Home » Post Item » Makes me wonder
Makes me wonder
Sunday, June 15, 2008

Weddings have always fascinated me: the ceremony, the pageantry, the costumes, the food, and as I discovered in recent years, the possibility of finding sex among the guests. It must be the pheromones running rampant in the event. All that sexual energy. But I digress. Weddings have fascinated me also because I have often wondered why people would put themselves through the whole thing. I think it calls for a lot of courage and blind faith for someone to marry another. They have my respect. And my huge sense of wonderment.
Before you dismiss my opinion because it comes from a gay man who’s got a slim chance of getting legally married in his home country, let me say that this opinion was not borne of my being gay. I think, even if I were not gay, marriage wouldn’t still be something I would enter into. At least, not for the reasons that people profess for getting into it. Reasons like, you know, love, commitment, the will of God, among others.
I mean, historically, marriages were performed for economic and political reasons: the consolidation of resources and properties, the merging of tribes and formation of alliances between societies. During the early periods of Christianity, marriage was regarded primarily as a private matter; the State and the Church were not involved at all. It was only after the Council of Trent in 1545 that a priest became a requirement for marriage to be “recognized”. In Protestant countries, the state took a stake in matrimony, in terms of registering and setting the rules for marriage. Same-sex marriages were first recorded in the Roman empire before being declared illegal in the year 342 by a Christian emperor.
How marriage evolved into its present form is in itself an interesting lesson in history, one that I will not delve into.
Suffice it to say, my views on marriage are both pragmatic and transactional. There are many other things to consider other than feelings for the other person, the viability of the union, etc. I mean, if we strip down marriage to its basic elements, it is a business agreement. You have contractual obligations and deliverables, both tangible (generating income, production of viable children, managing a household, etc.) and not (monogamy, devotion, loyalty, etc.). However, the means of remuneration (being loved, taken care of, shared ownership of properties, etc.) tends to be a bit blurred because this aspect of marriage has been masked and sugar-coated by other institutions like the state and the church (and any religion).
That being said, one might ask of me… Does this mean I am incapable of feeling love? Of course not. I just think that marrying the person I love will neither intensify nor diminish my feelings for him. Will getting married make me more secure of my partner’s feelings for me? I don’t think so. Just look at the rates of separations & divorces worldwide. Does this mean I am unable to make a commitment? Certainly not. I just think that marriage is not the best and only way I can demonstrate my commitment to a relationship. In my humble opinion, a piece of document (or a marvelous ceremony) is not enough to build trust, loyalty, and devotion between partners.
Now, does this mean I am against same-sex marriage? If I am, then I would have to be against marriage in general, not just same-sex marriage. But I am not. Because like it or not, as an institution, marriage offers and brings social benefits and protection not just for the couple but also for the family. And if the non-gays are able to enjoy these social benefits and protection, why shouldn’t it be extended to gays and lesbians as well?
I may not be the marrying kind, but I firmly believe in social justice and equity. So, I’d like the option to marry to be available to me and to others, gays and non-gays alike. Just in case, you know, I change my mind? (giggle)
Previous Comments
hi mike, nice commentary on marriage. it’s the social and cultural context that defines the benefits and responsibilities of the couple. There is no institution more heterosexist, in my view. Now that it is OK in California for same sex couples to marry, i hope it won’t take another generation before the rest of the US follows. (As usual, behind much of the Old world) . You’re right. Marriages, civil unions, partnership agreements, divorces, separations, annulments, etc — these should be open to all. It’s the added bits that are more important, e.g. how do the couples share the property, raise the children and the pets, love and care for each other, etc. I predict the demise of a once venerable institution in the next 25 years. And I won’t shed a tear if my favorite wedding planner loses his job !
Posted by victa at June 17, 2008, 4:49 pmit makes me wonder too…
but i am sure glad i did it.
business transaction with a personal touch? not likely… come to think of it - you might just be right. the more reason for you try it and prove your point. hehehe! kidding….
although, i believe, all elements of marriage are firmly ensconced before the plunge. why do the plunge if there aren’t indications of a sense of certainty. hehehe. ‘in sickness and in health, ’til death do us part.’ — what a very reassuring security.
as usual - you do educate - lots of trivia interspersed in the prose. makes me crave for more.
cheers, man.
Posted by derick at June 17, 2008, 5:08 pmmai: marriage counseling ito over coffee!
victa: ako din, i won’t shed a tear. marami pa namang ibang events na puwede i-plan, like funerals!
derick: being married, i perfectly understand your need to ‘defend’ your decision to get married.
however, you have to accept the fact that nothing in life comes without any degree of risk. no matter how fervent or how eloquent one’s wedding vows are, hindi guaranteed na the marriage will last. like all ‘businesses’ marriage needs a lot of work for it to work! di ba?
defend? furthest from my mind…
needless to say you are right. in every facet of life there is always a risk — even the simplest benign action can trigger chaos into somebody else’s world. plain and simple… feel love in its ‘uncontaminated’ form and savor it like a sweet nectar - married or not. cheers, man.
“feel love in its ‘uncontaminated’ form and savor it like a sweet nectar - married or not”–if only things were this simple. then we’d all be happily skipping along through life.
unfortunately, things are never simple. and i don’t think there is such a thing as an ‘uncontaminated’ form of love.
i suppose the merging of resources and assets supposedly is a display of love and commitment, etc. depending on where you’re standing from. i’m kinda skeptical about marriage too; i think it’s overrated especially the till-death-do-us-part bit. but i do agree (spin a win din) - people have to have their options. it’s nice to go through the ritual (i’d like that) but i want it quiet and private.
on a somewhat related but different (huh?!) note, i’ve also wondered about how “exclusivity” in relationships came to be. masaya rin kaya maging polyamorous?
hmn, polyamorous… yummy!
i think monogamy (and its origins) deserves its own post. i should be able to write something about it because i (try so very hard to) practice it.
which do you (try so very hard to ) practice, monogamy or being polyamorous? hehehe…
Posted by joy oh at June 18, 2008, 12:21 ami think (sorry for generalizing) inherently, we are all capable of being polyamorous so this takes little effort.
monogamy, on the other hand, takes a lot of work!
All comments are moderated. Your comments will not appear here unless approved by the blog owner. Thank you.











let’s discuss some points over coffee at coffeemaker…
Posted by mai at June 17, 2008, 11:00 am