Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's a lot of hard work and not-being-an-asshole involved as well.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Firstly, thank you for your kind comments, and those of others above. Please ignore my personal circumstances for the purposes here- I disclose them only because I know how they colour my opinion. Don’t worry about sparing my feelings, despite my gratitude for your sensitivity and kindness.
Originally posted by Felafool:
1) It's a public commitment to each other which involves society in the respecting of that commitment.
2) It's a legal status which defines progeny and property rights , as well other arcane stuff where 'next of kin' is important.
3) It's a contract which gives some element of security to those involved.
4) For some it has a religious dimension and has varying levels of importance as such.
quote:I think this is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The religious element doesn't make a marriage meaningful -- it provides a context for the meaning that is already there. Perhaps Josephine will come along and explain the Orthodox notion of marriage as a podvig, or spiritual struggle. But the upshot in this context is that the Church helps us understand what we are going through -- it doesn't mean we go through something different (except to the extent that having a place to stand can allow you to move the world.)
Originally posted by Yorick:
I would like to know more about the religious element of marriage, regarding how it makes marriage a good thing. Please explain.
quote:Your point is a good one. Times have changed the meanings and reasons for marriage. The detachment of sexuality and it's pleasures, and the no longer inevitability of children, the raising of the status of women so they are not economically dependent among other things make the formal institution of marriage much less relevant. The rule where I live seems to be that young people will cohabit and consider marriage only if they decide to have children.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Some very reasonable and thought-stimulating comments for me here- thank you.
Regarding choice then. Mutatis mutandis, isn’t it better in principle that two people should be together by choice than by the obligation of a legally binding agreement? Marriage is a contract that negates the element of choice, such that a married couple is bound whether or not they may decide to be together. You cannot choose to be together if you are married (except insofar as you may divorce). Choice is destroyed.
Without obligation, it’s choice that holds you together in partnership. This, I feel, is a higher ideal.
quote:<tangent>Anybody who uses "mutatis mutandis" properly gets two gold stars in my book.</tangent>
Originally posted by Yorick:
Regarding choice then. Mutatis mutandis, isn’t it better in principle that two people should be together by choice than by the obligation of a legally binding agreement? <snip for brevity>
Without obligation, it’s choice that holds you together in partnership. This, I feel, is a higher ideal.
quote:A slight tangent, but no.
Originally posted by no prophet:
My final point is that 200 year ago, people lived maybe to age 40 if they were lucky. Romeo and Juliet probably had less than 10 years possible together at the time of their suicides. This, and the economic necessity argument, makes me consider that the undiscerning choices we make for romantic partners probably has not come up for critical examination by societies until our affluent age of self actualization.
quote:Wouldn't things like joint property or having children together require a legal set-up very much like modern marriage law? I'm not sure if there's any advantage to what you're proposing.
Originally posted by Firenze:
I hold that no one should be allowed to marry under the age of 50. You would of course be permitted to co-habit, own property in common, have children etc.
quote:Nope. Luck is a huge component, especially for that first bit (see this Tim Minchin video), but while it's a necessary component, it's not a sufficient one. There's a lot of hard work and not-being-an-asshole involved as well.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Can I just ask the obvious:
"Is finding a mate, getting married, and staying married and having a good marriage, all nothing more than a matter of luck?"
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's a lot of hard work and not-being-an-asshole involved as well.
quote:As an thoughtful observer to the whole thing, it seems to me that although some people get by on a whole lot of luck, it's better to approach the whole thing with a lot of care and consideration.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Can I just ask the obvious:
"Is finding a mate, getting married, and staying married and having a good marriage, all nothing more than a matter of luck?"
quote:To me, marriage is precisely two people choosing on an ongoing basis to share their lives. I stay with my husband because I choose to do so, daily. The vows we made on our wedding day were a declaraion of our intent to do this. They don't of themselves keep us together. Sure, couples shack up together after a conversation aout giving it a go, but there is then room for misunderstanding of each person's expectaions for the relationship. The value of marriage lies in the cards-on-the-table approach to making a mutual decision about the future of the relationship.
Originally posted by Yorick:
What’s the good of marriage? How can it be a preferable state to that of two people choosing on an ongoing basis to share their lives free of contractual obligation but instead by mutual agreement based on common benefit?
quote:For us Orthodoxen, the purpose of the sacrament of marriage is not childbearing, or sharing responsibilities, or having a companion in your old age. The purpose of marriage is what we call theosis -- becoming by grace what God is by nature. The whole point of being married is to learn how to love the way God loves -- without limit, without condition, without exception, without end -- and to learn how to receive love the same way. For some people, the first part of the podvig is harder, and for others, the second part is harder. But both, together, are the reason we get married.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I would like to know more about the religious element of marriage, regarding how it makes marriage a good thing. Please explain.
quote:In part, it is how people conceptualize "romantic love."
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:As an thoughtful observer to the whole thing, it seems to me that although some people get by on a whole lot of luck, it's better to approach the whole thing with a lot of care and consideration.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Can I just ask the obvious:
"Is finding a mate, getting married, and staying married and having a good marriage, all nothing more than a matter of luck?"
It's strikes me that the development of romantic love in Western culture took a seriously wrong turn somewhere. Instead of helping people to make happy marriages because they're free to marry for love instead of for dynasties and dowries, etc., it's ended up actually making it harder for people to marry successfully. It's very strange.
quote:Are there podvigs open to unmarried people who are not monastics? As in, is it that you're either supposed to marry or become a monastic?
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:For us Orthodoxen, the purpose of the sacrament of marriage is not childbearing, or sharing responsibilities, or having a companion in your old age. The purpose of marriage is what we call theosis -- becoming by grace what God is by nature. The whole point of being married is to learn how to love the way God loves -- without limit, without condition, without exception, without end -- and to learn how to receive love the same way. For some people, the first part of the podvig is harder, and for others, the second part is harder. But both, together, are the reason we get married.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I would like to know more about the religious element of marriage, regarding how it makes marriage a good thing. Please explain.
And that's why marriage involves a commitment. Learning how to give and receive love makes you terribly, terribly vulnerable. It can be a terrifying process. And if you're not sure that your partner in this process is going to be there for you, it is, for most of us, utterly impossible.
There are other podvigs, other paths where you can learn this kind of love. But, as hard as marriage is, the other paths are harder. Monasticism is the usual alternative to marriage. It involves learning to love, not by practicing the skill with one particular person in one particular relationship, but learning it as a universal. And that is extraordinarily difficult. For most of us, learning to love just one person as God loves them, and learning to receive love from them as we receive God's love -- for most of us, that's hard enough. Somewhere along the way, by learning what we learn about love in our marriage, we learn to extend that love to others as well. Monastics try to take a more direct route.
Whichever path you take, we see learning to love and to receive love as the most important thing you have to learn in life. In some ways, it's the purpose of everything you ever do. But it is especially the purpose of marriage.
When you enter marriage this way you have to acknowledge up front that sometimes it hurts, sometimes it stinks, sometimes you would rather anything but this. Cutting off yourself, giving of yourself to another person -- sometimes that's a lot to ask, and sometimes it feels like too much. But that is sometimes the point -- there isn't too much. And sometimes you have to love in spite of the pain. Because "I love you as long as you make me happy" isn't the way that God loves us.
Sometimes, though, the podvig of marriage turns out to be too difficult after all. Sometimes, instead of learning how to love through the pain, you end up becoming scarred and bitter. Sometimes it's better to acknowledge that the marriage has died, and you need to mourn and weep for a while, and then you need to find healing for the injuries that the marriage inflicted on your soul. And you need to find forgiveness for the injuries you inflicted -- on your spouse, on your children, on friends and neighbors and others who were part of your life as a couple.
I'm sorry you're going through that now. I hope you find healing on the other side.
quote:That's going into our marriage prep notes.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's a lot of hard work and not-being-an-asshole involved as well.
quote:A podvig is simply a spiritual struggle that you have embraced as part of your path towards theosis. But it's not like each person has only one podvig. Most of us have many podvigs -- we're fighting on many fronts at the same time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Are there podvigs open to unmarried people who are not monastics? As in, is it that you're either supposed to marry or become a monastic?
quote:Completely agree in spirit. However, divorce does in fact provide the choice. And I agree with others that long term relationships that end, especially with shared property, history and children is painful regardless of the legal ramifications.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Some very reasonable and thought-stimulating comments for me here- thank you.
Regarding choice then. Mutatis mutandis, isn’t it better in principle that two people should be together by choice than by the obligation of a legally binding agreement? Marriage is a contract that negates the element of choice, such that a married couple is bound whether or not they may decide to be together. You cannot choose to be together if you are married (except insofar as you may divorce). Choice is destroyed.
Without obligation, it’s choice that holds you together in partnership. This, I feel, is a higher ideal.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:As an thoughtful observer to the whole thing, it seems to me that although some people get by on a whole lot of luck, it's better to approach the whole thing with a lot of care and consideration.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Can I just ask the obvious:
"Is finding a mate, getting married, and staying married and having a good marriage, all nothing more than a matter of luck?"
It's strikes me that the development of romantic love in Western culture took a seriously wrong turn somewhere. Instead of helping people to make happy marriages because they're free to marry for love instead of for dynasties and dowries, etc., it's ended up actually making it harder for people to marry successfully. It's very strange.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:I'm so sorry to serially post like this but I want to make two more points. There us no such thing as a bond without obligation.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’m currently going through a difficult divorce, and should therefore declare that my opinion of marriage is bound to be rather aggravated. Also, I know it’s meaningless to generalise since there are as many sorts of marriage as there are pairs of married people. Those things notwithstanding, I’ve come to feel strongly that marriage, as a state of being in a relationship, is a bad thing.
Clearly, many people marry for reasons that don’t stand the test, and you only have to look at divorce statistics to know that the vows we make at the altar don’t actually work in and of themselves. At any rate, many marriages fail, and when they do it can be horrid, whether the result is either divorce or a miserable life of marital incarceration.
I feel that the ideal form of partnership between two loving people is choice without any bond of obligation, which is the opposite of marriage. Marriage, it seems to me, is nothing more than a legally binding contract that permits people the right in law to hurt each other when their relationship fails.
What’s the good of marriage? How can it be a preferable state to that of two people choosing on an ongoing basis to share their lives free of contractual obligation but instead by mutual agreement based on common benefit?
quote:So now we've entered a world where women are happy with marriage but men aren't? How does that help us?
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Dynasties and dowries generally made MEN happier with marriage, generally not women. And with those kinds of things, mistresses and affairs were so common as to be unusual if there was fidelity. Today people marry for love. And that's a whole new ballgame. And that means adultery is not so commonly accepted. So one person is responsible for our love and our financial backing or survival. Wow. It's like we've entered a new world.
quote:Oh no, I didn't say that women are happier in marriage and men aren't. I'm saying that we have entered a world where marriage is no longer meant for financial and social security, but is meant for intimacy. IntImacy is much harder to establish in the long term than financial and social security. Then, when passion wanes, we want out.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:So now we've entered a world where women are happy with marriage but men aren't? How does that help us?
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Dynasties and dowries generally made MEN happier with marriage, generally not women. And with those kinds of things, mistresses and affairs were so common as to be unusual if there was fidelity. Today people marry for love. And that's a whole new ballgame. And that means adultery is not so commonly accepted. So one person is responsible for our love and our financial backing or survival. Wow. It's like we've entered a new world.
As it happens, I've never understood how Christian societies have managed to create a theology around the tolerance of male adultery. I've never heard such a theology enunciated, but someone somewhere must have written about it, since it seems to have been taken for granted in some circles that the seventh commandment applies only to women.
quote:I wonder if she doesn't have it the wrong way around. ISTM that intimacy used to be a pretty common thing -- you lived and died within walking distance of where you were born, and just about everyone around you knew you for your entire life. Now, the only long-term relationship that you are likely to have on a daily basis is with a spouse.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
"Intimacy has shifted from being a by-product of a long-term relationship to being a mandate for one." (Mating in Captivity, Esther Perel.
quote:Oh thank you for explaining - I think I was thinking of podvigs being in line with Jewish mitzvot.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:A podvig is simply a spiritual struggle that you have embraced as part of your path towards theosis. But it's not like each person has only one podvig. Most of us have many podvigs -- we're fighting on many fronts at the same time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Are there podvigs open to unmarried people who are not monastics? As in, is it that you're either supposed to marry or become a monastic?
So, yes, there are podvigs that are open to people who are neither married nor monastic. They're not hard to find. Sometimes you get to choose a podvig (as with marriage and monasticism). Sometimes a podvig chooses you (as with chronic illness).
So marriage is one podvig that a person may have. Monasticism is another. Taking care of elderly parents, or young children, or anything else that you do where you take steps (however small) towards becoming more like God ... any of it can be a podvig, if you embrace it as such.
quote:Exactly! Intimacy was a by product of the life you lived together and there was no need to get all of your intimacy from one source-your spouse. Now, today, all of our needs for intimacy have to come from our spouse. A tall order-probably an impossible one. Which is why we need to change.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I wonder if she doesn't have it the wrong way around. ISTM that intimacy used to be a pretty common thing -- you lived and died within walking distance of where you were born, and just about everyone around you knew you for your entire life. Now, the only long-term relationship that you are likely to have on a daily basis is with a spouse.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
"Intimacy has shifted from being a by-product of a long-term relationship to being a mandate for one." (Mating in Captivity, Esther Perel.
--Tom Clune
quote:That's not marriage. That's divorce.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Marriage, it seems to me, is nothing more than a legally binding contract that permits people the right in law to hurt each other when their relationship fails.
quote:Sounds like the Muslim term Jihad.
