Marriage

[N Kriplani]

A few questions about marriage.

*How does it feel to be married? Any pros and cons?

*Are you more happy after marriage or were you more happy before marriage?

*For anybody here who is single and middle-aged(40's, 50's), how do you feel?

Hopefully will get some answers.

As for me, I'm single.

[Kishore Dandu]

If single, i would suggest you to stay so and enjoy life.

[adithya kallu]

Iam myself single,but i certainly think(imagine is a better word)that i wont have same freedom after marraige,i cant go where ever i want whenever i need becz some one is waiting

[Kishore Dandu]

Originally posted by adithya kallu:
Iam myself single,but i certainly think(imagine is a better word)that i wont have same freedom after marraige,i cant go where ever i want whenever i need becz some one is waiting

it all depends you know. Some folks enjoy being married and with kids and all.

But if you are working in a high stress competitive environments like IT, it may feel like a impediment.

[Roger Johnson]

I just want to say one word to you -- just one word -- 'marry money.'

[Frank Silbermann]

Originally posted by N Kriplani:
A few questions about marriage.

*How does it feel to be married? Any pros and cons?
*Are you more happy after marriage or were you more happy before marriage?
*For anybody here who is single and middle-aged(40's, 50's), how do you feel?

Well, do you want to spend your entire life without even once having sex? If not, then the only way to avoid immorality is to get married.

I, personally, am more happy since getting married. But that is in part because when I was single I had relatively few good opportunities to be immoral. Also, family life is what I was raised for.

[Scott Selikoff]

Originally posted by Roger Johnson:
I just want to say one word to you -- just one word -- 'marry money.'

thats two words

[Jayesh Lalwani]

It's just like living with your best friend

[Alan Wanwierd]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
Well, do you want to spend your entire life without even once having sex? If not, then the only way to avoid immorality is to get married.

Of course not EVERYBODY shares the same ideas as Frank when it comes to morality. Personally I think getting married *without* first having sex and living together is totaly irresponsible and therefore I dont think you can describe doing the responsible thing as immoral!

I also think you might find that a lot of people experience a serious decline in their sex life after marriage - this is normal and nothing to be afraid of. (Certainly once kids join in the picture your leisure time is no longer as 'free' as it was before and spontaneous sex sessions in the living room are likely to remain nothing more than a fond memory! )

[Dave Lenton]

Originally posted by Adrian Wallace:
Of course not EVERYBODY shares the same ideas as Frank when it comes to morality. Personally I think getting married *without* first having sex and living together is totaly irresponsible and therefore I dont think you can describe doing the responsible thing as immoral!

I'd have to agree here. I completely fail to see what is immoral about sex before marriage. Like Adrian, I think that a couple getting to know each other better before marriage actually helps encourage successful marriages.

I've been living with my girlfriend for about five and a half years now, and next summer we will be getting married. Part of what makes me so confident that we're going to have a successful marriage is that we now know each other so well.

Besides, what is it about sex which means that it should only be done within a marriage? If two people are in a solid relationship, why should it by immoral the day before their wedding and moral the day after? Even if they are not in a relationship, if two consenting adults have sex with each other, and no other people are caused upset by it, why is that a bad thing? As long as they take suitable anti-STD precautions of course.

Originally posted by adithya kallu:
i cant go where ever i want whenever i need becz some one is waiting

Yeah, but isn't that great?! Personally I think the idea that there will be someone I live with who cares enough to not only be waiting to see me but also looking forwards to seeing me makes me incredibly lucky.

The fact that I know I can spend the majority of my evenings for the rest of my life with someone who is not only my best friend but also a person I can share everything with is amazing. OK, so it means I have to be a bit more considerate, and have less flexibility when choosing what to do in a particular evening, but the advantages by far outweigh the disadvantages.
[ February 17, 2006: Message edited by: Dave Lenton ]

[Aj Mathia]

Originally posted by N Kriplani:
A few questions about marriage.

*How does it feel to be married? Any pros and cons?

*Are you more happy after marriage or were you more happy before marriage?

*For anybody here who is single and middle-aged(40's, 50's), how do you feel?

Hopefully will get some answers.

