What is marriage? Look at this ancient institution from an impartial distance, with all Hollywood movie and romance novel illusions aside.

The institution was invented by society thousands of years ago for one purpose: to insure the survival and propogation of the species, and in doing so, society itself. Why does society have to impose and police this "contract" between 2 people? Because we as individuals are weak and vulnerable to temptation, greed, and laziness, and as such could never self-police the extreme demands and sacrifices that marriage demands of each of us, especially during child-rearing years.

In short, without society-enforced marriage, very few pairs have the mental perseverance or physical stamina to remain together long enough to properly raise children into emotionally stable adults, capable of marriage themselves, and repeating the process into the future, thereby insuring the survival of society itself.

The "logical" answer to the question "what can be considered a failed marriage?" that falls out of this argument (I can feel the hundreds of cursors hovering over the "groan" button) is this:

A failed marriage in this sense can be view as one that did not produce children. That is not to say the relationship has necessarily failed, and certainly not all couples are biologically able to conceive. No one is to blame if a marriage did not produce children, whether by choice or circumstance. It is rather like saying a promising athlete failed to win a medal due to ill-fitting shoes, or bad weather. In either case the medal wasn't achieved, and that was the goal of the event. The athlete did nothing wrong per-say.

per se....

Well my son is the last in our line of a family tree dating back some 800 years, although it is not the only reason, i was happy to have a son to carry on the family name..

You got to be kidding? I met my wife 12 years ago and while dating we discussed the subject of kids and we both unanimously came to the conclusion that we did not want any kids ever. It was a pure intellectual and lifestyle choice. One year later we got married and 12 years on we absolutely don't regret our choice, in fact we are over the moon about our choice based on what we see around us. None of us have ever cheated and we are loving and loyal to each other like "dogs"

So you reckon my marriage should be classed as a failure because we decided not to have little mutts to kill our freedom and peace of mind? On the other hand marriages where maybe one or both partner cheats around or where people are staying together in miserable marriages just for the "sake of the kid" are example of successful marriages because they had kids?

100 kids or 0 kids means nothing when the lights go out. You think I care what happens after I am dead? I have big fat zero attachment with the concept of having my genes continue after death. What a pompous concept anyway.

Successful marriages/relationships exist with or without kids just like failed marriages/relationships exist with or without kids. In fact I would argue that a couple who stays together in a loving and loyal relationship by choice are more successful than people who stay together because they have to due to children or social pressures.

My tea needs reheating now

What a strange post. At the same time, you try to cover all your bases by admitting the moral relativism of it all in the end, but then you come to a conclusion that, while not completely unfounded, is extremely reductive and you admit yourself will get you groans.

And pardon my skepticism, but your mumbo jumbo about the origins of marriage is mostly pulled out of your rear. The history of marriage is complicated and rooted in many different cultures. There's just as much as evidence that the purpose of the marriage ritual was for men to be able to pass on their name. Your final conclusion can't help but come across as a personal judgement call.

Would you say something similar about women themselves? Their bodies are seemingly designed for child-rearing. Would you consider a woman who never gave birth to a child (and was physically capable) a failure as a woman?

You're pardoned.

Yes.

Any more questions?

You misunderstood the meaning of my post. I was suggesting that the institution of marriage was created for couples wishing to have children and start family because it creates a socially backed foundation for doing so.

For couples who do not, I do not see the necessity for the social contract. For what would you then need the piece of paper? Can you not make a promise to each other and keep it without a depending on a legal system to penalize you if one of you breaks it? Or is it for the tax break? (last I heard it is more beneficial tax-wise here in Switzerland to co-habitate without marrying)

And please, let's keep the language civil here, it is supposed to be a pure intellectual debate. I am a bit surprised at the language of a so-called forum "veteran".

The Catholic church can and will refuse to marry you if the intention, or the ability, to have children is missing.

Supporting evidence.

This isn't exactly news you know.

It is to me....I'm not Catholic.

This is not a failed marriage. This person that you refer to is abusive and has been hiding it for all those years. Sad but unfortunately true.

If you have this problem and aren't yet married, you should run not walk from the church/registrars office.

Brian.

Been married for 20+ years and DB is right on target with this post.

He may be a bit pessimistic but his comments are not unrealistic.

BTW, Good Luck, DB. Have you considered just doing the registry office thing? Of course maybe you feel obligated to do the formal Wedding thing, which I understand.

Brian.

Same question can apply to people who marry for kids. For what do they need the piece of paper? Can't they bring the kid up by making a promise to each other? The piece of paper held no direct relevance to me. It was purely a romantic gesture and a kind of public re-affirmation that my wife was more than just another girlfriend passing through my revolving door. Marriage has evolved and holds different meaning to different people.

We are not religious and had a simple but romantic civil marriage at the Zurich registry office.

Lucky you!

pithy reply ****ed due to ten character minimum post

I believe that marriage can be considered failed when you feel like you lost your ability to love the person you married.

Humans are not linear so saying things like: after you have kids marriage is over or true happiness only exists with kids make few sense to me, relationships are far more complex than that.

Women change after having kids? I would think that it would be strange if we did not, being a parent changes you - for better I hope- but that does not mean you are automatically neglecting your husband just because your kid is 3 ! What kind of absurd idea is that?

Long term relationships are possible:

http://www.psycinreallife.com/romanticrelationship/

they are just more demanding. Good luck for your friends and I hope they can find their way to happiness, whatever they do.

The first paragraph is incorrect. It sounds nice and people like the idea of socially cohesive units called family that have a legal footing but it just isn't so. In religion this is true but we aren't talking about religion right at this exact point.

The second paragraph is very close to the truth. The legal, social, institution of marriage is strictly for the purpose of inheritance. When ever we are in doubt as to why something is done it can usually be traced back to money or property or power. Marriage covers all of these issues. Poor people didn't have legally registered marriages but they did have some sort of social/church related services. I think this is more for the power of having more followers than any love of family. After all whatever religion the parents are the child is.

True on all accounts.
Also, if you are thinking of marrying someone who isn't RC the church used to be able to refuse you permission to be married. Now they just make you swear a binding oath before god and community that all offspring of said union will be raised in the faith. (I know this to be true as I have an Aunt and Uncle that fell into this category.)

If it can be shown that one of the participants is infertile then the marriage can be called off, refused or even annulled retroactively. In some cases with or without the participants permission or even acquiescence. In situations where the participants are planning to not have children that can actually be viewed as a sin by the church. It can definitely be considered grounds for the church refusing to "bless the union." The church guards it's source of new members very jealously.

And, yes, I was raised RC.

Brian.