Originally posted by Josephine:
A podvig is simply a spiritual struggle that you have embraced as part of your path towards theosis.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:If one partner is going to take on the larger burden of childcare with the resultant loss of income, job security and marketable workplace skills that come with it, then they really do need the legal protections of marriage or some such equivalent.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Marriage is also about a child raising environment.
quote:When I was a boy in the 1950s, I lived in a very small farming community for a while. Virtually all the kids got married right out of high school, and most got divorced within a few years. I'm not sure that living in an intimate environment was particularly good for marriage commitments in that context, either. I don't know what to make of any of this -- it's just more anecdotal grist for the mill.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:Exactly! Intimacy was a by product of the life you lived together and there was no need to get all of your intimacy from one source-your spouse. Now, today, all of our needs for intimacy have to come from our spouse. A tall order-probably an impossible one. Which is why we need to change.
Originally posted by tclune:
ISTM that intimacy used to be a pretty common thing -- you lived and died within walking distance of where you were born, and just about everyone around you knew you for your entire life. Now, the only long-term relationship that you are likely to have on a daily basis is with a spouse.
--Tom Clune
quote:How do they introduce themselves? There's your answer.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Finally, how does one introduce the common-law partner of your adult child?
quote:How about "Hi, I'm John, I'm Alex's partner"? Or is that too simple?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Actually not--because they usually pop up and say, "Hi, I'm John!" leaving Aunt Matilda or Neighbor Bill at a complete loss as far as what their relation (if any) to the family might be.
quote:I think marriage can be difficult in any context. Too much intimacy in the environment maybe means more temptation? And relying on your spouse for all intimacy is overwhelming. Idk!
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:When I was a boy in the 1950s, I lived in a very small farming community for a while. Virtually all the kids got married right out of high school, and most got divorced within a few years. I'm not sure that living in an intimate environment was particularly good for marriage commitments in that context, either. I don't know what to make of any of this -- it's just more anecdotal grist for the mill.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:Exactly! Intimacy was a by product of the life you lived together and there was no need to get all of your intimacy from one source-your spouse. Now, today, all of our needs for intimacy have to come from our spouse. A tall order-probably an impossible one. Which is why we need to change.
Originally posted by tclune:
ISTM that intimacy used to be a pretty common thing -- you lived and died within walking distance of where you were born, and just about everyone around you knew you for your entire life. Now, the only long-term relationship that you are likely to have on a daily basis is with a spouse.
--Tom Clune
--Tom Clune
quote:By name. Which doesn't answer the question of the affiliation between them.
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:How do they introduce themselves? There's your answer.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Finally, how does one introduce the common-law partner of your adult child?
quote:Why is it necessary to identify that? Whose business is it?
Originally posted by no prophet:
The problem is "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" doesn't identify the living together.
quote:Sometimes I want to clarify relationships. I'm answering the implied question "So why am I introducing S to you as if she matters?" Because she matters so much to E that E has committed to spend her life with her!
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Why is it necessary to identify that? Whose business is it?
Originally posted by no prophet:
The problem is "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" doesn't identify the living together.
quote:I'm an old fossil I guess, with old petrified ideas, derived though not just from traditions. Relationships between two people involve their parents, their grandparents (if alive), and their relatives. I would not have said this until I experienced it as a parent of adult children. Though we do recall in all the weddings we attended that there were questions for the parents, family and congregation of people about their support of the couple. I've had many discussions with other such parents, and most of us are muddling along with it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Why is it necessary to identify that? Whose business is it?
Originally posted by no prophet:
The problem is "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" doesn't identify the living together.
quote:I say 'this is my son's partner, N'. They both introduce their partners in the same way. No problem whatever.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Finally, how does one introduce the common-law partner of your adult child?
quote:What does 'Holds together' here mean, if it doesn't mean 'commits' or 'obliges'? Are you sure it's not just verbiage? A choice that doesn't commit or oblige is merely a temporary mood.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Without obligation, it’s choice that holds you together in partnership. This, I feel, is a higher ideal.
quote:It's a choice to commit to a relationship, understanding, as in with most mature relationships, that passing moods happen, problems occur. With that kind of commitment, it's a choice to work together towards a working relationship. If people understand and care about what's at stake, they will work towards that end for the benefits of a long term relationship. Choice does not necessarily imply carelessness. In fact, it could provide the ingredient needed for true engagement within the relationship.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:What does 'Holds together' here mean, if it doesn't mean 'commits' or 'obliges'? Are you sure it's not just verbiage? A choice that doesn't commit or oblige is merely a temporary mood.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Without obligation, it’s choice that holds you together in partnership. This, I feel, is a higher ideal.
I don't agree that it's a higher ideal, because I don't find the underlying picture of human being plausible.
quote:A false dichotomy, of course, which I will however set aside for the purpose of quoting a contemporary Orthodox thinker -
Originally posted by Josephine:
For us Orthodoxen, the purpose of the sacrament of marriage is not childbearing, or sharing responsibilities, or having a companion in your old age. The purpose of marriage is what we call theosis -- becoming by grace what God is by nature.
quote:That I think is on the money as far as sacramental marriage is concerned. Natural marriages are born, live and die - and they often die before the partners do... Sacramental marriages are - or should be - death to the natural life of marriage, and its resurrection to a new life in Christ. And a life in Christ during this earthly pilgrimage can mean blood, sweat and tears, and so it is for marriage.
Alexander Schmemann in "For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy":
Then secondly, the glory and the honour is that of the martyr's crown. For the way to the Kingdom is the martyria - bearing witness to Christ. A marriage which does not constantly crucify its own selfishness and self-sufficiency, which does not "die to itself" that it may point beyond itself, is not a Christian marriage. The real sin of marriage today is not adultery or lack of "adjustment" or "mental cruelty." It is the idolization of the family itself, the refusal to understand marriage as directed toward the Kingdom of God. This is expressed in the sentiment that one would "do anything" for his family, even steal. The family has here ceased to be for the glory of God; it has ceased to be a sacramental entrance into his presence. It is not the lack of respect for the family, it is the idolization of the family that breaks the modern family so easily, making divorce its almost natural shadow. It is the identification of marriage with happiness and the refusal to accept the cross in it. In a Christian marriage, in fact, three are married; and the united loyalty of the two toward the third, who is God, keeps the two in an active unity with each other as well as with God. Yet it is the presence of God which is the death of the marriage as something only "natural." It is the cross of Christ that brings the self-sufficiency of nature to its end. But "by the cross, joy [and not 'happiness!'] entered the whole world." Its presence is thus the real joy of marriage. It is the joyful certitude that the marriage vow, in the perspective of the eternal Kingdom, is not taken "until death parts," but until death unites us completely.
quote:But no one has claimed that any "chosen" long term relationship needs to be spontaneous and unburdened.
Originally posted by Firenze:
I'd agree it's not the presence/absence of a marriage certificate that makes a relationship hard to dismantle. It's the degree of investment in a shared life - materially and emotionally.
As the discussion about 'What do you call the-person-in-relationship' shows, every partnering creates a personal, social, familial and even legal constellation around itself. To commit to anything - even coffee on Friday - is to raise an expectation and contract an obligation. 'Choice' can just be a way of saying 'don't hold me to that. I might chose to do something else on Friday.' Actually, I think I've encountered this quite a few times in my life. Once, as a philosophical position (an actual French Existentialist) and quite often people who just didn't want to pass on the chance that something more exciting might come along.
However, personal bitterness aside, I think the idea of a free, spontaneous, suitably intense but at the same time totally unburdened 'chosen' relationship is an illusion.
quote:Actually it doesn't have anything to do with the IRS or the federal government. Each State passes laws regarding marriage. "Common law" marriage, where permitted, required more than just shacking up: typically you had to live together as man and wife for a period of 3 to 7 years. That is, you had to claim to be married, and act as if you were married, for that time.
Originally posted by no prophet:
It has been for a while that Revenue Canada (like the IRS in USA) has considered common-law the same as married...
quote:It's YOUR business what YOUR children do. It's not somebody else's business what your children do.
Originally posted by no prophet:
We kind of feel it is our business what our children do and who they're with, because we love them.
quote:The way I figure it, if someone is close enough to deserve an answer to the question "what is the exact nature of their relationship?" Then they deserve to receive that information by means other than the simple words of an introduction.
Originally posted by no prophet:
To crisply answer your question, some of our friends, neighbours, acquaintances held our children shortly after they were born, car pooled to sports and music lessons, attended tournaments in which our mutual children played. and we are connected in less intense ways than friends, but are more than acquaintances. There is a difficulty in these conversations to the point that this difficulty has become a talking point in those very conversations. If you're a young person, perhaps confirm or not with your parents. We kind of feel it is our business what our children do and who they're with, because we love them.
quote:The point about "common law" at least in Canada is that it is a way of being married that doesn't involve the state or the church. It isn't a state of life that is "marriage-like" without being married. That its easy to get out of by walking away is a different matter. The common law partner is, in law, a husband or a wife. (Except when it comes to intestacy, but that's a different matter.)
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:By name. Which doesn't answer the question of the affiliation between them.
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:How do they introduce themselves? There's your answer.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Finally, how does one introduce the common-law partner of your adult child?
The problem is "girlfriend" or "boyfriend" doesn't identify the living together. The other alternatives available seem to be "partner" but this is confusable with those of us who have business partners who are also "partner". I see in the obituaries here that "special friend" is often used, which seems just weird; "Bed Buddy" is rude. So for now, the solution is awkward: "this is X, Z's boy/girl friend", with follow-up possibly identifying that they live together and the shared understanding that the language and terminology have not kept up with the realities. We've come away from meeting people and have actually no idea what the nature of the relationship and family are.
Do families, community and others have any place with others' intimate relationships? Much different than in the past. And maybe younger don't mind the confusion?
quote:It also seems to me that Yorick was not only contrasting marriage with relationships of choice but suggesting that marriage is actually a bad thing. A harmful thing. Not a very common argument. Interesting.
Originally posted by Firenze:
I've perhaps missed a few stages in the argument, but it seemed to me that Yorick was originally contrasting marriage - with its panoply of formal commitments, and concomitant hassle of undoing the contract - with a relationship of 'choice', which would have neither one nor the other. But still be substantive.
Whereas I'd say there are just marriages, and de facto marriages.
I guess that is a great risk in marriage. quote:Surely if a choice implies a commitment it implies an obligation? How is a commitment that doesn't oblige even a commitment?
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:It's a choice to commit to a relationship, understanding, as in with most mature relationships, that passing moods happen, problems occur. With that kind of commitment, it's a choice to work together towards a working relationship.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What does 'Holds together' here mean, if it doesn't mean 'commits' or 'obliges'? Are you sure it's not just verbiage? A choice that doesn't commit or oblige is merely a temporary mood.
I don't agree that it's a higher ideal, because I don't find the underlying picture of human being plausible.
quote:I said underlying picture. It's the underlying picture of the human being as a wanting and choosing machine. That the only things that can be meaningful to me at this moment are what I want and choose in this moment.
What is the underlying principle that you find implausible?
quote:A man and a woman living together in a sexual relationship is not a philosophical ideal as such, but simply a man and a woman living together in a sexual relationship. "Ideal" is not a label that on can arbitrarily slap on whatever one fancies in the regular course of life. Furthermore, on Christian morals (the real deal, not what you get on the Ship most of the time) most ways of a man and a woman living together in a sexual relationship are indeed evil. (Mind you, many people have the simplistic idea that evil is all black and nasty. That would be so easy... Actually though, all sin comes as a desirable good, otherwise we would not choose it.)
Originally posted by Yorick:
IngoB, you seem to be saying that a partnership that is based on two people choosing freely to be together is not a philosophical ideal, and that it is evil, and also that the only ideal is marriage (presumably, you feel, however malignant the relationship might happen to be within that marriage). If so, well, fuck.
quote:I know this is wrong.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I think these things are mutually exclusive- people cannot remain in partnership by both marital contract and free choice.
quote:I can understand why you might think this, and forgive your astonishingly tactless and indeed hurtful presumption. In fact, you're mistaken. I am not looking for any intellectual consolation for my failed marriage, nor do I expect anyone here to agree to my proposal about the ideals of partnership and marriage (and I respect your opposing view whilst disagreeing with it), but I hoped it might provide for interesting discussion, which it indeed has. Thank you for your input, though I'm bound to say that, yet again, you succeed to make the Roman Catholic position seem perfectly fascist.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, it is quite clear what this is all about. Your marriage has failed, and you are looking for an intellectual justification, so that you can believe it was for the better.
...You apparently could not take your failure at face value, you had to propose a higher ideal that we all must agree to.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Thank you for your input, though I'm bound to say that, yet again, you succeed to make the Roman Catholic position seem perfectly fascist.
quote:When I say 'choice' I obviously mean the free positive decision to remain in the relationship. In marriage, we promise to remain in the relationship no matter what, unto death. Only divorce breaks that contract. How can you positively choose to remain in your relationship with your wife if you are bound by the promise to do so? In what sense are you exercising the positive choice to be with her? By not divorcing her?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I know this is wrong. ...I'm married, and I'm remaining in it both by marital contract and by free choice.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I think these things are mutually exclusive- people cannot remain in partnership by both marital contract and free choice.
quote:Ok, understood. But now I want to know if ingob thinks Im evil for living the way that I do.
Originally posted by no prophet:
We're all living in sin, Fool on the Hill. The RC appeal to its authority in all matters is aside the point. Much less pedantically than stated by IngoB, the point it that there is something outside the couple who wish to live together, and the expression of that or not is a significant issue.
quote:First, it is never "cool" to live in sin for a Christian. If you say that my concept of sin is in error, then we have something to argue about here. But if you say that you are happy with living in sin, then we don't. Then you are either a hardened sinner or clueless concerning the Christian meaning of "sin".
