A proposition:

[Just_A_Guy]

Marriage is not (or should not be) based solely, or even primarily, on romantic "love".

Agree, or disagree?

Why?

[Roseslipper]

tell us how u feel about this im curious?? im not married i finally give up on it, unless Heavenly Father brings it my way. I'm to old and closer to death. Its probably better to wait now.. my good years are gone.

[Vort]

I agree. However, as a westerner and, specifically, an American, it sort of goes against the grain to say so.

Marriage is primarily a social construct between adults of the opposite sex that is defined and recognized in order to allow society to exist by providing a framework for building a family in which children can find safety and learn how to function in society. What we call "romantic love" is a natural byproduct of the institution of marriage and is found in many marriages, but is not the basis or even a necessary precondition of marriage.

[MrShorty]

May need to define terms. What do you mean by "romantic love"?

Dr. Harley's marriage builder/His Needs Her Needs approach is all about creating and maintaining romantic love. If we use his idea of what love is, then I would say that we want to build our marriages on romantic love.

Dr. Chapman in his Five Love Languages book spends a significant time talking about the difference between true love and the "infatuation" or "in love" phase most romantic relationships go through. His point is that this "in love" feeling is temporary (lasting several months to maybe 2 years), and will not provide a good basis for long term, committed marriages. He still talks about a "love tank" that our actions fill and/or withdraw from, so I think he still wants to base marriage on "love". He just acknowledges that this long term love is not the same thing as the infatuation we know from early in a relationship.

As I've created my own picture of what "romantic love" looks like in marriage, I envision a blending of the different "types" of love that we usually talk about. Charity is necessary for forgiveness, tolerance, service, sacrifice (in healthy doses), etc. But charity alone is not romantic love.

Brotherly love is also a necessary element in romantic love. From brotherly love we get shared experiences ("remember that one Christmas when") and shared history. shared goals and lifestyle. But brotherly love alone is not romantic love.

Eros is also necessary for romantic love (even before marriage, though the expression of the erotic needs to be tempered and controlled). The erotic is where we really talk about the exclusivity that is important to monogamous romantic relationships. As I see it, the sexual/erotic is much of what makes marriage different from other relationships. You can and should feel charity for all men. You can share brotherly love with friends and family. The erotic is part of what makes a romantic relationship unique among our relationships.

This is the evolving picture of romantic love that I feel is a good foundation for marriage. It is much more than infatuation or the "in love" experience that start out most romantic relationships. It is not necessarily an easy picture of love to maintain, because it involves effort on the part of both parties to maintain. It involves choices to love, show love, and receive love.

[Vort]

Marriage is not (or should not be) based solely, or even primarily, on romantic "love".

Agree, or disagree?

Why?

I agree. However, as a westerner and, specifically, an American, it sort of goes against the grain to say so.

Marriage is primarily a social construct between adults of the opposite sex that is defined and recognized in order to allow society to exist by providing a framework for building a family in which children can find safety and learn how to function in society. Only in the intercourse between the sexes (physical and social) is society possible -- at least, any society I care to be a part of. What we call "romantic love" is a natural byproduct of the institution of marriage and is found in many marriages, but is not the basis or even a necessary precondition of marriage.

[Gretchen]

disagree. My neighbors are from Bangladesh, and it is common for people to have arranged marriages there (and in India). India and Bangladesh both have very high domestic violence rates.

I guess I wouldn't be so against it if it wasn't for that.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Gretchen
thoughts

[prisonchaplain]

I disagree. I consider AGAPE to be a romance. God designed us to love our spouses. When the children are gone, there'd better be more than, "Who's picking up...oh wait, they're gone now..." to keep us together.

[Anddenex]

The keyword, for my opinionated answer,is "solely" and I would agree that a marriage should not be solely based upon romance.

Marriage should primarily be based upon "love" and romance doesn't always equate with love. I like Jeffrey R. Hollands talk a few years back when he asked us to ask ourselves "how do I love thee"? I am also reminded of Fiddler on the Roof when the husband asks if his wife loves him, and everything she mentioned was not romantic. In the end it was solidified, "I suppose I do."

Should romance be apart of a marriage, sure. Yet, I think the question is loaded JAG because we all may have a different definition of what "romance" is.

[pam]

Since this thread is about marriage and the title is "A proposition," I will have to respectfully (for Mrs. JAG) say no. :)

Edited October 15, 2013 by pam

[Guest]

Maybe you should give pam a preposition instead.

[Backroads]

In this day and age and (Western) society?

Disagree.

I think most people could be quite capable of taking care of themselves, by themselves, without any real need for a domestic partner.

[Just_A_Guy]

Maybe you should give pam a preposition instead.

Of?

[classylady]

I believe that most everyone in the human race yearns for that "special someone". Notice, I did not say "soul mate". I believe there are a lot of people out there we could be compatible with, and make a marriage work. But, a good marriage, to me, is more than just being friends and having respect for each other. I want that special bond of attraction, along with the friendship and respect. There are many men out there that I "love", but would never want to be married to them. I was "in love" with a lot of the guys I dated, but after awhile that "in love" feeling faded, and I didn't choose to marry them. Yet, at the same time, that "in love" feeling is so wonderful. It's hard to explain exactly. And, even I, in retrospect, wonder why I eventually chose my DH, and not one of the other good men that I dated. I suppose marriage to one of them would have worked too. Sometimes, it just boils down to timing, choices, promises, and devotion to the one you choose to marry.

Not all arranged marriages are great. In countries where women are little more than property, they have little choice, but to stay in abusive marriages.

