[Sean]

Originally Posted by Skie

I won't argue with you that committed relationships are extremely important in character building. But, it is the individual that commits. Meaningful, committed relationships are possible without marriage. Society continues to prove that commitment and marriage aren't married to each other.

Yes, committed relationships are possible outside of marriage, and are much less looked down upon than they were in past generations. I don't see them being very common though. The fact is, being in a committed relationship that hasn't been consummated through marriage still allows a far easier "out" than entering a public union like marriage does. If you're unmarried and things get rough, then you can just break up. But if you're married, then you're facing a much more involved and public process of ending the relationship, which does tend to add to the likelihood that you'll put the effort into working through a rough patch. That may sound a bit cold, but it's an undeniable reality. Or, for a silly analogy, it's the difference between the care you put into a home you're renting versus one you've bought.

Originally Posted by Skie

The advantage of getting married is the legal contract to help ensure family stability. My wealth is tied to my family for a minor fee (much less than it would cost to have a lawyer draw up papers with the same weight). Even should I cancel the contract, I am still obligated to support my spouse. The only other reasons that marriage continues to exist are tradition and religion.

I believe I've already clearly outlined the reasons I see marriage as far more than a simple legal contract, or outdated tradition. And I'm an atheist, so I don't care about the religious aspect of marriage.

And for arguments sake, I'm fairly certain you've never been married, correct? If I'm right in that assumption, then I do think it's telling that you're arguing the lack of importance surrounding marriage with at least three of us who are married and recognize it's inherent importance. That's not a slap at you...it's just a relevant observation

Originally Posted by Skie

I fail to see how the institution has any bearing on whether or not I remain committed to someone. It used to, because things like divorce, children out of wed-lock, and even living together unmarried were looked down upon. These days society is OK with someone who has children out of wed-lock and/or multiple divorces. You're no longer a social pariah for having a committed relationship with someone for the rest of your or their life without getting married.

I have a meeting I have to go to now, so I'll edit this later to include a response to this final point.

Okay, so I touched on this earlier when I mentioned the fact that marriage, in part, forces us to face difficult situations rather than just breaking up, which is far easier in a non-married relationship....and I don't just mean legally. In getting married, you have publicly announced to your family, your friends, the government, and most importantly to your spouse, that you have decided to spend your entire life together with this one person. In one act, you have formally told every single person that's important to you that your life is no longer going to be just about you...it's now about co-existing with another person and all that that implies. Where you live is a decision you will make together. Whether or not you have children is a decision you will make together. Where you'll freakin' have dinner is a decision that you will make together. That's a huge difference when you really think about it. Which society would be stronger....one in which the people are able to tackle difficulties squarely and together, in an effort to find a real, constructive, lasting and meaningful solution, or one in which the people leave themselves an easy individual way out in the event that a difficult situation presents itself? Now I'm not saying unmarried people can't or don't learn commitment, but next to parenting, where one or more lives are directly dependent on you, marriage is probably the biggest, most life-changing commitment you can make. It forces you to consider more than yourself in almost all aspects of life, including situations where you may very well otherwise just do what's best or easiest for you alone. I can't think of anything else that's comparable. So in large part, in my opinion, this public announcement of your commitment to spend your lives together - legal and religious implications aside - is where the importance of marriage lies and what sets it apart from simply living together.

At this point, it may be good for me to clarify that I don't care if it's a religious marriage, or a civil marriage, or a hippy-style wedding out in the middle of the woods that has no legal ramifications whatsoever....I simply see the serious public announcement of your intended commitment as the key to what makes marriage inherently important to individuals, and to society as a whole now and for the foreseeable future. That's what I consider to be the institution of marriage. I mean, for as long as people the world over have been getting married, every culture, every religion, every society has had their own unique way of actually executing the ceremony of it, but in all cases, the commitment aspect of it has always been at it's foundation. Even in marriages way back when it was centered in large part around procreation, the fact still remains that two people were announcing their commitment to do that procreating only with each other. In the case of what started this thread, same-sex marriage, the issue is one of tackling discrimination and granting gay couples legal equality in this arena. But I know plenty of gay couples who have had wedding ceremonies and considered themselves married long before it was just recently made legal - and in my opinion, where the societal importance of the institution is concerned, those marriages were every bit as valid as my own.

But of course you also continue to raise divorce as an argument against marriage, and say that because divorce is no longer as taboo, then marriage is therefore less important. I don't see that as a valid argument for reasons I've already stated. To reiterate one analogy I presented, simply because more people today have decided not to take maintaining a healthy diet seriously does not mean that maintaining a healthy diet is any less inherently important. Or just because less people today are having children does not mean that the experience of raising a child is any less inherently life-changing.

Not sure what else can really be said beyond this to make the point. I might just add that there are of course exceptions to the rule, and plenty of individuals out there can be just as good about commitment as any married person if not moreso, but for society as a whole, it serves this important purpose.