Ok, I know what you are thinking -- you think that I'm just bitter from my last break-up (2 years ago), and that I'm singing the sad 30-something, singles tune "Marriage? Who needs marriage? Marriage sucks, and it always ends up in entrapment or divorce anyway..." But I'm not. Today I am questioning the modern interpretation of the word marriage and how it has become what it is today.
If you asked Shakespeare the definition of the word "gay", he will without hesitation give you the "ye olde English" definition which meant "happy" or "joyful". Today if you ask the same question to a scholar of linguistics - or anyone on the street -- they will all tell you that it means "homosexual (men)" without missing a beat.
Just as the word "gay" has transformed itself in our modern society to mean "homosexual", the word "marriage" has changed from one meaning "life-long commitment to your chosen partner, in sickness and in health, till death...." etc., for today it has lost this interpretation only to replaced by one more "rational" than the 16th century interpretation: another tax exemption form. (you pay less income tax if you are married, vs. living together but committed.)
When you see stats like 1 in 3 heterosexual marriages end up in divorce, and the rising number of people choosing to make a "real" commitment and raise a family outside the traditional institution of marriage, I have no other definition for the word.
DWR Dictionary:
Marriage.
Pronounced: mer-ij.
Noun.
1) unofficial government sanctioned tax exemption to encourage heterosexual couples to make a promise of commitment, in exchange of a legal duty to procreate as soon as possible to provide the government with the next generation of tax payers.
2) Institution created by monotheistic and polytheistic religious groups to keep the poor and weak in the same position so they don't infiltrate the upper echelons of society by procreating amongst their own kind.
Which brings me to my next point: same sex marriages. If the marriage certificate is a mere tax exemption form, why exclude the homosexual community from paying less taxes? I mean, if 1 in 3 marriages end in a divorce it's no longer a life-time commitment coz there is an opt out clause; why not let homosexual people have a chance to make that commitment with each other? Ok, so what if it doesn't work out. It doesn't matter does it, when a third of heterosexual "commitments" end up in pieces.
Gaaarn, give the faggots and the dykes a tax break -- for fuck's sake!! You give huge tax breaks to the near-criminal corporate fat cats, so why not give it to the honest, good people that "want" to try and make a life long commitment, and raise a family?
[Baah, Humbug! These blasphemous people cannot procreate, because what they do is against god's wishes!!! They cannot provide us with the next generation of tax payers... Brrrrr]
- There are heterosexual "married" couples that don't/cannot have children (and are they ostracise, no.)
- There are heterosexual/homosexual single parents who are more than capable of raising a child WITHOUT a marriage certificate.
- There are loads of gay and lesbian couples who have made their "pure" commitment to each other, adopted a child (just like Dan Savage and his partner), and are raising them in happy (gay?!), loving homes, which is a lot better than what some children get in heterosexual, but broken homes....]
- There are many unwanted pregnancies that get terminated...
- There are heterosexual parents that abuse their children (physically, sexually, and mentally)
(do I need to continue?)
So what if people chose to commit in a non-16th century definition of marriage? You, the government, are only interested in ensuring that there are enough tax payers in the next era, right? That's why you give married couples a tax break, and even *give* out child allowances when they produce their progeny. Even if they divorce, doesn't matter, so long as we have our quota of tax payers for 2030, right?
Well, if that is the case let gay people get married. Let "swingers" and "polygomists" all make vows to stick by each other, till death does them apart, so that they can provide a loving environment of all their offspring -- regardless of who the biological father or mother is. Let these people provide a chance for a child (adopted or not) a loving home, while the guardians, the parents are given a tax break for taking on a life-long task, for god's sake.
As for the "original" meaning of marriage, it needs a new name...
Anyone got any good suggestions? How about soul bonding?
7 comments:
While I think your take on marriage is a good one I do think your missing one important fact: Lust/Love. People do get married for tax reasons, I have seen it. They are not really even committed to eachother, they just so happen to live together for tax and convience reasons. There is not love or lust in this relationship(s). But example like this are few and far between in my experience.
Now it is true that 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 marriages fail, depending on the stats you look at, but either way it is too high. Marriage is not a sacred bond between to people, it is a illusion for most. They think it will lead to bliss, but usually this is not the case. There are still the other 2 out of 3 people or 3 out of 4 people (again depending on what stats your looking at) that stayed married. But really I would guess 1 out of 2 or 2 out of 3 of those married couples are unhappy. OK that leaves us with 1 out of 3 or 1 out of 4 happily married couples. They got lucky and found their soulmate, - I will note here that these stats are just off the top of my head and this final stat of actually happily married coulples or soulmates is really less than what I stated.
So I quesiotn why stay together if your one of the married people but are unhappy. This is where the tax thing kicks in. "Well dear, we get a tax break if we stay together, so I suggest we bear though this life of misery to save a couple dollars on our taxes. What do you say?"
All these married couples, divorced couples, and future ball and chainers got married for one reason... OK with an exception every so often... and that reason was love, or maybe it was really lust but they could not tell the difference. When you think your in love, it is manytimes lust and you may not know the difference. I have a hard time telling as I never saw true love, or at least I do not think I did. Maybe I did, I do not know. This all goes back to a post a while ago. So I digress.
Remember why they got married for the most part. It may have been a wrong reason by the illusion of love is the pirme factor still in marriage. The otp out clause has only add fuel to the fire by allowing couples to take risk and try out marriage only to find that they do not even like each other. A prime example there is Vagas. Ninjas get married there all the time. They get fucked up, hook up with some random chick and wake up married. What would do if that happened and when you woke up you relaized you have a diffent last name and are married to the biggest jerk you ever met, and you just met him for basically the first time when you woke up. Thanks Vagas!
quite right, O, I do touch very little on the topic of love/lust in this posting. Why? I think that the "word" or term marriage does not fit what we originally were taught at school what marriage is all about...
I must agree that there are defo people who got it spot on, and have a wonderful marriage, but for some reason I see more that don't, or have chosen a "marriage" that the governments and religious groups do not acknowledge.
Don't worry, I'm still a sentimental romantic at heart -- with a pinch of realistic cynicism here and there ;)
In the US, there isn't even a good tax advantage. It's called a 'marriage tax' because it actually increases your taxes if you marry! Then people in the US, must just not understand their tax system (which is quite understandable considering the mess the code is in).
As for being a cynical hopeless romantic, it but adds to the charms that are you, Ms. Ramblin' Drunkenwench.
oh in that case we should come up with a new word that has the same meaning as the old word for marriage -- any suggestions??
one possible idea:
Marriage was like a binding of two souls forever, thus a soul bound couple. From that I combine them and get:
sond
the first two letters of soul and the last two letter of bound. I like short 4 letter words, easy to come up with.
wow! that is great!! it's like "con" and "insult" combined to make "consult"....
Hang on, that's what I do -- consult...
Your a funny woman DWR, I wish I knew more people like you, and had them as friends. I bet you have some great times. Hell yeah!
Post a Comment