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Wow, so IngoB, question. I was married by a judge, my uncle. It was not blessed in any way by any religious institution. Am I living in sin? If so, cool!
quote:Well, no, not quite. "Simply a legal contract" is a gross oversimplification of what non-religious people feel about marriage. Those who have no desire to get married might fit that description, perhaps, but then such people aren't likely to be involved in discussions about marriage in the first place. They're more likely to say 'do whatever you like with that, I don't care'.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This may seem like an obvious thing to say, but the problem with Christians and non-religious people discussing marriage is that for Christians, the notion of marriage (however defined) is bound up with faith imperatives, whereas for the non-religious it's simply a legal contract which, depending on social circumstances, may be unnecessary, or even undesirable.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.... Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:First, it is never "cool" to live in sin for a Christian. If you say that my concept of sin is in error, then we have something to argue about here. But if you say that you are happy with living in sin, then we don't. Then you are either a hardened sinner or clueless concerning the Christian meaning of "sin".
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Wow, so IngoB, question. I was married by a judge, my uncle. It was not blessed in any way by any religious institution. Am I living in sin? If so, cool!
quote:To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. .... But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
Second, to quote a canon of the RCC: "Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven." So without knowing any further detail about your situation, I assume that if you say that you are married, then you are in fact married, and hence not living in sin (at least as far as that fact goes).
quote:But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.... I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Third, to quote another canon of the RCC: "Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. §2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament." Thus if you and your spouse happen to be baptised Christians, then I do not only assume that you are married, but that you are sacramentally married, until there is serious contrary information.
So if you and your spouse are baptised Christians who "only" married in a civil ceremony, then you may have sinned at the time in not seeking the blessing of your Church, and maybe it remains a sin of omission that you do not seek it now, but I will assume that you are now sacramentally married and hence do not sin simply by maintaining a sexual relationship (to the contrary, that you thereby please God).
If however you are not both baptised Christians, then it all gets a bit more confused (at least for me). The basic principle is however that there is nothing wrong with marriage as such, including natural (non-sacramental) marriage. So if we were talking about, say, Hindus marrying, then there is no doubt that these can be blessed in God's eyes. It's not as if all those marriages mean nothing just because they are not Christian. Rather it gets complicated when Christians mix with non-Christians, or Christians do not follow Christian rules on marriage, or non-Christians deal with marriage in a way that Christians think is contrary to marriage, etc. That's a highly complex area where I simply lack the expertise to say much.
quote:If you say so.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I am not looking for any intellectual consolation for my failed marriage, nor do I expect anyone here to agree to my proposal about the ideals of partnership and marriage (and I respect your opposing view whilst disagreeing with it), but I hoped it might provide for interesting discussion, which it indeed has.
quote:If you run into a rock face first, then your nose will bleed and you will hate it. If you build your house on a rock, then you will you sit in the dry as the storm rages and you will love it.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Thank you for your input, though I'm bound to say that, yet again, you succeed to make the Roman Catholic position seem perfectly fascist.
quote:From the Orthodox POV, Yorick, a sacramental marriage is not a contract. It is not a promise. Our marriage ceremony doesn't even include any vows or promises.
Originally posted by Yorick:
When I say 'choice' I obviously mean the free positive decision to remain in the relationship. In marriage, we promise to remain in the relationship no matter what, unto death. Only divorce breaks that contract.
quote:What this seems to boil down to me is: What are the benefits of a public declaration of intent?
Originally posted by Yorick:
Yes, others have suggested this. I don't see how it pertains to the following question:
Two people love each other and decide to live together monogamously. Ideally speaking, in what specific ways would marriage be a preferable state of relationship than their ongoing election to remain together by freely consensual choice based on mutual benefit?
quote:A bit too much Latin in the link for me, but the cannon law seems to say that those on a polyglot marriage should separate from the 'excess' spouses whereas St Paul seems to be saying 'stay put and work it out even if it is not an ideal situation' or in the case that the other (a.k.a non-baptised?) ‘wants out’ to let them go. That spirit of forbearance, compassion and love is even more important than civic contracts or cannon law.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Midge, I have some difficulty following what you are on about. But the so-called Pauline privilege for the dissolution of marriage bond is part of the Canon Law (read here) and was not what I was on about.
quote:Yorick, I think the understanding might be thus. The marriage still exists somehow in the spiritual sense, but is dissolved via divorce. Frankly, it is irresponsible not to divorce if the fact of being together causes harm. There is a weighing of harm versus goodness, and I've never met a person considering divorce who hasn't fully and agonizingly weighed this. And usually stayed in the marriage after the balance has tilted tremendously.
Originally posted by Yorick:
When I say 'choice' I obviously mean the free positive decision to remain in the relationship. In marriage, we promise to remain in the relationship no matter what, unto death. Only divorce breaks that contract. How can you positively choose to remain in your relationship with your wife if you are bound by the promise to do so? In what sense are you exercising the positive choice to be with her? By not divorcing her?
quote:I referred to 'a legal contract' that depends on 'social circumstances' for its desirability or otherwise. Those social circumstances may involve all sorts of cultural accretions that change as time goes by, but the OP seemed to be referring more specifically to marriage as a contract; for him, that's the issue. There was no attempt to reconfigure marriage as something that might be of value above and beyond the legal aspect.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Well, no, not quite. "Simply a legal contract" is a gross oversimplification of what non-religious people feel about marriage. Those who have no desire to get married might fit that description, perhaps, but then such people aren't likely to be involved in discussions about marriage in the first place. They're more likely to say 'do whatever you like with that, I don't care'.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The problem with Christians and non-religious people discussing marriage is that for Christians, the notion of marriage (however defined) is bound up with faith imperatives, whereas for the non-religious it's simply a legal contract which, depending on social circumstances, may be unnecessary, or even undesirable.
quote:I agree that the response of religious French people is somewhat bizarre. Still, I don't know if the non-existence of SSM in France can be blamed purely on religious people. Do French presidents really listen to RC bishops? I've never heard of such a thing. They certainly don't listen to Protestants or Muslims.
Christians seem to care about BOTH systems. Not just the body of church rules. Because churches do seem to spend a fair amount of time trying to influence what the other secular system of rules says on the subject.
This is happening at the moment even in France, a country with a very strong tradition of keeping the secular state separate from religion, and where a religious marriage ceremony has no status whatsoever under secular law.
quote:Perhaps the problem is that our societies aren't as definitely secular as they claim they are. Even when few people stop going to church, they take longer to shake off the legacy of churchiness. But why would secular people and their politicians pay any attention to church leaders anyway? Who cares? Only a state that's not convinced of its secularity would give these people any airtime.....
I don't think it's that non-religious people consider marriage "just a legal contract". I think it's that non-religious people consider marriage to be a topic governed by secular rules, and that if religious people want to have their own additional rules then that is fine, so long as they then don't attempt to make the rules of religious origin into requirements of the secular system.
quote:Marriage is better than a relationship based upon the exercise of free positive choice, because I'm still married while I'm asleep. Whereas you cannot exercise positive choice while you're asleep.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:When I say 'choice' I obviously mean the free positive decision to remain in the relationship. In marriage, we promise to remain in the relationship no matter what, unto death. Only divorce breaks that contract. How can you positively choose to remain in your relationship with your wife if you are bound by the promise to do so? In what sense are you exercising the positive choice to be with her? By not divorcing her?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I know this is wrong. ...I'm married, and I'm remaining in it both by marital contract and by free choice.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I think these things are mutually exclusive- people cannot remain in partnership by both marital contract and free choice.
quote:I thought that dowries worked the other way round - you had to pay to off load a 'liability'
Originally posted by no prophet:
I mentioned this discussion to someone, whose response was that thank god marriage has evolved and been redefined, along with all of our conceptions of relationships. First, your parents don't decide to arrange your marriage, and second, if you're a woman, your father doesn't trade you for 3 goats, 2 sheep and a cow.
quote:That's correct. What no prophet is describing is a bride price, which is (was?) found in some societies. Depending I suppose on whether it was harder to get rid of a woman or acquire one.
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:I thought that dowries worked the other way round - you had to pay to off load a 'liability'
Originally posted by no prophet:
I mentioned this discussion to someone, whose response was that thank god marriage has evolved and been redefined, along with all of our conceptions of relationships. First, your parents don't decide to arrange your marriage, and second, if you're a woman, your father doesn't trade you for 3 goats, 2 sheep and a cow.
quote:What? I'm not talking about the 'non-existence' of gay marriage. I'm talking about the opposition being made to its introduction, right now. The Catholic church is quite explicit in putting itself in the vanguard of preventing the secular law from being changed.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:I agree that the response of religious French people is somewhat bizarre. Still, I don't know if the non-existence of SSM in France can be blamed purely on religious people. Do French presidents really listen to RC bishops? I've never heard of such a thing. They certainly don't listen to Protestants or Muslims.
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is happening at the moment even in France, a country with a very strong tradition of keeping the secular state separate from religion, and where a religious marriage ceremony has no status whatsoever under secular law.
quote:Eh, sort of. Technically a dowry is the material wealth a woman brings to a marriage, and it typically remains her property if the marriage doesn't work, or if she's widowed unexpectedly early, or any of the other contingencies that left former brides to fend for themselves in the ancient world.
Originally posted by The Midge:
I thought that dowries worked the other way round - you had to pay to off load a 'liability'
quote:Gay marriage is non-existent in France in the sense of not being legal there.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm not talking about the 'non-existence' of gay marriage. I'm talking about the opposition being made to its introduction, right now. The Catholic church is quite explicit in putting itself in the vanguard of preventing the secular law from being changed.
quote:Just to address this part.....I would imagine this is a play scenario some people may engage in!
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If being in a relationship through free choice is a higher ideal than being in a relationship through promise, then wouldn't going to a single bar every night and always picking up the same person (unless they're away) be an even higher ideal? Why not?
quote:"Commitment" holds a positive connotation. "Obligation" holds a negative connotation. In my view. However, In a committed relationship, I would agree that there is always obligation, or should be, because if you are committed to a person, then you care about them and it follows that you would have an obligation to take care not to hurt them. So,if the relationship is waning, you would be obligated to try and mend it or try to disengage without causing harm. However, the obligation stems from morals and the feelings between the two parties and no one else. Possibly a higher ideal than being beholden to, basically, the law.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Surely if a choice implies a commitment it implies an obligation? How is a commitment that doesn't oblige even a commitment?
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:It's a choice to commit to a relationship, understanding, as in with most mature relationships, that passing moods happen, problems occur. With that kind of commitment, it's a choice to work together towards a working relationship.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What does 'Holds together' here mean, if it doesn't mean 'commits' or 'obliges'? Are you sure it's not just verbiage? A choice that doesn't commit or oblige is merely a temporary mood.
I don't agree that it's a higher ideal, because I don't find the underlying picture of human being plausible.
I can understand how two people can have a committed partnership without any legal piece of paper. But a partnership in which neither party considers the partnership an obligation, I do not understand.
quote:I said underlying picture. It's the underlying picture of the human being as a wanting and choosing machine. That the only things that can be meaningful to me at this moment are what I want and choose in this moment.
What is the underlying principle that you find implausible?
quote:I don't quite understand how you get from entirely secular, in the sense of clear separation of church and state, to 'no political presence' and 'post-Christian country'.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:Gay marriage is non-existent in France in the sense of not being legal there.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm not talking about the 'non-existence' of gay marriage. I'm talking about the opposition being made to its introduction, right now. The Catholic church is quite explicit in putting itself in the vanguard of preventing the secular law from being changed.
Obviously, the RCC is against gay marriage - what else would one expect? But my question is, since France is an entirely secular state, the RCC has no political presence there, and there can't be many votes to be gained by toadying to the RCC, why does anyone other than a few churchy people feel obliged to listen to what the bishops have to say? Religious organisations don't possess power in a vacuum - they only have power to the extent that someone feels obliged to pay attention to what they have to say. Why would a post-Christian country feel such an obligation?
France is probably less Catholic than Spain, which already has SSM, so I can't see that a few loud-mouthed bishops are really going to be able to hold the French govt. to ransom for long, if that's what the problem is!!!
quote:So, by virtue of being married, this automatically means that the couple have placed a high value on the relationship and they will behave towards that end?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Second, let us pretend for the sake of argument that you present a viable choice, even to Christians. Then what you present is not really a higher ideal, but simply a matter of higher compatibility. People at regular intervals check whether their life together is better than their life apart. And if so, they continue. If not, they separate. This assumes no value for the relationship as such. Of course, people being people (i.e., designed for God's way discussed above), they likely put considerable value on the relationship as such. But your arrangement does not require this, and does not post a particularly high value as necessary condition. If you happen to put a high value on the relationship as such, you are more likely to continue with it for a long time. But that's a matter of individual preference. So perhaps your individuals have "ideals", but your idea of relationship doesn't. It is merely a pragmatic evaluation of the pros and cons of maintaining a relationship.
quote:I apologize for trying to add levity to a subject that you clearly find very serious. I do understand the concept of sin within Christianity, I assure you. However, I am certain that I have lived parts of my life definitely outside what you would deem "sacramental" and I remain largely unrepentant, so I'm pretty sure I would be a hardened sinner.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:First, it is never "cool" to live in sin for a Christian. If you say that my concept of sin is in error, then we have something to argue about here. But if you say that you are happy with living in sin, then we don't. Then you are either a hardened sinner or clueless concerning the Christian meaning of "sin".
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Wow, so IngoB, question. I was married by a judge, my uncle. It was not blessed in any way by any religious institution. Am I living in sin? If so, cool!
Second, to quote a canon of the RCC: "Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven." So without knowing any further detail about your situation, I assume that if you say that you are married, then you are in fact married, and hence not living in sin (at least as far as that fact goes).
