US! (me & my s.o. just got engaged)
artemis
SHARON J. BOWMAN & PABLO VELASQUEZ
we are in love!
This is the question: is there any way to get married absolutely
without any religion or religious references at all? We're both
atheists. Thanks!
-sjb
Debbie Adams
Fawn Fitter
>>without any religion or religious references at all? We're both
>>atheists. Thanks!
If you just want to do the deed and get it over with, go to the courthouse
or hire a Justice of the Peace. Quick and efficient.
If your question is, "Is there any way to hold a formal ceremony that won't
alienate us through religious references," the answer is ABSOLUTELY. Get
yourself a Unitarian minister, write your own ceremony, and have at it. Or
get yourself a JP and do the same. Hold it somewhere lovely, like a meeting
room at a posh hotel or under a tent in a park. The only thing that matters
is that the person who marries you is licensed to do so -- otherwise, it's
not a legal marriage. But it's not necessary to be a religious figure to
get a license.
A woman I know had her wedding at the lodge of a ski resort in the summer,
when the view was at its best and the weather was exquisite. She had a
touching, heartfelt ceremony which had no religious overtones at all,
written by her and her fiance and performed by a UU minister. It may have
been the most meaningful ceremony I've ever attended. (Just to show you it
_can_ be done!)
Andy Michael USGS Guest
>>>This is the question: is there any way to get married absolutely
>>>without any religion or religious references at all? We're both
>>>atheists. Thanks!
>
>If you just want to do the deed and get it over with, go to the courthouse
>or hire a Justice of the Peace. Quick and efficient.
>
>If your question is, "Is there any way to hold a formal ceremony that won't
>alienate us through religious references," the answer is ABSOLUTELY. Get
>yourself a Unitarian minister, write your own ceremony, and have at it. Or
>get yourself a JP and do the same. Hold it somewhere lovely, like a meeting
>room at a posh hotel or under a tent in a park. The only thing that matters
>is that the person who marries you is licensed to do so -- otherwise, it's
>not a legal marriage. But it's not necessary to be a religious figure to
>get a license.
Or you can do anything you want during the ceremony, with or without an
officiant, and then do the legalities separately at the courthouse. We
were lucky enough to have a relative that could legally sign the papers
afterwards, but we didn't have him lead the service. It just sort of lead
itself. No one pronounced us married either. It was sort of obvious and
we didn't really think that anyone had that right besides ourselves. If
we hadn't gotten the legalities worked out that day it wouldn't have
bothered us in the least.
Andy
Robert L. Lamothe
Sure, in most states getting married is as easy as getting a marriage
license, the ceremony is largely a formality designed to have witness' confirm
that you are doing this of your own free will. A Justice of the Peace can
preside over the wedding and you can have it in any secular location you wish.
As far as the ceremony you can write your own, the important parts are the
"Do you"'s and the "I now pronounce". From here you just create a ceremony
that celebrates your joining in whatever manner you feel is appropriate for
your own beleif's. It's all up to you.
-Bob
--
*******************************************************************************
* Robert L. Lamothe University of New Hampshire *
* r...@unh.edu Interoperablity lab room 220 *
*******************************************************************************
Michal Leah Peri
>>>This is the question: is there any way to get married absolutely
>>>without any religion or religious references at all? We're both
>>>atheists. Thanks!
OK. Yesterday I told you (Fawn) how to do it.
Now I'm going to ask you (readers) why/why not to do it.
What does marriage mean if it's not "under God"?
No flames intended or anticipated -- I'm trying to start a discussion.
--
-- Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
Diane Lin
>fsqu...@eff.org (Fawn Fitter) writes:
>>>>This is the question: is there any way to get married absolutely
>>>>without any religion or religious references at all? We're both
>>>>atheists. Thanks!
>
>OK. Yesterday I told you (Fawn) how to do it.
>
>Now I'm going to ask you (readers) why/why not to do it.
>What does marriage mean if it's not "under God"?
>
>No flames intended or anticipated -- I'm trying to start a discussion.
Well, what does marriage mean if it *is* "under God?" Is marriage
somehow "blessed" by God? I see marriage as a cultural and legal
institution, and I see no reason why religion should be dragged into
it for the areligious among us.
--
Diane C. Lin "Live now; make *now* always the
dl...@weber.ucsd.edu most precious time. Now will
(Dylan's mom, 2 years) never come again." (ST:TNG)
Fawn Fitter
Whoops, Michal, I wasn't the one asking the question. I was quoting the
previous response and offering my two Abe Lincolns.
Why get married without a religious ceremony? Easy: you want to make a formal
public statement of your devotion to one another and your intention to make
it permanent, but you either don't believe in the same version of God, or come
from religious traditions so divergent that you can find very little common
ground, or are trying to keep fervent adherents of different faiths from
getting into a fistfight during your reception, or (insert your favorite
reason here).
Or maybe you're an atheist, as the original poster stated she was.
Asserting that marriage is impossible without a belief in a deity implies that
nonbelievers are devoid of ethics, that people cannot make a committment to
each other or uphold that committment without the threat of God's displeasure
hanging over their heads. And that, to me, is a baby step away from saying
that nonbelievers are incapable of true love -- which, you may gather, I
don't buy for one second.
Laura Johnson
> What does marriage mean if it's not "under God"?
>
Answering as a married agnostic: marriage is
(a) a higher level of
commitment than just living together; of course what the commitment
is depends on the people involved, but with us it means sexual
fidelity and permanent togetherness (we know permanence cannot be absolutely
promised, so in practice it means we *intend* to be together till
death do us part, and will work really really hard to see that it stays
that way). You may say that there is some ambiguity here, and there is,
but no more than in most "religious" marriages.
