Marriage
While listening to sibling talk about her upcomming wedding she listed her reasons for getting married. These reasons include and seem to be limited to "love", "living together", and "babies". I know that one need not marry in order to love or live with someone. Upon consulting wikipedia I learned that "Marriage is not a prerequisite for having children." So I began to wonder what would happen if one removed the stupid shit from the equation and analysed objectively what the social institution of marriage actually did for the individuals involved.
I found this handy list of "Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States" which contained that which I desired. It seems that marriage is, in fact, not required to procreate, live together, or love one another. Marriage does, however, bestow certain rights such as power of attorney, survivor's benefits, various tax and legal benefits, and one's spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act.
So, since living together, loving one another, and making babies are in no way related to marriage as a social institution I must ask, "What the fuck?" If one desires to read books one need not obtain a library card. If one desires to live together, love one another, and procreate one need not get married.
I understand that there is a plethora of stupid shit that is baggaged onto the idea of marriage. But if we removed that stupid shit from the equation and view marriage as it actually is the necessity fades away and we are left with a bundle of legalese where once there existed a social proclamation of love.
23 comments:
problem is half of that "stupid shit" is socially, if not legally,
goddamn early posting.. hell with it. I'll come back to it later.
problem is half of that "stupid shit" is socially, if not legally,
Hmm?
Even if no legal perks were involved, isn't the idea of a public declaration of permanent partnership-in-all-things worth something?
In modern day America, the answer is "no," thanks to how commonplace divorce is.
Unless you decide divorce simply isn't ever an option for you. In which case, marriage might actually mean something.
The public declaration can occur without the legal documentation, though.
If someone wants to get married for the sake of getting married or for the legal consequences then, keen.
But if someone wants to get married to procreate, live together, and love...that's not what "marriage" does. One can procreate, live together, and love without marriage.
...In sort of the same way that one can read books and learn without going to school but one will not get a degree without going to school.
If one's goal is to learn then school is not required. If one's desire is to get a degree then school is required.
The same can be said of marriage. If one wants the legal status then one need get legally married. But there are an abundant number of things two people can do (including live together, make babies, love) that in no way require marriage.
So at the wedding ceremony while the pretense is a celebration of love in actuality it is merely an elaborate cover put over the signing of a legal document.
I think acknowledging the farce and focusing on what marriage actually does behooves people. So when sibling says she wants to live with her dipshit boyfriend and she loves him I can rightly say that marriage is not required to do those things. If she wants power of attorney and to change her surname...marriage is not required either.
But if she wants to be entitled to survivor's benefits? She totally ought to marry him.
I think my point was also that if she wanted to permanently declare undying commitment to boyfriend, in sickness and health, for richer or poorer, blah blah blah... then marriage/wedding is an excellent way to do that in a very public, big, serious fashion. It's a bit more than all the legal stuff. It's supposed to signify permanency; if you're just living with someone for an indeterminate amount of time, who's to say one of you won't decide to end it in the blink of an eye?
Marriage is supposed to be the beginning of total fidelity for life. It's just sad that nowadays, it hardly means that anymore.
And also, for some people, living together/having babies/loving unconditionally isn't a smart step until that marriage pledge of total commitment has been completed. Some people want more security/assurances of permanency before they start devoting so much of themselves to someone else. People like me. :)
"Some people want more security/assurances of permanency before they start devoting so much of themselves to someone else."
Marriage is not an assurance of permanence.
"It's supposed to signify permanency; if you're just living with someone for an indeterminate amount of time, who's to say one of you won't decide to end it in the blink of an eye?"
Marriage is supposed to signify a permanent bond, sure. But it doesn't. Just google "divorce statistics". If two people are living together one could decide to end it in the blink of an eye. If two people are married one could decide to end it in the blink of an eye.
Marriage is not an infallible cure-all for relationships. Marriage does not do anything. The people in the relationship are the ones who make the relationship work or fail. Signing a legal document, throwing a big party, ordering a gigantic cake, these are not the means by which a lasting relationship is forged.