Third, to quote another canon of the RCC: "Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. §2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament." Thus if you and your spouse happen to be baptised Christians, then I do not only assume that you are married, but that you are sacramentally married, until there is serious contrary information.
So if you and your spouse are baptised Christians who "only" married in a civil ceremony, then you may have sinned at the time in not seeking the blessing of your Church, and maybe it remains a sin of omission that you do not seek it now, but I will assume that you are now sacramentally married and hence do not sin simply by maintaining a sexual relationship (to the contrary, that you thereby please God).
If however you are not both baptised Christians, then it all gets a bit more confused (at least for me). The basic principle is however that there is nothing wrong with marriage as such, including natural (non-sacramental) marriage. So if we were talking about, say, Hindus marrying, then there is no doubt that these can be blessed in God's eyes. It's not as if all those marriages mean nothing just because they are not Christian. Rather it gets complicated when Christians mix with non-Christians, or Christians do not follow Christian rules on marriage, or non-Christians deal with marriage in a way that Christians think is contrary to marriage, etc. That's a highly complex area where I simply lack the expertise to say much.
quote:Of course not. People are people. It means that they should.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
So, by virtue of being married, this automatically means that the couple have placed a high value on the relationship and they will behave towards that end?
quote:To be able to take the other for granted is pretty much the point of marriage. Your relationship is supposed to be one less thing to worry about. It is supposed to be a secure basis from which the couple can operate. Again, people are people. Every good will be abused. (And in this case, it has been systematically - culturally - abused.) Still, the idea of continuous courtship is the sort of romantic bullshit that makes people starry-eyed and eats their souls. The actual difference between being taken for granted and being exploited is supposed to stem from mutuality. A parasitic relationship is one-way, but marriage is fundamentally two-way. To negotiate that is the "job" of a couple; and it is pragmatic and just arrangement of their mutuality, not romantic bullshit, which provides solidity for decades.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I'm not so sure. I find some people regard their marriage as solidified and in no need of repairs or examination or of attention precisely because its "till death do you part". It's a great way to take your marriage for granted.
quote:This is one of the stupidest things I’ve read in a very long time. In what sense would you describe yourself to be ‘married’ when you’re asleep? By the label, I suppose. And just how is that ‘better’ than the label of being ‘unmarried’ in one’s sleep?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Marriage is better than a relationship based upon the exercise of free positive choice, because I'm still married while I'm asleep. Whereas you cannot exercise positive choice while you're asleep.
quote:In the exactly same way that others are in an unchosen relationship in marriage. Obviously.
Nor, for that matter, can you be exercising positive choice while thinking about other things.
How do you think someone can be in a chosen relationship while they're asleep or thinking about other things?
quote:Yes, you were, in the same way that married people are, which was kind of my point.
While I was going out with my now-wife, before we got engaged, there must have been whole months in which it didn't cross my mind to make a choice. Was I not in a relationship at that stage?
quote:The choice you make at the altar is to abdicate choice thereafter. You’re making vows explicitly to relinquish choice, and your relationship thereafter becomes one in which choosing (to be together) is redundant and irrelevant. Except when it comes to divorce.
I made promises when I got married, I wasn't forced to make them, and I don't regret them. Why, discounting insane troll logic, is that not a relationship that's chosen?
quote:Yes, I would say that to choose to be with one person on a moment-by-moment basis, with that choice always being consensual and mutually beneficial, is a higher ideal than that of being with someone in which choice is precluded by the bounds of contract.
If being in a relationship through free choice is a higher ideal than being in a relationship through promise, then wouldn't going to a single bar every night and always picking up the same person (unless they're away) be an even higher ideal? Why not?
quote:Not all promises are legal contracts, and non-marital relationships are full of them. Most of those promises however do not negate the choice to be together, which is what marital vows do.
Do you take the same approach to promises in general? They're a second best compared to doing something without promising?
quote:Bully for you.
I've been pretty much opposed to any ideology of choice, since about the time Thatcher and Major appealed to it every time they wanted to justify privatising something.
quote:Myeah, well I hope your wife isn’t fucking another man like mine was when I used to think this shit.
Originally posted by IngoB:
To be able to take the other for granted is pretty much the point of marriage. Your relationship is supposed to be one less thing to worry about. It is supposed to be a secure basis from which the couple can operate.
quote:I'm married while asleep in exactly the same sense as I'm married while not asleep. That is, it is part of my ongoing story.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:This is one of the stupidest things I’ve read in a very long time. In what sense would you describe yourself to be ‘married’ when you’re asleep? By the label, I suppose. And just how is that ‘better’ than the label of being ‘unmarried’ in one’s sleep?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Whereas you cannot exercise positive choice while you're asleep.
quote:You've just been arguing that the two are mutually exclusive, and now you're saying that they're exactly the same. If people are together in marriage in exactly the same way as they are when they're in a freely-chosen relationship then marriage doesn't exclude free choice.
quote:In the exactly same way that others are in an unchosen relationship in marriage. Obviously.
Nor, for that matter, can you be exercising positive choice while thinking about other things.
How do you think someone can be in a chosen relationship while they're asleep or thinking about other things?
quote:So as people going out before engagement haven't abdicated choice, and marriage is exactly the same, marriage doesn't require a contract that precludes choice or anything that abdicates choice. Right.
quote:Yes, you were, in the same way that married people are, which was kind of my point.
While I was going out with my now-wife, before we got engaged, there must have been whole months in which it didn't cross my mind to make a choice. Was I not in a relationship at that stage?
quote:You say above that people who are married are together in exactly the same way as people before they're engaged. People before they're engaged have not made vows to relinquish choice. Therefore the marriage vows make no difference to whether the marriage is chosen.
quote:The choice you make at the altar is to abdicate choice thereafter. You’re making vows explicitly to relinquish choice, and your relationship thereafter becomes one in which choosing (to be together) is redundant and irrelevant. Except when it comes to divorce.
I made promises when I got married, I wasn't forced to make them, and I don't regret them. Why, discounting insane troll logic, is that not a relationship that's chosen?
quote:I wasn't implying anything about you as a person. And I didn't mean that sort of troll anyway.
And kindly do not imply that I am a troll. Thanks.
quote:So you really are agreed that continually going to a single bar is an even higher ideal? You go out to a single bar, hook up with someone (you don't cohabit because that limits choice), you do the same next night, you go to a different town for business and hook up with someone else there, you come back and hook up with the original person (first checking that there isn't anyone better around) - that's an even higher ideal?
quote:Yes, I would say that to choose to be with one person on a moment-by-moment basis, with that choice always being consensual and mutually beneficial, is a higher ideal than that of being with someone in which choice is precluded by the bounds of contract.
If being in a relationship through free choice is a higher ideal than being in a relationship through promise, then wouldn't going to a single bar every night and always picking up the same person (unless they're away) be an even higher ideal? Why not?
quote:What makes the difference?
quote:Not all promises are legal contracts, and non-marital relationships are full of them. Most of those promises however do not negate the choice to be together, which is what marital vows do.
Do you take the same approach to promises in general? They're a second best compared to doing something without promising?
quote:I'm not aware of laws that protect someone that devotes their life to raise their children and run a household and sacrifices an income earning career outside of marriage.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Yea, but child support laws and etc provide that. Marriage is still largely unnecessary.
quote:I'm not arguing with you; I'm arguing with Yorick. I've no quarrel with your relationship, but Yorick is being judgemental about mine. And I think his arguments are a) nonsense, and b) are trojan horses for Cameron and Osbourne's economic policies. So you know, I disagree with what he's saying.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:Seriously, though, really? I would think that we are comparing comparable relationships, just married and unmarried. The relationship you describe sounds like a "booty call" or something. Certainly not a long term relationship.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If being in a relationship through free choice is a higher ideal than being in a relationship through promise, then wouldn't going to a single bar every night and always picking up the same person (unless they're away) be an even higher ideal? Why not?
quote:Your wife broke her marriage vows.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Myeah, well I hope your wife isn’t fucking another man like mine was when I used to think this shit.
Originally posted by IngoB:
To be able to take the other for granted is pretty much the point of marriage. Your relationship is supposed to be one less thing to worry about. It is supposed to be a secure basis from which the couple can operate.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:Yorick is explicitly talking about a relationship in which there is no obligation, legal or otherwise. And therefore no commitment beyond the moment. (The positive or negative connotations of the words seem to me neither here nor there when it comes to the actual issues at stake, if you can change the problem by redescribing.)
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dafyd:
[qb] "Commitment" holds a positive connotation. "Obligation" holds a negative connotation. In my view. However, In a committed relationship, I would agree that there is always obligation, or should be, because if you are committed to a person, then you care about them and it follows that you would have an obligation to take care not to hurt them.
quote:But do you think the two are mutually exclusive? Also, surely the morals and feelings between the two parties can be affected by the prior commitment or the prior existence of a long-term relationship?
However, the obligation stems from morals and the feelings between the two parties and no one else. Possibly a higher ideal than being beholden to, basically, the law.
quote:The reason we aren't wanting and choosing machines is that things are meaningful to us. A wanting and choosing machine can't find anything meaningful besides what it wants and can choose now. Treating human beings as wanting and choosing machines treats all of life as if it's comparable to buying things in a supermarket or selecting meals in a restaurant. This has a political and economic dimension: one of the things that's wrong with right-wing politics and economics, indeed I think the fundamental error, is that it tries to reduce all of life to mere consumerism. (So that the question of whether people have good choices available to them drops out or can't be asked in the terms available.)
Also, I find it interesting that we cannot be wanting and choosing machines, I assume because we are bad at it, yet, we generally want and choose to get married.
quote:Being generous, I think that very much depends on what you mean by "taking for granted". And I'm assuming that I need to be generous, because otherwise it sounds like rather cold engineering-solution bullshit that would lead to most marriages collapsing in short order.
To be able to take the other for granted is pretty much the point of marriage. Your relationship is supposed to be one less thing to worry about. It is supposed to be a secure basis from which the couple can operate.
quote:Yep. World-wide bride-price is more common, its found in China and south-east Asia, in most African and many Middle-Eastern societies (though there is a lot of variation) and in other places as well. That's where the husband's family pays money (or whatever) to the wife's family.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:That's correct. What no prophet is describing is a bride price, which is (was?) found in some societies.
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:I thought that dowries worked the other way round - you had to pay to off load a 'liability'
Originally posted by no prophet:
[...] if you're a woman, your father doesn't trade you for 3 goats, 2 sheep and a cow.
quote:Actually I think Yorick's denigration of marriage is because he's in the shit. And he wants to be angry. If only to avoid being depressed.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The thing is, I think Yorick's denigration of marriage is unwittingly or wittingly equally a denigration of all long-term relationships.
quote:Well, yes. Marriage might be supposed to be a secure base, but how does that help when it isn't? The wise man built his house upon the rock - but sometimes people find that what they thought was rock was just sand pretending.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Myeah, well I hope your wife isn’t fucking another man like mine was when I used to think this shit.
Originally posted by IngoB:
To be able to take the other for granted is pretty much the point of marriage. Your relationship is supposed to be one less thing to worry about. It is supposed to be a secure basis from which the couple can operate.
quote:Yeah, but how do you establish that positive feedback if one side is not even trying to feed anything back?
Originally posted by Snags:
Both parties still need to put effort in, to appreciate each other, to spend time with each other, to listen, to grow together rather than apart etc. Which is far from taking each other for granted.
The whole thing is a positive feedback loop, and needs attention and maintenance.
quote:I hope so, too. But see, on my scheme you have a lot to complain about. On your scheme, the only wrong thing that your wife did was to not notify you that she had found a lover more to her liking. (And even that is a bit of a stretch.)
Originally posted by Yorick:
Myeah, well I hope your wife isn’t fucking another man like mine was when I used to think this shit.
quote:I was of course intentionally playing with the usual meaning of these words. That said, your comments do not ring perfectly true for me. Let me put it this way. I regularly read scientific papers, as part of my job. This activity, objectively speaking, requires considerable effort. And indeed, an outside observer would perhaps note down something like "IngoB spends 10% of his professional time on reading literature". However, this does activity does not register as an effort with me, personally, unless it fails. If I hit a particularly difficult paper, or perhaps if I am sick and can't concentrate properly, then I feel again just how much work I am putting in. Otherwise, it is just something I do. It is habitual, it has become a part of me that does not really rise to the level of full consciousness. Of course I am not unconscious while reading those papers, but I do not need to direct myself to this with perceived effort. If at all, there is a certain enjoyment in this exercise as exercise.
Originally posted by Snags:
Taking your spouse for granted, in the normally understood nature of the phrase, isn't going to lead anywhere good. Whilst I totally agree that the idea that you'll have a lifetime of Hollywood romance and squishy feelings is crap, you absolutely can't take your partner for granted if you want them to remain your partner. Both parties still need to put effort in, to appreciate each other, to spend time with each other, to listen, to grow together rather than apart etc. Which is far from taking each other for granted.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I hope so, too. But see, on my scheme you have a lot to complain about. On your scheme, the only wrong thing that your wife did was to not notify you that she had found a lover more to her liking. (And even that is a bit of a stretch.)
Originally posted by Yorick:
Myeah, well I hope your wife isn’t fucking another man like mine was when I used to think this shit.
quote:Sorry, I should say I appreciate that there are people on this thread who are being judgemental about your relationship as well.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I've no quarrel with your relationship, but Yorick is being judgemental about mine.
quote:Evensong, all the laws in Australia on these matters apply equally to married and de facto couples these days. Family Law Act, Child Support Act.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:I'm not aware of laws that protect someone that devotes their life to raise their children and run a household and sacrifices an income earning career outside of marriage.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Yea, but child support laws and etc provide that. Marriage is still largely unnecessary.
