Marriage

The prevailing argument in many societies is that if one remains in a relationship for a significant period of time without the initiation of expected customary practices - such as a formal proposal or the eventual marriage ceremony - then the time invested is considered wasted. This perspective reflects a widespread belief that the value of a relationship must be validated through external markers, visible rituals, and socially recognized milestones. For a large section of society, this has become the default mode of thinking: value is equated with conformity to tradition.

Yet this assumption raises profound counter-questions:

• If all expected practices are fulfilled yet the union collapses, was the time still wasted? Does the ceremony itself guarantee permanence or meaning?

• If a person maintains a friendship for years without ceremonies or tangible markers, is that bond any less valuable? Why should any union require external validation?

• Why does custom count as value when it offers no guarantees? A wedding may symbolize commitment, but it cannot ensure fidelity, happiness, or longevity.

• If the expected ceremony is not performed, does that render the relationship meaningless? Must any union be measured by ritual rather than lived experience?

• If one partner leaves due to the absence of ceremony and finds another who fulfills it, does this new relationship inherently possess more value simply because it carries an external marker?

• If ceremonies can be replicated by anyone, how valuable is their symbolic worth? When a ritual becomes a universal template, does its meaning diminish through repetition?

These questions challenge the assumption that external customs are the sole determinants of relational worth. They highlight the paradox of modern unions, where the ceremony itself often outlasts the marriage it was meant to sanctify.

To meaningfully address these tensions, one must attempt to define what marriage truly is. Is it a social contract, a spiritual covenant, a legal arrangement, or an emotional bond? If marriage is reduced to ceremony, then its value lies in replication and conformity. But if marriage is understood as a lived commitment between two individuals, then its worth cannot be measured by external markers alone.

Ultimately, the debate forces us to reconsider whether time in a relationship is wasted only when it fails to meet societal expectations, or whether value can - and should - be derived from the intangible experiences of love, growth, and companionship that transcend ritual.

Marriage

Marriage can be defined as a legally and socially recognized union between two people, typically establishing rights and obligations between them, their children, and their families. It may also refer to the ceremony that formalizes this union, or more broadly, to any close or intimate partnership.

To marry, at its simplest, means to join, to bind, or to merge. The union between two people who have chosen to marry can be broadly classified according to its underlying purpose: external goals or internal goals. In every union, one of these two goals serves as the primary driving force.

External goals

External goals are primarily oriented toward achieving something outside the self or the relationship. They include, but are not limited to, the desire to have children, to improve material standing in society, to pacify parents or family members, to conform to peer expectations, to avoid the fear of missing out, to yield to societal pressure, to acquire wealth, to use a partner as a stepping stone toward personal ambition, to pursue aesthetic or superficial reasons, to escape parental or familial control, to act out of spite, or to satisfy physical desires.

Unlike internal goals, which are rooted in enduring values, external goals are inherently fragile because they depend on circumstances beyond the couple’s control. A union built upon them is always at the mercy of change. Whether the aim is achieved or not, the couple lives in perpetual fear of losing what they have gained, because their identity - both individually and collectively - is tied to external conditions that can shift without warning.

Such unions often lack resilience. When external achievements are removed - whether through financial loss, social rejection, or the fading of physical attraction - the foundation of the relationship crumbles. Even when goals are attained, the fear of losing them persists, creating insecurity rather than stability. The couple’s bond becomes transactional, defined by what is possessed rather than who they are.

Typically, unions based on external goals disintegrate when a “better” external option presents itself or when the already-achieved goal is taken away. For example, a marriage pursued for wealth may collapse when financial fortunes change, or a relationship formed to appease family expectations may falter once those expectations are no longer relevant. In such cases, the union reveals its fragility: it was never fortified by shared values or character, but by temporary circumstances.

The danger of external goals lies in their impermanence. They can be alluring, even necessary at times, but when they become the primary foundation of a relationship, they expose the couple to instability. Without the deeper complementarity of internal values, external goals remain vulnerable to erosion. They may provide temporary satisfaction, but they cannot sustain a union through the storms of life.

