From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!eagle!cw
Newsgroups: net.singles
Title: An attitude towards marriage and Why Marry?
Article-I.D.: eagle.503
Posted: Thu Sep  9 23:26:17 1982
Received: Fri Sep 10 06:42:04 1982
References: cbosgd.2618


I agree with Mark Horton that marriage is a contract between
two people; the marriage's meaning is defined by the couple.
For many, of course, the model of God's love is the definition of
the marriage; Mark rightly points out that this model is not the
necessary one.  It is also probably true, as the Kaminsky pointed out,
that the loss of this model is a cause of many marriage failures.
This era, and particularly young people today, are quick to
disparage the power of social models and tradition without realizing
the strength society can provide simply by supplying a norm for
behavior.

But, if the contract is between two people, as both previous
authors argue, why marry at all?  Why not live together, even unto
death?  

The reason, I believe, is not to gain society's approval, although
many couples will undoubtedly find living together easier if
parents are not nervous when visiting for dinner.  Nor is the reason
for marriage a damping of the normal desires to break up when
problems occur.  Rather, marriage is a solemnization of the emotional
decision already made by the couple.  The power of the marriage
ceremony is that it ratifies and certifies the emotions already
felt by the couple; the public affirmation strengthens the bond.
I particularly felt this when watching the marriage ceremony and
the ensuing wild party depicted in the movie "Deerhunter".  The
accretion of historical community activities could only serve to
make a deep impression on the married couple.  (In the particular
case, of course, the impression was unfortunate because the couple
was ill-suited.)

I realize that this view is not the only possible one.
However, it seems very strong to me in our current agnostic age.

By the way, I also know that neither previous author would necessarily
describe marriage as a contract; they may feel that the word is too
cold or legalistic.  However, as a technical word to describe the
binding that occurs when two parties enter an agreement to 
work for commonly desirable goals, I feel it is most suitable.

Charles