Attacking Marriage with a Knife

[Michael Chui]

I said, a long time ago, that I'm against gay marriage because I'm against marriage. Gays can do whatever they want. So browsing this folder tonight prompted me to write an essay again, after a long break, and this rant is what happened:

raccaldin36: Marriage (What is it good for?) - Not by Edwin Starr

"I love her so much, I think I want to marry her."

It's an old childhood tease grown adolescent: first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage. We all know it. We've heard it sung. It's an indicator, oddly enough, of the depth and history of the inexorable march of Christian thought. Of all the institutions I hate most, its first and foremost is the pairing of love with marriage. What really annoys me about this is that it's not even a doctrinal view. The religious understanding of marriage is, legally speaking, no different from any other political understanding of it. It's this whole "love" thing that throws a monkey wrench into the works.

And let's get this out of the way: marrying someone because you love them is a satisfactory reason, especially in a day and age when there is precious little reason left to maintain this obsolete religious tradition.

There are a couple possible origins for marriage.

First: love. Differently put, territorialism, ownership, exclusivity. Two people are married, and therefore no one else gets to touch either of them, by community agreement. Subsequent religions would undoubtedly thus emphasize fornication as a sin. Christianity is an example.

Second: responsibility. Children need to be looked after, fed, and raised. Prolific persons thus must be kept in check, especially when food was not especially plentiful. Subsequent religions here would also emphasize fornication as a sin, but would also note poor parenting and hoarding as one, too. I am not aware of any religions that discuss parenting at all, but most decry hoarding.

Third: alliance. In larger communities, bloodlines become meaningful (a smart person probably has a smart child) and merging them establishes advantages. Subsequent religions would instead point towards rules for who you're allowed to marry. Hinduism and Islam, for instance.

None of these properly apply in modern society, especially American society. Territorialism doesn't work without mutual consent; community recognition is too small to defend against a half-hearted rapist; the community is too large to recognize every member and regulate their sex. Responsibility is short-changed by government programs to provide for uncared young, via foster family systems and adoption programs, as well as welfare for older orphans. Bloodlines are quickly becoming obsolete as useful heuristics of ability, and the point of allying two families works only at superficial level between fools.

Each of these, coincidentally (HONEST), reflect as a valid reason to marry in modern society. Alliance, instead, is the legal loophole of using marriage for any number of economic, legal, or financial reason. Responsibility becomes instead the desire to raise children, in a society that still believes in bloodline education, at minimum as a mother's special relationship with her child (even if they're all thoroughly refuted by successful mother-child relationships where there is no blood bond). And, of course: love, of whatever stripe you choose to dress it in, whether it's trophy spouse or undying affection or religiously sanctioned sex.

But each of these, in its turn, can still be made obsolete.

Loopholes should be closed, especially since they're generally founded on the assumption of a household as an economic unit. The responsibility of child-rearing should depend less on the diceroll of who the parent will be, and more on the strength of a government willing to take responsibility for the future of its people. And love? I suppose that depends entirely on what you think love is. I listed three versions: trophy spouses are for immature, insecure fools; undying affection is one part ridiculous, one part naive, one part romantic, two parts deception, but kinda nice anyways, which makes it barely tolerable in my view, but I'd rather it went out the door.

All of this pretty much leaves the only reason to marry, in my ideal world, a pat on the head by an institution that draws most of its law from a time when they figured the easiest way to make sure people preserved themselves and the current power structure was to appeal to an insurmountable and eternal authority. Which is not much of a case unless you're a believer, in which case nothing I've said matters anyways, yeah?

I said, at the beginning, that there is precious little reason left to marry. And I think I've shown that, if a little incompletely. I think that tolerating marriage for the sake of having children, biological or adopted, is perfectly admirable if you have good intentions and quickly become a good parent; I wish it were not so dependent on pairing individuals, though. I think that it's acceptable to marry in order to thwart foolish legalities; some people may say it cheapens marriage: I totally agree and support cheapening a worthless thing. I also think that the ancient practice of marrying for the dowry or status is intolerable, but understandable for the time, when a livelihood or even a civilization could depend on it; but today, there is relatively minimal amount of this nonsense. And of course, there's love.

