Unifying (Part 2)

As a self-proclaimed writer, I usually hide behind the narrative element of poetry or prose to dilute the possibility of being identified with certain experiences or views expressed. However, I shall now attempt to formulate and stand by my views as best as possible in this following short essay.

The three samples provided in Part 1 merely serve as examples (whether fictional or not has no bearing on our exploration) for discussion of a topic of my interest: Marriage and love.

I would not provide my stand on this issue as of yet, as I instead prefer to lead you, the reader, into carefully understanding my considerations

As the title most succinctly conveys, marriage or any bond between two or more individuals is a continuous process. Companionship is a commitment which has to be maintained and reviewed frequently. Yet, most people view marriage as an end in itself, instead of a continuous work-in-progress. This is precisely why marriage usually fails, or why it results in a culmination of feelings of resentment and injustice.

Then again, what is the 'true' nature of marriage?

Legally speaking, marriage allows two people to now live together, with bills to pay and have children. Yet today, it is not uncommon for people to cohabit with their partners outside of marriage.

Morally speaking, marriage was when one could finally engage in sexual relations. Yet today, this sanctity of marriage is breached, and many are not virgins by the time they have decided to settle down.

We can combine the legal and moral aspect of marriage.

The nature of marriage thus implies being financially tied to another person, cohabiting and having overlapping responsibilities.

However, these aspects of marriage underlines a key issue, which is an issue of boundaries, and extent of compromise. How close should one be to his or her spouse? Is privacy impossible in a marriage? Would you give your bank account to your spouse?

Drawing clear boundaries is part of our nature, as proven by our frequent territorial disputes. Humans, while being social creatures, are entirely fond of drawing boundaries, just like any dog who would pee on a pole and proclaim its territory. It is why the world is divided into so many countries. We value personal space.

While boundaries do serve as an issue in a close relationship with another individual for a prolonged period of time, such differences can be worked around. Let us instead attempt to question the nature of marriage.

Finances and responsibility bring about a notion of marriage as a transaction. People may quantify their sacrifices in terms of money. The checks and balances of the household is undeniably a sensitive issue for some. These depends largely on why they considered marriage in the first place. Some people get into marriage for financial security. One could question how long such a marriage would last for, if it is founded on money. Others are protective of their wealth, and calculative when dealing with their spouses, which result in disputes. In the event where one faces divorce, the hassle of legal and financial issues stay to haunt, as compared to a simple break-up when one is not bound by wedlock. Hence, as marriage is concerned with the legal binding of a couple's finances, it could breed alternate motives such as marrying for money, or fixation of guarding one's own wealth, resulting in a transactional relationship.

However, you may argue that marriage is not founded on transactions, but on true love.

Well then, elucidate this current definition you might have of "love". Is it unconditional acceptance and compromise? To what extent would you sacrifice yourself for your other half? Have you thought out all possible situations and dilemmas you might have to face if you plunge into this relationship?

Focus instead on the practical concerns regarding marriage, as idealistic notions of love blinds one from ironing such concerns out.

It is not to be forgotten that marriage is a union of families, and there are technical differences to be sorted out when forming such familial ties. To marry is to be a mediator of sorts between two families, and that of course requires decent social skills. Moreover, there requires a sense of responsibility on one's part, and not one who merely denounces his stake in arguments at hand.

Many fail to recognise this uphill task, at least from what I have experienced. The overemphasis on "love" in marriage blinds them so, thus overlooking marriage's pragmatic concerns, whether it is finances or the placating of disgruntled in-laws.

Now, let's suppose that this popularised notion of love indeed holds true.

Love is usually seen as "unconditional acceptance and compromise". However, if love runs through as marriage's true essence, why do religions then rally against love of other sorts? Why are they so vehemently against gay marriage? If love is indeed"unconditional acceptance and compromise" as mentioned earlier, they should celebrate it in all shapes and sizes, and give gay marriage their blessings.