(b) a legal and social contract: a nice way of letting people know
that you are committed to each other and plan to live your lives together;
also gives us the legal standing of a "couple" (which comprises a lot
of things that generally work to our advantage). For some people the
legal aspect is a significant disadvantage (due to taxes), so this might
be a reason not to do it. I think we would have got married even if
we faced a tax penalty though, because we felt strongly about making the
public and private commitment to each other.
--
Laura Johnson
l...@col.hp.com
Opinions expressed are my own, but may be licensed for a nominal fee.
Denise Elaine Reintsma
ceremony is purely legal.
Chris Lannon
Me and my S.O. got married at the courthouse. Just went downtown and
did it!
I don't recall any references to a higher power or anything! It was
great!
By the way, congradulations on your FREEDOM FROM RELIGION! :)
Phillip P. Gullion
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Michal Leah Peri
>Whoops, Michal, I wasn't the one asking the question. I was quoting the
>previous response and offering my two Abe Lincolns.
My apologies. I'm not as careful as I should be with attributions.
>Why get married without a religious ceremony? Easy: you want to make a formal
>public statement of your devotion to one another and your intention to make
>it permanent, but you either don't believe in the same version of God, or come
>from religious traditions so divergent....
So you're saying that "family" or "community" can be a formal binding
in non-religious marriage. Right? Would it serve the same role as God's
sanctification of a religious marriage, in your opinion?
>Asserting that marriage is impossible without a belief in a deity implies that
>nonbelievers are devoid of ethics, that people cannot make a committment to
>each other or uphold that committment without the threat of God's displeasure
>hanging over their heads. And that, to me, is a baby step away from saying
>that nonbelievers are incapable of true love -- which, you may gather, I
>don't buy for one second.
I am not asserting that marriage is impossible without God, nor that non-
believers are incapable of love. My question pertains only to the cultural
grounding of the institution of marriage. Allow me to re-phrase:
If two people are non-religious, why go through the legal and logistical
motions of getting married rather than "just" live together? What are
the secular benefits (material, psychological, or other) of marriage as
opposed to committed cohabitation?
Greg Buell Inventor - 1
"The Light Year Conquest Corp."->>> Lovestars on their honeymoon A-BOMB
"1,001 Things You Can Invent" ->>>> You must invent gravity control !!!
FIVE POINTS IF YOU CAN NAME THE 10 NEAREST STARS TO EARTH --> GENIUS ??
--
C:\dir PATH to the 10 nearest SOLAR SYSTEMS >> marries OS/2 to INTERNET
"The Light Year Conquest Corp."->>> Lovestars on their honeymoon A-BOMB
"1,001 Things You Can Invent" ->>>> You must invent gravity control !!!
FIVE POINTS IF YOU CAN NAME THE 10 NEAREST STARS TO EARTH --> GENIUS ??
Michal Leah Peri
>(b) a legal and social contract: a nice way of letting people know
>that you are committed to each other and plan to live your lives together;
>also gives us the legal standing of a "couple" (which comprises a lot
>of things that generally work to our advantage).
What have you found to be the advantages of being a legal "couple"?
Are these advantages accrued only through marriage? Or can they
be attained through other means (e.g., living together for a long
time? owning shared property? having children together?)
Are they *necessarily* attained through marriage? Or is it possible
to be married and not have these advantages? Are there cases
where marriage doesn't guarantee some of the advantages?
Are there differences in the advantages between "religious" marriage
and "secular" marriage?
Kris Asber
>What does marriage mean if it's not "under God"?
To me, marriage means two people promising to each other that they
will build their lives together. They may do it in front of family
and friends, in front of a religious official of some sort, or by
themselves, standing by a mountain stream with only the birds as
witnesses.
By that definition, I'm not sure how this hypothetical god character
fits into the equation.
--
Why do the "family values" people always focus
on family instead of values? kr...@agora.rain.com
christine.m.dakes
> fsqu...@eff.org (Fawn Fitter) writes:
> >>>This is the question: is there any way to get married absolutely
> >>>without any religion or religious references at all? We're both
> >>>atheists. Thanks!
>
Yes, we did it. Had a beautiful wedding, outdoors in a rose
garden in a white marble gazebo, with a justice of the peace who
was kind enough to accomodate us. Read her wedding ceremony in
advance, no religious or god references, great for us, although
she said she'd read anything we wanted or wrote as the ceremony.
Contact a JP, and write your own ceremony if you want.
Good luck,
Christine, fellow atheist
Fawn Fitter
>So you're saying that "family" or "community" can be a formal binding
>in non-religious marriage. Right?
Wrong. I'm saying that what binds a couple together is their commitment to
each other. A formal ceremony, religious or not, is the symbol of that
commitment and not the essence of it. Community (or family) recognition simply
makes it more difficult for the two people involved to back out of the
commitment once it's made.
>If two people are non-religious, why go through the legal and logistical
>motions of getting married rather than "just" live together? What are
>the secular benefits (material, psychological, or other) of marriage as
>opposed to committed cohabitation?
ObDisclaimer: Please bear in mind that I am single and have never been
otherwise, so this isn't what I'd call an expert opinion.
Marriage _is_ committed cohabitation. In the psychological sense, a couple
can be every bit as committed to each other without the legal trappings of
the institution known as marriage. And society tends to recognize that in
a practical way -- most states, for example, consider a couple married under
common law if they've been living together as husband and wife for a certain
length of time (which varies from state to state) and are commonly recognized
as married.
