Why Marriage means freedom.

in Scholar and Scribe4 months ago (edited)

Lionel_Logue_1906.jpg

In the text below, I build up the case for "Marriage means freedom". Please, challenge me, I welcome every debate which offers me to see my weak points. By having the weak points commented on, I can iron out such weaknesses in the further course in order to improve my arguments. Now, let's begin the case.

The fact that it can be "any belief" that you adhere to is what we are experiencing.

Since my life is short and I have no time to run after "any belief", I learned to look at those principles, I've already got brought to me through my very culture. Which is Christian.

If you have a rule, meaning a principle, then there are always serious exceptions to this rule.

But if you now elevate the exception to the rule as a rule,

nothing remains of the rule. You destroy it. In other words, you take less serious reasons but want to make them look as if they weigh heavily.

Take the commandment "Thou shalt not kill".

The exception to this rule would be, as we know, if you acted in immediate self-defense because a murderer was about to kill both you and others in your house. To protect your life and theirs, you kill him. Still, the rule does not say "You are allowed to kill", it says plainly "Don't kill."

Stating the obvious

It would be foolish to define "self-defense" as a rule, because then it would say: "You shall kill in self-defence".

Firstly, this is obviously a strange formulation and would therefore not be a commandment but a permission (which refers to the actual principle of not killing); secondly, such a sentence does not allow for an exception of its own. Which would be "other reasons than self defense", and there you have it: There is no other legitimate reason to kill.

Therefore, the principle "Do not kill" (unless there is absolutely no way out and you are under immediate threat) is correct.

To soften the rigour of this principle would be to make more and more exceptions seem absolutely necessary, while being dishonest about the necessity.
That would be like sawing the legs off a table. Calling its "legs" a "table".

The same applies to a couple's relationship.

This is going to be the main theme of this text.

If you say that you want to honour your husband or wife until death do you part, but then your husband or your wife commits acts of such severety that remaining in the marriage would do huge harm to both of you, you'd need a way out. Anyone with a reasonable mindset would understand that the exception of this rule is needed.

You don't say that "I will be with you until I will no longer love you" or "untill quarrel does us apart" or "untill I become bored of you".

If you don't make a vow in the first place,

and you miss to make it in the further course, you will, logically as it is, choose or be with a man or woman out of lesser reasons, more unclear than clear. You might as well get together out of excitement or wanting to escape another situation, you name it.

Any reason might sound nice or appealing and since "anything goes" it includes frivolous respective whimsical impulses. If no clear principle is set before the bond then you end up with what we've got today on a broad scale. Since anything can be taken as a reason to marry, anything can be taken to break up.

"Anything" represents exceptions.

It lays a blanket over the very principle and makes it disappear. It elevates the exception to a rule. You can observe it in your own breakups as well as in the breakups of other couples who, in order to justify their separation, exploit the very principle by which they did not come together, yet - funnily enough - use it all the while in order to have an excuse for ending a relationship.

After all, nobody tells his friends or parents: "Oh, we separated just so, out of no particular reason." Which, in case one came together for a lesser reason then the willingness to form a lifelong commitment, would be the truth. The second best truth would be to say: "I actually don't know why we came together."

The principle serves as a principal because in the moment you commit yourself to it, you mean it in full spirit and a heartfelt state of being. You mean it, here and now, no matter what (will come). But if you don't mean it here and now, then you think of a future of exception and want to have a back door. Then the sentence actually must sound like this: "I will honour you depending on the matter." But where is the honour?

A pact doesn't work that way.

No commitment works in advance with back doors already in mind (and equally bad: with nothing in mind). The language in which it operates tightens you to the most important promise which you are able to give. Because it is difficult to give, you give it and not because it is easy to give. For easy given things you don't need a vow.
A vow aims straightly at what people say when they tell you that you shall choose your man or woman wisely.

Otherwise, one would say "Pick your spouse because you feel lonely" (excited, thrilled, flattered, sexy etc.). But do you know anyone who does say so? They all are going to tell you "Do it out of love." But love remains a mere word when you don't connect it to the very ideal - the foundation - on which love stands.

Since it came out of habit to utter those words to each other as well as in the presence of witnesses, expectations were lowered. Insecurities elevated. Now, feeling insecure means being uncertain. Being uncertain (is he/she the right one?) leads to postpone a promise and having a relationship "just so" without its promise and in avoidance of marriage.