Let's take my definition of love for granted, even if it hasn't been vetted by many people even today; it's the only one I have that's both acceptable and explicated. Previous to this definition, I asserted that love finds its highest manifestation in friendship, not marriage. I find that love, as I call it, is the most singularly human form of affection available to us; it differentiates us from animals in that it contains more than parental bonds, more than species survivability, more than altruism: it contains curiosity and an evolutionarily enforced tendency to appreciate both challenge and equality.

It is not as if marriage doesn't exist in animals. Every feature of marriage that can be remotely expected of animals has been shown to exist [1], in one form or another. Even curiosity does, but curiosity in animals has never been shown to sustain itself for months or years, to my knowledge. In humans, you find such ability to obsess over long periods, discovering intricacies and hidden facets unknown to the cursory glance of even a day's effort, and you find it regularly with glaring obviousness.

But it really seems to come down to the challenge I have offered many times in the past, with little to no response: what really differentiates a friendship from a marriage, besides the sentimental value in a written commitment? A successful answer would be a valid reason, in my opinion and in this day and age, to marry. There are at least two: the cultural understanding of marriage, and religion: neither of which I accept as valid. Barring this, the question is: if marriage is nothing more than friendship with a contractual paper between them, why shouldn't every friendship eventually become a marriage? After all, you could always get a divorce, no?

---

Opinions welcome. It's kinda incoherent and rambling, since I was writing entirely from memory and off the cuff, but I think I make a point I've been dying to make for a long while now.

No, the thread title is not supposed to make sense. I'm not entirely here, at the moment. I expect to regret this in the morning. It feels like a one-night stand with philosophy.

[striving4peace]

I like the irony of you talking about marriage while having a 'one night stand with philosophy'.

You're right - it's an interesting write up.

Most of us are more socially conditioned to opt for marriage than religiously conditioned.

Why do I say religiously conditioned? Because 'for better or for worse', religion at one point dominated society and tradition - and marriage was one of the biggest corner stones of where society and tradition met. And that's the thing - marraige has evolved into a social conditioning because of history. From an anthropological point of view the benefits of marraige was that it gave birth to family. In todays world two people can live together forever and call each other family as well - heck, i think of one or two of my closest friends as family and they think of me that way too. But family back then was a well defined unit. Papa bear, Mommy bear and baby bear. They shared a family name. The families they originated from merged into one big extended family, giving support, living together.
It gave the much needed recognition by society. Back then, society was a lot less accepting. Society was more structured with only a family based hierarchy.

Also back then women couldn't work so raising their 'illegitimate' children was not just difficult, the kids were usually neglected by a single parent and grew up with conflicts and resentment towards the society that saw them as aberations.

There's a lot more that can be said. My conclusion is this:

Either a person in todays world gets married because of societal or religious reasons.
Even the "next comes marriage. next comes children in a baby carriage" is societal.

And the world is just going more and more further away from conforming to a society's role model of a life, or being religious. Going against or questioning religion, historically hasn't always been the most easy or popular thing to do. In todays world that isn't quite so.

I'm personally going to get married, and soon by the looks of it - and I'll admit it's more because of societal conditioning. But to that, I say - what's so bad. The reason is because at the means justify the end. The end being a relationship where my emotional and sexual needs are met and where I can share happiness and a life and maybe even kids. If i can sign a paper or attend a ceremony that can make it easier for me to facilitate this, and get society off my back then why the heck not?

One thing i've promised myself is i'm going to try my hardest not to think of marriage as the way most people I've encountered do. Marriage - like everything else in this world - is what you make it. If I decide to look at my 'wife' the way most guys look at their girlfriend, then I don't think I'm violating any terms or conditions or rules.