Where do you live? That's an impressive law.
quote:I don't believe I'm being deliberately obtuse. Deliberately ironic, certainly. Maybe even deliberately sarcastic. But if I'm obtuse it's not deliberately so.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Dafyd, I cannot discuss this with you when you're being deliberately obtuse. It's quite futile anyway.
quote:Okay.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Perhaps you could explain why you think I'm being obtuse?
quote:This is plain silly. You’re putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my position, I think mischievously. I’m not playing.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So you really are agreed that continually going to a single bar is an even higher ideal? You go out to a single bar, hook up with someone (you don't cohabit because that limits choice), you do the same next night, you go to a different town for business and hook up with someone else there, you come back and hook up with the original person (first checking that there isn't anyone better around) - that's an even higher ideal?
By the way, you say 'consensual'. Consent has to be given on a moment to moment basis, yes? Now you're being someone on a consensual and mutually beneficial basis, and their attention is distracted by a passing car. Suddenly, they're not consenting any more. So the relationship suddenly becomes non-consensual. Stupid? But the stupidity follows directly from your arguments.
quote:I sincerely think that your position implies the consequences I outline. I may be wrong, but I need reasons.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Okay.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Perhaps you could explain why you think I'm being obtuse?
quote:This is plain silly. You’re putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting my position, I think mischievously. I’m not playing.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So you really are agreed that continually going to a single bar is an even higher ideal? You go out to a single bar, hook up with someone (you don't cohabit because that limits choice), you do the same next night, you go to a different town for business and hook up with someone else there, you come back and hook up with the original person (first checking that there isn't anyone better around) - that's an even higher ideal?
By the way, you say 'consensual'. Consent has to be given on a moment to moment basis, yes? Now you're being someone on a consensual and mutually beneficial basis, and their attention is distracted by a passing car. Suddenly, they're not consenting any more. So the relationship suddenly becomes non-consensual. Stupid? But the stupidity follows directly from your arguments.
quote:Oh, so you mean, people have a choice to value the relationship or not, even under legal obligation?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Of course not. People are people. It means that they should.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
So, by virtue of being married, this automatically means that the couple have placed a high value on the relationship and they will behave towards that end?
quote:To be able to take the other for granted is pretty much the point of marriage. Your relationship is supposed to be one less thing to worry about. It is supposed to be a secure basis from which the couple can operate. Again, people are people. Every good will be abused. (And in this case, it has been systematically - culturally - abused.) Still, the idea of continuous courtship is the sort of romantic bullshit that makes people starry-eyed and eats their souls. The actual difference between being taken for granted and being exploited is supposed to stem from mutuality. A parasitic relationship is one-way, but marriage is fundamentally two-way. To negotiate that is the "job" of a couple; and it is pragmatic and just arrangement of their mutuality, not romantic bullshit, which provides solidity for decades.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I'm not so sure. I find some people regard their marriage as solidified and in no need of repairs or examination or of attention precisely because its "till death do you part". It's a great way to take your marriage for granted.
quote:But I'm arguing with you! Or rather, with your example. I think you were comparing apples and oranges.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I'm not arguing with you; I'm arguing with Yorick. I've no quarrel with your relationship, but Yorick is being judgemental about mine. And I think his arguments are a) nonsense, and b) are trojan horses for Cameron and Osbourne's economic policies. So you know, I disagree with what he's saying.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:Seriously, though, really? I would think that we are comparing comparable relationships, just married and unmarried. The relationship you describe sounds like a "booty call" or something. Certainly not a long term relationship.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If being in a relationship through free choice is a higher ideal than being in a relationship through promise, then wouldn't going to a single bar every night and always picking up the same person (unless they're away) be an even higher ideal? Why not?
Yes, the 'relationship' I describe isn't a long term relationship. The thing is, I think Yorick's denigration of marriage is unwittingly or wittingly equally a denigration of all long-term relationships. And I want to either get Yorick to recognise that, and so abandon that particular argument, or else bite the bullet (in which case I'll have to find a different counterargument).
quote:Not that at all in reasonably functioning relationships. Not lifetime monogamy because of God, but monogamy within a committed relationship because of the effect not not having it is so immense. The idea that God ordained this as a rule because it pleases God, is convenient if you're authoritative and believe answers are obtained that way. But the reality is that if you don't have it, it harms the other person the relationship with them. And it harms even when (or if) the other person doesn't know about the unfaithfulness. By the time the unfaithful sex has actually happened, the harm is already fully present.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
...lifetime monogamy because God ordains it, and is watching and will punish you if you don't engage in it, to me, is a little insane.
quote:It was not my personal understanding that Yorick is including obligations that stems from shared history, or morals. It is also not my understanding that he is talking about no commitment by the moment. We have been consistently talking about long term relationships, which in my definition, means working out problems past the mere moment.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Yorick is explicitly talking about a relationship in which there is no obligation, legal or otherwise. And therefore no commitment beyond the moment. (The positive or negative connotations of the words seem to me neither here nor there when it comes to the actual issues at stake, if you can change the problem by redescribing.)
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dafyd:
[qb] "Commitment" holds a positive connotation. "Obligation" holds a negative connotation. In my view. However, In a committed relationship, I would agree that there is always obligation, or should be, because if you are committed to a person, then you care about them and it follows that you would have an obligation to take care not to hurt them.
quote:But do you think the two are mutually exclusive? Also, surely the morals and feelings between the two parties can be affected by the prior commitment or the prior existence of a long-term relationship?
However, the obligation stems from morals and the feelings between the two parties and no one else. Possibly a higher ideal than being beholden to, basically, the law.
quote:The reason we aren't wanting and choosing machines is that things are meaningful to us. A wanting and choosing machine can't find anything meaningful besides what it wants and can choose now. Treating human beings as wanting and choosing machines treats all of life as if it's comparable to buying things in a supermarket or selecting meals in a restaurant. This has a political and economic dimension: one of the things that's wrong with right-wing politics and economics, indeed I think the fundamental error, is that it tries to reduce all of life to mere consumerism. (So that the question of whether people have good choices available to them drops out or can't be asked in the terms available.)
Also, I find it interesting that we cannot be wanting and choosing machines, I assume because we are bad at it, yet, we generally want and choose to get married.
quote:I don't mean for your interpretation to be an example of "insane troll logic". I'm well aware of the more liberal, or reasonable interpretations of Christianity and God and all of that. I don't paint all with a broad brush.
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:Not that at all in reasonably functioning relationships. Not lifetime monogamy because of God, but monogamy within a committed relationship because of the effect not not having it is so immense. The idea that God ordained this as a rule because it pleases God, is convenient if you're authoritative and believe answers are obtained that way. But the reality is that if you don't have it, it harms the other person the relationship with them. And it harms even when (or if) the other person doesn't know about the unfaithfulness. By the time the unfaithful sex has actually happened, the harm is already fully present.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
...lifetime monogamy because God ordains it, and is watching and will punish you if you don't engage in it, to me, is a little insane.
I do not believe that God is interested in punishment about things like this, rather, if God is able to cry, weeps about it, and hopes we weep too. -- I really do object to the authoritative approach to right and wrong when we are dealing with real human problems and issues. There is right and wrong, and they can be starkly defined, but the rightness is not at all because God (or a church) says it. It is right or wrong because it harms or helps, and because right things move us toward God and wrong things move us away.
quote:Can't find it right now, but I seem to remember someone bringing up the different perspectives of seeing marriage primarily as a legal situation, or primarily having little to do with legality.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I think that if a couple has an obligation to each other out of real feelings and desire to be together, the legal obligation is kind of moot. And of course shared history affects morals and feelings. I don't think anyone has said otherwise.
It seems to me that you would like to claim that your marriage is one you are proud of and would like to be recognized as something to be proud of. That's great! But that lands you squarely in the area of your legal obligation is kind of moot. If you were suddenly not married by some random accident or clerical error, your choice would not change. Stop taking "ideal" so personally.
quote:Ah, now that I can definitely get behind. Although, for me at least, one of those habits is a periodic check that I'm not taking the other person for granted because of tiredness, laziness, business, life, meh, whatever etc.
This is about establishing the right habits to make the relationship work, day in and day out.
quote:Agreed
Originally posted by Snags:
IngoB wrote:
quote:Ah, now that I can definitely get behind. Although, for me at least, one of those habits is a periodic check that I'm not taking the other person for granted because of tiredness, laziness, business, life, meh, whatever etc.
This is about establishing the right habits to make the relationship work, day in and day out.
quote:Divorce laws allocate assets, child support helps pay for raising children, but a woman that has spent 20-30 years raising kids and running a household is likely to end up being a check-out chick at Coles to provide herself with an income.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Evensong, all the laws in Australia on these matters apply equally to married and de facto couples these days. Family Law Act, Child Support Act.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:I'm not aware of laws that protect someone that devotes their life to raise their children and run a household and sacrifices an income earning career outside of marriage.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Yea, but child support laws and etc provide that. Marriage is still largely unnecessary.
Where do you live? That's an impressive law.
quote:I was with you until about halfway through. So you don't think that a couple can develop and keep "romance" as a having a place in the marriage without involving a third party? (In a physical manner?)
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
After x^y years, you're going to start taking some things for granted--unless you have one of those relationships that's in perpetual crisis. The truth is, "romance" is mostly a function of uncertainty, not to say anxiety. If I touch her is she going to push me away? If I say "I love you" is she going to wince and say "You're sweet"? Some people enjoy that anxiety, because it's exciting (I think all of us long-married folks miss it at times, which is why we develop crushes, even if we never act on them--don't pretend it's never happened to you). People who really need it probably shouldn't get married. Or they should have what Dan Savage calls a "monogamish" marriage. I don't have any problem with that, as long as it's all open and genuinely OK with both partners. I've just known very few of those that were stable.
quote:Well, I don't think that it's a very good idea for a woman to give up her job and career or education for that many years. You don't need to stay home that long to raise children. That's just my personal opinion. Generally, if a woman stays out of the job market past the children being teenagers then that is usually her choice.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Divorce laws allocate assets, child support helps pay for raising children, but a woman that has spent 20-30 years raising kids and running a household is likely to end up being a check-out chick at Coles to provide herself with an income.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Evensong, all the laws in Australia on these matters apply equally to married and de facto couples these days. Family Law Act, Child Support Act.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:I'm not aware of laws that protect someone that devotes their life to raise their children and run a household and sacrifices an income earning career outside of marriage.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Yea, but child support laws and etc provide that. Marriage is still largely unnecessary.
Where do you live? That's an impressive law.
Those years are years that would have been spent developing a career and reaching a decent income by middle age if she was not raising her own children and running a household.
Instead she has to settle for second or third rate jobs.
Which is terribly unfair.
Long term marriage protects her sacrifice by protecting her income.
quote:Yorick describes his ideal as (my italics):
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
It was not my personal understanding that Yorick is including obligations that stems from shared history, or morals. It is also not my understanding that he is talking about no commitment by the moment. We have been consistently talking about long term relationships, which in my definition, means working out problems past the mere moment.
quote:Now Yorick thinks I'm not understanding him properly, but I can't see how "moment-by-moment basis" means anything other than nothing other than the mere moment.
to choose to be with one person on a moment-by-moment basis, with that choice always being consensual and mutually beneficial
quote:I would agree that the legal obligation is largely a matter of administrative convenience. It means you and your partner have a piece of paper to wave at the state for certain purposes (visiting in hospital etc). Still, I think marriage as a matter of public promises to have a permanent relationship works out.
I think that if a couple has an obligation to each other out of real feelings and desire to be together, the legal obligation is kind of moot. And of course shared history affects morals and feelings.
quote:What I take Yorick to be saying is that if you have the legal piece of paper then you no longer have any choice in the sense that he thinks is valuable and important.
I continue to agree that choice is actually essential in marriage or LTR. I would say, though, that how much choice one has in a marriage largely depends on the individual circumstances of the union.
quote:It's not really. I was being a bit melodramatic when I said it. The bits I said about an ideology that exalts choice being a harmful right-wing ideology, that I do mean.
And I'm beginning to get that this is personal for you.
quote:Yorick describes his ideal as (my italics):
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[/qb]
quote:Now Yorick thinks I'm not understanding him properly, but I can't see how "moment-by-moment basis" means anything other than nothing other than the mere moment.
to choose to be with one person on a moment-by-moment basis, with that choice always being consensual and mutually beneficial
quote:What I take Yorick to be saying is that if you have the legal piece of paper then you no longer have any choice in the sense that he thinks is valuable and important.
I continue to agree that choice is actually essential in marriage or LTR. I would say, though, that how much choice one has in a marriage largely depends on the individual circumstances of the union.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Sure they can--by always keeping each other in doubt about how they will respond at any moment (think "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf"). There's no romance if you know the object of your affection is going to say yes (though I have read of couples who developed rather elaborate role-playing scenarios to mimic that uncertainty).
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:I was with you until about halfway through. So you don't think that a couple can develop and keep "romance" as a having a place in the marriage without involving a third party? (In a physical manner?)
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
After x^y years, you're going to start taking some things for granted--unless you have one of those relationships that's in perpetual crisis. The truth is, "romance" is mostly a function of uncertainty, not to say anxiety. If I touch her is she going to push me away? If I say "I love you" is she going to wince and say "You're sweet"? Some people enjoy that anxiety, because it's exciting (I think all of us long-married folks miss it at times, which is why we develop crushes, even if we never act on them--don't pretend it's never happened to you). People who really need it probably shouldn't get married. Or they should have what Dan Savage calls a "monogamish" marriage. I don't have any problem with that, as long as it's all open and genuinely OK with both partners. I've just known very few of those that were stable.
quote:I would make the dichotomy between comfort (which for many if not most requires stability) and excitement (which similarly requires novelty).
