Saturday, August 13, 2005

The Institution of Marriage

FIRST DRAFT AND IT ISN'T EVEN FINISHED

When I was over at Patrick's Place today he went on a rant about the two Canadian hetero guys who are getting married so they can save money.  Gays can marry legally in Canada -- so they thought since they were best friends, why not take advantage of the opportunity, even though they're not gay.

Hey, go for it, I say. What are loopholes for if you can't wallow in them?

But I got the distinct impression that Patrick felt this was an affront to the INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE <<< sounds of drums and a trumpet flourish >>>

Marriage, he went on to say is supposed to be based on love, devotion and commitment, not for financial reasons. The key word is SUPPOSED.  

That's what makes Patrick such a wonderful person. He's like the kids who clap their hands for Tinkerbell and think they've saved her life.

NAH. It's all make believe.  

Patrick, I'm afraid you've been naive. In a good way, because you are a good person. Just very mistaken. In thinking that love is to marriage what chat rooms are to the internet, you've given Mrs. Linklater something to sink her teeth into. And shake until it's dead.

First of all the only reason women got married in this country up until about twenty-five years ago was for financial reasons. Period.  A man's salary was her only route to nice clothes, a nice house, a nice family, a nice life.

Love was an accident. However, I'm sure I'll get no argument from women of a certain age how easy it was to love someone who could give you those things.  In fact, there must have been a study done by now to confirm how lovable people with money are versus people without money.

A fatass slob with a combover who farts at the dinner table will leave any number of women starry eyed if he's got enough money to keep a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs. Okay, diamonds and furs, too.

Perhaps Mrs. L has overstated the power of money to overcome somebody who is supremely unattractive. But is there anyone more frightening to imagine coming on to you than Hugh Hefner?  Besides Bill Gates?

I rest my case. 

So Mrs. Linklater's first point is that if nobody had money, nobody would be married.


Bet you can't wait for her second point.



7 comments:

sunnyside46 said...

good point
marti

swibirun said...

Wow.....I finally disagree with Mrs. L.  I can't believe it finally happened.  Well, I guess that depends on how you define married.  From a legal standpoint, perhaps.  But the union of two people goes way deeper than financial.  It begins with a concept called "psychological visibility".  As humans, we need to feel "seen" and what better way than to have someone we respect, love, and cherish to say "I get you" or "I understand what you are about"?

Certainly marriage or any relationship is about an exchange of value.  Everything we do is selfish.  These days, it just often comes down to money.  

Chris
http://journals.aol.com/swibirun/Inanethoughtsandinsaneramblings
http://journals.aol.com/swibirun/MyJournalJarSaturdaySixetcanswer

pattboy92 said...


You make an excellent point, Mrs. L.  I accept without hesitation the brand "naive."  I'm sure you are correct about the reality of marriage.

Even so, this position still makes arguments about the "sacred institution" of marriage seem a little silly, so it would still seem that those who argue about gay marriage ruining that institution should reconsider their argument about what "traditional" marriage is REALLY about.

Thanks for the interesting take on this!

Patrick


artloner said...

First of all the only reason women got married in this country up until about twenty-five years ago was for financial reasons. Period.  A man's salary was her only route to nice clothes, a nice house, a nice family, a nice life.


You know this one had me up and jumpin' around the room.

First, MICHAEL JACKSON GOT MARRIED, HOW SACRED IS THAT?

Second, I do find it offensive that two beerswillingballscratching Neanderthals from Up Yonder can benefit from something that is not meant for them.  Its hard enough to be gay (just ask Matt Shepard's family), why not allow them AT LEAST the same bebefits that hetero's can enjoy on their 1st, 2nrd, 3rd, even 4th marriage. (Oops, I forgot, it's a SACRED institution!!)

Saving the best for last:  Southern women have perfected the art of Marrying Well over the years.  I have spent the last two days cleaning the beautiful home of one such gracious lady and lemme tell ya', I'm taking notes!!!!!!!!!

I'm kidding.  I'll be 40 in October, and my chances are better of being hit by a crosstown bus than for marrying past that age.  <sigh>  I'm too mean now, anyway.  Hey Linky-Lu...think we can form an Exclusive Old JL Gals Home???

Love ya like I love my poodle,

andi

robbush6 said...

Thank God you didn't post anything controversial like mothers who nurse their babies at Starbucks while fine, decent folks are just trying to sip their lattes in peace!

Hoo boy.

Let's just take a cue from nature. You don't see two male sheep humping each other to take advantage of tax breaks. You just don't.

Okay, I'm ready. Give me the second point.

judithheartsong said...

Hugh Heffner is so gross................... you go girl. judi

judithheartsong said...

Hugh Heffner is so gross................... you go girl. judi