Avoiding marriage avoids the official act of the covenant, it avoids a sincere strong commitment, spoken out loud. It supports weakness. Though one may utter them superficially as if they were sincere (you know very well when that happens).

Is it not very interesting that uttering a commitment of that kind "to honor you until death does us apart" produces unease?

Now, that is its very function. You shall feel uneasy imagining that if you'd say it out loud and you would not fully stand behind it, that this produces discomfort. The discomfort is a friend. It whispers the truth.

If you are a fan of "any belief", not saying it at all is the way out, is it not?

The tricky mind finds excuses for the very avoidance of uttering the vow,
doesn't it? It lies about its significance. It tells you: "It's out-dated. It's old fashion." As if this was a reasonable argument.
It argues: "But isn't marriage an evil invention of bigots?", "Does it not imprison man and woman? What about free love? Is man not a biological being and therefor also an animal in its urges?"

It goes so far as to say that religion is the very root of evil in "making people to stick together with no escape", which then is presented as "marriage as a prison".

Completely ignoring the fact that marriage - commonly - has never been a prison from which there was no escape,

but that if someone wanted and wants to escape a horrendous marriage, that is exactly what was and is being done. Now, what this mind desires is to escape without any costs.

Such mind insists on the lie that the exception - bad men beat up (abuse, betray, neglect etc. etc.) their wives - is the norm and not, which is the truth, that the norm is good men who love and want to protect their wives; but it is consistently presented upside down.

Now, that is the trick of a mind which wants to avoid commitment,

which avoids to acknowledge the finest rule because it wants to be spared the inconveniences of such rule. But still, appears very likely to become a judge itself once its sensation gets aroused.

For the very same mind will become enraged when its spouse is committing adultery and will accuse the other of being "dishonest and a liar" ("toxic", as they say today). This mind will either scream or cry, accuse hotly or coldly, but it will accuse. It will advise someone else who accuses her husband or his wife of "being hurtful" to "let her bleed" and "let him pay".

"The tragedy of love is in love, not in marriage."

There is not unhappy marriage that might not be an equally unhappy concubinage, or a far more unhappy seduction. Whether the tie be legal or no, matters something to the faithless party; it matters nothing to the faithful one.

G. K. Chesterton

This leads to look at the involved ones. When none of the two enters their relationship in the spirit of the ideal, why should they complain and suffer in case they decide to separate? What valid reason shall they name?

They can't name one. Because they did not mean it sincerely in the first place. So, producing a drama out of something which was build on lesser things than the ideal is hypocrisy.

Why do you think a Christian marriage is subject to an oath

and on top of that you want witnesses to the marriage to be present?

Why is it given so much importance?
If you make a vow under witnesses, then it is those who were present when you made the vow who, should you doubt your marriage, feel weak or speak ill of the other person, shall remind you of your pact.

This is their role. They made the commitment to take a special place in the lives of the couple as witnesses, which is why there are four of them. They are the first insurance in case he or she struggles with a conflict in the relationship.

The community, all relatives and friends, are the second insurance.

Each of them will have a judgement that if the spouses separate, only a very serious reason will be accepted by them as a separation. We all know exactly what these reasons are. So if you break the marriage and you don't have a severe case, everyone is entitled to shame you.

The shaming is justified,

because why should it fail to materialise when the vow has been broken? But no one will shame you if there are very serious reasons for someone to leave their husband or wife.

For this reason alone, adultery is considered inexcusable. If it comes to light that one has betrayed the other, both the person who actively committed the betrayal and the person who acted as a seducer give legitimate reason to shame them and to make them suffer the consequences.

The fact that such shaming may not take place

from witnesses, community or friends is when none of those involved took the marriage seriously at all, including the married couple itself.

In such cases, the most honest thing to do is to save yourself the artificial drama and admit that none of it was really for a serious reason and let the grass grow over it, so never speak of it again, nor hold any grudges against each other. Make better sure not waste many years over it.

So where the ideal played no role in the first place, it would be unnecessary and presumptuous to labour the point of shame.

You are not entitled to shame someone if you yourself don't believe in an oath.

But of course, it could happen that others may shame you, for they took their oaths to their heart.

