Disgusting story disguised as good

[Danestress]

I don't get why people think it's so wrong to look at behavior and call it "good" or "wrong." If I say my grandmother was a wonderful wife and was "good" and treated her MIL with dignitiy and respect, I am making a judgment based on my own moral standards.

 

If I say it is "wrong" to divorce a disabled spouse so you can marry someone else, I am making a judgment. I am not walking up to that person and telling them what I think. I do believe we can think things and not feel the need to share them with people who were not asking our opinions. No one is trying to stone her to death or outlaw her behavior or make reservations in hell, and we are not looking for her phone number so we can give her a piece of our minds.

 

We are a bunch of women who sometimes talk about situations in our own lives and in the news and discuss them. Sometimes we think someone is wonderful, sometimes we think not. The whole point of the thread is to discuss how we feel about someone divorcing a disabled spouse and remarrying. Why would we have a thread like that and say, "hey, let's discuss this article. But anyone who wants to say it is wrong is being judgmental, so you have to say it's either a good thing or that you have no opinion."

[*Lulu*]

I couldn't possibly respect the woman in the article. The story is disgusting. Her choice was to leave her disabled husband because of his disability, then-- though he has some level of comprehension-- allow him to stay in the same home as her and her new beau.

 

He's not in thier home. As I understood the article, the disabled x is living in a care facility. Just as he was prior to the divorce.

[Iucounu]

He's not in thier home. As I understood the article, the disabled x is living in a care facility. Just as he was prior to the divorce.

Yes, I updated my post as you were drafting. Sorry.

[KidsHappen]

Absolutely gobsmacked that you all think this is ok.

 

Do your spouses know this about you?

 

 

My hubby and I just discussed this and think it was one of most beautiful and compasionate stories that we have ever heard. I put in the request that if he ever needed to find another spouse and they would care of me that the woman read so that she could read to me. I think my hubby would be content just to be loved and cared for and to be part of the family.

[Pink Fairy]

It would not be an option for me, although I understand how she got to that point. But then I don't believe in divorce and remarriage when the first marriage is valid, whatever the circumstances. Divorce, when necessary--yes. Remarriage--impossible.

 

I would never celebrate what this woman is doing, like it's something fabulous, but it certainly fits in with 95% of what I read in the media about marital relationships. It just doesn't stand out to me, since I'm usually in a very small minority with regard to my views on marriage.

[swellmomma]

I couldn't possibly respect the woman in the article. The story is disgusting. Her choice was to leave her disabled husband because of his disability, then-- though he has some level of comprehension-- allow him to stay in the same home as her and her new beau.

 

 

He doesn't stay in the same home as them. He lives in an institution because he is unsafe to be living in their home. I see no problem with what she did. The man she divorced was not the man she married. She did not marry someone with a severe brain injury requiring institutional care. I do not get why it is thought by some that she should then live the rest of her life as a single parent, alone, with no support, no security, no love of another. Trust me that life sucks. I think the fact that she met and remarried a great man, and continues to provide her ex with love etc is wonderful. She obviously still loves her ex and wants what is best for him, but it was no longer a real marriage after his injury and institutionalization.

 

If this was a woman who married a man who was sent to prison for some crime, would you expect her to stay married and not divorce him? After all the vows say in good times and bad.

 

This man was essentially locked up in a prison of his mind, how can it be expected that she must remain in a marriage to him though he is in an institution and she would be living as a single parent. just because the vows also said in sickness and in health.

 

I do not think she forsake her vows, in that she still continues to ensure he has the best care, still visits him, etc. This was not a woman that dropped her ex off in a subpar facility, filed divorce proceedings the next day and shacked up with someone new. This was done over the course of several years with her always taking his needs/feelings into consideration to ensure the best situation for all concerned.

 

ANd what about the children? Should they have had to go without a loving father in their lives just because their mother should not be remarrying someone else. For the kids they were left essentially fatherless because of his brain injury and subsequent hospitalization etc. Is it disgusting that someone came along that could not only love their mother, but love them too and want to be that father figure to them? Someone who clearly understands and loves this mother and kids enough to know that the first husband is still a part of the family etc and has worked to create and maintain a relationship with him too.

