Love & Marriage
“go together like a horse and carriage,
This I tell ‘ya brother you can’t have one without the other.
Love & Marriage, …… it’s an institute you can’t disparage,
Ask the local gentry, they will say it’s element’ry
Try, try, try to separate them, it’s an illusion.
Try “ “ and you will only come to this conclusion:
Love & Marriage ……. go together like a horse and carriage.
Dad was told by mother: You can’t have one, you can’t have none
You can’t have one without the other.”
So Love & Marriage are stuck in this awkward relationship, taken to be universal, taken to be the norm, taken to be The Right way of doing things. The Conversation with God book questions that assumption. And when you look at it closely there’s several things that don’t actually fit right – the 2 are only peripherally related. On the one hand it’s a legally binding agreement, important for establishing paternity, important for defining property rights. But just what does it have to do with your deepest feelings? You can’t confine a feeling, no matter how deep, to a set of rules and legal expectations. These are 2 very different things. We’ve bound them so closely that we have a whole set of tragic scenarios that follow if your partner “cheats” on you. You’re entitled to feel mortally wounded, personally offended, rejected to the core of your being.
It used to be called an open marriage in the last generation, now it’s referred to as the poly-amorous movement. – where you are free to have a friend of either sex outside your family circle. They argue quite reasonably that just as a child might love their brother/ sister but still have a really close friend at school, the 2 are not mutually exclusive. Do marriages really need the exclusivity of possession of another human being to be solid?
Hmm? Something to consider.