As for me, I'm single.

Marriage can be like joining a company.
You can join as the boss, partner, jester, snob, the know it all , silent one, fresher, sleeping partner, tag on, mentor, temp, etc
You got to choose your role.
Be warned there is very rare chances of a promotion so Choose Wisely.

[N Kriplani]

Most married men I have met, seem to be unhappy with their marriage. It comes out in the form of jokes, sarcastic statements, and sometimes some just plain say it (without actually saying it, of course). OF course, I have seen happily married men too but most men don't have many nice things to say about their lady. One common gripe is that she "talks too much".

I have also observed - never asked - women talking about their marriage and the common thing is that they lie that they are happy. Some are, but most are frustrated with their men. "Oh he is like this and like that and does these things. I hate that. Not responsible..."

And believe me, this is regardless of race, religion, and culture. I am working in the US in an urban environment and have the good fortune to meet people from different countries, cultures and religions.

[Aj Mathia]

Originally posted by N Kriplani:
Most married men I have met, seem to be unhappy with their marriage. It comes out in the form of jokes, sarcastic statements, and sometimes some just plain say it (without actually saying it, of course). OF course, I have seen happily married men too but most men don't have many nice things to say about their lady. One common gripe is that she "talks too much".

I have also observed - never asked - women talking about their marriage and the common thing is that they lie that they are happy. Some are, but most are frustrated with their men. "Oh he is like this and like that and does these things. I hate that. Not responsible..."

And believe me, this is regardless of race, religion, and culture. I am working in the US in an urban environment and have the good fortune to meet people from different countries, cultures and religions.

Well 2 things for you.
Most of the men you met Dont know how to handle their marriage.
Or are just trying to be MCPs

Secondly Since you are speaking of the people you met in the US it is not regardless of the culture, rather it is your understanding of the US culture

[Manoj Kumkumath]

Kriplani,
Go ahead and get married...

No point in you alone living happly when rest of us suffer....






Just Kidding

[Gerald Davis]

Originally posted by Kishore Dandu:
If single, i would suggest you to stay so and enjoy life.

Being bitter by rattlesnakes can be fun, being a passenger in of a maniac cab driver; jumping into an a pool of ice; sweltering in the desert with no water; being beaten up by Chinese guys; but being single is no fun whatsoever.

[Roger Johnson]

Originally posted by Gerald Davis:


Being bitter by rattlesnakes can be fun,

better than eaten by lion

Originally posted by Gerald Davis:


being a passenger in of a maniac cab driver;

better than late for a flight

Originally posted by Gerald Davis:


jumping into an a pool of ice;

you may not die

Originally posted by Gerald Davis:


sweltering in the desert with no water;

you will run out of water no matter how much you bring with you

Originally posted by Gerald Davis:


being beaten up by Chinese guys;

better than killed by a bullet


my politics IQ tells me I better come up something, otherwise voter will change their idea soon.

[Gregg Bolinger]

I think that asking a multi-cultural user base like we have here on Javaranch about such things as marriage is rather pointless. Especially if you only subscribe to a single cultures beliefs and morals. Marriage means different things for many different people. Add different cultures on top of that and you can imagine how different the answers your receive will be. Just look at the posts so far.

I completely fail to see what is immoral about sex before marriage.

Depends on your belief. Rather than saying "I completely fail to see..." what should be said is "I don't believe sex before marriage is immoral". Surely you can understand why it might be for someone else.

[Kishore Dandu]

Originally posted by Manoj Kumkumath:
Kriplani,
Go ahead and get married...

No point in you alone living happly when rest of us suffer....

Just Kidding

Thats a good one. Looks like everybody took my initial comments serious.

[Dave Lenton]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
I completely fail to see what is immoral about sex before marriage.

Depends on your belief. Rather than saying "I completely fail to see..." what should be said is "I don't believe sex before marriage is immoral". Surely you can understand why it might be for someone else.

Certainly I understand that for some people pre-marital sex is immoral. The thing is that I don't understand why. I didn't mean to be at all derogatory towards considering it immoral.

There are some other moralities which while I don't agree with I can understand the motivation behind them. Vegetarianism is one of them. Although I eat meat, I can see why some people think killing an animal for food is immoral.

