Thoughts on marriage: Romance or Slavery

Yes it is pointless. We stay together in spite of marriage not because of it.

Do you still love the person you're married to? Or should I ask "have you ever loved that person?"

.. People often claim you marry someone for love. But is it love or jealousy that compels us to marry? I lean towards thinking jealousy here. A contract to force someone to continue love me and I them doesn't sound like love, at least not what I consider love to be.

This is not jealousy.

Do you still love the person you're married to? Or should I ask "have you ever loved that person?"

I hope so but love changes as we change. Can we in all honesty convince ourselves of anything emotional or natural. We are driven by desires and events that we do not fully control. I love her enough to want her to be as happy as she can and never do anything purposely to make her sad.

Here is a thought. Is promising someone that you will love them "forever" or until death do you part reasonable? My feeling is it is a bit absurd (unless you have only a short time to live). I am reminded of schoolgirls who write I (heart picture) Brian 4 ever on their notebook. Of course above Brian's name is an x'ed out Charlie, Jimmy, Brad, and Timothy. And the notebook is only for this semesters class. The girl genuinely believes armed with her new found wisdom that she knows Brian however is really the one.

Though we have more wisdom than we did in High School can we say we are being reasonable when we promise to love someone forever? How can we possibly know what will happen and how we will feel in 10, 20, or 50 years? I know we bear the same feeling and "intuition" as the schoolgirl above, but with the staggering divorce rate could it be that we are letting emotion and romanticism trump our reason here?

Here is a thought. Is promising someone that you will love them "forever" or until death do you part reasonable? My feeling is it is a bit absurd (unless you have only a short time to live). I am reminded of schoolgirls who write I (heart picture) Brian 4 ever on their notebook. Of course above Brian's name is an x'ed out Charlie, Jimmy, Brad, and Timothy. And the notebook is only for this semesters class. The girl genuinely believes armed with her new found wisdom that she knows Brian however is really the one.

Though we have more wisdom than we did in High School can we say we are being reasonable when we promise to love someone forever? How can we possibly know what will happen and how we will feel in 10, 20, or 50 years? I know we bear the same feeling and "intuition" as the schoolgirl above, but with the staggering divorce rate could it be that we are letting emotion and romanticism trump our reason here?

Grotto, we can not know what we will do or how we feel tomorrow let alone 44 years later. What if I had left my wife for that O so young and alluring bitch? Now forty four years later I still do not know how I will feel tomorrow or if temptation will have its day. The complexity of our needs and responsibilities are always gnawing at our heels.

Here is a thought. Is promising someone that you will love them "forever" or until death do you part reasonable? ...

Yes because marriage is work, just like anything else. It is a long term endeavour.

Here is a thought. Is promising someone that you will love them "forever" or until death do you part reasonable? My feeling is it is a bit absurd (unless you have only a short time to live).

It may be “absurd”, but it is a natural and eternal desire. As you point out, young girls write promises in their notebooks, teenagers carve their vows into tree trunks, and mature lovers vow before “God and this company”. It is not the institution of marriage that makes lovers make vows; it is the desire of lovers to make vows that makes the institution of marriage. We can't stop lovers from making vows -- however unrealistic they may be, or unfaithfully they may be fullfilled.

One problem with marriage is that this urge to promise fidelity to one’s lover is conflated with the more traditional purpose of marriage: to create an economic and social unit in which to raise children. When I visited India recently my acquaintance Mahendra told me, “In America, love marriage, much divorce. In India, arrange marriage, no divorce.”

It seems to me that this much is true: the expectations for romance in marriage are greater in America and the necessity of economic unity in marriage less in america than they are in India. We are a rich country, in which economic independence is possible (in a capitalist sort of way -- of course we are dependent on the production of others, but not on our spouses). Perhaps the notion that marriage is an economic and social institution rather than a romantic one allays unrealistic expectations, and preserves family units.

