From: wallich@ncd.com (Ken Wallich)
Newsgroups: alt.romance
Subject: Re: Getting Married: Grounds for Insanity Plea?
Keywords: Off Your Rocker
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:11:53 GMT
Reply-To: wallich@ncd.com (Ken Wallich)

Well, I've been married for over 9 years, but I won't try to validate
my decision for the act, nor will I try to defend the 'institution'.
You can choose to do it or not for whatever reasons *you* may choose.
Some may have a real problem with the social stigma of having a
long-term sexual relationship with someone they cohabitate with,
without being married.  While I personally think that's a
narrow-minded, limited view of what a relationship can be, one is
certainly free to do what they want, at least in some limited sense
(and we seem to be free to do less and less with each passing
legislative year).  For some, bringing up children without the legal
and social bond of marriage would be a problem.  Actually, that might
be a problem for me, not because of the social stigma, but because of
the legal entanglements and biases of parents that aren't married.

I do have a few comments as to some 'common misconceptions' about the
'right' reasons to get married.  BTW, I don't think Alex and I really
disagree, since at the end of his article he states more 'tolerant'
beliefs, but since a lot of folks seem to use one of his 'grounds'
all too often, I wanted to say something about it.
	
alex@mentor.cc.purdue.edu ( ) writes:

>2)  Marriage shows that you love your SO enough that you are willing
>    to commit your entire life to them, making the bond between you
>    that much stronger.

I'd estimate that 50% of the otherwise rational people I know would
list this as at least one reason for getting married.  It is, of
course, not true.  The only way you can 'commit' to spend your entire
life with someone is to actually spend your entire life with someone.
"Promising" to spend your life with someone is not actually doing it.

A "promise" made with legal and social entanglements may mean more to
some than one made outside of such an environment, but I believe you
should always endevour to keep your promises and should not make
promises that you do not belive you can keep.  For me, it is like the
Quaker belief of not being 'sworn in' in court, since promising to
tell the truth there, in a formal ritual, would imply that you do
not *always* tell the truth.

Saying "I promise to spend the rest of my life with you" is certainly
not a promise that *I* could make and know I'd be able to keep.  I
don't think anyone who truly believes in keeping their word as a
matter of personal honor (or personal value, for those who dislike the
term 'honor') could make this promise, and intend to keep it.  

The rest of my life is a long time, and I plan to grow a lot during
that time, as does my spouse.  We may grow in such a way that "the
bond" between us serves to stunt our growth, or acts as a wire holding
two branches of a tree together, cutting into the bark, damaging both
limbs.

What if my spouse doesn't *want* me to spend the rest of my life with
them?  Do I then have to stick around because I swore to?  I could
promise to hold this person dear to me, as long as I live, because if
I am willing to make a commitment to be with someone, the person I am
with at the time will always be precious.  I may end up really
disliking the person behind the facade, or the person this person
becomes, but the person that I know the day I make the promise I will
always cherish.  I hear those romantics crying 'technicalities!'  he's
talking about technicalities!  Well, yeah, sort of.  It's also very
important for me to not promise what I cannot deliver.  I also believe
in making the *intent* clear, not just phrasing my promises so I can
get out of them when I find it convienient.  I wasn't raised a laywer
:-).


Promising to work together with someone during good times and bad,
trying as hard as possible to work through problems and try to work
and stay together to nurture our mutual growth is something else.
Sometimes one partner may have to forgo their development to assist
the other.  This is part of the give-and-take of a real, committed
relationship.  A 'legal' promise, however, should hold no more
authority than a 'personal' promise.

>3)  It gives one a personal captive audience for any and all cynicism
>    which one chooses to spew from that time forward.

Well, I try to use my cat's for that.  They seem to take it better,
anyway.

>The Idea behind marraige is that two people are willing to work
>together, in order to share their lives together with some sort
>of greater emotional attachment. 

[... more good stuff deleted ...]

So, basically, it sounds like Alex and I actually agree with what a
'committed relationship' should be.  Alex doesn't say he believes
marriage to be the only place that such a relationship can florish, 
so I won't berrate him for that.

Gee, I guess this is enough for now.

--
Ken Wallich
wallich@ncd.com  
ken@wallich.com
Newsgroups: alt.romance