Rethinking Marriage
Does marriage make sense for our times? I don't think so. Here's an excerpt from my Advice Goddess column I just posted:
Romeo and Juliet were overprivileged freaks. Until 200 years ago, according to historian Stephanie Coontz, “the theme song for most weddings could have been ‘What’s Love Got to Do with It?’” Sure, sometimes love did follow, but for thousands of years, writes Coontz in Marriage, a History, people married for sensible reasons, like keeping peace between France and Spain. For commoners, matches were not typically made in heaven, but in three inches of manure: “My daddy’s pigs and your daddy’s cows forever!”Back in the 1550s, when it took two to do a lot more than tango, divorce was about as common as cell phones. In those days, putting food on the table meant chasing it, killing it, skinning it, then turning it on a spit over a fire, and there was a bit more to housework than despotting the water glasses and wiping down the microwave. Since the laboring class usually married in their late 20s, according to Lawrence Stone and other historians, and “growing old together” could mean making it to 40, a marriage might have lasted 10-15 years, at best. These days, with some gerontologists predicting that living to 120 will soon be the norm, if you pledge “til death do us part” at 25, you could be promising to spend 100 years together. (You might serve a similar amount of time if you murder several of your neighbors.)
Love isn’t the answer, it’s the problem. As Coontz observes, once people started marrying for love, they started getting divorced for lack of it. Nobody wants to ask whether it makes sense to tell another person you’ll love them until you drop. Yes, it can happen. Everybody’s got a story of that one couple, still madly in love at 89, and chasing each other around the canasta table. Guess what: They lucked out. You can’t make yourself love somebody, or continue loving somebody after the love is gone; you can only make an effort to act lovingly toward them (and hope they don’t find you too patronizing). Love is a feeling. It might come, it might go, it might stick around for a lifetime. It’s possible to set the stage for it, but impossible to control -- which is why people in the market for durability should stop looking for love and start shopping for steel-belted radials.
I’ve always thought a marriage license should be like a driver’s license, renewable every five years or so. If your spouse engages in weapons-grade nagging or starts saving sex for special occasions -- like leap year -- well, at the end of the term, give them bus fare and a change of clothes, and send them on their way. But, what about the chi-l-l-ldren?! Maybe people who want them should sign up for a “delivery room to dorm room” plan, with an option to renew. It’s counterproductive to preserve some abusive or unhealthy family situation, but maybe more people would buck up and make parenting their priority if they knew they just had to get through 18 years on family track: “We’re very sorry you’re in love with your secretary, but there are children involved, so zip up your pants and take the daddy place at the dinner table.”
The rest is at this link.
Amy, I wonder what you'll think of this. Just curious.
Jackie at December 13, 2005 6:20 AM
I don't think you need marriage to have a commitment to somebody. I think the most important commitment is to yourself and the truth -- if your relationship is over, you move on and thus live an alive life. Still, I think I'm a good friend and a good partner. Interesting that nobody thinks I'm a worse friend because I haven't made a lifelong legal commitment to friendship.
I do think diamonds are vulgar and stupid to buy (and promote a pretty terrible economy). And I like their idea of registering for charity -- I've recommended that before in my column.
People I know who got married later - in their 40s, after being together for a while -- seem the most sensibly married. (Nancy Rommelmann, for example.) At that point, they have a better chance of knowing themselves and each other and making wise partner decisions.
PS I did like this advice I read in Anil's comments:
'Keep her happy, or she will look for it elsewhere.'
Amy Alkon at December 13, 2005 6:30 AM
Jackie, I read your link, and I don't know that it really contradicts what Amy had to say. Clearly the guy is crazy in love with the woman he married. (Of course he is - he's been married for two days.) Amy's just saying that since love is a feeling you have no control over, maybe it doesn't make sense to promise someone you will love them forever.
I am inclined to agree. You really have no control over whether it sticks around, so the best you can do is HOPE it sticks around and try not to do anything to really screw it up. But is it realistic to promise you will feel something forever?
The usual argument to this is that 'You have to have COMMITMENT!!!' Which just means you promise you will stay with someone and treat them nice even if you get to the point where you don't love them anymore. I've heard people say that marriage is a great thing because it keeps people together who would otherwise split up. But why is staying together such a great thing? Maybe it IS better to split up, if the only thing keeping you together is that the lawyers cost too much. Honey, I love you so much I want it to cost you a fortune if you ever leave. Nice.
