I do agree with you in many things. But I don't think one can control what one feels, not be free of feelings so easily. One can decide to make a vow and stick to it for life, that's under our control. But for it to be able to not feels feelings it is completely another thing. Or at least that's how I see it.
There is a saying in Spanish that goes "El corazón tiene razones que la razón no conoce" (The heart has reasons that reason does not know).
The heart it's a very complex part of us, no matter how much one tries and say "I don't like this feeling, so I don't wanna feel it" or "This feeling is so irrational, I want to stop it" it doesn't matter. Or also, "I love this feeling, I want to feel always like this." It's very difficult for our rational part of us to control the sentimental part. Feelings can be irrational sometimes. Or appear irrational when they are not, too.
But surely you have more experience than me on this, so you probably know more. So be sure to spread your knowledge all around near me so that I can learn something or two about it. :)
Marriage and love are therefore mutually dependent, I would think.
Do you believe that every love relationship should end in marriage?
Hm. I think that I have not spoken about something to be able to control ones feelings. You can't. That much shall be obvious. Once you feel jealousy or anger or sadness or joy, you feel it despite whatever relationship you're in. In fact, if one could not feel, then marriage would be obsolete, any relationship would be senseless.
A mature person accepts the emotions under which he comes and tries to live artfully through them. One form is the art of marriage. In other relationships, like for example between male comrades, it needs another form of handling. And so on. Marriage would be no training ground for lovers if feelings weren't there.
If it is love, it is or will become marriage. Just because there is the official act (it is meant to be something for people on the whole to see that there are millions of married couples by a common form of language/symbolic acts, like in Christianity and other religions) it does not mean that you don't feel married already (by the acceptance of living out the highest ideal between man and woman).
So for me, marriage is the result of wanting to love fully.
To answer more concrete: No, not every relationship which one thought of it being love, need to end in marriage. There is an engagement period of several months, it can also last longer (but preferably not several years, that would break the rule), during which the opportunity should arise and be sought to get to know each other well. If it's still love after six or so months, then why not marrying?
My man married me before I married him ;)
No, you're right, my mistake. But that's what came to my mind when you say that it frees yourself from jealously and of polish insecurities, etc.
But I do can see how can liberate oneself of a lot of concerns and anxiety on love relationships.
Interesting take. I must say that I have never thought of getting married myself, although I also don't dismiss the idea at all. What will be, will be.
:)
To answer with Chesterton:
Does that mean that one must be responsible for the feelings of others that we provoke?
Sorry if I don't grasp it.
Oh, I am sorry that I did not refer to which sentence I actually was relating my answer.
It was this:
There are always exceptions to a rule. If official marriage is the rule but there are people who live together in true love without having married officially, they actually are married unofficially (because they know the rules by heart from what they grasped from the idealism of religion).
You asked
In the context of this post and what Chesterton wrote, I interpret him like so:
If you do something with pathos, i.e. provoke the passion of a woman or a man who is in a committed relationship, there is a responsibility on the part of the initiator. Of course, he shares this responsibility with the person who responds to the seduction, but it is not diminished by this.
For example, if a seducer, as Casanova became known for, tried to seduce a married woman by every trick in the book because she is married, then his own temptation lies in getting a married woman to commit adultery, for example. So it was something of a sport for him to get those women into his bed who were officially married wives. After he succeeded he lost immediate interest.
For a couple who feel that they are married (without having performed the official act of marriage before the church or registry office), it matters less whether the union is legal or not because they believe in the sacrament of the union. However, an outsider who is after the woman could say that it would be no big deal if he were to seduce her, as she is not married.
I think that might be what Chesterton could have meant with that sentence.
Now I get it. And I agree.
It also depends a lot on the cultural environment. I grew up in a somewhat secular environment and it was therefore rare for me to find a married couple. So I grew up as if that was the norm. But I do think marriage is taking it a step further.
An unmarried couple can vary greatly in the range of closeness, intimacy and level of commitment. But when a couple is married, a high level of all of these is assumed.
I would say it depends on the couple in question.
So, yes, I agree.