 

The situation may be one that is a bit bizarre to us, but it's not like they are having a menege-a-trois, they have found a way to create a family that still honors every member of the initial union and the new one. I personally think it is a beautiful story of the power of love.

[Princess Peach]

We are a bunch of women who sometimes talk about situations in our own lives and in the news and discuss them. Sometimes we think someone is wonderful, sometimes we think not. The whole point of the thread is to discuss how we feel about someone divorcing a disabled spouse and remarrying. Why would we have a thread like that and say, "hey, let's discuss this article. But anyone who wants to say it is wrong is being judgmental, so you have to say it's either a good thing or that you have no opinion."

 

It is my understanding that the OP thought it was "disgusting" and was then shocked at how many posters disagreed with her. It seemed like a JAWM thread, more than a let's discuss this thread.

 

For me, these types of situations are a "there but for the grace of God go I" type thing. I can't say what I would do. I just don't know.

[Scarlett]

It would not be an option for me, although I understand how she got to that point. But then I don't believe in divorce and remarriage when the first marriage is valid, whatever the circumstances. Divorce, when necessary--yes. Remarriage--impossible.

 

I would never celebrate what this woman is doing, like it's something fabulous, but it certainly fits in with 95% of what I read in the media about marital relationships. It just doesn't stand out to me, since I'm usually in a very small minority with regard to my views on marriage.

 

I guess that is where I went wrong--forgetting that I am a very small minority with my views on marriage.

[mcconnellboys]

If he can't even remember their life together, and this causes him no pain, why is it problematic? If they would have left him all alone and gone off to a life that didn't include him, then I would have a problem with it, but they didn't do that at all....

[Iucounu]

The man she divorced was not the man she married.

Yes-- who else is he? He's experienced a loss of capability, and is changed, but who is he if not himself? He's the man she married, in sickness. No amount of sophistry is going to change what's happened here:

 

1. A spouse fell severely ill.

2. The healthy spouse decided to have a romance with someone new, in violation of marriage vows.

3. The healthy spouse asked the ill spouse to "bless" her new romance.

 

There's simply no way in which this is beautiful. Are we to laud this woman because she did what anyone but the most absolutely vile person would do out of guilt, in providing for her first husband's basic welfare?

 

ETA: He's not in a "prison". Nice try. Similar reasoning would bless cheating on a spouse away at war for years, because he was in the "prison" of military service, or any number of other ridiculous analogies.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Iucounu

[Scarlett]

If this was a woman who married a man who was sent to prison for some crime, would you expect her to stay married and not divorce him? After all the vows say in good times and bad.

 

I would remain faithful to my marriage until that marriage is no longer valid.

 

I guess some people see 'brain injury' and 'prison' as valid reasons to end a marriage. I don't.

[Scarlett]

Yes-- who else is he? He's experienced a loss of capability, and is changed, but who is he if not himself? He's the man she married, in sickness. No amount of sophistry is going to change what's happened here:

 

1. A spouse fell severely ill.

2. The healthy spouse decided to have a romance with someone new, in violation of marriage vows.

3. The healthy spouse asked the ill spouse to "bless" her new romance.

 

There's simply no way in which this is beautiful. Are we to laud this woman because she did what anyone but the most absolutely vile person would do out of guilt, in providing for her first husband's basic welfare?

 

I keep thinking about people saying 'he was no longer the man she married.' I can't tell you how many times this phrase is used as justification for an affair.

[Zebra]

Wow, this is a fascinating topic, thanks for posting the story.

 

I can honestly see both sides of it. I've thought a lot of things in life, which changed when I was actually put into extremely difficult situations.

[Scarlett]

It is my understanding that the OP thought it was "disgusting" and was then shocked at how many posters disagreed with her. It seemed like a JAWM thread, more than a let's discuss this thread.

 

For me, these types of situations are a "there but for the grace of God go I" type thing. I can't say what I would do. I just don't know.

