Why Did You Get Married?

[Deidre]

Leo, you are truly, a kind kind man. Your posts are so from the heart. Ugh, I feel teary now. I try to always be strong, but this whole thing has been hard. It's not easy to break up with a jerk, but it's even harder to end a good relationship with a really great person.

 

Thanks for your thoughts to it. I think you are right. Maybe he felt rejected on a personal level. Your posts resonate with me, you seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to relationships!

 

You all could be relationship counselors. Honestly. Thank you so much, for all the genuine advice and support. I guess time will tell.

[Deidre]

Dee,

I'm under the impression that marriage for you would be Mission Impossible!

Lol Should the unlikely event ever happen, I'll be sure to make this my theme song at my wedding.

[Leo]

Wow! Wise words in that last post. Yes, we all have issues, and it does impact relationships. I think this idea of getting rid of all your baggage before you commit to someone has two flaws. That doesn't mean you have to commit, but it's just this: First, I don't think we ever can get rid of all our baggage. And second, it tends to make for baggage witch hunts, where we try and look for baggage in prospective mates. I

I also think more and more that we are going to have ways for non-married committed relationships to inherit the legal benefits typically afforded to married couples. Kids notwithstanding, seeing the family court, racket that it is. We're further along now, since women can talk about not wanting to get married, where 25 years ago, even in so-called progressive Portland, sociology professors at the university claimed that men refusing to marry were denying women resources. We'll be better off when we level the playing fields and see each other as fellow humans, fellow travelers, instead of the artificially constructed battle lines that earn certain lobbyists so much money. by reading Deidre's posts, and by following up on how the polyamorous are managing things, I can completely visualize a marriage-free legally contracted nonpermanent relationship where two or more people can have an exclusive bond and see each other in hospital, buy property, and so forth, but dissolve things in the way a small company might do so. My heart has been in the right place for years on this, ironically secretly so as a Xian even, but systemically I had questions for how this could be made to work. I wonder if in fifty years, people will wonder at the irrationality of the money-making institutionalized construct we now have.

I admit it, I'm a poor spokeman for marriage. I'm in an exclusive pair bond I'm daily trying to foster and tend. But although I am forever committed to Her, I have zero commitment to institutions, including the institution of marriage. My commitment is Hers, whatever words and legal ramifications are used to describe it. Looking back now, I can see why it is DOMA and Oregon's marriage legislation of 2004 never made any practical sense to me, even as a Xian.

I think for me, at least, what Deidre has ended up doing here is close the loop on some things I've wondered about for years.

[Deidre]

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone.

If I ever get engaged, you'll be the first to know.

[Deidre]

 

 

 

Listened to a radio program on my way into work and the dj's were joking around about the idea of marriage. But then they got serious, and one of them said, "marriage is just not necessary. If you are staying together out of obligation or kids or it's too costly to divorce, then marriage doesn't mean anything to you anyway."He went onto say that if two people are together with no marriage and they don't want the relationship anymore, then just end it. Can't just walk out of a marriage without any legal consequences.I was happy to hear that I'm not alone, and that not wanting marriage doesn't mean you're selfish or immature. Just means you see it as a paradigm that seems to fail society, more than it helps it. I also hate the phrase "marriage takes work." Lol I have a job, but thanks anyway.Just sharing.

