RoR: Forum

Hi Matthew,

I'm glad you are the first to respond to my little screed, because you are always reasonable.

I personally think it highly unlikely (not impossible) that the majority of people will find that special person, even if they do look for them.

That's too bad, but probably true. Most people do not find much of anything of real value in their lives. I think it is partly true, however, because most people are not true romantics and do not believe they can really achieve and enjoy their highest ideals and aspirations. For those few who do, however, I certainly believe finding the special person is possible. For them, the answer to your next question is irrelevant because they won't settle for less than their own values demand.

As for the question, Do you think people should live without any sex or romance at all if they don't find that person?

I do not mean to evade your question, but I do not think about what other people should do with their lives so long as they do not interfere in mine. Everyone must choose for themselves what they believe is their means for fulfilling the purpose of their life, which is their enjoyment of it. I do not know how those who are incapable of achieving their ideals, or believe they are, should then proceed to live. I do know those who think they can substitute something less for the more they despair of finding will never be fully satisfied. Are they happy? I do not know, but I do know I could not be.

Now I have a question. There is a common unstated assumption implied in all these discussions that needs to be made explicit. It is assumed, apparently, that happiness is not possible without sex. You, at least separated sex and romance, but I suspect you still conflate them. Is sex, in your view, essential to human happiness? If it is, than all those who, through circumstance or physical condition, are incapable of having sex are doomed to unhappiness by conditions beyond their control--a view inimical to Objectivism. If it isn't, why all the worry about whether or not someone has sex?

I'm not making a point so much as raising an issue I think needs to be discussed.

Thanks for the comments and question.

Regi

Post 21

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 8:54am

Regi,

Thanks for the response. I actually misread the last paragraph of your post 17, so just to clarify, what I'm disagreeing with is that you seem to be saying that those who settle for less than the perfect partner are always accepting something squalid. Personally I think it is possible to have a fulfilling relationship with someone who is not your "perfect partner" but whom you find attractive and with whom you do have a considerable about of shared interests and values. To hold out for an ideal person that you may never find seems to me to verge on intrisicism. How long term any given relationship of that sort proves to be will depend on the precise context.

I do think you've raised an interesting issue in whether sex is essential to happiness. I would say that for most people, a fullfilling romantic relationship is an important component of happiness, and I think that sex is an important component of a fullfilling relationship. So I wouldn't say that people can't possibly be happy without being in a relationship (I personally am single at the present time, and wouldn't describe myself as being unhappy), and neither would I say that those who are in relationships but can't have sex for whatever reason can't have a fullfilling relationship. I hope that's reasonably clear. LOL

MH

Post 22

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 11:25am

Hi Byron,

You must have posed immediately after Matthew. I think some of my comments to him also apply to your post.

Pleasure is not happiness, but I do not see how pursuing it can be irrational or immoral.

It isn't. Seeking pleasure is neither immoral or irrational, so long as the pleasure sought is the result of rational choice and not mere yielding to desire or passion, which makes the individual the slave of their emotions, not the master of them.

I said in my introduction to the The Autonomist's Notebook, under, "The Cost of Freedom:"

"You want to know where to begin? It must begin with an agreement with yourself to seek and follow the truth above all other things. Until you hold the truth above all other things, above all feelings, all desires, all allegiances or commitments, you can never be free and are doomed to perpetual servitude to any irrational feeling, whim, or passion to which you are willing to sacrifice your reason and therefore your will. The beginning of freedom is to free yourself from all those emotions, which uncontrolled, are demons which possess and control you, but under your control become your servants, providing you strength, enthusiasm, motivation, pleasure, and joy in every aspect of your life."

Whenever someone says to me, "what's wrong with seeking pleasure," it indicates to me, it is pleasure, and their desire for it, the individual has placed in the driver's seat of their life, and what is wrong with it, is they are doomed to crash unless they retake control, and base their choices on reason. Pleasure is the result of right choice, seeking it directly is an abdication of choice to whim.