Double standards run everywhere. But let me now venture to suggest that these anti-gay rights people are identified as such because they have a glorified notion of the union between a man and a woman. Additionally, more often than not, we do notice that these people are also advocates against abortion.

Adding two and two together, this leads us to conclude that procreation and sex are inherent in the discussion of the concept of love, and subsequently, marriage.

Is it justified then that marriage is for procreation?

The few reasons for procreation are: humans' overwhelming sense of self-importance and want to continue their family line, as well as hope of having children who would take care of them when they are old.

Procreation to continue the human race is fuelled by an inflated sense of self. Yet, is there a good reason as to why humanity should be preserved? Is there a point to our existence? Is there any purpose to continuing your family line, except for mere tradition's sake? I'll cut this possibly long argument short by simply stating that, every species has its time to shine. And ours has gone on for far too long. I don't actively root for the demise of mankind, but I do not shun such a possibility either. Therefore, I fail to be persuaded by any argument that marriage is necessary for carrying on the family line or keeping the human race from extinction.

Secondly, not all humans make good parents. Pragmatically speaking, parents want children to take care of them in their golden years. Again, this is a transaction of sorts. As a person once told me, filial piety is a slave concept. If a child is raised well enough, he or she should know to repay the kindness of his parents, in goodwill just as they have treated him. Being overly pragmatic would see parents run the risk of instilling a sense of crippling debt in the child towards the parent. Such pragmatism should be avoided if not marriage and children would come to no good end.

Thirdly, a more idealistic reason given is that parents view a child as a product of their love. If turn out to be responsible parent, that is jolly good for the word. If it turns out otherwise, it is most likely due to a skewed notion of love. There is a difference between loving someone else, versus liking the feeling of loving another. The latter is selfishness, and perhaps fuelled by egotism.

In the realm of marriage, people are conditioned by media and religion to think of an ideal partner, ideal marriage life, and ideal children. Most definitely, we live with an idealised notion of reality on a regular basis. However, romantic ideals tend to be the most charged of them all, fundamentally the same sense of entitlement which also fuels religious ideals.

It is when an individual forcefully imposes his or her ideals on another that family life becomes a burden. Most parents proclaim that they know what is best for their child. They fail to accept their children for what they are, even driving children out of their own homes because of differences. They use their children as a means (as if they were objects) of living out dreams they themselves have failed at. It is general lacking in parents that they respect their child as their equal, and they fail to see that children are also vehicles of their own free wheel.

These are no doubt simply people who prioritise themselves over others, treating others as a means for living out and imposing their ideals. Such people should abstain from marriage or any remote want of building their own family. They would only ruin the lives of others by restricting their freedom.

Since there are people who aren't fit to be parents, unable to nurture a child in the best way possible, then we should have people abstaining from procreation. From the moment a child is born, he or she is scarred by this world. Adulthood for a child is at best a recollection of  dreams forgone;and at worst, spent recovering from childhood trauma.

Let us veer off slightly, and return to the issue on procreation. Suppose we have a couple would make really good parents. It is more often than not that they would choose their own flesh and blood. However, is there any remotely logical reason as to why should they not turn to adoption instead? I shall explore the following reasons as to why adoption should be preferred.

Firstly, there is a probability of defect in each baby born. Why would you want to take a risk on a human life? Secondly, there are children already born into this world living in substandard conditions or in abandonment. Not having a safe and nurturing environment can reduce a child's IQ by about 12 points, according to a study conducted.

If you can provide an environment and reduce some pain in another already living soul in this world, why not? I particularly salute those couples who decide to adopt disabled children, and work tirelessly to ensure their development. There is no reason to take the risk of having a child born with defect, bring another living being into this world to suffer, when you could possibly change the life of another while fulfilling your need to channel your paternal or maternal instincts.

You can very much get the gist of my views by now. I am against relationships which are transactional, self-centred and overly pragmatic.

I have mentioned about most people having a flawed notion of love. Love is either transactional for them, overly romanticised as seen in movies, or tainted by the notion of sex.

