Jump to content

Menu

If you don't believe in marriage until death then


Recommended Posts

why get married?

 

I ask this in all honesty with no underlying snark. If you are just wanting a long term commitment isn't a verbal commitment enough? Couldn't you just write it on a piece of paper without all of the legal ramifications such as a possible future (legal) divorce? Is it for tax and insurance purposes?

 

This is obviously a spin off of the marriage threads. If there is one thing this board has taught me it is a greater understanding of the world around me. I can come here and get a large range of backgrounds and opinions from people that I would never have the opportunity to meet in real life.

 

 

I know I am showing my total ignorance on the subject, but I would appreciate a kind reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

For various people I know, health insurance, esp. if momma is going to stay home with kids (and therefore not have insurance through her own employer), has been a huge factor. Used to be, if you got pregnant and weren't married, the pregnancy wasn't covered on the dad's insurance even if you did marry. I don't know if preexisting conditions is still an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excelsior! Academy;

If you are just wanting a long term commitment isn't a verbal commitment enough? Couldn't you just write it on a piece of paper without all of the legal ramifications such as a possible future (legal) divorce? Is it for tax and insurance purposes?

 

Yes, and for other benefits of marriage, such as being able to act as an agent for each other and children.

 

I've been wondering how the people who believe marriage is until one party is disabled or incapacitated draw that line? The line used to be clear - death.

 

But if that isn't it, what is? If one gets Alzheimer's? If one gets dementia? If one gets forgetful? If one simply becomes disabled physically and can't perform sexually? Does the affected party have to be living in a facility and who decides when that should be? One person might put the spouse in a home under a much lower standard than another, who will take care of a spouse unless he is setting fire to the house or hitting the kids.

 

How do we draw these lines? And if we are free to draw these lines however we want, what does marriage even mean? "As long as it is fun for both of us"?

 

Where's that line where the other spouse feels free to divorce the affected spouse and marry another? Somebody explain this to me.

 

I'd not want to live under that shadow, myself, of worrying that my spouse is not really committed to me unless I remain in perfect health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the goal of marriage is to stay together until death, but I also believe that circumstances can dramatically change and make the marriage no longer feasible for one or both parties. To me, marriages are a contract to conduct a life together. Contracts can be re-evaluated when necessary. You cannot foresee all the things that can go wrong and change your situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the goal of marriage is to stay together until death, but I also believe that circumstances can dramatically change and make the marriage no longer feasible for one or both parties. To me, marriages are a contract to conduct a life together. Contracts can be re-evaluated when necessary. You cannot foresee all the things that can go wrong and change your situation.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I deserve happiness and respect and when my marriage lacked those things, ending it made the most sense. I became happier and healthier and found a partner who will enhance my life and not break it down.

 

My post is more why do some people get divorced which I see as going hand in hand with why get married. I deserve a healthy, happy and loving relationship with someone and marriage is definitely a committment that is highly respected. I did NOT think of divorce when I got married the first time. I was too much in love and thought the sun and moon rose and set with my ex-husband. It's not that I got married knowing divorce was an out, but I liked that it was an option when things got so bad that I hated everything about life in general.

Edited by Night Elf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for a long time, we didn't have the option of a piece of paper. As a same-sex couple, we started our family with no real plans for a formal marriage, and only our own personal and verbal commitments to each other. All of our three children were born into our family pre-marriage. Last July, same-sex marriage became legal in my state (NY), and we got married. At that point in our lives (with three under 3.5), yes, it was largely about the benefits, practicalities, and protections of legal marriage. Legal protection for me and for the children was really the big one. It won't help us much on taxes (may actually hurt, it'll be close) and it doesn't help with health insurance since I already had that through her work (and we pay super taxes on it, since our marriage is not FEDERALLY recognized, thank you DOMA). The twins' adoption was in process at the time (still necessary, since the marriage is not federally recognized).

 

But, marriage does give me some financial protection in case DW were to die, become disabled, or leave me. I don't think any of those are going to happen, but still... It also gives us considerably more rights in terms of health care visitation and decision making if one of us were in the hospital. If one of us were to die, the other would have automatic access to all of our assets without wills and probate being involved. It makes getting life insurance on me slightly easier.

 

In terms of vows, ours did not include "until death do us part". We do plan to be together until we die. We work hard on our relationship and fully intend for it to continue until one of us dies. However, we also realize and acknowledge that many things could happen, and neither of us wants to see us grow old, bitter, and unhappy together. Hopefully we can grow old together happily. Or at least mostly happily, we do understand that sometimes marriages go through rocky times and neither of us intends to bail at the first speedbump, so to speak. Barring that, I'd prefer we grow old seperately and happily (or as friends rather than spouses) than growing old together and unhappy.

 

I am an atheist, fwiw, so the biblical definitions of marriage are not critical to my definition of my marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the goal of marriage is to stay together until death, but I also believe that circumstances can dramatically change and make the marriage no longer feasible for one or both parties. To me, marriages are a contract to conduct a life together. Contracts can be re-evaluated when necessary. You cannot foresee all the things that can go wrong and change your situation.

