Talking About Not Talking
I'm sick of talking about how I don't want to get married. I'm really tired of making fun of the entire institution. I like a good argument, I can't deny that, but it's gotten to the point of being ridiculous. Now if only all the parents and youth workers and teachers and whoever else watched me grow up would stop asking me, "When are you gonna
( Read more... )
There are so many things about love and marriage that I don't understand so its fun to maul over it/get input from others :)
Anyway, I was going to post my newest LJ post in reply to this here, but it didn't make any sense, especially when I thought about what you said about having friends who support you in the way you think a wife would....I would hope that it is more than that though, of which I can't really put into words, no matter how hard that I try...
Trying: I can't help but think of the couples who are so connected that they can practically read each other's minds. Or who find they can't stand being apart. Or who have a trust and understanding that is way beyond a lot of people's imagination.
I have a romantic imagination, so I won't bore you with trying some more.
...In seeing other relationships, there is great honesty in fearing we will make the same mistakes. But the fact that it paralyzes us when a great opportunity comes is like a slap in God's face, though....either because something vital needs to change or because we are disgracing His willingniess to provide oportunities.
...There is nothing wrong in feeling comfortable where you are. How many people could say the same?
Anyway, I can't think of anything else to add, but a bunch of jargon that you've heard before. Thanks!
Reply
I will say that you're absolutely right, though, in that if God does present an opportunity to me, I should take it. I'm not absolutely opposed to marriage, and if the right woman and the right situation--both criteria are absolutely vital--come along, I will go ahead and take the plunge. When I say I don't want to get married, what I mean is that I have no desire to seek it out, nor do I see any reason why I should.
What I'd be interested in hearing is a philosophical justification of marriage. Why is it so good? Why is it so vital? Why are people so fanatical about it? It looks like willful insanity to me, like loving Big Brother...and I don't mean the television show.
Thanks for the discussion...like I said, I love a good argument. :)
Reply
But that's perhaps a bit uncharitable :)
Let me say what I see is good about marriage - but with the initial understanding that not everyone is "supposed" to get married.
No friendship can be like a marriage - unless the marriage has adultery or divorce as a live option (which empties marriage). It is not simply about finishing one another's sentences, etc., or the teen-movie need to be together. When Chrissy leaves for more than a couple days, I feel (not in some romancy poetic sense) that a part of myself is missing. This is hard to describe, and I would imagine that it is going to be misunderstood.
This is the "becoming one flesh". It "teaches" us the ability to be unprotectedly with someone, so as to come to the point of needing them to have any concept of yourself. Since I think that there is no such thing as self-identity, but just a series of self-deceptions that I call "myself as I really am", I think that marriage teaches this. This isn't, of course, simply an education that is painful and humiliating, but, I think, (ironically) liberating.
But, again, this is hard to explain. But it is, like Paul said, like "Christ and the church" - an identity of interpenetration (exemplified, I believe, in loving sex - of course, not in the masturbating-upon-one-another that usually takes place).
In response to the problems with marriage to which you pointed (having to ask for permission or a blessing to do what you want), there are different ways to interpret you. The first is purely selfish, to which I have no response. If you value having your will be done with as much freedom as possible, then we are not speaking the same language. (Such freedom, in my mind, is just another name for sin...but that is a long, complicated discussion.)
If, on the other hand, you are complaining about how husbands are afraid of their wives, etc., then that is not how a marriage should be. Our society has, in my mind, become effeminate - feminine morality rules the day. (Yes, this is shamelessly inspired by a little Bible mixed with a healthy dose of Nietzsche...weird, but rich :) ). If you see marriage like "loving Big Brother", then you seem to think that this is how marriage works (the wife as the authority that establishes what is right and wrong, to your loss). A good, loving relationship is not about being nice (which is almost the opposite of love), it's almost violent (not physically - that's what men do who aren't man enough to actually confront a problem) in a kind of truth-y way. It is more like Job's prayers to God than the contemporary church's effeminate prayers ("don't say something mean to God or demand what you want, but if you do, make sure you end by telling him that you just want him to do what he wants to do..."). So too men usually express their will in a passive aggressive way, and end by giving in to the woman - but with the hope that their pussy semi-whining will hurt her and make her give in to their will.
So, to sum up:
1) Point of marriage is to become one in a manner in which no other relationship can. No good friendship can reach this level. (Explaining why this is the case would require another long post.)
2) You are not describing how marriage should be, but how it usually is (that is, failed). This is caused by people who, when confronted, seek to escape (adultery, divorce, passive aggressiveness, or physical/verbal abuse) rather than actually interact with another person.
3) Not everyone needs to get married. I think I agree that the pursuit of marriage is silly. People who pursue it have no idea what they're pursuing. They think they're going to get some cheap bliss, but they're actually (if they do marriage properly) going to get "refined". But this refining involves a kind of joy more powerful than simple bliss.