It would thus be of little surprise if I now recommended that people stay celibate. Platonic love is the purest form of love, and does not mar the clarity of your relationship. Relationships run a risk of being transactional, especially if a relationship has accounts of sexual gratification. Platonic love, on the other hand, is instead the simplest and most basic form of companionship. One gives and unconditionally, and accepting his or her spouse for who they are, and does not attempt to re-shape the spouse's character according to a specified mould in one's head.

In summary of what has been discussed thus far, marriage is generally founded on the unison of finances, production of children, or seen as the concretion of love. Being overly materialistic, seeing children as a mere product of love, and prioritising one's feelings and ideals should be avoided.

My final point would be, the frailty of human nature and our capricious tendencies. I do agree that compromise in any relationship is sacred and should be cherished. However I question the duration of such compromise. Can marriage ever be "survive till death do us apart"? What is the probability of finding true love and sustaining a marriage? How long can a marriage last before a party threatens to file for a divorce? On the other hand, how far can one compromise? On this note, do not forget then that it is usually the quiet ones who are perpetrators of homicides. Silent forbearance may result in stifling one's emotions in a marriage, to the point of depression.

I am thus generally against the concept of marriage, as it is regrettably tainted by materialism, sexuality, and misconceptions.

More significantly, if two people were indeed in love, why did they have to have God as witness for their unison? Is it not enough for silent companionship? Why is there a need to proclaim to the whole world? Is it for show?

The concept of marriage itself speaks of the divide between appearance and reality, as the couple usually keeps at maintaining a façade of happiness despite having a rocky marriage once they have signed the contract, due to social pressure and personal pride. Yet, loving another unconditionally requires no need for formal recognition, whether by others or by God's verdict. Or does it?

I unfortunately fail to answer the aforementioned questions.

I shall end this long-winded piece of writing with an anecdote.

A friend once gasped at my proclamation of not believing in marriage, when she implied interest at knowing who my future partner would be.

She asked the queerest of questions, saying, "If you don't believe in marriage, then do you actually attend weddings?"

I paused, gave a simple cryptic answer, "If I don't believe in death, do I not go for funerals?"

Indeed, I may hold certain views, but tolerance of diverse sets of opinions is a virtue every educated person should possess of. There are enough bigots as of yet. And if you're getting married, I would most certainly bless you.

Perhaps one day I would finally believe in marriage, though it would strictly be limited to platonic love.

And maybe, amidst all this failure and betrayal in this world, there lies some gem in the concept of marriage I have not yet perceived, which will finally kill the cynic in me.

- Signing off,
Idealist

Unifying (Part 1)

Sample 1:
I stayed silent, watching as the Secondary Three boy I was tutoring frown intensely, as if he were subject to immense injustice. 

"Why do we always talk about gay rights?" He finally asked.

Not knowing how or why a simple comment about gay rights had now seemingly inspired a personal response in him, I sought to weed out his opinions. Searching my memory, I recall him cringing when I gave an example of how new beliefs can override the old, similar to America's recent legalisation of gay marriage.

"I suppose you're against homosexuals?" I asked.

"Yes. I mean...", he was searching words now, but settled for the basest of them all. "They are freaks of nature, don't you think so? Only heterosexual relationships are natural. Only humans have deviated from it."

"Ah. Are you sure that 'heterosexual relationships are natural'? Monkeys engage in homosexual behaviour too." I pointed out.

"But... it's against humanity. It's still abnormal. Don't we need to ensure continue the family line?"

"Need? In this day and age? Anyway this does not justify your argument that homosexuality is "wrong". Try persuading me on the validity of your view." I prompted, recalling my responsibilities as a tutor. 

"I don't  know. Urgh, if I ever have a son and I find out that he is gay, I would throw him out of the house." He spat out vehemently. 

I was slightly taken aback by the sudden turn in this conversation, but made a concious note to correct his thinking professionally. 

"That is fallacious, and I believe I have already taught you how to identify faulty arguments. Let us explore a scenario. Suppose you have a son who chooses to do arts over the sciences. Would you disown him then?"

