It is noteworthy that all civilizations to the best of my knowledge do, and did, have marriage as a basis of society. This points to a deep need for a formal recognition.

Marriage is not worth it any more. At the whimsy of another, without fault, most of ones assets, future earnings and children can be ripped away. It's like painting a target on your back.

I hate it when people make blanket claims about whole groups of people, without exception.

Michael Thompson doesn't make any claim of training it psychology so his definition of neurosis is questionable.

This article seems like a lot of opinionated blah, blah, blah to basically say "I think everyone who get's married is neurotic but those who just live together are sane." So what?

When we announced that we were going to be married, some people did ask us why we felt the "need" to get married. I explained that we did not at all feel any "need" to get married, but that we had chosen to do so. This is a second marriage for both of us (one widowed, one divorced) and we made a conscious decision to marry rather than live together for two main reasons. One is that marriage is a publicly recorded event and, having spent many years on my family history, I understand the value of events, such as births, marriages and deaths, being publicly recorded. Having our relationship made public in this way was a message to the world (and to our families) that we were making a formal commitment to each other. Marriage is also a legal contract and, as we both have children from our previous marriages, it was important to us to clarify where everyone stood with regard to assets and inheritance. This is more easily achieved through marriage and the making of wills (another legal commitment) than in any other way. We chose (there was no question of "feeling the need" and certainly no pressure from anyone else) to get married so that our relationship would be both public and legal.

What rot! Another load of amoral nonsense to wreck society.

Michael shows a common ignorance of the Author of marriage.

Although religion is all based on belief having no basis in fact and has been responsible for terrible injustice and suffering (like ideologies, but earlier) the one productive result of the Judeo - Christian tradition has been the institutionalised monogamy i.e. the nuclear family.
The common commencement of the ceremony used to be:-
"Marriage is an institution established for the nurture and education of children "
The inventions, innovations and progress in science which have multiplied the productivity of the human race a thousand times have all come from cultures which have the nuclear family as the basic building block- either Judeo- Christian or those which have adopted the nuclear family as the basic building block.

Can you name any other culture which has given the world, steam engines, powered spinning jennies, powered looms, locomotives, steamboats, steam ships, steel hulled ships, internal combustion engines, telegraph, telephone, aviation, assembly lines, sky scrapers, radio, television, computers or internet?

Without these inventions 90% of the present world's population would not exist for lack of the ability to produce, transport and distribute the food clothing and shelter for their existence.

The only conclusion you can make is that the nuclear family is the only means of bringing children to the maximum of their potential which produces these leaps in science.

We undermine the nuclear family at our peril. The relationship which gives rise to procreation, nurture and education of children is special.

It is the probability of procreation which makes it so vital that the financial positions of the male and female are merged to give the female the security to bear children and make a career a second priority while she nurtures them.

Should widow's pensions ( e.g. war and judges ) be available to anyone who has not had to put a career in priority 2 for the benefit of children?

What comes after gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry?

How does a married homosexual deny the right of a Muslim to marry wife 2 or 3 or 4? and at six years old as the Mohammed did?
Where do you draw the line?

I feel rather sorry for the author of this article, which I am sure would enrage him. "How dare that old bat feel sorry for me?" And he'll know I'm an old bat when I say that I've been participating in what he pleases to define as a neurotic relationship for 49 years and 10 months. While he does make a couple of good points, I feel he's missed the main point. I can't speak for others, but I got married and stayed married because the other neurotic and I decided we preferred each other's company to all others, and we felt a legal union would be sensible given the various ramifications of just living together. For one thing, we only had to have one collection of Bach and Vivaldi--a considerable savings, as any music collector would know. We could pool our personal libraries, another savings. We'd have somebody on site to discuss the music or text with. Legal marriage seemed nicer for the children--while one might occasionally refer to them as little bastards, one wouldn't want the term to be genuinely applicable. And when the grim reaper comes knocking, as surely he must one year soon, it's good to know that somebody's got your back, legally speaking. "The old bat said DNR, and that's what I'm demanding--get away with your heroic measures!" It's my wish that the author some day soon finds someone with whom marriage will suddenly make sense. When he does, let's promise not to say "We told you so!"

Reasons for marriage:

1. Tradition (parental and grandparental expectations)

2. Economic value - economies of scale of 2 adults + Xchildren under 1 roof.

3. To provide greater relationship security while bringing up kids. Mother less likely to work when kids are young so dependence on a stable male income

4. More in the direction of the author's message: 20 year old girls love the idea of getting married (love of the groom is secondary) and

"all my friends are getting married."