Marriage creates a hoop of paperwork through which one need jump to leave the relationship, sure. But people can jump through that hoop. People can ignore the hoop and get in a car and drive away.
What marriage might create in some people is the mindset that they are dedicated to the relationship, that it is something more than just dating. But the marriage itself, the legal document, the big party, is not what creates this mindset. The person adopts it; they include it in their thinking about the relationship.
And that mindset can occur without marriage. The dedication can occur without marriage.
Marriage is keen if people want to get married and have the party and get gifts. But the relationship, the "bond" between the two people? That can occur without marriage, and marriage does not necessarily create that bond or strengthen it.
Marriage is just a piece of paper and a party. That's it. People can assume it to be something more, see it as something more, act as if it is something more if they desire.
But that efforting towards a lasting relationship occurs within the people who put forth that effort.
Marriage is supposed to be the beginning of total fidelity for life. It's just sad that nowadays, it hardly means that anymore.
for some people, living together/having babies/loving unconditionally isn't a smart step until that marriage pledge of total commitment has been completed.
That's the double-think that I mostly hate. The recognition that marriage itself does not do anything, that divorce exists, that married couples can and do break up, that staying together is a decision made by individuals and not a result of the marriage. While at the same time one maintains the belief that marriage does mean something.
It cannot be an assurance of nothing and an assurance of something; that is nonsense.
Signing a legal document, throwing a big party, ordering a gigantic cake, these are not the means by which a lasting relationship is forged.
That can occur without marriage, and marriage does not necessarily create that bond or strengthen it.
Speaking only about what marriage is and what it necessarily does neglects to address the things that it can do. I mean to point out that you're not giving marriage credit as a ritual. For, there some for whom marriage, once compacted, becomes an irrevocable element of the set of things from which they derive their sense of personal identity whether by effect of the practiced solemnity of the officiator or as a result continual meditation on the subject from the beginnings of their age of concious thought. It can be a meaningful interpersonal experince which facilitates the development of other personal rituals which serve and further develop an interpersonal relationship.
Additionally, I could intoduce you a couple which only stays together because neither of them believe in divorce. They're fixedly committed, through their bond of marriage, to their relationship of dinner at 5 o'clock, sleeping in different rooms, and discussing only major utility bill payments.
But, as with most things in our fine modern era, ceremony, ritual and symbolism don't seem to be thing that people understand.
I found this, which some might like to read.
"For, there some for whom marriage, once compacted, becomes an irrevocable element of the set of things from which they derive their sense of personal identity"
But that dedication to the marriage as an institution in which they believe comes from their own attitude towards marriage and not "marriage" itself.
"I could intoduce you a couple which only stays together because neither of them believe in divorce. They're fixedly committed, through their bond of marriage"
In this situation it is the attitude of the individuals and their own personal belief which binds them to the situation. Marriage does not do anything. Their dedication to the notion keeps them in their situation.
Legal issues aside nothing actually happens when two people are married. Their attitudes towards one another may change, their reasons for staying in the relationship may change, but these changes occur because the individual changes to fit their understanding of what "marriage" means.
The meaning of the ritual comes from each individual's attitude and reaction to that ritual.
For the couple who does not believe in divorce their attitude keeps them in that situation. "Marriage" does not keep them from getting a divorce. They keep themselves from getting a divorce.
I don't think I'm double-thinking so much as trying to show how one term is defined differently by different people.
Marriage to you is nothing. To me, it's a vow. I'm not completely committed to anyone for forever until I get the chance to declare it publicly, in a church-ordained ceremony. I couldn't care less about the legal document, really; I'd get married even if it was authorized by the church I go to and not the government. It's important to me because I'm swearing something to my spiritual leadership and peers, as well as to God.
For those who don't need that kind of validation/permission/oversight, marriage can well mean nothing, and divorce is ever an option. That's just not the case for me. Marriage as you define it really doesn't mean much, you're right. Marriage in my Christian tradition means a whole lot more.