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
However some people value stability over romance and that is fine if both parties in the couple feel the same.
quote:Lets say a woman finishes high school, goes to university and finishes a degree. A year or two later ( say age 25) she marries and has three children around three years apart. If she chooses to raise them herself until age 16, she will be out of the paid job market for 25 years.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Well, I don't think that it's a very good idea for a woman to give up her job and career or education for that many years. You don't need to stay home that long to raise children. That's just my personal opinion. Generally, if a woman stays out of the job market past the children being teenagers then that is usually her choice.
quote:Probably saying the same thing ...But also to find love and allow that love to develop by forming a bond of trust. This , esp. if both parties have been divorced, may take several years.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Exactly. The challenge is finding someone whose optimal comfort:excitement ratio matches your own, or is at least close enough that a reasonably satisfying compromise can be achieved.
quote:And I say that there is no way that one can maintain novelty past a decade or so of living together every day. At some point one just knows the other. Like the command to be spontaneous, the quest for romantic excitement is ultimately self-defeating. I think the desire for "novelty" here really means a desire for "attention". The key is to maintain attention in spite of familiarity, or better, attention to and for familiarity.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I would make the dichotomy between comfort (which for many if not most requires stability) and excitement (which similarly requires novelty).
quote:I feel that the idea that one knows the other is false, kind of presumptuous, and a possible precursor to taking your spouse for granted.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:And I say that there is no way that one can maintain novelty past a decade or so of living together every day. At some point one just knows the other. Like the command to be spontaneous, the quest for romantic excitement is ultimately self-defeating. I think the desire for "novelty" here really means a desire for "attention". The key is to maintain attention in spite of familiarity, or better, attention to and for familiarity.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I would make the dichotomy between comfort (which for many if not most requires stability) and excitement (which similarly requires novelty).
quote:I would say that you need to rely on that bond of trust to build in the excitement end of the dichotomy since that end thrives on separateness and novelty, inherently vulnerable things.
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:Probably saying the same thing ...But also to find love and allow that love to develop by forming a bond of trust. This , esp. if both parties have been divorced, may take several years.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Exactly. The challenge is finding someone whose optimal comfort:excitement ratio matches your own, or is at least close enough that a reasonably satisfying compromise can be achieved.
Excitement and chemistry need to be there from the start. However, when this becomes less of a feature, as surely it will, couples must rely on that special bond of trust in order to go the distance.
Compromise always sounds like a word that puts the dampener on the fun and excitement aspect . Yet long-term relationships are likely to be fraught without it.
<Disclaimer alert> . Not wanting to sound like a relationship expert here . I darn't risk making such a pompous claim only to have my own fall apart a year later.
But for the Grace of God go L-T relationships IMHO.
quote:If you do not know the other after a decade of living together, then I'll predict plenty of excitement for your relationship. It's just not going to be particularly good excitement...
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I feel that the idea that one knows the other is false, kind of presumptuous, and a possible precursor to taking your spouse for granted.
quote:If there is no chemistry between you, if you have no passion for the other and no interest in each other, then what are you doing in a relationship with each other, much less a long term one? (Well, I'm not in fact knocking "marriage as business proposal" ideas of yesteryear or elsewhere. But I assume we are talking about typical Western "marriage for love" here.)
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Attention to the spouse for what, if not for some semblance of romance, chemistry, interest, excitement, passion or whatever you want to call that end of the LTR dichotomy?
quote:Well, only 13 years here. That's more journeyman level than anything, really, but I've been down the road a bit at least.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
(So far from the expert of a LTR expert, I cannot even tell you..)
quote:Reminds me of something I heard somewhere.... 'True love depends on being not being entirely honest with eachother.'
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I just suggest that end is based on some level of vulnerability and not knowing. And wanting to know.
quote:I'm not sure either. Yet I was not talking about idealistic nonsense, but about practical realities.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I'm talking about knowing each other completely. I'm not sure that's possible or desirable.
quote:For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
And what I'm suggesting is a balance of the two ends of the spectrum. (Currently spinning wildly from one end of the spectrum to the other, and no, its not ideal.)
quote:This sounds like nothing more than, "They should have the benefits of being married, without having to bother getting married."
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I believe that indeed the working parent owes a great debt to the parent at home and should be recognized legally whether married or not.
quote:Well, they can only get married if BOTH parties are up for that. Levelling the legal playing field so that financial protections are in place for the party who ends up being the custodial parent in the event of a relationship collapse (which is what I understood FOTH to be talking about) does at least offer some protection against 'we don't need a piece of paper to prove our love, baby' (translation: I want to be free to abscond at will).
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This sounds like nothing more than, "They should have the benefits of being married, without having to bother getting married."
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I believe that indeed the working parent owes a great debt to the parent at home and should be recognized legally whether married or not.
quote:Well, no. But it is not necessarily possible to create laws to take care of the other ones, and the fact that there are likely to be other problems isn't a reason to ignore the amelioration of the financial ones.
Originally posted by Gwai:
If one has a kid with someone like that, money is not nearly the biggest of the resultant problems, IMO.
quote:But you're just restating what I said: they want to have the protections of marriage without getting married. Why work hard to create laws to mirror the various legal guarantees of marriage, when we've already got ... marriage? The outcome of that course of action would be to essentially force people to be de facto married, whether they wanted to be so or not.
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:Well, they can only get married if BOTH parties are up for that. Levelling the legal playing field so that financial protections are in place for the party who ends up being the custodial parent in the event of a relationship collapse (which is what I understood FOTH to be talking about) does at least offer some protection against 'we don't need a piece of paper to prove our love, baby' (translation: I want to be free to abscond at will).
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This sounds like nothing more than, "They should have the benefits of being married, without having to bother getting married."
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
I believe that indeed the working parent owes a great debt to the parent at home and should be recognized legally whether married or not.
quote:Trying to make hosts of laws to deal with assholism is a bit paternalistic to me. If the non-asshole partner wanted to get married or say Not without marriage, they would have. Maybe said person is also a grownup and was not worried. Now there are certainly times we should protect a person from themselves. But to make laws that force all the responsibilities of marriage on those that chose not to be married? Dislike.
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:Well, no. But it is not necessarily possible to create laws to take care of the other ones, and the fact that there are likely to be other problems isn't a reason to ignore the amelioration of the financial ones.
Originally posted by Gwai:
If one has a kid with someone like that, money is not nearly the biggest of the resultant problems, IMO.
quote:But it's not only for the legal protection, is it? It's an acknowledgement that parenting is the hardest thing you'll ever do and that the person you decide to do it with has a status in your life that goes far beyond your personal "feelings" about them. And always will have. After all, you can, in the law, divorce your spouse, but you cannot undo the relationship between your children and their other parent.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Making a vow of "till death do you part" only for the legal protection...dislike
quote:In that case I'd never get married at all. Who wants to be just one more stepping stone on somebody else's endless bedhopping for happiness? (to mix metaphors horribly)
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
On a related note, whilst I think there's something symbolically powerful in committing and obliging yourself to another person... I personally find it to be much more big and meaningful to say that you love someone so much that, if they were to find someone who they'd be happier with, then you'd wish them to pursue that rather than be tied to you
quote:I imagine the dont see a down side to NOT getting married? The legal bond is just not as necessary any more. It doesn't guarantee happiness or stability. There is no social stigma to an unwed partnership. Any legal benefits can be obtained by other means, and remaining unwed also has its own set of protections. So, explain why the should bother, if they don't want to.
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Right then: I do not give advice to my younger colleagues who are fathers but not married: at least two of them are raising children with their girlfriends without benefit of marriage. One of the two has a significant other expecting their second child. I do not understand young people in their early thirties or late twenties: what is the downside to getting married if both parties are bringing up children!?
quote:I'm not privy to what they said to each other privately, obviously. If they ever promised to each other that they would do what they ended up doing, then they in fact were married (at least in a natural sense). Any involvement of the state or indeed the Church (in Western understanding) is simply as notary and enforcer of such promise. If you tell me "I will paint your fence next Monday," and then you don't, I may wish to call on the state to enforce your promise (or extract due compensation for breaking it). And when I do so, I may well wish that I had this promise noted in a manner more accessible to the state (e.g., a written on a piece of paper, and signed). But that does not change that fundamentally this is a promise from you to me. It's not the state who worries about that fence. It is our problem.
Originally posted by Anyuta:
My aunt and uncle never married. They raised a child together, and lived as any married couple, through good times and bad, for 30 some odd years, untill my uncle passed away. So...till death did them part. Why exactly is that somehow worse than if they got married?
quote:Sorry, I didn't realise your relationship(s) are all (or even primarily) about sex. That's not really how I approach relationships, and neither does my partner, so it's hard for me to empathise with you there.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:In that case I'd never get married at all. Who wants to be just one more stepping stone on somebody else's endless bedhopping for happiness? (to mix metaphors horribly)
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
On a related note, whilst I think there's something symbolically powerful in committing and obliging yourself to another person... I personally find it to be much more big and meaningful to say that you love someone so much that, if they were to find someone who they'd be happier with, then you'd wish them to pursue that rather than be tied to you
quote:I can't tell if you're joking or if you completely missed the point, but I'll take a crack at this one.
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
quote:Is perhaps the point you're making that if better sex makes all the difference between one relationship and another, then it kinda sucks if you're both the one who isn't as good at sex and your partner doesn't care too much about your own feelings?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:In that case I'd never get married at all. Who wants to be just one more stepping stone on somebody else's endless bedhopping for happiness? (to mix metaphors horribly)
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
On a related note, whilst I think there's something symbolically powerful in committing and obliging yourself to another person... I personally find it to be much more big and meaningful to say that you love someone so much that, if they were to find someone who they'd be happier with, then you'd wish them to pursue that rather than be tied to you
quote:I think that you need to consider "truly happier". In the scenario you present, the man who wants a younger woman and thinks that will make him happier, I'm assuming, just because she is younger and more physically attractive, is obviously deluded. The wife would know that and would not want him to leave her for his own happiness because she knows that younger does not mean better. Nor does being with someone more physically attractive make someone happier. There are a lot of shades of grey here. (No pun intended.)
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:I can't tell if you're joking or if you completely missed the point, but I'll take a crack at this one.
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
quote:Is perhaps the point you're making that if better sex makes all the difference between one relationship and another, then it kinda sucks if you're both the one who isn't as good at sex and your partner doesn't care too much about your own feelings?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:In that case I'd never get married at all. Who wants to be just one more stepping stone on somebody else's endless bedhopping for happiness? (to mix metaphors horribly)
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
On a related note, whilst I think there's something symbolically powerful in committing and obliging yourself to another person... I personally find it to be much more big and meaningful to say that you love someone so much that, if they were to find someone who they'd be happier with, then you'd wish them to pursue that rather than be tied to you
People are very bad at predicting their future happiness. Very, very bad. It is extremely common (at least in the background I come from) for men to leave their wives in their mid-forties to mid-fifties for (often younger) women with whom they think they will be happier. You're saying that the wife, if she truly loves her husband, should want to be abandoned in such a fashion because it will make him happy. While sex sometimes has something to do with this, it has absolutely nothing to do with being "not as good at sex." I really have no idea what you're getting at by assuming Mousethief's point was all about sex.
quote:I think this is the true question. Personally, I don't think that many people truly mean "till death do we part". I think they mean, "until you break the marriage vows" or "until we can't stand each other anymore" or "we mutually decide to part". Not very romantic vows. But I do think it is important to be honest in your vows. I think it might be a better idea for couples to write their own vows.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The true question is: Is there significant value in promising yourself to each other, or not? If you answer yes, then you should marry. How you do that (state, Church, ...) is important, but a secondary concern.
quote:Oh, I completely agree. But fhe question asked was..if a couple is together and having children anyway, why don't they just get married. I assumed that to be referring specifically to the "legal notary" service of Church and or State. Otherwise, I would answer " they probably ARE married", in the promising to each other sense.
Originally posted by IngoB:
...., then they in fact were married (at least in a natural sense). Any involvement of the state or indeed the Church (in Western understanding) is simply as notary and enforcer of such promise....
So, I think there is room here to step back from the involvement of both state and Church. Ultimately, both provide only a kind of "legal service" to the couple, neither of them marries the couple as such. The couple marries itself. ...
The true question is: Is there significant value in promising yourself to each other, or not? If you answer yes, then you should marry. How you do that (state, Church, ...) is important, but a secondary concern.
quote:It is interesting. But also a bit focused on something that is only part of one cultures wedding ceremony/process. "Vows" are not a universal aspect of the a wedding. It's not even universal within Christianity.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Interesting article
http://www.womansdivorce.com/marriage-vs-wedding.html
quote:What a fascinating misinterpretation of what I said. And a fascinating denial that that is one of the things that people think makes them happy, and leave their spouses over.
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
Sorry, I didn't realise your relationship(s) are all (or even primarily) about sex.
quote:That's what you're praising, seems to me. Or at least, comparatively. "I don't care about you as much as I do about this new person." "Oh well then who am I to stand in the way of your happiness?" I find it pretty sick.
Who wants a partner who doesn't care about them?
quote:That is exactly what Clonk is saying I should want for my wife -- that she should leave me for another, if she thinks that other would make her happier. What else can he mean by what he has said? And all my wife can go on, when she meets this new person she deserves to be able to leave me for, is what she thinks will happen, since nobody can know the future, and particularly the future of relationships. Clonk wants me to rejoice if my wife finds someone she thinks will make her happier than I can, and be happy to let her go based on her guesses about the future.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
And furthermore, leaving someone for another is not honest or healthy.
quote:Dynamics become quite strange and contorted when a binary monogamist approach is taken to things. In such a contrived/inflexible paradigm there isn't much or any scope for testing one's 'guesses', which, as you say, makes such 'guesses' a lot more likely to be ill-advised than they would otherwise be. If you're sticking to an inflexible monogamy, then what I'm suggesting could well be pragmatically stunted. The problem might be my suggestion from one perspective, but from another the problem could be rigidly sticking to monogamy.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:What a fascinating misinterpretation of what I said. And a fascinating denial that that is one of the things that people think makes them happy, and leave their spouses over.