As the years go by and kids fly the coup marriage is less essential and desirable.

Pete

Taking into account the fact that all of the "individual" members of every human culture, including ours is not that much different to a bee-hive or ant colony, in which all of the members of the hive/colony unconsciously play out their (chemically) pre-pattened function in supporting the survival of the hive-mind.

We are all unconsciously "living out" pre-patterned functions. Nobody has any real clue as to why we do what we do in every aspect of our lives. Everything seems so "natural", even, according to some, a part of " 'God's' plan" for humankind

Therefore, it seems to me that this essay is describing some very down-home truths about the unconscious neurotic motives that pattern the emotional-sexual couplings of human beings.

That having been said please find a unique Illuminated Understanding of the all-important emotional-sexual dimensions of our existence-being via a set of essays available via this reference (including the Epilogue -The Deer In The Garden)

http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch3a

Also listen to the recitation of what was a originally a spontaneously given talk The Mummery-cult of Pairs Set Free

I agree with all the arguments presented against getting married, but the important ones left out are that in the USA, [and to a much lesser extent in Australia} inheritance rights are not guaranteed unless the testatee is married to the testator. And if there are children, the partner is not legally able to take care of them in case of accident. The partners do not have visiting rights in hospital, can not make decisions regarding funerals, cannot receive the usual insurance benefits, and other spousal rights, despite having shared their lives for fifty years...the list of things an unmarried partner cannot do is very long and very wrong. The sole solution in those countries is marriage

I find myself agreeing with Louisa and can only add if folks feel their property is the name of the game they remain free to demand a prenuptial agreement and then protect the partner's interests via a legal will, that would automatically terminate if the partnership founded in the divorce courts.

Which all too often is the result not taking enough time to work on the relationship, or by just taking the partner for granted?

Not far from where I live is a family dissolving before someone's disbelieving eyes?

She has responded by trespassing on his new partner's property late at night to hurl obscenities and (awaken the entire neighborhood) abuse; that has allowed him to see all the ugly reasons he walked out in the first place.

There's an old truism in marriage that goes, if the laundry isn't done at home it needs to be taken out; and people aren't property!
Judging on what she shouts like a load loco screaming in the night, she doesn't want him or his happiness; but doesn't want anybody else to have him either?

Now that's what I call neurotic?
Rhrosty.

Correction: That's loud loco although it could be loaded as well?

I should add that the only time in my life I found true contentment was as a happily married person; and consequently put a premium on marriage and marriage vows; and normally little time for folks who cheat!
Rhrosty.

In a country like Australia where marriage has practically no legal/financial/custodial implications, the registration of one's marriage and marriage CERTIFICATES are indeed neurotic.

But not marriage itself.

Most legal marriages, including even church marriages, are not marriages at all, but social events: per those, it's better to save the money and not have them at all. True marriages are in the minority.

Marriage is about discipline. It is about recognising our weaknesses and failings, so that when difficulties strike, marriage help us to remember our commitment - not only to our spouse, but to our spiritual path. Marriage is a spiritual initiation that later, during the difficult moments, reminds us that we freely chose this spiritual discipline of staying with this one partner for the rest of lives while observing celibacy of the 2nd-degree. It's almost needless to mention that if we haven't truly and freely chose this spiritual discipline, then we shouldn't get married.

@Old Man, you're bringing the stupid as good as runner has ever done.
You're wrong with your first point and it get worst from then on.

Monogamy one women-one man marriage were not invented by Christians. in fact nowhere in the bible does it actual say that only this type of marriage is permitted.In fact the new testament actively discourages it.

oh and as far as the "nuclear family" thing, the hint is in the name it's a modern ie 1950-60 thing.

And as for the whole only Christians invent stuff, the rest of the world must not of got that memo. Apart the fact that many cultures have invented stuff, try reading a few books.
A countries of cultures ability for invention waxes and wanes depending on funding. In Europe our quest for discovery was instilled in our culture by the Pagan Greeks, and different countries have been the "seat" of learning depending on their ability to fund it. Italy, then France, then UK and now the US with Asian countries taking over.

You might also want to read up about a little thing called the enlightenment...Christianity was not a great supporter of learning.

If you wanted to pick one thing that Christianity was good at it would be reinventing it's history, funny how that Jesus guy has the same birth date as the Roman Sun God.