But we can basically save ourselves any gossip, because if marriages are entered into frivolously, then confusion is pre-programmed and the drama is a consequence of this confusion. But drama here is not the result of an oath being broken. Where none has ever been made, none can be violated. So for this reason, marriage - undergone in this way - always has no highest significance, but only low significance, if at all.

Why marriage is being held in low esteem has the plain reason that such minds who hold it low, forgot about love.

Of course, if you already know all this,

then you can come clean to any man or woman you want to have sex with.

You could say that when you spend time together, it's not a serious thing for either of you, that there are no plans to check each other out from the point of view of a potential husband or wife.

You can then say: We'll spend time together until we don't feel like it anymore. We don't want children, we don't want to swear to be faithful to each other, and we don't want to make any kind of commitment to each other apart from the one condition that we find each other attractive. If we no longer appeal to each other, then we separate. Is that a deal?

This would also mean that if someone falls ill, if their life goes through a hard phase, if someone from your inner circle dies, you can't expect anything from such "partner in favor". The other person doesn't need to bring you a cup of tea in bed, does not need to help you through a crisis, does not need to come to a funeral or help you out financially.

To expect such things would be downright dishonest. As soon as things are no longer fun and easy with you, he or she has every right to walk away - just so. That is only logical. For you did not receive any strong promise.

Now, if that sounds all nice and groovy, go for it.

If no commitment is the thing, then don't commit.

But if you expect, against all better judgement, that a hedonistic alliance includes "love me and accompany me through thick and thin" (because, quite honestly and most likely, you can't help it), you begin to realise just how hypocritical you can be.

Now then, if there are people who manage to pull off this honest act and both handle it properly so as not to leave the other in the dark, they may do it. This would always be preferable to getting involved with each other without even knowing why.

But if I were to place a bet on how many alliances of this kind are formed, I would say it would be one in a million. Everyone else has expectations of each other. And why shouldn't they?

For me personally, I have made it clear that

marriage means enormous freedom.

By taking the oath of marriage, I save myself thousands of hours of headaches and heartaches, I free myself from the misery of insecurity, I feel protected by my husband and I no longer have any reason to complain about trivialities that my unstable ego is not able to cope with.

If I find someone other than my husband attractive, I can be happy about it, safe in the knowledge that although this kind of affection is nice, I am free from having to polish up my occasionally insecure self-image. I don't send ambiguous messages, I allow myself to be plain happy about compliments and yet I don't need to go any further than that.

I free myself from jealousy, as the vow of fidelity stands between every temptation that unquestionably overtakes every man and woman countless times. To live under the principle of the marital vow and call it a "yoke" or "prison" is a profound lack of understanding and the inversion of the exception into the rule.
This, this distortion of the truth, is the real prison for love.

Any discomfort that is initially triggered by the marriage vow, but then overcome, is light-hearted.

But where it is neither said, felt nor thought, it cannot unfold its power. Placing oneself under this protection creates free men and women who, when they have children, are able to exemplify free love. The Christian thing about it is that such a free spirit is very well able to recognise eccentric views of life as a contrast and does not fight them, but merely rejects them clearly for itself. Which is a difference.

The non-combat is misconstrued as weakness, but for the one who tries to present marriage as unnecessary, bigoted and ridiculous, it is a losing battle. Only the mind who admits its own values are lost finds itself threatened by those who uphold them.

If you love in such a way that you bind yourself forever, then you are free.

Because only the forever bond frees you as a man and as a woman. As paradoxical as that may sound.


Picture sources:

By Unknown author - The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/talking-cure/story-e6frg8n6-1225954189012), Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12362136

Von William Adolphe Bouguereau - 1. Ursprung unbekannt2. Metropolitan Museum of Art, online collection (Met Objekt Kunstwerkkennung 435753), Gemeinfrei, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=59268

By Lippo Vanni - http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/v/vanni_l/index.html, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3898071

By Richter, Gustav Karl Ludwig, 1823-1884 (artist); L. Prang & Co. (publisher) - Flickr: Odalisque, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16021542


Other sources:
https://unsecretogigantesco.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/The-G.-K.-Chesterton-Collection-50-Books-PDFDrive.com-.pdf

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verlobung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinage

Sort:  

I appreciate you letting me know you published this post.

"Thou shalt not kill"

I believe this is a mistranslation. It should not read 'kill', because human being need to kill to live. Every bite of food we eat is a corpse. The word should be murder. Thou shalt not murder doesn't turn the act of eating into a sin. Neither does it make defending yourself from murderers, rapists, or thieves into a sin.