Marriage does not do anything. Their dedication to the notion keeps them in their situation.
But, could it not be the notion itself that is the impetus for their dedication to the notion?
"But, could it not be the notion itself that is the impetus for their dedication to the notion?"
It's their view of the notion that motivates them. "Marriage" doesn't do anything. The individual's thought that "Once I am married then X happens" is what makes X happen, or not happen.
"I'm not completely committed to anyone for forever until I get the chance to declare it publicly, in a church-ordained ceremony."
That's what doesn't make sense to me. Why does this thing have to happen before you can be completely committed? Why must you jump through that hoop? What does the hoop do?
Because my understanding is that your understanding of the hoop is what motivates you. Once you jump through the hoop then you are dedicated. Before you jump through the hoop you are not.
But that's just your attitude, your perspective. Nothing happens when you jump through the hoop. So why is the hoop required? Your attitude and perspective and belief and mentality will keep you in the relationship. You're the one who dedicates yourself and believes yourself into that situation.
What did the hoop itself do?
Why have a ritual?
Because it makes it more interesting? Because a ritual is something concrete to which we can attribute meaning? Because the ritual serves as a recognizeable beginning?
How is those not completely childish reasons for grasping to these socially accepted norms?
Is it really the case that today and tomorrow my sibling and her male are not really all that dedicated to one another but when they exchange rings Saturday around 5 o'clock some churchbells sound, an angel gets its wings, and they'll be truly dedicated?
How the hell does that make any sense?
so..
the issue is.. what..
that the act changes people or that people give the act meaning?
If marriage changes the people involved, then J is objectively wrong..
But if the parties involved give marriage meaning... then his entire issue is unchanged, and has gone unchallenged. That marriage in and of itself in no way enables the reasons his sister gave FOR getting married.
And if that is the case, that it's shaped by those GETTING married, then ostensibly, the marriage is not needed, but rather serves only to reinforce allready extant attituded within the newlyweds, no?
J, quit being so platonic.
"That's what doesn't make sense to me. Why does this thing have to happen before you can be completely committed? Why must you jump through that hoop? What does the hoop do?"
Let me put it this way: it is my desire to jump through this hoop that qualifies me for total commitment to one man in the eyes of the church. If I wasn't willing to declare my intentions in a way that allows my spiritual authorities to hold me to that vow, then that means I wasn't willing to go all the way in the first place.
Total commitment in one's one mind alone is not as powerful as a promise made to your spiritual leaders and God Himself, in addition to your life-partner and to yourself. More peer pressure, if anything, if you want to be that crass.
"More peer pressure, if anything, if you want to be that crass."
And I do.
I'll give you the religious component being sensible in a religious context regardless of what we think of the religious context. The problem is...
"Total commitment in one's one mind alone is not as powerful as a promise made to your spiritual leaders and God Himself, in addition to your life-partner and to yourself."
1) I am dedicated.
2) I tell my parents I am dedicated.
3) I tell God I am dedicated.
4) I tell friends and relatives I am dedicated.
In the view you present 2-4 have more meaning than 1. But 2-4 only have meaning in your thinking they have meaning.
So if one's own dedication (1) is insufficient to create the bond then it stands to reason that 2-4 are equally insufficient given that their meaning is, too, based upon your dedication to them.
If we were to give quantities to these levels of dedication let's say that your dedication before marriage to your significant other is 4, your dedication to God is 8, your dedication to your parents is 5, your dedication to your friends is 4.8.
You are the one dedicating yourself to those levels.
So if you can dedicate yourself to God with 8 dedication without marriage why would marriage be required to boost your dedication to your significant other from 4 to 8 or, dare I say, higher?
If you can choose to care about God's opinion, your family's opinion, your friend's opinion, and utilize that concern to dedicate yourself (as a result of your attitude and belief towards those levels of dedication) why not just dedicate yourself to that level without the need of those other things?