I remember reading an exchange between you and Ed about alcohol, which is another form of pleasure that is good in moderation but, if taken too far, can lead to unhappiness.

The only way alcohol could be a source of unhappiness for me is if I should run out of it, an extremely unlikely possibility. Seriously, those for whom alcohol, or any other pleasure is a difficulty is because there choices are driven by the desire for the pleasure, not their reason about how to use that pleasure for their own rational self interest. Ayn Rand did not drink because she did not like the way it made her feel. Others do drink solely on the basis of how it makes them feel. For me, drinking is a very minor pleasure, one I would readily drop if it interfered with any other rational objective.

I will also make clear I believe it is possible to find happiness in a relationship aside from marriage per se. I do not see how the formalities of marriage are necessary to pursue a long-term relationship, especially considering there are legal alternatives. To me, marriage is but another old-fashioned, religious tradition.

Personally, I do not understand what most people think marriage, or its purpose is. I know quite well what the historic, religious, and cultural significance of marriage is, but why most people desire or seek it is so individualistic, it defies a comprehensive description. The only cultural aspect of marriage that has meaning for me is the almost universal recognition of it as a declaration the married individuals, as romantic prospects, are off limits to all others. I have never thought of marriage as a contract, with some kind of binding force, but rather, as a declaration of something that is already a fact, and would be a fact, with no formality and no declaration.

To me, a marriage does not put two people together and bind them somehow, a marriage is the public celebratory announcement of the fact that two people are already bound by that love which makes them inseparable. If force (of law or religion) is required to keep two people together, they should not be together. Two people who already belong together cannot be separated by anything short death, that is the reason for the expression, "'til death do us part," because nothing else in heaven or earth that can do it. (This is, of course, somewhat exaggerated--I'm thinking of the lovers separated and sent on separate trains, most likely to their deaths, in We the Living.)

What do you think of Nathaniel Branden's take on it in his latter books on self-esteem?

I have no use for Nathaniel Branden or his opinions on anything. I regard him as a phoney who uses the name Objectivism to spin is own version of Freudian psychobable. You asked.

Regi

Edited due to highlighting, and he pasted the post bar from an earlier post.

(Edited by Joseph Rowlands on 5/25, 9:41pm)

Post 23

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 12:32pm

Hi, Regi.

Your statement on marriage is excellent. Your justification of the institution is impeccably Objectivist, yet this whim-worshipping mystic can find nothing in it to disagree with. Perhaps, just perhaps, that�s because what you wrote is true of the human condition.

One of your statements brings to mind the paramount role of reason in romance: >>Do most find that? Never; but most never look for that in the first place. They do not believe it is possible. Their tawdry souls do not believe one's highest values are achievable in this world, they settle for the squalid and commonplace.<<

Correct. Most people are their own worst enemy. They sell themselves short and so preclude the possibility of greater things in their lives. But they also don�t want to work too hard for what they desire. Romantic love is a labor. It must be cultivated. It is sustained by reason while passion ebbs and flows. Romance endures because of the head, not the heart.

Fortunately, this does not require, pace Matthew, finding the �perfect partner�. Rather it requires finding a like-minded soul who is ready to roll up her sleeves with you to build the perfect love. Without that common objective, no partner will ever be perfect, because your union has no purpose beyond the horizon of the moment. Conversely, with that common objective, no partner ever need be perfect, because the happiness born of your union�s purpose will smooth the way.

Whether or not my observation strictly accords with Objectivism, I don�t know. But I do recognize that a romance not founded upon reason will be nothing more than the transient coupling some of the Objectivists in this thread laud as enlightened self-interest. I find it curious as to how this self-interest is frequently expressed in terms of liberating oneself from another � e.g., divorce. It seems to me that reason genuinely in service to self-interest would prevent most doomed relationships at the outset, and reason employed to sustain a romance that has become rocky is more in one�s self-interest than destroying it.