Yuyutsu, You make marriage sound like a rather dull and serious duty, but essentially you are correct. However, it is not necessary to make a great song and dance about it, with a public fancy dress parade of commitment and vows, feasting and fun. Fifty years ago my partner and I went to a pleasant quiet place and promised to put up with each other for the next 99 years. It was as serious a commitment as any made in a church or registry office, and we have never told anyone else about it. That makes it very special, whereas a public circus trivialises the event and, as others have mentioned, becomes an end in itself.

Traditional societies don't accept same sex marriage:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ap-handful-holdout-tribes-dig-against-gay-marriage
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/06/isis-celebrates-lovewins-by-tossing-4-gays-from-roof-of-building/
Gays continually mock Christianity, it's no wonder Christians get so steamed up about this issue:
http://conservativepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/image4.jpg
http://conservativepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/image6.jpg
http://barbwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/hunkyjesusblasphemy.jpg
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jesuschrist/the-jesus-dildo-4hfd

Marriage is like a tattoo - a great idea at the time, but for life? Marriage should be available for all consenting adults. Australia is lagging, like with climate change.

' You might also want to read up about a little thing called the enlightenment...Christianity was not a great supporter of learning.'

Just maybe Cobber some could see how the more educated the regressives have become the more irrational, illogical and perverted in their doctrines. Your posts go a long way to confirm this.

One only has to look at the federal public service, where gay de facto relationships have been accepted for spouse travel, superannuation and other benefits to realise the additional cost burdens to the taxpayer of same sex marriage. The APS is silent on the additional costs. Why?

Accepting that the same-sex defacto relationship regulations already apply in Australia, having been introduced by the Rudd and Gillard+Greens governments without consultation with the electorate and by changing numerous laws.

Same sex marriage through trashing the Marriage Act is just the icing on the cake for Gay Pride activists and for the cultural Marxism of the 'Progressives' who would dispense with the institution of marriage entirely.

One would imagine that the federal parliamentarians would pause and engage their brains a little longer before engaging in any more abrupt changes to the institution of marriage, particularly because the flow-on effects of the enormous changes to de facto (Common Law) marriage (now defined as 'relationships' by the political 'Progressives') have not been fully realised, researched and understood as yet.

However, political populism to please the tabloids is common among the many career politicians that blight the State and federal parliaments.

Onthebeach, would a plebiscite on gay marriage settle your so called concerns?

It might have missed your attention but these folks and all those who support them, which includes around 70% of the straight community!

Who to a generic man sympathize with their position; also pay tax!
Rhosty

Marriage follows our natural instincts, in that it is based on pair bonding, which is common in a number of species, where nore than one partner is required to raise the offspring. So a species like say the prairie vole, behaves much like a loyal husband, when temptation is offered to them. It comes down to genes and brain chemistry. The driving force for women is an urge to have children, which justifies marriage. For men, available sex gives for a good reason to stick around with one female. Both seem to have an urge to raise children, although not in each individual, as genetics varies between them.

Rhrosty,

As you know, the supporters of gay marriage oppose a referendum.

However, I believe that the consultation that the then Labor and Labor+Greens governments should have had with the public before introducing the changes to de facto arrangements is still outstanding. So that should be the starting point.

The author of this article has every right to dislike marriage, and I assume he isn't married himself at this time.

However, he has no right to call those of us who believe in marriage, or are currently married, neurotic. I find that offensive and ignorant in the extreme.

There are many many happy marriages in Australia, and I will be pleased when adult gay couples can get married legally if they please.
At the end of the day, it is all just a matter of choice about whether you marry, live in a de-facto relationship, or remain single.

Neither of these choices should require others to pass negative judgements on other people's legal relationship decisions. It is none of their business....

@ suseonline: "Neither of these choices should require others to pass negative judgements on other people's legal relationship decisions. It is none of their business...." What about if an adult child wants to marry his or her parent...or three or more freely agreeing people want to marry...does the same argument apply?

Roscop, seriously?

Michael my response to your article is longer than 350 (permitted by Forum) words and so I provide a link to my response to your article.

Homosexuals and marriage and the difference as to contracts

The document can be downloaded from:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/270042621/20150630-Re-Homosexual

Suseonline, ".. those of us who believe in marriage, or are currently married, neurotic"

Says the poster who has spent years disrespecting (heterosexual) marriage and listing every flaw real or imagined, to lower its credibility, usefulness and value to society.