Ultimately, external goals highlight the contrast with internal ones. Where internal goals create resilience, authenticity, and growth, external goals tie the relationship to forces beyond its control. They may glitter with promise, but they lack the enduring strength that comes from character. A union built on external goals is like a house constructed on sand: impressive for a time, but unable to withstand the inevitable tides of change.

Internal goals

Internal goals are rare in the modern world because they are not primarily concerned with external achievements or material success. Instead, they are directed toward cultivating and complementing inner values - qualities such as patience, productivity, truthfulness, strength, daring, honesty, courage, faithfulness, modesty, diligence, selflessness, dignity, cleanliness, contentment, grace, beauty, adroitness, integrity, respect, and loyalty.

The essence of these goals lies in complementarity. A particular value present in one partner need not be mirrored in the other; rather, the aim is to create a union in which differences enrich rather than divide. The goal is not uniformity but wholeness - an intrinsic harmony that brings the union closer to perfection.

Couples who orient themselves toward internal goals have already undergone the forging of character. Their character has been shaped through a combination of inner growth, external challenges, and the deliberate choices they have made over time. By confronting fears, desires, and flaws, they have cultivated resilience and authenticity. These inner values, once strengthened, become the foundation of their relationship, making their union genuine and enduring.

Unlike unions built on external goals - wealth, status, or social recognition - this type of bond is never at the mercy of change. When external achievements are lost or circumstances shift, the fortification of the union remains intact because it is rooted in values that cannot be taken away. Such couples possess an in-built resilience: they accept change, recover quickly, and continue striving forward together toward new horizons.

Their complementing values serve as both rock and shield - a source of stability and protection that propels them through whatever storms may arise. The characters they have forged retain core traits, the inner values that anchor them, ensuring that their union remains solid even as life evolves. Balanced traits make them multidimensional, while challenges force growth and reveal resilience.

Ultimately, internal goals elevate a union beyond the transient and the superficial. They create a partnership that is not defined by circumstance but by character. In such a union, love is not just an emotion but a discipline, a shared commitment to embodying values that endure. This is why internal goals, though rare, represent the highest form of relational aspiration: they transform two individuals into a single, resilient whole, capable of weathering change and radiating strength from within.

Misconceptions about marriages

There are many misconceptions about marriage, and I hope to shed light on a few of them. These misconceptions form the foundation upon which much of modern marriage is built, and they are a significant reason why so many unions collapse.

The primary foundation required to sustain a marriage - internal values - is often missing. No matter how much we twist and turn, we cannot escape this fact.

The first misconception on my list is:

• The Illusion of "Trust" in Modern Marriages

  Most marriages today, if not all, are built less on genuine trust and more on the absence of it. At the beginning of a relationship, there is often a natural rhythm of discovery, affection, and shared experience. Yet, as time passes, the relationship is expected to progress toward a proposal. The proposal itself is not just a romantic gesture but is widely regarded as the ultimate proof of intent. It is treated as a binding declaration that words alone can no longer provide.

  Once the proposal is secured, the next demand for proof emerges: the planning of the marriage itself. Marriage, in this sense, has become less about the organic union of two souls and more about an external token - an institutionalized symbol meant to validate the inner quality of the other person. In our current cultural climate, the only way to verify sincerity is through outward demonstrations, tokens, or material commitments. The marriage ceremony, then, functions as a public certificate of authenticity, a visible guarantee of what should ideally be invisible: trust, loyalty, and integrity.

  This reliance on external proof reveals a deeper crisis. Words, once the primary medium of trust, have lost their weight. Declarations of love, promises of fidelity, and verbal reassurances are no longer sufficient. They are met with skepticism, as though language itself has been devalued. To be believed, one must now provide material evidence - rings, ceremonies, shared property, or other tangible demonstrations. The erosion of trust in words reflects the broader state of modern relationships: a society where material value has eclipsed intrinsic value, and where authenticity must always be proven rather than simply lived.

