ago.
It's without question the best thing that ever happened to me.
I'll write more about it/post a snap when I get some work out of the way.

Did you not have a honeymoon or something?

Please tell me you did and kept posting at GAF while on it.

Please.

Mama Smurf said:

Did you not have a honeymoon or something?

Please tell me you did and kept posting at GAF while on it.

Please.

Click to expand...

LOL. Yes we did but only for a week due to various work commitments. Stayed in a rather fab Japanese house:





The moody bathroom and washroom - that was awesome - a massive dead hot deep bath thingy:



I did actually post a couple of times. My wife is as bad though. At one point she was playing four games at once. Animal Crossing GameCube, and had three GBAs going in three different rooms, Dr Mario, Mario And Luigi SSS and Minish Cap. We had decided to geek out that day. We are so doomed/destined for glory.

Erica ponders unsure future:





As I said, I'll jot down a few thoughts when I get my boss off my back.

Well, I still can't see the point of marriage (strictly in emotional terms). The positivist in me yearns for something more concrete. What would our love really gain from it?

My girlfriend doesn't elevate marriage either, but for her that's precisely why it shouldn't be rejected out of hand.

I am deeply in love with her. She's breathtakingly beautiful, infinitely wise, almost superhuman in her generosity.... I get the distinct feeling that a marriage proposal would make her very happy. But it wouldn't make me happy. And since love is selfish....

Teza said:

Personally, Ignatz, I'm not convinced by the whole 'marriage as publicity' argument. I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with the notion of increasing the external influences on my love for another person. That would worry me. And in any case, if I ever do need help or advice during a relationship, I'd expect my friends and family to support me, whether or not my partner is my wife.

Do you feel the influence of your friends and family (i.e., your community) in your marriage? How would you describe it (really pin it down if you can) - as an obligation not to disappoint?

Click to expand...

You don't have to be convinced-- if that doesn't make sense to you, you probably aren't committed enough for marriage anyway.

Why not ask some people in your family or circle of friends who are married what they think?

nah, ive seen enough of marriages to know that mostly they dont work out, or even if they manage to stay together they wonder what life would have been had they not.

Plus after that leads to kids, and I firmly do not want one of those.



Plus I like doing thing when I like to, and having to accomdate my life to work with someone elses isnt something im willing to do.

ZombieSupaStar said:

I like doing thing when I like to, and having to accomdate my life to work with someone elses isnt something im willing to do.

Click to expand...

Marriage isn't for you then. It's a shame you have such a bad opinion of partnering someone you love...

Kramer pretty muched summed it up. Marriage are man-made prisons. You're doing time. When you go to bed, she's there. When you wake up on the morning, she's there. And do you know what you talk about at the dinner table? "How was your day? Oh really, that's nice!" It's like you have to ask permission to use the bathroom, and sharing a bed is OUT of the of question. I need my space. No jimmy arms/legs.


On the other hand, being lonely could be a problem, but if you have friends and a gf, then it balances it out.

Is marriage worth it?


Well, I was married for 6 years before getting divorced last summer, and to be honest I'd marry agian in a heartbeat if I met another woman I felt that comfortable with. When it's good, it's the best thing in the world, and my marriage was fantastic for 5-1/2 years. Unfortunately when you commit yourself to someone like that you also put yourself at risk, and somewhat at the mercy of your spouse. People change over time, the marriages that last are due to the couple's adaptablilty to those changes. If one half can't handle them, then both will suffer, hence the risk. The bad news is that you can never tell if a marriage will make it or not, sometimes you just have to toss the dice and take a chance.

And I'd take that chance in a New York minute again, and I have no doubt that I will in time.

Koshiro said:

:lol :lol :lol

Thanks Boogie, I was purposely scrolling to see if you had anything funny to say.

Click to expand...

You're Welcome. I'm here to please.

Eventually I will. Have to get the first one out of the way, right?

I also love when people introduce their husband/wife as "This is my current husband/wife."
:lol

I've seen tons of marriages that work out great, so I'm an optimist in all this. My fiance and I plan on getting married in August. We both can't wait to be "Mr. and Mrs...", although in a lot of ways we already feel like we are.