However, our society reserves certain benefits to the legally married. The
obvious one is that of inheritance and other legal rights of the spouse and
kids. For example, if you were to get into an accident and were not married
to the woman you were living with, she would have no _right_ to visit you in
the hospital. In fact, if your immediate relatives (presumably your parents)
didn't like her, they could _exclude_ her from your hospital room if you
weren't legally competent to state otherwise. This happens to homosexual
couples all the time. This has nothing to do with religion; it has to do
with the legal status of the couple.
I've been told by my married friends that going through the ceremony,
proclaiming their committment to each other before friends, family, and hors
d'oeuvres, made them feel "more coupled." I assume it's like going on a diet --
if you tell everyone you know that you're trying to lose weight, you're going
to try that much harder, and you're going to have more support for passing
up the HoHo's in favor of a nice carrot.
Jonathan Thornburg
track of who said what.)
<<<someone>>> asked:
| If two people are non-religious, why go through the legal and logistical
| motions of getting married rather than "just" live together? What are
| the secular benefits (material, psychological, or other) of marriage as
| opposed to committed cohabitation?
One major benefit of "living in sin" (as unmarried cohabitation used
to be referred to by some religious groups) is that it *does* make
splitting up somewhat easier if the relationship doesn't work out.
You learn an awful lot about someone living with her/him for a year
that you don't learn in looser forms of friendship/relationship/dating/etc.
If the result of living together (whether or not you're formally
married) for a year or so is that you decide to split up, there's
a lot less hassle involved if you're *not* formally married.
For this reason, I'd say that (modulo religious or other philosophical
objections to unmarried cohabitation) even if you eventually plan
to formally marry your beloved, you should live together unmarried
for a year or so as a "trial marriage" first.
Disclaimer: I *don't* speak from personal experience here.
- Jonathan Thornburg
<jona...@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu> or <jona...@einstein.ph.utexas.edu>
[until 31/Aug/93] U of Texas at Austin / Physics Dept / Center for Relativity
and [until ~Apr/93] U of British Columbia / {Astronomy,Physics}
Brian C. Kohn
MLP> What does marriage mean if it's not "under God"?
Marriage is a commitment between two people to spend the rest of their
lives together, support, and love each other. I don't see "God"
having much to do what all that unless you want it to.
--
/kohn/brian.c AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center
The Resource, E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker (bic...@hoqax.ATT.COM)
Poet-Magician of Quality PHONE: (908) 949-5850
'Hope, not fear, is the most positive advocate of action.' - S.R. Lawhead
Brian C. Kohn
MLP> fsqu...@eff.org (Fawn Fitter) writes:
>pe...@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>Why get married without a religious ceremony? Easy: you want to make a formal
>public statement of your devotion to one another and your intention to make
>it permanent, but you either don't believe in the same version of God, or come
>from religious traditions so divergent....
MLP> So you're saying that "family" or "community" can be a formal binding
MLP> in non-religious marriage. Right? Would it serve the same role as God's
MLP> sanctification of a religious marriage, in your opinion?
I say _no_. The binding of "family" in marriages between those who
believe in religion and those who do not is the same thing. This
"santicification" you speak of is something else, something I feel is
not necessary for marriage (since I do not seek it.)
:
MLP> If two people are non-religious, why go through the legal and logistical
MLP> motions of getting married rather than "just" live together? What are
MLP> the secular benefits (material, psychological, or other) of marriage as
MLP> opposed to committed cohabitation?
Legally, married spouses have greater rights than even immediate
family. These rights range from inheritance to decisions concerning
the continued use of artificial life-support in terminally ill
patients. Logisticly, married spouses may be claimed as dependents on
each others health insurance policies and may take "family sick days"
when spouses are sick.
Aren't there some states where it is still illegal for unmarried
people to have consentual sex?
In social situations: I remember a few years ago some friends were
having trouble with their guest list. (It was too long!) Now I'm a
firm believer that you NEVER invite ANYONE alone to a wedding. (YES,
cut down on the number of friends you invite, but make sure you invite
them all with guests!) But this friend basically took the following
approach. He invited friends' husbands and wives first, then (space
permitting) fiancees. (It ended up that there was no room for
girlfriends or "just friends.")
Employment: In many work-places, there is a subtle (or not-so-subtle)
discrimination against single workers. Typically the effects are
heavier travel burdens, heavier expectations for overtime (less need
for "family time" of course), ....
This isn't meant to be an exhaustive list either, nor does it cover
the spiritual aspects of being married. (Yes, non-religious people are
spiritual.)
Brian C. Kohn
FF> pe...@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>So you're saying that "family" or "community" can be a formal binding
>in non-religious marriage. Right?
FF> Wrong. I'm saying that what binds a couple together is their commitment to
FF> each other. A formal ceremony, religious or not, is the symbol of that
FF> commitment and not the essence of it.
I don't think you two are disagreeing here.
FF> Community (or family) recognition simply
FF> makes it more difficult for the two people involved to back out of the
FF> commitment once it's made.
Here you lost me. Marriage isn't a way to lock your spouse in with
external pressure.
Brian C. Kohn
JT> I agree, I see essentially no difference between formal marriage
JT> and long-term and/or committed cohabitation. For the couple themselves,
JT> though, one significant point may well be *taxes*. (Gee, is it a
JT> coincidence that I'm posting this in mid-March???) In some juristictions
JT> a formally married couple is entitled to various tax advantages vis-a-vis
JT> a couple whose marriage isn't "government-recognized".
