Marriage

[Edwardo Piet]

[quote='fr0d0' pid='17139' dateline='1242417283']
"I guess I also don't have those experiences to be jaded and/or mislead by either"

[quote]It seems you're quite jaded already [/quote]

Well, I don't FEEL jaded...although I guess jaded people don't always sense their jadedness lol

[quote]Commitment 'because you have to' or 'because of some reason other than love' ISN'T love.[/quote] I agree. And I also think commitment is about attachment and not love. It's a product of love not the other way around. It's the love itself that matters.

[quote]Simple. Yeah sure there may be people committing out of fear.[/quote] If the love is enough, if you just love then that's enough! LOL (Duh?). You can commit and NOT love, you can commit AND love - so it's not the commitment that's the love. Why commit if it's just an addition that can be broken anyway? Doesn't it show MORE love if you can stay WITHOUT it? [quote]Personally this is exactly what I think of when you talk about not committing. [/quote]? Lol. If you're not committed then why and how would you fear loss? You haven't committed so you're open and free - and yet you can still care and love the one person you love. If you love them - you love them! [quote]You live in constant fear that your relationship could end at any moment.[/quote]Eh? This is if you're NOT committed? Doesn't make any sense whatsoever for me. If you're not 'comitted' to the relationship then why on earth would you fear lOSING it? You'd just enjoy and APPRECIATE having it. [quote]Any time a problem arises the partners have the very easy option of giving up and walking out.[/b] Why SHOULDN'T they be able to have that option? They're free, you don't own them and if they love you and want to stay then they'll stay. If they don't they'll go and that's up to THEM. No one 'belongs' to anyone else. [quote]It's immature love to think this is what love is. [/quote] Well what I've been responding to of yours hear...doesn't seem like love to me. You seem to completely misunderstand me because you seem to somehow think NOT committing=fearing loss rather than the other way around. If you're not committed to the relationship HOW and WHY could you fear LOSING it? And you also have said that if you don't commit then the other person could just walk out.......

Well....yes.....shouldn't they have the option? You don't own them. If they don't want you or love you why would you want them to stay anyway? Isn't it up to them on that matter? And vice-versa of course.

I really don't understand this viewpoint it seems really weird. NOT committing apparently you say=fearing a relationship you're NOT committed to. And if your partner can leave you if they WISH that option of freedom of theirs which would be a sign that they don't want to (and therefore shouldn't) stay anyway - is apparently a BAD thing??

EvF

[quote]I hate the idea that because of your prejudice towards religion you dismiss marriage. [/quote] Not at all.

1. I'm not prejudiced towards religion because I dismiss ANY bullshit without evidence and I only hate religion because of the problems it causes in the world...(which is with good reason therefore, NOT prejudice).

And 2. I don't dismiss marriage because of religion. I dismiss all the RELIGIOUS aspects of marriage because it's bullshit like the rest of religion. But I'm against secular marriage TOO for reasons previously stated in this thread.

[quote]Marriage is meaningless ritual.[/quote] If you believe this why do you HATE the idea that I dismiss marriage???[because or religion you say, but as I have said explained that's not true. I dismiss secular marriage too].

[quote]Commitment isn't marriage.[/quote] I'd say marriage is a FORM of commitment...or ritual that people display when (or after) they commit to each other. [quote]Marriage in church for non believers is superstition.
[/quote]

Well it's superficial I think...not NECESSARILY superstition. It depends on the 'ritual' and if any of it is actually believed or not I guess.

Anyway, I think generally superstition is just bullshit like religion (no evidence just like religion, etc) only more watered down and without a God attached to it (although some 'religions' arguably don't have a God...like some forms of Buddhism, etc, or perhaps Taoism (although sometimes they are thought of as much as philosophies as religions))

EvF

[fr0d0]

I'm happily married k? I feel free to be myself because I have a person that loves me so much that they placed trust in me in the form of commitment. They said you're the one for me, let's live life from now on as a unit. I can say I'll love my wife till I die and trust her completely in every way.

In a partnership without commitment (notice I don't mention marriage.. marriage may be meaningless ritual. It wasn't to me. Commitment in a partnership is equally valid IMO) I would feel that the other person doesn't trust me. They can't trust me enough to take the relationship to the next level, to make it solid. Something to build on.