Deidre,I haven't read all eleven pages of your thread -- and btw, congrats on keeping such a long-running thread so relevant and interesting. So, I chose a post to reply to.Your views about marriage, and the various aspects of it, are complex. Early on, before I had read many of your posts, I had the impression that you were dismissing not only the institution of marriage but also most the positive qualities of a committed relationship, and that you were even implying that there is no such thing as a genuine committed, permanent relationship. I had the impression that you were reacting against everything that you considered associated with Christianity, including marriage and commitment.Now that I've read more from you, it seems that you are trying to distinguish between legal marriage and otherwise committed (and perhaps even permanent) relationship with the legal status. And you do acknowledge that it's your personal issues that make you both hestitant and skeptical about commitment.Everyone has issues. You may find that eventually you do want to be in a committed, exclusive, permanent relationship. And you may still have issues. You might not necessarily be able to totally resolve those issues. You may simply have to find ways of coping with them, within a relationship. A relationship involves compromising on various aspects, not only with one's partner, but also with one's self.You asked me why I prefer to remain single, or at least until now. If you read some of my comments and dialogue on other threads, you will get more of an idea why. (Remember that I told you that you and I may be a lot alike about some of this.)I think you are a much deeper person -- more thoughtful and feeling -- than maybe you want to reveal. We all guard ourselves to differing degrees and for various reasons. I think you are always going to be skeptical, and even in some healthy ways, to make sure you know what you want and how to recognize it when you find it. So, use that quality to your advantage, and resist feeling guilty about working through this process and not settling for a situation until you're sure about it.Remember, "always be true to yourself." And in that way, you can be true to others.Peace,Human

 

thanks human, this really spoke to me in a way that you would not even have known or intended it to.

 

I'm not the only train wreck.

 

ShabbyMatty,

 

Thanks for your comment. Well, your life might feel like a trainwreck, but you certainly are not. You are an invaluable human being. BTW (in case she is reading this) I don't mean to imply that Deidre is a trainwreck. Actually, Deidre is quite impressive at how she recognizes and analyzes herself and her life. She at least seems more articulate at self-analysis than many people are.

 

Also, I noticed that in my post to Deidre, the post you quote here above, I mistyped what I had intended. I have since corrected the original post. Here is how is should and now reads (with my correction in bold print):

 

"Now that I've read more from you, it seems that you are trying to distinguish between legal marriage and otherwise committed (and perhaps even permanent) relationship but without the legal status. And you do acknowledge that it's your personal issues that make you both hesitant and skeptical about commitment."

 

Thanks again, SM.

 

Human

 

Thanks for this Human, really. Are you also a wizard? lol [[Just a side note, I didn't think (well...lol jk) that you were implying I'm a train wreck, or my choices, etc.]]

 

You know, though? There's nothing all that impressive about identifying one's issues, and doing nothing to resolve them. I'm sadly reminded of when I was a Christian, and the crossroads I came to, when I discovered that all I had held onto, was not based on truths. That the Bible was bogus, that everything I had hoped and hung my hat on with Christianity, was built on lies.

 

It was all a process, but there was a definable moment, when I knew that Christianity was bs, but I did nothing to get away from it. Eventually, I did. But, it is not enough to KNOW something is wrong, you have to act on it to change things. Yes, it may take time, but it's important to not stay immobile.

 

I did however, stay immobile for a long time in Christianity, despite my gut screaming at me to leave it. This is how I am now. I willingly watch men come and go out of my life, as if I have no control over these feelings. I do have control, I choose to stay immobile.

 

And that's the sad part of all of this. I know what's wrong, I just can't find a way to change it.

 

(Thanks for listening, and giving me your advice. I read it, and I'm still digesting it lol)

[Deidre]

 

 

... BTW (in case she is reading this) I don't mean to imply that Deidre is a trainwreck. Actually, Deidre is quite impressive at how she recognizes and analyzes herself and her life. She at least seems more articulate at self-analysis than many people are.

 

Also, I noticed that in my post to Deidre, the post you quote here above, I mistyped what I had intended. I have since corrected the original post. Here is how is should and now reads (with my correction in bold print):

 

"Now that I've read more from you, it seems that you are trying to distinguish between legal marriage and otherwise committed (and perhaps even permanent) relationship but without the legal status. And you do acknowledge that it's your personal issues that make you both hesitant and skeptical about commitment."

Thanks for this Human, really. Are you also a wizard? lol [[Just a side note, I didn't think (well...lol jk) that you were implying I'm a train wreck, or my choices, etc.]]

 

You know, though? There's nothing all that impressive about identifying one's issues, and doing nothing to resolve them. I'm sadly reminded of when I was a Christian, and the crossroads I came to, when I discovered that all I had held onto, was not based on truths. That the Bible was bogus, that everything I had hoped and hung my hat on with Christianity, was built on lies.

