Marriage

Press, 28 August 1979, Page 16

Marriage

Sir, — The article by George Sweet (“The Press,” August 23) should be selected reading for every couple con. templating marriage and every couple newly wed. Mr Sweet has written a message for living. In essence, he is saying that in any relationship in which two people become one, the end result is two half people. The real intimacy of marriage is achieved by mutual respect and acceptance of each other as individuals, one allowing the other to choose his own fulfilment. With two selfreliant people, who care enough about each other to foster independence rather than dependence, but at the same time sharing with a loved person, marriage could be an exciting prospect. The choice is theirs: Dependence, which creates patterns of dominance and submission and ultimately destroys relationships, or mutual loving independence, the main ingredient for marriage growth. It is not an easy battle. To achieve something worthwhile never is. — Yours, etc., A. T. EDWARDS.

August 25, 1979. Sir, — We protest. Bruce McFarlane (August 25) has gone too far. George Sweet merely quoted some of what he sees as common myths about marriage, then dealt in depth with one of them, “the burden of togetherness.” We agree with George Sweet’s views on togetherness, and he may well be able to develop equally compelling arguments in support of his other myths. As a Christian couple committed to our marriage relationship, we certainly do not want any of the patronising compassion Bruce McFarlane has for Sweet supporters. If his definition of love allows acceptance of, and respect for, partners as individuals, each with a right to his own fulfilment, then we agree it is one essential ingredient of a worth-while marriage relationship. If it is the sugar-sweet, suffocating, happy-ever-after sort of love, we think it a poor foundation for a marriage.— Yours, etc. BARBARA AND HAROLD SURTEES. August 25, 1979.