...and what am I going to accomplish by getting married? Where will that lead me? As if the demand for responsibilities itself wasn't questioned. Once questioned how can I leave the inquiry without a satisfactory conclusion? There is no way to answer it respectfully by experiencing it, it has to be an entirely rational conclusion. And thus far what is revealed is that certain relationships are accepted while others are undeniable. Those undeniable cannot be accepted and those accepted cannot become undeniable. That which is undeniable is necessary in the strictest sense of the word - that it is a constituting requirement. What does it constitute? Undeniability of this relationship forms the being itself primarily and then it proceeds to draw a picture of the world around it. It does not, by any means, complete the picture of the world but it does draw the immediate world around the person with significant, undeniable clarity. The significance of the clarity is that it corelates the being to this world undeniably. What is drawn here, clearly, is understood to be related to the being undeniably. This reciprocity cannot be questioned on any other grounds except for the establishment of the being's individuality through abstraction.
Accepted are those relationships that can be denied through and through. Acceptability does not draw itself around the being. Rather, it is the being who draws a line between itself and the object of its relationship. The object of this relationship has to be something towards which a line can be drawn, intellectually. There is no possibility of exacting any change upon this object in reality. The line forms a mental connection and never a physical connection. How can it? The being will always be removed from the immediate, significant circle that probably surrounds the object just as one that surrounds it. The two surroundings are extremely unique and at the same un-ignorable. There really is no possibility of jumping over these walls, not even intellectually. Only through the process of abstraction can the being be isolated but abstraction is not a complete representation of the being. Besides, the being, by itself, can only form relationships with itself and therefore such an abstraction cannot yield the kind of relationship that could reach over the wall. The being, by itself, even when abstracted, is in an entirely undeniable relationship with itself. This is out of necessity. This necessity exhausts all possibility of choice and therefore disqualifies all possibilities of engaging in acceptable relationships.
Moreover, abstraction of being basically abstracts the being from its world. Removal of the world actually removes all possibilities of choice. It is when the being is present in accidental relationships that are undeniable but not in the strictest sense of the word, necessary, that the drawing around the being by undeniability begins to become porous (vague). However, accidentals largely maintain their undeniability but it becomes possible here to extract certain relationships out of the being's world and one could leave voids here at ease. It would not affect the constitutional basis of the being's world as long as the being has not fully exercised any real choice. Beyond the spatio-temporal defining characteristic, there really is no major defining characteristic to establish an accidental relationship.
So when choice finally enters, in friendship, one has already acknowledged that these relationships are the most vague. In fact, these relationships are not draw by undeniability at all for they are entirely deniable. These are draw, far away from itself, by the being itself. Perhaps as an effort to mimic the picture drawn by undeniability. Acceptable relationships are deniable and therefore unnecessary. They do not complete the being's picture. Even in love, the completion is never done. Love remains undeniable and yet the most acceptable relationship. So acceptable that it appears undeniable. Love opens the doorway between the marriage of the undeniable and acceptable. That marriage can only yield an undeniable. For every being has to be a being prior to choosing or being chosen. To be is to be undeniable by everything that precedes it. By being it is in an undeniable relationship with itself and the world around it, immediately. It can then begin to choose. If the being born from the marriage was acceptable then the being would never be born. To be acceptable is to be able to choose and be chosen. To choose is to utilize one's free will, freedom. Freedom is a concept that is constituted by the being's free will and the responsibilities that a will might bring forth. The primary mode of choosing is to choose that which brings about the least responsibilities. To choose anything would bring at least one more responsibility than choosing one's own self to not be. If by choosing to not be, one becomes a non-being then one would've exercised some version of freedom that is removed from all responsibilities. If ever then, were the marriage to yield an acceptable then it would immediately choose to not be thereby forfeiting victory to undeniablity. And undeniability would undoubtedly bring forth necessity with it.