 

Or I could have just said :iagree:. That pretty much sums it up for me. Marriage is a contract to spend our lives together. Contracts can be re-evaluated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vows I took said "As long as we both shall live."

 

We take that to mean as long as we are both physically alive OR as long as our brains function (to a degree) the same as they did the day we got married. (For clarification: we understand dead to be brain dead, even if the heart and lungs are still functioning.) For us, that means a brain injury that causes forgetfulness is not cause to dissolve our vows, but an injury that would cause one of us to have a completely different personality and way of thinking is. In that case, as we see it, the person we married died. A new person is walking around in their body. However, assuming science fiction is real :001_smile:, if my husband's brain were transplanted into another body, I would still be married to my husband.

 

A physical injury or illness that does not affect the brain is not grounds for divorce for us, unless the divorce is for financial reasons and is on paper only.

 

All that being said: time to answer your question! :001_smile:

 

A verbal agreement was not enough for us. We wanted it to be very difficult for us to end our relationship because ending it is not something we would want to do on a whim. We wanted to be legally bound to each other because feelings are fleeting and emotions are fickle. We know there will come a time when one of us doesn't feel "in love" with the other. If we were just dating, that would be a good enough reason to end our relationship, but just not liking each other isn't a good enough reason for both of us to get lawyers and get divorced.

 

We also wanted all of the legal benefits and responsibilities that come with being married (for example: him automatically being able to make medical decisions for me should I not be able to, him being able to be added to my insurance, etc.).

Edited by Stages
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for a long time, we didn't have the option of a piece of paper. As a same-sex couple, we started our family with no real plans for a formal marriage, and only our own personal and verbal commitments to each other. All of our three children were born into our family pre-marriage. Last July, same-sex marriage became legal in my state (NY), and we got married. At that point in our lives (with three under 3.5), yes, it was largely about the benefits, practicalities, and protections of legal marriage. Legal protection for me and for the children was really the big one. It won't help us much on taxes (may actually hurt, it'll be close) and it doesn't help with health insurance since I already had that through her work (and we pay super taxes on it, since our marriage is not FEDERALLY recognized, thank you DOMA). The twins' adoption was in process at the time (still necessary, since the marriage is not federally recognized).

 

But, marriage does give me some financial protection in case DW were to die, become disabled, or leave me. I don't think any of those are going to happen, but still... It also gives us considerably more rights in terms of health care visitation and decision making if one of us were in the hospital. If one of us were to die, the other would have automatic access to all of our assets without wills and probate being involved. It makes getting life insurance on me slightly easier.

 

In terms of vows, ours did not include "until death do us part". We do plan to be together until we die. We work hard on our relationship and fully intend for it to continue until one of us dies. However, we also realize and acknowledge that many things could happen, and neither of us wants to see us grow old, bitter, and unhappy together. Hopefully we can grow old together happily. Or at least mostly happily, we do understand that sometimes marriages go through rocky times and neither of us intends to bail at the first speedbump, so to speak. Barring that, I'd prefer we grow old seperately and happily (or as friends rather than spouses) than growing old together and unhappy.

 

I am an atheist, fwiw, so the biblical definitions of marriage are not critical to my definition of my marriage.

 

This is why I don't even really believe in marriage. I would have been happy not being married, but it does provide some family benefits. I think EVERYONE should be allowed to apply for a civil union- any couple at all- even a brother and sister. That way, family units of any type could benefit from insurance and other social assistance programs. To me, marriage is a religious matter and those who desire to be married could still do so through their religious institutions, while still allowing all families to partake in the benefits traditionally associated with marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in the contract. I believe that it can also be broken, by either party. My ex broke his vows to me, was emotionally abusive, neglectful, and an awful lying man. He ended our marriage, I just was the one that formalized the ending of it with divorce. Had he lived up to his vows I would have kept mine.

 

I do believe divorce is like an amputation of a limb. It is serious, and dangerous for all involved. But sometimes it is the best option out of a bunch of lousy options. I fully intend to go to my grave with all my body parts. But if heaven forbid I got gangrene I'd allow my leg cut off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, given that so many loving couples are unable to get married, society isn't exactly supportive of unmarried couples. That stigma drives many people to marry who otherwise wouldn't. Or shouldn't.

 

I've always thought that expecting someone who gets married in their twenties to stay with that person until death is fairly ridiculous. People change so much over a lifetime, and what they want and need changes, so why do we value such unswerving commitment, even in the face of things like abuse? I mean, if two people who have raised their children decide they want to separate, why is that a bad thing? Assuming that any children are grown and gone, what is so inherently moral about staying together, no matter what, regardless of love or happiness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the goal of marriage is to stay together until death, but I also believe that circumstances can dramatically change and make the marriage no longer feasible for one or both parties. To me, marriages are a contract to conduct a life together. Contracts can be re-evaluated when necessary. You cannot foresee all the things that can go wrong and change your situation.