Pirate Jo at December 13, 2005 7:18 AM
Oh, and by the way, I did enjoy the guy's very perceptive comment about people spending more money on wedding planners than marriage counselors. If more people waited until their 40's to get married, maybe they would actually be focused more on the marriage than the wedding. I can't imagine too many 40-year-old bridezillas running around fetishizing their jewelry and floral arrangements. If you're still that immature at age 40, then you're a lost cause anyway. I also liked the charity registry idea.
Pirate Jo at December 13, 2005 7:24 AM
As usual, Amy, you have given some excellent advice that digs down to the deeper issue instead of just glossing it over. I really enjoy reading your columns.
That said, I was curious as to why you did not address the ultimatum aspect of the question. I think it says a lot about the kind of person that this guy is with that she would issue such a demand. If she is so willing to give up on him just because he won't make a legal commitment, what does that say about the actual foundations of the relationship? Can she really claim to love him? If she would mourn the loss of a wedding more than the loss of a partner, then I would say she is not worth keeping.
Silver_Fox at December 13, 2005 8:37 AM
Silver_Fox - is that the advice you'd give your daughter? "Just hang on in there, my girl, enjoy each day for what it brings. Count yourself lucky to have your man at all. Don't worry about bringing up children or being left in the lurch after a few years; it may never happen."
Marriage is different for men & women. He may be happy to play house; she isn't just "playing" house. The phrase "holding the baby" applies here.
Leastways, that's my view, as a married man (with daughter). I stand ready to be shot down in flames.
Norman at December 13, 2005 9:05 AM
Hey Norm, I wish I'd read your comment a year and a half ago, before I got my tubes tied. They would've tied themselves, saving me about a thousand dollars.
This is only reason 4,874,331 not to have kids. You avoid precisely these kinds of problems. I'm so glad I never wanted any. I don't have to derail my life in the singleminded pursuit of marriage, just because of a bad case of babyrabies. Playing house sounds good to me! Well, except for the living together part.
As far as the advice goes, I'd say the 'enjoy each day for what it brings' part sounds pretty good.
Pirate Jo at December 13, 2005 9:17 AM
Norman - Marriage is no guarantee against any of those things. You can still have and raise children without being married, and you can still be "left in the lurch" when you are married. The point I was making is that this woman would rather have no relationship than not have her dream relationship. It seems like the man means less to her than the idea that she owns him.
Silver_Fox at December 13, 2005 9:18 AM
I agree, Silver Fox, although I feel sorry for the wanna-be-a-bride girl, for the simple reason that she is (according to the letter-writer) "crazy about him" and he is "not passionate" about her. Kinda makes me wonder why he's been wasting her time for two years in the first place. Because his parents and friends like her? He sounds like a giant wuss to me. And pirates make wussies walk the plank! ;-)
Pirate Jo at December 13, 2005 9:22 AM
Amy, I had to laugh at your "delivery room to dorm room" contract idea. This is exactly the deal my husband and I made when we got married. In public, of course, we said "til death to us part" but in private we agreed to renegotiate after 18 years. This was especially important since it was a shotgun wedding. Six years into the contract we both signed on for another 18 and agreed to have another child.
Rebeca at December 13, 2005 9:44 AM
The ultimatum aspect wasn't the point -- it was that he wasn't really into her. The woman would probably rather be married, even if it means not being with him. Either that, or it was just a power play. Either way, I need a shower.
Amy Alkon at December 13, 2005 9:46 AM
Amy, I was mildly surprised to see you so easily dismiss "love" as something that comes and goes like a fart in the wind. I'm not much of a psychologist, but I seem to recall a school of thought advocating the idea that acting lovingly breeds loving feelings. Not to plagiarize Hallmark, but "Love is verb." (Indeed, this is the road I thought you were headed down when you noted that 'you can only make an effort to act lovingly toward them.') Obviously, I wouldn't recommend trying to "actively love" someone who shows no interest, but for a long-term couple (or in this case, a prospective long-term couple) who wants to keep the fires burning, is this not good advice?
snakeman99 at December 13, 2005 11:08 AM
Silver - while the ultimatum aspect may be a bit distasteful, I see nothing wrong with one partner letting the other know what they expect. I think many couples would spare themsevles significant drama and heartache if the more "marriage-minded" partner were as honest and upfront as this woman.
snakeman99 at December 13, 2005 11:11 AM
Hmm. (Aside: I often have difficulty understanding comments here - I think I'm misreading mild sarcasm and similar subtleties. Probably the result of being on opposite sides of the pond. This is not a criticism, just an observation, so that everyone can make a little allowance for language differences.)
