Two events recently made me think about what marriage actually is. One, appropriately enough, was a marriage. The other is slightly less obvious, and so in order to retain suspense here, I'm not going to tell you what it is yet.
Disclaimer: You will not agree with this so don't tell me that you don't agree with this.
Immediately preceding the wedding I was wondering if I would actually go (despite the fact that for me to get there it would have taken me only a couple of minutes). This was mostly due to the fact that I am not really a wedding person, eg. I missed a family wedding for the potential offer of work (which never eventuated) but also partly because I would feel obliged to get into some fancy clothes (by my standards) and I don't like fancy clothes; I didn't have a real reason and so I went. During the wedding my mind went to the thought that a wedding, in its simplest sense, is essentially a moot point. Let me explain; What a wedding basically is, is a contract between two people the assures long term co-existence for mutual gain. Look at the vows: have and to hold (co exist); from this day forward ... till death do us part (long term); love, comfort, honour, keep, care etc (mutual gain). So in reality, a marriage contract is essentially the same as a long term share house agreement (long term co-existence for mutual gain) or a business contract. When you look at it this way, a marriage is basically a formality, a hoop that people like to jump through. This is especially the case following new laws here in NSW that state that an uncertified de facto relationship that has been in place for 3 years holds the same legal weight as a legally binding marriage certificate. And even more the case as divorce rates continue to climb leaving the 3 year de facto relationship as almost an ideal in many cases.
While I was writing this, I was reminded of something that happened a few years ago. There was an attempt to pass a law that meant that in order for intercourse to happen, a signed contract was required ensuring that there would be no ambiguity in rape cases (conveniently forgetting both drunken sex and forgetfulness). My thought upon hearing about this was that it already exists - its called a marriage certificate.
Any way, after that detour I'll get back to my point. If marriage is a formality and there is a continually easing of the difficulty of escaping the legality of the ceremony, then surely it would be better to simply agree to this long-term co-existence for mutual gain and leave it at that. I know that this may sound unromantic or crass and kind of stupid, but if the certificate is really only worth the paper that it's printed on, then the best way would be to disregard it from the start. It would save a lot of trouble on all sides and potentially a lot of mess.
Disclaimer: You will not agree with this so don't tell me that you don't agree with this.
Immediately preceding the wedding I was wondering if I would actually go (despite the fact that for me to get there it would have taken me only a couple of minutes). This was mostly due to the fact that I am not really a wedding person, eg. I missed a family wedding for the potential offer of work (which never eventuated) but also partly because I would feel obliged to get into some fancy clothes (by my standards) and I don't like fancy clothes; I didn't have a real reason and so I went. During the wedding my mind went to the thought that a wedding, in its simplest sense, is essentially a moot point. Let me explain; What a wedding basically is, is a contract between two people the assures long term co-existence for mutual gain. Look at the vows: have and to hold (co exist); from this day forward ... till death do us part (long term); love, comfort, honour, keep, care etc (mutual gain). So in reality, a marriage contract is essentially the same as a long term share house agreement (long term co-existence for mutual gain) or a business contract. When you look at it this way, a marriage is basically a formality, a hoop that people like to jump through. This is especially the case following new laws here in NSW that state that an uncertified de facto relationship that has been in place for 3 years holds the same legal weight as a legally binding marriage certificate. And even more the case as divorce rates continue to climb leaving the 3 year de facto relationship as almost an ideal in many cases.
While I was writing this, I was reminded of something that happened a few years ago. There was an attempt to pass a law that meant that in order for intercourse to happen, a signed contract was required ensuring that there would be no ambiguity in rape cases (conveniently forgetting both drunken sex and forgetfulness). My thought upon hearing about this was that it already exists - its called a marriage certificate.
Any way, after that detour I'll get back to my point. If marriage is a formality and there is a continually easing of the difficulty of escaping the legality of the ceremony, then surely it would be better to simply agree to this long-term co-existence for mutual gain and leave it at that. I know that this may sound unromantic or crass and kind of stupid, but if the certificate is really only worth the paper that it's printed on, then the best way would be to disregard it from the start. It would save a lot of trouble on all sides and potentially a lot of mess.
Now don't tell me that this approach will simply lead to more short term or abusive or broken relationships. The quality or success of relationships is usually compared against a long term marriage, something that is sadly becoming more and more rare.
Also, don't say that in a Christian marriage this is less likely to occur. Yes it is, but the rates are quickly reaching equilibrium.
Also, don't say that in a Christian marriage this is less likely to occur. Yes it is, but the rates are quickly reaching equilibrium.