 

OP here. :D

 

No it was not a JAWM thread. I wanted the discussion. I want people (myself included) to think about what they would do in trying situations. And yet I am still shocked that many felt it was a 'beautiful' story.

[Joy at Home]

Yes-- who else is he? He's experienced a loss of capability, and is changed, but who is he if not himself? He's the man she married, in sickness. No amount of sophistry is going to change what's happened here:

 

1. A spouse fell severely ill.

2. The healthy spouse decided to have a romance with someone new, in violation of marriage vows.

3. The healthy spouse asked the ill spouse to "bless" her new romance.

 

There's simply no way in which this is beautiful. Are we to laud this woman because she did what anyone but the most absolutely vile person would do out of guilt, in providing for her first husband's basic welfare?

 

Nine long years passed between numbers 1 and 2. You can't possibly reduce their life and journey so simply.

 

Scarlett, you may be gobsmacked that others don't agree with your perception; I'm equally gobsmacked that others can take their lives and heartache and reduce it to something so black and white.

 

Lisa

[elegantlion]

Or she could have stayed faithful to her husband and not divorced him to marry another.

 

She could have.

 

Some women can exist and raise a family on their own, while caring for a disabled spouse. She did that for years.

 

Some people break, some people need help, and need someone there to support them emotionally and physically. I could not care for a disabled spouse alone. Maybe that's weak, maybe that's selfish, but I would need someone to make me feel valued as a person. I almost had to make that decision his summer and it was heartbreaking. I wasn't/am not looking to fly into the arms of another, but honestly there have been days when I feel dead already. To ignore my emotional needs as a person would be very damaging to my future.

[swellmomma]

Yes-- who else is he? He's experienced a loss of capability, and is changed, but who is he if not himself? He's the man she married, in sickness. No amount of sophistry is going to change what's happened here:

 

1. A spouse fell severely ill.

2. The healthy spouse decided to have a romance with someone new, in violation of marriage vows.

3. The healthy spouse asked the ill spouse to "bless" her new romance.

 

There's simply no way in which this is beautiful. Are we to laud this woman because she did what anyone but the most absolutely vile person would do out of guilt, in providing for her first husband's basic welfare?

 

He is not the same person because brain injury to teh extent as he had changes a person completely. HE has no memories of their life together, his personality changed to the point of him being viiolently dangerous, he is incapable to forming the type pf relationship they hand, of working etc. This is not just an illness like cancer, this is a complete change of who he is at a base level. He was no longer the man she fell in love with. Of course his body was the same, but he was not the same.

 

I also do not believe she was continueing to care for him out of guilt. I think she really does still love her ex husband, but that does not mean she should remain married to him for 40-50 years while he remained in an institution devoid of any love and support from a spouse that whole time. The marriage vows should not be a condeming of both parties to a life of solitude in the event of a traumatic brain injury.

[Scarlett]

Nine long years passed between numbers 1 and 2. You can't possibly reduce their life and journey so simply.

 

Scarlett, you may be gobsmacked that others don't agree with your perception; I'm equally gobsmacked that others can take their lives and heartache and reduce it to something so black and white.

 

Lisa

 

But that is my point. The right thing is that simple. Execution of 'the right thing' is not always so easy. We imperfect humans make it complicated by justifying what we want or justifying the course of least resisitance.

[Iucounu]

Nine long years passed between numbers 1 and 2. You can't possibly reduce their life and journey so simply.

It's exactly that simple. Otherwise, marriage vows would read, "In health and in sickness, unless you're so sick for an extended period that I decide that I've had it and want someone new".

 

I fully understand that most people don't take their marriage vows as seriously as they're meant to be taken.

[Iucounu]

I also do not believe she was continueing to care for him out of guilt. I think she really does still love her ex husband, but that does not mean she should remain married to him for 40-50 years while he remained in an institution devoid of any love and support from a spouse that whole time.

Your use of "him" and "he" throughout this passage puts the lie to your argument.

[Mrs Mungo]

I certainly didn't even feel I was addressing my 'strict conservative Biblical interpretation' in regards to this story. I felt it was universally believed to be wrong to divorce your husband because he becomes disabled so that you can marry another. Clearly I was wrong about how many/most people feel.