 

It was all a process, but there was a definable moment, when I knew that Christianity was bs, but I did nothing to get away from it. Eventually, I did. But, it is not enough to KNOW something is wrong, you have to act on it to change things. Yes, it may take time, but it's important to not stay immobile.

 

I did however, stay immobile for a long time in Christianity, despite my gut screaming at me to leave it. This is how I am now. I willingly watch men come and go out of my life, as if I have no control over these feelings. I do have control, I choose to stay immobile.

 

And that's the sad part of all of this. I know what's wrong, I just can't find a way to change it.

 

(Thanks for listening, and giving me your advice. I read it, and I'm still digesting it lol)

 

Deidre,

 

You seem to be one of the most intelligent, thoughtful, and self-analytical persons who is also struggling against severe self-doubt, low self-image, and -- as you put it -- immobilization to constructively deal with your problems. You obviously had a very real, very deeply emotional and psychological and sociological experience of Christianity and Christ. It's obvious that you have stopped believing and have deconverted. But it's also obvious that you are still struggling to redefine -- to re-create -- yourself.

 

I believe you can do this, and that you are doing it. You are remaking yourself. You are evolving as an individual. And I think that with some more time (how much time is unique to your experience), you will feel solid, re-empowered, and self-confident. And then, you will know what you want and are willing to invest in a relationship. Maybe you'll have your grand and transformative "aha!" moment tomorrow. But until it comes, it seems your first priority is you, yourself.

 

I also believe that once you achieve this, you will powerfully inspire many other people.

 

Human

 

Immobilzation...something that I never noticed, when prayer was in my life. Pray one's problems away, so to speak. Over the past few years, I can't/won't do that, so maybe it's a matter of figuring out new ways of moving forward.

 

Since there is no god to swoop down and save the day, anymore. I guess that means we have to.

 

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, and insights.

 

[Leo]

Deidre, what you called immobilized, I called paralysis, hence the title of my extimony. What you said really resonates with me. Even when my family went to Pentecostal churches, I can't say I was one of those who could fully rely on prayer. I was duty-bound to Christianity. Read the Bible faithfully, tried to at least do the right things. And while duty in and of itself is not a problem, duty to something like an invisible deity leaves one paralyzed as much as prayer does. I completely resonate with what you're saying about knowing deep down that Christianity was BS. Fear plays a lot into this: I was afraid my family might break up. I was afraid of being the only one in the place I lived who felt like this, and in that place I was not free to come and go as I am here in Portland: there were no meaningful sidewalks and other pedestrian things which, if you don't drive, is a lot like being on work release. What you said really rings true for mne. I'll go so far as to say, if the conditions were right, rather than "backslide" in 1996, I would have deconverted. I didn't have access to the right information then, so I altered / Came back to God, in a newer gentler form, but was never convincing to the Christians around me. And inside I was what you call immobilized.

Human is absolutely right about what he's saying. And I can't personally stress enough the importance of personal autonomy. I understand this in a way few people do, having the situation of being blind  and for a time living in an area where I was not free to come and go as I wished without incurring some expense. To that end, I'm probably a bit of a personal autonomy extremist, not just for myself, for everybody. You have to have the tine and space to figure out wht you want. That means being able to come and go as you please, but it also means the right to figure out what you want and don't want in relationships and a lot of other things that I probably take for granted, things where my personal autonomy has not been compromised. I totally relate to the gut feeling saying "No! No! This isn't right!" but going along with it anyway.

[hereticzero]

Carnal lust mostly! We been together for over 22 years now.