Hell if I got married to people I thought I should marry, I'd be worse that JLo.

Marriage is a fantastic thing if you do the work before and during. The thing is people thing it's easy because everybody is doing it. You'll notice a shit load of people fail at it.

I've been married five years now (10-year relationship), and on the whole, it's been good. There have been times (whether serious or not) that I've wondered if it's really worth it, but generally it has been. Through 10 years, moments of conflict are going to happen in any relationship.

If something bad were to happen, though, it's not an issue with marriage as an institution, it's with the people. Issues of compromise, of different goals, of money, of whatever... these can all come up. But they'll come up in any relationship. Honestly, the big value in marriage is commitment -- it is a step beyond a serious, common-law relationship because it adds one more layer of commitment and security. I don't think it's necessarily all that essential... I mean, five years ago, I was no less committed to my wife than I am today... but I'm sure there are plenty of women out there who disagree.

EDIT: So what am I saying? I dunno... these are just random thoughts. I don't think marriage is something to be feared, anyhow.

Ignatz Mouse said:

You don't have to be convinced-- if that doesn't make sense to you, you probably aren't committed enough for marriage anyway.

Why not ask some people in your family or circle of friends who are married what they think?

Click to expand...

I've asked everyone I know.

It's the same mantra. Always.

In any case, a forum like this can be more instructive because people have to write to communicate, and writing things down tends to bring one's ideas into greater focus.

But please don't doubt my commitment. You have no reason to. The commonness of that attitude among the married is appalling, btw - and unjustified. To my mind (and as Maharg suggested), a marriage is no more than a commitment to a relationship of 'indefinite' (albeit 'long-term') length. Hardly sui generis.

I know plenty of very committed non-married people. But I doubt your commitment based on the comments you made to my previous post.

If you're really that committed, having the community support is not going to be an issue for you. If you are that committed, why *not* be married? That's not rhetorical-- it's the question you should be asking yourself.

I would love to get married, nor do I think being married and happy are mutually exclusive. I think it's about choosing the right person and marrying for the right reasons, and being devoted to each other and working to keep it good.

I've always viewed it like this: it will be nice if it happens, but if it doesn't, so long as I'm happy with my life as it is, then I'm content. A big detractor to me getting married is that I have absolutely no desire to have any kids. While that isn't a factor in most marriages, it still is a big deterrent.

DO NOT MARRY BEFORE THE AGE OF 25

Unless you want children or are about to have a child. The statistics of failed marriages when both participants are below the age of 25 are outrageous.



In general I would say don't get married unless you want to start a family. If you are someone who thinks "We may want kids one day ... but lets get married first". Hold off.

Marriage is so worthless unless you are trying to start a family. I know too many people who have been through 1-2 marriages and are only 30 years old. Its kind of sad.


(I myself waited until I was 28 until I married)

I myself cannot imagine getting married unless I'm at least well into my 30s, have an established life/career, have 'experienced' the dating scene for a good while, and have known the person I'd marry for at the very least a few years and plan on starting a family with her. I haven't come close to any of those. It's kind of difficult to even fathom getting married having never even dated or been in a relatinoship.....like if someone were to come from the future and tell me that in two or three years I'd be married, it would be such a shock that I just may have a heart attack. And it does seem like too many marriages fail these days. So many people are getting married in their early-mid 20s with someone whom they've known for one or two years....it's ridiculous. What's the point unless you genuinely see yourself living the rest of your life with that person and are well beyond the "just getting used to the real you" stage in the relationship?

Plus, I really don't want to have a wedding. Maybe if it were some kind of really private thing, but I'm absolutely terrifed of the thought of getting a bunch of people together to watch me get married to someone and listening to my vows and making a little speech and all that shit. That's just so not me.

Marriage, like a relationship, requires both to constantly put in work. Both must be forgiving, loving, and willing to give of themselves without constantly looking for something in return. Happy marriages that I have seen last a lifetime have many difficult moments, but the partners are willing to sacrifice for their love.

Love as an emotion, like all other emotions, will wax and wane, and many people feel obligated to only be with whoever brings out the strongest "feelings" at the moment. This leads to many people losing interest in their spouse and running off with someone new in their life.