 

Clearly.

 

And now we are right back to religious because I don't feel like it is 'my' standard, but rather God's. :D

 

Isn't God's standard is what I quoted, above? "And He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.'"

 

 

It would not be an option for me, although I understand how she got to that point. But then I don't believe in divorce and remarriage when the first marriage is valid, whatever the circumstances. Divorce, when necessary--yes. Remarriage--impossible.

 

I would never celebrate what this woman is doing, like it's something fabulous, but it certainly fits in with 95% of what I read in the media about marital relationships. It just doesn't stand out to me, since I'm usually in a very small minority with regard to my views on marriage.

 

I guess that is where I went wrong--forgetting that I am a very small minority with my views on marriage.

 

But, Scarlett, you obviously do not have the same views as Mamabegood, since you divorced and remarried. I'm not saying you were wrong to do so, but you seem to be sticking to *your own* sense of morality as much as anyone else.

[LucyStoner]

But that is my point. The right thing is that simple. Execution of 'the right thing' is not always so easy. We imperfect humans make it complicated by justifying what we want or justifying the course of least resisitance.

 

You do not know if your religion applies to her marriage or not. You do not know what is right for everyone else. You know what is right for you and others who agree with you. You clearly believe you have the right to arbitrate what is right for everyone else. In fact, you don't have that right.

[melissel]

Your use of "him" and "he" throughout this passage puts the lie to your argument.

 

:confused: How exactly should she refer to the man? Isn't this the kind of paragraph where pronouns are called for?

[elegantlion]

And yet we still don't know what was in their marriage vows. Many people write their own, many people view marriage as a cultural ceremony. We are still assigning religious standard of marriage to a group of which we don't know their faith or beliefs on the matter.

 

Of course some people believe that once divorced you should not remarry, regardless the reason for divorce.

[Scarlett]

She could have.

 

Some women can exist and raise a family on their own, while caring for a disabled spouse. She did that for years.

 

Some people break, some people need help, and need someone there to support them emotionally and physically. I could not care for a disabled spouse alone. Maybe that's weak, maybe that's selfish, but I would need someone to make me feel valued as a person. I almost had to make that decision his summer and it was heartbreaking. I wasn't/am not looking to fly into the arms of another, but honestly there have been days when I feel dead already. To ignore my emotional needs as a person would be very damaging to my future.

 

:grouphug: I lived for 26 years in a horrible marriage! I was mistreated in many ways. I know how it feels to want to feel loved and cared for. There is a horror to being unloved and uncared for and yet not free to pursue that elsewhere.

 

My belief though (and this is how I lived in my first marriage) is that happiness can be found in other ways besides a romantic relationship. I threw myself into my family, my child, my faith, my congregation.

 

And this woman wasn't caring for him alone...he was in a home before she divorced him. YOU probably have had a more difficult time in your situation (and me in my previous situation ) in many ways than she had with a disabled husband living in an assisted living home.

[Mrs Mungo]

And yet we still don't know what was in their marriage vows. Many people write their own, many people view marriage as a cultural ceremony. We are still assigning religious standard of marriage to a group of which we don't know their faith or beliefs on the matter.

 

I agree.

 

Of course some people believe that once divorced you should not remarry, regardless the reason for divorce.

 

And some people apply that standard selectively.

[elegantlion]

Your use of "him" and "he" throughout this passage puts the lie to your argument.

 

:confused: How exactly should she refer to the man? Isn't this the kind of paragraph where pronouns are called for?

 

:iagree::confused:

 

Pronouns are a part of speech, acceptable even in English. :001_huh:

[Scarlett]

But, Scarlett, you obviously do not have the same views as Mamabegood, since you divorced and remarried. I'm not saying you were wrong to do so, but you seem to be sticking to *your own* sense of morality as much as anyone else.

 

Well, it isn't just 'my own', as if I am the only person in the world who belives exactly as I believe. Whether Mambegood shares my view of when remarriage is Biblically allowed is probably going down a rabbit trail though. She and I at least agree that 'brain injury' isn't a good enough reason to divorce/remarry.

