Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    Since the writer of the base note is in England I am reminded of a report
    in The Times [of London] that said that given the state of British Taxation
    and Inheritance laws the correct approach was to "live together" until
    one partner is either on his/her deathbed or both are about to retire: 
    you should then marry!
    
    [This was of course in one of those boring articles that appear just
    before the Budget]
    
    /. Ian .\

        As someone who's been married 13 years I can say 1) Yes, it's
        worth it, 2) Yes, there are GOOD marriages out here, but 3) No,
        there are no PERFECT marriages out here. You hear about the
        problems here more than the good marriages for a number of
        reasons.
        
        First of all, people tend to camplain more about problems than
        they talk about good things. You see this not just here but
        throughout life. We've all be flamed or blamed for screwing up
        at work (at least I hope it isn't just me), but how often do we
        get notes to our management tell them how good a job we did?
        Some of us try to do this, but it isn't all that common.
        
        Secondly, most of the topics here get started with somebody
        asking questions. Those who are having a hard time of it often
        ask more questions than those who are doing well. People just
        don't start too many topics about the things they know about or
        are confident in. There can be two reasons for this. Either they
        don't want to look like they're bragging or they're afraid to
        rock the boat. The notion that things go bad just after you say
        how good they are is a very old superstition.
        
        Back to the question of marriage. Yes, I heartily endorse it.
        BUT, there are a whole lot of things that our culture will
        induce you to do wrong, so you want to take care. First of all,
        as Marge said, there is too much pressure to get married right
        away. Combined with this there's too little emphasis on why and
        how you should do it. 
        
        Marriage is a very important, and I would say sacred, thing. It
        is not to be entered into lightly or ill-advisedly. The
        Christian wedding ceremony will tell you that, but when else do
        you hear it or hear what that means? The only time I'm aware of
        is that in our church the priest will advise you of it AFTER the
        the two of you have decided to do it.
        
        Look, getting married involves making a commitment to yourself,
        someone else, and to God to spend the rest of your life with
        another person, to stand by them through the worst and the best.
        The rest of your life isn't eternity, but it is a close to it as
        you'll know this side of the grave. This is the only absolute
        commitment to another person you'll make (pending deatyh or
        blowing the commitment). And you're pledging to put up with the
        worst they have to offer as well as the best. It's a big deal!
        
        You don't do this lightly, at least not and succeed. If you're
        going to make this promise you want to know first that the other
        person is the kind of person that you can live with forever,
        that the good things about them are worth the worst (the worst
        in combination with YOUR worst). Beyond that you'd better be
        sure that they are making the same commitment to you. Ain't
        gonna work otherwise.
        
        We also don't advertise that marriage is hard work, or that hard
        work shared with someone you love is fun. We make it sound like
        everything is supposed to be perfect and if it's not you're not
        doing it right. When something does go wrong it's a calamity. In
        reality, in working marriages overcoming the difficulties
        together is one of the good things--one of the things that
        strengthens the marriage. 
        
        Beyond all that we've taken the defeatist attitude that failure
        in marriage is inevitable, divorce is the norm. It is terribly
        important that we be supportive of our friends and neighbors
        whose marriages fail. Shunning them is a dreadful thing to do.
        BUT, we do no-one a service to say that divorce isn't a failure
        or that the people (BOTH people) involved aren't at fault.
        
        Even in the case where an angel marries pond-scum incarnate, the
        failure of the marriage is in part the angel's at the very least
        they married the wrong person. If we just say "such is life",
        "you did nothing wrong", and the like who'se gonna tell them not
        to go looking for their next mate in the same old sewers and
        swamps? There is no point in hanging guilt on the divorced, but
        we mustn't steal from them their responsibility.
        
        The long and the short of it is that yes marriage works, and yes
        it is worth it, but you've got to know what you're buying in to
        and you both have to be willing to work at it. If you're not, if
        that's not what you want, don't get married. Either find someone
        that you are willing to share forever with or have a temporary
        relationship with the person of your choice. Just understand
        that temporary means temporary, and you aren't guarenteed to
        like the changes or the ending.
        