The love that binds a marriage is more than just that inital attraction, it is an acknowledgment of profound respect and a desire to give all of yourself in exchange for the good of your spouse.

Folder said:

I did actually post a couple of times. My wife is as bad though. At one point she was playing four games at once. Animal Crossing GameCube, and had three GBAs going in three different rooms, Dr Mario, Mario And Luigi SSS and Minish Cap. We had decided to geek out that day. We are so doomed/destined for glory.

Click to expand...

:lol

Sounds like fun! I love your wife. When I'm back in the UK I'm going to find out where you live and stalk her.

I wish you a lifetime...wait...*checks calendar* 9 months of happiness. Hey that's good, she can pop out a sprog before the Mama Smurf years set in!

Teza said:

I am deeply in love with her. She's breathtakingly beautiful, infinitely wise, almost superhuman in her generosity.... I get the distinct feeling that a marriage proposal would make her very happy. But it wouldn't make me happy. And since love is selfish....

Click to expand...

Not to moralize to you (how are you, btw, old friend? ), but where ever did you get that idea? In my opinion, love is selfless. Sure, it's perhaps "selfish" in the sense of desiring exclusivity with your partner (unless you're a swinger ), but in terms of how the partners relate to one another, and how it tends to reorganize one's priorities in life, it's anything but selfish imo. You might view that as overly idealistic, and perhaps different people express "love" differently based on their internalized, unconscious ideals, but when I was in love, it just "happened" that way-- I wasn't trying to conform to some preconception of what love was "supposed" to be.


Just curious what you meant by that is all. I wish you the best of luck with everything regardless of whether or not you decide to get married. Personally, I believe commitment is commitment is commitment; marriage is nice for many of the aforementioned reasons, though not all (or any) of them may hold up under scrutiny. I believe there is some merit to be found in many of these justifications, however, but that's just me; I'm obviously putting religious considerations aside, since you're an avowed atheist. Only the two of you can truly know what you have together, and if the both of you decide that marriage isn't for you, then that shouldn't really have any effect on the strength of your commitment to one another. Again, best of luck.

Mama Smurf said:

:lol

Sounds like fun! I love your wife. When I'm back in the UK I'm going to find out where you live and stalk her.

I wish you a lifetime...wait...*checks calendar* 9 months of happiness. Hey that's good, she can pop out a sprog before the Mama Smurf years set in!

Click to expand...

:-O

Ignatz Mouse said:

I know plenty of very committed non-married people. But I doubt your commitment based on the comments you made to my previous post.

If you're really that committed, having the community support is not going to be an issue for you. If you are that committed, why *not* be married? That's not rhetorical-- it's the question you should be asking yourself.

Click to expand...

I already have all the support I need. So what does marriage bring to the table?

My point is this. It seems to me that marriage, as a type of social activity in which the wider community is involved, isn't merely about 'support'. It's about obligation. You yourself used the term 'public promise'. A promise is an obligation to others.

Now you may think that your obligation to the community and your commitment to your partner should be connected, but I don't. In fact it makes me uncomfortable. I would prefer it if my actions were predicated solely on my love for and commitment to my partner - and not diluted by a sense of obligation to others.

Of course, I'm sure that I don't escape any such obligation entirely. But I'm questioning the utility of marriage precisely because it constitutes the maximisation of this type of public obligation.

Not to moralize to you (how are you, btw, old friend? ), but where ever did you get that idea? In my opinion, love is selfless. Sure, it's perhaps "selfish" in the sense of desiring exclusivity with your partner (unless you're a swinger ), but in terms of how the partners relate to one another, and how it tends to reorganize one's priorities in life, it's anything but selfish imo. You might view that as overly idealistic, and perhaps different people express "love" differently based on their internalized, unconscious ideals, but when I was in love, it just "happened" that way-- I wasn't trying to conform to some preconception of what love was "supposed" to be.

Click to expand...

I'm not too bad. Coping. Things are pretty hectic at the moment. Thanks for the kind words, btw.