[elegantlion]

:grouphug: I lived for 26 years in a horrible marriage! I was mistreated in many ways. I know how it feels to want to feel loved and cared for. There is a horror to being unloved and uncared for and yet not free to pursue that elsewhere.

 

My belief though (and this is how I lived in my first marriage) is that happiness can be found in other ways besides a romantic relationship. I threw myself into my family, my child, my faith, my congregation.

 

And this woman wasn't caring for him alone...he was in a home before she divorced him. YOU probably have had a more difficult time in your situation (and me in my previous situation ) in many ways than she had with a disabled husband living in an assisted living home.

 

But you act as if she is just horrible for every wanting that. She didn't go seeking it. My congregation ostracized me, my God didn't leave me but he was silent for a long time, my family was 800 miles away when this all started, and my child (I know you understand this) he was a child and there was/is already enough burden on him.

 

I could write some things that are too personal for this public board, but I would not fault her for wanting the intimacy that comes from a relationship with another man (not just s*x either).

[*********]

I'm with you, Scarlett. I find the story disgusting, to be honest.

 

My problem with the story is that the author clearly says that Robert is impaired and it's unclear how much he really comprehends...but then goes on to act like Robert is totally fine with the situation with his wife and this other man. :confused:

 

Yeah, that struck me, too. Either he gets it, or he doesn't. I'm praying he doesn't.

 

Absolutely gobsmacked that you all think this is ok.

 

Do your spouses know this about you?

 

Hunh. Good question, Scarlett.

 

I don't buy the 'he's a completely different man than she married' as a justification for her divorcing him. Well, to be frank, my dh is a completely different man now than when we married ten years ago. He was not a follower of Christ when we married; he is now. His life now is not even a shadow of what it was when we wed. He has different priorities, different goals, his personality is even quite different. Now, by the grace of God, the Lord saved me, too. But what if He hadn't? What if I didn't like this new, completely different man my husband has become? What if I resented it, and wanted my old drinking, smoking, gambling, cursing, money-loving, 'good time having' husband back? Does that make it ok for me to break the vows I made to the Lord, that he would be my husband UNTIL DEATH.

 

IMO, the answer is no. It's either 'for better or worse', or it's not. It's either 'in sickness and health', or it's not. It's either 'till DEATH do us part', or not. Don't give those vows to the Lord and your spouse if you don't really intend to keep them.

 

The woman's husband did not commit adultery, which in my understanding, is the only biblically sound basis for divorce. And since her 'first' husband is still living, he is still her husband; therefore, she commits adultery if she 'remarries'.

 

Just my $0.02.

[Scarlett]

And yet we still don't know what was in their marriage vows. Many people write their own, many people view marriage as a cultural ceremony. We are still assigning religious standard of marriage to a group of which we don't know their faith or beliefs on the matter.

 

Of course some people believe that once divorced you should not remarry, regardless the reason for divorce.

 

Her second marriage was in a church...seems to indicate they were religious. But you are right we don't know what the first vows said. Maybe they allowed for 'divorce if one of us becomes brain injured.'

[Scarlett]

But you act as if she is just horrible for every wanting that. She didn't go seeking it. My congregation ostracized me, my God didn't leave me but he was silent for a long time, my family was 800 miles away when this all started, and my child (I know you understand this) he was a child and there was/is already enough burden on him.

 

I could write some things that are too personal for this public board, but I would not fault her for wanting the intimacy that comes from a relationship with another man (not just s*x either).

 

I do realize I come across as harsh and overly judgmental. I absolutely DO NOT think she was horrible for wanting a marriage relationship. I have a huge amount of empathy for her situation. And although my marriage was not the same situation I did long for love and companionship from someone who cherished me. In fact, I used to have what I called 'kindness dreams'. Every time my now XH would curse at me or speak abusivelyto me, or go out all night, I would go to sleep and dream that another man had been kind to me. Rarely did the dream even become intimate...it was about someone being kind to me.