Pre-martial sex is a bit different though. I can't see why it may be considered immoral, and can't think of a logical reason why it is wrong. Hopefully someone will be able to reduce my ignorance and enlighten me!

[Chetan Parekh]

Dave, if you believe that pre-marriage sex is not against the morality, it is not. For those who believe that pre-marriage sex is immoral, it is really immoral for them.

World is full with different kind of religion / beliefs / morals.

All are correct at their point of views.

[Lukas Alamar]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
Well, do you want to spend your entire life without even once having sex? If not, then the only way to avoid immorality is to get married.

sex is sex .. sleeping is sleeping .. eating is eating .. theres nothing about morality/immorality here .. its just something the body needs ..

[Roger Nelson]

I think, pre-marital sex being considered as immoral/taboo was handed down by our ancestors based on their experiences in society.

Though sex may be pleasurable, it had to be always handled responsibly, since it can create a new life and issues related to who would be responsible in taking care of this new child.

In our earlier generation societies, there were no effective contraceptive methods, neither any DNA testing to establish the parents responsible for the child, it would be more sensible to tie down with the institution of marriage before indulging in sex.

Probably it would be difficult now to father a child and run away, a dna testing could probably slap him with child support expenses.

[Ramender Mall]

Originally posted by Roger Nelson:
Probably it would be difficult now to father a child and run away, a dna testing could probably slap him with child support expenses.

Did you say DNA testing??
Ask Mr. Clinton..

- Ramy..

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Roger Nelson:
neither any DNA testing to establish the parents responsible for the child,

Thanks to DNA testing .. now I can sleep(read 'have sex') with anyone and make him to pay for me and his child.

BTW who did invente word bastard ?

[Mapraputa Is]

bastard 1223, "illegitimate child," from O.Fr., "child of a nobleman by a woman other than his wife," probably from fils de bast "packsaddle son," meaning a child conceived on an improvised bed (saddles often doubled as beds while traveling), with pejorative ending -art. Alternate possibly is that the word is from P.Gmc. *banstiz "barn," equally suggestive of low origin. Not always regarded as a stigma; the Conqueror is referred to in state documents as "William the Bastard." Figurative sense is from 1552; use as a vulgar term of abuse for a man is attested from 1830. Bastardize "debase" is from 1587.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bastard

[Gregg Bolinger]

Originally posted by Dave Lenton:
The thing is that I don't understand why

Pre-martial sex is a bit different though. I can't see why it may be considered immoral, and can't think of a logical reason why it is wrong. Hopefully someone will be able to reduce my ignorance and enlighten me!

Along with all other kinds of sexual immorality, sex before marriage / premarital sex is repeatedly condemned in Scripture (Acts 15:20; Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13,18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7). The Bible promotes abstinence before marriage. Sex before marriage is just as wrong as adultery and other forms of sexual immorality, because they all involve having sex with someone you are not married to. Sex between a husband and his wife is the only form of sexual relations that God approves of (Hebrews 13:4).

From: http://www.gotquestions.org/sex-before-marriage.html

Bearing in mind this only holds true for individules buying into the same relgious beliefs, such as myself. Obviously if your beliefs don't condem premarital sex, then it would not be immoral for you. I just wanted to make sure you understand why it is immoral for others.

[Ramesh Choudhary]

Morever one cannot club sleep and food,which are absolutely essential for survival, with an act of physical pleasure. The talk of 'body need' is on flimsy grounds.

[Raymond Villeno]

Here's a piece I saw over the net regarding marriage, it is really a good read! Enjoy!
What follows is an article that was sent to me. Its author has not given me permission to post it here. He has a website and can be reached at:

http://www.kentnerburn.com

Marilyn removed copyrighted materisla.
[ March 03, 2006: Message edited by: Marilyn de Queiroz ]

[Sonny Gill]

That was a very nice article, Raymond.