        JimB. 

    marriage doesn't guarantee 'forever', any more than not-marriage
    precludes forever. it's probably best to defer marriage as long
    as possible, until you have a really good idea what it's all about.
    
    
    the media, parents, the church, and society can all fill you with
    misinformation and absurd expectations. nobody can tell you what's
    right for YOU. celibate priests certainly can't.
    
    a good view against marriage can be found in *marriage and morals*
    by bertrand russell...
    
    /bruce

    Sure there are good marriages - I have had two of them.  The first
    one ended in divorce, but that didn't make it all bad.  It lasted
    for 17 years and was good for about 15 years of that time.  What
    changed?  I changed and he didn't.  What was right for me at 18
    was certainly not right for me at 35, and to consider that it would
    be is to me ridiculous.  When I look at my 22 and 17 year olds I
    certainly hope that they are going to change - they'll never survive
    otherwise.
    
    Granted, to most people that have been divorced, divorce is a painful
    process.  What with the kids, the things, the hurt feelings, it's
    bound to be a painful way to close to a relationship.  That's the
    risk that you take.  Would I prefer not to have had the first marriage,
    because of the pain?  No, then I wouldn't have the good part, the
    kids.
    
    I remarried at 36, will this one be forever?  Probably, he's someone
    I could have been happy with all along.  We share the same attitudes,
    goals and ideas.  He is ten years older than I am, so I also have
    to consider that I may outlive him.  If that happens, I would probably
    marry again.  I like to have someone to come home to.
    
    

        
        I wholeheartedly support the argument that Marriage is an enormous
    commitment and that you have to go through hell and high water to
    make it a success. 
    
        From my own experience, I can remember standing in Church saying
    all the words including the "till death us do part" bit. Five years
    (and one impending divorce) later I realise that I didn't know what
    I was doing or the enormity of the responsibility/commitment I had
    gotten myself into. I worked incredibly hard to make my marriage
    work and I'm sure my (ex)wife would say the same. We found that
    we just couldn't make each other happy so decided to split. Maybe
    we're no happier apart but we're both a lot more content.
    
        I dont think that any people considering divorce look forward
    to it - it's just part of modern life and is yet another of those
    mountains that have to be climbed to gain knowledge/experience.
    
        My advice to anyone thinking of getting married would be to
    talk to each other and never stop. the minute you stop, you're in
    trouble. I'm not particularly anti-marriage but I don't see myself
    launching into it with quite the same "gay abandon" that I did last
    time.
    
        My father gave me some very wise words (oh why didn't I listen
    to him the first time !). He said marry :
    
           someone from the same background as you and/or
           
           someone with the same interests as you and/or
    
           someone that you are desperately in love with and
           could not bear the thought of living without   
    
      At the end of the day, I believe it is a bit of a lottery because
    however hard you make work - your partner might give up. Having
    said that, armed with the experience of my first marriage, I firmly
    believe I'll make a better job of my second (and hopefully last!)
    
    optimistically yours,
    
    Steve
    
                                                                   
    

        I hope you didn't read my note as saying that marriage
        guarentees "forever". Quite the contrary. I was trying to say
        that you don't get forever without hard work, but that what you
        promise at marriage is forever (at least for this life). This is
        a hard promise to keep, so you want to be sure you understand
        it before you make it.
        
        On the other hand, forever is hard enough to acheieve that you
        are FAR more likely to acheive it if that's what you set out to
        and commit to from the start, than if you just enter into an
        open-ended relationship without the commitment. You might get it
        by accident, but it ain't likely.
        
        JimB. 
                
        JimB.

    
    
    	Just remember:
    
    	"Love is blind. Marriage is an eye opener"
    
    					My Mom
    
    	When you think about it, it is SO true.  I wouldn't mind thinking
    	about getting married but it would have to be the "right" person.
    	(Whomever they may be and whatever they may be like)
    
    							mike

    
    Let's lighten up a very ponderous discussion.  Marriage is wonderful,
    it's fun and for me, it's easy.  I love it, I'd do it again in a   
    heartbeat and I adore my husband.  He's the center of my world,
    the one who makes it all worthwhile and I can't imagine life without
    him.  He's my best friend. I tell him things my oldest girlfriends
    don't know.  He's my partner in the truest sense of the word.  I
    disagree more with my coworkers than I do my husband.  We never
    argue and differences of opinion are met with compromises we can
    both live with.  Marry someone like him and you'll never regret
    it a day in your life. I certainly haven't.
    