To me, a vow differs from a contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and for other benefits of marriage, such as being able to act as an agent for each other and children.

 

I've been wondering how the people who believe marriage is until one party is disabled or incapacitated draw that line? The line used to be clear - death.

 

But if that isn't it, what is? If one gets Alzheimer's? If one gets dementia? If one gets forgetful? If one simply becomes disabled physically and can't perform sexually? Does the affected party have to be living in a facility and who decides when that should be? One person might put the spouse in a home under a much lower standard than another, who will take care of a spouse unless he is setting fire to the house or hitting the kids.

 

How do we draw these lines? And if we are free to draw these lines however we want, what does marriage even mean? "As long as it is fun for both of us"?

 

Where's that line where the other spouse feels free to divorce the affected spouse and marry another? Somebody explain this to me.

 

I'd not want to live under that shadow, myself, of worrying that my spouse is not really committed to me unless I remain in perfect health.

 

I think that is the kind of thing that needs to be discussed by the couple before they get married. "We" shouldn't have any say in why a couple stays together or gets divorced. The couple are the only people that can draw those lines for themselves. If I were to get divorced because my husband shaved his beard, that doesn't affect your marriage in any way at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the goal of marriage is to stay together until death, but I also believe that circumstances can dramatically change and make the marriage no longer feasible for one or both parties. To me, marriages are a contract to conduct a life together. Contracts can be re-evaluated when necessary. You cannot foresee all the things that can go wrong and change your situation.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I don't even really believe in marriage. I would have been happy not being married, but it does provide some family benefits. I think EVERYONE should be allowed to apply for a civil union- any couple at all- even a brother and sister. That way, family units of any type could benefit from insurance and other social assistance programs. To me, marriage is a religious matter and those who desire to be married could still do so through their religious institutions, while still allowing all families to partake in the benefits traditionally associated with marriage.

 

I completely agree with you, and if a civil union had been available in my area when we got married, and it provided all the protections a marriage would, we absolutely would have gone that route. Our marriage is a contract between the two of us, nothing more. (Well, and the government, I suppose.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've always thought that expecting someone who gets married in their twenties to stay with that person until death is fairly ridiculous. People change so much over a lifetime, and what they want and need changes, so why do we value such unswerving commitment, even in the face of things like abuse? I mean, if two people who have raised their children decide they want to separate, why is that a bad thing? Assuming that any children are grown and gone, what is so inherently moral about staying together, no matter what, regardless of love or happiness?

 

Oddly enough (and I suppose anecdotally (sp?) as I have no statistics), most of the couples I know who married before they were 25 are doing very well. Most of the couples I know who married after they were 30 are having a VERY difficult time. Also - in my personal experience, I have seen more divorces in couples who married later than in those who married younger.

 

The whole idea of waiting to get married until you are older, is imho, very flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly enough (and I suppose anecdotally (sp?) as I have no statistics), most of the couples I know who married before they were 25 are doing very well. Most of the couples I know who married after they were 30 are having a VERY difficult time. Also - in my personal experience, I have seen more divorces in couples who married later than in those who married younger.

 

The whole idea of waiting to get married until you are older, is imho, very flawed.

 

My anecdata are exactly the opposite. Most of my HS classmates married right out of high school and started having kids. By 4-5 years out most were divorced with 1 or 2 kids. The other young marriages I know of generally fared poorly too. Some folks beat the odds, of course, but many did not. Most of the people I know who married after 25 or so are doing fine. The only exception I can think of was one of my aunts who married at 50 (he was 70) and divorced in a matter of weeks. There were extensive other issues there, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that I "don't believe" in marriage until death, but I don't think it's the bar to be set - if that makes any sense. I think it's one valid option, of a variety of valid options. I believe it to be an option that rose out of social evolution, as a beneficial and effective way to protect the clan/state (and maybe even religion).

 

I tend to view relationships through the lenses of my academic studies, though. I studied both social sciences and biology. I see serial monogamy as a very valid option, and -in the eyes of a sociobiologist- perhaps the most beneficial and effective option in terms of continuing and evolving the species.

 

Macro vs. micro. The benefit of either would depend on one's ultimate goal and/or driving force (internal or otherwise; conscious or otherwise).

 

All of that aside, though, to the issue of verbal agreements ... in today's society where words seem to mean so little to so many, I fear we've become conditioned to wanting something concrete and hard to refer back to. Beyond that, the legal and social benefits of marriage might outweigh any (potential) legal and social losses due to divorce down the road. At the very least it could appear so, at the on-set of a marriage - right? ;)

 

Finally, not all divorces are "bad" - some of those that are might be less so if the expectation of 'marriage forever' wasn't weighing so heavily on the parties. If one entered into a marriage knowing it was "until mutual agreement do us part" as opposed to "until death do us part" methinks the whole divorce process would be designed to be less hostile and "bad" (for lack of a better word). If it were a contract like any other (business, political, etc.) then when it didn't work out, you'd cut your losses and move on; it's the emotional and religious attachment that sometimes makes the nulling of the marriage contract to become so unbearable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for a long time, we didn't have the option of a piece of paper. As a same-sex couple, we started our family with no real plans for a formal marriage, and only our own personal and verbal commitments to each other. All of our three children were born into our family pre-marriage. Last July, same-sex marriage became legal in my state (NY), and we got married. At that point in our lives (with three under 3.5), yes, it was largely about the benefits, practicalities, and protections of legal marriage. Legal protection for me and for the children was really the big one. It won't help us much on taxes (may actually hurt, it'll be close) and it doesn't help with health insurance since I already had that through her work (and we pay super taxes on it, since our marriage is not FEDERALLY recognized, thank you DOMA). The twins' adoption was in process at the time (still necessary, since the marriage is not federally recognized).

