Marriage . . . again

Ok; so I had a Blog some months ago about Gay Marriage that sorta went in to lots of what I think about the age old instituion. But tonight at dinner in Denver with a pack of my work colleagues, the topic came up and I found myself saying new things, such as:

The legal institution of marriage is an affirmation that the coupled state is not native to human beings. If it takes a legal institution to keep us together, then deep down in our primative, cave person selves, we are not naturally couplers. At least not forever couplers.

The natural state seems more likely to be serial monogamy: a series of exclusive partners that fill a life, one segment at a time.

The artificial institution of marriage is a deterrant to couples who have made kids. It holds them together longer than they'd choose with no legal institution (or so it is in theory). Marriage makes it harder for couples to split up when they're ready for something new. Which is beneficial to small children who get 2 parent family, at least temporarily.

Women, as we all know, are nesters. When we say that, we picture the mama and poppa bird feeding their young in the nest. Too bad; that's not what the picture is for human beings. Nesting for female humans means providing a safe and nurturing home for their children. In the early years when the child is vulnerable and highly demanding, it is beneficial to the mother to have another set of hands helping hold things together. That's what keeps men in the picture until the kids get a little older.

Once Junior is no longer in danger of being run down and devoured by some Earthly threat, dad becomes fairly irrelevant. Mom is perfectly capable of raising the child without the intervening influence of the man. Many couples split up and go on to pursue their next relationship at this point.

As I said in my last marriage blog, I want the right to marry as a gay man. I want the right; but I won't take advantage of it myself. I have no kids and don't anticipate having any, so for me and Bob, marriage is unnecessary. We don't need the legal threat to keep us together. We will stay together as long as we do and will part, either for greener pastures or for the great beyond, as pals. It's much more honest this way.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if hetero couples would make the decision to marry in conjunction with their decision to get pregnant; after all, the 2 go hand in glove. Wouldn't it be wonderful if hetero couples could be honest about their need to stray and move on? Nice to avoid all of the deceit and manipulation. If that's what we had, we wouldn't need marriage at all.

Me? I'm at it for something between 10 and 14 years with Bob (depending on how you count), and don't have any real desire or need to roam or move on. We're at an age where we're comfortable, we enjoy each other a lot, we have good sex. . . and it's nice to have a check mark in that box on our life long to-do lists so that we can devote our time and energy to other persuits.

Now, Bob's much more restless than I. He's been much less accepting of his increasing years. He's in near constant quest for his lost youth. He may be the one to move on to his next situation. Mind you, I don't anticipate that. But if it does happen, I'll be ok. You see, I have trust: I know I'll be ok no matter what. Or is that faith?
I guess what I'm saying is one of the benefits of growing older is that the persuit of yet another partner starts to look more and more like a time consuming, energy sapping chore. You tend to become more satisfied with what you have, to discover more really good things about it. Your hot pants cool.

You have to be willing ready and able to make yourself and your partner feel sexy, desirable, and hungry for the other, though. Without that flame, any union will go cold.