LOVE, MARRIAGE AND PROMISCUITY: Jonathan Rauch

I owe Maggie answers to three (deep) questions. This is belated since I was
camping in...Canada!

QUESTION 1:

"A man has been married for ten years with two kids. His marriage is not a horror story, but for years it has felt pretty empty, unsatisfying. He does not feel close to his wife. He hardly gets any sex (once a month). Then he falls in love with a co-worker. He has never felt so alive. He as found his soulmate. Let us presume that he is probably right. His marriage is going to be a humdrum affair and this new woman is more suited to him. Should he divorce? Is it cruel to deny him a chance for love?"

ANSWER 1:

My general answer is: Divorce should be legal (though not as easy as it is in some states today) but socially discouraged, especially when children are involved, but even when they're not.

My first answer to this particular man is: "You made a commitment, you should keep it. That's not cruel, though it may in some respects be tragic. But it's noble, too." My second answer is: "Having said the above, it depends. There are always exceptions."

QUESTION 2:

"You are a 25 year old woman who finds herself pregnant. Abortion is not an option. You boyfriend is the father. Sure you are very fond of him, he is a nice, decent guy, would probably make a great dad, but you never in a million years imagined marrying a guy like him. You are just not in love. Is having a baby a good reason for getting married? Why or why not?"

Having a baby can be a very good reason for getting married, and the decline of the shotgun marriage has been very costly for society.

But note: Why did these two make a baby? Could it have been that they felt some physical attraction for one another? Could it be, in fact, that they couldn't keep their hands off each other? There's no analogy to homosexuals here.

QUESTION 3:

"Jonathan, if as you argue it is bad for marriage as a social institution to require a highly visible minority to live life outside of marriage, how could it not be destructive to norms of fidelity to watch a highly visible minority live married life openly outside the idea of sexual exclusivity?"

First, I don't think most gay people will live openly outside the norm of sexual exclusivity. If they cheat or fool around, they'll keep it out of sight, like everyone else. Remember, these will be people who held public weddings and probably invited their parents. Remember also, even if I'm wrong about the men, lesbians will often be model marital citizens. But if I had to choose (and, NB, I don't think I do), I'd say that the norm of marriage is more important than the norm of fidelity in marriage. That's what society believes, too, because we encourage sexually promiscuous heterosexual men to marry today. They may not be perfectly faithful, but at least they'll probably be more settled down.

Question back to Maggie: For purposes of this discussion, let's suppose it were true (allowing, for this thought experiment, a somewhat invidious stereotype) that many inner-city youths are promiscuous, not very serious or knowledgeable about marriage, and quite likely to cheat on their spouses/partners. Should they be barred from marriage?


posted by maggie at 5:46 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home