 

But, marriage does give me some financial protection in case DW were to die, become disabled, or leave me. I don't think any of those are going to happen, but still... It also gives us considerably more rights in terms of health care visitation and decision making if one of us were in the hospital. If one of us were to die, the other would have automatic access to all of our assets without wills and probate being involved. It makes getting life insurance on me slightly easier.

 

In terms of vows, ours did not include "until death do us part". We do plan to be together until we die. We work hard on our relationship and fully intend for it to continue until one of us dies. However, we also realize and acknowledge that many things could happen, and neither of us wants to see us grow old, bitter, and unhappy together. Hopefully we can grow old together happily. Or at least mostly happily, we do understand that sometimes marriages go through rocky times and neither of us intends to bail at the first speedbump, so to speak. Barring that, I'd prefer we grow old seperately and happily (or as friends rather than spouses) than growing old together and unhappy.

 

I am an atheist, fwiw, so the biblical definitions of marriage are not critical to my definition of my marriage.

 

That's completely outrageous. Why do people not understand that the discrimination you suffer is no different from racial discrimination? Everyone should be outraged. You are guaranteed equal protection under the law, which clearly is not the case now.

 

At least things seem to be changing. As is evident on the polygamy thread currently running, an awful lot of people don't care how other people choose to live their lives.

 

Unfortunately, the forces of darkness are still fighting for their hateful beliefs. In North Carolina, they're trying to get a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Of course, even racial equality came late to the South. When we bought our home in 1987, we were shocked to see that when the house was built in 1969 there was a deed covenant that prohibited it from being sold to anyone who was not white. And, believe it or not, until not all that many years ago, I as an atheist was legally prohibited from holding public office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thescrappyhomeschooler: I believe the goal of marriage is to stay together until death, but I also believe that circumstances can dramatically change and make the marriage no longer feasible for one or both parties. To me, marriages are a contract to conduct a life together. Contracts can be re-evaluated when necessary.

 

Night Elf: Because I deserve happiness and respect and when my marriage lacked those things, ending it made the most sense. I became happier and healthier and found a partner who will enhance my life and not break it down.

 

 

In terms of vows, ours did not include "until death do us part". We do plan to be together until we die. We work hard on our relationship and fully intend for it to continue until one of us dies. However, we also realize and acknowledge that many things could happen, and neither of us wants to see us grow old, bitter, and unhappy together.

 

Stages:The vows I took said "As long as we both shall live."

 

We take that to mean as long as we are both physically alive OR as long as our brains function (to a degree) the same as they did the day we got married. (For clarification: we understand dead to be brain dead, even if the heart and lungs are still functioning.) For us, that means a brain injury that causes forgetfulness is not cause to dissolve our vows, but an injury that would cause one of us to have a completely different personality and way of thinking is. In that case, as we see it, the person we married died. A new person is walking around in their body.

 

Hmm. Interesting. Who is going to make that call? The one who wants out, that's who, is going to simply say the other isn't the person he married.

 

I think EVERYONE should be allowed to apply for a civil union- any couple at all- even a brother and sister. That way, family units of any type could benefit from insurance and other social assistance programs.

 

Benefits were intended as a perk of traditional marriage, not just for any two people. Otherwise, you'd have strangers joining up regularly in order to get the insurance. I can see the website now. While I recognize the need for something to be done about medical catastrophes in this country, allowing unions isn't the answer.

 

I've always thought that expecting someone who gets married in their twenties to stay with that person until death is fairly ridiculous.[/b]

 

Wow. I must really live in a different century than most of you. I think this is what married couples are supposed to do, grow old together and care for each other the rest of their lives. Be a "home" for the kids when they want to come home.

 

Remember that movie, "The Notebook"? The old man says to his kids, who are urging him to leave Mom in the nursing home because "Mama doesn't know us" and come home to them, that "Home is where your mother is."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vows I took said "As long as we both shall live."

 

However, assuming science fiction is real :001_smile:, if my husband's brain were transplanted into another body, I would still be married to my husband.

 

.

 

That never occurred to me! Hmmm, can the spouse pick the body? :D

 

I do believe in marriage till death. I just also believe that for various reasons, divorce should be an option. I don't plan to ever get divorced but there are instances where I believe it is the right course of action for the spouses and kids involved.