Reply
Really, though, while I disagree (obviously; it's my lot in life to be disagreeable) I do appreciate the answer and will post more fully at a later time. After I digest it a little more thoroughly.
Reply
First, to clarify, the loving Big Brother line had nothing to do with the quality or nature of a particular marriage but was a comment on the institution of marriage in general. Marriage is held up as an unquestioned good in society--sure, we make jokes about it, and there are people out there who actively oppose it, but on the whole, it is considered noble, romantic, and worthwhile. Meanwhile, people who don't get married are viewed with skepticism; the crazy cat lady, the undersexed nerd, the old maid and lonely old man. That sort of thing. So there is pressure to buy into and believe in a system of thought regarding an institution that people otherwise may not truly enjoy or find fulfilling, but they are saved by the true believers and learn to love Big Brother.
In other words, people who would otherwise be happy or happier single are purified before the bullet of marriage eliminates them.
Now, as for your admission that not everyone is "supposed" to get married, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and think that the quotation marks were no random or misplaced. If that is so, I have to wonder at them. Since you said (or implied) you don't want to be uncharitable with me, I don't want to be uncharitable with you. However, you make an argument (with which I disagree, as I will explain later) that marriage allows for a closeness, or oneness, impossible elsewhere, and that it allows for some form of ego-destruction. I hope I am not mischaracterizing the argument. Also, and I hate to dredge up the past, but dredge I will, you had a post on your own live journal speculating that single people, or perhaps those committed to being single, stood for nothing and were too afraid to own anything. So while your words are about how marriage is good but not ultimately necessary, your argument(s) suggest that it is not only good, but vital and anyone who doesn't follow along with the plan is flawed. Again, I don't mean to mischaracterize your argument, but that is how I read it, no matter how hard I try to hack into my skull and open my mind. When you say that not everyone is supposed to get married or needs to get married, would you then say that there are some people who should not get married?
Is marriage the only type of relationship that allows for such oneness? I would be interested in hearing (or reading, rather) your argument, but I am skeptical. It seems to me that, yes, marriage has relational benefits that don't exist within other relationships, but it also seems obvious to me that that is true of any relationship--how I relate to my father and mother and brother and friends allows for different benefits, lessons and virtues than can exist anywhere else. If it's a matter of someone becoming so much a part of you that you feel something is missing when they're gone, I can happily report that I do feel that way about everyone in my life. Perhaps I'm an anomaly or perhaps I'm not giving enough weight to the longing you describe, but I have to question it. To me, it seems like a personal virtue as opposed to a universal one.
And that would actually be my argument. My independence, such as it is, has little to do with imposing my will (which I do very little of, actually, but I could be wrong) and more with the freedom to do what I otherwise couldn't if I were married. Jim once talked about an unmarried missionary he worked with who could serve in ways the married men could not. I find that tremendously appealing, and that is largely what I aim for. I am anti-social by nature, I will readily admit, but I also acknowledge and embrace the absolute necessity for community. In fact, I've written about it previously, and if you are so inclined, you can feel free to read about it here: http://geektown.livejournal.com/58948.html though I will say there are probably points within that you will also find disagreeable. That's fine; I like being disagreeable. :)
Reply
Anyway, I hardly find it selfish to choose service over marriage, even if it comes at the cost of coming...if you'll pardon the crude joke. If someone wants to live only for themselves, yes, that is selfish. There are an infinite number of points between the binary (and artificial) points of selfishness and marriage.
On the whole, I wonder if you're correct when you say we're not speaking the same language. I tend more toward relativism than I should, but it seems that you are making an argument for why marriage is good for you and postulating that it is a universal good for the same reasons. I think our understanding of the self and selfishness, as well as the nature of what constitutes sin, are radically different, but I could be wrong. I know we disagree on the corruption of humanity, so perhaps that is the wedge that splits the tree, so to speak.
As for the rest, yes, I agree that a good chunk of my argument is based on how marriage (most) often is as opposed to how it should be. I'm not sure what that suggests. How much is my abhorrence at the state of marriage today drives my reluctance to get married I can't really say. Despite it all, though, I'm not opposed to marriage per se; I just don't care if I do get married, and I still see no reason to want to do so.
Reply
anyway...the Bible says something about not getting married unless you need to because you lack the will power, so that you can be more useful to those in need, so that you can truley love and assist those people.
So the person who is married and/or looking for seomeone is always going to be hindered in his work because of his extreme caution....or, rather, his work will be a kind of a very specific sort.
Don't get me wrong, I think there needs to be caution, but it is a lot less if we have made up our minds to not date anyone
...just some thwauts [thoughts]
Reply
Just my opinion.
