| Dating... |
| *Sigh*
Liquidation... That's probably the best economic analogy I can come up with. As you may have noted (and mia amino has noted it several times to me), I haven't updated in a while. Just so you know, that means one of three things in the future: 1) My life is okay to good, so I don't feel inspired to vent. 2) I've given up on my diary as too much of a bother. 3) I'm dead. So, you really have nothing to worry about if I don't update. Before I enter the main subject of today's entry, I'll give you a short update as to how my life has been going before the past few hours. Life has been great. I came back from break refreshed, and ready to go. I got good test scores on the mid-terms I'd gotten back, I ordered a couple good books (the Hunter Core Rulebook and Friedman's brilliant essay Why Gov't is the Problem) which arrived today actually. The Storyteller informed me that my character Paul will be making an entrance into the Mage game. Then about an hour ago, I got smacked upside the head. Not literally, mind you. If it was literally, I would be over it by now. I received word that one of my good friends had just broken up with his girlfriend, who is another one of our friends. I was surprised, to say the least. However, I cannot and will not judge the wisdom of the decision. He assured me that it was a thought-through and prayerful decision. And I will take his word for it. Then, on the way into and out of lunch, I saw the girl, who was clearly upset (as I believe the guy is too, though I have not seen him in the flesh since it happened). Personally, I'm terrible at dealing with that kind of situation. What am I supposed to do? "Hey, I heard you two broke up, how's that going for you?" Yeah, that works. Or play the innocent "How are you?" Pah! Like her eyes didn't betray it. So, thinker that I am, I decided something. Ladies and gentlemen, typical dating is dead wrong. Joshua Harris was dead wrong. In fact, all typical variants of the modern Western system of romance are flat out wrong. And when I say this, I mean wrong from a Christian standpoint. As I think about it, I think that the Indians (meaning from India) got it right. Arranged marriages OR immediate marriages. Divorce only in extreme circumstances. Why do I say what I'm saying? Simply this: Christianity has two strains running through it. Love/compassion and justice/morality. Our current dating system makes it so that the two will conflict sometimes. A system that does that is wrong. Here's the problem: people choose someone to date, they go out for a while, and break up. At best, both are saddened by the break up. At worst, both are furious about it. This is not a compassionate outcome. However, it may be the right one. After all, it is perfectly possible that the original choice was poorly informed, etc. etc. And I do believe that when you decide that the person you are dating is someone that you could not marry, you should break up. It is the only morally right thing to do. But, it is certainly not compassionate in my book. So, what do I propose? A complete change in the system. Is it possible? Probably not. Do I plan on following it? No way. But, I think it makes sense. First, a philosophy of marriage: Marriage is a commitment. Period. That IS the singular prerequisite for marriage. You commit to spend your life with someone else, protect and support them, etc. Love (in its common usage) is no necessary part of the equation. Thank you, Shakespeare and Hollywood, for screwing up our view. Of course, we also have a warped view of love. Common definition: love is a spontaneous, but lasting, emotion that arises at sight or thought of a particular individual. My (I believe more proper) definition: Love is a choice. A choice to be patient, kind, forgiving, and so on... So, with a proper definition, yes, love is the root of a marriage. But, its warped definition has no necessary part in it. With that philosophy of love and marriage I propose this: Love the one you marry. Hollywood gets it backwards. They say "marry the one you love". Have you seen the Wedding Planner. It's a wonderful movie starring J-Lo. Yes, imagine that... There's a great scene where J-Lo's character's dad (an Italian immigrant) describes how he came to love (common use) his deceased wife. He talked about a time when he was very ill, and his wife (who he got by arranged marriage, and didn't really like) was continuously by his side. Her commitment to him led to his respect for her. And respect grew to affection, and affection to love. (I may have gotten the words mixed up, but you get the idea.) He got it right. He learned to love the one he married. That's why I propose the following: A system of arranged marriage OR a system of immediate marriage. In short, no dating, no courting, etc. The systems are simple. Under arranged marriage, the parents of the groom and bride to be decide, based on their knowledge of their children, whether the two are a good fit. If they decide so, the kids get married. No divorce except in cases of abuse and adultery. Under immediate marriage, the bride and groom decide to get married. No dating, no courtship. A simple "we get along as friends, so let's commit to spend our lives together." No intermediate step. Once again, divorce only in cases of abuse and adultery. Under these systems, there will be no "what did I do?" thoughts. The only "break up" that can happen is divorce. And given the necessary conditions, it will be obvious what you did. Is this a foolishly simplistic, idealistic view that would never work? Probably. But, what really is the benefit to our current system? Strange that an economist is questioning the value of shopping around. But, when you're shopping for a life-partner, shopping around may not be the best idea. So, I'll try to build up our current system: First, what is the difference between a friendship and a dating relationship? I think the answer, normally, is simple. Kissing, etc. That's it. Friends can go to the movies. Friends can go to dinner. Friends can sit around and talk. So, dating, from a typical perspective, is really just about "romantic activities" AKA kissing, holding hands, and for some very modern couples more than that. So, since we have broken down what dating really is, let's ask. What are the benefit of romantic activites pre-marriage? There are two answers. 1) Immediate gratification 2) Finding the best Are either of these really Christian goals that we should be going for? I don't believe that they are. Not that they are inherently bad. They need not be. Immediate gratification from a piece of flourless chocolate cake is no sin (provided it isn't gluttonous). Finding the best pair of pants isn't either. However, when the process involves, as it does, finding several people to act as romantic partners for a time and tossing the bad ones aside, is it really moral? I honestly do not know. Well, I imagine by now I've made you very angry or upset or something. So, I ask you to take a few things into account. 1) I am assaulting a common practice that is widely accepted with little reason. You may just be so indoctrinated that a new and bizarre idea like this is simply incompatible with your established belief system. 2) More importantly, I am somewhat upset at the moment (for me, anyway). I pretty much never like seeing couples break up. But, I also know that I cannot condemn the ones that do. Often (and nearly always), it is the right thing to do. I can't blame the couples for a result that I don't like. So, I'll blame the system. That is what my analysis is. The participants in the break up are victims of a bad system. I'll ask forgiveness right now for anything I said that may have offended you. That was not my intent. It's just too bad that any of these discussions even have to take place... |
 |