Objectivist Marriage

I believe it depends on how strongly the Christian believes in his/her faith. I myself could concievably marry a Christian, but I could not renounce my convictions for her. What does everyone else think?

Pianoman

Post 1

Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 8:59pm

Marriage itself is not rational! (Sorry to say this to all you social conservatives out there)

The only rational basis for relations between people is the 'contract'. A contract is a formal or informal agreement specifying the terms on which a relationship should take place, along with a finite duration of time for which for the agreement is to hold. If after this time all parties are still happy with the contract, the contract can be renewed.

Marriage is an irrational oath to the effect that the terms of a relationship can continue unchanged for ever. It can only ever lead to unhappiness.

The rational basis for couples to form commitments should be something called 'The Civil Union Contract'. See this excellent column on the subject:

http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Columns/Change_Surfing/column.aspx?articleID=2003-07-28-3

Post 2

Friday, November 14, 2003 - 6:08pm

whether marriage or "civil union" or whatever, the bond between two people of different faiths is potentially very satisfying. in fact, i am currently in a relationship with someone of a different faith. this is a timely poll discussion as our relationship has been exposed to some bumps in the road because of the differing views we have of reality and our role as human beings. i would love to go more in depth, but instead i would like to pose a question. when an inter-faith marriage bears children, how can the the primacy of conciousness/existence rift between some religions and objectivism be stiffled to allow the child to develop in a healthy way? If that is possible, what sort of methods does anyone have for such a resolution. i think that this rift (between primacy of conciousess/existence) is at the heart of the difficulties of an inter-faith marriarge and could be generally palatable if other areas of mutual interest abound in the relationship. a final question, is all this negotiating for stability and happiness between faiths something that even belongs in a "loving" marriage or relationship?

Dave

Post 3

Monday, November 17, 2003 - 10:26am

I have Christians as best friends and family. So in theory if you could be friends with a Christian, you could date a Christian, and then marry a Christian. With that said, when I was Catholic I really preferred a Catholic husband, and now I think I'd have trouble dating a religious person. But in theory I think it could work! :)

Dave, can't really help with advise on raising both objectivist and faith-based children! Likely wouldn't be easy. I'd think if you allowed the child to think about things & make up his own mind, instead of telling him what to think, that might work best. I would also think, though, that if your child was say atheist and your wife religious, she would try to fight that and that could cause problems. It's easier for obj to let the child make up their mind than for religious people to do that. Also, wasn't sure if both you & your wife were religious or just your wife. Good luck with it, though!

-e

Post 4

Monday, November 17, 2003 - 1:17pm

Elizabeth
Thanks for the insight. By the way, I am assuredly not religious in the traditional sense as I consider myself more objectivist than anything else. My girlfriend is deity oriented with a high degree of subjectivism thrown in the mix. Very different than I am hence my hesitation about child-rearing. I am sure that we will learn how to negotiate these issues together.

Dave

Post 5

Friday, November 21, 2003 - 5:31pm

Well, for me, it's a deal breaker.

And not just marriage. For example, can an Objectivist, who necessarily embraces capitalism, sleep with a professed communist? To do so would be an exercise in self-denial. For a rational person, desire comes from a recognition of and pride in ones values and the values of others. It's automatized. If I met a girl, was attracted to her initially, that is, superficially, and she then told me she was a communist (or other brand of anti-lifer), I would lose all interest. Period. Despite a superficial attraction, my body couldn't betray my mind. Not to put too fine a point on it, I wouldn't be able to get it up under any circumstances. Let's call it he Hank Rearden Syndrome :-)

BTW, this is not an approach that you conciously choose. My antipathy to communism or any other philosophy of death is so automitised that it becomes part of my emotional response including my sexual response.

For the same reasons I don't know how an atheist could form a deep emotional attachment with a person of faith. What you want, love or desire would be at odds with who you are. There would be no alignment of values. I'm talking about fundamental differences in Sense of Life here not peccadillos or matters of taste.

Casual friendships, acquaintances, etc are one thing but deeply emotional relationships are quite another.

There's an article in here somewhere...

Ross

Post 6

Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 7:14am

If I am not in a relationship, and my every capitalist word and deed doesn't chase every communist within 10 sqaure miles off, and she is hot and I am bothered, there shall be some sweet, sweet love. It is just a fact that there are more hot Communist chicks than there are Objectivist chicks. So your odds are better if you open your horizons. That's a separate issue from marriage. Marry a Christian? Sure, if she understands that she isn't ever going to convert me, and she is otherwise rational, and essentially likes the community and safety blanket of thinking there is a greater purpose to her life and an afterlife to reward good actions. I wouldn't even much care if she insisted on indoctrinating the kids into Church--its mostly harmless do unto others stuff that kids should obey anyway. When they hit 10 or so and start to really be able to make choices, we can reassess religion, and repeatedly as they get older.

