Hacker News Reader

Comment by denton-scratch | Hacker News Reader

Marriage is a legal construct; it can provide a level of security (and fairness) that isn't otherwise accessible. But as the laws change, the benefits change too.

I think men marry in the hope of binding their partner; fat chance. Marriage gives the partner a claim on a big chunk of the man's assets, so it incentivizes women to divorce their husbands. The great majority of divorces are initiated by the wife. I'm not sure why women marry; I'm not a woman, but maybe the reason is the same.

Marriage is an outdated custom. People should learn how to live together without submitting to these ancient legal customs.

Source: I'm twice married, and twice divorced; both partnerships lasted 15+ years. I'll never marry again.

View on HN

what happened in those 15 years? i don't think that your partner married you with the goal of taking your assets. if that was the case i doubt the marriages would have lasted 15 years.

No, you're quite right; I wasn't taken for a sucker. I think they ended because of the legal implications of marriage; I think the relationships would have survived, if there hadn't been contracts.

In fact, they've both survived; I'm now friends with both exes. But the contracts caused us all a lot of damage.

[Edit] I'm all for people having the same rights regardless of who their partner is. I'm fine with "equal marriage" in that sense; at the same time, I want to say "Don't do it!" It's like saying everyone should have the same right to walk into the path of an express train.

It's good for some people, apparently; it looks to me that a subset of religious-minded people have relationships that marriage contracts don't screw up.

the contracts caused us all a lot of damage

could you elaborate on that, if it is possible to do so without revealing personal details? maybe in contrast what you see as a difference in the relationships of religious minded people?

the only thing i can think of is open relationships without a commitment to each other. but even there i don't think that the contract itself would be the problem but different expectations of each partner. the problem of the contract is that it wouldn't be aligned with those expectations.

marriage is for people who want to commit to each other. divorce happens when that commitment is no longer a priority.

It’s not marriage that’s the issue but the punitive laws surrounding marriage in the US that actually incentivize divorce, combined with a culture that has normalized divorce. The laws and culture just don’t match up. The US has a social issue with some women using divorce for personal enrichment and neither US culture nor law penalizes this behavior.

In many countries people who get divorced unnecessary are subject to social stigmatization. This stigma seems to be a necessary ingredient of a successful marriage culture, and the loss of it is why marriage in the US has stopped working.

Marriage in the US is essentially Russian roulette with your finances, although the odds of losing are a lot worse.

> Marriage gives the partner a claim on a big chunk of the man's assets, so it incentivizes women to divorce their husbands

Mainly in the west is it unfair and broken that way. Perhaps they should look into fixing their marriage/divorce contracts.

It's mad, no? When I ask people point blank why they're getting married, they just stare at me. Obviously part of that is because I'm being autistically rude in asking such a questions, but I haven't heard any compelling answers either.

Well, it's a naive question. And it shows laziness given the answer can be found at google or chatgpt (https://chat.openai.com/share/a1655efa-05e1-4ad0-97ca-62439d...).

Most people are aware of such things and can't quite figure how to explain it to someone who isn't, or can't figure out Google. Hence the stare.

Can't tell if you're serious. Literally everything on their is either not unique to marriage, or made _worse_ by marriage.

I won't go through each nonsense reason in turn, but this one is pertinent:

> Accountability and Conflict Resolution > > Resolution Mechanisms: Marriage often compels couples to work out their differences and disputes in a more committed manner, as there is more at stake.

The opposite is true. People take marriage as a binary thing, and over-react to "last straw" situations. They get divorced, and that's the end. People in committed relationships work things out, because there's a whole lot of grey.

I've been in a relationship longer than most married couples I know, and I'm still seeing divorces every day at my kids school.

Serious.

>> Literally everything is not unique to marriage, or made _worse_ by marriage.

The words "literally" and"everything" have real meanings. Maybe go through "literally everything". The first two on the list, for example, and consider many different jurisdictions.

The cherry picked example is even wrong. In many jurisdictions couples are legally compelled to go to marriage counseling or similar. Australia has it for couples with kids, several US states have it. So there are all the regular reasons to try to resolve things, plus added reasons.

The anecdote is nothing more than that. No one is claiming marriage is a cure all for all relationships. No one is claiming only marriages are durable relationships. But the idea that there is no practical reason to get married is absurd. Just making a loud, expensive, public announcement that "I'll do x" is known to make it more likely that you'll do x.

> The words "literally" and"everything" have real meanings

They do indeed, and I used them correctly :)

> In many jurisdictions couples are legally compelled to go to marriage counseling or similar. Australia has it for couples with kids

That's pretty messed up. Really? If you have kids, you are legally required to get married in Australia? I couldn't find anything about that, and I find it difficult to believe.

> The anecdote is nothing more than that

K, but I still don't see marriage working in my immediate circle, nor wider society. I don't need a scientific study to draw conclusions from that.

No no, you are legally required to go to counseling before a divorce. You aren't legally required to get married.

Well if you ask such an autistic question (given that I am responding to a adult person and not some small kid who doesn't have a clue about actual life), don't expect much, it clearly signalizes that you are either taking a piss or are so immature there is no point even discussing it. Its a bit like asking why do you like color blue, mature adults don't ask that and for kids you can say anything or nothing, same result.

