|
I don't think anything should be changed for the sake of creating some mass shift or alteration of priority. Marriage always should have been a proposition defined by those two (or more) who enter into it. It's when people think of it as some collective condition that you get things like Christian fundies who oppose gay marriage because they believe it undermines the value of their own marriages.
It has absolutely no effect on me whether or not the couple next door's marriage works out, or if the gay couple on the other side decide to marry each other. I've never believed marriage to have any moral or ethical value outside of how one person acts towards his or her spouse - and even then, those morals are self-defined by the parties therein. That's why no one can say that someone's "open marriage" is fraudulent or unsuccessful. If two people can love each other yet sleep with other people, then their marriage - by their own definition - is very much successful. And actually, by even SOCIETY'S definition of "success" (both people are happy and the marriage is still intact), it's also successful.
People need to stop worrying about the divorce rate, essentially. Is my hair going to fall out, or is my marriage going to spontaneously crumble, just because 50% of couples end up divorced? No. It's none of mine or anyone else's business. The divorce rate is often dwelled on to create this ever-present sense of fear that civilization as we know it is somehow in peril if we don't, I don't know, live more virtuously or change our values to something the "moral majority" approves of.
In short, who cares? Fuck who you want, marry who you want. You get one turn; make it a good one.
|