...or tax dis-advantages, as the case may be. For instance, a couple
which both make $35,000 SAVE about $1,000 in federal taxes by *NOT*
getting married.
Brian C. Kohn
WET> someone correct me if i am wrong.
WET> in france, a religious ceremony is IN NO WAY legal and binding... you
WET> have to go the equivalent of a city hall and get married there either
WET> before or after you have a religious ceremony. or you can save yourself
WET> the time and money and do it the one time...
Someone, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is true to some
extent in the USA. You can't just get married by a priest and be
"legally married." You must file for a marriage license with the
state.
Fawn Fitter
>I agree, I see essentially no difference between formal marriage
>and long-term and/or committed cohabitation. For the couple themselves,
>though, one significant point may well be *taxes*. (Gee, is it a
>coincidence that I'm posting this in mid-March???) In some juristictions
>a formally married couple is entitled to various tax advantages vis-a-vis
>a couple whose marriage isn't "government-recognized".
Errrrr....actually, unless a couple conforms to the traditional "hubby-
works-and-wifey-stays-home" model, getting married actually means they take
a _larger_ tax hit.
Jonathan Thornburg
| For the couple themselves, though, one significant point
| may well be *taxes*. (Gee, is it a coincidence that I'm posting
| this in mid-March???) In some juristictions a formally married
| couple is entitled to various tax advantages vis-a-vis a couple
| whose marriage isn't "government-recognized".
Several posters took me to task for this, suggesting that I had the
sign of the effect wrong. In particular, in article
<1993Mar13.1...@eff.org> fsqu...@eff.org (Fawn Fitter) pointed
out that:
|Errrrr....actually, unless a couple conforms to the traditional "hubby-
|works-and-wifey-stays-home" model, getting married actually means they take
|a _larger_ tax hit.
Just to pick a nit, this doubtless depends on what country or
countries you live and/or pay taxes in, among other factors.
Remember, not all soc.couples readers live in <your country>...
[Please note the "Followup-To:" header line -- further discussion
of the tax advantages/disadvantages of marriage probably belongs
elsewhere.]
Greg Buell Inventor - 1
Control of gravity starts with brain storming the discovery.
Birth control pill came before the Memory pill
Suppression of lightning might be discovered watching
computer graphics.
One vaccination that covers everything - cow pox maid again.
Except this time the milk maid is a woman MD... grin !
Roll playing dialog between husband and wife on a program.
Can debug 1,001 inventions
gbu...@nyx.cs.du.edu PO Box 1113 Boulder CO 80306
litherland kathryn j
>someone correct me if i am wrong.
>in france, a religious ceremony is IN NO WAY legal and binding... you
>have to go the equivalent of a city hall and get married there either
>before or after you have a religious ceremony. or you can save yourself
>the time and money and do it the one time...
>(-=wendy
I don't know about France, but in Bolivia there is a difference between
a civil-recognized marriage and church-recognized. Often a young couple
will go through the legal proceedings for a civil marriage, but wait a
while to have the religious ceremony in order to save money for the
festivities. There is also a tradition among indigenous peoples of
a live-together engagement period, when the couple establishes their
own small household near the boy's parents, and the girl helps out
her future mother-in-law with the house/field work.
Mark Meyer
> Marriage is a commitment between two people to spend the rest of their
> lives together, support, and love each other. I don't see "God"
> having much to do what all that unless you want it to.
I think Brian's hit the nail on the head here. I would also
like to point out that the question "What does a marriage mean if it's
not 'under God'?" betrays a bit of cultural ignorance. Speaking from
personal experience, in Buddhist countries such as Thailand, marriages
without God happen all the time. (Note that, while Buddha and his
teachings are revered by Buddhists, Buddha is not considered "God".)
--
Mark Meyer | mme...@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc., Plano TX +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
Klingon proverb: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, perpare for doom.
Michal Leah Peri
>the question "What does a marriage mean if it's
>not 'under God'?" betrays a bit of cultural ignorance. Speaking from
Of course. If I wan't ignorant I wouldn't be asking, now would I?
>personal experience, in Buddhist countries such as Thailand, marriages
>without God happen all the time. (Note that, while Buddha and his
>teachings are revered by Buddhists, Buddha is not considered "God".)
So in these marriages, what is the difference that seperates married
couples from those co-habitating without formal marriage? Or is there
a difference? If not, then why do people go through the formalities?
-- Michal
Ilana Stern
> So in these marriages, what is the difference that seperates married
> couples from those co-habitating without formal marriage? Or is there
> a difference? If not, then why do people go through the formalities?
It's a bit of a tautology -- being married is different from cohabitating
sans formalities, if and only if the people involved feel that being
married is different from cohabitating sans formalities. My husband
and I are areligious, yet we feel there is a difference in our
relationship now that we're married.
It's hard to analyze: part of it may be that we have warmer familial
approval, part of it may be that we no longer subconsciously worry about
being dumped, part of it may be that we like wearing rings, part of
it may be that using words with the weight of legitimacy and history
to describe our relationship -- wife, husband, marriage -- makes us feel
like we're bound together in a secret society, like being blood brothers.
I don't know. It might be all of these, and it might be something else
entirely. But it makes a difference to us, and therefore it makes a
difference.
I have no problems with the idea that some people perceive no difference
and therefore that marriage is unnecessary or irrelevant to them.
