Corraleno Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I see society steadily going down hill. And maybe 'every generation' thinks that because it is true. In countries where women are forbidden to vote or drive or even show their faces in public, I'm sure that many see changes in that direction as sure signs that society is "going downhill." I'm sure there were people who saw the emancipation of slaves as a sign that society was going downhill. Ditto voting rights for women and blacks. Do you think that people in those generations believed society was going "downhill" because it was true? Jackie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I'm trying to imagine how people would react if an adult son put his mother with Alzheimer's into a top-notch care facility, then disowned her and went out to get another one. Because, you know, he really felt sad without a mother figure in his life, and his children needed a grandmother to rock in a rocking chair and bake them cookies. And that other woman just wasn't the same person any more. :001_huh: .. Invalid comparison. Child/parent relationship is entirely different, even if the child is chronologically and adult. The nature of the relationship, the interaction, and the purpse is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Quote:Originally Posted by Chris in VA A constant theme of these threads seems to be "Marriage is all about ME." Yes, I agree. I don't think so. What I read is not that these threads have that theme at all. What I see is that many traditional, mostly Christian posters assume is that those who have a differing viewpoint come from a "all about me" perspective. But I'm not seeing selfishness, superficial marriage, lightness of commitment or vows at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I don't think so. What I read is not that these threads have that theme at all. What I see is that many traditional, mostly Christian posters assume is that those who have a differing viewpoint come from a "all about me" perspective. But I'm not seeing selfishness, superficial marriage, lightness of commitment or vows at all. I am remembering several posters who talk about 'their happiness' and 'their needs' to explain why they would end a marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie in NE Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 To me, a vow differs from a contract. :iagree: My marriage is not a business transaction. My vows are sacred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissel Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) I see society steadily going down hill. And maybe 'every generation' thinks that because it is true. Who gets to define what is "downhill"? I'm sure that many of the things you view as a decline in society, I view as improvements. And you and TranquilMind are here citing these noble previous generations, yet surely their forebears thought those generations were headed to hell in a handbasket. How can it be both? Just because fewer people divorced then doesn't mean that everything behind the scenes of those "intact" marriages was all sunshine and roses. Surely you know enough about the history of those generations to know that many, many women were miserable. They were still property. They couldn't get a divorce if they needed one. They couldn't even get a checking account if they needed one! They were dependent on husbands for everything and had no way out of a bad marriage. How is that an improvement over now? If you had married YOUR ex-husband in 1947, would that have been a good marriage for you? And since so many people knew their duty and stayed together in spite of what they were going through, how would that life have looked for you and your son? Please, let's not make the mistake of looking back at the history of marriage with the rose-colored spectacles of nostalgia. Let's instead look at the realities of the plight of both men and women in the times we're yearning for. Edited January 31, 2012 by melissel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Who gets to define what is "downhill"? I'm sure that many of the things you view as a decline in society, I view as improvements. And you and TranquilMind are here citing these noble previous generations, yet surely their forebears thought those generations were headed to hell in a handbasket. How can it be both? Just because fewer people divorced then didn't mean that everything behind the scenes of those "intact" marriages was all sunshine and roses. Surely you know enough about the history of those generations to know that many, many women were miserable. They were still property. They couldn't get a divorce if they needed one. They couldn't even get a checking account if they needed one! They were dependent on husbands for everything and had no way out of a bad marriage. How is that an improvement over now? If you had married YOUR ex-husband in 1947, would that have been a good marriage for you? And since so many people knew their duty and stayed together in spite of what they were going through, how would that life have looked for you and your son? Please, let's not make the mistake of looking back at the history of marriage with the rose-colored spectacles of nostalgia. Let's instead look at the realities of the plight of both men and women in times we're yearning for. As with most trends in history the pendalum has swung too far in the opposite direction. And you are probably right that the things I see as going down hill you see as improvements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissel Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 As with most trends in history the pendalum has swung too far in the opposite direction. And you are probably right that the things I see as going down hill you see as improvements. So then we come right back around to the beginning. You mind your marriage vows and I'll mind mine. You mind your morals and I'll mind mine. Why even continue to debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 ...there should be a PUSH to convince EVERYONE getting married to think about how to fix things when tough times come. I agree with that — but I also think that some things truly can't be fixed and the spouses in those marriages have the right to end it and move on with their lives. I don't see the point in forcing two people to spend their lives in abject misery because they made a promise (assuming they even did promise "till death do us part") at