-All to 'prove' that the millions of present and intending married citizens were missing nothing at all if the Marriage Act was trashed to suit the vanity and provide borrowed legitimacy for Gay Pride activists. Activists who up until recently would have been highly offended and aghast if anyone suggested that the horrid stricture(sic) of heterosexual coupling might be applied to them and their 'outlaw' lifestyle.

Short memories abound among leftists. Or is it just hypocrisy and carelessness with the truth?

Good luck too trying to gag opposing views and deny freedom of speech with that childish, 'It is none of their business..'.

Yeah right Onthebeach, put up or shut up.
Show me one post of mine where I have trashed heterosexual marriage?
Why would I when I am happily married?

Then you can tell me how gay marriage would affect heterosexual marriages in any way.
No one has been able to answer that question without launching into religious claptrap, but something tells me you wouldn't do that.
I would suggest you couldn't care less who marries who, but rather just love to argue with, put down, and generally annoy others just to get some cheap thrills....

Suse,
The term "solemn vow" means nothing to most Gays because they're pathological narcissists and the people who support the marriage equality movement are a bunch of neurotic middle class housewives, embittered older leftists still partying like it's 1969 and young kids who change their views like I change my socks. Allowing people who as a group do nothing but mock mainstream society at every turn and whose personal lives are a chaotic mess marked by drug and alchohol abuse, violence and mental disease does lower the tone and demean the institution of marriage. There's another issue that on the one hand the state is trying to stop bad heterosexual marriages through family law but a small but vocal group, the pro Gay lobby are trying to elevate fundamentally dysfunctional same sex relationships to the same level as opposite sex straight ones, that will definitely hurt society. We don't need to go into the statistics on violence and dysfunction in same sex homes again, it's freely available but consider that that level of misery is your benchmark, your starting point as it were for "equality". Consider also that going by figures gathered overseas not a lot changes for homosexuals once "equality" is mandated, the vast majority of sames sex marriages in the U.K so far have been between people who already had civil partnerships and the average length of their relationships prior to the change in the law was 17 years. Figures gathered in the U.S suggest that only about 4% of homosexuals will marry if given the opportunity and 75% of those will be women, meanwhile the same old problems, the same old anti social behaviours continue unabated in the wider Gay community.

"Adam and Steve" want to have a wedding. Seriously? No, not really.

"Figures gathered in the U.S suggest that only about 4% of homosexuals will marry if given the opportunity"

So why are you homophobic bigots so exercised about it then?

Just get it over and done with and move on.

Suseonline, "Show me one post of mine where I have trashed heterosexual marriage?"

LOL Come off the grass, you have taken every conceivable opportunity and then some, to disrespect marriage while lauding the SSM that you advocate and never admitting such relationships might have their own flaws and maybe even more so.

While on the subject, there is NO need to call it 'traditional' or 'heterosexual', since the one man, one women coupling is the well understood definition and expectation.

It is all aimed at devaluing marriage to lessen its worth, while strangely advocating it for admittedly a higher risk group, very few of whom are even interested and where the majority are already smarting from the State interference in their affairs (double meaning accepted). Gays used to be able to make and break their own relationships and in what manner of relationship they liked, but then along came Gay Pride riding on the much larger wave of Cultural Marxism to decree that Big Sister State with courts and lawyers would now tell gays if they are 'de factos' or not and how to arrange their assets on moving on.

Arguably the most significant and sinister devaluing of marriage by you and other political 'Progressives' is to assert that marriage is just about 'love'.

What a foolish and vexatious thing to say. It suggests that you never had any idea, no comprehension at all, of the vows you and your spouse presumably entered into on your wedding day.

Gays, especially the lefties, should never have allowed the feminists to herd them into the corral of State institutionalisation and control that suited the feminists' idealism.

The public, particularly easily led youth, are being shortchanged and misinformed by the SSM activists who pretend among other fabrications, that there is no other option than forcing gays under the Marriage Law, when the obvious alternative is secular and with some freedom, elbow room. To make and be responsible for their own decisions as they formerly were capable of doing.

Craig,
Because it's based on lies and false premises, same sex marriage isn't progressive, identifying the causes of and finding an effective treatment for same sex attraction would be progress.
For the record I'm not "Homophobic", I've just seen gays in the wild so to speak and have known them well enough not to be shocked by anything they do. Don't worry, the Gay underground is gradually coming above ground for all to see, you think "homophobia" is a problem now, wait until they really star rubbing it in. If you really want I can post some stuff from public Gay Pride events in the U.S but I don't know how long pictures of a naked man rolling about in the middle of the street in a pool of his own urine or a kerbside anal sex display by a group of men wearing only leather chaps and SS caps would stay up on a "scholarly" forum.