 

I do get it. I just don't think it justifies doing the wrong thing. (if you think it is wrong that is)

[Iucounu]

:confused: How exactly should she refer to the man? Isn't this the kind of paragraph where pronouns are called for?

Your use of "the man" puts the lie to the same argument.

[Scarlett]

 

Yeah, that struck me, too. Either he gets it, or he doesn't. I'm praying he doesn't

 

Me too. Can you imagine knowing your dh divorced you and married someone else because you were no longer 'good enough'. And then the insult of having the replaclement wife come and take you to breakfast and be 'nice' to you?

 

Yeah, I hope he doesn't 'get it'.

[Iucounu]

:iagree::confused: Pronouns are a part of speech, acceptable even in English. :001_huh:

They certainly are. And like proper nouns, they can be used to refer to a certain thing (person) which has an identity.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Iucounu

[Daisy]

My husband and I had the exact same response. Neither of us would hope that we'd take that route with a disabled spouse. We believe in married until literal physical death parts us.

 

We have a friends who have no qualms about saying they'd divorce each other if one of them came down with Alzheimer and was institutionalized.

 

That BLOWS our minds.

 

My husband actually responded with, "Man, it makes me glad you are not...so-in-so (the friend we know would divorce her husband)."

 

That said, the story is a very sad one. We feel compassion for this family and realize that decisions are a lot harder to make when you are actually living through that kind of a trial.

[melissel]

They certainly are. And like proper nouns, they can be used to refer to a certain thing (person) which has an identity.

 

That is a truly bizarre view. We're strangers on a message board, not friends of the family. 150-some posts later, I can't remember any of the parties' names. Most people in this thread have referred to all of the spouses as "him" or "her" or "he" or "she."

 

Case in point:

 

I don't buy the 'he's a completely different man than she married' as a justification for her divorcing him. ...

 

The woman's husband did not commit adultery, which in my understanding, is the only biblically sound basis for divorce. And since her 'first' husband is still living, he is still her husband; therefore, she commits adultery if she 'remarries'.

Edited January 29, 2012 by melissel

[Scarlett]

I agree.

 

 

 

And some people apply that standard selectively.

 

I am not sure if this was directed at me or not since you mentioned me being divorced and remarried. Just to be clear, I do believe the Bible allows for remarrige in two cases--death and adultery. My XH is not dead but I had grounds for remarriage. ;)

 

And I don't apply it selectively. I have a dear friend at this moment that through no fault of her own finds herself divorced and not free to pursue remarriage. She is 30 with 3 children under age 6.

[Iucounu]

That is a truly bizarre view. We're strangers on a message board, not friends of the family. 150-some posts later, I can't remember any of the parties' names. Most people in this thread have referred to all of the spouses as "him" or "her" or "he" or "she."

What's truly bizarre is to claim that a person is a completely different person, then to refer to him as the same person, and see no logical problem with that.:thumbup:

Edited January 29, 2012 by Iucounu

[Princess Peach]

OP here. :D

 

No it was not a JAWM thread. I wanted the discussion. I want people (myself included) to think about what they would do in trying situations. And yet I am still shocked that many felt it was a 'beautiful' story.

 

But if you wanted the discussion, why are you incredulous at the fact that many here disagree with you? This is a very diverse board.

[melissel]

What's truly bizarre is to claim that a person is a completely different person, then to refer to him as the same person, and see no logical problem with that.:thumbup:

 

OK then. But that's not at all what I was speaking about.

[*********]

I am not sure if this was directed at me or not since you mentioned me being divorced and remarried. Just to be clear, I do believe the Bible allows for remarrige in two cases--death and adultery. My XH is not dead but I had grounds for remarriage. ;)

 

And I don't apply it selectively. I have a dear friend at this moment that through no fault of her own finds herself divorced and not free to pursue remarriage. She is 30 with 3 children under age 6.

 

Scarlett, I don't want to hijack your thread, so freel free to pm me *if* you'd like to answer this question; no pressure, I promise. :001_smile:

 

I've certainly heard the argument that adultery by one's spouse is grounds for remarriage. I do not agree. Could you tell me what passages you base that belief on?