Marriage has been legally destroyed. It is very clear that marriage was perhaps one of the first forms of contract, and we see that reams of contract law pertain to commercial contracts, but the marriage contract no longer is legally enforceable, because there is 'no fault' divorce. Someone married can divorce for any reason, or none at all, at least in the USA. So, citing a reason for divorce, such as adultery, isn't relevant. It's much worse than that, although that alone destroys marriage.

In the USA, and I believe across the West, women are granted almost unfettered power in divorce to strip men of assets, take their children, and receive payment after the divorce. The reason for the valuable rings are to provide widows or divorced women funds. The rings are no longer enough, and have become purely symbolic in the minds of most, because of spousal support (alimony), and child support that men, almost exclusively, are ordered to pay their former spouses after a divorce.

Men are legally extremely disadvantaged by marriage for all these reasons, and these aren't accidental, but implemented to destroy marriage for political reasons. Destroying marriage destroys family, and family is an extremely powerful economic mechanism that enables society to function. The state, the church, and the corporation all prefer that power inure to their institutions, so all have political reasons to destroy the family, and we can see that all these institutions are actively promoting policies that destroy family and marriage.

Thanks!

Thank you for commenting.

It's not a translation error, but an interpretation error, in my opinion. Just as it is obvious that one kills in self-defence, it is equally obvious that we kill animals and plants in order to eat. "Murder" is therefore the correct interpretation of the term. I assume that the word "murder" is younger than the word "kill". Anyone who deliberately wants to misinterpret it will of course do so.

Marriage has not been legally destroyed in my country, but the love between man and woman has degenerated into a triviality worldwide in modern societies.

The covenant between a man and a woman is much more than a contract, it is a moral vow that consequently entailed both practical elements and legal provisions. Until about a century and a half ago, this was entirely justified, as marriages generally lasted until the end of their lives and only a few spouses separated. As a woman who did not participate in economic life outside the home, she needed protection in the event that her husband died or she had to separate for serious reasons. This protection was justly granted to her. If, like my mother, you gave birth to six children, there is no question that this entire period of bringing up children and being a housewife should be placed under the protection of the society. A widow's pension is appropriate in this sense.

In Germany, now, spousal alimony is calculated according to the number of years of marriage and the amount of income. This means that women have to pay alimony to men if their income was higher than that of their ex-husbands during marriage. However, this whole alimony issue can also be viewed differently, not from a legal point of view, but from the intimate aspects of the relationship itself, where the separating parties do not need to invoke the law if they do not wish to do so and can reach an agreement other than that provided for by law.

The chosen attitude refers to what I expressed in my text. If you marry carelessly and do not take an oath, then you separate just as carelessly and the "not guilty" is merely the logical decision of such careless marriages (by turning things upside down and not choosing wisely who to take as wife or husband).
By recklessly abandoning Christian values, we are partly responsible for the exceptions becoming the rule. It is easy to recognise that people who have not taken a vow behave dishonestly during and after separation and argue in an unduly dramatic way, but, as I have tried to say, this cannot be justified in a morally coherent way.

Marriage, as it was viewed in pre-modern times, was most probably always seen from the point of view of starting a family. Where children were the result of the union of man and woman as a matter of course and therefore the woman, the man and the children were a unit that secured each other's existence. Failed marriages and separated family members could be absorbed, as they were able to reintegrate into their families of origin. Only those who commonly could not show a severe case for their separation remained ashamed or spurned. At least, that was my parents generation in general. The majority of them were together until death did them apart. I think though, that because we were no modern peoples (Russian-Germans) that was the case. Within only one generation it shifted.

The church or the government cannot restore marriage if it is not the people themselves who want it restored. If the call for a return to the values of marriage, fidelity and serious commitment is not heard loud and clear everywhere, other things will be heard and listened to. Interestingly enough, the policy in Hungary supports families and children. I must look up the legalities.

This issue of marriage is dramatically underestimated and under published, in my eyes, and that's why I'm writing about it and want to see it spread. We now really know enough about what institutions want, but we need confidence and voices that are believed to mean what they say or write.

I agree that men and fathers were and are at a disadvantage compared to women in many ways. I have no doubt that women do not exist as "the weaker sex".

"This issue of marriage is dramatically underestimated and under published..."

