Marriage is Like a Country Club…

wedding[We’d like to take this opportunity to welcome our favorite love, sex and relationship blogger – Lena Chen – to the CollegeCandy team. Lena is smart, funny, and her perspective on all things relationship is incredibly thought provoking. We’re so pumped to have her here, so be sure to let us know in the comments what sorts of things you’d like Lena to discuss!]

Marriage isn’t a right; it’s a privilege. Depending on the time, place, and partner, getting married could be harder than getting into Harvard, if not downright impossible. As recently as fifty years ago, miscegenation laws would have forbid me from marrying my boyfriend (or any man not my race) in certain areas of the United States. Before that, the legal and social benefits to getting married were denied to minorities, immigrants, and the poor for centuries. Marriage is, for lack of a better analogy, membership into the biggest country club in the world.

For me, getting married would be a personal endorsement of some of the worst societal norms in existence.

The supposed “right” to marry has never been much of a right at all, and our understanding of marriage as a basic liberty is unique to contemporary times. Thanks to my predisposition for heterosexuality, it’s a liberty I could easily exercise, but I’d much rather march in a rally than down an aisle, because I find it difficult to take part in a practice that is denied to others (plenty of them my friends). Even with the best of intentions, I can’t imagine that my own wedding will serve any purpose but to reinforce existing norms, such as the idea that a relationship is only valuable if recognized by a third-party institution.

It’s ironic, then, that I consider marriage equality an extremely important political issue, and the only one to which I’ve devoted significant time and money. Why should a feminist support the inclusion of queer people in what is historically a sexist institution? Besides the “separate but equal” disaster that civil unions would create, I think same-sex marriage might just be the only way to save marriage as an institution.

Critics of marriage equality often claim that it will lead to the demise of traditional marriage, while supporters insist that nothing will change by allowing queer people to marry. Though I share little else in common with them, I agree with the former group. It’s disingenuous, or at the very least, naive, to suggest that legalizing same-sex marriage won’t threaten traditional marriage. It absolutely will, and I hope it does. Traditional marriage is an institution that has historically treated women as property and men as property owners. It has fueled our culture’s obsession with virginity and female purity, while justifying the rape of child brides and the battering of women who dare to not serve their husbands. A half-century’s worth of gender equality under Western law neither creates equality in practice nor does it negate thousands of years of subjugation.

Recognizing same-sex relationships may very well be the only thing that can keep marriage a relevant social institution. Same-sex marriage subverts the gender roles that have dominated marriage — and by extension, society — for the great majority of human history. Every gay marriage is a statement against antiquated roles and practices we’ve come to take for granted. (Who, for example, walks down the aisle in a gay wedding ceremony?) Marriage is far more appealing a notion when I think of queer couples getting hitched without white dresses and gendered proposals. Accepting gay marriage also means rejecting one of the most enduring aspects of traditional marriage: its exclusivity. No longer would marriage be a privilege of the appropriately heterosexual.

I’m not holding my breath, but if this long-suffering institution changes, then perhaps my opinion of it will too. Because frankly, I wish I could get married. I wish I could don a white wedding gown without having to think about its sexually repressive implications as much as I wish I lived in a society without prerequisites for legal recognition of romantic relationships. Unfortunately, that isn’t this society, at least not yet. Perhaps we’ll never get there in my lifetime, but if that’s the case, then to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I wouldn’t want to join a club that would have me as a member anyway.



  1. Tory says:

    This is a great article. Please write more!

  2. Keightee says:

    I don't have anything to add that wasn't addressed in the article, but wanted to express my relief at seeing this article. Once I graduated, a few of my friends were rushing their boyfriends into getting engaged and were shocked to hear that I wasn't into it… at least not yet. While I will likely get married someday, I am waiting until I feel as though my partner is marrying me for me – but because of some notion that I am his property, etc.

    Loved the article and I agree with the comment above me, please write more!

  3. Casey says:

    Excellently written article! I do hope to read more of your stuff. However, I do not agree with you. I think the legalization of homosexual marriages will have no real effect on traditional marriage, but it will bring with it a slew of new problems.