I dunno ... isn't love 'selfish'? In the end, I love my girlfriend because of the way she makes me feel. I'd apply the same principle to all aspects of human behaviour - including instances of (alleged) genuine altruism. You probably believe differently, though....

So you were in love? What happened?

She started ignoring him and then posted about the situation in the OT forums.

Teza said:

I already have all the support I need. So what does marriage bring to the table?

My point is this. It seems to me that marriage, as a type of social activity in which the wider community is involved, isn't merely about 'support'. It's about obligation. You yourself used the term 'public promise'. A promise is an obligation to others.

Now you may think that your obligation to the community and your commitment to your partner should be connected, but I don't. In fact it makes me uncomfortable. I would prefer it if my actions were predicated solely on my love for and commitment to my partner - and not diluted by a sense of obligation to others.

Click to expand...

My point is, if you're deeply committed, the community connection is almost an afterthought. The wedding, btw, is the public promise part, not the whole marriage. The marriage (to me) is just formalizing the level of commitment that you already have.

Again, you should ask "why not be married?" and really look at all the reasons free of moral judgments of them. If the ability to end the relationship later without disappointing anyone is one reason (which you imply, I think) , than so be it. I'm sure there are many other reasons as well. Really do an inventory, light-side reasons and dark-side reasons.

Folder said:

:-O

Click to expand...

sonnorrat is having the wank of his life imagining what's happening just off camera there.

McLesterolBeast said:

She started ignoring him and then posted about the situation in the OT forums.

Click to expand...

Err, not quite, but thanks for playing Abba.


Teza:


Insofar as love is a "perceived" thing, it must ultimately be related in some way to how it makes us feel, else we wouldn't be able to perceive it (the exception being things/ideas that are purely mentally discerned-- love, like most social phenomena, is not one of these; besides, attempting to make it so leads to an overly mechanistic view of life, which is no fun ); apperception-- particularly in the social sphere-- is frequently self-referential. I was speaking strictly of how love manifests itself in our actions towards the object of our love (typically, actions that flow from true love are selfless imo, though you're free to think that naive; I'm just going by my personal experience, as I've said). Of course, there could, I suppose, be purely "intellectual" love (perhaps closer to "philia" than "eros", to use the Greek) that's based purely on the qualities of a person (e.g., my girlfriend is charitable, kind, and intelligent, and for these reasons I love her), but typically love also involves an emotional (i.e., "nonrational") component that varies in intensity based on the person and, I would imagine, the degree of love felt (though these two-- the strength of the love experienced and the nature of the person-- may be intimately related in a sense, as the intensity of our perceptions are contingent, in large part, upon our psychological makeup).


Now, if it were the case that a person loved someone else purely in this intellectual, rational sense, then I could perhaps see them not being selfless in their actions towards that person, since whatever rational analysis the person would perform in order to determine the proper course of action would be wholly dispassionate (whereas all such analyses performed when one is in "traditional" love are influenced by our passions- i.e., the "love object" is exalted). But since I'm reasonably sure that you're experiencing "love" in the more common sense, I'd tend to say that you'd be inclined to be selfless in your actions towards your partner.


Again, this is wholly separate from the question of whether our experience of love is a "selfish" thing (since I wasn't using "selfless" in this same context that you allude to, but rather applying it to the behavior between the partners). Actually, now that I'm thinking about it anew, I suppose that even this distinction (between one's experience of love and the actions one takes in its name) is an artifical one in a sense, since the "selfless" actions that spring from love can be viewed as tending towards the furtherance of the "love relationship"; since one enjoys how their partner makes them feel (the "selfish" component you've mentioned), they'd tend to perform actions that would keep them around. Since selfish actions aren't socially sanctioned, they would be frowned upon by one's partner, thus causing one to be "selfless" if they desired to maintain the relationship; the motivation, then, would ultimately come back to the "selfish" desire of the individual to maintain a relationship with the object of his affection. I can see this, I suppose-- but allow me to add that it's an incredibly cynical view (you'd likely call it the "realist" view ); also, the fact that one can construct such a theoretical framework doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. The "traditionalist" account of love is also plausible, though for different reasons.