 

:iagree: Divorce should be an option, just a rarity IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I must really live in a different century than most of you. I think this is what married couples are supposed to do, grow old together and care for each other the rest of their lives. Be a "home" for the kids when they want to come home.

 

Remember that movie, "The Notebook"? The old man says to his kids, who are urging him to leave Mom in the nursing home because "Mama doesn't know us" and come home to them, that "Home is where your mother is."

 

And I think that's a big part of why there are so many divorces in this country- because we base our expectations of love and marriage on romantic books and movies, not the realities of human nature. I don't see anything wrong with two people saying, "Okay, let's commit to stay together until we have raised our children, and after that's done, we'll evaluate where we are and what we both want out of life." If they've grown apart and both want different things, why is it so bad for them to move on separately and remain good friends?

 

I'm not saying that no one should stay together for life. If that's what you want, that's great! But people shouldn't be shamed into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I think that's a big part of why there are so many divorces in this country- because we base our expectations of love and marriage on romantic books and movies, not the realities of human nature. I don't see anything wrong with two people saying, "Okay, let's commit to stay together until we have raised our children, and after that's done, we'll evaluate where we are and what we both want out of life." If they've grown apart and both want different things, why is it so bad for them to move on separately and remain good friends?

 

I'm not saying that no one should stay together for life. If that's what you want, that's great! But people shouldn't be shamed into it.

Because you took a freaking VOW to love, honor and cherish until death do you part!

 

This isn't like, "Oh well, we've grown apart, dear. Besides, I met a woman 20 years your junior and she's hotter than you. Oh, and that shaking you are starting to do as a result of your (fill in the blank disease) is frustrating to me and I don't wish to have a burden on me in older age. So, I think our contract should be reevaluated."

 

I'm laughing that I have to even mention this minor fact of this being what marriage IS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. Interesting. Who is going to make that call? The one who wants out, that's who, is going to simply say the other isn't the person he married.

 

 

The person most likely to make that call: a medical doctor because that kind of change would only occur after an extreme illness or injury. I'm talking about old neural pathways being destroyed (which would be visible in a brain scan) and new ones forming.

 

I had a full time job when my husband and I got married. I stay at home now. That change doesn't make me a different person. If I had a head injury and went from being a stay at home, future homeschooling mother, to a "party girl" who had no interest in spending time with my kids, then I would be a different person. It is certainly not as simple as one just saying the other has changed. I'm talking about an irreversible, profound change at the core of a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you took a freaking VOW to love, honor and cherish until death do you part!

 

This isn't like, "Oh well, we've grown apart, dear. Besides, I met a woman 20 years your junior and she's hotter than you. Oh, and that shaking you are starting to do as a result of your (fill in the blank disease) is frustrating to me and I don't wish to have a burden on me in older age. So, I think our contract should be reevaluated."

 

I'm laughing that I have to even mention this minor fact of this being what marriage IS.

 

And marriage is that way because it came from a society in which a woman was property. But now, with our culture being so different, why is it better to vow to stay together until death than to vow to stay together until you've raised your children? Why is the one inherently more moral than the other? Why is it necessary for a marriage to always be until death?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe in marriage till death. I just also believe that for various reasons, divorce should be an option. I don't plan to ever get divorced but there are instances where I believe it is the right course of action for the spouses and kids involved.

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And marriage is that way because it came from a society in which a woman was property. But now, with our culture being so different, why is it better to vow to stay together until death than to vow to stay together until you've raised your children? Why is the one inherently more moral than the other? Why is it necessary for a marriage to always be until death?

Why don't you ask the kids how they feel about it? Especially the kids from parents who ditched each other in middle age for the greener pastures that didn't really exist; simply one set of problems is traded for another.

 

Because stating out of your mouth that you will honor and cherish someone as a husband/wife until death do you part before God means something. It isn't just frivolous words.

 

At least I think it means something. Is this standard always met? No. Things happen (like abuse, molestation, etc), but that does not mean we throw out the standard as is being advocated here.

 

It has nothing to do with the property status of women once upon a time, not to people who are old enough to know what they are doing and to enter vows. Otherwise, just shack up.

 

Or enter "civil unions".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. Interesting. Who is going to make that call? The one who wants out, that's who, is going to simply say the other isn't the person he married.

 

Yes, that is a possibility. I'm ok with that. If, especially after our children are grown, my DW really does not want to be with me anymore, I would not want her to stay with me because she felt honor-bound to do so.

 

 

 

Benefits were intended as a perk of traditional marriage, not just for any two people. Otherwise, you'd have strangers joining up regularly in order to get the insurance. I can see the website now. While I recognize the need for something to be done about medical catastrophes in this country, allowing unions isn't the answer.
Who defines "traditional marriage" and why do the people in a traditional marriage get those "perks" while others cannot?

 

Wow. I must really live in a different century than most of you. I think this is what married couples are supposed to do, grow old together and care for each other the rest of their lives. Be a "home" for the kids when they want to come home.