    Vicki
    

I think that more needs to be said about what comes *before* the 'together
untill death' part...

From what I'm hearing, about 50% of the people are saying that they did not know
the person that they married well enough.  What happened to long engagements?
Have they devolved into 'living together'?

My marriage did not 'fail', it never was, because I never learned what the real
person was like before I married them.  I feel that I could still live up to the
'till death do us part', but I feel that I never reached the point where that
applied. 

The other half of the people are saying that the couple grew apart.  I don't
understand a couple letting this happen.  Can anyone explain?  It seems to me
that this is breaking the 'till death do us part' vow.  It also seems like it
would be real tough to pin the blame for it on any one person.

Jim. 

    I think my marriage was "worth it" because, like others have said,
    my ex-husband and I had 7 happy years together.  We stayed married
    for 5 1/2 more and should have split up sooner than we did.  But,
    the first 7 were good years.  Just as some people (including me)
    feel there is too much pressure in society for people to get married
    in the first place, I think there is too much pressure for married
    people to stay together "until death do us part".  If people grow
    apart over a long-term marriage, and are no longer happy together,
    what's the sense in making them stick out the rest of their lives
    in misery, growing to hate each other more and more, just because
    they once decided they were in love and wanted to get married. 
    Toward the very end of my marriage there were times that I thought
    my ex-husband was one of the worst jerks who ever walked the earth.
     But, now, two years after splitting up, dealing with him as a friend
    and my daughter's father, I realize what I had lost sight of.  That
    is a very decent, good, intelligent person, who actually sees a
    lot of things the same way I do.  Divorcing him made me remember
    a lot of the reasons why I liked him in the first place, but without
    the romantic love and sexual attraction.
    
    Sometimes romantic love and sexual attraction just go away like
    a cold - one day you have it and the next day it's gone.  If we
    only get to live once and then have to face oblivion (and I'm not
    convinced this isn't the case) why should we then have to spend
    the rest of our lives without romantic love and romantic sex.  Why
    can't we just move on without guilt or hatred.  I am bothered by
    people whose lifestyles take this to an extreme by falling in and
    out of love 10 times a year, but I was in love with my ex for 8
    1/2 years, and then it ended.  I don't consider that a failure.
     It's just the way it is.  We're both happier now, and we still
    like each other as people.  I don't regret the marriage, but I'm
    glad it's over.
    
    It's not that I don't believe in marriage anymore, but that I don't
    really see why it should be necessary, especially for people who
    don't want to have any more kids.
    
    Lorna
    

    Marrage when it is good is REAL good but when it is is bad it
    is REAL bad. Few if any in betweens for me.
    Mine was very good for awhile and became very bad when outsiders
    (inlaws,now outlaws) became involved against my wishes and not hers.
    You would think 2000 miles would have been enough seperation to
    prevent that.
    
    I think i would do it again but would avoid some things like the
    black death.(i.e. the inability to seperate from family and accept
    ones own life as their own and run it as such)
    
    -jerry
    P.s. My ex has been married and divorced for the same reason since
    we were divorced. Will she learn in time to have a good marrage?
    I really hope so.
    
    

    
    

	I tried entering this in directly through notes and 
got an error "NETWORK PARTNER EXITED"!!! ARGHHHH! It was better
the first time.

Oh well, here goes again...

After 2 marriages (currently going through the 2nd divorce) I started
to wonder what the problem was.  I talked with my parents and friends
to try and find out what I was doing wrong.  They couldn't help me.
Everyone has their ideas on what life, love and marriage is all about
and that's why I think we are all confused today.  Way back when, 
people didn't talk about what it would take to have a "good" marriage,
we just grew up knowing that the purpose in our life was to get  
married and continue the family name.  

I decided to see what the "experts" wrote about "life".  I 
came across an excellent book called "The Road Less Traveled"
by Dr. Scott M. Peck.  He is or was a psycologist that wrote
about his patients dealings with life and relationships.  He
seems to have a good view on how we cope.  I learned from that
book about self discipline and LOVE.  Dr. Peck discusses how
the "falling in love" syndrome happens to all of us.  Falling 
in love is not genuine love, it is a sexual attraction that 
NEVER lasts.  Genuine love, however, is NOT a feeling, it is 
what one chooses to do out of interest for another.  

