NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/romance/14395

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-21 | 8.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!lupine!pepper!wallich
From: [e-mail] (Ken Wallich)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Getting Married: Grounds for Insanity Plea?
Keywords: Off Your Rocker
Message-ID: <wallich.722295706@pepper>
Date: 20 Nov 92 21:41:46 GMT
References: <stone.721680394@cwis> <[e-mail]> <wallich.721944713@pepper> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ken Wallich)
Lines: 142
Nntp-Posting-Host: pepper

[e-mail] ( ) writes:

>     Marriage is not just something some lawyer dreamed up in order
>to be able to rip off two people at a time rather than one.  It *is*
>a bond, and one I believe important.  A promise to the world, not just
>your new spouse that you will always care for them.

Hey, different strokes...  In my personal belief system, a promise to
"the world" is meaningless, and a promise to an individual is
unbreakable.  A collective doesn't have morals, can't be the witness
to a promise, or the judge of an event.  It doesn't even have eyes, or
ears for that matter.  Only individuals posess these traits.  I don't
expect others to conform to that belief system, just as I don't expect
others to force theirs on me (not that I'm sensing any forcing here.
Geesh, it seems you have to be sooo carefull sometimes :-).

For some, the act of marriage strengthens their relationship, their
personal resolve, their feeling of closeness.  I think that's just
great.  I support it wholeheartedly (and as a soon-to-be minister of
the Universal Life Church, I can even help it come true :-).  If my
mate felt that for them, the ritual of marriage was something they
needed to do to make a commitment *to themselves*, then I'd be happy
to go along with it.  I'd make my sentiments known, that I am
personally bound by my word, and that voicing my word in front of "the
world" does not make my word any more binding, at least to me, but I
wouldn't refuse to take part in the ritual just because *I* didn't
need it.  A commited relationship consists of a lot of compromise, and
one often needs to do something because one or more members of the
relationship (monogomy isn't the only form of relationship that has
"marriage" as one of it's attributes) feel it to be a necessary thing.

I think that "marriage" is something that many societies created as a
public statement that two (or more) people had decided to become mates
in some way.  For some, that public statement is a necessary part of
making a special type of commitment to another.  Most societies that
created some form of "marriage" also had some form of "divorce".  A
way of separating yourself from your once-chosen partner(s), and
declaring *that* to the community.  Making the "divorce" ritual
difficult, and showing displeasure or negative bias towards people who
have gone through that ritual is a way to force some couples to work
through their problems, rather than break up.  This ment that more
couples would remain together, procreating, and raising their young.
Good for the collective, repressive on the individuals.  Especially if
the cloud of divorce is worse to them than just supressing themselves
and staying in a relationship that is not mutually beneficial.  Take,
for an absurd example, the Royal Family to see what such religious and
societal pressures can do to other wise normal, inbread monarchs-to-be
who must remain married to continue to be whole beings in the eyes of
those they allow to judge them.

>Personally, I feel that if you don't think you will always love a
>person, you shouldnt marry them.  (That's my opinion of course, not
>everyone's.)

Well, yeah, sort of.  How can you tell, at any one point in time, how
you will feel for the rest of your current physical life (or for
eternity, if that is what 'always' means to you) about something?
Especially something as evolving as a relationship between two
growing, changing individuals?  Seems easy to say, difficult to
actually mean.

Now granted, 'feeling' at any one point in time is different than
'knowing', but I cannot in good faith make a promise in an environment
that I have only marginal control over.  For me, it would be like
saying to a potential employer "if you hire me, I'll work for you
forever".  While you may "feel" this to be a doable thing when you
make the statement, you probably will find at some point in time, it
is better for you, and for the company, if you no longer work there.
You must then break a promise to leave.  While I also don't think it
probable that one *never* has to break a promise, I also believe that
you should endevour with all your faculties to only make promises you
are capable of keeping.  I don't expect others to believe as I do (my
wife certainly doesn't), but I do expect people to be honest about
what they mean when they say something.  If I know that for Fred, a
promise is really more like a suggestion, then I will know what to
expect when Fred makes me a promise.  Fred will probably make a lot of
promises.  I do *not* make a lot of promises, and I can remember
pretty much all the promises I've had to break.

Again, I know that most of humankind does not see things the way I
see them.  That's what makes things interesting, and why relating
to other people is always a learning experience.

>But while love is a very strong bond between people, marriage,
>to me, has always seemed a strengthening of that bond, in a supreme
>effort to make it last forever.  I have a great sense of honor.  But
>does a Knight refuse to swear fealty to his Lord, because he thinks
>it's already obvious?  Does a priest refuse holy orders, because he
>knows his devotion to God is already obvious?  Some things *do* need
>to be reaffirmed with words.  Some things *have* to be said.
>Do you stop telling your spouse that you love him/her, simply because
>they alread know?  I don't.

I never said that there shouldn't be some form of "promise" between
two *individuals*.  I think that is a fundamentally good thing.  I
make such statements with my friends as well as my mate.  I just
mentioned that for *me*, a promise declared beyond the person(s) I am
making the bond with is purely cerimonial, and it adds no weight to
the promise.  I also realize that this is something that works for me,
and may not work with someone (or anyone) else.

It seems objectively romantic to have a relationship that lasts
"forever" with a soulmate.  I suppose I'm somewhat of a cynic in that
I only feel a relationship should continue to exist as long as both
members provide support and growth opportunities for each other.  If a
relationship gets to the point where one or both individuals are
combative, and seek to damage the other emotionally (or physically),
then something drastic has to be done immediately.  I do not believe
that two people should stay together, even if they made a private and
public declaration of marriage, if they are not dealing with each
other in a positive, helpful, teaching, learning, or nurturing way.
Now granted, there will be periods where things flatten out for one or
more of the people in the relationship.  This is to be expected, and
is not grounds to terminate it.  It has to be recoginzed at temporary
though, and if the platau is not surpassed after some reasonable
amount of time, something needs to be done.  In case anyone thinks I'm
just some monk who pontificates about what I think others should do,
I've been in a monogamous, continuous, usually happy relationship with
my spouse for 12 years.  It's had its ups, downs, and plateaus, but so
far, to take a phrase from the Ferengi (ok, I'm a geek), "its been a
profitable experience for both of us".

As an aside, something I heard from Jay Leno that evoked a chuckle was
when he mentioned the gathering of bishops (or whatever they were)
that were gathering to discuss the role of "women in the (catholic)
church".  His comment was something like "well, that makes sense, a
bunch of middle-aged eunichs deciding how women should act".

I supose saying "I promise to love, honor, and obey (or at least
consider the request :-) Jane Doe as long as our relationship
continues to be mutually beneficial" isn't nearly as romantic as
saying "as long as we both shall live".  But saying "I promise to
remain with this person, even if at some point I must suppress my
hopes, dreams, and potential for growth, and even if it means we both
stagnate and simply exist as decaying protoplasm, just so I never have
to be "divorced", and so people will think I'm really great for
staying married, just like in the movies" is even *less* romantic.

--
Ken Wallich
[e-mail]
[e-mail]