 

Remember that movie, "The Notebook"? The old man says to his kids, who are urging him to leave Mom in the nursing home because "Mama doesn't know us" and come home to them, that "Home is where your mother is."

I agree, that is what married couples should do, ideally. Reality is not a movie. Reality is not made up of ideal situations. If a couple is happy together, then your pretty picture works out. If they are happy together, it's pretty unlikely that they are going to split up anyhow. What if they are miserable and bicker constantly, and their children just hope they will finally call it quits so they can get some peace when they visit? Should those couples stay together? What if one person becomes mean and disrespectful to the other, even if not outright abusive? What kind of "home" is that for the kids?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the goal of marriage is to stay together until death, but I also believe that circumstances can dramatically change and make the marriage no longer feasible for one or both parties.

:iagree:I'm not keen on the 'contract' aspect, so I snipped it. :tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you ask the kids how they feel about it? Especially the kids from parents who ditched each other in middle age for the greener pastures that didn't really exist; simply one set of problems is traded for another.

 

Because stating out of your mouth that you will honor and cherish someone as a husband/wife until death do you part before God means something. It isn't just frivolous words.

 

At least I think it means something. Is this standard always met? No. Things happen (like abuse, molestation, etc), but that does not mean we throw out the standard as is being advocated here.

 

It has nothing to do with the property status of women once upon a time, not to people who are old enough to know what they are doing and to enter vows. Otherwise, just shack up.

 

Or enter "civil unions".

 

In our backwards country, "civil unions" are all that some are allowed to have. If we going to hold up marriage as the height of morality, it should be an option for all couples in loving relationships. :glare:

 

I don't see why it would be upsetting for grown ups to hear that their parents have thoughtfully and lovingly decided to just be friends. Most people that I know want their parents to be happy, not to stay shackled together out of obligation to their offspring's sense of consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you took a freaking VOW to love, honor and cherish until death do you part!

 

I'm laughing that I have to even mention this minor fact of this being what marriage IS.

 

That may be what YOUR marriage "is" and what YOUR vows included, but it is not a "fact" of what marriage "is." Why would you assume that's what everyone else's vows said, and what their marriages are?

 

I was not married in a church and my vows did not say "till death do us part." I would never want to be trapped in a miserable, loveless marriage, and neither would DH. Our marriage is strong and healthy, and I certainly didn't get married expecting to divorce, but I do believe that divorce is preferable to two people spending the rest of their lives miserable and hating each other.

 

Jackie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe in the contract. I believe that it can also be broken, by either party. My ex broke his vows to me, was emotionally abusive, neglectful, and an awful lying man. He ended our marriage, I just was the one that formalized the ending of it with divorce. Had he lived up to his vows I would have kept mine.

 

I do believe divorce is like an amputation of a limb. It is serious, and dangerous for all involved. But sometimes it is the best option out of a bunch of lousy options. I fully intend to go to my grave with all my body parts. But if heaven forbid I got gangrene I'd allow my leg cut off.

 

Great analogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I deserve happiness and respect and when my marriage lacked those things, ending it made the most sense. I became happier and healthier and found a partner who will enhance my life and not break it down.

 

My post is more why do some people get divorced which I see as going hand in hand with why get married. I deserve a healthy, happy and loving relationship with someone and marriage is definitely a committment that is highly respected. I did NOT think of divorce when I got married the first time. I was too much in love and thought the sun and moon rose and set with my ex-husband. It's not that I got married knowing divorce was an out, but I liked that it was an option when things got so bad that I hated everything about life in general.

:iagree:

 

I believe the goal of marriage is to stay together until death, but I also believe that circumstances can dramatically change and make the marriage no longer feasible for one or both parties. To me, marriages are a contract to conduct a life together. Contracts can be re-evaluated when necessary. You cannot foresee all the things that can go wrong and change your situation.

 

:iagree:

Why don't you ask the kids how they feel about it? Especially the kids from parents who ditched each other in middle age for the greener pastures that didn't really exist; simply one set of problems is traded for another.

 

Because stating out of your mouth that you will honor and cherish someone as a husband/wife until death do you part before God means something. It isn't just frivolous words.

 

At least I think it means something. Is this standard always met? No. Things happen (like abuse, molestation, etc), but that does not mean we throw out the standard as is being advocated here.

 

It has nothing to do with the property status of women once upon a time, not to people who are old enough to know what they are doing and to enter vows. Otherwise, just shack up.

 

Or enter "civil unions".

 

I have a marriage but I did not make any vows before God. DH and I were married by the mayor of our town. Doesn't make our marriage less valid.

 

I do have divorced parents, although I was young enough that I don't remember my parents together. I've talked to my dd often about my divorce from her dad. She was glad that the constant yelling and abusive behavior stopped. Her dad's behavior (including telling her at 8 years old that Mommy was going to he!! for leaving him) made it much harder than it needed to be but she was still relieved when it was over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. I don't see anything wrong with two people saying, "Okay, let's commit to stay together until we have raised our children, and after that's done, we'll evaluate where we are and what we both want out of life." If they've grown apart and both want different things, why is it so bad for them to move on separately and remain good friends?

