Image source: http://cloudfront-assets.reason.com/assets/mc/_external/2013_03/-3.jpg
I never had that kind of conversation before.
I went to meet this friend and I can't believe how vastly differing our beliefs are. He doesn't believe in marriage. He believes in a God but he also believes everyone is going to heaven. He doesn't believe that every relationship should be monandrous (single and devout male partnership). He believes in communism. He believes in a lot of things that are perceived waaaaay out of the norms of society. But what struck me the most are his views on partnership.
First, he doesn't believe in marriage because he believes that marriage is already a failing institution that led to the legalization of divorce in most countries. He believes that marriage is an institution that forces the partner to be tied down with another person despite of the complications the relationship is already under. He also said that marriage was invented way before to promote procreation back when humans are underpopulated. Since there is no need to populate further because of overpopulation, what is the use of marriage? For him, it's just a ceremony. He also pointed out how he believes that the benefits of marriage should be abolished such as reduction of taxes since these benefits also promote procreation. Taxes should be equal.
Second, he believes not everyone is wired to be monandrous. He stated that some animals are designed to have multiple partners and not designed to fully commit to an individual in the long run. As humans are also classified as animals, we are not exempted from this.
Third, he doesn't believe in marriage equality since he doesn't believe in marriage in the first place. But based from his answers, gays are not required to get married to enjoy the rights straight couples are entitled to. He believes that there are legal actions that are readily available to gays in order to enjoy the benefits some of us have been fighting for.
He believes that he can love without legally recognizing his relationship.
If only you were in my place, you would have been swept off your feet if you didn't digest his beliefs carefully. He presented everything in a convincing manner and he admitted that it is his job to shake the beliefs of those he talks to.
Anyway, I still believe in marriage despite of his points. I believe that it is not just a ceremony and I also believe it's sweeter for your relationship to be legally recognized. I also place my confidence on the fact that without marriage, population is less controlled contrary to his reasoning. If there is no marriage, one could just create a kid with different women without feeling the need to commit. I would also like to point out that if the man cannot commit into the relationship, why enter in it in the first place? Isn’t marriage about vows as well? Promises? Yes, I do understand why other couples go through divorce but what I don't understand is entering in a life-binding contract then getting out of it without any good reason and that reason is supposedly because your brain is not wired to be faithful. If you knew this from the start, why commit at all? As for the tax reduction, it is needed to promote the well-being of the child. That and period.
I would like to tackle his third point before the second, given that I believe in marriage, I believe in marriage equality. Yes, there are legal actions gay couples could take in order to gain the rights straight couples have but there really is something with everyone legally recognizing your marriage. It makes you feel that the relationship is normal. Accepted.
As for his point in monandrous relationships, I don't know what to say. My ideal relationship is monandrous, but given the situation, I can't help but see things in a different light after our conversation. Am I one of those whose brain is wired for monandrous relationship? How about my partner's?
But then again, my faith is placed on the fact that one must not associate social behavior with genetics.
I also conclude: my friend failed to account emotions into the equation. He admitted this. He classified himself as unromatic. It showed. I can't pity him because he's comfortable with it but I also believe that what doesn't work for him shouldn't be pushed for what works for us. I'm an activist but I fight for my rights, but as for him, he's not fighting for any right nor he is fighting for the betterment of life. He is fighting for the abolishment of what is not working for him and for others but not for everyone and I personally don't see the logic in that.
Why? Don’t we have successful relationships to look up to? Is a successful relationship that hard to find.
Dear friend, I still have a lot to learn from you but please do open yourself to the fact that relationships are tailor fitted. What may work for us may not work for you.
Side note: Sorry for the lazy post. I think I could have written this better. Sleepy. Definitely sleepy. But I have to get this out of my mind.