Marriage

[fr0d0]

Good post Evie you kept it together there (don't mean to be condescending)

How about this angle:

You say you find the idea of commitment ok when factoring in children. Courtship; love; mating is anatural process designed almost solely for the purpose of reproducing wouldn't you agree?

There is no purpose to EVOLUTION if that's what you mean. Evolution just is. Genes just survive over time if they're passed on. Repoduction and survival wins.

Reproduction wins. Precisely. What was that study recently that modern humans are actually displaying evolutionary regression?

Despite the fact I have trust - I also have doubt. I think both are good and both are healthy.

Yup, good healthy Christian rationalising there! LOL

That those lead naturally to commitment, follows our programming to build a base to raise children. The family unit survives on this commitment and is a completely natural function.

Natural is what happens naturally. It's not necessarily 'better' to an individual or indeed; not necessarily better to me personally. It's natural to do lots of things that we wouldn't do these days in modern life!!

Examples?

And we naturally (as part of nature) have evolved to manipulate nature and manipulate ourselves to do UNnatural things.

Such as?!

Now, what's natural is often healthy and free. But not always - some things that are natural is frowned upon in modern times! (and has been for a lot longer than that). We as humans do a lot of UNnatural things that aren't always bad....

A lot of MEDICINE is unnatural. DENTISTRY is unnatural - but these things are good.

Really?!

Part of love IS trust yes. If you love someone you're more likely to trust them and I think if you trust them you're perhaps also more likely to love them...

You say that what you believe I'm saying is that I will never trust anyone? You believe wrong. I have no idea where that statement comes from lol. I trust lots of people - just not absolutely I don't even trust MYSELF absolutely. (and with good reason, I've learned a big lesson about taking yourself and your own opinion too seriously in life. It's important to be humble and I now remain an agnostic about everything basically (and that doesn't mean 'unsure')

You say there that you will trust, & then say you have a reason not to?

What I meant was that love involves trust. It's an integral part. If you can't trust then you can't fully love. Loving yourself is also important. Yeah you're not perfect. Thing is accepting that you're not perfect and loving yourself 'despite' that is important.

I can't think of this without thinking of my religious understanding. The Christian rationale about our inadequacies and how perfect love accepts and forgives that brings us closer to love. Sorry that's gonna throw you but I had to add it in.

I have a heart and I trust people and I have trust in myself. But I also have a brain and doubt people and have doubt in myself. I think both are valuable and both are healthy. I never trust anyone ABSOLUTELY that's true. But it's just the way I am - I wll never 'let go of my brain' (again :S). And I think that's a very good think.

Absolutely it'd be bad not to be realistic, not to have your eyes wide open. Again I think the words trust and love are interchangeable here.

Because when people really love each other they often get more attached to each other and worry "What would I do WITHOUT them?" "I don't know what I'd do without you!", etc - so i think, hence - they commit. Commitment comes from attachment and fear of losing that COMMONLY comes from genuine true love....BUT if you can have the genuine true love WITHOUT the attachment in form of 'commitment' because you are self-aware of the way it works, what really matters, and you are a care-free and easy going person that still can feel a deep, profound sense of love for someone and have a long loving and meaningful relationship with them that lasts.

Where did you get this warped IMHO idea that when people commit to each other they're doing it out of fear? That's completely arse about face IMO

Yeah.. "care free and easy going" ..love is caring for another person - not being 'care free'. Care free suggests someone avoiding commitment and responsibility. Such a person is scared to death of love, attachment and trust. Such a person would classically exist on short term relationships.

If commitment commonly implies Love that does NOT imply that Love wouldn't be better of WITHOUT if as baggage.

Two people who love each other commonly worry about each other and feel attached so they commit I think. But I don't think that means that if they loved each other WITHOUT the worry but still the care; and deeply and truly loving each other and spending great time together and having a brilliant relationship WITHOUT the attachment... -without needing to 'commit' because of attachment - if they can love each other WITHOUT all that - then I think that's stronger. Just because most people (or a great number IF not most) don't/can't do that doesn't mean it's not better.

This seems like loving in the sense that a distant relative might love you. Without any attachment the things we trust other people for, daily practical things, wouldn't be possible. Love in the end creates families. Families are a trust group. Blood ties are strong. The binding glue is love.

Isn't Love better without fear? Compassion better without attachment? Joy better without commitment?

Love and fear are opposite.

Compassion suggests non attachment. To love outside yourself I think it helps to be confident and secure in your own loved status. If you're worried about your own relationships and need to focus on it because the trust has to be continually spontaneous, then surely your going to be far weaker when it comes to giving out love to others?

I think quite often emotions attract opposite (or almost opposite) emotions that's the thing.

Hard to love someone without fearing for them for example and to still care deeply.

Nothing wrong with that though is there? If you love someone you also care about them. You're concerned for them. You don't want this?

I see living together as self abuse. It's modern for the sake of it reasoning with no common sense backing.

I thought you're all FOR commitment? So why do you see 'living together as self abuse'? Don't you live together when you commit? Are you saying you think the self-abuse is a GOOD thing? Because you say commitment= good and living together=self abuse. And I would have thought commitment= living together so...?

I don't understand what you mean there..

I'm referring to 'Living together' as non commitment. Maybe incorrectly. It's a common phrase. That's what it appears to be to me, ie non commitment.

'Let's put our hand in the fire' because it's different to what people have done in the past'. Different is always good, despite the complete idiocy of it.

I don't get it. It's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic or not there; are you?

Yes, sorry. That's entirely sarcastic.