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