That's the thing. Not only are our reasons for getting married societal, but the way we look at marriage itself! Most of the messages we get are that it's a ball and chain, it's something that's devoid of passion, that people want to break out of - rather than into.
Most of the times when we hear about marriage it's because it's having problems. I hear little about the good parts of marriage - probably for good reason because both parties would probably like their privacy. But then people in relationships when they're teenagers don't seem to mind being quite open about their intimacy. I guess that's also because by the time people get into a marriage they're mature enough not to need to brag about how awesome their relationship is to get brownie points and kudos from peers.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

what really differentiates a friendship from a marriage, besides the sentimental value in a written commitment?

Hiya Michael, long time no speak!

Well, I'm with you that marriage is kind of a societal habitual thought pattern, and I think probably most people get married because they think they're supposed to.

And I also think that marriage is, or at least could be, something much more than friends + piece of paper. I think that many conscious people who choose to marry are doing so with an intention of partnership, which is not necessarily just either sentimental value or just contractual -- I think partnership is something that many humans hold as a heart's desire.

Partnership doesn't have to be expressed as marriage, but I can see where marriage could be a very fun and effective way of living that value. Beach volleyball is one of the ways I live partnership. Also my relationship with Danger Man, of course; we're partners.

So I can understand why people would want to hitch up together in marriage. Like two little kids who look at each other and say, "Let's be BESTEST pals!" and they prick their fingers and merge blood. That's a contract, yes, but it's also a declaration of partnership, and that has power for people who want it -- I suspect it's a more or less basic human value, that not all, but most humans carry. I may be wrong, but that's how it looks to me.

[Daffy Duck]

I like marriage because I agree with the idea of being devoted and faithful to one person in particular, in that romantic way, and making a public promise that we will do our best to continue to do so. It's a promise that we are a team and will do our best to help each other grow, and help our children grow if we choose to have any.

Can this be done without a wedding and marriage? Sure! But many prefer the "old fashioned" way. It's a conscious decision, at least on my part.

If you don't like marriage, then don't get married.

I notice that many people hate the idea of going along with "societal habitual thought patterns." Well, you know what else EVERYONE in society tends to do? Share their opinions on the proper way to live, that's what. And look... you just did the same thing on this forum. And so do I. Why don't we stop conforming to societal habitual thought patterns?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I notice that many people hate the idea of going along with "societal habitual thought patterns." Well, you know what else EVERYONE in society tends to do? Share their opinions on the proper way to live, that's what. And look... you just did the same thing on this forum. And so do I. Why don't we stop conforming to societal habitual thought patterns?

Daffy, I guess you're talking about me, since I was the one that used that term. But I don't hate the idea of going along with SHTP's (boy, that sounds dirty, doesn't it? ). I just notice it, I don't judge it. In my evaluation, it works better to make free choice rather than to have SHTP's make my choices for me. It's not a matter of 'stop conforming' to them, but rather, to wake up and notice them, and then make a conscious free choice.

[Daffy Duck]

Angela, I used your terminology, but if anything I was referring to Michael (although I was really referring to anyone and not him in specific). He's the one who is attacking marriage, which could be considered a "societal habitual thought pattern."

I am with you on SHTP's. Just because I go along with a SHTP doesn't mean I am unconscious. Sometimes I agree with society, and sometimes I don't. And at the end of the day, all of us go along with most SHTP's. It is built into us.

[pterodactyl]

I'll tell you the same thing I told the rabid, fundamentalist Christian teenage girl who was brandishing a 'Yes on Proposition 8' sign near a Barnes and Noble. I am married, and I love being married, but my personal feelings about the subject do not give me the right to try to persuade anyone else what to do.

Even though I have many good reasons to promote marriage based on my own experience and those of others, and can argue in favor of marriage based on facts derived from scientific studies, I am not going to write an essay on why I think everyone should marry, or brandish a sign in an intersection telling others that they cannot. I do not understand why you are compelled to try to convince us that marriage is unnecessary or obsolete. It seems like sign-waving to me.

I'm also tired of reading essays that say things like "Society back then.. " and "back in those times, women/men did X.." and "in a previous essay I proved.. which follows my logical train here" as though that is the gospel truth.