Although, JavaRanch has sort of a policy against cutting and pasting articles like that, in case that violates some copyrights.
Here is a link to the same article - Choosing a Soul Mate

[agrah upadhyay]

One of these is laughter. Laughter tells you how much you will enjoy each other's company over the long term. If your laughter together is good and healthy, and not at the expense of others, then you have a healthy relationship to the world. Laughter is the child of surprise. If you can make each other laugh, you can always surprise each other. And if you can always surprise each other, you can always keep the world around you new.

[Dave Lenton]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
-------
Along with all other kinds of sexual immorality, sex before marriage / premarital sex is repeatedly condemned in Scripture (Acts 15:20; Romans 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13,18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7). The Bible promotes abstinence before marriage. Sex before marriage is just as wrong as adultery and other forms of sexual immorality, because they all involve having sex with someone you are not married to. Sex between a husband and his wife is the only form of sexual relations that God approves of (Hebrews 13:4).
--------

Bearing in mind this only holds true for individules buying into the same relgious beliefs, such as myself. Obviously if your beliefs don't condem premarital sex, then it would not be immoral for you. I just wanted to make sure you understand why it is immoral for others.

Cheers, that's quite interesting. Thanks for taking the time to look up the quote. Like you said, its good to see exactly why some people have certain moral view points, as this understanding makes it easier to interact with them. I think we could do with a bit more of people justifying their morals rather then just declaring things right or wrong (as the media and politicians often do). I'll have to read these parts of the Bible to see if they give a reason for it being wrong, or if they just give instructions with no associated explanatory justification.

There was one part of the quote that stuck out a bit:

Sex before marriage is just as wrong as adultery .... Sex between a husband and his wife is the only form of sexual relations that God approves of

This refers to two different kinds of immoral actions. One is adultery and one is pre-marital sex. Adultery is an action which many (not all) people will see as being intrinsically wrong, and would consider it immoral with or without the religious instruction against it. Pre-marital sex is different in that (it seems to me) the primary reason it is believed to be wrong is solely because of the religious instruction.

I wonder if many people who consider it to be immoral because of this religious instruction would still have this opinion if it was not mentioned in their religious book i.e if their only reason for thinking it is bad is because that book says so.

The answer to this, and the obvious follow up issue of if these types of moral issue should be treated differently is probably outside the scope of this thread though.

[Ram Bhakt]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
Of course, many long-term unmarried higher-class people use birth-control to avoid creating ill-raised children.

I think not having the hassle of raising children at all is probably is a bigger reason.

This practice is resulting in Europe's population being replaced by third-world immigrants who don't do that.

The categorization of the people who don't do "that" into people of "third world countries" is wrong. The correct categorization would be illiterate or lower class people, who exist among the first/second world natives as well.

The reason is that the same problem exists in third world contries as well. For example, currently, in India, there is a wide spread feeling that upper class are not having enough children while illiterate and lower class people are having children by the dozen there by creating problems for the society.

Some elements have also given it a religious hue saying muslims are having a lot more children (ill-bred is implicit) than hindus. This is probably as correct as you labeling "third world countries" as the culprits.

OTH, illiterates and lower class people are usually extremely religious. They seldom have illigitimate children. So in fact they are being really religious when they do not use birth control. Avoidence of birth control is widely encouraged by Christian and Muslim clerics in India.

So you are basically contradicting yourself by saying sex outside marriage is immoral and at the same time praising "first world people" for using birth-control to avoid creating ill-raised children.

[Raymond Villeno]

Originally posted by Sonny Gill:
That was a very nice article, Raymond.

Although, JavaRanch has sort of a policy against cutting and pasting articles like that, in case that violates some copyrights.
Here is a link to the same article - Choosing a Soul Mate

Ooooppppssss! Sorry

[Sameer Jamal]

Pre-marital Sex
I thought you people were talking about marriage

[Ram Bhakt]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
But culturally upper-class third-worlders are not arriving in nearly the same numbers as the lower-class third-worlders.

I am assuming that you mean more number of lower-class thrid worlders are arriving than upper class third worlder.

My observation is exactly the reverse. The only way for a third world person to immigrate to the US is through a work visa, which is given ONLY to well educated (4 yrs degree is the minumum) people. This is, in fact, refered to as "brain drain" in India (and I think in other monetorily poor countries too). (There are some family based visas too but they are very few and the US sponcerer belongs to the first category any way.) Some time back I read an article in NYTimes highlighting this problem in African countries where this has created a huge shortage of nurses and doctors. These countries spend a lot of tax payer money on higher education and then the people leave the country. Of course, the US wins in this case.