The point about marriage is commitment. Getting married as opposed to living together is making a statement: that's what the ceremony is, in front of everyone. It's scary; there's no guarantee it will work out; but you are saying that you will do your best to stand by each other even when the bad times come.
If someone is not willing to say that, then they are just fair-weather friends. That's fine so long as the good times last, but they don't last for ever. The hard times include children, illness, debt, depression, old age, etc. These are part of ordinary life. Then you find "a friend in need is a friend indeed". You want to know your partner is going to be there for you. You don't want the additional burden of wondering if you dare ask for help or if that will just drive them away.
I know these are cliches: fairweather friend, friend in need. But we are potentially talking about whole lifetimes here. I'm now 56, when just yesterday I was 16. Suddenly I am faced with retirement decisions: where the hell did that come from? Who is that old man in the mirror? My wife is seriously ill. These things happen in ordinary lives. "Hey, I hate illness and death, so I'll just cash in my pension and be off, the fun's gone out of this marriage since you got ill." What kind of way would that be to behave, when someone who has given their life to you needs your support? The cliche for that would be "I'm all right Jack" - to hell with you.
It's mutual, of course: if it had been the other way around, it would be me needing support. It may yet. Life's a gamble. You know you are going to lose in the end, but you don't know how you're going to get there, whether you're going to be in front or behind. So marriage is a little life assurance society, where you agree that the winner won't forget the loser.
When you are young, you don't see yourself as setting off on life's journey. You're more dazzled by each day, and for a long time, you're high on your power and pleasure. But the days pass whether you like it or not, and there's only a finite number of them. The fair weather doesn't last for ever.
This is coming out as if marriage is preparation for doom. I don't mean that, not one bit. The bit about "for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health" is what it's about. The good times are twice as much fun with a friend, the bad times are not so dark when you can count on someone else.
To return to the original article, it could be the woman just want a wedding, not a marriage. Then you're better off without her. Or it could be she wants a sign of commitment from the man. If she is likewise willing to commit, that's no bad thing.
Norman at December 13, 2005 11:28 AM
snakeman - I see your point. It is always good to know where your partner stands. I guess I was a bit turned off by the idea of an ultimatum, by definition a choice without compromise, being used to enter into a relationship that, to succeed, requires a willingness to compromise.
Norman - Marriage does not provide any kind of life assurance. The point is, it is not marriage that gives you this kind of security; it is respect, love, and affection.
For example, two brothers could live together for 50 years and still have the kind of relationship you describe. It would not be a contract that kept them together. It would be respect and love and basic human morality.
The only thing a legal marriage ensures is that certain possessions and priveleges transfer from one partner to another in the case of separation (whether divorce or death). The kind of marriage you are talking about does not require a ceremony or a legal document. It requires love and respect. Nothing more.
Silver_Fox at December 13, 2005 11:44 AM
"The good times are twice as much fun with a friend, the bad times are not so dark when you can count on someone else."
That is a great point, and I know what you mean, but I also think Silver Fox has it right - any number of people can feel that way about each other; brothers, sisters, best friends, parents, etc. Love has many faces, and the thing that sets a romantic/sexual relationship apart from these other aspects of love are chemistry and mutual attraction. And THAT is indeed fleeting, or at least it can be. When Amy says you have no control over that and can't make it stick around even when you want it to, she is absolutely right.
I think each person has to ask him or herself, if I reach a point where I simply am not attracted to my partner anymore (for whatever reason), am I going to stick around just because I made a promise to? Because they're still my best friend and most comfortable pair of slippers? Well probably, if you're 90 years old and have no interest in sex anyway. Probably not if you're only 35. That might be a little too young to resign yourself to a lifetime of no passion (or at least no passion for the person you're with).
Pirate Jo at December 13, 2005 12:18 PM
Silver_Fox-
I agree with much of your post, but not all. You speak of the transfer of possessions and privileges as if it were distasteful. Ask survivors of the Indian Ocean tsunami, or Hurricane Katrina, if they find possessions and privileges to be of no account. Extending marriage rights to same-sex couples is largely about this: so that, for example, when one partner dies, or decides to leave, the other is not thrown out their house onto the street. I think we are too used to unnecessary possessions to realise that some possessions are essential to lift us above a brute existence. Even Thoreau had a shed to live in and a spade to dig his garden, not to mention a chair, a table, paper, pen, cup, saucepan ... and an expensive education that someone had paid for. You can't live by bread alone - but you can't live without bread either.