The decision to marry is often an emotional one and the reasons behind it are valid regardless of what you can logically (or illogically) argue. Should happily marrieds who did actually marry because they felt that was what everyone did stop and re-examine their marriages and question the validity of their beliefs? What about unhappily marrieds? Because of that big scary divorce rate should we all just live as friends happily ever after?

[Daffy Duck]

To be fair, I'm not sure if Michael is trying to convince us of anything. He is likely just telling us his view on the subject, and asking for other opinions. It's not equivalent to the teenage Christian waving a sign in the street. Know what I mean?

But, right. There are plenty of great reasons to get married, though we would all agree it's not for everyone.

[pterodactyl]

I know he is sharing his opinion, but essays like this make me ask, ultilmately what is the purpose? Why go to the effort of sharing a strong opinion if it is not an attempt to persuade? Why attack something that others cherish and then share it with us? To provoke? To gain support for your ideas? Ultimately the purpose of an essay is to influence, inform or persuade. In developing and organizing the thought processes does one not also question the need for such an essay? I could write an essay about why I think others should not have kids, and call it "ax-murdering reproduction" and argue that because some species do not reproduce sexually, therefore it's unnatural to have kids, and what does not exist in nature should not be a part of the human experience, but in attempting to organize and write such an essay I would come to the conclusion that it would be irrational or unnecessary to put these ideas to paper.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

Angela, I used your terminology, but if anything I was referring to Michael (although I was really referring to anyone and not him in specific). He's the one who is attacking marriage, which could be considered a "societal habitual thought pattern."

I am with you on SHTP's. Just because I go along with a SHTP doesn't mean I am unconscious. Sometimes I agree with society, and sometimes I don't. And at the end of the day, all of us go along with most SHTP's. It is built into us.

I see. Yes, SHTP's are very valuable, because it would be kind of tedious to consciously pay attention to all of the various things each day that we handle with our subconscious programming. And if you recognize a SHTP and freely choose to submit to it in a major life decision like marriage, that's not unconsciousness, it's free choice. The trick is to notice when you're telling yourself, "I am so not a victim of SHTPs! I am totally in control of my choices! Don't tell me I'm unconscious! I'm getting married consciously!" How you can tell your decision bears some examination is: Does this upset me or irritate me or push my buttons, even a tiny little bit?

Upset is so wonderful!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by pterodactyl

my personal feelings about the subject do not give me the right to try to persuade anyone else what to do.

I don't see why not. In fact, you've done it here and now, haven't you? You certainly have the right to try and persuade us that it's irrational or unnecessary to express our thoughts here. More than the right, actually; I'd say you're encouraged to do so.

I think Michael is not exactly like the sign-wavers, as he is examining his own thoughts "out loud" here, where the sign-wavers are actively intervening in your path. Both are inviting you to engage in discussion, it's true; with either, you have the freedom to pass right by -- or to notice your outrage and examine why it's there, and to gratefully accept the opportunity it presents for expansion.

[Daffy Duck]

Indeed, ultimately his purpose may be to persuade. You tell us, Michael!

Originally Posted by pterodactyl

what does not exist in nature should not be a part of the human experience.

That is an interesting idea to me, because virtually everything exists in nature. Even our thoughts are part of nature, right? Don't mind me going slightly off topic here...

Some people use homosexual animals to support homosexuality in humans, claiming it to be natural. But in addition to humping other dogs of the same sex, many dogs like to lick their testicles and eat ****. So is it natural to eat **** and lick balls? And if something is natural, does that mean we should embrace it? So many questions we humans get to ask ourselves.

Disclaimer: I have no problems with homosexuality. I just find the "homosexual is natural because dogs do it" argument is very funny.

[pterodactyl]

To be clear, that quote should be taken in its original context. I was parodying the author's logic, not expressing my own opinion. So if there is any doubt, go back and reread that to be clear where I was coming from.

I am not attempting to persuade anyone in the direction of the author's thesis. I am not using my personal opinions to try to influence you, only questioning the purpose and need for such an essay. I am not telling Michael he should not write, or think, about this subject. I'm wondering why he was motivated to write this. I feel the same way whenever I am presented with an essay or idea that is poorly formulated and filled with logical fallacies. He has opened himself up for critique.