I feel that I had "fallen in love" in both of my marriages
and that is possibly why they didn't last.  I couldn't figure 
it out.  I thought that was the way it was supposed to feel!
I know now that people have to be compatible and get to know 
eachother fairly well before making the big commitment!

I feel educated and more aware of what a relationship is supposed
to be all about.  I look forward to having a long lasting, happy,
relationship in the future and probably marriage again!

There is another book that I would like to recommend.  It is
called "LOVE" by Leo Buscaglia.  It is interesting reading
and I think if EVERYONE read it that we all would be a little
less confused!

I don't want anyone to think that I believe everything that I 
read, it is just that I feel that I have had many of the questions
that I have been asking myself answered.

There is nothing wrong with marriage.  I feel that we all make
mistakes at something or another, it's just that divorce is a
mistake that is harder to recover from.

I hope that everyone enjoys a happy marriage at least once in
their life!

 Carole...
    

    Boy, hearing about all the marriages that worked for years then
    broke up makes me leery of making proclamations.
    
    Any way, I agree with .10.  Marriage is fun.  I've been married
    to the same person for 16 years.  We started at 19 and grew up
    together.  Have a 15 year old that I'm looking forward to KICKING
    OUT.  I guess what I'm saying is that we've worked TOGETHER to make
    it work.
    
    Do we disagree?  You better believe it!
    Do we fight?  Like cats and dogs, but with respect!
    
    I guess it all comes down to -- I like my wife.  In the end there's
    noone I'd rather come home to.  She's the only person I know that
    I don't have to talk to when I have nothing to say.  

    D

    
    having seen/read so many of the replies to the basic topic of
    marriage i'll not bother to read replies 1-15 because i'm sure they
    are all things that have been said many times and have little to
    no value in conjunction with reality.
    
    that's as pleasant as i get.
    
    marriage is an outdated and no longer needed tribal custom.
    we moved out of the jungles a long time ago and it's time we
    started acting civilized.
    
    are you in love?
    then tell the person how you feel.
    if the person reciprocates this feeling you may then discuss
    the possible options.
    
    option 1. live together until you no longer want to live together.
    option 2. live apart and visit a lot.
    option 3. do nothing except keep seeing/dating each other until
    	you both feel a change is needed. That change can be either
    	moving in together or seperating entirely.
     
    It is not important for 2 people to fall in love and remain
    together for ever. There are no prizes awarded for longevity.
    It IS important that each person try to be as happy as she/he
    can be and avoid hurting other people.
    
    Honesty helps but you don't get much of that in here.
    Mostly fairy tales.
    
    Face it, you do not know, no one knows, how you or they will
    feel in 2 or 5 or 10 years.
    MOST people (except noters, it seems) grow and change as they
    live and learn. It's perfectly possible AND OK for two people
    who once loved each other and were on the same wavelength to
    grow apart and no longer be happy with each other.
    
    There is nothing wrong with that.
    The problem is, people promise to love forever and then when
    they find this is unrealistic they get mad at each other...
    "you promised!"
    
    so make no such promise.
    promise to love and help and to avoid hurting each other
    but DO NOT PROMISE FOREVER!
    take each day/week/month as they come....enjoy each other...
    and IF the time comes that you need to seperate....do it with
    out anger or hostility!
    
    Everyone has the right to change her/his mind about absolutely
    everything, including love and relationships.
    
    and during the relationship make sure you keep as many of your
    old friends as you want to (sometimes we outgrow our friends, too)
    and keep making new ones.....that way....instead of being lonely
    after a 10 year relationship....you'll have a network of friends
    to help give you consolation and friendship.
    