--
/\ "The mind, Shelly, is a strange ball of goo." -- Chris Stevens, NEXP
\_][ <--NCAR Ilana Stern dod#009 r.b. cliff swallow il...@ncar.ucar.edu
\______________________________________________________________________
brian sterling
I just wanted to mention something that I came across in Robert Axelrod's
book on the Prisoner's Dilemma (be patient, this does have to do with
formalizing relationships into marriage).
One of his key results is that the more likely future dealings are between
people, the more likely they are to cooperate with each other. One example
is the reputation that gypsies got as people who 'gypped' you in trade.
Since they were always dealing with different people, there was less incentive
for them mto deal honestly with the settled people they dealt with. At the
sametime, there was also less incentive for the settled people to deal
well with them (so please no flames from gypsies). He gives other examples
(including a fascinating chapter about spontaneous cooperation between
enemies in trench warfare on the Western Front in WWI) but he also said
thatthe institution of marriage falls under the same principle. It is a
remarkably widespread practice, happening in vastly different cultures
the world over. It enhances social stability by giving couples more
incentive to cooperate and work their problems out. Once you have made
a committment not only to the other person, but also to society, that you
will attempt to stay together, you are more likely to cooperate.
As an atheist who has always questioned the institution of marriage, that
really made me think.
brian
Michal Leah Peri
>I have no problems with the idea that some people perceive no difference
>and therefore that marriage is unnecessary or irrelevant to them.
What I'm trying to get at is whether people feel a difference and what
that difference is. So, to all you non-religeous folks: did you feel
a difference when you got married? What was that difference? Was it in
how people acted toward you (external) or was it something internal?
If it was internal, what was it about the marriage that triggered the
change in your feelings?
(My goodness I'm being nosy today.:-) :-) :-) )
Diane Lin
>
>What I'm trying to get at is whether people feel a difference and what
>that difference is. So, to all you non-religeous folks: did you feel
>a difference when you got married? What was that difference? Was it in
>how people acted toward you (external) or was it something internal?
>If it was internal, what was it about the marriage that triggered the
>change in your feelings?
>
us differently, as if we were now *more* committed than when we were
"just" living together. I distinctly remember not feeling any
differently internally, and I asked my husband about that as well.
The only difference we could feel was the strange sensation of
having something on the fourth finger of our left hands :-).
Seriously, however, by getting married in front of our family and
friends was a public affirmation of our love and commitment to each
other. I did, however, continue to get questions about how
committed I could possibly be to my spouse when I chose not to
change my last name to his. (Rudeness abounds in this society.)
--
Diane C. Lin "Live now; make *now* always the
dl...@weber.ucsd.edu most precious time. Now will
(Dylan's mom, 2 years) never come again." (ST:TNG)
Robbie Felix
>il...@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
>
>>I have no problems with the idea that some people perceive no difference
>>and therefore that marriage is unnecessary or irrelevant to them.
>
>What I'm trying to get at is whether people feel a difference and what
>that difference is. So, to all you non-religeous folks: did you feel
>a difference when you got married? What was that difference? Was it in
>how people acted toward you (external) or was it something internal?
>If it was internal, what was it about the marriage that triggered the
>change in your feelings?
>
really cracks me up when people ask, "How is married life?". Things
haven't changed much! We still live in the same house with the same
people. SO I don't quite know how to respond to the question...
But there was a subtle change after we got married. I think we both
feel that it deepened our commitment to go through the act of getting
married. Personally, I feel different. I feel that it has become even
more important to communicate, to understand, to probe into my
partner's thoughts and feelings... I feel that I have a commitment to
the relationship, a commitment to keeping it vibrant and alive.
The difference is subtle, but I feel that marriage has altered our
relationship for the better. By the way, we are not religious, so
there was no consideration of religion in our decision to get
married...
Personally, I think the book "Getting the love you want", explains one
of the main reasons I wanted to get married ( the book *is* slightly
religious), it explains that real growth occurs when you are truly
committed. If people leave relationships that have faded, they lose
the real opportunity in life to grow, to learn, to overcome
formidable obstacles...
I believe that marriage is a partnership. Frankly, it feels good to
have a true partner in life whether you are married or not! But in my
case, my husband *is* my partner, we just formalized our partnership!
I am glad we did!
rf
The Idealistic Cynic
>I am not asserting that marriage is impossible without God, nor that non-
>believers are incapable of love. My question pertains only to the cultural
>grounding of the institution of marriage. Allow me to re-phrase:
>If two people are non-religious, why go through the legal and logistical
>motions of getting married rather than "just" live together? What are
>the secular benefits (material, psychological, or other) of marriage as
>opposed to committed cohabitation?
There were some benefits, some handicaps, and some things that were neither.
I can think of one large benefit right off hand: our parents' approval.
Neither set of parents liked my not yet wife and I living together.
(And believe it or not, we were refused an apartment because we weren't
married.)
Handicaps are harder -- I do remember it took my wife a while to realise
that just becuase we were married, people wouldn't treat her much differently.
And that the way our friends treated us wouldn't change at all.
But our committment to each other *didn't* change. I am no more or less
committed and in love with my wife than I was before I married her.
So why did we get married? Partially for our parents. Partially because
marraige is a public affirmation of that private committment. And a lot
because going through a marraige ceremony is a very powerful symbol; one
a love. friendship and committment. And we wanted that symbol in our lives.
Not because in and of itself it meant anything -- symbols never do -- but
because sometimes symbols are nice things to have around.
Sean.
---
Sean L. Gilley
sean.l...@att.com <-- USE THIS ADDRESS, ALL OTHERS BOUNCE!