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
Sorry, I didn't realise your relationship(s) are all (or even primarily) about sex.
quote:That's what you're praising, seems to me. Or at least, comparatively. "I don't care about you as much as I do about this new person." "Oh well then who am I to stand in the way of your happiness?" I find it pretty sick.
Who wants a partner who doesn't care about them?
quote:That is exactly what Clonk is saying I should want for my wife -- that she should leave me for another, if she thinks that other would make her happier. What else can he mean by what he has said? And all my wife can go on, when she meets this new person she deserves to be able to leave me for, is what she thinks will happen, since nobody can know the future, and particularly the future of relationships. Clonk wants me to rejoice if my wife finds someone she thinks will make her happier than I can, and be happy to let her go based on her guesses about the future.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
And furthermore, leaving someone for another is not honest or healthy.
quote:Well sure I personally advocate polyamory, but I'm interested in exploring with you how applicable polyamorous principles are to a monogamist marriage paradigm. That's something I've not considered as much.
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you're advocating for polyamory or open marriage, just come out and advocate for it. Or answer what I said. These games grow wearisome.
quote:my own personal experience (two marriages, total nearly 30 years, once divorce, several separations, many ups and downs) is that I only find myself seriously thinking about other partners (beyond just "oh, isn't he a treat for the eyes") when the marriage is ALREADY having difficulty. it's like there is some switch that goes off when there is a likelyhood of the relationship ending, which sets me looking for alternatives. it's not , for me, EVER that the desire for an alternative relationship impacts the current relationship, but only that existing problems in the current relationship may trigger interest in others.
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
Transferring polyamorous dynamics across to monogamous dynamics would be clunky, but perhaps worth a thought... even if it ends up demonstrating a clear incompatibility.
With polyamory there is freedom of movement for each individual in relation to other people (exactly how much freedom depends on what is idiosyncratically agreed, but I'll ignore that nuance for now). This is very essentially accompanied with open and steady communication about what's going on and how people are responding to such things. These two elements are absolutely paramount.
Now, what we have with monogamy, and especially with marriage, is that there is not freedom of movement and therefore anything that threatens to contravene this is taboo and therefore cannot be spoken of.
So I guess what I'm curious about is to what extent it would be beneficial for people in marriages to be openly communicative about any urges they might find from time to time to contravene their relationship's monogamous boundaries. Communication is always touted as THE fundamental thing for good polyamorous relationships. Communicating doesn't necessarily change what your partner thinks/feels (although of course it often does), but it treats people respectfully by letting them know what's going on, it gives people informed choice and it ensures that people's feelings and thoughts are expressed and heard... and these can be wrestled with together rather than alone. So, for example, monogamous couples would end up having greater opportunities to coordinate corrective action if that is what they wish to do.
I'm being very presumptive about the level of communication about these things in normal monogamous relationships, so do correct me if I'm entirely misconstruing how such relationships tend to work.
I guess the problem with taking lifelong vows in particular is that your subsequent recourse to expressing doubts and misgivings over those vows is fraught with questions of your own honour... So it's very difficult to express something different from what you've committed yourself to.
quote:I don't know a lot about David Instone-Brewer - I had to google him. But isn't there a probelm with any theology of marriage and divorce which requires you to identify one spouse as sinner (and therefore not permitted to remarry) and one as sinned against (therefore permitted to remarry).
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I gots just three words to say against the narrow interpretation of the handful of statements on divorce and remarriage by Jesus and Paul (which is NOT in defense of betrayal, abandonment): David Instone-Brewer.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
There's clearly a big difference between polyamory and monogamy in that the binary nature of the latter makes any other potential relationships necessarily a threat.
Also, entertaining other relationships in order to cover over any failings in existing relationships is a terrible idea... And if such communication only would have occasion to happen in monogamy when there are problems, then that would be mimicking the time in a polyamorous relationship when it's least good to consider other relationships.
Hmm. It's very interesting how much prescriptions about relationship structure affects things.
quote:Semantics. I think that "freedom of movement" means "entertaining other relationships". The benefit that I see in polyamory is that where one relationship "fails" another relationship fulfills. I'm not sure that's not one realistic model for what naturally happens in a one on one relationship. However, it is what it is. A way to cover failings in one relationship by entertaining another.
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
With polyamory there is freedom of movement for each individual in relation to other people (exactly how much freedom depends on what is idiosyncratically agreed, but I'll ignore that nuance for now). This is very essentially accompanied with open and steady communication about what's going on and how people are responding to such things. These two elements are absolutely paramount.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
I personally find it to be much more big and meaningful to say that you love someone so much that, if they were to find someone who they'd be happier with, then you'd wish them to pursue that rather than be tied to you (assuming the hurt it causes you doesn't cancel out the good gained by making the switch, which is a fair assumption since your partner presumably cares about you a lot).
quote:Wouldn't you trade being free for being completely confident that you are loved?
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:This.
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
I personally find it to be much more big and meaningful to say that you love someone so much that, if they were to find someone who they'd be happier with, then you'd wish them to pursue that rather than be tied to you (assuming the hurt it causes you doesn't cancel out the good gained by making the switch, which is a fair assumption since your partner presumably cares about you a lot).
How can it be argued that marriage is better, ideologically speaking, than this sort of arrangement? Marriage is terribly selfish, as its bonds allow people to prevent their spouses from being free.
quote:The trick is to find a partner who shares your perspective on this. Then everything will be fine!
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:This.
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
I personally find it to be much more big and meaningful to say that you love someone so much that, if they were to find someone who they'd be happier with, then you'd wish them to pursue that rather than be tied to you (assuming the hurt it causes you doesn't cancel out the good gained by making the switch, which is a fair assumption since your partner presumably cares about you a lot).
How can it be argued that marriage is better, ideologically speaking, than this sort of arrangement? Marriage is terribly selfish, as its bonds allow people to prevent their spouses from being free.
quote:And it doesn't help that "freedom of movement" is already a legal term of art with its own already existing meaning.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Semantics. I think that "freedom of movement" means "entertaining other relationships".
quote:You are assuming that we'd feel freer without the support and love of a monogamous relationship. I feel freer and safer myself for having a stable relationship I know the rules of!
Originally posted by Yorick:
How can it be argued that marriage is better, ideologically speaking, than this sort of arrangement? Marriage is terribly selfish, as its bonds allow people to prevent their spouses from being free.
quote:It might be big and meaningful in a sense, but it is very dispassionate. Passion requires a bit of selfishness. And some people need passion in their lives.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:This.
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
I personally find it to be much more big and meaningful to say that you love someone so much that, if they were to find someone who they'd be happier with, then you'd wish them to pursue that rather than be tied to you (assuming the hurt it causes you doesn't cancel out the good gained by making the switch, which is a fair assumption since your partner presumably cares about you a lot).
How can it be argued that marriage is better, ideologically speaking, than this sort of arrangement? Marriage is terribly selfish, as its bonds allow people to prevent their spouses from being free.
quote:Not anymore. Once, yes, if one partner in a marriage refused to allow a divorce then the other was stuck. But that is no longer the case.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:This.
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
I personally find it to be much more big and meaningful to say that you love someone so much that, if they were to find someone who they'd be happier with, then you'd wish them to pursue that rather than be tied to you (assuming the hurt it causes you doesn't cancel out the good gained by making the switch, which is a fair assumption since your partner presumably cares about you a lot).
How can it be argued that marriage is better, ideologically speaking, than this sort of arrangement? Marriage is terribly selfish, as its bonds allow people to prevent their spouses from being free.
quote:No, I am not. I assert that monogamous relationships should ideally be sustained by mutual choice, not contractual obligation.
Originally posted by Gwai:
You are assuming that we'd feel freer without the support and love of a monogamous relationship.
quote:Yes, freedom to divorce is the answer. IOW, not being married is the solution to the contractual obligation of marriage.
Originally posted by Anyuta:
Not anymore. Once, yes, if one partner in a marriage refused to allow a divorce then the other was stuck. But that is no longer the case.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:I don't see that. What could be more passionate than loving your partner so much you'd allow them their freedom? It's the most romantic and passionate thing imaginable- far more so than the dross bonds of legal contract.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
It might be big and meaningful in a sense, but it is very dispassionate.
quote:I'm not sure that romance and passion are the same thing. And again, there needs to be a balance. Yes, it is romantic to say to our partner, "I love you so much that if you were to be happier without me, then I would let you go." But it is passionate to say, "I want you in my life, I need you in my life, and I will not let you go." (NOT including the kind of stalker like obsessive abusive relationship that may come to mind.) I believe I have experienced both of these, the romantic gesture and the passionate gesture. The passionate gesture helped save my marriage.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:I don't see that. What could be more passionate than loving your partner so much you'd allow them their freedom? It's the most romantic and passionate thing imaginable- far more so than the dross bonds of legal contract.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
It might be big and meaningful in a sense, but it is very dispassionate.
quote:Could you please explain what you mean by this. It sounds upside-down to me, for what do the vows mean except that by them the freedoms you describe are voluntarily relinquished in lieu of the legal contractual obligation that negates them.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The point of a good marriage is surely to allow two people who want to be together to be utterly free in their relations with one another to do exactly that; to be together on an agreed understanding, based on their vows taken voluntarily. At its best marriage ought to be the ultimate liberator between two people committed selflessly to one another. (Technically at least) there is no compulsion for anyone to stand next to anyone else promising to forsake all others till death us do part.
quote:Passionate, maybe. Selfish, certainly! Thus, the highest ideal of loving partnership, I seriously doubt.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
... it is passionate to say, "I want you in my life, I need you in my life, and I will not let you go."
quote:'Contractual obligation'? What an interesting phrase to use about something that for most people in modern society is purely voluntary and not at all obligatory.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:No, I am not. I assert that monogamous relationships should ideally be sustained by mutual choice, not contractual obligation.
Originally posted by Gwai:
You are assuming that we'd feel freer without the support and love of a monogamous relationship.
quote:I think it's me not understanding you. To me a contractual obligation is something I'm obliged to do whether I want to or not. Marriage vows should be those things I choose to do because I want to do them, because that is how I love my spouse.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Could you please explain what you mean by this. It sounds upside-down to me, for what do the vows mean except that by them the freedoms you describe are voluntarily relinquished in lieu of the legal contractual obligation that negates them.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The point of a good marriage is surely to allow two people who want to be together to be utterly free in their relations with one another to do exactly that; to be together on an agreed understanding, based on their vows taken voluntarily. At its best marriage ought to be the ultimate liberator between two people committed selflessly to one another. (Technically at least) there is no compulsion for anyone to stand next to anyone else promising to forsake all others till death us do part.
quote:This, completely.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
To me a contractual obligation is something I'm obliged to do whether I want to or not. Marriage vows should be those things I choose to do because I want to do them, because that is how I love my spouse.
quote:Well obviously. People make their marriage vows in love, often stupidly romantically, but it is the legal obligation of those vows that negates their free choice in continuing thereafter to keep them, not their choice. Except that they may choose to divorce. In which case, there is no marriage and the whole question is null.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
To me a contractual obligation is something I'm obliged to do whether I want to or not. Marriage vows should be those things I choose to do because I want to do them, because that is how I love my spouse.
quote:I'm still a bit fuzzy what you mean! Unless one belongs to a particularly strict religious community, divorce must be the rational option. So how would a situation arise where someone would feel 'legally' obliged to love, honour, etc when the intelligent course is to say, this is finished, and can get away?
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Well obviously. People make their marriage vows in love, often stupidly romantically, but it is the legal obligation of those vows that negates their free choice in continuing thereafter to keep them, not their choice. Except that they may choose to divorce. In which case, there is no marriage and the whole question is null.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
To me a contractual obligation is something I'm obliged to do whether I want to or not. Marriage vows should be those things I choose to do because I want to do them, because that is how I love my spouse.
quote:As others have implied, if it were not both, I would be divorced.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:No, I am not. I assert that monogamous relationships should ideally be sustained by mutual choice, not contractual obligation.
Originally posted by Gwai:
You are assuming that we'd feel freer without the support and love of a monogamous relationship.
quote:I guess it's time to quote my current favorite book and also get a little personal. I don't mind getting personal, but the problem sometimes is people will read a little teen tiny bit of one aspect of my life and relationship and don't see the plethora of history and nuances behind it. Words are inadequate to describe a very long term relationship. But, I don't mind.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Passionate, maybe. Selfish, certainly! Thus, the highest ideal of loving partnership, I seriously doubt.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
... it is passionate to say, "I want you in my life, I need you in my life, and I will not let you go."
quote:After a painful and expensive divorce that the ex-partners finally had to settle on their own because they couldn't afford any more lawyer fees, my brother choose not to get married to the woman he lived with for 25+ years. Now they are splitting up, and it isn't any easier dealing with dividing property, etc., than if they had been married. My sister-in-law had more trouble getting clear of her non-husband than if they had been married - and she is a lawyer. So lack of a marriage contract doesn't necessarily make things any easier, especially if you love your partner and want to see they are provided for in a fair manner (or want to make sure you aren't still legally liable for common property, etc.)
Originally posted by Yorick:
...IOW, not being married is the solution to the contractual obligation of marriage.
quote:Yikes, this thread has moved quickly, and past what I've put in quotes, but I'd like to take the time to respond.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
There's clearly a big difference between polyamory and monogamy in that the binary nature of the latter makes any other potential relationships necessarily a threat.