Post 7

Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 7:15pm

Hi Scott,

At 10, ugh? Is that before or after they eat the body of Christ and drink his blood?

Michael

Post 8

Monday, November 24, 2003 - 8:30am

I admire your courage Scott. Maybe instead of 10 years old the religion discussion could come when they finally figure out that Santa Claus is not real (at 6-7).

Dave

Post 9

Monday, November 24, 2003 - 12:39pm

Gee, Scott, sounds like you've got a bit of body-soul dichotomy going there.

Sleep with the enemy if you like but I think I'd choke if I had to swallow a chunk of pragmatism that big.

If you can't beat 'em, fuck 'em, eh?

Ross

Post 10

Monday, November 24, 2003 - 2:12pm

Ross,

I don't know about Scott, but I don't recognize those who innocently hold mistaken views as my "enemy". I would HATE most people if that were the case. Beauty can be found in people who demonstrate admirable "qualities" even if the expression of those qualities is not ideal.

Dave

Post 11

Monday, November 24, 2003 - 4:55pm

I don't know about those Communists, Scott. I hear some even sing the Internationale right at climax (though some may shrug off the idea of orgasm as petty and bourgiouse). Just be careful that you aren't tricked into 'doing it' for the proletariate!

Pianoman

p.s. my appologies to those of you with good taste. i'm sure you do indeed taste well...

Post 12

Monday, November 24, 2003 - 5:29pm

I would say that children would present the biggest challenge to an Objectivist/Christian marriage. I believe some sects of Christianity, if not most, believe that the man is the spiritual head of the house. If the man is an Objectivist, does that mean that his wife, a Christian, must follow his word on whether or not the kids go to church, or is there an exception to this rule as well? Hypothetically speaking, let's say I married a beautiful Catholic girl (this seems far fetched to me right now as most Catholics I know would only marry other Christians). We have a pretty good life together and genuinely love each other. We have our first child and we are pondering our options on what to philosophically teach our child. The options on the table are,

1)Raise him as a Catholic until he is able to understand Objectivism and then let him decide.

2)Raise him as Catholic and keep the wife happy

3)Wait until he is old enough to decide for himself before introducing either belief.

4)Coin-toss

On face value 1 and 3 look like the best options, as it becomes the child's choice. The problem is if the child decides not on the basis of what he thinks, but on which parent would be displeased by what choice. Another problem is if the child chooses Objectivism, and you get blamed for his damnation by your spouse. Or if she is tolerant enough to believe that "It really doesn't matter what he believes in, as all beliefs have there merits," she then borderlines on relativism (eww!). I myself could not tolerate my child not knowing the liberating power of Objectivism, so no.2 is out. Nos 1 and 3 can work if she is open to learning about Objectivism and even likes some of it, in which case she isn't a Christian at all, but an Objectivist in the making. Take that you imaginary puff-ball!

Pianoman

Post 13

Monday, November 24, 2003 - 9:30pm

Dave said:

"I don't recognize those who innocently hold mistaken views as my "enemy". I would HATE most people if that were the case."

Who said anything about innocently holding mistaken views? Since you can only take adults at their word and since you're not a mindreader you have no choice but to take them seriously. If someone professes to be a communist then you better believe it's entirely up to your own moral judgement and your self-respect whether you jump into bed with them.

Remember what Rand said: "And I mean it!"

Well, the big news is THEY mean it, too. To think that all anti-lifers are just innocently mistaken is tantamount to giving sanction to their creed.

"Beauty can be found in people who demonstrate admirable "qualities" even if the expression of those qualities is not ideal. "

What admirable qualities (with reference to their beliefs) does a communist demonstrate despite the fact that the expression of those qualities is not ideal?

Ross

BTW, you don't have to HATE your enemy, you just have to know that they ARE your enemy and then deal with them accordingly.

Post 14

Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 2:25pm

Ross
When I said "I don't recognize those who innocently hold mistaken views as my 'enemy'" I wasn't referring to communists but rather christians. I have yet to meet a socialist/communist that could "innocently" arrive at that position. That would be sleeping with the "enemy" and I don't see it being possible. My unofficial pardon was directed towards the religious people who have little scientific knowledge, and were raised in a sheltered environment which stifled their ability to properly define a rational ethics/metaphysics. The "god" belief, although hard to swallow, would not rule out the possibility of a happy relationship. I don't consider all people with a "god" belief the enemy, as many only profess it for lack of any understanding of the world. Some "god"-folk are very confident in their "truth" and those would be the ones more akin to the "enemy" you speak of.

