"Love"

[Ledifni]

Oh, no, you misunderstood my point.

I argued that, crushes ( "falling in love")aren't needed in marriage because that would mean every arranged marriage ever failed, except for maybe a few lucky ones. Not that we should have them.

Ok, that makes more sense. As I see it, arranged marriages often work because the couple develop a mature commitment and caring love towards one another. This, I would say, is fairly dependent on how well the matchmakers (whoever they may be) picked the couple. However, I don't see that a marriage completely devoid of love in any form could be successful.

But really, the difference between an arranged marriage and a marriage by choice is simply this: in the former, it is assumed that older and wiser heads will know who the person in question is likely to love and be happy with. In the latter, the person getting married feels that he/she is the expert on the matter. In reality, sometimes older and wiser heads choose well, and sometimes the couple themselves choose each other well. Ultimately, though, the success of the marriage rests on whether they learn to care for one another, regardless of who made the match to begin with.

 

[ChrisS]

Ok, that makes more sense. As I see it, arranged marriages often work because the couple develop a mature commitment and caring love towards one another. This, I would say, is fairly dependent on how well the matchmakers (whoever they may be) picked the couple. However, I don't see that a marriage completely devoid of love in any form could be successful.

But really, the difference between an arranged marriage and a marriage by choice is simply this: in the former, it is assumed that older and wiser heads will know who the person in question is likely to love and be happy with. In the latter, the person getting married feels that he/she is the expert on the matter. In reality, sometimes older and wiser heads choose well, and sometimes the couple themselves choose each other well. Ultimately, though, the success of the marriage rests on whether they learn to care for one another, regardless of who made the match to begin with.

Exactly, there something we can all agree on. Though imo, marriage isn't about hapiness. In all marriages there will be hardships. Many marriages break apart because they think it's all fun and games. But commitment is needed. As well as serving the other. However, God is also a big focus for christian relationships.

That's what I was saying. Though I do not struggle with lust, at least I'm fighting that battle hard. So I don't believe I have a need to marry. I'm already whole.

 

[Ledifni]

Exactly, there something we can all agree on. Though imo, marriage isn't about hapiness. In all marriages there will be hardships. Many marriages break apart because they think it's all fun and games. But commitment is needed. As well as serving the other. However, God is also a big focus for christian relationships.

That's what I was saying. Though I do not struggle with lust, at least I'm fighting that battle hard. So I don't believe I have a need to marry. I'm already whole.

I would agree that relationships (I prefer to use that term since I feel that marriage is only one of many ways that a couple can commit to one another) are not always light, joy, and happiness. However, I do think that happiness should be a very important goal. You may not always have it, but isn't happiness invariably preferable to misery?

 

[Freodin]

Yes, that's what I believe the love I descibed is, a crush. But many disagree with me. Self-sacrificing, commitment. That's love, though we should be that way towards everybody. That kind of love is needed in a marriage. However, love in the terms of a crush, is not needed.

Really I came here to see what you all think, and get some counter arguments to the belief that crushes are love.

I guess you think in simple solutions again.

Is infatuation "needed"? Well, is there anything that is needed? Why is your self-sacrificing kind of love needed in marriage?

Perhaps it is not, perhaps it is. Most likely, for some it is needed, for some it isn´t.

 

[Freodin]

Ok, that makes more sense. As I see it, arranged marriages often work because the couple develop a mature commitment and caring love towards one another. This, I would say, is fairly dependent on how well the matchmakers (whoever they may be) picked the couple. However, I don't see that a marriage completely devoid of love in any form could be successful.

But really, the difference between an arranged marriage and a marriage by choice is simply this: in the former, it is assumed that older and wiser heads will know who the person in question is likely to love and be happy with. In the latter, the person getting married feels that he/she is the expert on the matter. In reality, sometimes older and wiser heads choose well, and sometimes the couple themselves choose each other well. Ultimately, though, the success of the marriage rests on whether they learn to care for one another, regardless of who made the match to begin with.

What you describe would be the theoretical optimum. Reality looks different.

Chris stated in the OP something in the line of "love/infatuation is not needed, else everyone would have been unhappy before, which they were not".

True, not everyone was unhappy with arranged marriages. But were they all happy? Did all arranged marriages "work"? 9 out of 10? Or 5? Or 2? 1?

Simple solutions - that is the problem. In reality, older and wiser heads choose bad as often as they choose well. In reality, older and wiser heads choose influence, power and riches as often as what is good for the couple.

I agree, ultimately, it rests on the couple, to learn to live with each other. But only in hindsight is it possible to say if it worked or not - and sometimes not even then.

 

[ChrisS]

What you describe would be the theoretical optimum. Reality looks different.

Chris stated in the OP something in the line of "love/infatuation is not needed, else everyone would have been unhappy before, which they were not".

True, not everyone was unhappy with arranged marriages. But were they all happy? Did all arranged marriages "work"? 9 out of 10? Or 5? Or 2? 1?