One thing that would speak against such a cynical account imo, are actions taken between lovers that seemingly are truly "selfless"-- that is, that they do not contribute to the perpetuation of the relationship. Examples are difficult to construct for various reasons, but I will say that I've personally been in such a situation, and I chose an action/option that did not tend towards the continuance of the relationship. Now, whether this is a function of the "love" itself, or rather of the individual (their preconceptions, character etc.), is up for debate, obviously, but these things do exist and do occur frequently; I believe that they mitigate against at least a hasty conclusion of "love is selfish".

I tend to believe that true "love"-- in the best sense of the word-- transforms people and makes them better, fuller human beings. Or, at the very least, makes them realize the very best within themselves that may have theretofore lied dormant; it's ennobling in that sense, and therefore "A Good Thing"®. I also happen to believe that love is gestalt-- that is, that it's not reducible to its mere intellectual justifications and physiological "manifestations" (or some would say "causes"), but that's neither here nor there, and I'm not about to defend that opinion.

So you were in love? What happened?

Click to expand...

Of course I've been in love. I'm nearly 27 years old-- I should hope I've been. As for what happened, well, I hope you'll accept the fact that it's not something I feel entirely comfortable discussing with the forum.



EDIT:


As an analogous situation to the type of action I described above (i.e., seemingly "selfless" actions), consider the case of acts of bravery. Your rationale about altruistic acts ultimately being based on selfishness is a common (if not entirely accepted) conceit in the philosophical community; yet what of situations where one of the most likely consequences of an altruistic act is one's own death? In such cases, the realization that there will likely be no "benefit" to oneself (i.e., it will not "make one feel good", since one will not be able to "feel" anything anymore ), should, strictly speaking, militate against the undertaking of such actions-- yet we witness acts of sacrificial heroism every day (I've considered the posthumous "benefits"-- for example being remebered fondly and leaving one's mark on the world, but I feel that they are ultimately inconsequential).

Though some-- perhaps even a substantial amount-- of this sort of behavior can be explained on the basis of social "expectations" or "norms" (e.g., it is expected that a mother try to save her son from a burning building, or that a man save a woman from drowning), since such ingrained beliefs (perhaps combined with other "nonrational" considerations, such as emotional involvement between the participants- e.g. mother and child) can "override" our conscious self-preservation instinct, they should not be dismissed out of hand as mere anomalies. It's very relevant imo.


There's no legitimate reason (that I've heard-- feel free to correct me) to assume that altruistic motives can, in some instances, be reduced to a "personal benefit", while other instances (as just described) seem to necessitate an entirely different motivational account in order to remain plausible. There would have to be a difference of "kind" between these two types of actions/situations, and, though I admit that they differ in degree (i.e., the act which risks one's life is MORE altruistic than an act which risks mere injury), I do not believe that their various features and desired ends are so disparate as to warrant being classed as a different "sort" altogether. That's just my take on it; feel free to elaborate-- perhaps there's an angle (or three) that I haven't considered.


Sorry about all the parentheticals (and the length), btw.

Loki said:

Err, not quite, but thanks for playing Abba.


Teza:


Insofar as love is a "perceived" thing, it must ultimately be related in some way to how it makes us feel, else we wouldn't be able to perceive it ; apperception-- particularly in the social sphere-- is frequently self-referential. I was speaking strictly of how love manifests itself in our actions towards the object of our love (typically, actions that flow from true love are selfless imo, though you're free to think that naive; I'm just going by my personal experience, as I've said). Of course, there could, I suppose, be purely "intellectual" love (perhaps closer to "philia" than "eros", to use the Greek) that's based purely on the qualities of a person (e.g., my girlfriend is charitable, kind, and intelligent, and for these reasons I love her), but typically love also involves an emotional (i.e., "nonrational") component that varies in intensity based on the person and, I would imagine, the degree of love felt (though these two-- the strength of the love experienced and the nature of the person-- may be intimately related in a sense, as the intensity of our perceptions are contingent, in large part, upon our psychological makeup).