I could not more strongly agree.

Thank you. Can I ask you to re-blog my post?

Done

I'm not an expert on marriages, so maybe it is good to take that into consideration when reading my answer.

There are things that I agree with and there are some others than I don't.

I don't think marriage will free oneself of unpleasant emotions like jealously or insecurities. That's still an inner work that one has to do with oneself, or so I think. Being married will not make one not feel feelings.

Sometimes, one feels insecure or jealous or angry, or whatever, and it is not because of the other person, but because something inside us that we have to work with.

So, I would say that, more than marriage itself, it is the love that must accompany it that can have that liberating effect on the lover.

Because love - and this is my way of looking at love so you may disagree - when it is real, it is detached, it is not as if two people are tied to each other, but as if they are bond together. Then they can feel free and loved.

If you love in such a way that you bind yourself forever, then you are free.

Lovely way to end.

Thank you for commenting. I welcome your agreement as well as your disagreement a lot :)

I would look at it the other way round. If someone doesn't want to recognise marriage as something that is capable of freeing him from the rigours of insecurity and jealousy through its special character, he probably won't find that it protects him from them either. If you understand marriage as the smallest unit in a state, in which the highly personal experiences the greatest possible space for individual idiosyncrasies - as a state within a state - everything that can shake the marriage (jealousy, insecurity, etc.) becomes an opportunity to recognise the pact in spirit as insurance against such disturbances. Contact takes place on the outer boundary of marriage. And since there are things in every human life that tempt, unsettle and cause doubt, recalling the marital covenant and the promise made is important at such times.

Love itself can grow through the officially entered into covenant, because romantic love and erotic love are limited in nature and what remains in the cohabitation of two people when romance and eroticism lose their power, which they inevitably do, is to feel satisfied without these elements in a marriage.

I can let another person be free if they know that they have my loyalty. So I would say that for young, as yet unmarried people, marriage initially exists only as a potential, but for men and women who have been together for many years and have lived through the phases of uncertainty and doubt, the potential has unfolded the moment their marriage has been placed on such touchstones and taken further. Love is the will to deal honestly with oneself and marriage is the training ground in which this is most optimally possible. People who have difficulties with love are given the opportunity through the relationship to experience the loyalty of the other person and can perhaps only be enabled to love fully once they have experienced this in depth for the first time.

Marriage and love are therefore mutually dependent, I would think. There are phases in which a man may not love his wife very much and vice versa, in which case the marital bond is the supporting element. I think loving is an art. It's not something that just stays that way and exists all by itself. Love is something that has to be constantly renewed, because people are constantly changing.

I do agree with you in many things. But I don't think one can control what one feels, not be free of feelings so easily. One can decide to make a vow and stick to it for life, that's under our control. But for it to be able to not feels feelings it is completely another thing. Or at least that's how I see it.

There is a saying in Spanish that goes "El corazón tiene razones que la razón no conoce" (The heart has reasons that reason does not know).

The heart it's a very complex part of us, no matter how much one tries and say "I don't like this feeling, so I don't wanna feel it" or "This feeling is so irrational, I want to stop it" it doesn't matter. Or also, "I love this feeling, I want to feel always like this." It's very difficult for our rational part of us to control the sentimental part. Feelings can be irrational sometimes. Or appear irrational when they are not, too.

But surely you have more experience than me on this, so you probably know more. So be sure to spread your knowledge all around near me so that I can learn something or two about it. :)

Marriage and love are therefore mutually dependent, I would think.

Do you believe that every love relationship should end in marriage?

But I don't think one can control what one feels, not be free of feelings so easily.

Hm. I think that I have not spoken about something to be able to control ones feelings. You can't. That much shall be obvious. Once you feel jealousy or anger or sadness or joy, you feel it despite whatever relationship you're in. In fact, if one could not feel, then marriage would be obsolete, any relationship would be senseless.
A mature person accepts the emotions under which he comes and tries to live artfully through them. One form is the art of marriage. In other relationships, like for example between male comrades, it needs another form of handling. And so on. Marriage would be no training ground for lovers if feelings weren't there.

Do you believe that every love relationship should end in marriage?

If it is love, it is or will become marriage. Just because there is the official act (it is meant to be something for people on the whole to see that there are millions of married couples by a common form of language/symbolic acts, like in Christianity and other religions) it does not mean that you don't feel married already (by the acceptance of living out the highest ideal between man and woman).