The reluctance to embrace the traditional view of marriage as a lifelong commitment is certainly not peculiar to Objectivists. It is society�s general disposition toward that institution. However, I wonder if many Objectivists are particularly reluctant, because they cannot square self-interest with a deep life-changing interest in the well-being of another? If so, perhaps your instruction on the matter shows the way.

Regards,

Bill

Post 24

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 12:46pm

Hi, Regi & Byron.

Byron said to Regi: >>I remember reading an exchange between you and Ed about alcohol, which is another form of pleasure that is good in moderation but, if taken too far, can lead to unhappiness.<<

I'll add to Regi's comment the fact that a bottle of whiskey doesn't care what you take from it, but a woman, if she has any self-respect, might resent her reduction to nothing but an object of pleasure. Whether or not her resentment is rational, I've always thought it in my self-interest to keep the number of scorned women after me to a minimum. ;)

Regards,
Bill

Post 25

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 1:16pm

However, I wonder if many Objectivists are particularly reluctant, because they cannot square self-interest with a deep life-changing interest in the well-being of another?

Bill,

I won't speak for the others but that certainly isn't my reason. If I meet "Ms Right" (by which I do not mean a perfect partner, but perhaps someone who is close to it) and marry her, then I would genuinely hope the marriage to last till the grave. However, people grow and change with time, and therefore I can not discount the possibility that my feelings for her would change in such a way that the best resolution would be a (hopefully amicable) parting of the ways.

In many situations it may even be preferable for the lovers to come to a somewhat less formal arrangment, such as long term cohabitation.

MH

Post 26

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 2:39pm

Hi, Matthew.

You said: >>If I meet "Ms Right" (by which I do not mean a perfect partner, but perhaps someone who is close to it) and marry her, then I would genuinely hope the marriage to last till the grave.<<

You sounded a bit despondent about that prospect in an earlier post (although I didn't have in you mind when I remarked about Objectivist reluctance). My advice, for what it's worth, is that reason WILL make this prospect more rather than less likely. A love that lasts a lifetime requires the head as well as the heart.

Regards,
Bill

Post 27

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 4:07pm

Regi,

I find your comments interesting and I have had to reevaluate my position. Perhaps I should learn to phrase my arguments more carefully? I am not sure we disagree on fundamental principles, for I like to think I do share your very Romantic perspective on romantic love. My disagreement was with Mr. Stolyarov's assertion that sex outside the context of marriage (as an institution) is wrong, while marriage within the context of marriage is right. In other words, I think it is an "either-or" fallacy for it to be either marriage or hedonism (I do think hedonism, or seeking pleasure for pleasure's sake, as irrational, for the reasons you eloquently gave in your "Autonomist Notebook"). From what I took from what you wrote in your posts, when two people truly love one another, a marriage contract almost becomes superfluous.

To answer the question you posed (I like how you cut things down to the essentials), I think that sex is not a necessary condition for love or happiness, in the same manner that money or social approval does not buy you love or happiness. I do think it is icing on the cake (for lack of a better analogy), and very sweet icing at that. To think otherwise, to think that you can find happiness in the physical act of sex, would be putting the cart before the horse.

I have a question about your statement on the "one true love" being the highest value. Are you implying it is not possible to find happiness in your life without a romantic partner? Or am I misunderstanding your position? I know that a romantic partner makes the journey through life all the more better by leaps and bounds, but I am not so sure being with someone is all that necessary to find happiness.

Byron

Note: Edited for rather inane blunders.

(Edited by Byron Garcia on 5/25, 4:42pm)

Post 28

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 4:18pm

Citizen Rat,

You are right to say that it is unfair to compare a woman to a bottle of whiskey. However, I do know quite a few women who do look like a bottle of whiskey, with no self-respect I should add. :-)

Seriously, I gave the alcohol example (however imperfect) to show that pleasure, in and of itself, is neither moral or immoral, but in fact depends on context. I also do not believe a woman is an object of pleasure, in spite of what I saw in places like Thailand and the Philippines. I do believe that sex is a pleasure that a man and woman can enjoy together, more so if they love one another.