Now, if it were the case that a person loved someone else purely in this intellectual, rational sense, then I could perhaps see them not being selfless in their actions towards that person, since whatever rational analysis the person would perform in order to determine the proper course of action would be wholly dispassionate (whereas all such analyses performed when one is in "traditional" love are influenced by our passions; the "love object" is exalted). But since I'm reasonably sure that you're experiencing "love" in the more common sense, I'd tend to say that you'd be inclined to be selfless in your actions towards your partner.


Again, this is wholly separate from the question of whether our experience of love is a "selfish" thing (since I wasn't using "selfless" in this same context that you allude to, but rather applying it to the behavior between the partners). Actually, now that I'm thinking about it anew, I suppose that even this distinction (between one's experience of love and the actions one takes in its name) is an artifical one in a sense, since the "selfless" actions that spring from love can be viewed as tending towards the furtherance of the "love relationship"; since one enjoys how their partner makes them feel (the "selfish" component you've mentioned), they'd tend to perform actions that would keep them around. Since selfish actions aren't socially sanctioned, they would be frowned upon by one's partner, thus causing one to be "selfess" if they desired to maintain the relationship; the motivation, then, would ultimately come back to the "selfish" desire of the individual to maintain a relationship with the object of his affection. I can see this, I suppose-- but allow me to add that it's an incredibly cynical view (you'd likely call it the "realist" view ); also, the fact that one can construct such a theoretical framework doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. The "traditionalist" account of love is also plausible, though for different reasons.


One thing that would speak against such a cynical account imo, are actions taken between lovers that seemingly are truly "selfless"-- that is, that they do not contribute to the perpetuation of the relationship. Examples are difficult to construct for various reasons, but I will say that I've personally been in such a situation, and I chose an action/option that did not tend towards the continuance of the relationship. Now, whether this is a function of the "love" itself, or rather of the individual (their preconceptions, character etc.), is up for debate, obviously, but these things do exist and do occur frequently; I believe that they mitigate against at least a hasty conclusion of "love is selfish".

I tend to believe that true love-- in the best sense of the word-- transforms people and makes them better, fuller human beings. Or, at the very least, makes them realize the very best within themselves that may have theretofore lied dormant.




Of course I've been in love. I'm nearly 27 years old-- I should hope I've been. As for what happened, well, I hope you'll accept the fact that it's not something I feel entirely comfortable discussing with the forum.

Click to expand...

riiiiiiiiiiight. dont feel comfortable. i get ya big guy.

ToxicAdam said:

DO NOT MARRY BEFORE THE AGE OF 25

Unless you want children or are about to have a child. The statistics of failed marriages when both participants are below the age of 25 are outrageous.



In general I would say don't get married unless you want to start a family. If you are someone who thinks "We may want kids one day ... but lets get married first". Hold off.

Marriage is so worthless unless you are trying to start a family. I know too many people who have been through 1-2 marriages and are only 30 years old. Its kind of sad.


(I myself waited until I was 28 until I married)

Click to expand...

Your advice on wanting children makes no sense. If you want children you should be *especially* wary of marrying before 25, not less so. If divorce rates are astoundingly higher for under 25s, think of all the broken marriages *with children* you're basically saying are a good idea.

If you get married before 25 with no intention of having any children in the near term, given the information you're bringing to the table, you're the smart one. You'll know long before you're actually willing to have children whether the marriage is likely to work out, while if you marry under 25 for the purpose of having children immediately (or because you already have one), you're basically dooming the child to a broken home.

I'm still young (22 in May, she's 20 in October) but I feel really confident about getting married to my girlfriend. With good communication, an underlying respect for each other and commitment to the relationship, she's a partner for life - there is nothing I want to experience without her.

We're not engaged yet, but it's something I have planned for next week =)

put an onion ring on her finger like in run ronnie run

JAWESOME PROPOSAL DUDE

maharg said:

Your advice on wanting children makes no sense. If you want children you should be *especially* wary of marrying before 25, not less so. If divorce rates are astoundingly higher for under 25s, think of all the broken marriages *with children* you're basically saying are a good idea.

If you get married before 25 with no intention of having any children in the near term, given the information you're bringing to the table, you're the smart one. You'll know long before you're actually willing to have children whether the marriage is likely to work out, while if you marry under 25 for the purpose of having children immediately (or because you already have one), you're basically dooming the child to a broken home.