So for me, marriage is the result of wanting to love fully.
To answer more concrete: No, not every relationship which one thought of it being love, need to end in marriage. There is an engagement period of several months, it can also last longer (but preferably not several years, that would break the rule), during which the opportunity should arise and be sought to get to know each other well. If it's still love after six or so months, then why not marrying?

My man married me before I married him ;)

Hm. I think that I have not spoken about something to be able to control ones feelings.

No, you're right, my mistake. But that's what came to my mind when you say that it frees yourself from jealously and of polish insecurities, etc.

But I do can see how can liberate oneself of a lot of concerns and anxiety on love relationships.

So for me, marriage is the result of wanting to love fully.

Interesting take. I must say that I have never thought of getting married myself, although I also don't dismiss the idea at all. What will be, will be.

:)

To answer with Chesterton:

Whether the tie be legal or no, matters something to the faithless party; it matters nothing to the faithful one.

The pathos reposes upon the perfectly simple fact that if any one deliberately provokes either passions or affections, he is responsible for them as long as they go on, as the man is responsible for letting loose a flood or setting fire to a city.

Does that mean that one must be responsible for the feelings of others that we provoke?

Sorry if I don't grasp it.

Because love - and this is my way of looking at love so you may disagree - when it is real, it is detached, it is not as if two people are tied to each other, but as if they are bond together. Then they can feel free and loved.

The question remains "When is love real?"
Since one falls into love, as it is, the reality of love needs to find a grip beyond the spontane character of falling in love. Love cannot be detached in my experience, it unfolds its potential within the tie as much as within the bond.

The moment when I feel tied is the moment when the other person gets the opportunity to make me feel the bond. Conversely, the moment I feel the bond, it is not a tie. But nevertheless, the bond co-exists alongside the tie. The two could be described as a "duty" and a "free choice", the one I have to do, the other I want to do. A marriage is never such that I always want to, but also have to.

Being bound to each other requires feeling attached. Since the two are always alternating, the times when marriage is more like a duty than a freedom are definitely a lived experience. The art is to be willing to change it when it appears too much of a tie into a bond.

The question remains "When is love real?"

One must know when love is real because one feel that way, one feel deep care and tender affection towards another person. It's not the mind who is gonna tell if it's love or not.

But I admit that I am very idealistic about it.

And I agree with you, but the way I see it, when you feel the bond, you are acting out of love. And when you feel the tie, you are acting out of other things, can be insecurities, I don't know. But because we are so confused about ourselves, and because we are so attached to that person that we don't wanna lose them, we do another things that have nothing to do with love, but because of fear, etc., and that's when it is a tie.

That is why I say it is detached. We must differentiate between what is born of love and what is born of something else.

But again, you probably know more than me.

Yes, that are good examples you gave. Here is another one:

Let's say that you love your mother.
Then she says or does something that you deeply detest. In those moments you do not feel tenderness and affection towards her but anger (disappointment, you name it).
The tender is the bond, the anger is the tie, yes. Both things happen, within the broad spectrum of acceptance and rejection. Love as an always lasting feeling in general is there, maybe that is what you mean by "detached"? But in particular it's not.
I have just more experience in man-woman-relationships since I am older ;)

Yes, I completely agree with you here.

What I mean by "detached" (maybe that was not the best word either), is that you feel good loving and don't need anything else. Whatever other desire arise like to control, etc., it's not out of love but out of another feelings. But, as we love that person, we think every desire we have about it, it is out of love.

But again, you have more experience than me, I agree on that.

Hallo, wie geht’s? @erh.germany !

I believe that marriage is only possible if there is a belief that each party must sacrifice for the other!

Danke, mir geht es gut :) (Thank you, I am fine) - how about you?

each party must sacrifice for the other

I believe that is true. Though I would ad in the same breath that what one sacrifices on one side, he or she gains on the other. I came to the conviction that marriage in the Christian sense (or similarly in co-existing religions) gives a relieving order to the lives of couples and sets them free to love fully, which, as a consequence, puts many other circumstances under its wings in daily life.

Danke, mir geht es Gut !

I agree with you!😃

Congratulations @erh.germany! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)

You distributed more than 11000 upvotes.
Your next target is to reach 12000 upvotes.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Check out our last posts:

Our Hive Power Delegations to the November PUM Winners