[Angela]

I'm sorry, I didn't get the parody. I just went back and re-read the thread and I still don't see it.

Michael did say opinions are welcome, and you did express yours, alright! And I can't see where his motivations are any more questionable than yours; that is to say, it looks to me like you're both doing the same thing: expressing yourselves. In forums like these, I believe that's motivation enough, because it's fun to read the perspectives of others, even ones that "attack" our beliefs. I don't mind anyone expressing a controversial opinion by writing an essay like this, and I wouldn't want to discourage it by questioning his motives. If you are "tired of reading" essays like this one, you are in luck, because you are free to skip them!

But that's just me, expressing myself. Critique away. I'm interested in reading Michael's response.

[Michael Chui]

Whoo. My one-night stand has been fruitful and gone done multiplied. Now I have to pay alimony. Or something. So, I am obliged to clear the air on my own motivations before I actually respond.

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I notice that many people hate the idea of going along with "societal habitual thought patterns."

I have long championed the lovely maxim, "You're special; you're unique; you're just like everyone else!" As a general rule, I don't care how conformist you are, or I am. That's not only irrelevant but, as you point out, a stupid measure of quality. My concern is how conscious people are of the traditions that they follow.

If someone chooses to be a bigoted ax-murderer, fine. I respect their choice. I'll lock them up, throw away the key, if I can, and kill them in defense of whoever they're trying to ax-murder, if I can't, and that's also respecting their choice.

As long as someone has given thought to arguments available and presented to them, and has paused and thought about what they're doing before they do it, then they (1) are cool with me and (2) accept the consequences.

I have no problem with people going and getting hitched.

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

To be fair, I'm not sure if Michael is trying to convince us of anything. He is likely just telling us his view on the subject, and asking for other opinions.

Originally Posted by pterodactyl

I know he is sharing his opinion, but essays like this make me ask, ultilmately what is the purpose? Why go to the effort of sharing a strong opinion if it is not an attempt to persuade? Why attack something that others cherish and then share it with us? To provoke? To gain support for your ideas? Ultimately the purpose of an essay is to influence, inform or persuade. In developing and organizing the thought processes does one not also question the need for such an essay?

Actually, I was writing because I needed to spend time writing. The fact that I happened to do a brain dump of all the stuff I've stored about marriage over the past ten years at the same time was a happy coincidence.

The purpose? If you ever have to ask, it is almost certainly irrelevant because the author failed. Does it persuade you? Then it persuades. Does it provoke you? Then it provokes. Does it make you want to worship as part of my cult of personality? Okay, I'm not entirely cool with that. You're welcome to debate my intentions and motivations, and it's certainly fair to ask. But the words written should not have their merit influenced by the purpose and intent of the author.

Actual responses forthcoming...

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by striving4peace

Why do I say religiously conditioned? Because 'for better or for worse', religion at one point dominated society and tradition - and marriage was one of the biggest corner stones of where society and tradition met.

I don't bother going into my pet theo-anthropological histories mostly because I didn't think it would be relevant. But some point during the early rise of humanity, I think that "government" was synonymous to "religion". Either it was a cult of personality, or a more stable priestly arm, but calling it pervasive would have been an understatement.

Originally Posted by striving4peace

The end being a relationship where my emotional and sexual needs are met and where I can share happiness and a life and maybe even kids. If i can sign a paper or attend a ceremony that can make it easier for me to facilitate this, and get society off my back then why the heck not?

I agree. In my essay, I did not deliver any useful suggestion for how to transition from our current, flawed world to the subtle vision implied as an ideal. Sure, I said, "Fix the legal system. Make government do its job," but that's not going to happen for another hundred years, and 400 Obamas.

There is nothing wrong with marrying because it's easy. I have a college degree and I'm entertaining the notion of getting another one. Why? Because all those recruiter people think more is better. Why? Because society thinks so. There's nothing in my moral system that says I can't take advantage of foolishness, especially when I don't really want to stand on a mountaintop and explain how to fix the education system (which is convenient, because I don't know how).