It may be “absurd”, but it is a natural and eternal desire. As you point out, young girls write promises in their notebooks, teenagers carve their vows into tree trunks, and mature lovers vow before “God and this company”. It is not the institution of marriage that makes lovers make vows; it is the desire of lovers to make vows that makes the institution of marriage. We can't stop lovers from making vows -- however unrealistic they may be, or unfaithfully they may be fullfilled.

One problem with marriage is that this urge to promise fidelity to one’s lover is conflated with the more traditional purpose of marriage: to create an economic and social unit in which to raise children. When I visited India recently my acquaintance Mahendra told me, “In America, love marriage, much divorce. In India, arrange marriage, no divorce.”

It seems to me that this much is true: the expectations for romance in marriage are greater in America and the necessity of economic unity in marriage less in america than they are in India. We are a rich country, in which economic independence is possible (in a capitalist sort of way -- of course we are dependent on the production of others, but not on our spouses). Perhaps the notion that marriage is an economic and social institution rather than a romantic one allays unrealistic expectations, and preserves family units.

Very good point. Arranged marriages do endure far more often. I can not say if the societal climate of places which still have it is the reason but what you said makes sense. I wonder if their are stats available on the success of arranged marriages in countries which are predominantly "romantic". Perhaps it is our wealth and liberty that naturally leads to divorce. I suspect this is true. However doesn't that make arranged marriage even more so an institution of slavery? If you must stay together from financial constraints or social pressure is that not an inhibition of freedom?

Mind you I say this not as a value judgement. Some restriction of liberty is necessary for society to function well. Some restrictions are for the betterment of us all.

Very good point. Arranged marriages do endure far more often. I can not say if the societal climate of places which still have it is the reason but what you said makes sense. I wonder if their are stats available on the success of arranged marriages in countries which are predominantly "romantic". Perhaps it is our wealth and liberty that naturally leads to divorce. I suspect this is true. However doesn't that make arranged marriage even more so an institution of slavery? If you must stay together from financial constraints or social pressure is that not an inhibition of freedom?

Mind you I say this not as a value judgement. Some restriction of liberty is necessary for society to function well. Some restrictions are for the betterment of us all.

Of course. Necessity makes cowards of us all. Obviously, marriage (of whatever kind) places limits on freedom, and in that respect resembles slavery. However, to criticize anything that resembles slavery as an "institution of slavery" is a logical mistake. Slaves must eat; I must eat; therefore, my life resembles that of a slave. But so what? Limits on freedom are like slavery, and slavery is evil, therefore limits on freedom are evil. That reasoning is incorrect, because the principle on which slavery is evil is not addressed.

No doubt here in America our high divorce rates are (in part) the result of increased economic opportunities for women, and a dimunition of the separation of the economic roles of men and women. But it would be incorrect to suggest that because divorce is a bad thing, increased economic opportunities for women are a bad thing (because they lead to divorce).

Of course. Necessity makes cowards of us all. Obviously, marriage (of whatever kind) places limits on freedom, and in that respect resembles slavery. However, to criticize anything that resembles slavery as an "institution of slavery" is a logical mistake. Slaves must eat; I must eat; therefore, my life resembles that of a slave. But so what? Limits on freedom are like slavery, and slavery is evil, therefore limits on freedom are evil. That reasoning is incorrect, because the principle on which slavery is evil is not addressed.

No doubt here in America our high divorce rates are (in part) the result of increased economic opportunities for women, and a dimunition of the separation of the economic roles of men and women. But it would be incorrect to suggest that because divorce is a bad thing, increased economic opportunities for women are a bad thing (because they lead to divorce).

(grinning) I am aware that the statement that limits on freedom is like slavery are exaggerated, the word like alone opens the door for abused logic. I did that deliberately to provoke thought because so many people venerate marriage to the point of ludicrous perspectives (though the poster's here did not). My goal is to get people thinking more deeply about the implications of the marriage institution. My second paragraph was included as a disclaimer stating the value of restriction of liberty.