|Declaration of public union vows, marriage vs common-law
||[Oct. 12th, 2005|01:52 pm]
There are so many traditional ritualistic things people do in life without question.|
They blindly conform carrying out standard practices without much thought or question, often simply because it's the socially acceptable practice that is done, and has been done for years. Thus how can it be wrong for them as well?
To touch upon one of those long standing traditions is the "sanctity" of the public declaration of professed "love" for another called marriage. In modern days now, I myself feel its totally unnecessary, and I doubt I am alone in this thinking.
No one is property being handed over. Rings as symbolism for "ownership" are like awful brandings.
I think myself I will never marry, but rather if I feel like spending a desired length of companionship with another, will apt to just denounce this fact to ourselves, and disburse this information to outside sources as needed. On a need-to-know basis, that yes we are sharing a segment of our lives together as a "couple" together, side by side.
In everyday life, what does the fact of if I am "committed" to another make any difference? It shouldn't because it may only stand to perpetuate biases and formulate preconceived notions about parties involved and so forth.
Think of this as a sterile account if you wish, but to me, “love” is nothing more than a strong fondness felt at varying degrees for another. It is two people filling their belongingness needs. Settling. It’s also something that has taken on many faces to help perpetuate certain attitudes in life and help push products and services upon consumers, and give false hopes and senses of security to people.
In the eyes of our judicial system this sort of paring would be labeled as "common-law."
Financial attention is especially paid towards partnerships; and as it stand now in the eyes of most bordered countries this union is only recognized between the coupling of a male and a female. But in more progressive bordered places, this is expanded upon to include same-sex partnerships as well; and it seems only a natural occurrence in my eyes.
I mean hell, with all the degrees of variety we see in all other things in life, why shouldn't coupling be one too. We tolerate diversity in everything from races, creed, religion, language, social classes, economics, employment, attitudes, families, currencies, divisions of labour, products and services, automobiles, hair colour, brands, dress, etc.. the list is diverse itself.
I think if I felt the need to publicly declare my union with another human, I may make it a ceremony in which we'd be seen to almost mock the traditions of marriage and fill in "vows" with dialogue stressing that "we are not one another's property. "We will not brand ourselves with rings simply to declare unionship to the outside world; I don't not need to bare a ring to remind myself that I am in a relationship I think I can remember that quite well enough on my own, "We will not make promises that we may be unable to fulfill, its just logical that we cannot force things or predict any future." "Honoring and obeying are dated slavery and religious terms; and trust is something that is extremely fragile.” “Given the high divorce rates or the amount of time people are apt to dissolve their relationship with another, making claims such as “till death do we part", again is something we cannot foresee, and would be illogical to hypothesize .Instead we can use phrases as "we will try hard to work in ways that are suitable to us both to see that our friendship union is fulfilling and enjoyable and lasts as long as possible."
This is just yet another view, my own angle in the land of diversity which I will not let another stamp out.