Connecting Singles^® Forums 100% Free Online Dating

Yep, which among other things makes marriage and monogamy a religious prerequisite morally. Man made notions to tame the beast and line them up for accounting.

I can see the reason for it, but not the wisdom.

That's they way it should be....but that's exactly what marriage represents to me...the ultimate commitment out of love for one another...not the other stuff...I guess it's just how you look at it....

GB, you're a buddhist at least in idealogy? ... read the OP. I'd be interested in the buddhist response to the question, which isn't really about marriage persay.

Its not even religious. It's cultural.

Marriage is a responsibility to another, potentially several others. Females are conditioned to want this responsibility. Males are conditioned to avoid it as long as possible. This is a generalization I know, and as such, will have exceptions. But, in general, a woman is culturally motivated to want marriage, while a man is culturally motivated to avoid it. I think this is where alot of the War of The Sexes comes from, this struggle for attachment vs. the need for freedom.

It all comes down to labels yet again. The state defines marriage, the culture institutes the rituals, and the participants are completely unaware that they operate within their relationship according to roles defined by other people.

Its pretty hard to separate religion from culture. How Muslims, or Christians or Hindus treat women and men and the contract of marriage is different. Its culturally dominant. I think religion is a huge cultural component. I think it might be more cultural in aboriginal or pagan areas, not so religious as much as handed down appreciation for mother nature.

The rest I agree with, the definitions we accept and never question as written by 'other' people.

OK. I'll offer my opinions.



Monogamy isn't the problem, its the complete adherence to extremes that cause such a problem. "till Death do us part." is pretty absolute, and extreme. The only constant is change. Buddhist philosophy deals with marriage as a vow contigent upon the realities of life as a whole, not a vow contingent upon our fantasy of what life will turn out to be.



Marriage is not an act of love. Its an act of commitment. Love is an action all its own. Marriage may be motivated by love, but love is doing the dishes when she's tired, or taking out the garbage, or bringing home flowers.

I think marriage is like buying a house. One of the most important decisions one will make. You can rent or lease, but if you do that, you have no equity in the house. A marriage I think is an investment in someone, backed by a promise and a piece of paper. It may be a bad analogy w/missed spelled words but I am no professor...

It's cultural.

Among different sects of Christianity, the act is seen differently. Divorce is rare in Catholicism. Its much more common among Protestant sects. Statistically, the prevalance of affairs and full-time mistresses is much higher among Catholic cultures, who seem to be alot more tolerant of it. Perhaps confession has something to do with that. The option of nullifying the whole contract with a fair amount of ease in a Protestant culture actually reduces the chances of cheating, at least in my experience, and that is a cultural thing.

Yep that forever thing is big. In fact I would suggest it is why we sometimes take a pass on people with whom we might under other notions, enjoy several moments of bliss and connection. Such moments have the preconcieved notion of "this has to be forever" and hence cause us to balk or overthink the situation with further preconceptions

And there is very little proof that anyone gets even close to forever with anyone else. Very few people find life long partners...Yep change is only thing that is constant.


Which brings it back to selflessness. A situation of surrender to what is now.

Thanks to your post you saved me from typing it myself. I agree with you 100% sassy.

"sassy49senior: There are different types of love which I will not explain
as it is very easy to find on the web. An act of love in
a marriage or long term relationship is a beautiful thing.
You are one with this very special person, you trust, you
communicate without saying a word, you don't smother but
your partner knows you are near, you know you will not
always agree on all things but that is OK, your love just
continues to grow in the trust, respect, adore, etc. (JMO)"



That IS beautiful and it does happen.

Love is when the most special friendship between two people explodes.

I certainly felt desperate during the last few years of my marriage.

My marriage was long and we were undoubtedly soulmates (I hate that word!)for most of it, but I was very young when I married and we grew apart. I now enjoy the single life and don´t believe I will ever feel that love again.

If I do, or at least something close to it, I highly doubt that I would contemplate marriage again.

GB, I agree with you on the extreme of "til death do us part". It's why my late husband and I had no intention of getting legally married, and only did it when we realized he was sick enough to need to get on my benefits. What we had done prior to that is a handfasting.

Now, I'll explain a handfasting for those who don't know the term, though you could google it. It's the ancient Celtic marriage, and you are both bound to the vows with a cord or ribbon wrapped around your wrists as you say them. A knot is tied at the end. (Hence the expression "to tie the knot" referring to marriage.) We did it with a friend of mine who is a Wiccan priestess and a minister officiating, and two of our friends as witnesses, in a cave. We got a certificate that day stating that we were joined in partnership in life and love. And we vowed to stay faithful and within that partnership "for as long as love shall last". It was as married as we ever intended, or needed, to get. No, it's not recognized as a marriage by society and the court, but it was married to us. We meant the vows of faithfulness and love we made that day. But we were realistic enough to understand that people change.

But this is just another way, albeit informal and not recognised in law, of making the same vows is it not?

The necessity for most people to publicly and ceremoniously declare their love for one another. This is what puzzles me.

We didn't do it publicly, but actually very privately. Anyway, my views on this are "to each their own". I know a couple that was together monogamously for over 30 years, but never even lived together. They had their own homes, and never got married. That's what worked well (obviously) for them...until he died recently from cancer.

Oh, I did want to address the monogamy issue of the OP. Someone else stated it as well, earlier, so I'm not alone in this. Honestly, when I'm in a relationship with someone that I love, I don't notice other men in any way other than friendship. I've even given my friends and my mother blank looks when they point out a good-looking man. Looks just really don't mean that much to me, though. Anyway, my point is that other than as friends, other men just don't exist for me when I love someone. I have no difficulty being monogamous. And yes, I expect monogamy in a committed relationship. And I only do committed relationships.

Both your own and this are examples of other possibilites that exist beyond what is commonly beleived to be love and partnership.

And I guess this is part of the OP and we set ourselves up for disappointment, possibly, by holding out for the common ideal of soulmates and marriage and forever. I'm not trying to disparage the notion of 'forever' when two people feel it happening.

I'm just wondering if we set more boundaries and limitations, preconditions and preconceptions that are unneccessary in order to find love, for however long it lasts.

And that monogamy isn't a genetic human stamp, it's behavioral, conditioned by environs etc., so it too is a 'notion' that isn't necessarliy right ... or wrong for that matter.

That sounds so final Jan. Is this another preconception taking hold?


Do we expect only to find the same love we've known before so much that we negate any possibility in the future?

I think that whatever works for a couple is right. We're all different, and all have different needs. I couldn't be in a "swinger" type relationship, but I don't think those that live like that are wrong...it's just wrong for me. You're right about the ways of old, at least in some cultures. The ancient Celts, who lived in what is now Scotland, England, Ireland, parts of France and Spain, counted family lines by the women, not the men, because the father wasn't always assumed to be the husband. Men had more than one wife, and a wife was a free person, and could have lovers. It was only when Christianity came to that culture that monogamy was adopted.

I don't believe that we have only one "soul mate", but that some have several for different times in their lives, if such a thing exists. I do believe in soul groups, but not that anyone has a "missing half" until they find them for "completion". I just don't buy that theory. I am complete in my self. I'd just like to find another complete person to share life's journey with and to love. And I do think that is a basic human need.