Hey guys -
Alba wrote on Jan 12
th, 2011 at 4:54pm:
Which is why I would wish her to get a much more modern, less ... errr ... conservative ending.
But it's all perception, isn't it? Why is marriage conservative? I've no idea what proportion of long-term relationships turn into marriage nowadays but
is marriage still the conservative choice? I know lots of people who co-habit, very few bother with marriage. Is choosing marriage the action of the non-conformist nowadays?
Alba wrote on Jan 12
th, 2011 at 4:54pm:
Oaths and serious commitment can be had without marriage. The complete negation of that is what usually irks me so much about "romantic stories". It also is a direct slight and negation of the commitment of couples who live outside of marriage. As if you get commitment only via attending a marriage service.
Some people simply do believe that. And that is their right, of course, as is your right to feel marriage is irrelevant – though I can’t see why one should feel slighted by someone else’s reasonable preferences and beliefs. Do what are actually conventional choices need to be validated by other people? If someone felt so inclined, they
could take umbrage over comments about (paraphrasing) marriage not being suitable for a contemporary, independent woman... but who'd bother?
I have gay friends who utterly resent the fact that someone who doesn’t believe in their God can marry in church and yet they – faithful churchgoers since childhood – cannot. They want marriage and they don’t believe the alternatives show the same level of thought and commitment. Other gay friends also view their recent commitment via a civil partnership as distinctly second-best. They’d "marry properly" (their words) in a heartbeat if the law changed to allow same-sex marriage in the UK. Relationships don't come much more modern than that.
Alba wrote on Jan 12
th, 2011 at 4:54pm:
Actually it is such couples which to me show what real commitment means and is, staying together and taking care of each other without the pressure of law and order, of having to do it.
The divorce rate suggests that whatever
pressure of law and order you think is implicit in a marriage certificate is no guarantee of sustained effort or success. But, of course, what
we all think of marriage or the alternatives for ourselves is irrelevant because what matters here is what the character of Straker would think of marriage or the alternatives.
I think – once he’d committed himself to a relationship – he would propose marriage. It’s part of who he is. For me, it's a given that Straker's character will always want the affirmative aspects of marriage. Recognition and respect for the other person, respect for and seriousness of the relationship... commitment... he would always consider that marriage was the right basis for a permanent relationship.
Unless…
...would there be a religious side to that decision? I don’t know – did he ever indicate religious beliefs in a UFO episode? I know some fanfic has him as Catholic – as do you, Guina – but is that based solely on an extrapolation: he’s from Boston and Boston has (had?) a heavily Catholic profile? Because if he
is Catholic then, of course, he might be conflicted over whether or not a divorce and a living ex-spouse leaves him free to marry again.
Something I do agree with you on, Guina, is that Straker would be unlikely to become a father again without severe misgivings. If ever. There's a fanfic tendency to populate his life with more kids and I think he is probably so anguished and eaten up with guilt about John that he would not lightly enter into fatherhood again. Perhaps to punish himself but also to prevent him ever having to prioritise like that again.
I think he'd get over... no, rationalise... the failure of his marriage to Mary because as time passed it would be obvious to him that family life with a civilian who thought he was a business executive could never work. He'd take responsibility for his bad decision and, with many regrets, let it go. But not his "failure" to save his son.