And finally on this point If a marriage is just a long term co-existence for mutual gain (kind of like a symbiotic relationship between sucker fish on sharks that clean parasites of the sharks back), then what is the major point of the whole thing. If we compare it this way, then there is no romance about it, a tapeworm will remain faithful. If we look it as merely a contract, then it is a very expensive contract to sign, there is the cost of the ceremony no matter how simple it is, the cost of changing any documentation about your identity, the cost of... ... ... and then statistically it will end within a matter of years. In the book Company by Max Barry, one of the Characters states that any relationship only works when clear rules are drawn up about who is the greater, otherwise a power struggle breaks out and then both the relationship and everything else suffers. Often, both the Bride and the Groom take the same vows, meaning, effectively, complete equality - both parties promise to do for the other what they promise to do for them. If you take this view, then all marriages are flawed from the start. This isn't to say that I support either misogyny or hardcore feminism (which is the same just with different people on top of the pile) either in a marriage or out of it.
The second thing that made me think, ready for this, was a throwaway line in a 1970's cult sci-fi movie called Logan's Run (I told you you wouldn't expect that). In this movie, everyone is an individual unit who essentially lives for self pleasure, whether that requires a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth person). Thus, there is no such thing as a family and therefore, no marriage or married couples. Two of the characters find grave stones, not understanding what they are they read the writing on them. Most of them say some variation of Beloved Husband or Beloved Wife and because there is no marriage, this is also not understood. When they find someone who has been in a family, they ask what those words mean. When it is explained, the first response is that the words hold them together. This was, for me, a mind blowing thought. Essentially, what is being said is that being called a husband or a wife, is what keeps you with the other. This made me realise that all of the above reasoning was flawed. As long as there is a Husband and a Wife, they remain together; without this distinction, there is nothing. The two characters perform what is called a common law marriage, they get married without any ceremony and minimal witnesses (in this case, they decide to call each other husband or wife).
This on its own was enough to make me rethink all of the above but interestingly, not to redefine what I was calling a marriage (the long term co-existence for mutual gain). What it did do, in terms of the above argument, was say to me that my share housing or parasitic symbiosis analogies were wrong. What a marriage does is eliminate the self (interestingly the aim of communism). At the point that you say "I do", you no longer exist. Both of you exist as one entity; suddenly instead of there being Alphonse Romano and Jane Smith, there is only one, the Romano Family (as I wrote this I realised again how much this name sounds like a mafia boss - how it that in a post about marriage), 1 entity rather than 2 individuals. This is a truly symbiotic relationship, without the other, you no longer exist, suddenly Alphonse Romano is an individual again, but now there is only half of him, the same applies to Jane Smith.
So the upshot of this, Marriage in its simplest form, co-existence for mutual gain, is moot unless there is another agreement underlying it. Whereas in a business agreement or a share house there is always more than one party right the way through it, what sets a marriage apart from these is that there is only one party from the exact moment the contract is signed.
That is why marriage is important, and also where it works the best.
As with everything I say, the is the ravings of an occasional lunatic, take it or leave it as you will.
The second thing that made me think, ready for this, was a throwaway line in a 1970's cult sci-fi movie called Logan's Run (I told you you wouldn't expect that). In this movie, everyone is an individual unit who essentially lives for self pleasure, whether that requires a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth person). Thus, there is no such thing as a family and therefore, no marriage or married couples. Two of the characters find grave stones, not understanding what they are they read the writing on them. Most of them say some variation of Beloved Husband or Beloved Wife and because there is no marriage, this is also not understood. When they find someone who has been in a family, they ask what those words mean. When it is explained, the first response is that the words hold them together. This was, for me, a mind blowing thought. Essentially, what is being said is that being called a husband or a wife, is what keeps you with the other. This made me realise that all of the above reasoning was flawed. As long as there is a Husband and a Wife, they remain together; without this distinction, there is nothing. The two characters perform what is called a common law marriage, they get married without any ceremony and minimal witnesses (in this case, they decide to call each other husband or wife).
This on its own was enough to make me rethink all of the above but interestingly, not to redefine what I was calling a marriage (the long term co-existence for mutual gain). What it did do, in terms of the above argument, was say to me that my share housing or parasitic symbiosis analogies were wrong. What a marriage does is eliminate the self (interestingly the aim of communism). At the point that you say "I do", you no longer exist. Both of you exist as one entity; suddenly instead of there being Alphonse Romano and Jane Smith, there is only one, the Romano Family (as I wrote this I realised again how much this name sounds like a mafia boss - how it that in a post about marriage), 1 entity rather than 2 individuals. This is a truly symbiotic relationship, without the other, you no longer exist, suddenly Alphonse Romano is an individual again, but now there is only half of him, the same applies to Jane Smith.
So the upshot of this, Marriage in its simplest form, co-existence for mutual gain, is moot unless there is another agreement underlying it. Whereas in a business agreement or a share house there is always more than one party right the way through it, what sets a marriage apart from these is that there is only one party from the exact moment the contract is signed.
That is why marriage is important, and also where it works the best.
As with everything I say, the is the ravings of an occasional lunatic, take it or leave it as you will.
No comments:
Post a Comment