Friday, October 24, 2014

Marriage Thoughts

I went on two dates recently with women who are not interested in getting married, which is cool with me because I share the same sentiment. I think a lot of people don't think objectively about marriage because it's been such an institution in our society for so long.


There are three thoughts that now run through my head when I think about drawing up a legal contract with the government and pledging in front of God and family "til death do us part".

  1. First, in his mind-opening book How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World Harry Browne said something to the effect of "Why would I want the government and the church involved in my relationship?" Makes sense to me. Obviously commitment is an important part of any long-term relationship, especially when children are planned. But it seems to me like the marriage contract is somehow being used as leverage (or a crutch) between the two partners in order to make up for a lack of trust. Shouldn't love, trust, dedication and, most importantly, frequent and honest communication be enough so that a contract with the government isn't necessary? Without those traits one probably shouldn't commit one's life to another (or make babies together, for that matter).
  2. What does "til death do us part" mean to a 24-year old today? With medical advances in stem cells, robotics, nanotechnology and greater awareness of the toxins most of us put into our bodies every day, people may soon be living long past 100 years. A 24-year old making a legal agreement for their entire life could very well be entering into a 100-year contract, far different from the 20-40 year contracts of old.
  3. Historically the two partners in a marriage needed each other -- society said that the man was supposed to make the money and the woman was supposed to manage the home and raise the children. The husband was CEO of the family and the wife was Vice President of Homemaking. Their roles were clearly defined and each needed the other. Today we live, obviously, in a very different world where those roles are no longer limited by gender. Relationships today are (supposed to be) far more about two people loving each other and wanting to explore their lives together -- to learn from each other and grow together. They can have kids or not. They can both work or not. If people grow apart and don't want to be together anymore, it shouldn't require government process, paperwork and legal teams.

Here's an introduction to Harry Browne and the freedom traps that many of us fall into...

3 comments:

samh said...

Obviously commitment is an important part of any long-term relationship, especially when children are planned. But it seems to me like the marriage contract is somehow being used as leverage (or a crutch) between the two partners in order to make up for a lack of trust.

Not doing this could be evidence that two people lack this trust.

Kirk Ahlberg said...

Excellent point, samh. Thanks for chiming in.

samh said...

I know plenty of people who are married and find it is the right choice to represent their relationship. I also know a handful of other couples who are just as committed to each other but who have not married. The important thing is the commitment to each other or being honest enough to know that you may simply not want to commit to someone indefinitely. All are fine choices so long as made intelligently and honestly.