As for the stuff about religious institutions being a barrier to statism, how about we agree to disagree? I am one of the brick walls you mentioned.

Byron

Post 29

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 6:14pm

Matthew,

Thanks for the good and important question.

... what I'm disagreeing with is that you seem to be saying that those who settle for less than the perfect partner are always accepting something squalid....

You are right, I do seem to be saying that, but it is not what I intended, because as you suggest, it would be wrong.

What, after all is a "perfect" partner. Here is what I think a perfect partner is. First I must consider my values. Anyone I cannot live with and love because of a conflict in those values obviously will not do. Secondly, I must consider my own personality, interests, and long term goals. Anyone who could not get along with my type of personality, would prevent me from pursuing my interests, or could not share in my long term goals would not do, either. Finally, I must find someone I find interesting and pleasing, which is the easiest part of all, because since I was seven, there is hardly a woman I have ever met who was not both interesting and pleasing to me. Finally I must find a woman fulfilling all the other criteria who is willing to have me. That is the hardest part of all, because any woman with the character and intelligence to fit my other criteria is going to be very discriminating and I'm going to have to work damn hard to measure up.

The idea of "holding out," for the "ideal" mate, I think, does not fit my description of what a "perfect" partner is. The perfect partner is the one that fits the criteria I described and there are probably many possible partners that fit it. What finally makes the partner ideal, is the selection itself, because that choice is a declaration to the one you love that, out of all the possible mates I might have been chosen, you are the one I choose.

Now you may or may not agree with this, but the choosing is an almost magical thing. (You know I do not mean in any mystical way, we are talking romance here.) Since both of us must choose the other, that means that both of us are chosen by the other. It is one thing to choose, but it is quite another to be chosen. When the person you love tells you, "of all the people in the world, you are the one I desire to share my life with in every way," however much you already love that person, at that moment you love that person in a new way, because they have now become the ideal you sought.

Now let me make a very mundane comparison. When Hank Reardon was looking for a place to start his steel mill, he might have had an "ideal" place in mind. When he settled on one, whether it fit his imagined ideal or not, it certainly was the right choice, and once chosen, was the perfect place for his steel mill. The same, however, would be true, if he had chosen a different site. The choice seals the fact, and from that moment on, what was only a possibility, becomes a reality, and what was, before the choice, only the best one could find, becomes after the choice, the best there is.

Just one other brief comment. Everyone is different. Everyone does not like opera; in fact, more do not like it than do. Nevertheless, I regard opera as the most exquisite, beautiful, and enjoyable of all music. Likewise, marriage is not for everyone, and there is no doubt in my mind some individuals live completely happy fulfilled lives without marriage. Nevertheless, for those who can find and enjoy it, marriage is the most exquisite, beautiful, and thoroughly satisfying life possible to man.

Regi

Post 30

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 7:12pm

Bill,

Thank you for the nice comments. I think we shall make an Objectivist of you yet.

I did not make this good point you made, and it is certainly true and important.

Fortunately, this does not require, pace Matthew, finding the �perfect partner�. Rather it requires finding a like-minded soul who is ready to roll up her sleeves with you to build the perfect love. Without that common objective, no partner will ever be perfect, because your union has no purpose beyond the horizon of the moment. Conversely, with that common objective, no partner ever need be perfect, because the happiness born of your union�s purpose will smooth the way.

I am not sure what a, "perfect mate," or "perfect love," or, "perfect marriage, " would be, any more than I would know what a perfect company, or perfect product is. Perfection, it seems to me, is the ideal toward which one aspires, and the right partner would be the one who has the same aspirations and is most eager and able to join in working toward them, and making it the most enjoyable and rewarding effort possible. To me, marriage is an adventure, and the rough spots are often the most interesting and rewarding parts of that adventure, and that is part of the romance.

