That said, I'm against many of the historical implications of marriage. Primarily the way that it's been used to control people (women, mostly, but men at times, too) and how it's oft been about a family alliance/contract, instead of about love.
I don't think that signing something is anywhere near as important as wanting to be with the other person for the rest of one's life. My point is that I think the legality/religious components are far secondary to the couple's declarations themselves; that I want you to be with me always and that I am yours, completely.
If that's what both people are saying, then I'm for it. If they're signing papers in order to make things "official", because they feel they're somehow obligated, I'm not. In such matters, the heart rules far over any governmental or church institution. I don't care for their opinion as to whom I may love.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-09-21 11:15 am (UTC)That said, I'm against many of the historical implications of marriage. Primarily the way that it's been used to control people (women, mostly, but men at times, too) and how it's oft been about a family alliance/contract, instead of about love.
I don't think that signing something is anywhere near as important as wanting to be with the other person for the rest of one's life. My point is that I think the legality/religious components are far secondary to the couple's declarations themselves; that I want you to be with me always and that I am yours, completely.
If that's what both people are saying, then I'm for it.
If they're signing papers in order to make things "official", because they feel they're somehow obligated, I'm not.
In such matters, the heart rules far over any governmental or church institution. I don't care for their opinion as to whom I may love.
That is my point.