    A vast majority of this country does not agree with gay marriage (which is why it has not been legalized yet). By legalizing gay marriage we are basically forcing people who do not agree with it to accept it. For some people, like the Christians, Homosexuality goes against their belief system, by legalizing gay marriage it forces these people to not only accept it, but their children will grow up thinking that homosexuality is ok. (That is not the argument I am making here, whether it IS right or wrong is not the issue)

    What is the issue here is that it is completely unfair to ask an entire (massive) group whose belief system has been around for thousands of years to just roll over and allow their children to be taught something that completely goes against their beliefs. And in asking this, it is being extremely hypocritical on the part of the pro-homosexuals. They do not want their beliefs to be belittled and ignored, and neither does anyone else.

    So until we find a solution that isn't going to step on anyone's toes I think things need to stay as they are.

    (oh, and times have changed, at least in this country, I don't think very many people still think of marriage in it's "traditional" concept)

  4. Ellie says:

    Hope you didn’t vote for Obama then.

    It always fascinated me – the hypocrisy of a black man who believes in civil unions (a separate but equal institution).

    I agree with you, and I really think government should get the eff out of the marriage business.

  5. Annie says:

    Well written though perhaps I don’t agree with it all.

    My boyfriend and I had a discussion about this the other day. He, a true conservative, said that we can’t make homosexual marriage legal “because it has always been heterosexual.” Oh, really? So we shouldn’t have outlawed slavery “because there had always been slaves” or given women the right to vote “because they never had before”?

    There is religious marriage but there is legal marriage as well. No one is trying to get religious groups that don’t accept homosexuals to preside over the religious ceremonies or change their minds about homosexuality- they’re trying to allow homosexuals to BE TREATED EQUALLY under the law and give them the RIGHT TO PURSUE THEIR HAPPINESS with the same benefits as heterosexual couples. My boyfriend, for the opposing viewpoint, says they do have equal rights- they CAN get married- to someone of the opposite sex. And I say, “So they should marry someone they don’t love?”

  6. Sarah says:

    I could not disagree with you more, Casey.

    This article says it more eloquently than I ever could; you should take a look at it:

    “Thomas Jefferson foresaw the tyranny of the majority when he explained how “a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.””

    “How does legalizing gay marriage force anything onto anyone? I understand people’s personal beliefs and discomforts, but this is not and never will be a justification for taking away the rights of the minority. How does denying a group of consenting, rational adults the ability to marry in any way relate to religious freedoms? The First Amendment was created to protect the individual from the state, not to grant a religious institution the ability to dictate the rights of others. If gay marriage “conflicts” with certain religions, then don’t allow gay couples to marry in a church. Marriage is not a religious union but rather a legal institution backed by the state. For these reasons, there is no justification in denying gays the right to marry.

    So why does this all matter, especially if, like the majority of the population, you are not gay? Anytime we permit the will of the majority or the government to take rights away from some group, we all lose liberty.”

  7. Casey & Annie: I think the ideal solution would be to truly separate Church and State by only having the government offer civil unions to both straight and gay couples. Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen any time soon, and only allowing civil unions for one group is about as “separate but equal” as you can get.

    As for forcing the religious to accept gay marriage (which goes against their views, I’d argue that there are plenty of things about religion which go against my own views — and yet, institutions like the Catholic Church are still allowed to preach. There’s no way to avoid stepping on people’s toes because there’s never going to be a solution that pleases everyone. What ought to be prioritized is liberty, and in this instance, the liberty of same-sex couples is definitely being infringed upon.

  8. Casey says:

    Sarah, it’s not a matter of marrying in a church or not. It’s a matter of if it is made public, and socially acceptable it goes against a lot of peoples beliefs and I don’t think (although I am not positive so don’t hold me to this) it is just the Christian religion that has a problem with it, but it forces families to teach their children about homosexuality when they will be seeing it all over.

    My boyfriends nephew is 5, he has gotten in trouble at school multiple times now for kissing his male friends on the playground. His friends parents have asked that he is kept away from their children, and he is never invited to any parties or friends houses. The reason? (and he was asked why he does it) Because his mother lets him watch will and grace with her and since it is her favorite show it is his favorite show too. What’s weird is he says he likes girls. I think it’s extremely sad that a 5 year old has been influenced like this by a television show. And while I have no problem with people doing what they want in the privacy of their own homes I would NOT want my children to be exposed to something like that because I don’t believe in it.

