| | I have a lot to say about marriage, but not the time or inclination to do it all here. I'll address some of the questions, but don't expect to resolve the issue. Marriage is a deeply ingrained idea, like altruism. Once you reject the idea, it's easy to see how pointless and destructive it is. But for those convinced that there must be something valuable there because they associate it with love, much like there must be something behind altruism because they associate it with benevolence, there's not much chance a single post is going to change their minds. The most I can hope for is food for thought for those willing to completely reconsider it.
I'm going to strongly disagree here. What is kissing but an expression of love? Are we saying a marriage ceremony could not be an expression of that love? What exactly is your standard here for deciding what is and what isn't an act of.... What I'm getting it as distinguishing something that is a real expression of an emotion with something that is just viewed as symbolic. If we look at the real nature of love, we could see how certain acts actually express that feeling. Love has a lot of qualities. One is the integration of the other person's into your own value hierarchy, wanting their lives to be successful and fulfilling as well. This would be expressed by taking actions that benefit the one you love, improving their life in some key way. Gift giving is one example of that, but there are others. Love is also a form of desire, where you want to be near them, you want to touch them, you want to be intimate. Kissing is one example, but there are many others like talking on the phone, cuddling, sex, or even looking at pictures of them. In this case I say this expresses your love because it is actually a fulfillment of the emotional desire. There are other things that could be viewed as an expression.
I assert that you can differentiate these genuine expressions of your love from other acts that are purely symbolic. What does marriage give you? It gives you social or legal status. Is that a genuine expression of love? No. That's an expression of a desire to gain certain legal benefits, or to be recognized by others. How does marriage change anything from a long-term monogamous relationship? It changes things in the eyes of others.
How about the wedding? A wedding is a grand show. It has rehearsals, scripts, costumes, and a stage. It's planned thoroughly and controlled tightly. The audience is carefully selected. An expression of love? An action that follows directly from your feelings for one another? Hardly. It is an advertisement of it, perhaps. The goal is to be seen by others. That's why we have a concept of eloping.
Remember what I was responding to. The idea that marriage somehow makes the relationship more real or concrete! The expression's I described do that. Your relationship is how you actually interact. Your interactions that are driven by the nature of the relationship, the romance, are clear embodiments. You aren't doing them because you've been told that everyone does it, and you're not doing them to simply give the appearance of love to outsides. They're private. They are the real substance of your relationship.
Marriage isn't like that at all. Marriage doesn't make your relationship more real. It only gives it status in the eyes of others. A wedding doesn't make your relationship more real. It's a single event, mostly symbolic, and unlike your actual relationship in many ways. A wedding is a public interaction, not a private interaction. How could any of this make your relationship more real, unless you see reality in the eyes of others? When status is viewed as more important than the actual interactions or the happiness involved, then certainly marriage is the proper expression.
What if it took 5 minutes to legally end a marriage or what if the state simply took no part in recognizing it? Would your objection still hold? The legal status is only part of it, of course. Reducing the cost there would certainly reduce the problem. But even if there was no legal implications to marriage at all, there would still be pressure to stay in the relationship. The point of the marriage and the wedding is to advertise your commitment, and to draw everyone close to you into the relationship. Once you've done that, you've already made it harder to get out. Now if you want to end it, you'll be admitting failure. "Failed marriage", after all, means a marriage that ends, not a marriage that is unhappy. Also, when you invite everyone you know to a big ceremony, and they give gifts and listen to you make vows and all the rest of that, for some time afterwards ending the relationship would be letting them down. They contributed time, efforts, emotions, and money into your relationship.
Look at how the topic started here. There is an assumption that marriage will encourage monogamy, discourage cheating, and somehow promote loyalty. What power does a mere word have on people that it could have any of these effects? It has the power of status. And the power to achieve these things is the same power it has to keep you in a relationship past the point that you want to be. You can't argue one without the other. Marriage makes status a value in itself, and that status is independent of the actual happiness of the relationship. Some people view this as a value, since it keeps people together in spite of problems. I view it as a disvalue for the same reason. But it is widely recognized. It is one of the accepted key benefits of marriage. Security.
You seem to object to any kind of social gathering where individuals can share in their celebration of something that makes them happy. That's quite a generalization taken from a single data point, which doesn't even fit this characterization! A wedding is not a celebration. It's a conversion. You come in as individuals, and leave as a collective whole. You come in without the particular social status, and leave with it. The celebration is a celebration of the conversion. And the weeping and symbolism all stem from the belief that this is a life changing event.
If you wanted to talk about a celebration of love, an anniversary might be a more appropriate event. And if you wanted to include others there, I have no particular complaints.
Birthdays, holidays, celebrating actual achievements.....these are all places where people can gather to celebrate something that makes them happy.
This strikes me as being a bit cynical.
Perhaps it seems cynical to someone who assumes that marriage is a genuine value, and believes that everyone should see it as a value. But I bet the same argument would be made against me by an altruist who thinks I'm cynical about human nature because I don't think altruism is a value. If you start with the assumption that something is good, then someone who disagrees and points out problems is cynical.
Calling someone a cynic is just assuming your value instead of defending it, and attacking the person who doesn't accept it as if there's something wrong with him. Some might accept the intrinsic value of marriage and assume that it must be them that's flawed since they can't make themselves appreciate it. But I don't accept it. And calling my a cynic just highlights the lack of argument and the assumption that marriage is a value. Instead of intimidating me, it encourages me.
Hopefully that helps clarify my position some more. For those interested in reconsidering their views, I encourage you to simply start with the assumption that marriage is an arbitrary cultural norm, with no necessary value. Then you can ask real questions about it. You can start with a neutral observation and try to analyze the facts of the situation, and form a value-judgment based on that analysis. Instead of assuming it is good and that because people associate it with love, you can ask what does it actually accomplish. What real values does it actually provide, and what costs go with them? What incentives does it create one way or another? How does it differ from other kinds of relationships, with a special focus on long-term monogamous relationships? And how well does it work in practice? Instead of assuming that these two people were just too immature, or these two weren't quite right for each other, you can ask whether the institution itself made any problems more significant, or less. Did it tend to solve or alleviate their problems, or did it expose them? You can ask what actual motivations people have for getting married, like whether they were pressured to by their parents, or they viewed it as symbol of success, or because they've always wanted to, or because his girlfriend gave him an ultimatum, or because they thought they'd have security. Then you can ask how these particular motivations might shape the actual relationship itself. If they're looking for security, for instance, does that mean they'll assume that their relationship is secure and act accordingly? It doesn't take too much analysis to bring the whole thing into question. Far from being the obvious value that people treat it as, I think you'll find it of questionable value and possibly harmful.
But if you decide to skip that analysis, and be "fair-minded" by assuming it must be valuable to some people (severing value from objective benefit), or that it wouldn't be rational to say either way, don't expect any accolades from me.
|
|