I guess that's also because by the time people get into a marriage they're mature enough not to need to brag about how awesome their relationship is to get brownie points and kudos from peers.

I quote this sentence because it's the only sentence in this entire thread that uses the right word: maturity.

In the past (I'll get to you soon enough, pterodactyl), "mature enough for marriage" meant sexual maturity, which means babies can get pumped out. Nowadays, maturity includes emotional maturity: a cognizance of your own feelings and their tendencies. It includes the ability of independent thought, of financial stability. A mature person is a distinct person, a person with character, who has made a mark.

What really defines a person as mature enough for marriage, by today's standard?

Originally Posted by Angela

So I can understand why people would want to hitch up together in marriage. Like two little kids who look at each other and say, "Let's be BESTEST pals!" and they prick their fingers and merge blood. That's a contract, yes, but it's also a declaration of partnership, and that has power for people who want it -- I suspect it's a more or less basic human value, that not all, but most humans carry. I may be wrong, but that's how it looks to me.

So you're in the "every friendship should be a marriage" crowd? For what it's worth, I am okay with the all-or-nothing stand. An old statement I made was that friendship is the highest form of human relationship. I still hold it to be true.

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I like marriage because I agree with the idea of being devoted and faithful to one person in particular, in that romantic way, and making a public promise that we will do our best to continue to do so. It's a promise that we are a team and will do our best to help each other grow, and help our children grow if we choose to have any.

Right: being publicly accountable is a great way to increase the likelihood that you actually attempt to improve. It's a trick that works for some people, but not others. Similarly, some people get off on romance--I certainly do--and others don't. It's really no different from the choice to eat kiwi-flavored ice cream. Of course, marriage is supposed to a sacrament, right? Well, so are particular types of bread.

Originally Posted by pterodactyl

It seems like sign-waving to me.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with sign-waving. Isolationism is a bad habit, and a foolish one. I'm prepared to argue it from the individual level to the planetary level, if you wish.

Originally Posted by pterodactyl

I'm also tired of reading essays that say things like "Society back then.. " and "back in those times, women/men did X.." and "in a previous essay I proved.. which follows my logical train here" as though that is the gospel truth.

Why, exactly, is historical context an invalid supplement to an argument? If you can demand to know the motivation for my essay, why can't my essay demand to know the motivation for its topic? And why is it invalid to refer to my older essays, especially when I spell out exactly why I'm using it over the amorphous blob available on the Internet?

And ditto what Angela said about pot calling the kettle black.

Originally Posted by pterodactyl

The decision to marry is often an emotional one and the reasons behind it are valid regardless of what you can logically (or illogically) argue.

How many times have you married, and how often were those decisions emotionally-based? How many people have you known marry, and how well did you know them? How many accounts of marriage have you read, and what percentage of people justified their decision through their emotions?

Originally Posted by pterodactyl

Should happily marrieds who did actually marry because they felt that was what everyone did stop and re-examine their marriages and question the validity of their beliefs? What about unhappily marrieds?

Yes, and yes. Thomas Jefferson said that there should be a revolution every twenty years. I say that we as a self-reflective species should examine our beliefs every month, if not every day, if only to renumber and reaffirm them.

Originally Posted by pterodactyl

Because of that big scary divorce rate should we all just live as friends happily ever after?

I ask again: what is it about marriage that makes it more than friendship? I don't know why you fixate on the divorce rate yourself, here; sure it's high, and sure it's necessarily an underestimation of dysfunctional marriages, but that doesn't invalidate the institution itself, just the ridiculous implementation we pretend at today.

Is it really so hard to answer the single question I've posed? The one I have already, preemptively admitted would torpedo my argument? I've opened the gates and thrown down the drawbridge and I say to you: "You and what army?" Give me an argument. No more attacks against my character. Treat me on the strength of my claims, with reason and example.

Originally Posted by DaffyDuck

Some people use homosexual animals to support homosexuality in humans, claiming it to be natural. But in addition to humping other dogs of the same sex, many dogs like to lick their testicles and eat ****. So is it natural to eat **** and lick balls? And if something is natural, does that mean we should embrace it? So many questions we humans get to ask ourselves.