Click to expand...

I think what he means is that people don't appreciate what marriage is all about unless they are planning to have kids. Generally people who want to have kids are slightly less throwaway about marriage.

Jonnyram said:

I think what he means is that people don't appreciate what marriage is all about unless they are planning to have kids. Generally people who want to have kids are slightly less throwaway about marriage.

Click to expand...

That is not necessarily to the benefit of the children. That they feel their marriage is more difficult to leave because they have children is not to say that their marriage is a happy, stable one.

What *I* mean is that his advice is backwards. People who are not going to have children do less damage in a failed marriage than people who are. And the likelyhood of the marriage failing (not necessarily ending in divorce) are the same whether you have children or not.

Apologies for replying so late. And I'm afraid I'll have to be brief; I'm extremely busy at the moment.

Ignatz Mouse said:

My point is, if you're deeply committed, the community connection is almost an afterthought. The wedding, btw, is the public promise part, not the whole marriage. The marriage (to me) is just formalizing the level of commitment that you already have.

Again, you should ask "why not be married?" and really look at all the reasons free of moral judgments of them. If the ability to end the relationship later without disappointing anyone is one reason (which you imply, I think) , than so be it. I'm sure there are many other reasons as well. Really do an inventory, light-side reasons and dark-side reasons.

Click to expand...

This doesn't seem to make sense. How can the wedding ceremony and not the marriage constitute the public promise? Does the public promise end once the ceremony is concluded?

Incidentally, I'm not seeking the ability to end the relationship without disappointing anyone. I just don't understand what a marriage will contribute to the relationship; indeed I suspect that it may detract from its fidelity. I take your final point, though.

Insofar as love is a "perceived" thing, it must ultimately be related in some way to how it makes us feel, else we wouldn't be able to perceive it (the exception being things/ideas that are purely mentally discerned-- love, like most social phenomena, is not one of these; besides, attempting to make it so leads to an overly mechanistic view of life, which is no fun ); apperception-- particularly in the social sphere-- is frequently self-referential. I was speaking strictly of how love manifests itself in our actions towards the object of our love (typically, actions that flow from true love are selfless imo, though you're free to think that naive; I'm just going by my personal experience, as I've said). Of course, there could, I suppose, be purely "intellectual" love (perhaps closer to "philia" than "eros", to use the Greek) that's based purely on the qualities of a person (e.g., my girlfriend is charitable, kind, and intelligent, and for these reasons I love her), but typically love also involves an emotional (i.e., "nonrational") component that varies in intensity based on the person and, I would imagine, the degree of love felt (though these two-- the strength of the love experienced and the nature of the person-- may be intimately related in a sense, as the intensity of our perceptions are contingent, in large part, upon our psychological makeup).


Now, if it were the case that a person loved someone else purely in this intellectual, rational sense, then I could perhaps see them not being selfless in their actions towards that person, since whatever rational analysis the person would perform in order to determine the proper course of action would be wholly dispassionate (whereas all such analyses performed when one is in "traditional" love are influenced by our passions- i.e., the "love object" is exalted). But since I'm reasonably sure that you're experiencing "love" in the more common sense, I'd tend to say that you'd be inclined to be selfless in your actions towards your partner.

Click to expand...

With respect, I don't see how this is relevant. (I also don't accept that you can draw such an easy distinction between 'intellectual' and 'emotional' love.)

In any case, your account of 'selflessness' in respect of the behaviour between partners and your analysis of altruistic self-sacrifice both miss the point. The model of egoism that I was proposing is (taken to its extreme) a closed theory. It is not able to be disproved.

I'm no expert in this area but it is straightforward to pick holes even in your argument for sacrificial heroism. Let's assume that the 'hero' believes with certainty that, in saving another man's life, he is going to die in the process. It could be argued, for example, that the self-serving motivation is the 'hero's' belief that his subsequent guilt would be unbearable were he not to act.

That said, there are degrees of egoism, and to be honest I'd probably subscribe to a (slightly) more moderate version.