    

    And tell your kids this too so they don't go around in the same
    stupid, painfull circles that our current generation of "mature
    adults" is experiencing.
    
    you're welcome
    rik
    

    Re: .16
    
    Okay, I hope this doesn't ruin my reputation with you other noters...
    but I, personally, agree with reply .16.  However, rik, I think
    you will probably get flamed on this one.  Once in the Sexcetera
    notesfile (probably my first reply to a note ever) I honestly
    answered the question of "Why did you get married?"  I simply wanted
    to share mine and my husbands reasons...which seemed different from
    the other hundred replies.  Our reason was for convenience in society.
    We both felt that marriage was a social ritual.  We were quite happy
    and satisfied just to be together...but the struggle of being accepted
    by society standards, buying houses, and all that stuff...made us
    decide just to go with it and PLAY THE GAME.
    
    Unfortunately, my response was flamed by a Christian who insisted
    that marriage was something special under God.  Okay, that's their
    opinion.  But they also insisted that there was something very wrong
    with my thinking.  Shoot, I was only answering the base note to
    the best of my ability.  Anyway, that turned me off to notesfiles
    real fast for quite awhile.  So, flamers...live and let live.  If
    you flame people for having the opinions that they do, you are limiting
    the variety of your own world...and you're probably missing something
    you could learn.
    
    However, rik, the same goes for all of the people that believe in
    marriage the way they do (which you don't agree with).  If it works
    for them, that's all that matters.  Some people may agree, some people 
    may think it's stupid, some people may just let it be...
    
    We're all different...but we're all in this together.
    
    Jerri

re: .17

That reminds me, I looked up "Marriage" in my parents' Funk & Wagnalls Standard
Reference Encyclopedia last week, and these are the reasons it listed for the
existence of this particular social institution:
	1.  "FOUNDING AND MAINTAINING FAMILIES" (what's a family?  a "basic
		social unit" that equates to either "parents and their
		children" or larger groups "related by blood or marriage")
		a.  insure care of children during their years of "relative
			incapacity"
		b.  identify the male parent and delineate his duties
		c.  recognize and foster "mutual dependence" between partners
	2.  "INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR SEXUAL INTERCOURSE"
	3.  establish "PROPERTY CONNECTIONS"
		a.  exchange "material securities" between families (dowries,
			etc.) at time of marriage
		b.  fix chain of inheritance
	4.  social alliance or "COLLABORATION OF THE FAMILIES" of the partners

The difference between 3. and 4. is evidently one of emphasis: the former
relates to economic concerns, the latter more to social/political concerns
that might not necessarily be property-related (status, prestige, etc.).  The
institutional framework for sex is deemed necessary both because of the power
of sexual emotions (giving them a high potential for being socially disruptive)
and because of the need for breeding rules (exogamous and endogamous codes,
etc.).

Notice that LOVE IS NEVER MENTIONED ANYWHERE in the above!  Probably the
reason for this is that the institution of marriage pre-dates our modern
conception of romantic love by quite some time.  In other words, marriage as
an institution arose without reference to romantic love, but with reference
to plenty of other more tangible entities (sex, parenthood, property, etc.).
You could try to squeeze romantic love out of some combination of 1C. and 2.,
but I think you'd be pushing it.

(I also checked a book called "The Social Order", picked at random in my
local library, and it came out with basically the same information as above.)

        RE: .18
        
        The reasons for marriage that you list are all quite true and
        fairly universal. There is no denying that, nor would I want to.
        On the other hand the idea that one might marry for love is not
        quite as new invention as we are often given to believe.
        
        While it is true that the notion of Courtly Love has conditioned
        our modern view of romantic love quite a bit, romance and
        romantic love are really not all that new an invention. If you
        will, for instance, look into the Bible--even if it has no part
        in your religious life, it is a source book on what was believed
        by at least some of the ancients--you will find the connection
        between love and marriage shows up quite often.
        
        The first Scriptural reference to this connection that I find is
        in Genesis. In Chapter 29, you will find the story of Jacob who
        served Laban for seven years in order to win Laban's daughter
        Rachel in marriage. The story of how he had to first marry Leah,
        Rachel's older sister shows how the social aspects of marriage
        were important (just as your Funk and Wagnalls indicates), but
        it also shows that the ancients, like us, married for love, at
        least at times. 
        
        This being the case, why don't modern sources speak of the
        relationship between love and marriage? I'm not sure, but I can
        make a couple of guesses.
        