614 236 5031 (h), 614 860 5743 (w)
Linda Hill
>il...@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern) writes:
>
>>I have no problems with the idea that some people perceive no difference
>>and therefore that marriage is unnecessary or irrelevant to them.
>
>What I'm trying to get at is whether people feel a difference and what
>that difference is. So, to all you non-religeous folks: did you feel
>a difference when you got married? What was that difference? Was it in
>how people acted toward you (external) or was it something internal?
>If it was internal, what was it about the marriage that triggered the
>change in your feelings?
Okay, I'll bite. The first thing that jumps to mind for me is the degree
of commitment. I never thought I believed in marriage and I went through
two live-together relationships before meeting my husband. I don't happen
to like confrontation of any kind, so when John and I were living together,
and he insisted on arguing/discussing something to a peaceable conclusion,
my first instinct was always to get the hell out of there (if given the
chance, I'll always choose flight over fight :-( ). I had never taken
a relationship seriously enough to really work at reaching understanding and
agreement when issues arose. So my first impulse with John was to just
chuck the whole thing and move out whenever we had a serious argument.
Since we've been married (two years), I've noticed that this doesn't
happen anymore. Maybe I've learned that arguing isn't the end of the
world, but I think it's more a matter of knowing that this is something
I've chosen to make a permanent part of my life and that I had better do
whatever I can to see that it remains a positive part of my life. I
think that making that commitment in front of friends and family reinforces
my resolve and validates the relationship to some greater degree than just
the two of us making the commitment to each other would have. In the past
I actually espoused the "living together can be just as great a commitment
as being married" theory. But for _me_, it just never was, and I never
knew it until after John and I made the decision to marry.
Externally I haven't felt any change other than my girlfriends stopped
bugging me about when John and I were going to get married. :-)
--
Linda V. Hill "Nakia", Hans Christian 33
Network Equipment Technologies Email: li...@net.com
800 Saginaw Drive, 23.2.3 Phone: (415) 780-5785
Redwood City, CA 94063 Fax: (415) 780-5001
Phil Gullion
Re: the difference between being married and cohabitating?
Michal, I guess that I can only say that the weight of custom/
society/whatever descends upon the marrieds, while it doesn't do so upon
co-habitators (IMO). I've been married twice, both of those marriages came
out of cohabitation, and was a (relatively) long-term cohabitator in
another situation. *Things* change with marriage: *other* relationships
can take on a threatening aspect; the relationship somehow projects itself
into a longer time (i.e the *lifetime*, *death do us part* stuff). Kids
become *your* kids instead of *hers*.
My thoughts are: if you are wrestling with the decision to marry or to
co-habitate, are you ready to move into the "weight of custom* above, etc.?
If you can't project your relationship into your lifetime, maybe
cohabitation would make more sense until you feel that you *both* need a
greater sense of committment. But read Sarte's "No Exit" first!
Regards, Phil :) ( I love your name, BTW).
Michal Leah Peri
>Seriously, however, by getting married in front of our family and
>friends was a public affirmation of our love and commitment to each
>other. I did, however, continue to get questions about how
>committed I could possibly be to my spouse when I chose not to
>change my last name to his. (Rudeness abounds in this society.)
What always amazed me is that the woman is expected not only to
take his lastname, but that she is formally called by his firstname
as well. It has always bugged me when I receive wedding thank-yous
with Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. The bride is so depersonalized that
she doesn't even warrant a firstname anymore! Makes her sound like
an appendage.
Beth Schwindt
>(I'm sorry, the multi-level quoting is too confusing, I can't keep
>track of who said what.)
><<<someone>>> asked:
>| If two people are non-religious, why go through the legal and logistical
>| motions of getting married rather than "just" live together? What are
>| the secular benefits (material, psychological, or other) of marriage as
>| opposed to committed cohabitation?
>One major benefit of "living in sin" (as unmarried cohabitation used
>to be referred to by some religious groups) is that it *does* make
>splitting up somewhat easier if the relationship doesn't work out.
I wish this were the case....Believe it or not, for many people, once
the "Big Split" comes, it can be easier to divide property, etc, by
getting married and then getting divorced. An attorney explained this
to my fiance and me not to long ago. It has something to do with (at
least in this state) if one or the other of us were to decide that we
didn't get a fair shake when we were trying to divide up our stuff,
there isn't a legal recourse if you weren't married to begin with.
This would be a big thing for R. and me, as we both bought a
significant amount of "stuff" (i.e.--furniture) when we moved in
together. And saying that whoever bought it, gets it, isn't really
the answer either. Things like "Why do I need the microwave cart?
It's his microwave" come into play.
Beth
>- Jonathan Thornburg
--
"We are not free; it was never intended we should be. A book of rules
is placed in our cradles, and we never get rid of it until we reach
our graves."--E.W. Howe, 1924
be...@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Kansas State University) be...@ksuvm.ksu.edu
secr...@yvax.byu.edu
>
> I just wanted to mention something that I came across in Robert Axelrod's
> book on the Prisoner's Dilemma
> the world over. It enhances social stability by giving couples more
> incentive to cooperate and work their problems out. Once you have made
> a committment not only to the other person, but also to society, that you
> will attempt to stay together, you are more likely to cooperate.
>
> As an atheist who has always questioned the institution of marriage, that
> really made me think.
>
> brian
>
Along the same lines as this and the original posting, I have seen several
studies that show that, contrary to what I would have thought, couples who live
together before getting married are _more_ likely to get divorced. They think
that the reason is that when a couple lives together first to see if it will
work out, they are not as committed to the idea of marriage as a couple who gets
married first, and _then_ moves in together. Because the commitment is not
there, naturally divorce is more likely.