[Deidre]

Deidre, what you called immobilized, I called paralysis, hence the title of my extimony. What you said really resonates with me. Even when my family went to Pentecostal churches, I can't say I was one of those who could fully rely on prayer. I was duty-bound to Christianity. Read the Bible faithfully, tried to at least do the right things. And while duty in and of itself is not a problem, duty to something like an invisible deity leaves one paralyzed as much as prayer does. I completely resonate with what you're saying about knowing deep down that Christianity was BS. Fear plays a lot into this: I was afraid my family might break up. I was afraid of being the only one in the place I lived who felt like this, and in that place I was not free to come and go as I am here in Portland: there were no meaningful sidewalks and other pedestrian things which, if you don't drive, is a lot like being on work release. What you said really rings true for mne. I'll go so far as to say, if the conditions were right, rather than "backslide" in 1996, I would have deconverted. I didn't have access to the right information then, so I altered / Came back to God, in a newer gentler form, but was never convincing to the Christians around me. And inside I was what you call immobilized.

Human is absolutely right about what he's saying. And I can't personally stress enough the importance of personal autonomy. I understand this in a way few people do, having the situation of being blind  and for a time living in an area where I was not free to come and go as I wished without incurring some expense. To that end, I'm probably a bit of a personal autonomy extremist, not just for myself, for everybody. You have to have the tine and space to figure out wht you want. That means being able to come and go as you please, but it also means the right to figure out what you want and don't want in relationships and a lot of other things that I probably take for granted, things where my personal autonomy has not been compromised. I totally relate to the gut feeling saying "No! No! This isn't right!" but going along with it anyway.

Maybe fear isn't a good enough reason to avoid all things, hmmm? Maybe we should still go through with 'some' things, despite our fears. In spite of our fears. Alongside our fears. If I'm honest, my ego has ruled my life, not necessarily in a vain way, but in a way that didn't serve me well and I'm going to try some different things to change that. I'm grateful for your 'testimony' here, you have been very gracious to share so much. <3 hugs

 

 

Carnal lust mostly! We been together for over 22 years now.

...and they all lived happily ever after. i'm happy for you.

[RealityCheck]

Deidre, as promised I will share my personal view of the subject.  I've only read this thread partially so some of this may or may not have been stated already.  A quick Google search yields the following definition of marriage (taken from Wikipedia.)

"Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.  The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal."

In the context of our society, it's a legal contract between spouses (enforced by a ritual recognition I.E. marriage ceremony.)  This legally binding contract is intended to last for life and there are financial (as well as emotional) consequences to severing it.  I see this as an anachronism in today's society, a throwback to a time when women were not allowed much independence or power.  I believe the government should stay out of human relationships period with the exception of disputes over child custody or domestic violence.  If two people love (or hate) each other they should be able to stay together and leave as they please.  They should be allowed to used their own discrepancy to determine what is best for themselves and their families (again, with the exception of issues regarding child custody and domestic violence.)

The problem is, people are dynamic.  We change over time and couples grow closer or further apart.  This is an inevitable consequence of the human experience.  I myself am a very dynamic person so I don't see a lifetime commitment in my future right now.  I also think we can both agree that the Christian view of relationships is dysfunctional.  I've already been burned enough times to understand that.

[Deidre]

I will reply to your post RC a bit later, thank you for your input!

 

Touching upon making promies, Human. Honestly? I don't think it is logical to make a life long promise about anything. Not just marriage. I promise to (fill in the blank)....for the rest of my life. To me, marriage is an unrealistic promise. So it is no wonder it is "broken" a lot of the time. It can be that some are inherently promise breakers, but I think the promise itself is unrealistic for most people. Not because they are weak willed or don't value others, but rather the promise itself is unrealistic. Sounds romantic and flattering, at first...but, no one should make promises based on transient feelings and sadly, that is where a lot of marriages come from. Feelings. And feelings change like the weather so...,

 

[Deidre]

I think I'm actually done for now discussing all this. It's making me sad and I spent a long time being sad when I was going through deconversion. I have a good life and life is what we make of it. I don't need marriage to "make it" something better. And that notion is what has caused countless people to end up...unhappy.

 

Appreciate everyone's input here.

[Deva]

Young, stupid, was infatuated, didn't understand what marriage was really all about.. and it was a cultural expectation, I guess. Did it twice, same reasons (except the young part  lol)

 

Won't ever do it again.

Same here, exact same reason. No second time though, and now I am too old to make a mistake.