Simple solutions - that is the problem. In reality, older and wiser heads choose bad as often as they choose well. In reality, older and wiser heads choose influence, power and riches as often as what is good for the couple.

I agree, ultimately, it rests on the couple, to learn to live with each other. But only in hindsight is it possible to say if it worked or not - and sometimes not even then.

Of course back then, they knew how to work a relationship, therefore it would work. The ideas we have today were un-heard of. Al that was required was commitment.

 

[ChrisS]

I would agree that relationships (I prefer to use that term since I feel that marriage is only one of many ways that a couple can commit to one another) are not always light, joy, and happiness. However, I do think that happiness should be a very important goal. You may not always have it, but isn't happiness invariably preferable to misery?

I don't know. My mother would always say, " One day I hope you will be happy." That day just hasn't come in her lifetime, or even yet. I've always lived in misery. There is of course, no reason to feel sorry for myself, as though I have never really been happy, I have been living a good life.

 

[Ledifni]

What you describe would be the theoretical optimum. Reality looks different.

I don't see how. The theoretical optimum would be a situation in which one always makes the best choice. As I see it, marriages can fail whether they're arranged or not. The marriage works if the couple learn to make it work, and any given way to choose one's mate may or may not work.

So how is what I described a theoretical optimum situation?

Simple solutions - that is the problem. In reality, older and wiser heads choose bad as often as they choose well. In reality, older and wiser heads choose influence, power and riches as often as what is good for the couple.

I agree, ultimately, it rests on the couple, to learn to live with each other. But only in hindsight is it possible to say if it worked or not - and sometimes not even then.

That's essentially exactly what I was trying to get across -- that there is no "right" way to choose your mate and that any method may fail. What is "necessary" depends on what the couple wants and needs. Some couples may not care for love, and prefer financial stability. Others may feel they need love in their marriage. It depends on the couple.

My point is simply that you cannot classify arranged marriages as "loveless" and marriages by choice as "loving," because that's only your way to choose a mate -- it has little to nothing to do with whether it works out in the end, IMO.

In any case, I take exception to the idea that one can know at the start of a relationship whether it will "work," and that this knowledge is somehow obtained by using the proper method to choose your mate. In my experience, one constantly learns new things about one's partner and relationship through the course of it, and those new things continuously change the dynamics of the relationship and the likelihood that it will "work."

That is to say, when you start a relationship all you know is that you'd like it to work (unless you were forced into it and simply don't want it, that is -- which brings up the side point that, IMO, arranged marriages are unlikely to work out if the couple disagrees with that method of choosing matches). You don't know whether it will work out until it doesn't work out or you die. That is in part why I do not ever intend to vow that I will be with somebody forever. I don't think that's a vow I can honestly take.

But back to the original subject -- is there something I said with which you disagree? If so, please enlighten me, because I don't see it.

 

[Ledifni]

Of course back then, they knew how to work a relationship, therefore it would work. The ideas we have today were un-heard of. Al that was required was commitment.

Well, Chris, it is clearly not true that all arranged marriages worked out in past centuries. There were quite as many problems in marriages then as there are now. I think what you're seeing is that marriages rarely ended in divorce -- but instead, a couple that was not happy would stay together because they had no choice but go outside of the marriage for the relationships they wanted. For example, mistresses were once far more common than they are now, because these days, if a man isn't happy, he can get a divorce without the need for a mistress.

 

[Ledifni]

I don't know. My mother would always say, " One day I hope you will be happy." That day just hasn't come in her lifetime, or even yet. I've always lived in misery. There is of course, no reason to feel sorry for myself, as though I have never really been happy, I have been living a good life.

And do you think that because you haven't found happiness, you should not ever find it? I can think of no better way to ensure that you will always live in misery. I think happiness is still something to strive for even if you've never had it.

 

[ChrisS]

And do you think that because you haven't found happiness, you should not ever find it? I can think of no better way to ensure that you will always live in misery. I think happiness is still something to strive for even if you've never had it.

There are no people I know, that I find happiness in. No jokes the bring me hapiness. No sports, no nothing. Therefore I strive to serve God, as there is nothing else for me to do. Though I do know there are people out there who can bring me happiness, there just aren't any here where I live, that I know. Definately know one I would want to marry. There is no girl who I would like to marry.

 

[Lokisdottir]

There are no people I know, that I find happiness in. No jokes the bring me hapiness. No sports, no nothing. Therefore I strive to serve God, as there is nothing else for me to do. Though I do know there are people out there who can bring me happiness, there just aren't any here where I live, that I know. Definately know one I would want to marry. There is no girl who I would like to marry.

Geez, man. No wonder you don't believe in romantic love.

 

[ebia]

Maybe we need to step back a bit and clarify the assumptions. So, two question:

1. What is the purpose (or purposes) of marrage?

2. How do you measure whether a marrage is succesful?