  The absence of truth, paradoxically, is what sustains many relationships. Partners often avoid expressing their deepest feelings or doubts, fearing that honesty would unravel the fragile fabric of the union. In this silence, the relationship survives, but only superficially. Ironically, outsiders - friends, counselors, or mediators - often perceive the true state of the relationship more clearly than the individuals within it. This is why so many couples turn to third parties to resolve conflicts: they have lost the ability to discern the intentions and emotions of their partner without external input.

  At the root of this dysfunction lies a failure to cultivate intrinsic values. When relationships are founded on external tokens rather than inner growth - on ceremonies rather than character, on possessions rather than presence - they remain vulnerable to external influences. And external influences, by their very nature, erode intimacy. They introduce comparison, competition, and insecurity, leaving the relationship bound by a thread rather than bound by trust.

  Such marriages, built on the scaffolding of appearances rather than the foundation of truth, are inherently unstable. They may endure for a time, but they are constantly exposed to fracture. Without the courage to reclaim trust in words, in presence, and in the unseen qualities of character, relationships will continue to rely on external tokens for reassurance. And as long as that remains the case, intimacy will be fragile, authenticity will be rare, and marriage will remain less a union of hearts than a performance for society.

• The Illusion of "The Ceremony" in Modern Marriages

  A ceremony is not a genuine proof of union between two people. One of the most persistent misconceptions about marriage is the belief that a ritual - whether legal, religious, or traditional - is required to validate the bond between partners. Society has conditioned us to accept that without a contract or ceremony, a union cannot be recognized. Yet this assumption holds true only when external benefits - such as legal rights, social recognition, or financial security - are at stake. At its core, marriage is the act of uniting with another person, and such union does not inherently require a ceremony to exist.

  The essence of marriage lies not in outward displays but in the inward alignment of hearts. A ceremony cannot compel affection, loyalty, or sincerity where they do not exist. Many couples remain bound by legal contracts while their hearts are elsewhere, proving that paperwork and rituals are insufficient to guarantee genuine union. True marriage occurs where the heart dwells. What we desire, value, and commit to inwardly is what we are truly married to - not what a contract ordains or a ritual proclaims. When one reflects quietly on this, it becomes clear that the very requirement of proof for any union is itself evidence of a lack of trust, which indirectly suggests a lack of belief. When two people whose values complement each other meet, harmony arises between them, and they feel no desire to separate. They sense this union from within.

  Friendships often illustrate this truth more vividly than marriages. There are friendships that endure for decades, outlasting ceremonial unions, despite never being sealed by contract or ritual. These bonds are sustained by shared interests, respect, mutual trust, and the freedom to be one’s authentic self in the presence of another. Such relationships demonstrate that authenticity cannot be proven through external tokens; it is proven through lived experience, loyalty, and the quiet strength of mutual understanding.

  History reveals that ceremonies and contracts serve only as deterrents or cautionary markers, not as guarantees of permanence. A union collapses not because a ritual was absent but because its foundation was weak. When internal values - honesty, respect, contentment, genuine love, and loyalty - are neglected or misunderstood, no amount of ceremonial grandeur can prevent eventual disintegration. The illusion that security lies in external performance is contradicted by countless examples of marriages that crumble despite elaborate rituals.

  Ceremonial unions are particularly vulnerable to deception. A person may enter marriage with ulterior motives - financial gain, social advancement, or mere appearances - while concealing their true intentions. The outward ceremony then becomes a mask, signaling authenticity where none exists. Those lacking inner maturity or discernment may fail to recognize such deception until it is too late. This underscores the necessity of inner development: the ability to sense intuitively when someone’s outward presentation does not align with their inner reality.

  The distinction between intuition and instinct is crucial here. Instinct relies on rationalizing with the five senses, while intuition arises from the inner core - the deeper self that perceives truth beyond appearances. To sense intuitively is to discern the genuine nature of another person, a skill cultivated through personal growth, struggle, and the nurturing of high values. Without this inner maturity, individuals remain vulnerable to the illusions of ceremony.

