RoR: Forum

Greetings.

My long-awaited treatise on marriage is now complete. I will have submitted it to the SOLO queue in a matter of minutes. Hopefully, it shall be published here within the next several weeks.

Titled, "A Rational Defense of Marriage," it is an intellectual feast, spiced with conviction and flavored with integrity. It is, I warn, quite lengthy, as the topic deserves a thorough explication. I have found, with feasts, that, if too much is eaten at the same time, unpleasant consequences can occur. Thus, I will offer you an option to pursue at your leisure. The essay has been posted on TRA at http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/marriage.html. Feel free to read it, ponder it, and think of responses. But, for the sake of courtesy and efficiency of debate in this forum, please do not post comments here until it has been officially published on SOLO. (If you are dying to have your say, or fear forgetting certain components of your response, you may use TRA's forum, on which I shall post a thread pertaining to the essay.)

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 81

Friday, June 11, 2004 - 11:20am

Hey I just wanted to throw in a couple of my own thoughts, since I seem to think of marriage differently, although there was no way I was going to be able to read all 80 posts to know whether my position has been covered....

Let me try to roughly pinpoint the two main sides of argument:

(1) Marriage as a sort of contract, with the conveniences of marriage as the desired end and all romantic relationships as means to this end. We should consciously seek a wife or husband in the context of romance, devoting every move in romance towards it, and when we believe we have a good match, we can create the contract and focus on life as a married couple.

(2) Marriage is irrational and inconsiderate of context. Strong emphasis on the dynamics of changing people and awarenesses, something in which the structure of marriage would not allow into context. Give me Happiness or give me marriage!

I know that I haven't covered all of the arguments, but this was the gist of the conversation that I read in the first 20 posts or so. I think that both sides have great points, but in the end remove marriage from its link in the dynamics of romantic relationships. I would argue that the dynamics of a romantic relationship, if both people are moving in the right direction, would ~eventually~ lead to the desire for marriage. And marriage, in this sense, could be the highest statement of a romantic relationship.  Let me go on....

In (1), you cannot consider romantic relationships in that linear way (romance as mere means to potential marriage), for the simple fact that there is a great deal of context to establish in between. Going into a romantic relationship, there are just waaaaay too many layers before that of marriage. I'd always be suspect if a woman started talking about all of them things waaaaaay too early. The reason I think we should go into a romantic relationship is the same reason we do anything we find good for us: we both enjoy the person and feel as though being with them betters us.   Do we want marriage? If so, we could worry about whether that person fits when we have reached the right comfort zone and level of love. This is different from going into a relationship just to have fun, because if the relationship is moving in the right direction, we find more visibility in the other person and find a stronger desire to have them in our lives to a fuller psychological and existential extent---and therefore naturally want to and seek to commit. Therefore, I would say that we naturally aim towards that state of commitment that we label marriage, but can also have other layers of enjoyable (though not as much) romance before coming to that level. Let's not forget: if we just abstract that great feeling we have in an early relationship and put the marriage stamp on it, we are counting the eggs before they are hatched. Yet, if we continue to raise our commitments according to the appropriate context, to the point that we are already in practice ~nearly~ a married couple over a long period of time, why not take that step and give that precious highest commitment a thought? [I can't really argue about what the layers of commitment are in a growing romantic relationship, but I still think we could judge for ourselves where we are].

Is this a commitment to eternity with the person? NO! It should be a commitment that states, "to the best of our knowledge, through years of being together, we have learned that we want marriage, and would like to give ourselves this designation"---or something along those lines. There is always a chance it wouldn't work. But this is totally within the range of what a marriage consists of, if thought of properly. Let's not throw it away or attempt to treat it like a job that's more of a matter of convenience than the beautiful world it may be. Let's also not get lost in the relation between process and end. I would love to get married someday, and this is no matter of insecurity nor convenience.

[The government institution of marriage is another issue, so don't confuse my support of marriage with laws that are connected to it (or religious or cultural accounts of what marriage is). As far as I'm concerned, there is an objective meaning of 'marriage' that can go along with human, contextual justification, and not something that requires the lyrics of Paradise by the Dashboard Light. ;)]

Do you see my argument? Romantic relationships should not be originally geared towards marriage, BUT if they are good enough they will develop ~towards~ that direction, and there will be a relevant time for the couple to consider marriage. And that is a good thing! If the relationship is not good enough to reach that level, maybe it'll make a good "friends-with-benefits" deal, or maybe close friendship is the best option, or maybe even a non-committed relationship that lasts several years.

