I understand that, but your answer is certainly consistent with Objectivist principles.

I don't speak for Objectivism. If they have a position, I'm not clear on what it is.

Starter Marriages don't surprise me at this point.

So many people have been conditioned to be risk and responsibility averse that they have to find a way to avoid them both. So they found a way to remove that from marriage.

Cultural changes like this are just going to keep coming.

Not a good thing culturally, or for men & women of reason specifically. When you begin breaking cultural contracts, others follow.

LOL, but we wouldn't want you any other way. Who wants to be married to Alan Alda!

I am still working on my first/starter marriage. What I can say is that mine is just getting better as we go along. ;)

To your point, however, I think the real issue is that many don't enter marriage with the view of working through issues, remaining loyal, etc. To those, I suggest you never take on the commitment of marriage and most certainly do not have children. Once you decide you want to have children, you create an obligation to them to make your marriage work. My wife's parents got divorced just after all their children left the house and it still causes problems with the entire extended family on a regular basis.

"Starter" marriages are for people who just don't know what to expect from marriage in the first place. They are people who want something slightly more legitimate than simply shacking up, but don't really want to make the commitments inherent in marriage in the first place. You are pretty much admitting that the first time something goes south, you're just going to abandon the whole thing rather than seek the satisfaction and growth that comes from working through issues and strengthening your marriage.

Like cats, certain men are inherently untrainable. Perhaps that is a necessary condition for being ... an Objectivist.

From what I'm told (by my wife} we men take a lot longer to train. :)

This is what I expected the Objectivist position to be on this topic. Thanks.

The notion of lifetime marriage is from an era when the average life expectancy was 40. It is simply not realistic today.

The purpose of marriage, of course, was to very publicly swear to a mutual agreement that ensured mutual caring, support, and stability, all mainly for the benefit of children. Thus it would make sense if such agreements could be made among any group of adults, and if (by default) they would automatically end when the children are grown and leave home. But every government is too paternalistic to give couples that freedom of contract.

I was half serious and half joking about that one. Every joke has an element of truth, after all. Some people actually did blame The Panic of 1857 on Dred Scott, but the main cause was the withdrawal of British financing, if I remember correctly.

Well said.

36 years and still strong. Relationships aren't for everyone they require work,whether it is a friendship, marriage or a partnership . You have to be a friend to have a friend.
If it is in your makeup to be successful in all your endeavors, then in your marriage you will be attentive ,supportive, committed ,compassionate, loyal, cooperative and have a virtuous character.

To create a fine product you need a vision, knowledge , attention to detail, a high standard for quality, a strong effort to succeed.
A quality relationship is similar.
Enjoy the process, the journey, the intimacy of your humanity together.

I suspect the "grass is always greener" relationship requires the same work.

A lot of good points about the need for a commitment requiring both spouses to have the same desire to be a family. Marriages, without children, that part ways is only significant to two people is true.
For marriages with children The significance to offspring is all too real.

You're funny. On my current project, my manager is also an engineer. I was surprised and amused by what he did not know about American history.

I've just kind of always had the opinion that anything you have to get a license from the state to do, particularly anything that says that the state enforces rules and property splits and something as evil as alimony is not something I ought to be interested in.

What's the old joke, 'The next time I feel like I ought to be married, I'm just going to find some woman that hates my guts, buy her a new house and a new car and just get it over with.'

Thanks for the clarification. And I wasn't in the least offended, but I did read it as snarky so I'm glad it was an honest question.

But apart from tradition or religion, is there any reason to expect or desire that you and your partner will even want to be together in 15, 25, or 35 years? If neither of you wants it, then you ought not to continue based on some mysticism of "vows." Promises and contracts are only morality bound when at least one party still desires it. And if your promise is to stay together, and you are the only one left in the arrangement that desires it, then it would be rational to end it. If he no longer wants to be with you, will his presence actually benefit you any longer?
Very frequently people change in their lifetimes. Sometimes those changes don't follow their partners' and they are no longer the match they once were. Both could benefit from a change, even if it's not due to violence or unfaithfulness. What is wrong with changing your mind? Marriage is not "sacred" because there is no mystical existence. Its significance is limited entirely to the two people involved.

Thanks.

Congrats! You definitely do not have a starter marriage.

Gosh, after almost fifty years, I'm still trying to break in the one that I have.

I wasn't trying to be snarky or critical. Yes, it is a legitimate question, and it is why I brought the discussion up in the first place. I apologize if I offended you; it was not intentional. I am "checking my premises" regarding 'til death does my wife and I part". Fortunately for me, my wife and I have had and will always have a mutually fulfilling relationship.

It's not an attitude but a legitimate question.

Count me in, too. It makes the heart sad. I first read about starter marriages in a book that I read recently. I was surprised and upset that the couple took their vows so flippantly. In the words of Queen Ann, "This too shall pass." Or at least I hope so.

I expected this attitude to be fairly common amongst Gulchers.

I have been aware of this term for awhile, and as a Christian (I know this is almost a dirty word around here, but I am a Christian). I find the concept of a "Starter Marriage" offensive. I find the very idea of the morays of America slipping away from what America has been, problematic to say the least.

Of course I know that in the history of mankind, that we as a species are more serial monogamist than anything else. Which is basically what the term "Starter Marriage" implies. Still I am uncomfortable with the moral direction that society is taking.

As for "the children." My view is that ANY instability is detrimental to their development. As a divorce is the very epitome of instability for a child, I take the position that it should be avoided unless absolutely unavoidable, and even then it should be discouraged. Children need both parents unless for some reason the parent in question just should not be around the child.

In the era of "friends with benefits" a "starter marriage" seems inane. Not because of any emotional entanglements because obviously that does enter into the equation, but because of all the possible legal entanglements, of shared property, bank accounts, etc. It seems to me that a couple would be better off if they either wanted a long term commitment, or merely a consensual hook-up and keep everything separate .I doubt if human relationships can be likened to learning how to bowl.