[Deidre]

Deidre, as promised I will share my personal view of the subject.  I've only read this thread partially so some of this may or may not have been stated already.  A quick Google search yields the following definition of marriage (taken from Wikipedia.)

 

"Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.  The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal."

 

In the context of our society, it's a legal contract between spouses (enforced by a ritual recognition I.E. marriage ceremony.)  This legally binding contract is intended to last for life and there are financial (as well as emotional) consequences to severing it.  I see this as an anachronism in today's society, a throwback to a time when women were not allowed much independence or power.  I believe the government should stay out of human relationships period with the exception of disputes over child custody or domestic violence.  If two people love (or hate) each other they should be able to stay together and leave as they please.  They should be allowed to used their own discrepancy to determine what is best for themselves and their families (again, with the exception of issues regarding child custody and domestic violence.)

 

The problem is, people are dynamic.  We change over time and couples grow closer or further apart.  This is an inevitable consequence of the human experience.  I myself am a very dynamic person so I don't see a lifetime commitment in my future right now.  I also think we can both agree that the Christian view of relationships is dysfunctional.  I've already been burned enough times to understand that.

Reality Check...thank you for taking the time to post this. Absolutely right, the government has no business in personal relationships. Interesting in the actual definition of marriage, is this idea that 'some cultures' require marriage before having sex. That's is largely a religious seniment, and how sad that it's become something noted as cultural, and not religious. That's how insidious the abuse of religion has become.

 

I appreciate you posting this, it's an archaic institution that I wish society didn't try to promote so much. Maybe that's also my problem with it. When you date someone for a while, and friends and family ask...soooo, when are you two getting married?

 

Would 'fuck you' be such a bad response in those instances?

 

Not serious.

 

Half serious.

[Deidre]

 

I will reply to your post RC a bit later, thank you for your input!

 

Touching upon making promies, Human. Honestly? I don't think it is logical to make a life long promise about anything. Not just marriage. I promise to (fill in the blank)....for the rest of my life. To me, marriage is an unrealistic promise. So it is no wonder it is "broken" a lot of the time. It can be that some are inherently promise breakers, but I think the promise itself is unrealistic for most people. Not because they are weak willed or don't value others, but rather the promise itself is unrealistic. Sounds romantic and flattering, at first...but, no one should make promises based on transient feelings and sadly, that is where a lot of marriages come from. Feelings. And feelings change like the weather so...,

 

 

 

You wrote, "I think the promise itself is unrealistic for most people." But what about the one's for whom it is realistic? What do they have that those who fail don't have? (And I mean non-religious as well as religious people.)

 

Fail?

 

Maybe many people who stay married forever are willing to tolerate a lot more bullshit than those who 'fail' at it. Not trying to be flip, but I wouldn't look up to all people who have lasting marriages, as they are doing it out of love and a desire to actually still be with their partner. TONS of people stay in toxic relationships because they feel stuck and obligated. Longevity doesn't mean anything to me, when I look at people who remain married for decades. If their marriage is healthy, yes, but if they have been 'sticking it out all these years,' I don't (automatically) find it admirable. I find it sad that they feel if they ''break their vows,'' that they will be looked at as a jerk to their peers, and family (and society)

[Deidre]

 

 

 

I will reply to your post RC a bit later, thank you for your input!

 

Touching upon making promies, Human. Honestly? I don't think it is logical to make a life long promise about anything. Not just marriage. I promise to (fill in the blank)....for the rest of my life. To me, marriage is an unrealistic promise. So it is no wonder it is "broken" a lot of the time. It can be that some are inherently promise breakers, but I think the promise itself is unrealistic for most people. Not because they are weak willed or don't value others, but rather the promise itself is unrealistic. Sounds romantic and flattering, at first...but, no one should make promises based on transient feelings and sadly, that is where a lot of marriages come from. Feelings. And feelings change like the weather so...,

 

 

 

You wrote, "I think the promise itself is unrealistic for most people." But what about the one's for whom it is realistic? What do they have that those who fail don't have? (And I mean non-religious as well as religious people.)

 

Fail?