What does anybody think? Perhaps if both sides disagree with my considering them in those general ways, you two are more connected than you sound in those earlier posts I read.

-Dominic

Post 82

Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 11:03am

It seems this discussion has been tabled for a while, but given recent posts it is *most* auspicious that it popped up as my random article.

Joe, you have given me serious pause here with regard to my thoughts about marriage, as well as some enlightening revelations that had simply not occurred to me. I LOVE when that happens.

Jennifer

Post 83

Friday, September 24, 2004 - 8:36am

Very important topic. I've read the first few posts, but don't think I'll have time to get through all 80+ posts.

I pretty much agree with Luther's 1st post. Especially: "one's own happiness is ultimately up to oneself, not another person". In other words it would be "happiness is a state of mind". You can look at anything as a glass either half full or half empty.

It probably won't be popular among the younger people here, but there are a lot of truth in the saying "the secret to a successful marriage/relationship is low expectation".

Can one find his/her 100% perfect match? - No, such thing doesn't exist.
Then can one have a happy marriage/relationship? - Yes, if one decides to.

I am also struck by the truth in what JJ Tuan said "...to independent women who do well on their own both career-wise and household-wise, marriage has noticable downsides." Especially when her partner still considers that cooking, cleaning, child rearing, and other house works are largely her job, and the little fact she is working outside just as much, and earns just as much money doesn't seem to register in his brain.

Post 84

Wednesday, September 12, 2012 - 3:04am

I sanctioned the original and then read through some of the 80 posts. The discussion was interesting and incomplete, though many good points were made.

I think that the initial problem with failed marriages comes from individuals who do not know themselves. They do not know what they want in a relationship, or how to achieve what they claim to want. (I believe that the same problem plagues traditional employment, though, that is now largely a past-tense problem. Few people today want to suffer in a job for a paycheck. We are better at careers than were our parents and grandparents.) But Americans still marry fairy tales.

If you and your partner have rational values - certainly explicit values - then the marriage is more workable. But we spend more time planning the wedding than planning the marriage.

(I have been married twice. Neither time did we do that, but rather, identified shared values before starting out. I dated my first wife for three years and along the way she read Atlas Shrugged and the other works We were married for five years. I noted elsewhere recently on RoR that we are still friends. My current wife of 35 years and I knew each other about eight weeks. Our first date was Halloween. We were married December 30th. We worked pretty hard at being and staying married. We have been separated for practical reasons of career and emotional causes of estrangement. But over time, we were the best match for each other. The bigger fish is always the one that got away.)

On a specific point in this discussion, I disagree that a marriage license is like a driver's license, a permit from the state. The eugenicists made it that. The legal consequences of marriage as a contract for property rights - including the right to decide life or death for another person - would exist even in a society with a minimal state. The property rights of marriage have always been what marriage has been about in most times and places, among most peoples.

In fact, if you understand property - and who better than Objectivists? - then you realize that this is the proper purpose of marriage.

Marriage is, indeed, a partnership. The problem with failed marriages is reflected in the equally alarming failures of trust in business partnerships. We all know stories. I think that both share a common cause, a lack of rational values, certainly the absence of explicit values.

Post 85

Saturday, December 7, 2013 - 9:11am

In a recent search for current USA unwed birth statistics I stumbled across a blog that was part of a larger network called the "Manosphere." Very interesting. I think many American men are getting quite jaded about marriage and for good cause. Outdated laws remain on the books from the days when wives completely depended on husbands for financial support. That is no longer the case and if the "manosphere" is to be believed then modern American women cheerfully abuse these antiquated laws to clean their husbands' clocks rightly or wrongly. I read some of the entries and they made me think of this article. See Dalrock for an example of a happily married father who comments on these trends from a Christian perspective -- not perfect or Objectivist but still relevant to this article.

Post 86

Sunday, February 15, 2015 - 12:36pm

I read something recently that was worth repeating:

A marriage license should be as difficult to acquire as a building permit.

Post 87

Monday, February 16, 2015 - 5:08pm

Well, OK, Luke, I will give you the Red Check for the humor... but you do not seriously want the government to decide who can and cannot be married. The way it is now, mostly, you do whatever you need to for conscience and you file the papers with the county. Period. That is about all the government I need.

(It is differrent from state to state. That in itself suggests a lack of objective standards.)

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 2/16, 5:09pm)

Post 88

Sunday, March 22, 2015 - 9:24am