Much Ado About Marriage
(Top Posts - Social/Legal - 111902)

In response to a follower of religious faith who
asked if it's wise to marry a person who is not
a like-minded believer in supernatural beings /
places, I replied as follows ...

Quick answer - you can disbelieve, too. So that
solves that potential religious bone-of-contention,
if you disbelieve along with your pair partner(s).

Long answer, for anyone considering marriage
of any type, whether like-minded or differing on
religious perspectives ...

Should one marry anyone? Marriage is a legal
agreement and sets up a situation whereby
property (and children, if applicable) are made
objects of control by the state (i.e., the legal
system), to a degree much more invasive of
personal free choice than is otherwise the case.

Cohabitation (and children, if applicable) also
are objects of control by the state, but the state's
tentacles tend to be less-invasive, especially
when cohabitation is non-exclusive (i.e., when
there are separate residences and means of
support) and when children are not involved.

Also of interest, insurance policies and the way
laws and insurance companies may require mar-
riage of a legally-sanctified type to be involved
when a pair partner is to be covered.

And finally, tax consequences, as Uncle Sam in
America (and the government in other countries)
treats married couples differently than pair partner-
ships of non-married people.

The sad fact is that most pair partnerships don't
meet the mutual needs of the pair partners for any-
where near as long as most have been led to be-
lieve and expect. Therefore, as difficult as it is to
face that fact, it's wise for anyone contemplating
a long-term commitment with another (or others),
to consider all the implications and complexities
that are entailed.

You may consider yourself happily partnered, for
example, and one day be tossed out of the life of
your partner (and if children are involved, your time
with them may be limited at the whim of the state
and your pair partner), with little to no warning, and
with the state (and lawyers) laughing their you-know-
whats off as they try to suck you and your former
pair partner dry (emotionally and financially). Scary?
Yep.

Suffice to say, choosing a pair partner (or partners)
is a risky adventure and should be carefully thought
out in order to minimize risk and maximize chances
for mutual bliss, knowing full well that what tickles
the fancy of your partner(s) today may very well not
last near as long as the "... and they lived happily
ever after ..." fairy tales most were raised with.

As for what makes commitments work and what
doesn't, what pairs (or more than pairs) are good
for one another, creating a mutually beneficial and
long-lasting and pleasurable arrangement, and
what pairs (or more than pairs) are unwise ...

... religion and lack of agreement about religion
can be a contentious factor, primarily due to the
way that religions try to insert themselves into the
personal lives of their followers. It's debatable as
to whether or not religion is successful or an abys-
mal failure when it comes to the happiness and
success of pair partnerships (or more than pair
partnerships -- some religions encourage polyg-
amy in some cultures ... most christian religions,
but not all, discourage that).

Most devout religious followers like to think religion
is good for pair partnerships. I suspect the impact
of religion on pair partnerships is not as religions
would like you to believe, for one clear flaw of reli-
gions is their tendency to try to take credit for all
good, and blame all that is not good on either satan-
jinns and/or disbelief and/or lack of religion and/or
following religion (or god-allah) in the "wrong" way ...

When it comes to religions (and their potential im-
pact on pair partnerships, now and in the future),
it's wise to keep the following considerations in
mind:

The primary goal of religions is self-perpetuation
through

  • single-mindset religious indoctrination of children
    from a very young age,

  • threats (hell and/or death if one doesn't "believe"
    in the "right" god in the "right" way) and cons (immor-
    tality promises with no evidence such a thing is even
    possible - just "believe" ancient claims) to all follow-
    ers (and innocents - children of followers),

  • claims of truth free of substantiation other than
    simply trusting / following whatever religious leaders
    pronounce is true and / or inspired by *the* god,

  • heavy-handed discouragement of doubt and free-
    thought,

  • monetary solicitation to insure that religions are well-
    funded,

  • bragging about religious "good" (i.e., claims that reli-
    gion is good no-matter-what) and asserting that an
    ultimate totalitarian (i.e., god-allah) is good no-matter-
    what,

  • promotion of talking to the ultimate totalitarian (i.e.
    god-allah) to "get things" (i.e., promotion of god-allah
    as the ultimate Santa Claus, but with a temper, so
    you better do as your religious leaders say or you
    won't "get things"),

    and

  • condemnation of activities apart from those sympa-
    thetic to religions of like-minded ideologies.