I actually came at this very thing. I used to be an avid opponent of homosexuality, due to my religious convictions. I found each of my arguments systematically and summarily refuted by my life experiences as I grew up out of high school and into college. At the end, I found myself with just one argument left: it's unnatural. By citing bonobos to me, I found myself with no valid reason to believe that there was anything wrong with homosexuality, let that sink in, and have since reversed my stance on the issue.

And yes, it is perfectly natural to eat **** and lick balls. It is also perfectly natural for people to jump off bridges to their deaths. As I first said in this post, we can accept and respect the opinions and deliberate choices of others and in doing so, enact the consequences they thus bring upon themselves. That's the foundation of the justice system: free will, its exercise, and the natural response. We naturally eat **** and lick balls, just as we are naturally disgusted by it. We furthermore choose to be and remain disgusted, because we recognize that there are hygiene issues that come as a consequence, above and beyond mere personal taste.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

So you're in the "every friendship should be a marriage" crowd? For what it's worth, I am okay with the all-or-nothing stand. An old statement I made was that friendship is the highest form of human relationship. I still hold it to be true.

I'm surprised to receive such an illogical response from you, Michael. Because I recognize a common human value of partnership, that means I believe every friendship should be a marriage? Ich don't theeenk so.

Partnership takes all kinds of different forms, levels of commitment, duration, and intensity, and they're not mutually exclusive. Not everyone who craves partnership feels the need to get married -- look at me, for instance. Danger Man and I are partners, and we're not married. You may be right that friendship is the highest form of relationship, but it's not the only form of partnership.

[jawillie]

I guess I don't see the reason or need to rip marriage apart. You can choose not to marry.

As for me, I love being married, for very simple reasons ~ I love sharing my husband's name. I love the ring on my finger. I love our connection. We know "being married" doesn't mean we own each other. We support each other and uplift each other. If we weren't doing that, we wouldn't stay married. He says he loves coming home, at the end of the day, and that just makes me feel good.

It's okay if other's don't want marriage, but why rip it apart? If it makes people happy, what is so wrong with it?

ETA: okay, I read some responses further back. Thank you for the post, OP. It reaffirmed to me why I got married and I am very happy with my choice. Yes, making people think is not a bad thing.

[Angela]

Yeah, and let's not forget the presents!

[jawillie]

Originally Posted by Angela

Yeah, and let's not forget the presents!

lol... oh, that right there is the reason I married!

No... I wasn't all about "the wedding." Infact, I frustrated everyone around me because I was like, "Eh... I don't care" when they asked about decorations. I knew I just wanted an open bar, music and good food. It took a few weeks to plan. I swear, I was not a "Bridezilla!" My dress was $99!!! (and I threw it away in honor of my Dad after he died because he threw my Mom's dress away and that was a running joke in our family... lol).

Okay...... sorry, OP. Got OT there.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by jawillie

I guess I don't see the reason or need to rip marriage apart. You can choose not to marry.

This isn't a personal decision. This is an opinion on the nature of society. It is completely academic. As I said in my last post, I do not expect any changes I recommend to be implemented or even accepted within the next century.

I perfectly understand if other people do not know where it is I come from. I'm a bit bemused that so many people feel a need to guess, though.

Originally Posted by jawillie

ETA

Out of curiosity, what does this stand for, in this context? I've always understood that acronym to mean Estimated Time of Arrival.

Originally Posted by Angela

I'm surprised to receive such an illogical response from you, Michael. Because I recognize a common human value of partnership, that means I believe every friendship should be a marriage? Ich don't theeenk so.

We disagree on semantics; as you point out below, you do not mean a marriage when you say partnership: you mean a contractual relationship that transcends the contract. I am at a loss to understand how this distinguishes a partnership from a marriage. Is it the wedding?

Originally Posted by Angela

Partnership takes all kinds of different forms, levels of commitment, duration, and intensity, and they're not mutually exclusive. Not everyone who craves partnership feels the need to get married -- look at me, for instance. Danger Man and I are partners, and we're not married. You may be right that friendship is the highest form of relationship, but it's not the only form of partnership.

