"I Do" but I Don't

There seems to be an aversion to marriage that, in our society, is becoming increasingly more popular and acceptable in younger generations. From TV shows (like ABC's "Better With You") to popular songs (like Train's "If It's Love"), the idea that a marriage may, in fact, not be a commitment that feeds the growth of love, but rather a burden that hinders it, seems to be gaining more and more supporters every day. Though I have not decided where I stand personally on the issue, I do think that both sides hold strong opinions about their opposers that tend to leave them rather narrow-minded. It can be difficult to accept either mindset if you're not aware of the intentions of the form of commitment. So let's examine the two options:

A Daily Commitment
I can see where these people are coming from. I really can. As Train says, "I'm afraid when I hear stories about husband and wife, there's no happy ending". I can respect the people who choose not to get married. There are some people who, with marriage, would simply stop trying. Sure it's not a respectable mindset, but it happens to the best of us. The idea of making a commitment without getting married is centered around that concept of waking up every morning and choosing to love your partner. Similarly, you are working constantly, daily, to fill the role of the ideal mate, to keep your partner happy and make sure that they never feel a lapse in your love. Without marriage, the goal of every day is being so good to your significant other that they couldn't possibly leave you. In marriage, it can be easy to fall into the trap of taking each others love for granted. Every day you awake and know that no matter what kind of shit you pull off, your wife is still gonna be your wife the next morning. Especially after the hundreds of dollars she payed on that white dress and ice sculpture. If she wanted to get rid of you, she'd have to go through a big hassle, which would take a lot of time. Essentially, it allows you almost too much time to make up for your mistakes, possibly resulting in a generally bitter relationship held together by the fact that each party is too lazy to go through a divorce. Some call this daily guaranteed love "unconditional love". But if your spouse is truely to love you no matter what you do, what's going to stop you from doing something completely awful? Others argue that not being married encourages a relationship in which both parties are free to see whoever they want, which is not true at all. There is still a commitment, still a monogamous bond. It's just in this bond, each person agrees to live their life winning the love of their partner. In marriage, the promise is to love their partner despite their imperfections. Being married doesn't necessarily keep one from having relations with someone who is not their partner any more than simply making a commitment does. Essentially, the goal of making a non-marital commitment is to spend each day pleasing each other and promise never to take each others love for granted.

Marriage
Marriage is a good idea. That's probably why it's been going on for so long. We all know it's implications and importance from a religious aspect. But there are so many other glorious benefits to marriage as well. First of all, two people use this ceremony to pledge their lives to each other, to commit to loving one person for the rest of their life. Being able to trust your partner enough to make this commitment implies a very strong, unbreakable connection between two people. And if you're willing to celebrate the fact that you will see this same person every day for the rest of your life in front of all of your family and friends, then it is obvious that the depth of the relationship being solidified is truly remarkable. If you can accept that you will never be with another lover for the rest of your life, if you are content, even thrilled, to spend the rest of your life becoming part of this one person, then marriage is a statement of weight. It means more than just a ring and a title and a pretty ceremony, but it means, quite simply, that you are happy- that your partner never has to prove themself to you.

I will be very curious to see, in the future as these non-marital commitments become more popular, whether they experience the same complications as marriages, or if the relationships formed through these kinds of bonds will actually operate more smoothly. It will be difficult to track, obviously, being that a divorce is much more widely publicized than a break-up. But I think our society can learn a lot about human nature and the future of society by keeping tabs on these innovative individuals.

A Rant of Frustration

This post deserves no opener, no segway, no introduction, because, frankly, I tried to write one and not only would none suffice, each consecutively horridly written paragraph drained exponentially from the stream of furry I was feeling. So I deleted everything I wrote, stopped to make this small explanation of circumstance- I have come upon a rare homework assignment that actually inspired me to do something not-required- and began my rant:

In a certain article found in this past week's newspaper I located an editorial by a grouchy, perpetually frowning, slightly asian, disconcerted man by the name of Cal Thomas: Columnist. He wrote about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, and why it should not, under any circumstances, be repealed. This man has officially made my uber-naughty list for the Christmas season, and assuming that I am able to locate his address online, he may be getting a very very large lump of coal shoved somewhere very very uncomfortable in the very very near future.

It is not the subject or opinion of this guy that really tick me off so bad. It's the pure doucheyness of it all (a word which, but the way, I have become quite found of mutilating into different parts of speech when I can find no better words to describe someone of complete rotten guts). The subject matter could easily be handled, by a more mature and considerate man, in a way that could come off almost objectively. Instead, it seems this man went miles out of his way just to make a point about his pure hatred of homosexuality. I don't mean just a "side-trip-to-Starbucks-for-a-quick-soy-mocha-latte-break" out of your way. I mean a "side-trip-to-a-remote-Costa-Rican-coffee-plantation-for-an-authentic-strawberry-coffee-brewed-by-locals-on-my-way-to-the-grocery-store" out of your way. And while we're there, let's insult the Costa Ricans for not being a creamy white wrinkly Asian mix like me. But really. Here are just a few of the audacious quotes that flow through this man's conscious thought:

"Why are we witnessing so many challenges to what used to be considered a shared sense of what is right? It is because we no longer regard the Author of what is right."

"Perhaps Gate should re-read the Constitution..."

"The military is one of our primary national upbringings. So is marriage. No wonder the gay rights movement seek to undermine both. There are consequences when foundations are destroyed"

And my personal most-detestable:
"The Congress has a duty to save us from the pursuit of our lower nature if we won't listen to that other voice. If they care."

What is this man ON?! Oh yes, because all the people that don't shun homosexuals as a lower species, as a life form that has chosen a path of perversion out of their own desire for pleasure are disobeying God? Because we who allow human being to speak what they truely are and don't force them to contain their identities for the contentment of others are serving Satan. By George, Cal. You've just condemned quite a large, welcoming, and much more congenial than yourself chunk of society to Hell right there. I hope your blind submission to the multiple translations of people hundreds of years ago gets you a high chair in heaven, though you might lose a few points with the Big Guy over the section on "loving your neighbor" which you seem to have overlooked. But wait, maybe that's a translation error. Someone must have missed the assertion after that which states "unless he can design a mean sweater vest" (excuse my intense stereotyping).

And truly Cal, you're advising others to read the Constitution? What about a little piece of that document that guarantees "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? If I'm not mistaken, liberty means freedom; having the right to be yourself. Would you ask a black man to deny his color to get into the military? A woman her sexuality? No. Would a black man in the military have angered men years ago, made the bond between soldiers difficult? Like hell. But how many of our soldiers are black today? How many of your "264,600 men and women" projected to leave early if Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed would not have been there today if it weren't for African Americans in the military? And why must it always be that those who want to fight most, who are most loyal, are the ones that our soldiers are too ashamed to be fighting for? How can men be expected to go out and fight in honor of, to protect, to represent their nation, when they can't even learn to accept the people in it? Why should the freedom of individuality be a privilege that is decided upon by a count of the people who won't accept it? Why are the voices of those who cry out with 'why things shouldn't be' translated into laws, while the voices of those crying out with 'what could be' are quieted. Why do we inquire of the opposition "why not", but never of the advocates, "why?"?