  The dominance of ceremonial norms in marriage reflects society’s loss of inward discernment. We have replaced the ability to perceive authenticity with reliance on external validation. Legal contracts, church weddings, and traditional rituals have become substitutes for genuine union, even though they cannot bind hearts. The examples cited above regarding enduring friendships, deceptive unions, and misplaced desires all point to the same conclusion: outward ceremony never binds. What truly binds are positive internal values - honesty, loyalty, integrity, and genuine love.

  Marriage, in its truest sense, is not a performance but a union of hearts and values. Ceremonies may satisfy society’s demand for proof, but they cannot create authenticity where it does not exist. The strength of any union lies in the internal foundation - shared values, mutual respect, and intuitive recognition of truth. Without these, even the grandest ceremony is nothing more than an illusion.

• The Gravity of a "Vow" in Modern Marriages

  When two people take a vow or pledge to remain together forever, they often overlook the most fundamental truth of existence: change. Change is the only constant in life, and it applies just as much to relationships as it does to individuals. At the moment of union, two people may share similar reasoning, values, and understanding; yet as time passes, perspectives inevitably shift. They might evolve in the same direction, in different directions, but not at the same pace. What once brought joy or meaning may lose its appeal, and what was once a shared passion may fade into irrelevance.

  A promise, once made, binds one person to another - whether consciously acknowledged or not. This binding is powerful, but it can also be limiting. It assumes that the future will mirror the present, ignoring the reality that both partners will grow, change, and redefine themselves. A union is often formed around a shared goal, but as evolution unfolds, one or both partners may begin to deviate from that goal. When vows are involved, deviation becomes a breach of expectation, highlighting the shortsightedness of failing to account for change. By contrast, in unions where no vow is demanded, each partner retains the freedom to evolve without the burden of course-correcting the other. The relationship exists as long as it serves both, not because of an external promise.

  As individuals evolve, couples inevitably reach crossroads moments - points where values, priorities, or directions diverge. At such junctures, two outcomes are common:

  • Suppression of change: One partner silences their inner transformation to preserve a union that no longer aligns with their truth.

  • Separation: The partners part ways, acknowledging that their paths have diverged beyond reconciliation.

  Both outcomes reveal the tension between promises made in the past and the realities of the present. Those with greater maturity, independence, and exposure to life’s complexities often hesitate to make promises at all, recognizing that evolution cannot be predicted or controlled.

  Experience shapes us. As two people journey together, the dominant desires within each individual gradually pull them toward their own unique destiny. Over time, a person becomes the embodiment of what they most deeply desire, because their existence gravitates toward that center. Character is forged through this ongoing evolution of the mind. Beliefs once held firmly may dissolve, replaced by new truths that better serve the individual’s growth. Decisions are always made at the level of awareness available at the time, which means that looking back often reveals missteps, regrets, or actions that no longer align with one’s present self.

  In truth, noble intentions can be sensed intuitively. Trust was rooted in the ability to perceive the authenticity of another’s heart. Today, however, many have lost touch with this intuitive capacity. As a result, vows and promises have become external substitutes - symbols demanded as proof of value, rather than genuine reflections of inner convictions. This is the more reason why independence within a union is essential because without it, one partner may lose their way and drag the other down. Yet no external pledge can guarantee permanence. Only the willingness to evolve together, or to part when paths diverge, honors the reality of change. To commit without verbal or ceremonial vows is the ultimate sign of conviction, for it demonstrates an inner willingness to give one’s all without external guarantees.

  This realization underscores the shortsightedness of making eternal promises while still in the process of becoming. Both parties are evolving - and will continue to evolve. To bind oneself to another based on a temporary state of awareness is to ignore the inevitability of transformation. In truth, what sustains a union is not a vow but the ongoing alignment of values, desires, and growth. When alignment fades, the union naturally dissolves, regardless of promises.