Again, I have no personal experience with "nonmarital cohabitation." These are
just the results of several studies I have seen.
Michelle Turner (Tur...@byu.edu)
Pooh
Bear in mind that some countries don't even recognize a church
marriage as legal; they only accept the ceremony at city
hall, with an optional religious ceremony AFTERWARDS if
you want one.
So it would seem to me that marriage is a lot more secular
than religious people think.
Pooh
po...@apple.com
Shelley Vogel
> In article <1993Mar16.0...@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
> studies that show that, contrary to what I would have thought, couples who
live
> together before getting married are _more_ likely to get divorced. They
think
> that the reason is that when a couple lives together first to see if it will
> work out, they are not as committed to the idea of marriage as a couple who
gets
> married first, and _then_ moves in together. Because the commitment is not
> there, naturally divorce is more likely.
>
> Again, I have no personal experience with "nonmarital cohabitation." These
are
> just the results of several studies I have seen.
>
> Michelle Turner (Tur...@byu.edu)
In think another way to think about this is that the type of people who would
live together without the benefit of marriage are different from the people who
would not. In other words, the more religous types have a much lower divorce
rate, don't you think? And are they the types to live together before marriage
or, heaven forbid, have sex? Nope. So, it's not that the people have less of
a commitment or think less of marriage per se, but that they don't have any
compunction against cutting their losses. Perhaps another interesting area of
discussion is the countries with low divorce rates and the occurrence of
spousal abuse. Ireland, for instance.
Shelley
jack petrilli
Date Entered: 03-17-93 21:06
On March 16, dl...@weber.ucsd.edu (Diane Lin) wrote:
D(>other. I did, however, continue to get questions about how
D(>committed I could possibly be to my spouse when I chose not to
D(>change my last name to his. (Rudeness abounds in this society.)
D(>
D(>--
D(>Diane C. Lin "Live now; make *now* always the
D(>dl...@weber.ucsd.edu most precious time. Now will
D(>(Dylan's mom, 2 years) never come again." (ST:TNG)
D(>
Of course, Diane, the perfect response to this is: "We both discussed
it and he doesn't want to change his last name to mine, and I don't
want to change my last name to his."
- Jack
---
RoseReader 2.00 P003814: Path = Wandering Considerably.
RoseMail 2.10 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
Mark Meyer
> What always amazed me is that the woman is expected not only to take
> his lastname, but that she is formally called by his firstname as
> well.
Yeah. However, this is not the case in Thai society. The
bride gets to keep her first name. Calling my wife the equivalent of
"Mrs. Mark Meyer" is simply not done. She is "Mrs. Napaporn Meyer"
among Thais.
--
Mark Meyer | mme...@dseg.ti.com |
Texas Instruments, Inc., Plano TX +--------------------+
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
Klingon proverb: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, prepare for doom.
Matt Crawford
> Allow me to re-phrase:
> If two people are non-religious, why go through the legal and logistical
> motions of getting married rather than "just" live together? What are
> the secular benefits (material, psychological, or other) of marriage as
> opposed to committed cohabitation?
Attempting to stick to the bare bones, I can list these.
o You become next-of-kin, which has useful and convenient
implications in a medical emergency.
o You gain a social status which prevents (at least socially
correct) people from inviting one of you without the other in many
situations.
o You obtain an extra level of assurance that, should you choose to
engage in activities which leave you temporarily or permanently
non-self-supporting, you will be provided for.
o Often you receive valuable fringe benefits from your spouse's
employer, even you have you have similar but not identical
benefits from your own.
__________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford ma...@severian.chi.il.us Mole 78
Matt Crawford
> personal experience, in Buddhist countries such as Thailand, marriages
> without God happen all the time.
Since most people in this thread who mention "god" are speaking of
the christian brand I-Am-Who-Am(TM) god, it's worth pointing out that
for a couple of centuries, the holders of the earth franchise for
that god refused to perform, or sanction any marriages.
Like any good marketers, they eventually tailored their product to
the market.
__________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford ma...@severian.chi.il.us Java Man
Ofer Inbar
>As an atheist who has always questioned the institution of marriage, that
>really made me think.
This must be at least the third time this week I've seen this sort
of statement here. Everyone seems to think that "commitment" and
"marriage" are synonyms, for some unfathomable reason.
I'm a agnostic who has always questioned the institution of
marriage, and I can tell you quite surely that none of the things
people have mentioned here recently have made me reevaluate that.
Because none of them are directly related to *marriage*; they're all
about commitment.
I don't question the fact that commitment is very important and can
have a big effect on a relationship. But anyone who tells me that I
can't make a commitment if I don't get married doesn't know what
they're talking about. (The question of whether making a lifetime
commitment is the right thing to do for any given relationship is a
totally different issue, BTW, than the question of whether marriage is
necessary for making that commitment.)
-- Cos (Ofer Inbar) -- c...@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
-- WBRS (BRiS) -- WB...@binah.cc.brandeis.edu WB...@brandeis.bitnet
Love: a blurring of the distinction between selfish and selfless.
Michal Leah Peri
>Everyone seems to think that "commitment" and
>"marriage" are synonyms, for some unfathomable reason.
....
> I don't question the fact that commitment is very important and can
>have a big effect on a relationship. But anyone who tells me that I
>can't make a commitment if I don't get married doesn't know what
>they're talking about.
If you're making a lifetime committment, how is your relationship
different from marriage?
