Would you marry someone if this was the definition of your marriage, or is the concept itself problematic?
I guess in short, the question is--do I care what I and the other person think, or do I care what they think--or do they care what I think? I guess that gets right to the heart of a what a marriage ceremony is for, huh?
I think that a marriage ceremony is you and your partner inviting other people, and the state, to validate what you already think about your relationship--that it exists, and that it is important to you, and therefore deserves to be recognized formally as a relationship by other people and the state.
I support other people and the state generally recognizing that you and your relationship, you know, exists and is important to you, so they are able to treat you and people that are important to you with respect during interactions.
(Not that people shouldn't treat you with respect anyway, but rather, people must be aware that a thing is before they are able to decide what to do with that thing, and how they should do it...whether that thing is a relationship, a tomato, race, the rainforest, a problem, or other people's opinions.)
In that sense, I think that marriage ceremonies are the legal and social way we have of recognizing the existence and importance of a relationship between two people, so that they may interact with that relationship as a thing separate from, but composed of, the two people in it. (And yes, I think that the duality currently built into marriage ceremonies is arbitrary and screws over people who are in other long-term committment configurations).
I would like to have a relationship legally recognized as a thing separate from, but composed of, the two people in it; in that sense I suppose I would get married, if my partner and I had reached an understanding that we were not responsible for each other's individual actions.
I do not see how it would be possible for a couple undergoing a marriage ceremony to limit the definition of marriage to just the understanding of the two people at hand, since the whole point of such a ceremony is to bring additional societal and legal expectations into the relationship, regardless of if the couple needed, intended, or even wanted to have them.
HOWEVER, my partner and I would not need to be bound by the definition of marriage imposed on our relationship by other people; we would hold no responsibility to live up to other people's expectations (except perhaps in the heads of those other people, and if they held us to an expectation we did not have and intend to keep for ourselves, they and their expectations would be the ones who would be incorrect, not us for not living up to them).
Just as my partner would not have to be responsible for the things I did, and I would not have to be responsible for the things they did, unless we agreed that we ought to be for each other.
...and this is where I see that I was already not responsible for the things she did in her life, and she was already not responsible for the things I did in mine, except that she asked me to be (and I was) responsible for making certain decisions for her, and that agreement was the thing needing tweaking or discarding.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
13/8/10 20:15 (UTC)Would you marry someone if this was the definition of your marriage, or is the concept itself problematic?
I guess in short, the question is--do I care what I and the other person think, or do I care what they think--or do they care what I think? I guess that gets right to the heart of a what a marriage ceremony is for, huh?
I think that a marriage ceremony is you and your partner inviting other people, and the state, to validate what you already think about your relationship--that it exists, and that it is important to you, and therefore deserves to be recognized formally as a relationship by other people and the state.
I support other people and the state generally recognizing that you and your relationship, you know, exists and is important to you, so they are able to treat you and people that are important to you with respect during interactions.
(Not that people shouldn't treat you with respect anyway, but rather, people must be aware that a thing is before they are able to decide what to do with that thing, and how they should do it...whether that thing is a relationship, a tomato, race, the rainforest, a problem, or other people's opinions.)
In that sense, I think that marriage ceremonies are the legal and social way we have of recognizing the existence and importance of a relationship between two people, so that they may interact with that relationship as a thing separate from, but composed of, the two people in it. (And yes, I think that the duality currently built into marriage ceremonies is arbitrary and screws over people who are in other long-term committment configurations).
I would like to have a relationship legally recognized as a thing separate from, but composed of, the two people in it; in that sense I suppose I would get married, if my partner and I had reached an understanding that we were not responsible for each other's individual actions.
I do not see how it would be possible for a couple undergoing a marriage ceremony to limit the definition of marriage to just the understanding of the two people at hand, since the whole point of such a ceremony is to bring additional societal and legal expectations into the relationship, regardless of if the couple needed, intended, or even wanted to have them.
HOWEVER, my partner and I would not need to be bound by the definition of marriage imposed on our relationship by other people; we would hold no responsibility to live up to other people's expectations (except perhaps in the heads of those other people, and if they held us to an expectation we did not have and intend to keep for ourselves, they and their expectations would be the ones who would be incorrect, not us for not living up to them).
Just as my partner would not have to be responsible for the things I did, and I would not have to be responsible for the things they did, unless we agreed that we ought to be for each other.
...and this is where I see that I was already not responsible for the things she did in her life, and she was already not responsible for the things I did in mine, except that she asked me to be (and I was) responsible for making certain decisions for her, and that agreement was the thing needing tweaking or discarding.