To Marry or Not to Marry?

Everybody has been single at some point of their lives regardless if they got married and it lasted "forever". We were single when we were born, through our childhoods, and before or after marriage. So we all know what single life is like. Some people love it and continue to refuse the thought of marriage. They will argue the points of divorce, compromise, heartache, deceptions, monetary hassles, and silly idealism. Other people can not see the happiness or fulfilment in single life. They long for a lifemate, a spouse, someone to call "family" and "home". They will get married and do their best to make "forever" happen. And then there are some like me who are on the fence about this idealistic romantic notion: marriage? The one? The only? The one and only?

I was inspired to write this article on love and marriage not because I agree that they go together "like a horse and carriage" but because I was just watching an old rerun episode of "Ally McBeal" and there were some heavy duty questions proposed about superficiality, marriage, prostitution, and hypocrisy. In a courtroom, the lawyer was defending a prostitute. Her profession is against the law in most states. Whether one agrees with the defense attorney's arguing points or not, I ask "Why is it illegal in most states?" Is it because it's immoral or is it because it's dangerous? I think dangerous is the reason for it coming up as illegal. Nobody puts a woman (or man) in jail for promiscuity. Therefore the law against prostitution is not for morality. There have been many depictions in shows and movies about prostitutes. Nobody seems upset about it unless the depiction shows a woman (or man) getting beat up or murdered. Then it becomes a problem. Then it's "wrong" because it's not "right" to treat people like that. Like that? Like what? A thing that has no feelings? A thing that you can buy? Are people safe being treated like merchandise that can be purchased and discarded? I think not, hence that is why prostitution is illegal in most states.

As I ponder romance, marriage, prostitution, hypocrisy, and typical human behavior, I can not decide whether it is "nobler" to marry or not to marry. The fat man was engaged to the fat woman until he suddenly felt butterflies thinking about love with someone else. He decides to break off the engagement and hold out for "the one" instead of settling for "the only". His fiance (understandably disappointed) says to Ally, "People like us" don't get to be with the ideal mate. She's explaining that those romantic sensibilities are only for the rich and beautiful, not regular people and especially not fat or ugly or poor people. Is that true? Shrek and Fiona seemed to really love each other even though they were both ogres. Well, that is just a fairy tale... But maybe?

But the show digs even deeper than our fairy tale happy ending hopes. It dives into our hypocrisy as women and men. It's not okay for a man to like a woman based on her looks, but it is okay for a woman to use her looks in an interview with a man to promote her career? It's not legal for a woman to sell her body as a prostitute, but it is perfectly normal for a woman to only consider a man for marriage if he has lots of money? Things that make me go hmmmmm? It's not just a double standard, and it's not just basic hypocrisy. It's a big plot hole! A huge flaw in our logic about romance and marriage. Is it because sex is the main star of the whole ordeal? If sex wasn't a component of "romance" or "marriage" would our perceptions and ideology be different? I think so.

The fat man who wanted to be with Ally and called off his engagement to the fat woman had decided to hold out for "the one" instead of "the only". There is no gaurantee that he will ever find "the one" - but according to Ally that is better than pretending that you love someone when you don't. But he did love the fat woman. He just didn't lust the fat woman. Are we somehow convinced that if "lust" is not part of the "love" equation, then that is not "the one"? Men and women are both guilty of superficial reasons to be "attracted" to someone. I like his hair. I like her body. I love her smile. I love his eyes. And so on. According to the New Testament (Matthew 18) "if your eye causes you to stumble and sin, pluck it out and throw it away..." This is in line with the moral and virtuous notions of marriage. (Also mentioned in Corinthians 7: Better for you to marry, than to burn [with lust]) These are moral and virtuous thoughts from the book that sanctified the institution of marriage, blessed it, and considers it sacred. Those of us who have been married, cheated on, disrespected, abused, and so on, chose the peace that comes from a divorce. For me, that meant that lust was not something I wanted to think about any further.

The problem is that no matter how spiritual or moral we are, we are still living in biological packages. Our bodies are animal. Our minds (ideology, beliefs, opinions) may strive for holy and sacred ways, but our bodies sometimes demand that we act like animals. Perhaps there is a higher morality to eating particular foods, but when you are starving, you'll eat the hot dog regardless what they've said about it. The body demands what it demands. Sex is something that the body demands sometimes. However, those of us who have chosen to remain single have solved that demand with masturbation. It's quick, easy, efficient, and safer. No heartaches, no stds, no marriage or divorce. Just like going to the bathroom. It must be done sometimes even if we think it's beneath us.

So do we want to get married because it's romantic or because it's the moral thing to do or because it's safer? Maybe all three reasons. So why would anyone be adamant against the idea or why would one give up an opportunity to marry if they want to be married? As the show I watched depicted that both Ally and the fat man would not settle for just anyone just to be married. They want everything or nothing. Is that wiser? The fat woman tells Ally, "Sometimes people who are waiting for everything end up with nothing." That may be true, but I don't think that Ally and the fat man are wrong for holding out. If they have the strength to stay with nothing, while they wait for everything, they lose nothing by waiting. Whereas those who settle for something or anything because they think that's better than nothing, have already put themselves in a "fake" marriage - one of convenience meant to solve loneliness, but they will always know it wasn't the "real deal" and that will haunt them throughout their years together. They will tolerate each other, but they won't ever be proud of the other or themselves knowing that they settled.

The prostitution question also comes to my thoughts as I consider the linking of love and marriage. If you're going to settle for anyone just to be married, then you can't blame a golddigger for only wanting to marry someone who has lots of money. When I compared Jezebel to Mary Magdalene (from the Bible stories) some people could not see where I was coming from. Both of those Biblical women sold themselves for the money whether it was called marriage or prostitution. I had written a short comedy story about this idea, and having been the daughter of a woman who married 6 people, I'm sorry if my thoughts seem jaded to some. I suppose they have the comfort and luxury of not understanding my perspective. I think Mrs. Gump from the movie "Forrest Gump" knew where I was coming from when she told her son "Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're going to get." I suppose I just think that Ally isn't wrong for holding out. Marrying for any other reason besides true love is no different than prostitution in my opinion. Was my first (and so far only) marriage based on true love? Well, it wasn't based on being a golddigger that much I know. I was 40 years old. I was tired of being alone. He was nice and cute enough. We had chemistry and lots in common. We loved each other, at least I thought we did. True Love? I guess not. How could it have been true love if we had to end it?