 

Like I said, not trying to hijack; feel free to pm or ignore me. :D

[Sputterduck]

If he can't even remember their life together, and this causes him no pain, why is it problematic? If they would have left him all alone and gone off to a life that didn't include him, then I would have a problem with it, but they didn't do that at all....

 

I read of a high powered CEO who left his job to take care of his wife with Alzheimer's. People couldn't understand why he would do that. One person told him, "She doesn't even know who you are." And he said, "But I know who she is."

[Scarlett]

But if you wanted the discussion, why are you incredulous at the fact that many here disagree with you? This is a very diverse board.

 

:confused: Yes I know it is diverse. And yet I am still shocked that so many people think it is a 'beautiful' story.

 

I can't want a discussion and still be shocked?

[Joy at Home]

Your use of "the man" puts the lie to the same argument.

 

 

Ooh, fun, we're being all cryptic:001_smile:

 

Nobody is saying he/him/the man/the ex-husband does not have an identity. He is a disabled man whose life has changed but is still surrounded by people he loves who remain an integral part of his life. He is not some sad, forgotten soul who has been abandoned.

 

Lisa

[Scarlett]

I read of a high powered CEO who left his job to take care of his wife with Alzheimer's. People couldn't understand why he would do that. One person told him, "She doesn't even know who you are." And he said, "But I know who she is."

 

Now THAT is beautiful.

[Iucounu]

Ooh, fun, we're being all cryptic:001_smile:

 

Nobody is saying he/him/the man/the ex-husband does not have an identity. He is a disabled man whose life has changed but is still surrounded by people he loves who remain an integral part of his life. He is not some sad, forgotten soul who has been abandoned.

Nothing was cryptic; PP claimed he was not the same person, then proceeded to refer to him as the same person, which he is. He's a sadly disabled man who's been abandoned by his wife because of his disability.

 

Seriously, people, if you're going to really claim he's not the same man-- though he's not brain-dead, and still has a personality, and still recognizes his wife and family, and recognizes his wife's new beau, and was asked by her to "bless" the new beau-- at least dress it up a bit, and afterward consistently refer to him as a "husk" or something. You can't have it both ways.

Edited January 29, 2012 by Iucounu

[Mrs Mungo]

Scarlett, I don't want to hijack your thread, so freel free to pm me *if* you'd like to answer this question; no pressure, I promise. :001_smile:

 

I've certainly heard the argument that adultery by one's spouse is grounds for remarriage. I do not agree. Could you tell me what passages you base that belief on?

 

Like I said, not trying to hijack; feel free to pm or ignore me. :D

 

There are several verses that deal with this.

 

Here are a couple of articles, keeping in mind that they would also offer grace to people like Scarlett's friend, not just Scarlett.

http://www.gotquestions.org/remarriage-adultery.html

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/divorce-remarriage.html

[aggieamy]

I am not sure if this was directed at me or not since you mentioned me being divorced and remarried. Just to be clear, I do believe the Bible allows for remarrige in two cases--death and adultery. My XH is not dead but I had grounds for remarriage. ;)

 

 

 

I think the point that people are trying to make is that people's views on marriage/remarriage are so different that you can't judge them based on your own. My particular religion (Roman Catholic) doesn't really allow divorce or remarriage in any case. We'd believe that living with your current husband you are commiting adultery. However, I know that you aren't Catholic so I don't hold you to my views. I don't read your posts and think "Ugh, Scarlet. That adultress." because those are my beliefs and not yours. Everyone seems happy and content in the story so I'm not going to force my belief system on their situation.

 

I have no judgement on that woman or her husband. But by the grace of God go I. DH knows that if something like that happens to me, don't revive me. I'm ready to meet my maker.

Edited January 29, 2012 by aggieamy

[Joy at Home]

Nothing was cryptic-- PP claimed he was not the same person, then proceeded to refer to him as the same person, which he is. He's a sadly disabled man who's been abandoned by his wife because of his disability.

 

 

He hasn't been abandoned.