Thomas Beagle
>c...@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar) writes:
>
>>Everyone seems to think that "commitment" and
>>"marriage" are synonyms, for some unfathomable reason.
>....
>different from marriage?
Just an interesting and at least slightly related point here:
I just got a letter from my sister. She stayed with relatives in the
USA for a while and found that people were continually asking her when
she would be marrying her partner, some of them even suggesting
suitable places to do it.
Now she's in England but they just had an American house guest - who
appeared to have exactly the same hang up!
Question - is the USA more obsessed with marriage than other places?
--
Thomas Beagle | tho...@datamark.co.nz Work: 64 4 233 8186 __o
Technical Writer | tho...@cavebbs.welly.gen.nz Home: 64 4 499 3832 _-\<,
Wellington, NZ | Long ears, a cold nose and melting *green* eyes? (_)/(_)
Michal Leah Peri
>Question - is the USA more obsessed with marriage than other places?
Apparantly so. That's why each American does it so many times.
(sadly, only half-joking)
David Hurt
: dl...@weber.ucsd.edu (Diane Lin) writes:
: >Seriously, however, by getting married in front of our family and
: >friends was a public affirmation of our love and commitment to each
: >other. I did, however, continue to get questions about how
: >committed I could possibly be to my spouse when I chose not to
: >change my last name to his. (Rudeness abounds in this society.)
: What always amazed me is that the woman is expected not only to
: take his lastname, but that she is formally called by his firstname
: as well. It has always bugged me when I receive wedding thank-yous
: with Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. The bride is so depersonalized that
: she doesn't even warrant a firstname anymore! Makes her sound like
: an appendage.
: --
: -- Michal
Sorry if this is an intrusion, but I asked my then fiancee, now wife if
she wanted to keep her own last name. She was insulted that I would even
ask such a question. I'm an Air Force Lt. and any time we get mail it is
addressed to Lt and Mrs David Hurt. Her name is Melanie for Pete's sake
I guess my point is:
1) Why would my wife be insulted that I would ask if she wants to keep her
own name
2) What can I do to get mail addressed to her as Melanie, and not Mrs. David?
Thanks for letting me vent steam.
David
Sandy Weber
>Sorry if this is an intrusion, but I asked my then fiancee, now wife if
>she wanted to keep her own last name. She was insulted that I would even
>ask such a question. I'm an Air Force Lt. and any time we get mail it is
>addressed to Lt and Mrs David Hurt. Her name is Melanie for Pete's sake
>I guess my point is:
>1) Why would my wife be insulted that I would ask if she wants to keep her
> own name
Well, what reason did she GIVE for being insulted by your asking that?
Personally, I can't see being insulted by that question, unless you said in
the same breath that there was no way in HELL you were going to change your
name (meaning that she had the option between taking your name or not having
the same name as you). That would upset me; luckily, I like my fiancee's
last name, and it's already been decided between us that I will change my
name when we get married. That was only decided AFTER I determined that he
was at least willing to consider changing his own name, if that was what I
wanted; that was important to me. He was, so it isn't a problem, and we're
both happy with the final decision. The key is communication, though; ASK her
why she felt insulted by that question! (then let us know what she said)
>2) What can I do to get mail addressed to her as Melanie, and not Mrs. David?
Good luck on that one; Unless most of the mail addressed that way is
personal letters from friends, it's most likely junk mail and bills, right?
If it IS coming from friends, just let them know you'd like them to change
their mode of address on their letters; if it's bills and such, like I said,
good luck; maybe someone else has better advice, but I sure don't.
-Sandy
Michal Leah Peri
>I asked my then fiancee, now wife if
>she wanted to keep her own last name. She was insulted that I would even
>ask such a question. I'm an Air Force Lt. and any time we get mail it is
>addressed to Lt and Mrs David Hurt. Her name is Melanie for Pete's sake
>I guess my point is:
>1) Why would my wife be insulted that I would ask if she wants to keep her
> own name
I don't know. Why don't you ask her?
>2) What can I do to get mail addressed to her as Melanie, and not Mrs. David?
Ah, the military is such an enlightened institution! Well, maybe if
you changed your name to Melanie they *might* see fit to address mail
as such.
Amy J. Pezzillo
I think the last name issue is a touchy one. Maybe the wife of the
person who asked was upset because he asked if *she* wanted to keep
her name, rather than showing a willingness to change his.
Personally, I sort of resent that a lot of (not all!) men assume it's
the woman's problem to deal with the last name choices, and they never
even consider that men could also give up their names. OR she could
have been upset at the notion of having two different last names. OR
she could be a traditionalist who really wanted to take his name and
was upset at the thought of doing otherwise. I would ask *her!*
As for the addressing thing, I find that really irritating too. It's
difficult for me to accept that I will, upon my marriage, frequently
be addressed as "Mrs. him" (Well, actually, Mrs. Addison Snell, same
difference.) Where am I in that? I would much prefer to be addressed
as "Addison and Amy Snell," even though it's less formal. Or how
about just "Mr. and Mrs. Snell?"
BTW, we had an interesting way of making the decision. We both wanted
to share a last name, but had trouble making the decision about which.
(Yes, he was willing to change to mine!) So we flipped a coin. His
won. Oh, well, Pezzillo was a pain to spell anyway.
***********************************************************************
* Amy J. Pezzillo * "I myself have never been able to *
* pezz...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu * find out precisely what feminism *
* * is: I only know that people call *
* * me a feminist whenever I express *
* * sentiments that differentiate me *
* * from a doormat." *
* * --Rebecca West *
***********************************************************************