BTW Did you know nearly all people living together state a desire to marry?

[chatpilot]

"BTW Did you know nearly all people living together state a desire to marry?"

Of course frodo that is how it is here in the states at least.Marriage is an institution that is ingrained in our earliest traditions.It's considered "the right thing to do" but in my case after 12 in a half years of marriage it turned out to be the biggest mistake of my life.But amidst all that shit I had to deal with I got two beautiful daughters out of it and that is something that made it all worth while.

Also,if you are married and staying in a marriage for the sake of the kids then you are in it for all the wrong reasons.I made that mistake too and in the long run it just does not work out.And depending on how it's handled it can be more damaging to the children than if you moved out of the home and still maintained a nice relationship with them.

[fr0d0]

I'm not saying commitment is irreversible CP. I'm really sorry your relationship didn't work out. I'm glad you're so happy with your kids. All credit to you for that as all I seem to hear around me is fathers deserting their kids, which seems alien to me. I agree it kids that need prime consideration in relationship breakdown. I have the utmost respect for you for that statement.

[Kyuuketsuki]

What strikes me about those who are anti-commitment and apparently so keen to keep their options open is why? I mean you're all so convinced that commitment is some kind of prison and absolutely unnecessary but what it seems to me is that you're really, really keen to keep your options open, to keep hold of that escape route????

Perhaps you don't really love your respective partners as much as you claim because if you did, an escape route (an easy way out) wouldn't be so important to you???

Kyu

---

Also,if you are married and staying in a marriage for the sake of the kids then you are in it for all the wrong reasons.

Maybe so but the very same can also be the reason to stay together and rebuild your relationship!

What pisses me off so much today is the way people don't seem to want to try to keep a relationship going (you see it in the press, when people gossip, on TV, in drama ... someone does something bad and it, "get rid of them" ... why?), relationships aren't easy, maybe they're not supposed to be, maybe they require a lot of work but the reward is worth it? Hell anyone would think that love is like Hello magazine (spit!).

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

BTW Did you know nearly all people living together state a desire to marry?

Oh course. Marriage is bloody common, duh! I mean if the couple is religious it's MORE common but then even if they're not it's often common anyway!

As I have said before. I'm not interested in what is common but what is (potentially) better.

Marriage and commitment may be a COMMON way of expressing love...BUT the thing is....I trust someone because I trust them because I know them they wouldn't have to make some kind of uber promise or 'commitment' to me because if I love someone and care about someone and I also know that person...I can tell anyway. And they can tell with me. I don't need a formal 'promising' or 'commitment' like some kind of 'contract'...if we WANT to or just feel that way then FINE - like I said it's a COMMON way of expressing love - but I personally wouldn't wish to because I think it's more superficial and less profound than seeing if I can trust and love and care about a person WITHOUT declaring some big 'promise' or 'commitment'...but just being able to tell because I not only love and care about that person but I also know them because we're match

EvF

[fr0d0]

The observation wasn't meant to state anything. Just interesting that most ppl living together state a desire to get married at some point. Of course that proves nothing.

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? That those lead naturally to commitment, follows our programming to build a base to raise children. The family unit suvives on this commitment and is a completely natural function. The idea of living together is anti nature. You think you can re-invent the wheel. Hold off from the natural process and for what?

An integral part of love is trust. What I believe you're really saying is that you will never trust anyone. That sounds very sad to me. That's what hurt people do. The limit themselves. They can't be open to love because they have a reflex inside brought about by pain caused by a breaking of trust.

Again you keep banging on that commitment is only there because it's common. It's common for a reason... that reason being because it's the perfect natural step. Why would society have developed to impose on itself something anti human? It doesn't make any sense.

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

'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.

[chatpilot]

I personally prefer not to ever marry again but I do keep my options open,I mean you never know what could happen in the future.I've heard of people getting married in their 70s so one never knows what the future may hold.

In my particular situation Kyu my relationship had gone beyond the point of repair.It just took me awhile to recognize that.Amazingly after the initial break up and subsequent separation I was able to get my wife talking to me again for the sake of the children.And we have been separated for the past two years and we have a great friendly relationship.I see my kids as often as I want and get to take them out.My ex calls me every day practically and I speak with my kids on email and on the phone when I am not spending time with them.