        First of all, we are, as a culture, moderately out of touch with
        our forebears. We have forgotten the reasons for many things
        that we do. As our culture evolves it does so slowly and thus
        the change is not always as clear to us as it might be. We can
        often miss changes that take a generation or less changes that
        are slower are even harder to notice. Because of our loss of
        touch with our ancestors, we often believe things that aren't
        true or that are half-true. 
        
        The advent of Chivalry and Courtly Love is so dramatic a event
        in history that we are fascinated by it, and because it was so
        dramatic we tend to over-rate to treat it as if it was the
        invention of something wholely new rather than just a change of
        emphasis. We act as if the knights and their ladies invented
        love rather than just making it focal to their lives. It is more
        romantic to believe that they invented romance. 
        
        Another reason for it is that the "soft sciences" in their
        attempt to be sciences try to deal with clear, objective,
        measureable facts. This can be seen in such things as
        behaviorism, an approach to the study of psychology which looks
        at the external behavior, rather than the internal motives and
        thought processes. The social aspects of marriage are external,
        observable, and verifiable. Love is much more subjective, much
        harder to get your hands on. 
        
        Finally, a lot of our recent culture has gotten pretty cynical.
        Tina Turner's song "what has love got to do with it?" really
        speaks to the feelings of a large segment of the populace. We
        have become disillusioned with some of the aspects of the "great
        dream" of our fathers, and in rejecting it we reject a vast
        array of values that the dream was built on. 
        
        JimB.

re: .19

>        On the other hand the idea that one might marry for love is not
>        quite as new invention as we are often given to believe.
        
True, Jim, but the idea that _most people_ marry for love is new to our
era (say the last 100 years), relatively speaking.  The idea that love _is_
romantic love as opposed to companionate affection or sexual infatuation or
intellectual affinity or social convenience is also new, relatively speaking.

Love and marriage DO NOT "go together like a horse and carriage", except in
song.  Two people can love one another for life without ever getting married
--and two people can marry and stay together for life without necessarily
being "in love" in the romantic sense.  The connection between the two is
often tenuous, and may only seem of such vital importance in a culture like
ours that is dedicated to perpetuating the commercial mythology of "romance".

        RE: 'commercial mythology of "romance"'
             ----------
        
        Fiddle sticks!
        
        JimB.

    RE: .21:
    
    Well said, Mr. Burrows. I've been wanting to say the same thing
    in this discussion for a couple of weeks now, but couldn't find
    the words to explain the commitment my husband and I made to each
    other. Now you've done it perfectly.
    
    --bonnie

    Re: .21

    Jim,

    I can see what you are saying and I think your attitude is a very
    healthy one.  However, being one of those people that doesn't believe 
    marriage is necessary (at least for me), I would simply like to reply 
    to some of your comments in an effort to offer another point of view 
    from a different perspective.

    > ...two misunderstandings. The first is that love is merely
    > something that you feel, something that happens to you. As I've
    > said many times in this file, love is an action. 

    I agree that love is a choice; not something that just happens.
    But I don't think choosing to love someone, and committing that
    love for life, has to be followed up by the action of marriage.
    The ritual of marriage is only valuable for some people...because
    of their religious beliefs, or customs, or whatever.  For those 
    people, I feel that marriage is very important and necessary to
    maintain their structure of life.

    At the same time, there are those whose structure of life is very
    different, and one in which even "widely-recognized" rituals and
    customs do not add value.

    > Just as you can commit to love, you can commit to join your life 
    > with that of your beloved, to steer it not down the same path 
    > but down one that parallels theirs.

    Again, I agree with this, but although I think committment is 
    needed for marriage, I do not think marriage is needed for 
    committment.  Just because I do not feel marriage is necessary,
    does not mean I'm not willing to make a committment to my husband
    and children.  My love and devotion would be just as strong whether
    I was married or not.  Again, this is true for me...I'm not saying 
    that it is a valuable belief for everyone.

    These comments have not been made to be argumentative.  I'm simply
    sharing another view.  I do not think views different from mine are
    wrong for other people.  To each his own.  But I find it very
    interesting to examine all different kinds of views as we each 
    continue to grow and change.  I hope that other people can accept 
    my views as being valuable for me.  If each of us has views that 
    are working for us, why would there be a need to change, simply for 
    the purpose of defining one law?