a time when they could not have foreseen what the future would bring. I don't think that ruining two people's lives benefits the children, and I don't think it benefits "society." Jackie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mama Geek Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 And these parents staying together wouldn't change any of that. They would still be fighting, not cooperating with each other, but the kids would be in constant exposure. How is that healthy, and how would that be any better for the kids? I grew up w/ parents who should have divorced long before I graduated from college. I would have had a much healthier childhood, not being exposed to the daily arguments and hatred for each other. Yes, I'm sure there would have still been arguing and nasty comments, but they both would have been lessed stressed on a day to day basis, which would have made it a much healthier environment to grow up in. This happens whether they are together or not. Trust me I know, my parents fought when they weren't together, and for years I had to listen to my dad's hatred towards my mom for leaving him. When I got married and things got difficult my first instinct was to run. Luckily I had a very loving and patient husband who didn't just say fine go. It took us a long time to work through our problems and it took me a long time to come to the conclusion that divorce wasn't the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Marriage is a legal institution. Matters of the heart are not fixed or broken by pieces of paper. Joe or Jill Schmuck doesn't become Mr. or Mrs. Wonderful by marrying them. Mr. or Ms. Honest, Decent, and True doesn't go bad because you aren't married to them. "Marriage is a friendship recognized by the police" ... and by insurance companies, Social Security, car rental agencies, etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 This happens whether they are together or not. Trust me I know, my parents fought when they weren't together, and for years I had to listen to my dad's hatred towards my mom for leaving him. When I got married and things got difficult my first instinct was to run. Luckily I had a very loving and patient husband who didn't just say fine go. It took us a long time to work through our problems and it took me a long time to come to the conclusion that divorce wasn't the answer. I was thinking this same thing. If you have kids the stress is still there even when you divorce. My sister was very angry at her dh because he wouldn't take care of a legal matter to protect her interest in the family business in case he died (he co owns a business with his brother) She can't deal with the brother so she wanted an arrangement in place to void problems if her dh died. So she is ranting to me, repeating what she told her dh, 'I would rather be divorced from you than have to deal with your brother!' I said, 'sister, if he dies you will have to deal with his brother EVEN IF you are divorced because it will then be your children's business.' She looked like I had slapped her she was so shocked. She had to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 For me, while the kids are small, the point of termination comes if the relationship had deteriorated to the point where we feel the kids would be better off if we separated. When the kids are grown point of termination is when, even after working as hard as we can on our relationship (therapy, etc) someone is still deeply unhappy and wants out. Well, with these parameters, it would be a whole lot easier to just not get married. Live together. The vow part doesn't mean anything anyway. Much easier to disentangle your affairs if there is no legal marriage. Someone just moves out. Problem solved (except for the kids). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Unicorn: And these parents staying together wouldn't change any of that. They would still be fighting, not cooperating with each other, but the kids would be in constant exposure. Yes, they are selfish and can't stop thinking about themselves long enough to even get along civilly for the kids! How is that healthy, and how would that be any better for the kids? I grew up w/ parents who should have divorced long before I graduated from college. I would have had a much healthier childhood, not being exposed to the daily arguments and hatred for each other. Maybe you would. Maybe they would have just continued the fight long distance, over the phone, and through attorneys, with you still right in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrganicAnn Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I believe that the goal should be marriage for a lifetime, but some people just make mistakes. We are all people with faults, sins and mistakes. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, but also doesn't mean someone didn't try if they ended up divorced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I will definitely agree with that. I see people getting married all the time and their blinders are so firmly in place that it would be laughable if it weren't so sad. I wish people were brought up that it was a GOOD thing to discuss the worst possible scenarios with a potential/future spouse instead of waiting for the worst to happen only to find out that the person you married isn't capable of meeting that challenge. Talk about what you would do if you are infertile (one, the other or both). Talk about what you would do if one partner were incapacitated -- and included variations thereof. Talk about your families and all the a--holes in it who may be problems in your marriage (because, let's face it, in-law baggage has sunk many a marriage) And, etc... Romance is all fine and dandy, but buckle up for bear 'cause life ain't a romance, baby. Agreed. You might as well know what and whom you are dealing with right up front. But of course, early romance -and especially if there is sex involved - totally blinds one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 The thing is, in every traditional culture throughout history that I can think of, marriage is about taking two people and making them family. And family doesn't just last until the children are grown. It is forever. For better or for worse. Using phrases like "since the beginning of time" and "throughout history" to refer to a specifically Christian definition of marriage (monogamous, till death) is extremely ethnocentric. There have been many MANY different