Before embarking on my objections I like to stress that all people
that are married long and happily, with all evil characteristics
related to it, have my explicit blessing. I see a marriage as a way of
asking for trouble, but not as something immoral. A marriage can
very well work out fine - it even happens regularly - and if people
choose for such relationships, I respect this choice completely.
On top of that, churches and states are evil institutes that sell lies
and immoral philosophies, respectively engage in exploitation and
suppression. It seems to me that a decent man will not want do
business with such institutes. Therefore I reject the official
marriage (the contract with the state). With this I have not (yet)
argued against forms of partnership that have the other characteristics
of a marriage, but are honored by the partners themselves, without
involving the church of the state. Also, I do not object against
calling such a partnership a "marriage".
In some cases the state treats married people better than unmarried
ones. This could happen in taxation for instance. In such a case it
can for purely pragmatic reasons be better to play along and
marry for the state. As long as the partners agree that they feel not
bound by the conditions of marriage, and do not make misuse of the
situation (with respect to each other of course, misuse of state
regulations is fine), such a marriage can be quite justifiable.
In order to avoid a mixture of interests, and also because your
partner in live may not be the optimal candidate to profit from
government laws, it can be argued not to engage in such a marriage
with the same person you really live with. On the other hand,
an official marriage with your real partner is of course better
resistant against suspicion from the side of the government.
Of course, if the relation has a good potential to be beneficial, but
is going through a unsatisfactory phase, a good effort to make it work
again can be much better than abandoning it. Also common projects,
such as raising children, can be a good reason to stay together a bit longer.
Some people may wish to sacrifice themselves and live in a
relationship that is satisfactory only for the other person.
Besides that I personally have little respect for such an attitude, I
think that in practice it will be unsatisfactory for both parties.
And what a waste it would be if both parties are sacrificing themselves.
If you object that a good marriage will always be satisfactory, and
therefore should last forever, we may have no dispute. A marriage that
keeps satisfying the parties involved will last anyway. However, I
plead against a agreement made in advance to let the relationship
continue even if it does not satisfy all partners. The large amount of
people that continues to participate in bad relationships seems to me
a problem at least as big as the large amount of divorces.
Better than this all-or-nothing approach appears to me a relation that
extends itself over those areas where cooperation is optimal, but not
over those where the interests of the parties involved differ to such
a degree that a separate development is preferable. Which areas this
may be differs from person to person. It could occur that two people
function optimally in a combined household with common meals, but
don't have the same ideas about vacation. In such a case it should be
no problem to make separate holiday travels, as fortunately happens in
many modern relations. Likewise can it occur that the members of a
couple have totally different eating habits and interests. In that
case it appears logical to me that the partners commonly eat
separately, for instance with friends that have the same taste. The
same applies for going out, having sex, sleeping, living, etc. The
sacrifice of individual property is in my opinion only in rare cases
the best solution.
Obviously it is possible that two persons function optimally if they
share all aspects of their live. In such a case they should
certainly do so. The above is not a plea to separate amorous,
economic, domestic, sexual, and free-time relations. In fact, I think a
relationship tends to be more satisfactory if it extends over more
areas. However, I plead against the mingling of these relations when
it does not fit the nature of those involved.
As illustrated by many books and films, the exclusion principle is one
of the largest sources of human suffering. And not only for those that
are "forced" by this perverse form of morality to make a choice, but
also for those that are not chosen. Personally, I would never wish to
enter a relationship that would in any way disable the possibilities
of additional relationships. Consequently, I reject the concept of
jealousy and
favour polygamy.
Pact with the devil
The first aspect of marriage that I don't like is it being a contract
between two persons and an authority - a church or a state. The role
of the authority is twofold: she determines the rules under which the
partners shall live together (for instance if and under which
conditions the marriage can be ended), and (in the case of the state)
bestows a number of rights and duties upon married couples that are
different from those for unmarried individuals. Many people that want
to live together marry because it is the custom, without asking
themselves if the contract with the authority is exactly what they
want. If the partners want to subject their relationship to a number of
enforcible rules, they can in general achieve this goal better by
means of a private contract. The rules determined by the authority are
often very different ones, and can occasionally be rather harmful.
In the notification of my last speed violation I read for instance
that if I wouldn't pay the fine, it would be collected by confiscation
of the income of myself and/or my spouse. This is a good example of an
obligation that I would not enter spontaneously in a togetherness contract.
Thus, the contract with the authority is often a bad side effect of an
act that is carried out for no other reason than that many other
people did so as well.
Unlimited duration
A second aspect of marriage is its unlimited duration. A marriage is
supposed to last until one of the partners dies, or until something
goes terribly wrong. In my opinion this a bad characteristic. It would
be better to engage in a relationship that is supposed to last as long
as both parties find it beneficial. If, after some time, the relation
becomes less satisfactory, or a better alternative emerges, it may be
time to move on.
Unlimited scope
A third property of marriage is its unlimited scope. When two people
declare themselves married, they are expected to live in the same
house, eat their meals together, sleep in the same bed, and in some
cases even share their possessions. This coupling is continuously
confirmed in the interactions with third parties. It is for instance
considered inappropriate to invite a married person to a party without
extending the invitation to the other half.
Exclusivity
The fourth evil characteristic of matrimony is the accompanying
prohibition of similar relations with others. When A marries B he
thereby loses his freedom to (also) marry C. This is closely related
to the issue of unlimited scope discussed above. When we have
determined that for instance sharing a household does not
automatically entail a sexual, economic and free-time relation, it
then follows that A can share a household with B, have a sexual
relation with C, goes on holidays with D, shares his possessions with
E, and ingests mindbroadening substances in the company of F to Z.
Which of these relations will count as "marriage", and on which does
the exclusion principle apply? It seems to me that there are arguments
to regard each of the above relations as "the real one". The exclusion
principle, however, seems to be directed mostly towards love and sex.
Rob van Glabbeek