#Should People Consider Themselves "Incomplete" if they are not Married? @Everyday_Know #YouCompleteMe

---

Subscribe FREE to be notified when I uncover more strength here.

---

---

A friend from my support-group is getting married soon, and I told her why I'm not married yet (well, one of several reasons): 'I haven't been lead to' (I might've phrased it more like "There's no 'How to Get Married'-course in high-school (& probably-not in college)).

But another friend tells me that I should find a wife—that I'm going to regret 'not having gotten married' if I go into my 60's & 70's without 'my better half.'

And my mind goes to Genesis 2, where Our Father יהוה saw that man was not 'complete' (yes, I'm partly taking that idea from Jerry Maguire to his wife-to-be ... though it's also been used by The Joker (to Batman), Dr. Evil (to Mini-Me), The Lonely Island's Captain Jack Sparrow (Michael Bolton, to ... to quote all those other movies, apparently)).

And oddly, Our Father יהוה 'completed' him by tearing a piece out of him, letting it become something similar to him, bringing it back to him, and letting him claim it as his own.

I suppose this is where (even before their son Cain went out and somehow found a wife, despite The Bible not telling us that Our Father יהוה ever created any bloodlines but Adam's (unless The Shepherds found the explanation in a previous translation or something)) it becomes important that much of The Bible is ... I want to say "myth," but people-today take that word to mean 'false promises' & 'fairy tales'; so I think I'll call it 'sufficient explanation'—not necessarily "exactly what happened," but enough to answer humans' wondering 'why we do things the way we do today.'

The metaphor The Bible draws here: The Single Man is a part of a larger machine (or–the way The Bible puts it–he's a machine missing a crucial part (which is actually a machine herself–The Single Woman–missing the crucial part that he is)). If the man & woman are not securely connected to their 'completing extensions,' they both go through life without serving the ultimate purpose for which they were produced.

Without their spouse, the Singles are-still useful but -not as fulfilled—like a bike's chain used as a necklace while its gears are used to slice pastries—they're glad to be useful somehow, but they're not getting the satisfaction that comes from 'doing what they should be doing'—connecting the pedal's pump to the wheel's spin.

'That word' (below-hyperlinked to a list of pros-&-cons of most marriages) is built on an even-deeper source ... something crucial that firms the foundation upon which our lexicon stands ...

---

The word “Should” is built on words that mean “Obligation” (reminding me that "Shall" is more than just 'a synonym of "Will"'—it means something more like 'how things ought to go,' rather than 'how things are going to go').

---

Or am I looking at that wrong (or 'wrongly' 🤓)? Tell
 me how-wrong/right I am in the comments below 😁