If you think that God has meaning then your promise about marriage made to God will somehow contain an aspect of the meaning you think God has and so the promise will borrow from God's meaning to itself gain a greater degree of meaning.
But why go through that convoluted process and not simply declare the meaning yourself (which you are doing anyway)?
Why hide behind the illusion rather than stand on your mountain and proclaim your dedication independent of peripherals?
Not to stick my foot in this mire, but..
"Total commitment in one's one mind alone is not as powerful as a promise made to your spiritual leaders and God Himself, in addition to your life-partner and to yourself."
seems to be at least a little.. well.. self-depreciating? I mean.. I mean.. I can understand being.. consigned, I guess... to breaking a promise to yourself, but once you involve others, you're responsible for more.. that I can understand, as I've done it all my life, though it DEFINATELY raises some sense of depreciated self-esteem..
What I don't quite get is why it has to be public? That seems.. well.. tantamount to saying "I'm not actually trustworthy without witnesses to hold me to my actions." That would rankle quite a bit, whether it was someone else claiming it or if it was a private claim leveled at myself.
It makes me question the choice of the phrase Total Commitment. Seems like you're holding two seperate definitions, one for an individual, and one for a community.
"What I don't quite get is why it has to be public? That seems.. well.. tantamount to saying "I'm not actually trustworthy without witnesses to hold me to my actions." That would rankle quite a bit, whether it was someone else claiming it or if it was a private claim leveled at myself."
Additionally, one's own attitude towards the views of others is what gives them meaning. So if one can say that one ought not to break the vow because they made the vow in front of others couldn't one use that same restricting force based upon their personally making the vow?
If a private vow is more breakeable than a vow made in public then simply switch one's view of the situation and deem private more meaningful and important then public.
Problem solved.
Holy cow. I'm really starting to wonder why I began trying to explain this. :) Occam's razor isn't working for you guys, I can see.
J, you're just too much of a Platonist to understand. I'm of the persuasion that intention+action=reality/validity, but with you, it's all mental constructs.
"What I don't quite get is why it has to be public? That seems.. well.. tantamount to saying "I'm not actually trustworthy without witnesses to hold me to my actions." That would rankle quite a bit, whether it was someone else claiming it or if it was a private claim leveled at myself."
It's less about being untrustworthy (although for many people, especially a century ago, it's a very effective and sometimes necessary failsafe) than it is about inviting the trusted community around you to support your commitment, even help you through the rough spots. Maybe you don't actually need them to encourage your level of commitment; but it's nice to have them involved all the same. If no man is an island, why should a couple be?
J is very individualistic, and it seems like he simply doesn't fancy the idea of anyone else's input.
I don't see a need for anyone else's input. It's your relationship, your life, your attitude towards it, you're efforting and working to make the relationship last.
Is it really imperative that you make a verbal vow in front of the guy who cuts your hair and your high school Latin teacher?
Is that entirely necessary?
(Note: I spent all day setting up for Sibling's wedding and attending the pre-wedding runthrough and I've got to say nothing has made me question my views.)
Because when you're there watching it and paying attention to what actually happens? It's so incredibly needless.
Tomorrow is the wedding, though. So let's see how I feel when I'm in a tux.
Heheh. Actually, it would be very important to me for my high school Latin teacher to be there. He's a very old family friend. :)
I agree that the hustle and bustle and formality of a big to-do wedding is pretty darn needless. It's mostly fun for the girls, cause there's lots of shiny stuff, etc....
But at minimum, I think a quiet ceremony with about five people would be essential. No big fuss, but you still don't have to feel like you're going it alone, and you have the recognition of some kind of community.
My take is, no matter how much something is "yours", it's tons nicer if you have an opportunity to share it with a third party. Or at least sit them down, point out the delightful thing you're involved in, and say, "Look, look! Isn't this cool?!"
So much more fun if you're able to spread your enthusiasm about something around. A wedding is just as much a celebration as anything. Who wants to celebrate all by themselves--generally speaking?
Post a Comment