There is one other thing you made me think of that is very important. Marriage really is something two people build. It is a growing concern, a for-profit venture. The kind of love and joy shared by two people married for thirty, forty, or more years is the product and reward of a shared enterprise, of memories of hard things won, difficulties overcome, goals achieved, and millions of small pleasures unique to their shared life, and there is no other way to achieve that kind of triumphant happiness.

Regi

Post 31

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 7:43pm

Bryon,

I also think we are not so far apart on fundamental principles, and since my post to Matthew actually addresses some of your comments I will only answer your question:

I have a question about your statement on the "one true love" being the highest value. Are you implying it is not possible to find happiness in your life without a romantic partner? Or am I misunderstanding your position? I know that a romantic partner makes the journey through life all the more better by leaps and bounds, but I am not so sure being with someone is all that necessary to find happiness.

What I said to matthew was, "marriage is not for everyone, and there is no doubt in my mind some individuals live completely happy fulfilled lives without marriage. Nevertheless, for those who can find and enjoy it, marriage is the most exquisite, beautiful, and thoroughly satisfying life possible to man.

However, I believe those for whom marriage is not meant to be are the exception. But, the kind of, "triumphant happiness," (as I described it to Bill) which marriage makes possible, is only possible to those who do marriage well. Like everything else in life, must people do not do it well. Most people do not do well at earning a living either, but those who choose to earn their way in this life, rather than become welfare parasites, are still happier, even it they do not do it well; and those who are married have a much better chance of finding happiness than those who are not, even if they do not do marriage very well.

Regi

Post 32

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 7:47pm

Hi, Byron.

You suggested: >>As for the stuff about religious institutions being a barrier to statism, how about we agree to disagree? I am one of the brick walls you mentioned.<<

I have read enough of what you have written, Byron, to not doubt you have the right stuff to resist the state on your own. Many of us do have the necessary wit and conviction to do so. But it is fact that the institutions of civil society -- e.g., families, businesses, churches, schools -- are fundamental to containing the excesses of the state. (That is one reason why elections in place like Iraq make no sense until a civil society is constituted there.) They provide the structures for people to organize against the state when necessary.

Of course civil institutions can be co-opted by state. This is certainly true of religion, business, and academia. But I'm unaware of the family ever being co-opted by the state. Tyranny has prevailed over the family only by destroying it. Because the institution of marriage is the foundation of the family, all friends of liberty should value its preservation if some do not find a need for it themselves. And if other civil institutions act to support the marriage and the family -- for example, the church -- they are allies and not enemies of liberty.

Regards,
Bill

Post 33

Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 8:01pm

Hi, Regi.

>>Thank you for the nice comments.<<

You're welcome.

>>I think we shall make an Objectivist of you yet.<<

Well, as I think I mentioned elsewhere, it would be unjust of me to not credit Rand for an important influence upon my thinking.

>>The kind of love and joy shared by two people married for thirty, forty, or more years is the product and reward of a shared enterprise, of memories of hard things won, difficulties overcome, goals achieved, and millions of small pleasures unique to their shared life, and there is no other way to achieve that kind of triumphant happiness.<<

And there is nothing like the extraordinary joy you feel when you discover that such happiness can be yours. No wonder once you find the woman who can provide that happiness, you know you'll never let her go -- even if that means a lot of hard work to keep romance going.

Regards,
Bill

Post 34

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 2:01am

This whole conversation went downhill.

The article exposed an equivocation between the legal status of marriage, and the actual relationship. If the two are confused, the status is given priority over the health of the actual relationship. It doesn't matter if you love or hate the other person, as long as you stay together than you're still married.