Transfer of possessions is emphaticaly not the only thing a legal marriage ensures. Because it's such a big step, marriage encourages the participants to think carefully about their plans for the future - which is exactly what you don't need for day-by-day living together. Of course plans can go wrong, people can change. But at least you know that at one moment in time, you had a common plan. If you just live together, you don't ever need to face up to reality, there is never a decision point. When things gradually get difficult, one partner can just up sticks and leave. Of course it will tend to be the partner who owns the sticks who's in the best position to do this. That does not seem fair to me. Marriage law prevents that unfairness. It doesn't prevent marriages breaking up, but it does prevent a lot of the unfairness that would otherwise result.
Anyway, this is miles off Amy's original point, which is about whether marriage should be for life. I think people should start off on that basis. It's not the middle ages: you can divorce or separate if you want, so what's the problem? The main failing of marriage in my opinion is that it's limited to two people. That's hard. I think there should be a standard marriage contract for any number of people, any combination of sexes, sexuality, and sexual activity or lack thereof, and all their children and goods and chattels. If we all spent more time like a bundle of puppies the world might be a happier place.
Norman at December 13, 2005 12:55 PM
Amy-
Just wanted to say, this is the most interesting blog and set of discussions I know of. Well done!
Norman at December 13, 2005 12:57 PM
Nice column, Amy
crid at December 13, 2005 1:06 PM
Thanks, Crid and Norman...that's really nice to hear.
Amy Alkon at December 13, 2005 2:01 PM
Oh Norman, you had me until, "I think there should be a standard marriage contract for any number of people"
Polygamy - blech!
claire at December 13, 2005 2:51 PM
The marriage contract has worth. Don't belittle it.
It's the thought of transferring all those possessions that stops many of us from pursuing divorce. I am on year 14 of my married life, and am quite happy that we did tie the knot. It's one less reason to head for the door when the going gets rough... thinking about the expense, the legalities, the posessions, the children...
Then you just have to take these crisis moments as a growth opportunity and WORK IT OUT with your partner. Of course this requires two people who are motivated to communicate and reach an agreement.
Marriage and parenting have made me into a much healthier person. Our society values narcissism to an extreme degree. I believe that it is good and character-building to devote yourself to something other than yourself and your day-to-day problems and emotional upsets.
maria at December 13, 2005 7:37 PM
It took thousands of years for assorted forces to get Pop to stick around and tend the baby, and only about thirty to tell them to yell, "Thank you, Ma'am!" and run off.
This isn't about the satisfaction of state laws, really - it's about considering things carefully enough to make a promise and keep it.
If you think the tendency to make and keep commitments will increase with acceptance of assorted cohabitation schemes, you're just nuts. If you think that divorce court is nasty, just try palimony court, or trying to untangle the inheritance rights of the bastard son of three or four "parents".
Let me be clear about this: if people are generally allowed to negate thier contract on a whim, this is bad for offspring in real, not theoretical ways. Examples abound.
Radwaste at December 13, 2005 7:45 PM
"It's the thought of transferring all those possessions that stops many of us from pursuing divorce. I am on year 14 of my married life, and am quite happy that we did tie the knot. It's one less reason to head for the door when the going gets rough... thinking about the expense, the legalities, the posessions, the children..."
Silly me, I'm with my boyfriend because I love and respect him and because life is much more fun and exciting with him than without him.
Luckily, I didn't need to get married to force myself to build character.
I don't seek to get people to keep commitments, except to children.
Amy Alkon at December 13, 2005 10:43 PM
Amy says: "Silly me, I'm with my boyfriend because I love and respect him and because life is much more fun and exciting with him than without him." That's good, and just as it should be. The key word is "boyfriend" which implies exactly the temporary, no-strings, uncommited relationship that you want just now.
This is where I begin to think everyone has swapped sides in this debate. Amy started by quoting that love is the problem, not the answer. Now Amy says fun and excitement's the answer. But it's no less flighty than love. If fun and excitement's all you want, then I agree, don't marry. But then, Amy isn't married, so perhaps that's consistent after all. :-)
But Amy: what happens if you could be having more fun and excitement elsewhere? Some middle-aged men leave their middle-aged wives for this reason, reckoning they can get more fun and excitement with a younger woman. Do you approve of that? And if not, why not?
Norman at December 14, 2005 2:14 AM
What Raddy said.