 

I'm not saying that no one should stay together for life. If that's what you want, that's great! But people shouldn't be shamed into it.

 

I think what you are saying is the kind of thing people say until it actually happens to them... and they are the one on the receiving end of the, "we've grown apart and want different things" speech. I think most people have a tendency to believe that they will be the one who is ready to move on one day, and not that they will be blindsided one day by a spouse who suddenly announces that he or she wants out of the marriage.

 

I'm not anti-divorce; I just don't think it is usually as cut-and-dried or as civil as you are portraying it. Emotions are raw, and there are huge financial considerations, as well as dealing with the kids taking one person's side over the other, who gets the friends, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you ask the kids how they feel about it? Especially the kids from parents who ditched each other in middle age for the greener pastures that didn't really exist; simply one set of problems is traded for another.

My parents divorced when I was a kid and I was glad they did. They were miserable and I was tired of listening to the fights. They are both much much happier with their 2nd spouses. I don't doubt for one minute that they did the right thing.

 

Because stating out of your mouth that you will honor and cherish someone as a husband/wife until death do you part before God means something. It isn't just frivolous words.

Not everyone gets married in a church. Not all religions forbid divorce.

 

It has nothing to do with the property status of women once upon a time, not to people who are old enough to know what they are doing and to enter vows. Otherwise, just shack up.

Or enter "civil unions".

 

If people in civil unions were given the same rights as married people, I'd be absolutely fine with that. In fact, I think it would solve a lot of problems to completely separate the religious component of marriage from the legal status of civil unions. If you want the legal rights, you have a civil ceremony; if you want the union blessed in a religious service, do that, too. It would even allow for people to be married "in the eyes of God" while remaining outside of a civil union where that is financially beneficial.

 

Jackie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that is the kind of thing that needs to be discussed by the couple before they get married. "We" shouldn't have any say in why a couple stays together or gets divorced. The couple are the only people that can draw those lines for themselves. If I were to get divorced because my husband shaved his beard, that doesn't affect your marriage in any way at all.

 

But divorce, the sheer numbers of families fracturing, does affect society as a whole.

 

And divorce affects kids. Sure their are bad enough marriages that divorce is the lesser of two evils...but again the standard of marriage shouldn't be thrown out because of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's completely outrageous. Why do people not understand that the discrimination you suffer is no different from racial discrimination? Everyone should be outraged. You are guaranteed equal protection under the law, which clearly is not the case now.

 

At least things seem to be changing. As is evident on the polygamy thread currently running, an awful lot of people don't care how other people choose to live their lives.

 

Unfortunately, the forces of darkness are still fighting for their hateful beliefs. In North Carolina, they're trying to get a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Of course, even racial equality came late to the South. When we bought our home in 1987, we were shocked to see that when the house was built in 1969 there was a deed covenant that prohibited it from being sold to anyone who was not white. And, believe it or not, until not all that many years ago, I as an atheist was legally prohibited from holding public office.

 

:iagree:

 

I recently moved from a state where the gay people I knew were essentially hiding in plain sight, (cause they weren't even supposed to exist) to where they can live in plain sight--even though they can't get married.

 

DOMA--protecting the institution of marriage from people who want to get married.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what you are saying is the kind of thing people say until it actually happens to them... and they are the one on the receiving end of the, "we've grown apart and want different things" speech. I think most people have a tendency to believe that they will be the one who is ready to move on one day, and not that they will be blindsided one day by a spouse who suddenly announces that he or she wants out of the marriage..

 

It is interesting that you phrased it this way...my dh and I were just discussing the way my XH looks every time we see him at drop off/pick up of ds. He has a deer in the headlight look, like 'what the heck happened?' I see him sometimes look at me and look at dh and he looks confused. Even though he caused the divorce with his affair, I do believe he was blindsided by me actually divorcing him. He didn't think it would happen. So I can imagine how it would feel to be dumped that way when you did nothing wrong...except maybe get old or sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what you are saying is the kind of thing people say until it actually happens to them... and they are the one on the receiving end of the, "we've grown apart and want different things" speech. I think most people have a tendency to believe that they will be the one who is ready to move on one day, and not that they will be blindsided one day by a spouse who suddenly announces that he or she wants out of the marriage.

 

I'm not anti-divorce; I just don't think it is usually as cut-and-dried or as civil as you are portraying it. Emotions are raw, and there are huge financial considerations, as well as dealing with the kids taking one person's side over the other, who gets the friends, etc.

 

Once our dd is grown, if my dh didn't want to stay married to me anymore, I wouldn't want to remain in the relationship. I'd rather strike out on my own and see what else life has to offer.

 

I love my dh, but I'm not utterly dependent on him for my happiness and well-being. I'm happy with him, and I'd find a way to be happy without him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who defines "traditional marriage" and why do the people in a traditional marriage get those "perks" while others cannot?

 

 

It has been defined since the beginning of time, and once upon a time, was how children were born into the world and nurtured.