Stolyarov argued along the ground that stability and permanence are desirable. I rebutted that happiness must be the goal, and a stability that comes at the expense of happiness is wrong. Your goal must be happiness, and the stability will follow if you're successful. But as soon as you chase after the effect (a long lasting relationship), you sacrifice the cause (a loving, happy relationship).

Citizen Rat and Regi then stepped in arguing against promiscuity! Since nobody on this thread ever said that meaningless sex was the ideal, it can only be interpreted in one way. They're promoting a horrible false dichotomy. http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Rowlands/False_Dichotomies.shtml

The false dichotomy is between meaningless relationships where happiness is impossible, and permanent relationships where happiness doesn't matter. It's a false dichotomy because it isn't exhaustive. It completely ignores the possibility of an actual relationship based on love, sex, and happiness. Notice how it's being used as a dichotomy. If someone argues against the permanent relationship that is at the cost of happiness, they immediately think that means promiscuity.

This false dichotomy is at least partially founded on the equivocation argued against in the article. Marriage is supposed to be the opposite of meaningless sex because marriage is often viewed as this positive, loving relationship that has the two people happy with each other. But then the equivocation happens, and marriage is suddenly the static meaning. It's just a state, and has nothing to do with whether the people love or hate each other. All actual relationships are equal as long as the ring is still on the fingers. And this ugly version of marriage is then upheld as the opposite of promiscuity. I'm not surprised religious conservatives support this view, as they seem to roundly oppose happiness on this earth. It's the perfect dichotomy for them, and they're able to say that anyone who seeks happiness is a slut.

Regi later defined marriage in a radically different way along the lines of the dynamic relationship that people hope for when they say marriage, but I see that as inconsistent with his initial statement. His first statement was that sex outside of wedlock was promiscuous, which is the briefest and most precise way of describing the false dichotomy. I can hope that his later statements are the one's he stands by.

As for the rat, it's not surprising that he identifies his real reason for supporting marriage. He supports it as a collectivist institution that he hopes will rival the State. This view is based on a complete rejection of individualism, self-interest, and happiness. Those hoping to solve collectivism with a different kind of collectivism are no allies of Objectivism.

Mr. Stolyarov, I also thought I was being clever. Thank you. But really, you should get over your obsession with it. The old Atlas Point system is gone. You're living in the past. And the point system is just for fun. The respect you've earned on this site is not due to having more Atlas Icons then others, but in your actual contributions.

Post 35

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 9:42am

What do some of these questions, such as: "is it possible to find true love" or "are you settling if the person is not 100% perfect" or "can you be truley happy if involved with multiple partners?" have to do with whether or not marriage is required for happiness?

Other than some financial benefits, there is nothing that marriage can offer to people that actually improves their relationship. And other than these financial benefits, every benefit you think marriage offers can be achieved without it as well. People don't love each other more because they are married. A good relationship is built on the people in it, not a lincense they may have gotten along the way.

However, marriage can be used as a way to tie someone to you even when you may not deserve them anymore. I think this is the unconditional love idea people have. A girl will get fat after she gets married and if her husband is turned off by it, she'll go off about how he should love her even if she's an unemployed, overweight, drug-addict because he's her husband. So if you believe in unconditional love, or if you think that unconditional love is a necessary result if you _truley_ love someone, advocate your belief in that, not in marriage. Because not everyone will define it as you do.

I do think that many marriages succeed. But, it's in spite of being married, not because of it. It's because two people loved each other before the marriage, and they still do. The marriage was just some milestone they've always figured they'd cross and did, whether it was necessary or not. I don't see anything in the marriage that made it easier for them to stay together. On the other hand, a couple that stays together just because they are married I don't define as a good relationship. And marriage does play a part in their staying together.

Which I guess is how I look at marriage. If you're happy together, you'll be happy together before and after marriage (or after what would have been the time you got married if you choose not to get the license). So I don't see marriage as helping any happy couples. But, I also see marriage as binding together two people who are unhappy. Either they always were unhappy, or they became that way. Again in either case, I don't see marriage as contributing anything positive.