  Vows, in most cases, eventually lead to deception. When circumstances change and vows can no longer be fulfilled, individuals often resort to lies to preserve the illusion of permanence. In unions without vows, people are freer to express themselves, confide their deepest worries, and live authentically. Vows breed caution, caution breeds fear, fear breeds resentment, and resentment breeds hatred. This is why the dissolution of unions bound by vows often erupts in anger and violence, while unions without vows dissolve more peacefully.

  No human being fully blossoms under restriction because it is an unnatural state of being. Children illustrate this truth vividly: while under parental authority, they obey instructions, but once free, they often pursue the very things they were forbidden. This is not rebellion but the natural process of self-discovery. Conviction and confidence are built through personal experience, not imposed rules. The same principle applies to citizens under a state, employees under an employer, and partners within a union. Restriction stifles growth; freedom nurtures maturity.

  Thus, the reality of any union is not permanence but evolution. To bind oneself with vows is to deny the inevitability of change. To unite without vows is to embrace freedom, independence, and authenticity - allowing both individuals to grow, evolve, and contribute to the collective goal without fear, deception, or resentment.

A good literature reference for why character is of a higher value than anything else can be found in Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina. Tolstoy’s novel, often remembered for its tragic heroine, also offers a profound meditation on the enduring worth of character through the relationship between Konstantin Levin (a socially awkward yet deeply principled landowner) and Princess Kitty (a sensitive and impressionable young woman).

When Levin first proposed to Kitty, she rejected him, swayed by youthful emotions and her mother’s counsel to pursue a more glamorous suitor. Her father, however, discerned the deeper qualities in Levin - his integrity, sincerity, and moral strength. Kitty’s choice, driven by appearances rather than discernment, led to disappointment when she discovered the superficiality of the man she had preferred. This painful lesson forced her into a period of spiritual searching, where she embraced a rigid religious ideology. Yet this shift, though earnest, remained incomplete: it was reactive rather than transformative, rooted in dogma rather than lived wisdom.

Time and experience brought Kitty back to Levin, and their eventual marriage revealed the contrast between ideology and character. Levin, skeptical of her religious absolutism, did not allow this difference to obstruct their union. Instead, his life was guided by enduring values - trust, loyalty, modesty, and perseverance - that transcended ideological boundaries. Their marriage became a crucible in which Kitty gradually recognized that ideology, however well-intentioned, is abstract and fragile, while character is resilient and life-giving.

Over time, Kitty came to see more clearly the high values embodied by her husband. When she gave birth to their first child, she prayed that the child would grow to be like Levin, not herself. In that prayer, she acknowledged that his honesty, modesty, kindness, and moral depth were of greater worth than the rigid faith she had once clung to. Ideologies can shift with circumstance, but character reflects deeper principles that endure. It is revealed not in declarations but in everyday choices - kindness, integrity, courage - qualities that transform lives far more than abstract systems of belief.

This realization marked Kitty’s turning point. She recognized that true high value is not found in dogma or fleeting emotions, but in the enduring qualities of character that elevate and transform those around us. Tolstoy shows that such recognition often comes only through life’s trials - through sorrow, joy, loss, or love. Their story illustrates that while ideology may remain abstract or contradictory in practice, character forged out of high value is timeless, resilient, and capable of reshaping lives.

Ultimately, Tolstoy’s narrative affirms that character provides a clearer window into a person’s true nature than ideology ever can. Ideology may tell us what someone claims to believe, but character shows us how they live those beliefs. In assessing individuals - whether in leadership, friendship, or trust - character is the more dependable measure, the higher value that endures when all else fades.