 

Maybe many people who stay married forever are willing to tolerate a lot more bullshit than those who 'fail' at it. Not trying to be flip, but I wouldn't look up to all people who have lasting marriages, as they are doing it out of love and a desire to actually still be with their partner. TONS of people stay in toxic relationships because they feel stuck and obligated. Longevity doesn't mean anything to me, when I look at people who remain married for decades. If their marriage is healthy, yes, but if they have been 'sticking it out all these years,' I don't (automatically) find it admirable. I find it sad that they feel if they ''break their vows,'' that they will be looked at as a jerk to their peers, and family (and society)

 

"Failing" doesn't have to reflect on one's personal worth. I mean "failure" in that people make promises willingly that they later choose not to honor. I think that's failure. (Intent is also important; but that's an additional subject.) And apparently, a lot of people don't learn why they failed, because they repeat their mistakes. I don't consider it failure if a person chooses not to marry, especially if they understand the importance of not making promises they either cannot or don't intend or keep. Also, notice that you mentioned both "marriage" and "relationships" (some of which are not legal marriages). I think the more important discussion is not about the aspect of legal marriage, but about relationships, whether married or not. Ultimately, the issue is about valuing humanity, ours and one another's, and behaving with integrity toward one another. And integrity includes doing self-examination of our beliefs, values, intentions, expectations, and making our words and behaviors line up together.

 

I agree with you. But, going along with what you're saying here, I think marriage taints good relationships. More often than not, I have sseen amazingly compatible couples totally break down, after marriage. Marriage gives couples an illusion of safety, and for some, that is a good thing, but for some...it causes them to take the person for granted. Moreso than when the couple is merely dating.

 

Thanks for your thoughts to it, Human. Your insight on the topic has been helpful to me.

[Deidre]

True, Human, but most people don't remain in bad relationships (however we define that), if they're 'just' dating or living together. Once the marital 'contract' comes into play, those same couples who might have walked out upon being mistreated, etc...won't do the same as easily if at all, if married. Add kids to the mix, it becomes even more difficult to 'break one's vows.' That in and of itself isn't a bad thing, to be faithful to one's family, certainly. But for the right reasons. To stay in a sexless, or love-less marriage...raising kids like roomies, which many of my friends do, just shows that marriage isn't what it is cracked up to be. Unless it was always meant to be an obligatory set of values and rules, that you stick by no matter what.

 

Like religion?

 

I don't see breaking vows as a failure. I see the institution of marriage as broken to begin with.

[Deva]

 

 

Young, stupid, was infatuated, didn't understand what marriage was really all about.. and it was a cultural expectation, I guess. Did it twice, same reasons (except the young part  lol)

 

Won't ever do it again.

Same here, exact same reason. No second time though, and now I am too old to make a mistake.

 

Feeling too old to make a mistake. I share those sentiments. There are various reasons why such a mistake would be worse than when one is younger. I wonder that it has somewhat to do with personal integrity becoming more important as we grow older.

 

It might, but it becomes more and more a basic question of survival.

[Leo]

Dee, these are my own thoughts as I see things. If I fail to honor my wedding vows, and subsequent agreements I agreed to, you could say I failed the marriage, but I see it as me failing Her. I guess I kick it old school when it comes to my own personal honor and integrity. So much so, I guess, that some Christian men accused me of making it an idol, something even then which I found absurd.

Besides that, I married Someone who made it clear from the outset that She didn't want to live like divorce was an option. That doesn't mean She would never divorce, just that She doesn't want to live like it's an option. I have lived to honor Her in that and other ways, through thick and thin, ups and downs, when we understand each other and when we don't see where the other is coming from. This is not a defense of the institution of marriage: it's a defense of Her, in my mind. Marriage is just the legal description of what we are as a legal unit; it is how I was allowed to sit beside Her in the hospital, as reticent to leave as a wolf with an injured mate. It hasn't made my commitment, it describes it. At least in part. The vows I made to Her on that day are only some of the things I've agreed to. So if I fail Her now, after we raised a daughter together, after She made some profound sacrifices to be a mother and be more involved than I could with school and things? How tremendous a betrayal that would be!