-Elizabeth

Post 36

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 9:44am

Joe:

First of all, I am genuinely sorry that you missed the point of the discussion Regi, Byron, and I were having.

To wit: Reason is fundamental to the happiness of a romance, and that happiness is marked in terms of the love two people build together. The moment can always provide pleasure; but happiness comes from satisfaction with past effort and anticipation of what those efforts will provide. Animals live to sate their impulses. Humans live to realize their dreams. Thus a romance not joined to endure can do little more than slake the lusts of the moment. If that is all two people want of each other, sobeit; but they should not fool themselves into believing they have something more than that.

As for this statement of yours: >>As for the rat, it's not surprising that he identifies his real reason for supporting marriage. He supports it as a collectivist institution that he hopes will rival the State. This view is based on a complete rejection of individualism, self-interest, and happiness. Those hoping to solve collectivism with a different kind of collectivism are no allies of Objectivism.<<

For heaven's sake, a husband and wife are a collective? A collective of two? That makes the term rather meaningless, don't you think?

Anyway, what's so awful about promoting the institutions of civil society? What gripe does Objectivism have with individuals banding together in private organizations to resist the insidious agenda of the Left? Isn't this forum an example of that?

Well, I'm satisfied that what I've said isn't inconsistent with Objectivism. So there's no need to answer, Joe. Besides I know responding to my obtuseness irritates you, so please spare yourself the grief.

Regards,
Bill

Post 37

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 10:10am

Elizabeth:

I don't understand your complaint. If you do not find marriage to be of use to you, you have no obligation to bother with it. That's your business. If another couple wants it to formalize their relationship, that's their business, right? If some on this thread have expressed the value they have found in the institution, why should that be disconcerting to you? To each his own, right?

So if you are worried that marriage might chain you to a mate who gets too fat, don't get married! ;)

Regards,
Bill

(Edited by Citizen Rat on 5/26, 10:12am)

Post 38

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 11:46am

Elizabeth,

You said, "If you're happy together, you'll be happy together before and after marriage (or after what would have been the time you got married if you choose not to get the license). So I don't see marriage as helping any happy couples."

It is really too bad that marriage has come to mean a contract, because that is not really the meaning of marriage, and there is certainly nothing "binding" about marriage today. I also cannot believe that any still think marriage is something that forces people to stay together who don't choose to, and that people cannot have any kind of relationship they like in these days, without marriage. Do they have no idea at all how things are today. There is not a single kind of relationship anyone can imagine that people cannot enter into if they choose, or exit if they choose, and they do, all the time.

Now the meaning I give to marriage is not something externally binding, but the identification of a fact. When two people love each other in that way that makes them desire, and choose, above all other things, to live, love, and make a life together with each other, they are married. Some people like to formalize that state, to publicly recognize it, to announce and celebrate it. A wedding is nothing more than a public expression of what is already true.

Marriage in that sense is not possible to just anyone, without, "true love," or with multiple partners. I think romantic love is like great music, some cannot enjoy any music, because they are tone deaf (or totally deaf), others can enjoy popular music, but not classical music, because it is too demanding. Some enjoy classical music, and those who do, cannot imagine not having it to enjoy.

I am not interested in convincing the "marital" deaf to get married, but I do suggest for those who may never have really thought about it, that marriage is an expression and realization of the highest human value beings are capable of, romantic love. For those who are capable of it, they ought not to miss it if possible, but those who a capable of it, seldom do.

One reason I do not argue about marriage with the young, besides the fact that most are so hormone addled they cannot think straight about love, is because it is not something one can, "prove," any more than one can, "prove," the duet from Bizet's "Pearl Fishers" (Les p cheurs de perles) is beautiful. One has to hear it and have the ability to appreciate it. I think the kind of love I am talking about is like that.

Regi

Post 39

Wednesday, May 26, 2004 - 12:18pm