Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site stat-l
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:Pucc-I:Stat-L:ab3
From: ab3@stat-l (Rsk the Wombat)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: In defense of marriage (thoughts from an ivory tower)
Message-ID: <79@stat-l>
Date: Wed, 30-May-84 13:36:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: stat-l.79
Posted: Wed May 30 13:36:51 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Jun-84 09:13:21 EDT
References: <1027@wateng.UUCP> <735@pucc-h>
Organization: Pucc Unix Systems Group
Lines: 22


	A "travesty of marriage" ?  Perhaps for you, but not for me.
If you want to make a lifetime committment based on your ideas of sociology,
religion, and whatever, fine; but I think promising a lifetime committment
is naive and dangerous.  People grow up, and people change, and sometimes 
they grow up in different directions; it is ridiculously stupid to ask such 
people to live together when the relationship is no longer viable, and it is 
naive to assume that *your* relationship couldn't possibly be one of those.  

	You said "it's as though the partners are on probation their entire
life"; you're absolutely right, that's exactly what it's like.  Nobody can
promised you a free ride; and getting married "for life" provides no guarantees.

	Y'know, everytime I go to a wedding and hear the "...til death" bit,
I have to snicker; with divorce rates being what they are, the probability is
that at least one of the weddings I've been to in the last year will not be
the last for at least one of the people involved.  So, to you it may be a
"travesty", but I think it's being realistic.
-- 
Rsk the Wombat
UUCP: { allegra, decvax, ihnp4, harpo, teklabs, ucbvax } !pur-ee!rsk
      { cornell, eagle, hplabs, ittvax, lanl-a, ncrday } !purdue!rsk