 

Look it up in your history book.

 

If a couple is happy together, then your pretty picture works out. If they are happy together, it's pretty unlikely that they are going to split up anyhow. What if they are miserable and bicker constantly, and their children just hope they will finally call it quits so they can get some peace when they visit? Should those couples stay together?

 

Yes, and they should stop being so bloody selfish as to make everyone else miserable. If they have problems, they should fix them. Selfishness is a major cause of divorce. Not the only cause, as there are vile molesters/criminals, etc hiding out behind an oblivious trusting spouse, but is definitely a major cause.

 

Every day isn't a bed of roses. Deal with it and each other because you went into this together.

 

A lot of this can be controlled on the early end by exercising some considerable care in choosing a spouse and making sure that wise people you know vet the relationship. That doesn't seem to happen as much as it should. Pay attention to the evidence being presented to you by the person you are dating. Don't have sex early on, so that you CAN pay attention and not be blinded by the physical side, which is great for everyone -early on.

 

What if one person becomes mean and disrespectful to the other, even if not outright abusive?

 

Well, he - or she - ought to get some help. Uncover the reasons. Work on the reasons instead of get involved with someone else, the answer for much of America. If everyone's not happy, no one is happy.

 

Yeah, call me Ann Landers, or one of her contemporaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm. Interesting. Who is going to make that call? The one who wants out, that's who, is going to simply say the other isn't the person he married.

 

If my spouse wants out so badly that he'll use that as any excuse to get out of our marriage, good riddance. Why would I want to stay in a relationship with someone who felt so strongly about getting away from me? :confused:

 

And I think that's a big part of why there are so many divorces in this country- because we base our expectations of love and marriage on romantic books and movies, not the realities of human nature. I don't see anything wrong with two people saying, "Okay, let's commit to stay together until we have raised our children, and after that's done, we'll evaluate where we are and what we both want out of life." If they've grown apart and both want different things, why is it so bad for them to move on separately and remain good friends?

 

I'm not saying that no one should stay together for life. If that's what you want, that's great! But people shouldn't be shamed into it.

 

:iagree:

 

Why don't you ask the kids how they feel about it? Especially the kids from parents who ditched each other in middle age for the greener pastures that didn't really exist; simply one set of problems is traded for another.

 

Because stating out of your mouth that you will honor and cherish someone as a husband/wife until death do you part before God means something. It isn't just frivolous words.

 

At least I think it means something. Is this standard always met? No. Things happen (like abuse, molestation, etc), but that does not mean we throw out the standard as is being advocated here.

 

It has nothing to do with the property status of women once upon a time, not to people who are old enough to know what they are doing and to enter vows. Otherwise, just shack up.

 

Or enter "civil unions".

 

Well, as a child who grew up often wishing her parents would get divorced, and who is now an adult who wishes they could find a way to be happily apart, I would say that the kid are adults who should realize that their parents have a right to aim for happiness too. Is it hard? Of course. Would I expect my parents to remain in a miserable marriage so they can be some kind of false "home" for me? Never in a million years would I wish that on my parents. They are people too, and they deserve love and respect and self-respect and my support for the choices they make in their lives.

 

You are taking this awfully personally. Not everyone takes the same vows you did, not everyone sees them as vows to God, and not everyone feels the way you do about marriage when they enter into a marriage. Why are you so concerned about other people's vows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you ask the kids how they feel about it? Especially the kids from parents who ditched each other in middle age for the greener pastures that didn't really exist; simply one set of problems is traded for another.

 

I have several adult friends whose parents divorced once the kids were adults. In most cases the children are happy that their parents are finally getting around to ending it. In some cases the children are sad or shocked. Either way, I don't think a couple needs to stay unhappily together to protect their adult children.

 

Because stating out of your mouth that you will honor and cherish someone as a husband/wife until death do you part before God means something. It isn't just frivolous words.
Well, precisely because I do take my vows very seriously, I didn't say "till death do us part". Our vows did not include that phrase. Neither did my parents' vows, incidentally. They were married in 1979 and are still happily together, providing a loving home for their children and grandchildren to visit. My DW's parents' vows did include "till death". Their marriage lasted 2 years. Her mom remarried, including the "till death" bit. That marriage lasted 3-4 years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once our dd is grown, if my dh didn't want to stay married to me anymore, I wouldn't want to remain in the relationship. I'd rather strike out on my own and see what else life has to offer.

 

I love my dh, but I'm not utterly dependent on him for my happiness and well-being. I'm happy with him, and I'd find a way to be happy without him.

Not dependent here either. I lived alone until nearly 30 years old. I don't "Need" someone, but I sure like having my husband. He's awesome And I vowed to love, honor and cherish him until one of us dies, so that is what I am going to do.

 

He sure did that recently for me when I nearly died after my appendix ruptured. He was with me nearly 24/7, took me to the bathroom, still kept everything going at home, the house clean and the kids where they needed to be. He's in it for the long haul, not just until I have difficulties, which I pray I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...