Nothing I have said is about the institution of marriage. From my perspective it is about a Person. It is for this reason none of the marriage talk in politics or in the churches made any sense. And many Christian men in the modern men's movement, and women to, by the way, roundly criticized me as not being a Christian example of a husband, seeing as I did no spiritual leading, I drink beer, I don't vote the party line and so on. I say this part so you will see clearly I cannot be said to be defending just an institution: cold, mechanical, inanimate.

I simply posit it is possible for some of us to fail other people: people who trust us to stay by their side, people who deserve far better. No relationship is perfect. And I personally find it instructive to remember my own imperfections. Not like a Christian, broken, bleeding internally, sniveling, looking for crumbs. Instead in the spirit of great minds like Thomas Jefferson and David Hume. Then, when the grass looks greener, as it sometimes does for all of us, I'm readily reminded what a Good Thing I am privileged to have, and what a dishonorable dumbfuck i would be to take Her for granted. Ancient and ironclad are the Three Noble Virtues, love, honor and fidelity. They are part of our western heritage which long pre-date the arrival of the terrorist desert religions of the east, who conquered, slaughtered and force-converted the indigenous peoples of Western Europe. And those virtues, in my opinion, undergird strong relationships of any sort. So I'm not sure it could be said we defend a lifeless institution, any more than we defend any other tool or machine. We just defend relationships, since relationships give life meaning. And in a society like ours, there simply needs to be a way to declare the start, and the end, of these intimate and usually long-term, relationships.

[Deidre]

Hi Leo -- thank you for sharing all of that. I think we have reached as they say an impasse, lol. If you're happy Leo, that's all that matters. I think you can do all you describe without marriage.

[Leo]

Human, thanks for the words. It's been codified in my mind over the past years, watching the terrible challenges the gay and lesbians I know struggle with these things, and the total political football their relationships were used for.

 

Dee, all that you posted there is true. Every bit of it. Except, when your significant other is hospitalized before you have a living will stating them as the power of attorney in your situation. And a host of other things we've mentioned.

So here is the almighty thought experiment: Let's just say for sake of argument, you got rid of marriage as an institution. People like me would still stay devoted whether you called it marriage, or whether you called it blooper, or nothing at all. However, if you disband marriage, as some are interested in doing, then you still have all the legal challenges you have to face that married people take for granted. The father of the child, the partner of the injured spouse, and so on. So, giving you nightmares about high school algebra for a minute, you'll need to solve for x, where x is the necessary legal arrangements that make relationships and couples / groups (including the polyamorous for sake of discussion), far less clumsy.

I look at the down-on-marriage people the same way I look at some of the inclusive language people: Seems like the heart's in the right place, but the implementation gets so klunky and awkward that nobody actually catches on. We all remember he for a paragraph, she for a paragraph, making it look like you're talking about two different people, or s/he his/her and repetitive pronouns. Now some young people on the Internet write zhe and zhir, words nobody knows how to pronounce. The feminists in that situation never solved for x, where x was make language still usable and not clumsy and unclear, while having your new gender-neutral pronomial system. And many people I still talk to from that camp, from when I was in college 25 years ago, still imagine the only reason it hasn't caught on more is sexist. Their vision for what they want clouds their ability to see the simplicity of "just find a simple way to make it all work smoothly." And these are really smart people, some of them, who could probably craft a solution that works right out of the gate.

This is what I hope the folks who are down on marriage can do: Solve for x, in their situation, x being a means for doing relationships which still gives society a way to define it, so they can all get insurance benefits, hospital visitation, coroner's reports, default inheritance, and so on. excepting some strong ideologues, most people will gravitate to a new solution if it's not clumsy.

You know how they're always talking low carbon footprint, and people shouldn't drive so much? Well, in cities like Portland now, they've "solved for x" on this one: subscription services like ZipCar and GoCar where you buy into it, and just use it when you need to, and walk / bus  / train everywhere else. Are people magically more enlightened now? Perhaps, perhaps not. But they can easily now participate in something they might have thought was a good idea for a long time: driving less. Because it's not so clumsy and awkward they can't get anything done.

