Constructive gadfly
Published on August 8, 2006 By stevendedalus In Blogging

In the “good old days” — if such a phenomenon ever existed — it was reputed that marriage was an alternative to promiscuity or virginal abstention, despite societal insistence that marriage was designed to forge virtuous families. This flies in the face of legal, prevailing “companionate” marriages of today in which starting a family is but an accident or afterthought.

The primary motive among young people today — aside from the rarity of “true” love — is rent control eased by living together, not to mention sharing of all the other peripheral costs of daily living. Granted — aside from living with parents — the most economical but inconvenient is the relationships of multiple guys, gals, or both living under one roof in chaotic communion. This, however, does not solve the problem of getting serious about at least a semblance of a monogamous relationship, or for that matter getting serious about life.

It would appear that the same motives exist among gays, most of whom, I trust, wish for the same legal, non-stigmatic companionate marriage afforded homosexuals whose initial intentions are devoid of having children.

Religious groups fail to recognize companionate marriage and simply chalk it out as “holy.” States, however, should make the distinction official and readily accept both heterosexuals and homosexuals as simply companionate aimed at improved, somewhat monogamous relationships, together with limited legal responsibilities and privileges as opposed to carefree convenience or common law cultism. In the event the relationship of either type become tried and true and serious about family either by procreation or adoption, each should recommit to full-fledged, conventional marriage subject to rigorous responsibilities.

 

Copyright © 2006 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: August, 8, 2006.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments
on Aug 08, 2006
Don't know if you made your case in thoroughly defining what you mean by compasionate marriage.

I do know, in my opinion, you gave to much credit to people suggesting they think about and plan what you call compasionate marriage for the sake of saving money.

In my opinion, people in this world, mostly act out of accident; rarely thinkin about what they are doing before it is to late.

In addition, you may have run into one of the biggest problems in writting, which is to generalize.

I am sure there are different behaviors and different motives for those behaviors in our American society.

As for the homosexual question.

I will take the Bible's statement as a guide.
on Aug 08, 2006
I would call it A Marriage of Convenience.  But Companionate works as well I guess.
on Aug 08, 2006
God I must be old old old, I married for love.... how retro of me.
on Aug 08, 2006
God I must be old old old, I married for love.... how retro of me.


retro is in now, MM. You are quite the fashion statement. Don't know about next year, though.
on Aug 12, 2006

I would call it A Marriage of Convenience.
"Companionate" is an old term targeting at least a semblance of companionship and compatibility but not yet ready for family building and the legal ramifications thereof.  

I married for love.... how retro of me.
Not quite as retro as I! Nonetheless, in those days, other than in whoretown, usually marriage was sexually motivated though unspoken.

on Aug 12, 2006
people in this world, mostly act out of accident; rarely thinkin about what they are doing before it is to late.
this could be construed as a generalization as well, don't you think? btw, I'm not talking about "compassion."