Take away the religious connotations and marriage is really just a piece of paper. It is a form; the relationship is the substance. So it really shouldn’t be shocking to read about women who think that marriage, as we know it, is outmoded. Human relationships will stay but just how important the formality of such relationships is will always depend on the prevailing social values.
Okay, I’m not a huge believer in surveys but the results of a recent study in the UK should offer some food for thought. Of 2,134 women surveyed, 31% think that marriage is no longer relevant in today’s society while 71% think that couples today enter into marriage too quickly without thinking it through first.
I wonder if the perception of the 31% who think that marriage is no longer relevant has anything to do with the fact that most women today no longer look upon marriage as a source of social and financial security.
I wonder too if the 71% think that those who rush into marriage because of pregnancy are among those who “enter into marriage too quicky”? Or, perhaps, they fall under an altogether different category–entering into marriage for the wrong reasons because of real or imagined social stigma which really cannot serve as a foundation for any lasting relationship.
If a similar survey is done in Metro Manila or our bigger cities, the same result may be found amongst the 20-40 years old that has stable jobs or at least stable financial background. But the survey will skew when the economic background is different.
I agree with you that financial security and the desire to have children may be the only reasons some women would consider getting married, and in today's society they can have those things without having to pick up after a man and force themselves to get along with crazy in-laws, so why bother?
My mother, who's very religious and conservative, told me today that after my father died in 2004, some people asked her if she wanted to get married again. She said no – she had her business and her children, and didn't need anything else. If she had been born a generation later, I think she would have been one of those 31%.
the piece of paper of marriage is a protection for both in the US as well as in the UK.
When I was engaged, about to be married to a Briton, the reason for the legal marriage is for me to be able to be registered as the legal wife so I will be entitled to benefits accruing as beneficiary and of course so I can become a British citizen.
Similarly in the States, when you are married here, the benefits of Social Security cover the wife and the legitimate children that the children get pensions too when a parent dies.
Company benefits are only good for the legal spouse although there are corporations which extend benefits to the domestic partners.
That's the reason why the gays and lesbians are advocating for same-sex marriage aside from rights for properties of each.
However, those who become pregnant and bear children do not have to be married in order to get child support.
The government collects the child support from the father or mother (depending on the circumstances) as wage garnishment so walang escape.
Many people prefer to be fuckbuddies, however. Pero mabenta pa rin ang mga quick marriages sa Reno and Las Vegas.
kasi naman babae ang gumagastos ng kasal dito. Eh kung wala kang father as in Father of the Bride.
Fuckbuddies?? Hmmm, haven't heard that term before – if I used that with my lady domestic partner, I will find myself rooming with my homelessbuddies!
On a somewhat related note, I was discussing love and marriage with my bro-in-law who is a new college grad, and I happened to ask him how many of his friends are married or engaged, I was suprised to hear him say that he has quite a few friends who were. Of course they all did it because the girl was pregnant. So, true love=0, shotgun weddings=5.
"the fact that most women today no longer look upon marriage as a source of social and financial security."
== count me in that 31%, it think it has everything to do with that fact
Though the institution of marriage protects the interests of both the parties involved, it is generally seen to protect the rights of the wife more than that of the husband. There are many instances when the wife leaves her job to look after the family and her interests must be protected in the event of a split. Of course, we can argue that a pre-nuptial agreement can replace the marriage certificate but aren't both the situations similarly governed by a piece of paper?
Similarly, the rights of the children will have to be protected too.
Of course, many will argue that adults are responsible people who can make decisions best for themselves. I won't argue on this point but for those who may not be as far-sighted to see beyond the relationship, the law that requires the formalization of the relationship seek to protect them.
In countries where women have equal oppportunities and where they have accumulated sufficient wealth to be independent, the situation gives them a sense of equal footing with the male population and hence they do not see the importance of the marriage institution as much as their more deprived counterparts in the poorer countries.
I see humor in Ca t's description of "fuckbuddies" and wonder if I sense humor or sarcasm. But I can only laugh at such a description. Thanks, Ca t. I needed a laugh today and you were there! *LOL*
Other surveys that investigate the impact of marriage on the health of men and women find that being married is a factor for longevity among men. Single men don't live as long, and they tend to be sicklier. Women however, don't seem to be as affected by civil status. Marriage can be a boon to men in more ways than one.
marriage is not a piece of cake it is a very huge resposibility but the perceton of marrige is diffrent from one person to the next because we are not from the same backgroud i mean we have a diffrent culture and habits for instance marrige in islamic countries is one of the moste ipmortant islamic duties just for poeple who