Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!hp-pcd!hpcnof!dat
From: dat@hpcnof.UUCP (dat)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <52700001@hpcnof.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 17:19:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpcnof.52700001
Posted: Tue Jul  9 17:19:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Jul-85 03:10:59 EDT
References: <508@ttidcc.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard - Fort Collins, CO
Lines: 55
Nf-ID: #R:ttidcc:508:hpcnof:52700001:37777777600:2815
Nf-From: hpcnof!dat    Jul  9 13:19:00 1985

>>>I just think that commitment is the keyword here, but it does not
>>>necessarily have to be towards marriage.

>>        Nice sentiment, Colin, but marriage IS commitment and the MOST
>>        commitment IS marriage.

>Check that.  Marriage is A commitment.  One of a number of possiblities.

	Agreed.  The major significance of marriage in our society, I
feel, is religious and legally.  I know people who are 'living together'
and who have far better relationships (ie are happier with each other and
with life) (*) than others that are married.

	Religious significance is that in most major religions, if not
all, marriage is a 'holy covenant between the couple and God' and that
becoming a married couple is quite significant in this context.  On a
personal level, I don't subscribe to the mystical mumbojumbo that most
religions espouse, so I certainly wouldn't marry someone merely to have
"God smile at me" or whatever!

	Legally, a married couple is afforded opportunities and certain
advantages (like tax breaks) that a couple living together are not.  I
suspect this is due to the previous reason...All the countries in the
world have political systems based on local morals and mores (ie the
constitution et. al.) which are in turn influenced to a VERY large
degree by the prevalent religion at the time.  This can be directly
seen by the United States response to such anti-Puritan (the founding
and most prevalent religion during the creation of the American gov-
ernment, as you no doubt recall) freedoms as homosexuality, abortion,
living together without being married, and the current sexual freedom.
(Of course, we ARE in the upswing of a conservative phase so we might
find these even MORE restrained than usual...)

	To move into a slightly different topic, continuing the above
bit, does anyone else see a prevalence of the Puritan attitude (not
Puritan oil, you twit!  No "Crisco Party" discussion HERE!) (alas!)
in this country?  I can point to any number of public attitudes towards
things that seem to spring from the original religious and moral beliefs
of the founding fathers.  Even with the 'Melting Pot' amalgamation of 
people that created the United States there still seems to be a continuing
thread.  Comments?

			Philoing Waxasophical, 

				-- Dave Taylor
				HP Colorado Networks

(*) It could certainly be argued that what comprises a 'good' relationship 
    is also a personal value judgement - some people might genuinely believe 
    that fighting with your SO is lots of fun...

    Again, my personal feeling is that the quality of a relationship can be 
    measured by the amount of pleasure the two people obtain from each others
    company...and their satisfaction level of their own personal lives simul-
    taneously (ie the 'rose coloured glasses' adage)