    Lena, I agree with the government only being able to offer civil unions and to both types of couple, I think that would work the best. That way everyone is equal and religious people can still have their “marriages” separately, in a church, if they wish. However for what you said about the Catholic church going against your views, it is entirely up to you if you want to step into a Catholic church and listen to a sermon. However, people who do not believe homosexuality is acceptable still have to see it clear as day whether they want to or not.

    So I suppose PDA for both types should be outlawed as well. It’s only fair. (and honestly, we could do without it) But then you get into the issue of restricting basic freedoms.

  9. anon says:

    Yes it’s entirely up to you whether you want to step into a Catholic Church and it’s also entirely up to you if you want to participate in a same-sex marriage. Christian beliefs should have NO INFLUENCE AT ALL on our legislative system, as dictated by our forefathers with the separation of church and state.

    You say you would not want your children exposed to this, well that is 100% your choice, as it should be. DONT expose them, DONT let them watch Will and Grace when they are 5 years old and cannot understand the implications of it. But DONT exclude other people from having the same benefits that comes with being married in the eyes of the government.

    I always look at it as there are two different types of marriage. One is through the church and one is through the government, and each one means different things. When you are married through the church or other religious institution the state also acknowledges the union but it does not go the other way. Being married to the state involves taxes, living arrangements, and legal issues. To the church it means taking care of each other with gods help.

    Now as a Christian (and actually not a supporter of homosexuality itself) I fully intend to be married by the church and as a Christian I always come back to the situation that you have a loved one that is dying in the hospital. If you are not family, the hospital is not allowed to give you any information. You are not allowed to make medical decisions regarding that person. The decisions are left up to doctors who have known your loved one for all of five minutes, even if you have discussed DNR with that person, you have NO voice. Is that what you would EVER want for anyone?

  10. Aislinn says:

    Fantastic article. Truly, you just made me reconsider getting engaged. The concept of marriage terrifies me anyways, but it has always creeped me out that the government is so involved in my love life. We are rewarded for being straight, tax breaks, benefits, easier to get loans. But god forbid you don’t fit the societal norm then you get nada. It is beyond me in a society that prides itself on freedom and equality that this is still an issue.

    I truly believe there needs to be 100% separation of church. And state and if the issue is the idea of “marriage” as a term, fine, lets rename it! If you’re religious then you can get “married” in a church, then me and the gays can go get civilly unioned elsewhere.

    Homosexuality is a part of society, always has been, and that large section of America can try to deny it all they want but it’s here and it isn’t going away. If this country is going to continue to stand on a platform(soapbox) of freedom and equality it’s time we put out money(laws) where our mouth is.

  11. Casey says:

    Anon, I have no problem with granting homosexual couples all the rights of marriage. I think everyone should deserve those rights. But no, it would not be my choice if I take my 5 year old to the grocery store and he see’s two men kissing and says, “eww mommy why are those two men kissing!?” or if he comes home from school and says “mommy guess what! Johnny has two daddies instead of a mommy and daddy like I do.” I mean I know in today’s society these things are supposed to be acceptable, but lets face it a lot of people, me included still have an issue with the morality of it (based on our religion) yes our beliefs should not hinder other non believers but does that mean we are forced to sit by and watch it happen right in front of us? And see our children exposed to it? Where is the consideration for us? If there was a way we could all get what we want without hurting anyone else that would be great, but I don’t see a solution to that.

    But here’s a thought. What about people who are genuinely in love with their pet dog, horse, pig, etc.? when it comes time for them to start campaigning for equal rights, where will you all stand on that issue? I mean you should be allowed to love whoever you want right?

  12. Kaitlyn says:

    Anon, what you said about hospitals is absolutely untrue. I am a nurse, and have worked in a hospital for years. The patient names a Health Care Proxy, and that person does NOT have to be family, does NOT have to be a spouse, it is who that person chooses.

    If a patient gives permission, the doctors and nurses can give information to whoever that patient chooses.

  13. […] Link to Full Story provided by  Mail this post […]

  14. valkyrie9 says:

    Casey, would you agree then that we should have kept racial segregation laws, because white racists would not want their children to learn alongside black children or hear from their teacher that racism is wrong?

    Because that is the logical extension of your argument – that because some bigots don't want their children to learn equality, that we should keep an oppressed group unequal. That all the progressive, inclusive change in this country is wrong because it made some people in the privileged group unhappy.