Crid at December 14, 2005 3:21 AM
OK, not entirely. Of course marriage is going to change in the years ahead... It needs to, and we want it to. But human nature will not automatically guide us to a more loving tomorrow.
Crid at December 14, 2005 3:32 AM
I love and respect my husband as well. We have a great sex life, and we have a lot of fun together, and believe it or not, being a parent is fun, too (and hard work). My life is made better by our continued commitment. Where else can you experience longterm change and growth with another adult in an intimate relationship? (other than, perhaps, therapy?)
But we've also had rough times, like with any longterm commitment... he was once very ill, in the early years we struggled financially, etc....so it's not all about fun and games.
Basically it boils down to making a good choice, if you desire to marry. Too many women get wrapped up emotionally with nitwits because the sex is great or whatever, or because they're in "love" after two weeks of dating. Our culture's view of marriage is immature, and consequently many of them don't last.
maria at December 14, 2005 5:24 AM
But I do think that marriage is more of an issue if you want children. I don't know that I would have been as motivated if I had not wanted kids.
maris at December 14, 2005 5:42 AM
Norman - Just because Amy has not made a legally binding committment to her boyfriend does not mean that she is any less committed to him. She is not going to go running off with other men simply because they also offer fun and excitement. She loves and respects her boyfriend. If this ends, then she will move on. If the only thing that keeps you in a relationship is a legal contract, then you no longer have a relationship. You have a contract.
My point is that marriages have their value. They specify a contract that protects participants in a joint venture, but marriage should not be confused with love or friendship.
I think Amy really nailed it when she recognized our increased lifespan as being a factor in the now-perceived failings of modern marriage. When people have the ability to be self-sufficient and live beyond the need for dependence on another person, it is asking too much that they make a lifelong commitment to someone they no longer need nor love.
Silver_Fox at December 14, 2005 6:20 AM
"Amy says: "Silly me, I'm with my boyfriend because I love and respect him and because life is much more fun and exciting with him than without him." That's good, and just as it should be. The key word is "boyfriend" which implies exactly the temporary, no-strings, uncommited relationship that you want just now."
Hi, are you in my head without my knowledge?
When my friend Marlowe was in Beth Israel hospital, there were two really old gay guys there. Now, these guys weren't married -- of course -- but one was dying in some prolonged way (probably cancer) and the other was caring for him. The extent of their love was really moving. I didn't see the well guy saying, "whoops, no marriage cert, gotta be moving on."
What gets me is the smugness of married people who think their relationships are so great just because they are married. Every so often, somebody will ask my boyfriend and me if we're newlyweds -- I guess, because we seem so happy together. I really can't imagine being with somebody else, and I don't need a contract from the state to keep me with him. But, if I did feel it was over, or he did, we'd move on. That isn't tragic. It's life. Things end. Staying in them after they do, isn't beautiful. That's what's tragic.
Just think about all those people bragging that their granny and grampy were miserable together, but they made it to their 50th. This is a good thing?
Amy Alkon at December 14, 2005 7:44 AM
Amy, you are darned right - the word "boyfriend" does not imply temporary, no-strings, or uncommitted. And for someone to presume on your behalf that it does is sanctimonious, judgmental, and smug. Maybe some people just don't need to have the government sanction their relationships to have them mean something. Maybe they aren't in the relationship just because they want to reproduce, share assets, or pay more in taxes. I've seen plenty of non-married couples outlast married couples.
Admitting that sometimes relationships end doesn't mean you expect or want them to end, or that you are uncommitted - it's just being realistic. Sometimes those things happen whether you want them to or not, and you have no control over it. At least if you aren't married you don't have to get lawyers involved. Making a relationship harder to get out of doesn't make it a better relationship.
Pirate Jo at December 14, 2005 7:56 AM
Amy- Of course I'm not in your head, I'm just exploring what you wrote, trying to read between the lines and extrapolate. I apologise sincerely if you feel I overstepped the line.
I think the point is that, as you say, things end, and that's life. This is true whether you are married or not. Whether you are married or not makes no difference so long as things are going well. At the end there is a difference. Given that we live longer, more people are coming to the ends of relationships than before, so perhaps we should think about breakups more as well.
When you come to the end of your relationship, is it better to be married or not? The answer depends on lots of specifics: what kind of people you are, whether there are children, everyone's age, whether the breakup is amicable, and so on. Being married provides a legal framework for ending the relationship, as a fallback if you can't end it any other way. That's what courts are for: resolving disputes. It's a tragedy if you stay together just because of the cost of divorce, or if lawyers turn an amicable separation into a courtroom saga.
