Marriage isn’t for you

Jake Tapley

There’s been a recent surge on social media of the liking and sharing of a blog post titled, “Marriage isn’t for you.”

I was initially uninterested in this. However, as more and more of my Facebook friends got involved, I felt that it was in my best interest to check it out. This clearly had something to offer, I thought, if so many people – many of which I consider to be knowledgeable and astute – were putting so much of their time into it.

I thought wrong.

Now, I’m not saying that the blog, which was written by Editor-in-Chief Seth Adam Smith, has absolutely no insight to offer about marriages or relationships in general; however, I do think that what it does offer isn’t really the truth – at least not in its entirety.

The main idea that Smith proposes is that marriage (or, by extension, a relationship) should be a selfless venture, but that just isn’t the way it works. Think about it.

Relationships are composed of two people, and both of those people, regardless of their “unity,” are separate beings that have their own wants and desires. Sure, relationships involve sacrifice and compromise, but it should go both ways.
It’s true: marriage isn’t only for you. It is partially for you.

I would hope that any person I care about cares about me in return. I deserve to be valued, and I should be granted the sliver of selfishness that each of us are entitled to.

Human nature is a balancing act in and of itself, so why would relationships not function in this same way?

The notion of selfishness often gets thwarted as being putrid or undesirable because, if not kept in check, it can easily become these things.

But if you’re thinking enough about yourself and what you want, you will find that you aren’t likely to surround yourself with people who don’t understand the mutuality of relationships.

I feel that much of what Smith says in his blog post almost goes without saying. In fact, it’s what he doesn’t say that carries the most weight in my mind.