Conclusion

Marriage is a commitment to something greater than either of the individuals. Those who have neglected their individual journey are most at risk of undermining the marriage itself because if one does not attend to personal inner growth, the relationship becomes hollow, drained of meaning, and the union collapses under the weight of unfulfilled selves. To cling too tightly in any union is to suffocate; to release with love is to allow expansion. At its deepest level, marriage requires each person to “let go” of the other - not in abandonment, but in trust - so that both may grow into fuller versions of themselves. It must be a space where each partner is encouraged to deepen their connection to an intangible goal - something beyond themselves, beyond possession, beyond the illusion that we fully know ourselves or each other. For in truth, we rarely know ourselves as much as we imagine, and we know others even less.

Marriage, at its essence, should be understood as an opportunity for inward advancement before anything else. It is first and foremost an inner and personal journey, a union designed to sharpen the inner life of each partner. Every other goal - whether material, social, or familial - must remain secondary, dependent upon the strength of this primary inward foundation. When the secondary begins to overshadow the primary, the union falters, for without a solid inner core, all external pursuits eventually collapse.

The danger is that some enter marriage not to grow, but to hide - from the demands of self-improvement. They use the institution as a shield against the call to evolve individually. In doing so, they risk resentment: resentment of the family they built, resentment of the sacrifices they made, resentment of the silence that greets their unacknowledged offerings. They give themselves away piece by piece, believing that this is what family demands, until one day they awaken to the realization that the person they were meant to become has vanished. The best part of them - their vitality, their dreams, their essence - feels dead. This awakening is often accompanied by a painful recognition: that they have lived according to a script handed down by tradition, culture, or expectation, without ever questioning its origin or meaning. They sacrificed themselves for goals whose value they now struggle to see, and they assumed - naively - that their sacrifices would be remembered, honored, and met with grace when the time came. But too often, that grace does not arrive.

The clearest evidence of a false foundation is the proposal of separation or divorce. When either partner reaches the point of dissolution, it reveals that the union was not built upon enduring values but upon transient desires or external scripts. A union of complementing inner values is harmonious and there will be no desire from either party for a separation. To extend such a union without addressing its root weakness only breeds resentment and unhappiness, for the structure itself is flawed.

Equally destructive is the introduction of a third party into the intimate affairs of any union. Whether parent, friend, or even a specialist, the presence of an outsider signals a lack of maturity and independence within the couple. True intimacy requires two individuals who are capable of respectful dialogue, reasoning, and mutual problem-solving. To outsource this responsibility is to surrender the very essence of the union. They should be able to make decisions together, agree on a course of action, and accept the outcome - whether it succeeds or fails. What truly matters is not whether every plan works perfectly, but that the bond between them grows stronger through the process. By tackling obstacles together, they build confidence in their shared abilities, learn from their shortcomings, and ultimately deepen their mutual respect and trust.

Marriage is sustained by mutual recognition, by the courage to grow individually and together, and by the humility to admit that neither partner fully knows themselves or the other. It thrives when both understand that love is not possession, but liberation; not clinging, but releasing; not the death of the self, but its continual rebirth within the shared mystery of two lives intertwined.

The complementary nature of a true union naturally leads to harmony, for high values are living and lasting values. Yet modern society has lost the ability to sense intuitively, to perceive beyond the surface. We have been taught to look only with physical eyes, and so our choices in marriage often rest upon appearances, possessions, or fleeting desires. But physical goals are inherently transitory. They shift with time, and when they change - as they inevitably do - we no longer recognize what we once cherished. Dissatisfaction sets in, and the cycle of searching for something new begins, endlessly repeating, never contented. This is the trap of the external goal: it is always outside our control, always beyond our power, and the more we chase it, the more we compromise the standards within ourselves.

This pattern is reinforced by the culture of modern upbringing. We are surrounded by technology that promises connection, yet without external aid we cannot seem to connect at all. The deepest form of connection - the internal aid, the intuitive perception - has been suppressed, ignored, or forgotten. It is no longer recognized as the highest value, though it is the only value that endures. Marriage, therefore, must reclaim this lost dimension. It must be rooted in the inner life, in the cultivation of values that transcend the physical, so that the union becomes not a trap of endless searching, but a sanctuary of growth, harmony, and lasting fulfillment.

Person-Pickin