What is love? (part II)

“Traditional” marriage is supposed to express love also, from what I’ve read. However, I suspect those who believe this haven’t actually read the religious texts describing what they believe traditional marriage is. Marriage in the Old Testament isn’t the loving union of a man and a woman. It’s the union of a man and a woman, and another woman, and maybe another as well… and don’t forget all their handmaids, too — they all belong sexually to the man as well. Sometimes if the man dies it’s the union of the formerly married woman with the deceased man’s brother, to keep all the property within the family… so I guess you could consider it the union of a family and a woman instead?

Go read the Bible’s New Testament sometime, and you’ll find not only is the wedding ceremony a later addition to the list of church rituals, but also the Apostle Paul is downright patronizing about marriage, as a second-best substitute for permanent celibacy:

1 Corinthians 7:1:
Now for the matters you wrote about: it is good for a man not to marry.

1 Corinthians 7:6 & part of 7:
I say this [that people should occasionally marry] as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9:
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Personally, I can’t imagine why an omnipotent god would make sex so much fun if it’s so evil, but I tend to be a pragmatist that way.

It’s sadly interesting there’s nothing about marriage equating to love in the Bible, although in Proverbs 31:10-31 it does say trust, praise, and honor to the wife can possibly occur within a marriage. Instead, the Bible seems to equate marriage more to property rights — the man literally owns the women he takes possession of. This materially possessive attitude is codified and reflected in the marriage ceremony itself. The man promises to “love, honor, and cherish,” but the woman (who is “given away” by her father) is traditionally stuck with “love, honor, and obey.”

Why would any woman today, in her right mind and with a shred of self-worth, swear such a demeaning oath?! I can think of several unfortunate options: a) she’s never read it or thought about what a binding oath is, b) she’s aware of it but really wants to live like that, or c) she knows but already expects to break it — which makes the marriage a lie from the very start.

Read and think about the promise you’re going to swear! If you must marry, make up something honest and fair to promise each other! Heavens knows the divorce rate alone conclusively proves marriage isn’t love. Love does not require marriage, nor does marriage affirm or guarantee love. It’s not some sort of godly Tupperware, sealing in “love freshness.”

So if marriage isn’t love, what is? Traditionally gifts have served to signify love: flowers, chocolates, diamonds, stuff like that. Yet again, though, we need to remember the symbol is not reality. Before about 1940 or so, and the DeBeers cartel, diamonds were just another pretty rock. There’s a creepily fascinating article written in the late 1980’s about this particular industrial cartel which will permanently shatter any illusions about diamonds being synonymous with love. I quote a particularly perceptive paragraph:

Specifically, the Ayer study stressed the need to strengthen the association in the public’s mind of diamonds with romance. Since “young men buy over 90% of all engagement rings” it would be crucial to inculcate in them the idea that diamonds were a gift of love: the larger and finer the diamond, the greater the expression of love. Similarly, young women had to be encouraged to view diamonds as an integral part of any romantic courtship.

Movies helped to make diamonds popular. Movies also helped to promulgate another unhealthy societal ritual — smoking. I don’t know about you, but I have no intention of allowing societal expectations, or media campaigning, to run my life.

There’s one other peculiar version of pseudo-love I’ve heard of — apparently there are still people who truly believe you aren’t a “complete” person until you’ve had offspring. Of course, they also believe this should be the only reason you’re having sex anyway. While I can see how love can occur despite having sex just to procreate, I don’t see any reason for it to occur automatically, as they seem to imply. Also, doesn’t this mean people who don’t (or can’t) procreate are somehow less than human? What a harsh and thoughtless indictment of those childless folks who desperately wish they could have children!

Okay, enough of that. All the above commentary shows is it’s terribly easy to mistake the symbol for the reality, especially if there’s cultural or marketing pressure to do so as well. I don’t have any good way to reliably help others discriminate between symbol and reality. I wish I did, and that someone had done so for me also… but as the wise old martial arts master once put it, “You would not have believed me then, even if I had warned you.” Some mistakes you have to make and live through and hurt through on your own… unfortunately. So tomorrow, some of the things I think help strengthen relationships, and the Love between individuals…