    It has been a pleasure discussing this with you,

    Jerri    

    RE: .21 and .23
    
    Bonnie - did I say somewhere in here that Americans did not really
    understand/use sarchasm correctly - I take it back!
    
    Andy.

        RE: .24
        
        Ah, we may be closer than you think. There are many things that
        appear to be marriages that I don't believe are, and vice versa.
        If you publicly and formally pledge to love and live together
        permanently, I would probably contend that you are marrying. On
        the other hand if the commitment is conditional or not
        permanent, I wouldn't regard it as marriage.
        
        (We'll ignore for the moment my religious beliefs about how you
        should go about marrying, OK? I'm trying to define what I regard
        as marriage.) I don't have a hard and fast definition, but it
        needn't be a specific ritual, type of cerimony or piece of
        paper. The basic ingerdients are two people of opposite sexes
        (or perhaps of the same sex, depending on your moral and
        religious scruples), and a public formal pledge of love, trust
        and commitment.
        
        JimB.

After writing a 94 line response and rereading it, I think it would
take more like 940 to do this topic justice.  That's more than I have
the time or energy for right now, so I will withdraw from the
discussion for the forseeable future.  But there are differing
opinions on this subject, and I hope we can tolerate that.
						paul c.

    Re: basenote and title. If a person has to wonder whether or not
    to get married then that person is not ready to.    
    
    
                           REK

>    Re: basenote and title. If a person has to wonder whether or not
>   to get married then that person is not ready to.    
    
    

	Being the instgator of this note I would agree with you that
	I'm not ready to marry. ( also the fact that I'm not going
	out with anybody has something to do with it :-)

	The purpose of this Note was that in earlier ones Noters
	had talked about their divorces or break-ups with a range
	of emotions from 'maturity' [:-)] through resignation to
	bitterness. So I wanted to know if they would marry again
	given the correct circumstances/person and what people thought
	of the 'institution of marriage'.

	Paul.  Still_growing_up_and_enjoying_every_moment_of_it !!

     Paul, i state again If a person has to wonder whether or not
    to get married then that person is not ready. It doesn't matter
    whether its the first or second or....... The fact remains that
    a person has to be sure he/she/it is ready.
    
                      REK

    re .30:
    
    Great.  You have now answered the wrong question twice.
    
    [Your point is a good one]
    
    - M

               <<< BETHE::$DISK3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                              -< The New Soapbox >-
================================================================================
Note 347.49                      Marriage - why?                        49 of 49
TMCUK2::KARVE "To err is human to um is divine"      32 lines  30-JUN-1987 09:16
                         -< A psychologist writes... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "Marriage and similar partnerships are all about balancing the books,
    balancing the give and take. If the relationship is out of balance,
    one or both partners will try to get it back on an even keel: take
    up golf, go to night classes, have an affair, [ START NOTING :-)].
    Buying a bunch of flowers for your wife is a balancing act.
       People will got to any lengths to balance the books: mothers
    will offer daughters as sexual partners, turn a blind eye to the
    maltreatment of their children. Nothing is spared from the balance
    sheet: religion, conscience, dignity, children, freedom, life itself"
    
    " LOVE - is a selfish business. We love people because of the way
    they make us feel, which may be chivalrous, protective, gallant,
    beautiful, clever witty or just needed. When we ask the question
    "What on earth does she see in him ? We must look for the answer
    not in HIM but in HER " - The reality of love is what is happenning
    inside you. "
    
    "On breaking up - What puzzles me is why people should feel so guilty.
    What processes have imbued in us this sense of constancy, this desire
    for order and predictability? Why cannot we not accept that we are
    no less good a person but we have changed: mutatis mutandi. We have
    tried for millenia to become couples: now we must learn to uncouple
    in the least damaging way "
    					reprinted, and condensed w/o
    					permission from an interview
    					with Dr. Masud Hoghughi in the
    					Daily Telegraph 30/6/87
    
    Regards,
    Shantanu Karve
    
    

    I found marriage to be fun and easy... until children.  Then you'd
    better have some real comittment and love to keep it smooth.
    
    
    
    Jacki