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