Me: everytime I attempt to explain the reasons for my ideological opposition to the institution of marriage to a girl I get a stream of incoherent responses

Nat: everyone believes that marriage is the inevitability of any relationship

Me: females have this visceral, irrational fascination with the idea of marriage
and anyone who opposes it must be a commitment-phobe

Nat: well the institution has its followers
well my thoughts are on my blog

[marriage is an institution

"You would never have thought that a fleeting, ephemeral thing such as love could be institutionalized. Not many of us think about marriage as an institution because the term 'marriage' connotes the sublimal joys of love, a perfect wedding, happy guests making merry with wine and a splendid feast laid out infront of you.

And yet, marriage is an institution that demands state recognition for love. Its when something as personal as love becomes the affair of the state as presided over in court by a judge, as you lay your commitment down for the other person in the flourish of your signature by the stroke of a pen as your parents weep with tears of relief that they bore an offspring marketable in the eyes of the opposite sex, sparing them the pains of prying gossip. Love is cheapen into a mere piece of paper, a contract between two individuals made in the eyes of the state, the church and society. Suddenly, two people's private business becomes a spectacle to behold. Something as sacred as love becomes trapped in the placement of a marriage certificate and becomes just another statistic used for the engineering of social policies. Marriage allows for tax rebates, housing loans and for many, Marriage allows the emancipation from poverty and vice that a 3rd world country entails.

It is through marriage that our society legitimizes the relationship. The gender roles of society are meted out in marriage, the man with his phallus power will produce a token of his love in embodiment of a 2 carat ring to the object of his desire. And she will accept it. Because Marriage is an institution, there are rules. These rules must be abided by to ensure total merit to both parties....

I know that the notion of marriage is a largely christian idea of monogamy, instigated to prevent the unabashed sexual frolicking of people. It is a social policy encouraged by the government to provide a fabric of stability to the state, to curb the spread of HIV and homosexual tendencies. To fill the gaps that love might not suffice in the nights of a soldier's loneliness away from home with the comfort that back home, someone is waiting for him. And with the assurance of marriage, he can fight in peace. In an odd twisted way, marriage could be used to strengthen the love between two people although should not love be a prerequisite for marriage to occur? And yet, this is a recent development after match making has been dispelled and people are free to marry whoever their hearts desire.

Marriage is such an institution.. from proposing with a ring to the loud bang of a wedding ceremony. This Ring seems to hold the power of compelling society to understand his commitment towards her... Do people not realise that its the effort AFTER the marriage that counts towards the maintenance of it?... perhaps cetris paribus, Marriage has become a fallacy.

Love in all its sanctity, I believe is stronger than this social contract or a little shiny rock set upon a band to bind us together."]

Me: there is some overlap in views

I basically feel that marriage is an outdated institution which has outlived its use
and that it doesn't demonstrate commitment, but rather the lack thereof

any idiot can sign on a piece of paper
but you need real commitment to make a relationship work without having your hands tied

Nat: of course
its a contract

your bound by its terms
and if you break it, there's a punishment for it

Me: in fact, the mere presence of a contract shows that there's a lack of trust
hurr hurr

Nat: yep
we think like Brutus dont we
when he said that an oath is unneccesary cuz they are all great men and an oath will mean a lackof trust

[Ed: "No, not an oath: if not the face of men,
The sufferance of our souls, the time's abuse,--
If these be motives weak, break off betimes,
And every man hence to his idle bed;
So let high-sighted tyranny range on,
Till each man drop by lottery. But if these,
As I am sure they do, bear fire enough
To kindle cowards and to steel with valour
The melting spirits of women, then, countrymen,
What need we any spur but our own cause,
To prick us to redress? what other bond
Than secret Romans, that have spoke the word,
And will not palter? and what other oath
Than honesty to honesty engaged,
That this shall be, or we will fall for it?
Swear priests and cowards and men cautelous,
Old feeble carrions and such suffering souls
That welcome wrongs; unto bad causes swear
Such creatures as men doubt; but do not stain
The even virtue of our enterprise,
Nor the insuppressive mettle of our spirits,
To think that or our cause or our performance
Did need an oath; when every drop of blood
That every Roman bears, and nobly bears,
Is guilty of a several bastardy,
If he do break the smallest particle
Of any promise that hath pass'd from him."]