I agree frodo I personally cannot understand how a man can abandon his children that is a foreign concept to me.My children are my life and everything I do is for them.

[Edwardo Piet]

The observation wasn't meant to state anything. Just interesting that most ppl living together state a desire to get married at some point. Of course that proves nothing.

Indeed it does prove nothing.

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.

When it comes to an individual like myself. We don't have to try and MAXIMIZE what evolution wants simply because we're a fan of science and we believe evolution is true lol! I don't care if it's natural to have kids. I still have my OWN purpose (because I don't believe that there is ANY...ULTIMATE purpose; we make our own) - that I choose. I might have kids, I might not. We shall see. I do want a long loving lasting relationship with someone though - and as long as possible. But I can't be unrealistic because despite the fact I have a 'heart' - I also have a brain. Despite the fact I have trust - I also have doubt. I think both are good and both are healthy.

That those lead naturally to commitment, follows our programming to build a base to raise children. The family unit suvives 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!!

The idea of living together is anti nature.

No it isn't. I don't know a such thing. Maybe it's anti-NATURAL, perhaps. Although I'm not entirely sure whether human beings are naturally evolved polygamists or molygamists, naturally. But it's NOT anti-NATURE. As far as I know - nothing is! I mean we're still part of nature. And we naturally (as part of nature) have evolved to manipulate nature and manipulate ourselves to do UNnatural things. Sure maybe it's unnatural - but it's came OUT of nature. It may be unNATURAL but it's still nature. As far as we know the natural universe is all that exists! NATURE is all that exists! Because there's ZERO evidence of the SUPERnatural!.

My point here is that it's not like I'm violating. I don't care what's natural or unnatural when it comes to my choices about what I do or don't do. 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.

I believe evolution in a scientific sense and as a fact. But NOT a s a philosophy! I make my own purpose about what is best for me (and others I'm close to) and I live my own life.

I don't care if commitment is natural or unnatural. It's what is healthy and best for me and others I'm close to that matters. Commitment seems weak to me.

You think you can re-invent the wheel. Hold off from the natural process and for what?

As I said. Natural isn't necessarily better. What's COMMON is not necessarily better (actually what's common can often be bad...or mediocre rather).

I think that Love is awesome but it's just often COMMONLY loaded with a load of other baggage that is NOT love - that's confusing (and love can be confusing after all) and it's just a lot of bullshit 'attachment' attached to Love quite often in the form of 'commitment'.

I think love WITHHOUT that attachment, without that baggage of 'commitment' is stronger. It's more about compassion and joy than attachment and fear of loss.

An integral part of love is trust. What I believe you're really saying is that you will never trust anyone. That sounds very sad to me. That's what hurt people do. The limit themselves. They can't be open to love because they have a reflex inside brought about by pain caused by a breaking of trust.

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')

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.

I never trust anyone ABSOLUTELY as I said - but that includes MYSELF too. And...everything. I am an agnostic about everything because new data can always come in - and even if something can be proved - there always could be loop-holes out there that you might not know about - and you can't improve the NON-existence of anything either of course so that makes me very agnostic about lots of things too.

But I can trust someone and myself to such a high level then it's practically absolute anyway. But I'm still not going to let go of my brain. I trust and have a heart but I also doubt and have a brain. I value both.

Again you keep banging on that commitment is only there because it's common. It's common for a reason... that reason being because it's the perfect natural step. Why would society have developed to impose on itself something anti human? It doesn't make any sense.

Well - WORRY is VERY common. Even DEPRESSION is very common. There are LOTS of unhealthy human habits that are common. I think Love is a wonderful thing (or THE most wonderful thing, along with the truth I say) - but I think commitment is just some of the baggage that often goes along with it so it's merely a common INDICATION of true Love. 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.

I think true love is still better WITHOUT commitment.

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.

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

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..

'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?

Anyway; to answer the quite anyways - different isn't ALWAYS good and neither is similar or same ALWAYS good (or bad) lol. Natural isn't always good either as I have said. And neither is unnatural of course.

EvF

[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.