"No? But this is... this is... false analogy. It is not the same," he replied.

Trying hard not to grimace at this misuse of the terms I've taught him, I simply answered, "No, it is not false analogy. You would not condemn your own flesh and blood merely because of his predisposition towards a certain field. Moreover, it is in the name of love. I do not understand why people condemn love, and not realise it comes in different forms. Would you rather prefer war?"

"No... I ... " He was yet going to try at a pointless rebuttal.

"You wanted to be a politician, didn't you? If you ever rally for a cause against gay rights, the first person against you would be me." I added, with all seriousness.

He made slight sounds of protest, and uttered a childish reply-- one that signalled defeat.

"I will read all the law books in the world and I would one day out-argue you to prove you wrong." 

Ah. I've forgotten that he is still an immature sheltered boy of 15 years. 

I sighed, then proceeded, "Reading all the law books in the world won't do you any help. I'm on the side of reason and logic, and that's what will always triumph. Now, now, let us continue the essay discussion. We'll revisit this argument at a later date." 

But it is indeed this sort of intolerance, immaturity, and lack of empathy that repeatedly causes the world to burn.

I then made a mental note in my head to not merely focus on tackling O level essay questions, but on a larger theme uniting the following weeks of lessons: Value Judgements and Moral Judgements.
--------------------
Sample 2:
A long day of work during the weekend had finally ended. I returned home with two packets of food, one for my mother and the other for myself. As the key turned I saw a silhouette in the doorway, only to be greeted by my mother, pale and weak.  

Within the next few minutes, I familiarised myself with the details of how her health had deteriorated. I was out of touch with circumstances as I lived on my own during the weekdays. My father, despite being in the know, failed to show concern whatsoever. I tried ringing his cell but received no reply. It hadn't bothered me at all, because I was used to his absence whenever something crops up. But he did eventually call back, and I ordered him to come back immediately in a somewhat offensive manner, as I vaguely guessed at his dishonesty when he frantically constructed an alibi as counter to my questioning of his whereabouts. 

As soon as we arrived, the hospital did the necessary checks, and proceeded to put her on drip. My father, in his usual boorish manner, paced up and down the walkways of wait with his slippers, dragging his feet and announcing his presence wherever he went. His appearance of supposed anxious concern was all too much to handle, and I diverted my attention to reassuring my mother that she would be fine.

I stood close to her bedside, quiet. My arm was rested near her head, so that she could lean on my shoulder, and that would in turn give her some warmth in this chilly, sanitized hell.

She suddenly spoke,"You haven't been willing to come close to me for a long time. You would always run away."

"Not when you have hurt and neglected me thus far, Mother." An internal reply was formulating and swimming within my head. I kept mum. But it was undeniable that bitterness could indeed be tasted in my throat when I was bombarded by sorrow. 

Yet there was no resent on my part. (Why should there be?) Only recently had it come to my attention, that an overwhelming sense of pity, almost palpable, was overriding all sense of affection I had or could have for her. Correspondingly, the helplessness I felt in being unable to lift her from the abyss of depression laid out the path that I could only leave, and flee for my life by choosing to live alone, before I became another slave to despair. 

And as I was acting out this plethora of emotions in my head, my father had returned. He proclaimed loudly and proudly that he had paid $300 deposit for my mum being transferred to the observation ward, but conveniently missed out the fact that she would eventually pay the rest of the amount herself, which amounted to a few thousands. 

Then the poor woman was moved to her ward, where she was subject to watching her husband, the supposed love of her life, looking at the television and the telephone by her bedside greedily. She was entitled to a four-bed air-conditioned ward, which was expensive indeed, if she was not under subsidy by the company she slogs her guts out at. Her husband, also referred to as my father, switched on the television, disregarding that the time was 12am, and that he was supposedly taking care of a patient. After I had told him to switch off the television, he proceeded to use the telephone to ring up my brother, which made my mother all the more disappointed that her son was not concerned for her. After accomplishing his aim of making a point that my brother was useless and uncaring, he finally decided to head home.

