the best thing
28 Jul 2006Sometimes I say awesome things (in a discussion about the purpose or lack thereof of marriage):
Misery says, “I respect your belief that marriage is stupid. But I don’t think it is”
You say, “you haven’t done a very good job of convincing me”
You say, “so far we have: a) awesome party”
You say, “b) societal norm”
You say, “yeah, not convinced”
Misery says, “c) societal form that serves a function”
You say, “what function”
Misery says, “norm”
You ask, “compliance?”
Misery says, “like I said, our society is based on this dyad”
You say, “social or economic”[blah blah blah – Chris]
You say, “I think marriage is positive as a way to subjugate the working person, and (less so now) as a way to subjugate women”
You say, “‘taxes’ is circular”
You say, “tax advantages are subsidization of marriage”
Misery says, “which is why the majority of the hegemony is married? That makes no sense”
Misery says, “marriage is USED as a weapon of the hegemony. Who are you kidding?”
You say, “that’s what i’m saying”
Misery says, “i.e., combine resources and make an empire”
You ask, “what?”
Misery says, “it serves a function”
You ask, “you’re saying marriage is a good thing because it allows rich people to join forces?”
You say, “the percentages of married people that are rich versus those who are not rich disagree with that assessment, anyway”
Misery says, “I’m saying I don’t know why marriage exists. I just know it’s used as a weapon of the rich to become richer”
Misery says, “it serves many functions”
You say, “like what”
Misery says, “holding up society”
You say, “what does that mean”
You ask, “is it turtles all the way down?”
Come on, that was pretty good, right? Turtles. Diss!! Yeah. Man, I’m a nerd.
That was a dumb argument for marriage. It’s just a traditional way of signifying that two people are committed to each other (and to their children, if applicable.) It’s widely respected as such. It’s a very old institution.
It’s tough to argue about it, though. Since arguers are either married or not married, it’s easy for the argument to get personal. And, apparently, for the arguers to get irrational.
If you think that society sucks, and that you don’t need traditional signifiers, well that’s fine. And if you think that our society needs to expand the definitions of marriage, why I agree with you 100%. And if you think that your committment is strong and you don’t want the legal consequences of marriage to interfere with your feelings for each other, I can totally understand that.
It is definitely a three-way bargain, and probably always has been. You, your spouse, and the state. And it’s very easy for me to agree that keeping the government out of a perfectly good relationship seems like it might not be a bad idea.
But for me, I’m willing to adopt the traditional signifier, and I can cope with the legal baggage. It means something to me that my wife was willing to do that, too.
And for anyone who’s ascribing additional benefits to marriage, like the ability to have children, or lower taxes, or a billboard saying you support society so it better help you, I urge you to also consider who you’re punishing.