Irony Of Marriage

This is the usual individuistic dribble of the modern age- the egoistic pursuit of the material over the spiritual; the immanent over the transcendent, the me over the we. The fulcrum of his argument hinges on his definition of love: “ Now love, on the other hand, is all about freedom. The very definition of love is freedom itself. Love is that which is free and knows no limitation, restriction, or condition of any kind. “ Love is “free from any limitation, condition, or restriction”? Isn’t it the opposite? Love is free FOR any limitation, condition, or restriction” for the sake of the object or one being loved. “ An artist in love with nature has no freedom from articulating it in some manner which takes conditions limitations and responsible self giving. Only in giving herself over to the art does she find the true freedom of love’s demand for commitment and responsibility toward the other. Ironically, only In losing our “selves” for loves sake do we start to become our true selves meant to serve who or what love requires. Love then is that act which gives itself away. As any parent knows, nothing restricts and limits our freedom more than children- and many would argue nothing enlarges our capacity to grow in loving at the same time. Free love sounds all too much like the Woodstock days my generation got lost in., me included. And how did that turn out?