But I'll bite - if you decide to settle down with a partner you match with very well on tons of actually important stuff, including how your future together could look like while lacking any significant (yet known) drawbacks, and you want to raise kid(s) together, then the question is why not. Without the kids part, less reasons but why not.

The inexperienced people (in my case immature kids/teens, I've answered similar but better formed question couple of times already) think its just a paper signed, and contractual obligations stemming from it. Far from it, at least for us. It changed our relationship, for the better, made it stronger and not only due to longer cancellation procedure. Do I have some peer-reviewed study for that? Of course not, just my personal 2 cents.

As an adult that is seen as mature by my peers who happens to not understand marriage your post comes off as lacking empathy and also not doing a lot to explain why someone would choose marriage.

The reasons I extracted for why someone would want to choose marriage.

* "Why not"

* Changes the relationship for the better

* The relationship has longer cancellation procedure.

You have no idea how you are actually viewed by your peers, here for example you are far from it, pretty consistently, trying hard to find reasons to prove your own personal opinions, while ignoring others. A bit pointless debate at this point, since your own second asterix is more than enough for the topic discussed.

But to each their own.

Aaaand, that's the answer I usually get; why not.

I can come up with a few very good reasons why not, but the question was why.

You mention that after you decided "why not", and got married, you in fact saw your relationship get "stronger and not only due to longer cancellation procedure". I'm happy it's working out for you, but would suggest it's not because you got married.

Getting married forces difficult confrontations that many relationships get to bypass by breaking up.

If you make it through the difficult confrontations your relationship gains robustness and is better for your offspring.

Ho man. Clearly you’ve never sat in family court for any length of time.

Marriage turns dysfunctional dynamics from small time private affairs into society mediated wars of attrition.

It stops nothing and magnifies the damage and misery one party can inflict on another in worst case scenarios.

A typical Silicon Valley contested divorce costs $250-450k, and 5-10 years before it concludes last I checked.

Judging the institution by its edge cases may put blinders on one’s conclusion.

Ignoring an institutions (common) edge cases will definitely put blinders on one’s conclusions.

I find it's the opposite. Marriages break up because it's a binary thing; they either get through the "last straw", or they get divorced. Contrast that with people in committed relationships who have a sea of grey to work with, and eventually make it work when it could have been a divorce if they were married.

I have no data, but I'd bet there are more 40 year olds in relationships of over 20 years than there are married people.

Marriage as an institution is mostly about offspring. A sea of grey might be where children drown.

Marriage is a formal process that provides a standard framework in which two families get to know one another.

The problem with American relationships is that it deals with two people.

A marriage is the full joining of two full families. By marrying my wife, I made my uncle related to my wife's uncle, so they better kind of get along. Indeed I have a vested interest in them getting along because it benefits my children.

A wedding provides a formal and socially acceptable way for these sorts of interactions to occur. If I just moved in with my wife... What are the chances her distant cousins would meet mine? Zero, I imagine. A wedding brings them together and benefits everyone.

But most Americans don't really have extended families so I see why weddings seem strange.

Bingo! First actual answer to the question.

I hadn't thought of the extended family benefit, and that's maybe a good one. Though I will say from all I can tell, our families have had the same level of mingling that they would have had we got married. Could be wrong though.

But yes, many western cultures don't really have close extended families, so even this point is mostly null.

I have an inkling as to why people get married in the west, but I don't want to be set on fire here ;)

> I hadn't thought of the extended family benefit, and that's maybe a good one. Though I will say from all I can tell, our families have had the same level of mingling that they would have had we got married. Could be wrong though.

But maybe if marriage were more prevalent culturally, they would have?

> But yes, many western cultures don't really have close extended families, so even this point is mostly null.

Western culture is also rife with divorce, which creates a culture in which extended family doesn't actually want to meet, since divorce is like 50/50. Of course, in subcultures in America, like Mormons, certain Asian cultures, traditional Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Amish, etc, there is quite a bit of extended family, and these cultures heavily discourage divorce.

So it's pretty hard to detangle causation and correlation? Does extended family prevent divorce? or do intact nuclear families cause extended families? Or is it a feedback loop, that reinforces another? In that case, what is the most prudent action any individual can take to put the process in the right direction?

Possibly you're not seeing the answers you're given as compelling because of your perspective. I can speak from an Islamic perspective and say that sexual relationships are considered immoral outside of marriage, so a man and woman cannot create a family and have kids unless they get married.

> sexual relationships are considered immoral outside of marriage, so a man and woman cannot create a family and have kids unless they get married.

People commit immoral acts in all cultures.

And they have to hide them or get the (expected) backlash.

This is really cringe and you're probably not being perceived by others the way you think. I would suggest avoiding asking leading questions like this, it makes you sound like a child or at the very least an incredibly sheltered adult

Once you get beyond a certain age if you mention your girlfriend in conversation people will assume she's some young thing you left your wife for. Marriage means you avoid this awkward situation

Yes, I have that. People think she must be a recent thing, when I call her my girlfriend. I don't mind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com