  15. Casey says:

    valkyrie9, Umm, yeah, definitely not the same concept. Slavery and segregation were outlawed because they had no moral basis and they were not a part of anyone's religion. No one thinks it's immoral to have black people running around, the same is not true for homosexuality. MANY MANY people and many religions think homosexuality is immoral and wrong.

    And just because someone is religious and believes in something that has been around for thousands and thousands of years (and has yet to be proven wrong) does not make them a bigot. I am allowed to think something is wrong. If you were a murderer and I told you murdering was wrong would you think I was a bigot? It's the same concept. Murdering is wrong by law. many laws. (gods law, common law, etc.) Homosexuality is wrong by God's law and a lot of people choose to follow god's law and why not, it gives people a moral plum line.

    I can just as easily call you a bigot for trying to demean my beliefs.

  16. Aislinn says:

    Casey, I don't mean to point this out, but "God" has lots of laws. Not all of them agree with each other. Not all of them are even legal. "God" if that's how you want to put it, is a concept. Real enough to you, I grant that, but has no physical sway, or shouldn't, on the laws of a greater society. If it were up to "God" then who is to decide which "God"? Obviously you want yours, but so does the Muslim down the street, and the Jew, the Baptist, the Buddhist, the Wiccan and the Scientologist.

    If you're going to insist on enforcing one "God"'s law then it stands to reason that you must enforce them all. Is that fair, is that the world you want? Regardless how many religions think homosexuality is wrong, it doesn't matter. Think it's wrong all you want, but I think cream colored leggings on anyone is wrong and should be a matter of religious and moral outrage, sadly, my opinion (or should I choose to create a religion my "God"s opinion) simply doesn't matter. Perhaps I am offended by straight people kissing in the super market, does that mean I can ask you to stop? There are many religions that hold the belief that there should be no inter-racial marriage and that such a thing is wrong, does that make it true?

    The end of the matter is that religion, whether or not you believe it, is not law but simply faith. As for your five year old, he is growing up in a world where gays, straights, bis, trans, a sexual and more are part of reality and one day he will learn and need to accept that. Just as he will need to accept that his "God" or yours, feel one way, but the law says another. God said love thy neighbor, which of "God"s rules will you choose to follow?

  17. The Plan says:

    THE PLAN …………

    A. Back off and let those men who want to marry men, marry men.

    B. Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women.

    C. Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies.

    D. In three generations, there will be no Democrats.

    Damn – I love it when a plan comes together.

  18. valkyrie9 says:

    Casey, it is actually quite similar to racism – discrimination is discrimination, whether or not it has religious sanctioning or not.

    For one, don’t assume I know nothing about religion; my stepdad’s a minister, has a Ph.D. in Christian theology, and fully supports gay equality. There’s a religious basis for homosexuality if you want to read that into stuff like Sodom & Gomorrah, but you don’t have to. In fact, many people have read the Bible as supporting slavery, so they could, in fact, come up with a “moral” or “religious” reason to keep separate but equal in that sense. But I’d like to address some of your claims one by one:

    //And just because someone is religious and believes in something that has been around for thousands and thousands of years (and has yet to be proven wrong) does not make them a bigot.//
    So something being around for thousands and thousands of years makes it right? Racism and sexism have been around since the dawn of time. So has homelessness. So has slavery. Are those things okay – simply because they’ve been around for a long time?
    Likewise, so simply the fact that a religious person supports something makes it okay? What about the religious people who hijacked planes and slammed them into the Twin Towers? (Or does it only count if it’s *your* religion we’re talking about, hmmm?)

    //I am allowed to think something is wrong.//
    You are. That doesn’t mean you are allowed to enforce those beliefs on others, though.

    //If you were a murderer and I told you murdering was wrong would you think I was a bigot? It’s the same concept.
    Murdering is wrong by law. many laws.//
    Murder and gay marriage are very, VERY different things. Someone who is restricting murder is doing so because the murderer is infringing upon the other person’s right to live. Whereas, by keeping gay marriage illegal, YOU’RE the one infringing on others’ rights to the pursuit of their own happiness. They are not, however, infringing on your own rights in any way. You are still free to believe what you want, to marry someone of the opposite sex, and to teach your children your own beliefs. Just like how integration doesn’t force people to stop being racists; it just keeps them from impacting others’ lives with their views.

