Summary on October 12, 1999 meeting - Marriage - What for? - by Steve
Palmquist.
Roy and several others began a new train of thought by suggesting
that there is no one universal definition of marriage. Rather, we must
observe different societies and different cultural situations in order
to discover what marriage means in each situation. With this in mind, Arti
suggested that everyone should share their own definition of marriage.
Veronica responded by saying that to her the key issue is: what is marriage
FOR? To her, the purpose or function of marriage is to help protect the
dignity of two individuals and preserve their happiness. She shared a favorite
quote that describes marriage as "a beautiful blending of two hearts, souls,
bodies and minds." She added that it takes wisdom to achieve this goal
in a relationship. Evelyn said that to her marriage is an expression of
wanting to be loved and a feeling of belonging. Alex agreed with this,
but protested that it is not a philosophy of marriage. He and Steve agreed
that following Roy's advice would put an end to all philosophy. Alex added
that marriage is sometimes actually a trap that is mistaken for love or
put in love's place.
At this point Steve reiterated his view that a willingness to exchange
sexual pleasure is a necessary condition for saying two people are married.
He pointed out that in some countries the unwillingness of one partner
to engage in sexual activity is regarded as legal grounds for divorce.
Roy disputed this claim, citing "irreconcilable differences" as the one
and only legal ground for divorce, but admitted that refusal to have sex
could be regarded as one example of such a difference. He also pointed
out that nuns regard themselves as "married to God", yet do not engage
in any sexual activity, and paraplegics often get married even though they
are physically incapable of having sex. Steve responded that nuns do derive
something analogous to sexual pleasure from their commitment to God, as
evidenced by the writings of female mystics, which frequently include very
explicit sexual symbolism. He added that when a person who cannot have
sex gets married, the partners will normally still give each other physical
pleasure to the limits of their ability. Evelyn then pointed out that sex
is not always pleasurable. Arti suggested that procreation may be a more
significant purpose for marriage. And Michelle said "intimacy" would be
a much better term than "sexual pleasure"--a point Steve and others readily
supported.
| Next Page |
|
| Posted with permission of the author. Hi-Tech Development Co., Ltd., 1999. All rights reserved. |