It's also a fact of life that when relationships start out, they are simple and breakup does not need any lawyers. You just pack your things and say goodbye. But as the years pass, a relationship can imperceptibly change into one where you would be better off married. No-one starts off a relationship by planning the end. To do so is a turn-off, like the French guy with the pre-nuptial agreement in "Private Benjamin."
Marriage has the benefit that although it provides for contested breakup, it doesn't have the connotations of planning the end. It seems, ironically, like the start of a lifelong commitment, and this, I think, is the basis of Amy's argument against it. But it is not actually an unbreakabe lifelong promise. It's a statement of lifelong intent. It can have benefits, especially when things get rough. It can also have unintended disadvantages, by bringing material possessions into an argument where they probably don't belong, or at least aren't the most important thing.
Was it R L Stevenson who defined marriage as "a special kind of friendship, recognised by the police"?
Norman at December 15, 2005 2:00 AM
Pirate Jo: I never said or implied that Anil's piece contradicted Amy. I was purely interested in Amy's take on it, as it seemed related to her post.
As for marriage, I think it comes down to what you value. If you value the seal of the state, then a legally-binding contract is pretty important. If you value the covenants of your religion (if you've got one), it may also be pretty important. If neither state nor religion hold any sway with you, then the only point I can see to marriage would be to protect property (in which case, you'll have a watertight pre-nup, too) or to address concerns over parental rights.
Jackie at December 15, 2005 4:53 AM
The unfortunate thing about the way marriage is practiced in this country, as the only supposedly "valid" way of having a relationship, is that certain rights and privileges are granted based on what is a religious custom (since gay people can't get married). I favor the system in France, which also includes a PACS -- a pact between people who are together, but not married, which one signs at city hall, but which can be dissolved simply by one partner putting in writing something like "I dissolve the PACS." This pact allows one to visit one's partner in the hospital, inheirit the apartment, etc.
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2005 5:46 AM
"I'm just exploring what you wrote, trying to read between the lines and extrapolate"
Again, it says more about the way you think about marriage -- assumptions you make about it -- than the way I actually live my life.
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2005 5:52 AM
Amy, perhaps you have seen this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120100583.html) about South Africa legalizing gay marriage, but in case you haven't, there it is.
Jon Stewart on the Daily Show had a very insightful comment. He said it was scary that South Africa is now more progressive than the US.
Silver_Fox at December 15, 2005 6:22 AM
The way I think about marriage? I've been working it out by reading and writing here - I didn't start off with a fixed opinion. I thought my last post was a well balanced and insightful summary. ;-)
Norman at December 15, 2005 6:52 AM
Our country is regressing at a frightening rate.
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2005 6:52 AM
What do you mean, Amy?
Norman at December 15, 2005 7:37 AM
That your immediate assumption was that a relationship that is not marriage is somehow less.
And to somebody else, loving IS something you do. You behave in a loving way. But, to say you're going to stick around acting nice after the relationship is dead...I have too much respect for life to do that sort of thing. Poor people who think there's heaven to get to, a lot of the time, they think life is what happens after you die, and they waste their lives.
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2005 8:08 AM
I've lived-with and been-married-to. I guess what drew me into responding to this entry was the description of marriage as having no value - that it's no more than a government or religious sanction. I'm not interested in the religious bit. There can be drawbacks to marriage, but there can be real benefits too - and not just tax breaks or divorce settlements. And being married does not mean you have to stick around after the relationship is dead.
I can imagine situations where I wouldn't want to get married - in fact not being married is the more natural state. Can you imagine any circumstances where you would want to get married?
Norman at December 15, 2005 8:47 AM
No. Pledging to be with somebody for life is irrational and anti-life.
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2005 8:57 AM
Also, it helps that I don't have ulterior motives; ie, looking for somebody to take care of me in my old age (how romantic, "Let's be together because I mind need somebody to wipe my ass when I'm 90") or finding somebody to pay for me. No, I'm all about love and being together because you have more fun together and are better people together than you are alone.
Amy Alkon at December 15, 2005 8:59 AM
Your blog post for this topic is convenience and inspiration in my opinion. A friend once commented about some of the points you share although I thought it was not right because I had another opinion which had stayed with me for years. Regarding your article, I right now know John had been right. I think I ought to send him a note immediately. Probably include your website link too. He too would need to know more of the things people haveeveryone has learned from your content. Thanks
suv tent at May 9, 2011 9:48 AM
Leave a comment