I need not remind the patient how her choices of marrying such a man had resulted in circumstances today. But she would resist, as always, by arguing that their finances were tied together and hence divorce would be a silly proposition. Mixed with a fervent want of a complete family to make up for her history of having a womaniser for a father, as well as her belief that divorce would mean ultimate failure as a lady, she foraged on into a sunset of epic self-denial. 

And I had no more place in that landscape, watching darkness in my room after a happening day, revising moments of my mother recounting her childhood days when she was neglected by her mother and slapped for no reason whatsoever. 

I had not faced physical violence by her; I was not living in poverty; my father was dutiful in paying the bills and driving us around (which he frequently claims credit for). Why then, would I have a tinge of resent breeding in my heart? 

My mother's fixation on my father and brother was well-established and well-reasoned. One was her "true" love, while the other was a child whom she had spent most time and effort on, but had gone awry, turning out to be an aimless individual void of a sense of responsibility towards the family. 

Like me, she had struggled. She too had struggled to be the pride of her family despite being taunted and derided by her own mother. She too had dreamed of a mother who is dependable and resilient and gentle and kind.

Not realising, I dream too. 
------------------------------------
Sample 3:
"Well, either way, I am against marriage." I thought it would be wise to put forth my stand before he could possibly launch into preaching about the sanctity of marriage. 

By fate, the both of us had been eating dinner together, and somehow we started talking about our own families, despite having known each other for only half a year. 

"I don't believe in marriage either." That reply did finally make me notice that he was different in some way. I waited in anticipation as he continued, "Don't you think that the nature of compromise should be valued? It is beautiful in that it can keep two people together for years." 

"No. It is exactly because marriage is founded on this mechanism of barter-trading-- i.e. if you do a favour for me, I should return it. That is the source of much unhappiness, namely when this trading equilibrium is tipped and skewed to one party giving."

"Sure, you can see it as trade; but I prefer to see it as compromise." He replied quietly. 

"And from your own life experiences at least, you can conclude that children have to eventually carry the burden of their parents. Marriage forms families, which more often than not, involve children. Not everyone is suited to be a parent. Let me put it this way. If your parents had not gotten married, nor had a child, would you have to shoulder the responsibility to now juggle schoolwork and give tuition to help with the family's finances? Moreover, you're taking a double degree course, and it is exhausting for you. Your mother and yourself have to be the breadwinners of the family, all because your dad did not want to upgrade himself. That isn't fair." I paused. He took time to digest what I'd said. I realised that I had probably hit home ground, and he would most likely take offence at my statements. 

Somehow, I hoped he would be as irked by my cynicism as I was by his idealism. 

"Yes, I get what you mean, but since we're already born into this world, we just have to make do with what we have. For me, I feel lucky to have my mother as my role model. She's inspiring, works tirelessly, and can basically handle everything. Whenever I am tired, I think of how tired she is too, and hope that I am lessening her burden by working part-time."

I was amazed that he was not the least impatient with my incessant questioning. He continued.

"I believe that life hands us cards when we're born. You may not have come from a family with a conducive environment, but those aren't the only cards we are dealt with. As far as I know of, you're hardworking, and that's a card you have to use to your advantage. Don't be so quick to judge this world, I believe things will definitely turn out better for you." 

I could not recall what words I had rebutted in protest, but I do remember being won over by his conviction, such that I could only reveal that I am but a jaded idealist, unfortunately now converted to a cynic. 

We Created Ugly

Softly rusted leaves nestle grey concrete;
to be swept away as penalty for
misfits. This squalid city stays replete
with vines encroaching on wires, folklores

of free forests, and billboards for blue skies.
We prefer the filtered, distilled, coloured
estimates of exotic sights, a guise
of jungles cleansed clean of webs dismembered,

and painted faces crafted with radiance.
Perhaps coded plastics of proportions
placate our dolled-up judgements, oblivious
to what truly transcends perfection.

For flaws exist only in our measure,
All else drift as nature's especial wager.