Dave

Post 15

Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 3:23pm

Yeah, exactly. If you can't beat 'em, fuck 'em. Even if you CAN beat 'em, fuck 'em some more!

Body-soul dichotomy? When I was younger, I had a morality-erection dichotomy. I am more particular now. Of course, it helps that such moral quandaries rarely surface anymore, as I am getting old and fat. I'm not sure what a soul is. If you mean mind-body dichotomy, I can argue that those that afford physical intimacy the position of red-headed-stepchild in the range of human pleasures are guilty of a far worse malady than being aroused when a beautiful woman walks in the room. That aprt of Ayn Rand's philosophy always struck me as horseshit. She was rationalizing why a young Branden ought to get turned on by an elderly chainsmoker rather than a young, voluntuous beauty. I dont buy. That's not to say that I haven't met some striking women that turned me off completely within a few minutes of conversation--it has happened so frequently that I have begun to generalize that very good looking people are rather dumb and really self-centered. Maybe you have to be to take ~that~ much care of your appearance.

More seriously, I do feel profoundly sad for people who do not see value in non-Objectivists. Think about it for a minute: think about every kind word and deed and helping hand, pat on the back, kiss, and yes, pleasurable sexual contact you ever had. I'll betcha a quarter that 99% of that good stuff came from NON-OBJECTIVISTS.

So lay off the 'Christians are evil' stuff. I mean, in a strict sense, sure, they are. But have got ~such~ a thing for those Catholic School uniforms!

Yeah, 6 is probably a better time to talk about it than 10. But I disagree that 'no age is too young for any subject'--which seems to be a position that alot of people take. Got news for you--there are a hell of alot of things that kids wont do that you need them to do in order to be a responsible parent. If that takes punishment and a slap on the ass before they reach the age of reason, then so be it.

Post 16

Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 5:57am

Hi Scott,

Nice expressive post.

I would like to go back to my comment about the �eating Christ�� Religions are designed to HOOK the young and it has nothing to do with the children�s rational faculties, it is an emotional indoctrination.

For example all the Greeks I have known were persuaded, pressured, or forced to kiss a dead relative at the funeral service. That experience is one of the many that BOND Greek society. A consequence is that it is almost impossible for someone who has been through this to EMBRACE their individuality. They do find comfort within the church and society but have tremendous difficulty in striking out on their own, to be original, or to think for themselves.

Rationality becomes irrelevant because emotional associations of this type are not things that one can erase at will.

We all have many kinds of emotional early experiences, good and bad alike, that go into making up our character. Our parents are not optional, holidays, school, etc., but there is no conspiracy to form our emotional associations. But going back to religion, they are systematically set up to do this very thing. What is the saying? Jesuit? �Give me a child and we will have them for life� ?

I agree that doing �lip service� with romantic interests are not a problem at all, just miss out on the soul mate-kinda-thing, but the church�s emotional indoctrination on young children is dangerous as hell.

Michael

Post 17

Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 7:20pm

Finding a wife in Objectivist circles is a little like trying to find a wife at a top engineering school: possible but not likely. I've been married for two years to a Soka Gokkai Buddhist and it's worked very well. We've got an emotional connection that's intangible and hard to explain.

I think part of the reason it has worked for me is that I have a brother that I am very close to who is also an Objectivist. I feel like he is my intellectual soulmate (we also both work in the semiconductor industry and have lots of interests in common) and my wife is my emotional soulmate and partner in life's adventures.

There are a lot of good people out there who are not Objectivists or fellow travelers. I think the important question to ask is: What do you want out of marriage? Do you want validation, shared affirmation of Objectivist values and intellectual understanding? If so, then it is probably important to marry an Objectivist or fellow traveler.

I,on the other hand, wish for everyone the experience of falling head over heels in love with someone, Objectivist or otherwise and making it last.

Jim

Post 18

Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 9:05pm

Jim said
"I,on the other hand, wish for everyone the experience of falling head over heels in love with someone, Objectivist or otherwise and making it last. "

Here! Here! Jim :)

Pianoman

"It is unfortunate to go throughout life not knowing the beauty, the joy, and the splendor that can be acheived by eating a Winston Bagel! On the Carbondale strip next to Gatsby's est.1983"-Pianoman who is hungry right now

Post 19

Tuesday, December 9, 2003 - 7:56am