I guess that's why I never made debate team as a kid, or ever went the activist way: too much of a pragmatic solutions kind of guy.

[Deidre]

Lol Leo, you make me smile I respect your posts and how deeply you think on this matter.

 

In a nutshell, the government has no business getting involved with relationships. No one should need a marriage "license." And no one should go without insurance because they're not married. The good news about that end of it is employers are finally offering their gay and non-married employees health insurance for their live-in partners. Think insurance carriers require living together for a certain time frame in order to be an eligible "dependent."

 

But that's the private sector, and they can do as they wish. It is our government that still requires couples be legally married in order to gain tax benefits,, etc. Gay people who have been in long term relationships can't receive the same benefits as a married heterosexual couple. If marriage ceased to exist (as we define it) the gov't would bow out.

 

Frankly, I should have the say of who visits me in the hospital, not the hospital, and not the gov't.

 

That's one of the obvious problems with marriage. It separates people and elevates the married folks to a status that frankly, they shouldn't receive. The system is awfully fucked up when a gay or hetero ccouple who truly love each other and are in a committed relationship don't have the same rights as married people who may not even want to be together, anymore.

 

 

That's some of my thoughts to that.

[Leo]

Interesting. I realize there are two proposals to solutions, just to oversimplify. You would remove rights from some, in order to make everybody even. I would rather grant those who don't yet have the rights, the remaining rights, so it is still even. Only everyone ends up with more.

You're right, you should decide who visits you in the hospital. Hopefully you have paperwork done to that end, because when you really need it, you are often not conscious enough to speak up and object, if it's not the person you're in relationship with who is trying to get in and make decidsions for you.

I look at it like this: I would not take away your eyesight just to make you even with me. I'd rather build solutions that I end up using which makes me more even with you. I admit, those are very different world views.

As to privatization of contract, well, actually every contract is technically government-enforceable. What I mean is, if your landlord today wants to boot you out for no reason except he wants to sell the place, he has to warn you first, give you a certain amount of time, and so on. Or the government gets involved, supporting your rights as a tenant. We all want government out, until we need government to provide enforcement to protect our rights.

Now, at least, I understand the extent of where you're coming from. And you're right, we probably will never see the same way on this. Not because it's marriage, but I can never get behind removing rights from some in the name of making it equal. I'd rather grant thos same rights to more people, and elevate those people's status, instead of bringing some of us down. But that is more of a governmental, possibly economic philosophy, argument.

[Deidre]

Let me clarify--I don't believe married people should be treated like an elite class, and they are. Not that their rights be diminished but that they shouldn't gain special rights, and they do.

 

Marriage isn't a corporation and shouldn't be entitled to tax breaks and such as if it were.

 

What's love got to do with it?

 

[Deidre]

 

Hi Leo -- thank you for sharing all of that. I think we have reached as they say an impasse, lol. If you're happy Leo, that's all that matters. I think you can do all you describe without marriage.

This ^^ and in reference to all the posts in between.

I don't necessarily disagree with the points raised in the discussion about marriage as a legal status. However, in reference to rights, the rights that legal marriage now gives are not going away. The direction is toward adding the remaining rights to people who currently don't have them because they are not legally married (and in some cases are prohibited, such as in same sex relationships).

 

The other aspect of this entire discussion is about personal relationships.

"I think you can do all you describe without marriage."

 

However, there seems to have been an underlying implication that a devoted lifelong committed monogamous relationship is somehow unrealistic and/or inauthentic.

 

One does not need to discredit a valid option, for others, in order to justify a different option for one's self.

 

If you read post #253, I never discredited marriage. I don't believe married people deserve special rights over single people. Please be mindful to attach meaning to things I never said, Human.

 

I can have any opinion I choose on the topic. If you disagree, that's your choice, too.

 

 

On another note, thanks to everyone who shared here, from your own experiences and personal opinions. It's been eye opening for me, and for that, I'm grateful to have had the discussion. Thank you...