It's been relatively long since I've been taken aback by someone's theory that wasn't on the same wavelength as mine. Lo and behold it wasn't a new found discovery or an epiphany, just an examination of current affairs. It started off with a question..
The Theorist: Do you see yourself getting married?
Broadband: Yeah
The Theorist: Hmmm
Broadband: Hmmm ok or Hmmm I dont believe you?
The Theorist: Just Hmmm
Broadband: Yeah good luck with that. How about you?
The Theorist: No!
Broadband: Why?
"Marriage is merely a glamorous ceremony followed by a generic contract, I dont need it to consumate or define the bond between me and my partner" - The Theorist
Followed by three abrupt and interchanging diagonal finger clicks she sat down proud of herself. I laughed for a few minutes but she made a valid point. Indeed it's the opinion of more than one of my friends that marriage is not an option; whereas some have yet to experience love and could possibly be deemed naive to pass judgement, there are those that have been there and made their reasons justifiable. Thirty minutes after The Theorist sprung her analogy it got me thinking.
Is Marriage a manufactured tradition made for social structure?
It's arguable yet intriguing that we are more or less geared and guided towards one direction in life. Although our journeys are different and some refuse to follow the concepts, it's still the majority that view this direction as the path of happiness and contentment. And that is:
Academia --> Job --> Relationship --> Marriage --> Family
The path is almost a birthright that most feel fine with but can appear like a forced structure built by societies' standards. There are no rules that say you have to follow this tradition and the rebels in alot of us dont but this seems like the general jist of life's journey and Marriage is fittingly the breaker of the middle ground between one side of contenment/happiness and the other.
Does love need a title via contract? Are relationships bound by wedlock? Or is The Theorist seeing past the initial or overall values of marriage and even religion?
If it is indeed part of the system then kudos to the inventor because this is one artificial battery thats gonna forever be caught up in the matrix.
Does love need a title via contract? Are relationships bound by wedlock? Or is The Theorist seeing past the initial or overall values of marriage and even religion?
If it is indeed part of the system then kudos to the inventor because this is one artificial battery thats gonna forever be caught up in the matrix.
What do you think?
"Love: a temporary insanity, curable by marriage"