    //(gods law, common law, etc.) Homosexuality is wrong by God’s law and a lot of people choose to follow god’s law and why not, it gives people a moral plum line. //
    Your God’s law. Not mine. Not my friend’s, either. I’m an agnostic, my friend might be a Muslim, my neighbor might be a Hindu, their neighbor might be Wiccan. Who gives you the right to decide that YOUR God is the one who gets to make the laws? Even within Christianity, there’s disagreement; my stepdad would disagree with you, say you need to read the Bible less literally and that you have bad theology.
    You might think it’s good to follow *your* God’s law, but religion is a very personal decision and you need to let others make their own decisions about it. In fact, that’s why we have the First Amendment – which, oh by the way, makes it clear that God’s law is not the one that our country will follow, in order to respect people’s right to choose their own religion that fits their conscience. So actually, the argument of whether the Bible does or doesn’t sanction gay unions is irrelevant because THE BIBLE IS IRRELEVANT WHEN IT COMES TO THE LAW IN A COUNTRY WITH A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
    Also, why do you assume that you need to be religious to be moral – when there is abundant evidence to the contrary? (All the horrible things religious people done, all the good things that nonreligious people have done.)

    //I can just as easily call you a bigot for trying to demean my beliefs.//
    I’m not being a bigot; I respect your right to have your own beliefs. I’m simply asking that you let me follow mine. I’m asking that you let others choose their own moral path and accept that yours is not the only way.
    But even if I were not respectful of your beliefs, you can’t really call someone a bigot because they won’t let you walk all over them. I know you fundamentalist Christians like to think you’re persecuted, but look around: Your religion is the majority religion, your holidays are federal holidays. Every president so far has been a Christian or at least pretended to be one. Whereas, as an agnostic I could never run for president and expect to be nominated by a major party; over half the country wouldn’t vote for me because of my religious beliefs (or, rather, lack thereof). I have to deal with accusations by people like you that I’m immoral simply because I don’t get my morality in the form of a Bible or a Qu’ran. Speaking of the Qu’ran, think about how many Muslims have had to deal with the bigotry of people who think that praying to Allah five times a day are automatically in league with Al Qaeda. (I don’t know if you’ve met many Muslims, but I have: they’re not.) Think about Jewish people who are financially successful who have to deal with the stereotype of “Jewish bankers.” Even more liberal, open-minded Christians – who still get so many of the benefits of being a majority religion in the U.S. – are still worse off than you because they have to deal with the stigma of people who assume they share your close-minded beliefs.
    Believe me, you are not an oppressed religious group in this country. You are THE privileged group. For more information, go here:

  19. Jude says:

    valkyrie9, based on what i've seen of you so far, I'd have no problem voting for you. I absolutely love the logic in your arguement. Way to go!

  20. Jude says:

    Okay, I know this article is super old at this point, and I’m sure no one is even going to read my comment, but I just HAVE to respond to Casey’s comments (as well as a few others) because they do not hold up under a logical lense.

    Listen, you can talk all you want about how homosexuality is something you don’t agree with, you don’t want your kids exposed to it, blah blah blah. That’s fine.

    Where you are wrong is in the statement, “yes our beliefs should not hinder other non believers but does that mean we are forced to sit by and watch it happen right in front of us? And see our children exposed to it? Where is the consideration for us?”

    You claim that because the majority is not in favor of the homosexual lifestyle, the entirety should not be exposed to it.
    What is even more proposterous is that you go on to state that the government has a responsibility to protect your rights, but not ours. (By “ours” I mean straight people who are supporters of same-sex marriage as well as gay folks.) Today, I have to send my kids to a school where gay bashing and Fred Phelps is “happening right in front of us.” (Literally, we live 2 blocks from Phelps.) What about the consideration for US? What about the fact that my religion states that God loves us all, made us each in His image, and above all desires for us to find happiness in loving and being loved in return? What about the fact that my political beliefs state that me, my children, my neighbors, and future generations have the right to live as we please, act as we wish, and have no fear of the consequences, even if it makes you uncomfortable?