The whole culture of love and lust has made everything so difficult. I'm not as Buddhist as I want to be, but I think allowing for a moment to be genuine and present as opposed to an annoying trifle in the way of more important things down the line is best. Meaning that intention can ruin as much as it saves; if I have no intention to date a girl, why should I not be wholly present with her? It's a mystery, and not a good one.
As for caution, I think a measure of skepticism is healthy, but deciding not to date someone or not to want to date anyone is wrong. I hope I'm not doing that. Like I said, if it happens it happens, but forcing it and running from it ain't gonna do anything. We learned that from Moses and Jonah.
Reply
So, let me try to retype most of it:
I do believe that not everyone should get married. Or rather, there are some who may avoid marriage. These are mainly those who are seeking service that would be made impossible/difficult in a marriage.
My reason for thinking marriage is beyond any other relationship (here’s where you realize that my argument is empty and stupid): sex. That is, committed sex in which childbearing is a possibility. Let me explain the parts:
1) Sex. Sex is nice. It is almost a symbol - of two lives bared before one another, of a love in which there is mutual enjoyment, etc. And not “just a symbol.” Symbols have tremendous meaning (in a sense, as I’ll not below). What we all seek is relationships in which we are loved and love, we are seen and we see, we delight in the other and are delighted in. Sex is the fulfillment of this (as long as it is sex, and not just the selfish masturbating-on-one-another that most sex is). Sex should be treated as Eucharist should be treated. Of course, we have essentially universally failed in the latter, so it would make sense that we are clueless regarding the former.
2) Committed. This is obvious. Without commitment, sex is nonsense. Commitment involves the intertwining of two lives into one (finances, time, focus of energy, choices, living space, food, etc. etc.). Sex without this commitment is nonsense and an aberration, simply masturbation. And, because we are dumb, this serves as the image for all of sex, and so we see no meaning in it (or see it as a fleshly semi-vice that we’re allowed because God knows how much we suck at being good). Without commitment, sex is masturbation. With commitment, sex becomes a rich symbol - a sacrament or icon, of the interpenetration of the three persons of the Trinity, of the two lives that have become so intertwined as to be one.
3) Possibility of childbearing. As Marlucio (who disagrees strongly with my view of sex) says, childbearing is the most obvious incarnation of the two becoming one flesh. Though I think this isn’t all of the two becoming one flesh, as sex itself is a kind of fitting together - the physical is an image of the relational. But the possibility of creating life is that where the male and female as one come closest to resembling God: in a place of nakedness/honesty (not all sex is “honest”, if you know what I mean) before one another, a man and woman (“male and female He created them” in the image of God) act out of love and create life that is in their image. That’s very God-like. These are the levels of symbolism that sex holds. If being “holy” means to be an image/symbol of God, then (loving/committed) sex is perhaps one of the greatest bits of “holiness” (that may be going too far….or perhaps not).
(continued...)
Reply
Now, I have an odd view on the importance of marriage. It sounds as if I'm saying that marriage is everything and the unmarried are terrible. To the one who rejects marriage for any reason other than service, I would say that they are messed up. A desire for personal independence that exceeds one's desire for mutual love is, to me, rather disgusting. Of course, most don't see marriage as love - and it usually isn't love. So, it's an understandable feeling.
How important is marriage? I think it is the fullest expression of the image of God in humanity. Eph. 5 and Gen. 1 both suggest this. But I also think marriage is not much more than a bandaid for an incomplete (I'd say "sinful", except marriage is based in the pre-fall state) world. It will pass away in the resurrection. I'm not sure how to explain this sense of my feeling of the importance and utter lack of importance of marriage except by suggesting a reading of Ecclesiastes. In Eccl. all things are declared empty/meaningless, and then we are told that the highest attainment of life is to enjoy these things. In fact, I think this enjoyment is the fullest expression of worship of God (Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" kind of makes this point, when he writes about the "knight of faith") - the meaningless loses significance for itself, and gains significance in its relation to God. But...meh...that will probably be misunderstood...since most Christians are retards about this kind of stuff (in large part because of our iconoclastic gnosticism...and lack of thought...).
I think you might be confusing me with those silly Christians who have placed too much meaning in marriage (and that would be reasonable considering what I've written). But I've "Ecclesiastesized" marriage in my thought. When one puts too much weight on it, they lose the real significance - and seeing this improper weight might lead one to blindness as to the real significance. You have to see it as meaningless/empty, to see the real significance. But you have to understand the importance of symbol to get to that point. And it is a rare Christian (or American) who can even begin to understand (or, rather, pay attention to) the significance of symbols.
Reply
I'll say more later, but I don't think you sound stupid when you say it's about the sex. That seemed to be the dividing line between marriage and everything else. I'm actually encouraged you said it. I thought I was being dumb and crude, but I guess I'm not totally alone.
More later. Maybe. For not wanting to talk about marriage, this has been an interesting conversation with everyone.
Reply
Leave a comment