First off, monogamy doesn’t mean one person forever and ever. It means one person at a time. In terms of relationships (as opposed to casual encounters) most people seem to have more success maintaining a relationship with monogamy.
I personally don’t have any issues with those that aren’t interested in monogamy, but it is something that matters to me. I have no illusions about the overwhelmingly temporary condition marriage seems to be. As such I’ve been putting a lot of though into what I would want in a long term marriage type relationship. I’m assuming that different people and different lives would merit different marriage-type solutions (assuming they want a marriage-type solution).
So far this is what I think would work best for me.
I would not want a traditional marriage, nor do I think it is necessary for the sort of life plans I have. For one I’m not going to have kids so the legal apparatus of marriage as it relates to kids is irrelevant, as is the need for a stable family environment. For another as an atheist I have zero interest in making any major commitments in a form that kowtows to god or religion.
Secondly I don’t think marriage is sacred or insoluable. On an ideaological level I don’t see anything as sacred. Things can be wonderful and magnificent. But, possessing some unearthly, and inherently divine justification? No. Look around, people get divorces as often as they get married, clearly marriage is an earthly thing subject to earthly complications.
At this point I think the closet thing to the sort of marriage I would like is a “companionate marriage”. The idea was introduced in the 1920’s a form of trial marriage. The country was undergoing a sexual revolution under the damning eye of the Victorian generation and the companionate marriage attempted to bridge the gap between modern sexual relationships and traditional values. The younger generation was embracing sexuality and sexual relations, but because of their inevitable lack of money most had to put off marriage until their thirties. A progressive judge, Ben B. Lindsey, saw that delaying sexual relationships until a later marriage was both unreasonable and unhealthy. To allow younger adults a social institution in which they could have serious sexual relations without social damnation he proposed companionate marriage.
There were just three basic things that differentiated companionate marriage from traditional marriage. The first was that the couple would use birth control and remain childless. This allowed the other two differences to happen with out complication. The marriage was not legally binding. The two could agree to part ways without issue and in parting ways there would be no continued financial obligation to each other. If so desired the companionate couple could transform their marriage into a traditional marriage when they wanted.
To me that seems just about right. It addresses human sexual relationships realistically while maintaining a concept of marriage close enough to the norm (or at least the practice) to offer the basic meaning of a marriage commitment. And hopefully it won’t overly confuse everyone else. I don’t see any reason why this should just be considered a trial marriage, nor why it would need to transform into traditional marriage.
For the sake of adapting it to the American legal system if I do go the companionate route I might go ahead and make it legal, for the legal benefits of marriage. And people would be less confused at the wedding. However I would be sure that the vows and prenups formed a companionate marriage, not a traditional marriage.
—
So is monogamy a flawed structure? As others have already stated, it’s a strategy. Is traditional marriage a flawed system? I believe that it is, but I also think that the companionate marriage resolves the worst of its flaws while preserving the aspects I find most important. Of course it isn’t an option for folks that want kids so they’ll have to keep looking.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
