Re: More Than a Feeling - Boston
Posted by Dooshby on 12-26-2007 in Marriage vs. CohabitationMarriage is an evolving institution. For example, I could, back in the day, have married four chicks at once. In fact, I could have married children, waiting for them to mature and then consummate when they are of a reasonable age. I imagine marriage was a way for people to rationalize their desire to have sex and proclaim god or their city or king or whatever wanted it.
Given, marriage has been around longer than religion, but it could easily be used as a means to obtain an untouchable beauty or, politically, to unite two kingdoms, countries, whatever. I see it as more of a way to rationalize yourself to the public ("See? Now we are married! Our lust is justified!"), than as a healthy partnership. If I truly love a woman, I am able to keep myself faithful to her. What's more, I am able to trust in her faithfulness to me. There is no need to marry her, just as there is no need to wear genital cuffs or for her to cover her face in public or what have you.
Forcing a woman to wear a veil or stay home all day is a way for insecure or disloyal men to further indulge themselves in self-pity or promiscuity, or both.
All that crap being said, I see the merit of marriage in a community or family. Yes, it is a good foundation for trust and such to pass on to our children, but the stigma is that unmarried couples are seen as unclean or sinful. This is stupid.
Cohabitation allows you to understand more than your feeling of love for someone. I feel that love is not enough of a reason to marry another person. If you marry solely for love, you are gimping yourself, plain and simple. There are billions of people on this earth and to lock yourself to a single one on the basis of an intangible (and fleeting) emotion is impractical. Cohabitation is a way for couples to test their love, to come to understand one another's true face without the possibility of losing one's possessions (as in a divorce) if they find that they are incompatible in a household environment.
What is key is taking personal responsibility for yourself without having to be held up by some public oath or institution. Marriage should only be done when you are sure of yourself, your material assets, your self-esteem, and your confidence in the ability for you and your partner to apply yourselves to a community as a single organism. I cannot take responsibility for a wife before I learn to take responsibility for myself.
What I see is a lot of young people getting hitched too early and realizing what they really want when they mature (which could take decades) and either 1.) holding back, amputating their true desire or 2.) resorting to infidelity (physical or otherwise) and thus devastating their relationship.
Men and women need to learn that segregation of the sexes is a worthless endeavour. Let them get together and mingle in every aspect before they decide to swear before god, their family, their king, etc. that they are willing to take responsibility for one another.
In response to: More Than a Feeling - Boston
If marriage is just a legal formality, then screw it. There is no point.
Marriage is more than that.
It's a life-long commitment. It calls both parties to restrain self-centeredness and self-indulgence. Inside the frames of a marriage, you are called to make your spouse's needs your needs, and to reject any temptations to infidelity or actions that may hurt your husband/wife.
Marriage shapes us into people with values that tell us to think beyond ourselves. It is one of the best kinds of training for our participation in society. In taking this institution seriously, we are encouraged to take part in a relationship that disciplines us and curbs our self-centered tendencies.
Cohabitation does not do this.
It does not restrain our inclination to self-serve.
The tendency in such a relationship is that the individual dictates the status of the relationship according to personal opinion/needs. The glue that holds this sort of relationship together is the individual consent of each party, not a joint effort to succeed, and the relationship can fall apart the instant one person decides to give up. Yes, two people living together can love each other very much, but the door is left fairly open for abandonment. I do not believe that joint commitment reaches its highest potenital in this case.
Marriage gives the couple an umbrella of responsibility that they both must hold up. If one person wants to release his grip, the two have to seriously assess the situation and see if they can keep the umbrella up, or if they should let go and accept the rain (divorce).
Marriage is the stamp that establishes a mutual fight against self-interest with the goal of sacrificing for the whole.
Its implications are such that, like I said before, we are disciplined into truly loosening the grip on what we want, and considering the concerns of another.
Why is this important?
To reference a pamphlet I was given on marriage, such a relationship is healthy for social order. If people learn discipline and self-sacrificing love for another, society can improve. If such qualities are degenerating in the world, individuals may become increasingly self-serving, and society may face greater difficulties to advance.
Unfortunately, not everyone is born a commited Gandhi or a loving Mother Teresa. But the institute of marriage is a great practice that can help shape laymen into contributing and even sacrificing members of society. In learning to place our spouse before ourselves, we can learn to further value our neighbors as well.
Can this quality be learned elsewhere?
Sure.
But when it comes down to marriage versus cohabitation, I say marriage is the healthier choice, for the individual and the whole.