[Lakumi]

In this day and age and (Western) society?

Disagree.

I think most people could be quite capable of taking care of themselves, by themselves, without any real need for a domestic partner.

agreed, I am alone and do just fine, and plan for my future (close and far) as if I am still alone.

But when you're socially inept and a general loner you pretty much have to.

I'd never marry unless I loved the person, don't see the point otherwise. But it also boils down to could be tolerate one another. I've never met a person I can truly tolerate being around for a long time.

[Dravin]

Is it cheating to quote The Family: A Proclamation?

Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.

To not cheat I'm going to have to play the philosopher and ask you to define your terms. What exactly is contained in the concept of romantic love? I'm not trying to be a pain in the butt (well, that's not my only motivation :) ), but a large part of what I consider to be a foundational touchstone for a marriage is a shared purpose and commitment, is that covered under romantic love? Is it considered to be something separate even if heavily influenced by romantic love? Also, when you talk about marriage being based on X, do you mean the selection of partners? Or are you considering it in a more holistic sense?

Edited October 15, 2013 by Dravin

[Guest]

Christian Love is one's all encompassing desire to bring another person to Christ.

I love my sons in the same manner I love my husband in the same manner I love my parents in the same manner I love a neighbor with this Christlike love.

Marriage, therefore, is when two people covenant to love in this Christlike way for each other throughout the eternities.

Romantic love is then a result of this promise which can then be expressed through physical demonstrations.

Christlike love is the pre-requisite. Romantic love is the by-product. This is the foundation of a Family.

When Romantic Love exists without the fulfillment of the covenant made by Christlike love, a vital component is missing and it is therefore not marriage material but something which is fickle and is the cause of most divorces.

When Christlike love exists - this is enough for a marriage. Romantic love is for sure to follow.

[prisonchaplain]

I don't disagree with the disciplines of Christian living. And, yes, they do show our love. However, the Christian walk should not be mere cardio. It should be romantic. My heart should follow hard after God. In that vein, romance is the foundation of marriage--100%.

[Guest]

I don't disagree with the disciplines of Christian living. And, yes, they do show our love. However, the Christian walk should not be mere cardio. It should be romantic. My heart should follow hard after God. In that vein, romance is the foundation of marriage--100%.

And here I am sure again that romantic has a different meaning for you and me.

I've seen too many successful arranged marriages - romance follows the covenant - that leads me to believe romance is a by-product, not the foundation of Christlike love.

Romance in my usage is the need for physical manifestations of love. I've seen successful marriages where the bride and groom met a week before the wedding. And I've seen Filipino marriages that end up in legal separation because of one spouse's lack of Christlike love yet the other spouse continues to love with this steady and constant Christlike love for the other person continually helping the other to come back to Christ. This Christlike love is so steady and all encompassing that the "sins" of the other person is not enough to douse it.

And then there's my husband who has that Christlike love for me - steady and constant even through the times when we go through all the difficult phases that romance flies the coop.

Edited October 15, 2013 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

I've been asked a couple of times to define what I meant by "romantic love". Honestly, I'm not really sure. If it helps, the catalysts for my starting this thread were twofold:

1) Another thread here where it was suggested (or at least, I interpreted some posts there as suggesting) that a new husband's lack of full disclosure regarding his health and ability to sire children, might be grounds to terminating the relationship--regardless of whether the parties actually "loved" each other;

2) A discussion with a sister-in-law today about gay marriage versus other controversial forms of marriage, and the notion that just because two parties "love" each other means they should automatically be permitted to enter into a state-sanctioned matrimonial union.

Putting LDS notions of sealing and D&C 132 (and maybe even conventional Christian theological arguments) aside: From a primarily secular/sociological point of view, why should we get married? Why should we stay married? Are the motives for two individuals entering into such a relationship, worth the trouble and expense of state imprimatur?

Edited October 15, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

Anatess, everything you are saying is right. Nevertheless, whether the "romance" of marriage comes before the formal union, or after--it must come. Otherwise, it's a shadow of what God intended. Maybe foundation is a bad word. Romance is certainly essential though.

[Guest]

Anatess, everything you are saying is right. Nevertheless, whether the "romance" of marriage comes before the formal union, or after--it must come. Otherwise, it's a shadow of what God intended. Maybe foundation is a bad word. Romance is certainly essential though.

Yes romance is essential, Christlike love required.

[Dravin]

From a primarily secular/sociological point of view, why should we get married?

Because it will provide a personal benefit, happiness, economic, social, legal, and probably some others if I put more thought into it. This is talking about the individual decisions rather than the societal support of marriage (in some form). "Why should we get married?" is a much different question than, "Why should society have/allow marriage?" Though the answer is similar, it provides a benefit, or perceived benefit (as determining actual benefits can be tricky).

What perceived benefits you may ask? Depends on the culture I answer. If we're talking about the US then we're talking about a culture that is rather heavily underlain by Christianity and I think you are going to see bleed through of the why and benefits of marriage. It certainly isn't 1:1 but I'd say it is there on a level that is large enough to influence the basic assumptions.

Why should we stay married?

It feels like there is a bit of an assumption in this question that we should stay married. From the individual perspective, when it continues to provide benefit (or perceived benefit).

Are the motives for two individuals entering into such a relationship, worth the trouble and expense of state imprimatur?

Are you asking if it's worth it for the state to consider the motives of those getting married before it gives it's official stamp of approval? I would think that depends on how motives interact with perceived benefit and to what degree that is so.