Anyway, the point is that most of the people emigrating to first world countries are actually the cream of third world countries. Believe me, they have very few children and they raise them well. You may want to check crime, education, and income statistics. You will find Indian, Chinese, and people of other ethnicities doing substantially better than the average. So if at all the native population is replaced, it will not be by illbred people. There is no correlation of the form you seem to believe. It is just the reverse.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
But culturally upper-class third-worlders are not arriving in nearly the same numbers as the lower-class third-worlders.

Its half truth.

hmm.. as definition of upper class and lower class is very wage, I would not debate what is upper and lower.
But obviously I would like to say that migrator's class would depend on his country's geogrphic location also.

If country's border is common with some poor country than chances are that more lower class people would come from that country.

But if migrator belongs to a country that is 100000 miles away, then chances are that migrator belongs to upper class. Because only he can afford or get sponsership to reach there.

And as for marriage and per marital sex is concern.. would anyone tell me why has marriage institution been established in all societies/law/country.

[Rajendra]

In my opinion without marriage only we can enjoy the life as we wish.

becoz after marriage we have to cut some personal interests like we cant go anywhere where ever we want.

[Dave Lenton]

Originally posted by R K Singh:
would anyone tell me why has marriage institution been established in all societies/law/country.

In European society (and it's derivatives), quite a lot of the formalisation of marriage came about because of politics. Marriage was often a way of sealing alliances and binding groups together. In those days it was often seen as two families coming together, rather then two people. This kind of motivation behind having a formal wedding process is still around in many parts of the world.

Religious politics may have also played a part. Priests told people that they can only have sex or live with a partner by being married in a religious ceremony. Lots of people like to have sex and live with their partner, so they would have to take part in the religious ceremonies. Religious weddings were a good way of encouraging people to associate with a church. Of course this may not have been the reason behind marriage being wide spread, but it must have helped. There's no doubt that marriage levels are often lower in more secular countries.

The reason may also be because people want to celebrate their relationship by having a big party and a public declaration of their partnership.

There's also the large effect of imperialism to take into account. Marriage may well be common, but its not universal. There are some remote cultures where marriage is uncommon or unheard of. These cultures are rare though, and are more often then not cultures which managed to survive imperialism without changing much.

Much of the rest of the world was changed though. The Roman Empire spread their ideas of marriage throughout Europe and the Middle East. Then the Spanish, Portuguese and British Empires spread the same ideas throughout the world. Both Americas, Africa, south Asia and Australasia have had massive parts of their culture effected by European ideas. Perhaps marriage is just one of those ideas which got carried along and spread by these empires. Of course it existed in non-Imperialist cultures (in the far-east, for example), but maybe without the empires it wouldn't be as common as it is now, or would take a different form.

[Ram Bhakt]

Originally posted by Dave Lenton:

The Roman Empire spread their ideas of marriage throughout Europe and the Middle East. Then the Spanish, Portuguese and British Empires spread the same ideas throughout the world. Both Americas, Africa, south Asia and Australasia have had massive parts of their culture effected by European ideas. Perhaps marriage is just one of those ideas which got carried along and spread by these empires. Of course it existed in non-Imperialist cultures (in the far-east, for example), but maybe without the empires it wouldn't be as common as it is now, or would take a different form.

I think your analysis is completely wrong. You might want to read a bit more on world history :-) Concept of marriage existed in south asia very long before Roman empire even existed. In fact, the propogation that you are talking about (from Roman to europe to south asia) is actually just the reverse. Imperialism is a very recent phenomenon (only about 300 yrs). As is evident from the ancient Hindu texts, marriage has been around at least since the period of Ramayana, which is 3000 BCE or by some scholars, 7000 BC.

Fortunately, the only thing that imperialism did not affect too much was the distinct south asian culture. Just FYI, Christianity came to India even before spreading in Rome/Europe.

[Ramesh Choudhary]

The above piece of prose is worth in gold. Great work!!!