Also, entertaining other relationships in order to cover over any failings in existing relationships is a terrible idea... And if such communication only would have occasion to happen in monogamy when there are problems, then that would be mimicking the time in a polyamorous relationship when it's least good to consider other relationships.
Hmm. It's very interesting how much prescriptions about relationship structure affects things.quote:Semantics. I think that "freedom of movement" means "entertaining other relationships". The benefit that I see in polyamory is that where one relationship "fails" another relationship fulfills. I'm not sure that's not one realistic model for what naturally happens in a one on one relationship. However, it is what it is. A way to cover failings in one relationship by entertaining another.
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
With polyamory there is freedom of movement for each individual in relation to other people (exactly how much freedom depends on what is idiosyncratically agreed, but I'll ignore that nuance for now). This is very essentially accompanied with open and steady communication about what's going on and how people are responding to such things. These two elements are absolutely paramount.
And "how people are responding to such things" is another way of saying, "how does the person feel about the other person's relationships".
Why is it least good to consider other relationships when one relationship is experiencing troubles?
I think that, again, people have a great innate need to have both "excitement" and "stability" in their lives and there are a myriad of ways that we develop in our lives and relationships to fulfill those two human needs. Polyamory is one. I'm not sure the basic dynamics are much different than in monogamous relationships in terms of achieving that balance.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:The way I understand it is that, in the same way that a relationship with one person can be beautiful and wholesome, so it is that this relationship isn't made any less beautiful and wholesome if either person has a relationship with someone else too.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Lord Clonk, I didn't mean to insinuate that you were trying to hide something with your words. It just seems like what you say is essentially the same as what others are saying about monogamous relationships. I'm glad I understood.
I'm having a hard time understanding how polyamory is such a good thing and what makes it beautiful and wholesome? I'm seriously asking the question because I find it fascinating. Truly, because about two years ago, I met a perfectly lovely couple that had an open marriage and my friend became a little involved and she and I discuss the concept. So, I'm merely very curious.
Can you explain why it is beautiful and wholesome, especially when it may engender jealousies that may come up when you have a myriad of love relationships as opposed to when you have a myriad of friends? If you have time to do so among your many loves.
I'm not sure that friends are not somewhat analogous though. I have my "best friends" that truthfully fulfill a need for me, in that I trust them the most to tell them my thoughts and feelings. I have my close friends that fulfill a need to surround myself with fun people. Even among my best friends, they do indeed fulfill certain needs. Sure, they are wonderful people and that's why I'm friends with them. By they do fulfill a need. I think it's human nature to do that. With our friends and our lovers.
quote:At that point it ceases to be the prior relationship and becomes a different one. That one may be as beautiful as the former, but it's most certainly not the same relationship.
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
The way I understand it is that, in the same way that a relationship with one person can be beautiful and wholesome, so it is that this relationship isn't made any less beautiful and wholesome if either person has a relationship with someone else too.
quote:Can you elaborate please? I don't quite understand what you're saying... I can make guesses, but they'd feel too presumptuous.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:At that point it ceases to be the prior relationship and becomes a different one. That one may be as beautiful as the former, but it's most certainly not the same relationship.
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
The way I understand it is that, in the same way that a relationship with one person can be beautiful and wholesome, so it is that this relationship isn't made any less beautiful and wholesome if either person has a relationship with someone else too.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
anyway, thank you for your time lord c. I got a lot out of your post but didn't have time or energy to say more of what I wanted. Plus, my husband had just come home and I needed to discuss with him arrangements for taking care of my aging mother. I didn't want to tell him, "hold on, before I ask you to drive all over creation picking up clothes to take to the nursing home, I want to finish discussing the merits of sexual exclusivity". It's just not how it works with us. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Having observed polyamory only from a safe distance (and noticed that the usual results are either complete dissolution, or a shedding of partners until only a couple remains), I continue to be struck by a (presumably sarcastic) comment I read in a newspaper article about polyamory, by a woman in a polyamorous relationship: "You can have all the tedium of marriage without giving up any of the pain of dating."
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Well, Lord C, I guess I get hung up on two things with polyamory. One is there is no stability, as I define it. When your lover is free to be with others, there is a risk that they will find that person more fulfilling and leave you. Nw, it might be good and noble to want that for the other person if it makes them truly happier, but where is the stability for the person left behind?
The other factor, is clearly sex. The indifference between friends and partners is sex. Doesn't sex create a bond between people unlike friends that go out for drinks or watch a movie?
Very interesting.
quote:The answer, from where I'm standing, seems to be 'YES'. In fact, that's a more succinct and insightful window into my situation than I could have elucidated in a month of Sundays.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... I wonder whether children have the same nefarious effect...as Yorick's oppressive 'legal obligation' has in a marriage. Namely, in a once free relationship do children create a sense of obligation which then turns to resentment and finally, to a break-up? It seems inevitable to me that having young children erodes the prioritisation of 'free choice' in a relationship.
quote:Sure, happy to cease.
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Well, Lord C, I guess I get hung up on two things with polyamory. One is there is no stability, as I define it. When your lover is free to be with others, there is a risk that they will find that person more fulfilling and leave you. Nw, it might be good and noble to want that for the other person if it makes them truly happier, but where is the stability for the person left behind?
The other factor, is clearly sex. The indifference between friends and partners is sex. Doesn't sex create a bond between people unlike friends that go out for drinks or watch a movie?
Very interesting.
quote:<tangent alert>
My husband and I used to be both best friends and lovers. Now it mostly feels as though we are defensive allies - clinging to one another in a sort of sick desperation, NOT out of choice, but because we know that either one of us, trying to do this parenting thing by ourselves, would sink and drown. And even then, there are days when I think they will overcome us...
(which, so far, has been a Very Good Thing).quote:Isn't there a risk that your monogamous partner will leave you too?
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Well, Lord C, I guess I get hung up on two things with polyamory. One is there is no stability, as I define it. When your lover is free to be with others, there is a risk that they will find that person more fulfilling and leave you.
quote:Yup, and I have no doubt that almost all those at the altar actually mean to uphold the vows they make. In terms of popular things being inherently good, I think the ground is decidedly dodgy. Marriage is popular (especially amongst the unwed!), but I'm certain this does not speak to its rightful position in the ranks of what is philosophically ideal.
Originally posted by Cara:
The fact that many do still get married--and the desire among gay people to have marriage recognised--seems to illustrate our deep desire for ritual and ceremony.
quote:Sure, but not as much as when your partner is sleeping with others and spending quality time with others!
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
quote:Isn't there a risk that your monogamous partner will leave you too?
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Well, Lord C, I guess I get hung up on two things with polyamory. One is there is no stability, as I define it. When your lover is free to be with others, there is a risk that they will find that person more fulfilling and leave you.
quote:At some point in conversations about marriage people sometimes blame women for having unrealistic expectations and for unwisely rushing their ambivalent boyfriends to the altar.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Yup, and I have no doubt that almost all those at the altar actually mean to uphold the vows they make. In terms of popular things being inherently good, I think the ground is decidedly dodgy. Marriage is popular (especially amongst the unwed!), but I'm certain this does not speak to its rightful position in the ranks of what is philosophically ideal.
Originally posted by Cara:
The fact that many do still get married--and the desire among gay people to have marriage recognised--seems to illustrate our deep desire for ritual and ceremony.
quote:PIcking up on the "quality time" thing - is it not to be expected that one's partner will continue to spend quality time with other people? Workmates? Close friends that he/she had before he/she met you?
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:Sure, but not as much as when your partner is sleeping with others and spending quality time with others!
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
quote:Isn't there a risk that your monogamous partner will leave you too?
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Well, Lord C, I guess I get hung up on two things with polyamory. One is there is no stability, as I define it. When your lover is free to be with others, there is a risk that they will find that person more fulfilling and leave you.
quote:I would challenge that! Many of my unwed acquaintances are only faintly miffed at not having their bite at the matrimonial gamble, if for no other reason than the exclusiveness that the status of married/divorced people often evokes. Generally they seem fairly content with their status (as in being single people and partnered but unmarried people).
Originally posted by Yorick:
Marriage is popular (especially amongst the unwed!),
quote:Of course not, but how is that different in a polyamorous relationship? Unless you are saying that in such a set-up, a revolving door is the ideal, and emotional ties must be held loosely if held at all?
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
Of course people who are monogamously inclined should not be forced into tolerating poly arrangements (obviously) but I don't think extracting monogamous promises from someone is a good guarantee of them not leaving.
quote:I agree that extracting monogamous promises isn't
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
quote:PIcking up on the "quality time" thing - is it not to be expected that one's partner will continue to spend quality time with other people? Workmates? Close friends that he/she had before he/she met you?
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:Sure, but not as much as when your partner is sleeping with others and spending quality time with others!
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
quote:Isn't there a risk that your monogamous partner will leave you too?
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Well, Lord C, I guess I get hung up on two things with polyamory. One is there is no stability, as I define it. When your lover is free to be with others, there is a risk that they will find that person more fulfilling and leave you.
Of course people who are monogamously inclined should not be forced into tolerating poly arrangements (obviously) but I don't think extracting monogamous promises from someone is a good guarantee of them not leaving.
quote:Certainty is not the issue, it's some level of trust. For me.
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
There are NO guarantees of someone not leaving. No matter what you make them promise. That's what I'm trying to say. The better you know someone and the longer you stay together, the more evidence you have (I guess) that they are probably not going to leave you, but there's no guarantee.
If certainty is what one wants, then having relationships with humans is not a good idea.
quote:Has anybody here suggested otherwise? This is a straw herring.
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
There are NO guarantees of someone not leaving.
quote:So... Are you saying that sex is bad outside of a monogamous relationship because it strengthens and sometimes forges bonds with other people, or are you saying that it does bad stuff in polyamory?
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:I agree that extracting monogamous promises isn't
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
quote:PIcking up on the "quality time" thing - is it not to be expected that one's partner will continue to spend quality time with other people? Workmates? Close friends that he/she had before he/she met you?
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:Sure, but not as much as when your partner is sleeping with others and spending quality time with others!
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
quote:Isn't there a risk that your monogamous partner will leave you too?
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Well, Lord C, I guess I get hung up on two things with polyamory. One is there is no stability, as I define it. When your lover is free to be with others, there is a risk that they will find that person more fulfilling and leave you.
Of course people who are monogamously inclined should not be forced into tolerating poly arrangements (obviously) but I don't think extracting monogamous promises from someone is a good guarantee of them not leaving.
a good guarantee. I've pretty much maintained that stance.
Just like IngoB's question of whether or not making a promise such as marriage is valuable is the essential question in terms of the marriage question, the essential question on this polyamory issue, at least for me, is not so much "quality time" but whether or not sex makes it more likely that a stronger bond will be made between the two people. But it seems that the sex question is kind of the elephant in the room. But for me, it is the salient question.
quote:no. I mean marriage is not selfish.. We have our free will. That is why before we decide to take the marriage road we must think about it all over again... If possible think a million times so that you will not regret your decision when time comes. Marriage life is full of tests so make it sure that you and your partner as a strong foundation to make it last indeed marriage is a holy matrimony that needs to be valued.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:This.
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
I personally find it to be much more big and meaningful to say that you love someone so much that, if they were to find someone who they'd be happier with, then you'd wish them to pursue that rather than be tied to you (assuming the hurt it causes you doesn't cancel out the good gained by making the switch, which is a fair assumption since your partner presumably cares about you a lot).
How can it be argued that marriage is better, ideologically speaking, than this sort of arrangement? Marriage is terribly selfish, as its bonds allow people to prevent their spouses from being free.
quote:I don't know how generalisable your experience, but I do think there is more chance of polyamorous relationships working out nowadays because of the internet where the poly community can learn from one another... just like monogamous people benefit from collective wisdom about their chosen relationship style.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I have come across only one polyamorous situation irl where it hasn't eventually turned into a couple with one person going their own way. And to be honest, I have serious doubts about the longer term future of that one relationship I mention.
My issue with it as a relationship model is that it doesn't seem to work. I realise many people breakup in couples etc, but it is specifically that poly groups seem to eventually default to couple (often in a rather painful messy way).
quote:Thanks for replying. My questions and arguments are fueled by curiosity and a desire to understand relationships better and not by any conviction that I may hold regarding the "right" form of a relationship.
Originally posted by Lord Clonk:
quote:So... Are you saying that sex is bad outside of a monogamous relationship because it strengthens and sometimes forges bonds with other people, or are you saying that it does bad stuff in polyamory?
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:I agree that extracting monogamous promises isn't
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
quote:PIcking up on the "quality time" thing - is it not to be expected that one's partner will continue to spend quality time with other people? Workmates? Close friends that he/she had before he/she met you?
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
quote:Sure, but not as much as when your partner is sleeping with others and spending quality time with others!
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
quote:Isn't there a risk that your monogamous partner will leave you too?
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Well, Lord C, I guess I get hung up on two things with polyamory. One is there is no stability, as I define it. When your lover is free to be with others, there is a risk that they will find that person more fulfilling and leave you.
Of course people who are monogamously inclined should not be forced into tolerating poly arrangements (obviously) but I don't think extracting monogamous promises from someone is a good guarantee of them not leaving.
a good guarantee. I've pretty much maintained that stance.
Just like IngoB's question of whether or not making a promise such as marriage is valuable is the essential question in terms of the marriage question, the essential question on this polyamory issue, at least for me, is not so much "quality time" but whether or not sex makes it more likely that a stronger bond will be made between the two people. But it seems that the sex question is kind of the elephant in the room. But for me, it is the salient question.
The sex question is very interesting when talking about monogamy/polyamory because it's the thing that superficially makes monogamy different from polyamory. However, I don't think it's as pivotal as it seems. Relationships are much more than sex. I would have no problem accepting an asexual as poly or monogamous. Is it sex or just a heightened level of intimacy relative to your friends that bothers you?