What you're essentially saying, unless I mistake again, is that the difference between a partnership and a marriage is a matter of degree: however, you don't say what that degree is in, nor do you suggest how large it is.

An Islamic temporary marriage, for instance, can be less of a commitment, shorter, and more intense than a typical friendship.


---


Let me ask a general question:

What is it about friendship that makes people need to suborn it to some higher relationship? What is it about the word that makes it poisonous for any kind meaningful or serious discussion of relationships? I know that it isn't poisonous to everyone; I have lost friends over violations of implied rules of friendship, and heard others explain what they feel is a natural expectation. But for some reason, even in these people, when you compare friendship with marriage (or partnership or cohabitation or what have you), suddenly friendship is secondary.

Why? I find it hard to believe that it's a devaluation of friendship: I am the only person I know who has explicitly rejected friendship in the past (middle school: I held that friendship was an unnecessary burden; my cousin helpfully explained to me that this meant I was a fag), and I rarely see the same overture outside of your random anti-hero wannabe. So it's not friendship: it's the pedestal on which marriage is placed.

I understand the romance of it. Marriage is always the centerpiece, in one sense or another, of romantic stories, tragedy or comedy. Some of the very best in movie form, off the top of my head: Definitely, Maybe; Juno; Dangerous Beauty; The Piano. But is that it? I mean, really it? A bit more passion, a bigger risk, funding a startup with a billion dollars rather than a million? Surely not. And I won't even get into the fear-based reasoning others like to offer.

What is it? I ask and I ask and I ask and no matter how much resistance I receive, no one ever answers.

Maybe I should write an essay about friendship and see how many people say, "Why don't you go marry them?"

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

...when you say partnership: you mean a contractual relationship that transcends the contract. I am at a loss to understand how this distinguishes a partnership from a marriage. Is it the wedding?

What you're essentially saying, unless I mistake again, is that the difference between a partnership and a marriage is a matter of degree: however, you don't say what that degree is in, nor do you suggest how large it is.

No, I think you've just got marriage on the brain -- you are obsessed! No, when I say partnership I do not mean a contractual relationship that transcends the contract, and I am not essentially saying the difference between partnership and marriage is a matter of degree. They're two separate things that you are conflating together -- you can have partnership with no marriage, and you can have marriage with no partnership. Plenty of people have both and/or either!

You and I have a mini-partnership, for instance, and I think you'll agree that we are not married in the least. What we do have is an unspoken agreement, I think (I hope) to learn what we can from each other, to understand each other, and to treat each other with as much honor as possible. Not every pair of people has such an agreement between them; I would call that a mini-partnership because we are advancing together in our aims.

I also have more substantial partnership agreements, spoken and unspoken, with other people in my life, and the degree of intimacy doesn't necessarily correspond to the degree of partnership agreement. Danger Man and I happen to have a pretty high degree of partnership between us, but marriage wouldn't necessarily increase the partnership -- it might, though. Depends on what we would feel "marriage" would mean to us both, that our current arrangement does not.

[Angela]

By the way, I think class is the centerpiece of romantic movies, comedy or tragedy.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Angela

You and I have a mini-partnership, for instance, and I think you'll agree that we are not married in the least. What we do have is an unspoken agreement, I think (I hope) to learn what we can from each other, to understand each other, and to treat each other with as much honor as possible. Not every pair of people has such an agreement between them; I would call that a mini-partnership because we are advancing together in our aims.

Alright, so what I should have asked was: what distinguishes a partnership from a friendship? Unfortunately, I use friendship as a technical term, especially when I call it the "highest form", so this question is a bit unfair without another two essays' worth.

Still, I'll ask it with the understanding that you have a different idea of what a friendship is.

Originally Posted by Angela

By the way, I think class is the centerpiece of romantic movies, comedy or tragedy.

I haven't bothered actually doing an analysis, nor have I actually browsed the genre very actively, so I'll just cede that point.