    Instead of trying to push your religious views on others- and to continue to deny that this is exactly what you’re doing is ignorant to the nines- or being so concerned about what your son might learn about through encounters with others, why don’t you consider one or more of the following:
    1) open up your mind for crying out loud and recognize that religion has NO PLACE whatsoever in government. Don’t like the idea? Fine, don’t go to a church that would support it. Church and State are seperate for a reason.
    2) do some actual parenting and talk to your kids about what they see. If you raise your children to be strong in their values, they won’t be “in danger” or “threatened” when they see someone kiss a person of their same sex. (Actually you know what, no one is ever in danger when that happens.) Do I think you should raise your children to be bigoted? No. Do I support your right to do so? Absolutely. Maybe you should consider returning that respect to those of us who totally disagree with you.
    3) if you don’t like what your children are being exposed to, and you don’t think it’s appropriate to discuss such matters with them, there’s always religious private schools, homeschooling, and other alternatives including moving to the mountains. But I can assure you that doing this will not benefit your children in the long run because eventually they are going to have to come to terms with the fact that diversity exists in this world and it is a beautiful thing. And you know, the more I come in contact with parents like you, I have to hope like heck that your kids don’t identify as GLBTQ because chances are high they wouldn’t be comfortable telling you and would probably live their lives closeted or estranged from you and miserable.

    You may be offended by some of what I have said, but perhaps I need say no more and simply suggest you read the entirety of one of the most well-known Bible versus of all time: First Corinthians, verse 13. Truly the greatest of all is love, and as long as we deny all of God’s children the right to fully enjoy and express it, that’s the biggest sin of all.

    Sorry for my late-night rant, especially on such an old article, but I am just downright tired of people bashing Lena for having the courage to speak the truth, and even more tired of folks who just can’t look past their own biases and see that by denying equal rights to all sexualities, we’re no better than slave owners, geneocide participants, sexists, or anyone else who still thinks that a persons rights should be dictated by something they have absolutely no choice over.

  21. […] of my friends will be like. I, on the other hand, don’t know if I’ll ever get married. I’ve written before about the problems with the institution but I still struggle with the idea of never partaking in a social ritual that most other people […]

  22. […] [more] Post Published: 27 October 2009 Author: Lena Found in section: CollegeCandy […]

  23. valkyrie9 says:

    In response to "The Plan" – it works out really well if you ignore all statistical evidence to the contrary. Abortions are in fact more common in red states than in blue states. Perhaps it's because in blue states, we have this little thing called "comprehensive sex education," where people learn how to use birth control correctly, and thus have less unplanned pregnancies.

    And it would be just so easy if people who were raised Republican grew up into Republicans all the time, wouldn't it? Alas, once a kid gets old enough to think for themselves, most of them start to question their parents' views – and that means a lot of them leave your happy little world of illogical moral absolutes and come over here to the dark side ;)

  24. valkyrie9 says:

    And to Jude – thanks, I'm flattered! :D

  25. Jaysee says:

    Valkyrie owns you all.

    Casey, you're pretty much the biggest moron around. You're just angry that a lot of homosexuals are better than you are, and it just cuts you up inside. Instead of wrongly taking your anger out on them, how about you use all that pent up anger to make yourself a nice noose, and hang yourself.

    Looking forward to hearing we have one less idiot in the world.

  26. […] of my friends will be like. I, on the other hand, don’t know if I’ll ever get married. I’ve written before about the problems with the institution but I still struggle with the idea of never partaking in a social ritual that most other people […]

  27. Janaina says:

    About intervention… If I had to guess (though it isn’t relaly a guess) I would suggest that the problem IS government intervention. If the government wants to help it should extricate itself from the arena posthaste. Stripping tax laws, social work interventions, food stamps, and almost all other involvement between married men and women, and their children (and others as well). While it might get relaly ugly, relaly fast, and for a while, a balance would eventually take hold. A natural balance. Anything else, I am guessing (relaly guessing here, though based on reliable history) will only make matters worse.Actually, this will occur one way or another. Either society, and the government, will hit a tipping point and collapse (though in which order I can’t tell as they seem neck and neck in the race over the cliff). Or this society will become so weak it will simply not be able to tend laws on arcane books as foreign interlopers of one stripe or another will take over. Or the government will remove itself from family law and and the many interventions it is currently forcing. If it is failure or outside interference, neither will support the artifices of today’s, let alone yesterday’s, social norms.Then again, like with me, it might already be far too late. Perhaps there is no medicine to fix the problems and only lumps remain.

  28. […] of my friends will be like. I, on the other hand, don’t know if I’ll ever get married. I’ve written before about the problems with the institution but I still struggle with the idea of never partaking in a social ritual that most other people […]

  • You Might Like