So you couldn't find any evidence of these 'trashing' heterosexual marriage posts you dreamed up I wrote then OTB?

Oh dear, you are caught out lying again then I see....lol!
I think I will continue leaving you to it....

Suse

'However, he has no right to call those of us who believe in marriage, or are currently married, neurotic. I find that offensive and ignorant in the extreme.'

Yes, it may be offensive, but I'm not so sure about ignorant. The term 'neurosis' is routinely used either to describe symptoms of mental instability or as a form of insult and abuse. However, neurosis is also a fact of life. Very few people remain immune from neurotic thinking patterns.

I'm afraid I've witnessed far too many dysfunctional 'happy' marriages and acrimonious divorces to keep believing in women's Cinderella fantasies or men's Good Provider tropes

Suseonline,

I stand by what I wrote. It is my opinion and here is the full context:

<Suseonline, ".. those of us who believe in marriage, or are currently married, neurotic"

Says the poster who has spent years disrespecting (heterosexual) marriage and listing every flaw real or imagined, to lower its credibility, usefulness and value to society.

-All to 'prove' that the millions of present and intending married citizens were missing nothing at all if the Marriage Act was trashed to suit the vanity and provide borrowed legitimacy for Gay Pride activists. Activists who up until recently would have been highly offended and aghast if anyone suggested that the horrid stricture(sic) of heterosexual coupling might be applied to them and their 'outlaw' lifestyle.

Short memories abound among leftists. Or is it just hypocrisy and carelessness with the truth?

Good luck too trying to gag opposing views and deny freedom of speech with that childish, 'It is none of their business..'.>
[onthebeach, Tuesday, 30 June 2015 11:50:25 AM]

I have no intention of going back through your posts. Besides, you are also the poster who constantly demands that others show proof while never providing any herself and baldly stating that. You always say it is your opinion and you require no proof.

OK, to reciprocate in kind I am more than happy to let others judge my opinion of your posts on the subject.

You have a habit of finding ever possible fault with (heterosexual) married people and then some to diminish the worth and relevance of (heterosexual) marriage, while affording your advocated gay marriage and gays every possible positive and then some.

Killarney I was talking about the delightful Onthebeach's assertions that I regularly 'trash' heterosexual marriage when I advocate for legal gay marriage.
Of course there are neurotic married people, just as there are plenty of neurotic unmarried people.

I am certainly not advocating marriage as being always a place of stability, but I would suggest that neurosis is too strong a word to use in this context.

The myth of male homosexual monogamy.
http://advindicate.com/articles/3022
One of these things is not like the other and thanks to Facebook friends with Asperger's who get their jollies from looking at statistics we can all see through the tissue thin case for "Marriage Equality". See this is just one of the problems you run into in a democracy when a good proportion of the population get build their worldview on novels, TV drama and sitcoms.
The fantasy Gay character who exists in the heads of the rainbow flag posse doesn't even resemble his real world counterpart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKCcr_ayvMo

Suseonline,

No, you did not make that comment in reply to anything I wrote.

Your snarky remark was directed at the author of the article. See here,

Suseonline, "The author of this article has every right to dislike marriage, and I assume he isn't married himself at this time.

However, he has no right to call those of us who believe in marriage, or are currently married, neurotic. I find that offensive and ignorant in the extreme.
..
Neither of these choices should require others to pass negative judgements on other people's legal relationship decisions. It is none of their business...."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17467&page=4
Posted by Suseonline, Monday, 29 June 2015 11:11:41 PM

Oh soooo sorry Onthebeach, you write so many snarky remarks to me that I neglected to use the word 'disrespected' heterosexual marriage that you wrongly attributed to me, in a diatribe that also included the word 'trash'.
Cheers,
Suse,

LOL Always so angry...so 'Dom'.

Here Dear Suseonline,

Just sing along with Jack, "I feel pretty..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2awHhEWKjs

Heh, heh, maybe you don't have the patience for that. Here, the short cut,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzHgRXqlUu8

Well there's three minutes of my life that I'm never getting back.

I guess I only have myself to blame. Never watch anything starring Adam Sandler aside from Happy Gilmore and the Waterboy. Why are his only good films sports movies?

Whatareya, OTB?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiHdpAVIHgo

Yob or wànker? Make your choice then live your life.

Come on pal, what are ya?