definitions of marriage "throughout history." If you (and others who are taking this point of view) believe that the Christian definition of marriage is the only acceptable one — and in most cases what's being spoken of is a particular denomination's rules and restrictions on marriage/divorce/remarriage — then you are saying that your denomination's beliefs should apply to everyone else. And if they don't share those beliefs, then obviously they "don't know what marriage IS," or they don't take their marriages seriously, or they would just bail the minute things were no longer "entertaining." Trying to pass off a very specific religious belief as if all humans have agreed with it "throughout history," "since the beginning of time" — and therefore it's just common sense and not a religious belief — is either disingenuous or uninformed. Jackie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melissel Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Agreed. You might as well know what and whom you are dealing with right up front. But of course, early romance -and especially if there is sex involved - totally blinds one. Good point. People blinded by sexual desire and in a hurry to get to the altar to relieve it always make excellent decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeannpal Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 :iagree: This seems to be what my history books point to - an arrangement where all the power is with the man and the women and children are property. :iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Invalid comparison. Child/parent relationship is entirely different, even if the child is chronologically and adult. The nature of the relationship, the interaction, and the purpse is different. Both of these relationships are part of the broader category of family. Immediate family, at that. As such, their nature and purpose are intimately connected with the nature and purpose of the family. How could it be any other way? To read some of the posts here (again, I'm speaking of the ones who see divorce as not really a big deal), it would seem that either A) marriage is not really about becoming family or B) if a family member can no longer function in the way we'd like -- even if this is in no way their fault -- it's fine to remove them from the family, and bring in an outsider to replace them. I'm inclined to think it must be A), because B) sounds unspeakably horrible to me. But I'll leave it to those who hold this belief to explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeannpal Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 That was not my intention and I agree that "entertaining" wasn't the best word choice. But I'm not really clear on what one inserts as a principle if not "until death do us part". So it is what: "I promise to love, honor and cherish you until (Fill in the blank for me, please). What is the point of termination where the spouse has the out? I'm actually not doing this at all. Numerous people have opined that their marriages are not until death do they part, but until some other lower bar is reached. I'm simply examining the parameters of that within OUR culture, as I made clear elsewhere and for which I apologize initially, as I assumed this was understood, since the incidents that caused these conversations were about American traditional marriages, not aboriginal arranged marriages, for example. Differing points of view are one thing. Disparaging another person and their marriage is quite another kettle of fish. I am a Christian, and I have no idea what you mean by our culture. America is well known as a melting pot. Many cultures are a part of our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Both of these relationships are part of the broader category of family. Immediate family, at that. As such, their nature and purpose are intimately connected with the nature and purpose of the family. How could it be any other way? To read some of the posts here (again, I'm speaking of the ones who see divorce as not really a big deal), it would seem that either A) marriage is not really about becoming family or B) if a family member can no longer function in the way we'd like -- even if this is in no way their fault -- it's fine to remove them from the family, and bring in an outsider to replace them. I'm inclined to think it must be A), because B) sounds unspeakably horrible to me. But I'll leave it to those who hold this belief to explain it. I kept thinking about the man with the 11 year old mind. My ds is 11. I can't imagine just getting another 11 year old because he no longer fits my idea of what an 11 year old boys should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Why not just fix it? Much easier than divorce. (In most cases) And I tried. For years. And years. But it turns out it takes TWO people to make a marriage work. I couldn't force my husband to stop being neglectful, or mean, or emotionally damaging to me and my son. He had to do that work, he had to fix himself, and he didn't. For that matter, why didn't you fix your marriage with your ex? I'm imagining it was because you couldn't control his behavior anymore than I could control my husband's behavior. He didn't cheat on me, but would have one day I'm sure. He was just too lazy to bother at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Well, with these parameters, it would be a whole lot easier to just not get married. Live together. The vow part doesn't mean anything anyway. Much easier to disentangle your affairs if there is no legal marriage. Someone just moves out. Problem solved (except for the kids). How do you know what was in their vows??? Maybe their vows were deeply meaningful to them, and expressed the hopes and promises that they were bringing to their marriage. Just as your vows expressed your hopes and promises. What makes you think that if two people have been together for years, and have tried hard to work things out, that the decision to separate would be a simple matter of "just moving out"? Do you really think that unless someone's beliefs about marriage are identical to yours then they are incapable of a loving, committed relationship? That separating would be a painless exercise in packing boxes, devoid of trauma or heartbreak? Do you actually believe that? :confused: Jackie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeannpal Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I see society steadily going down hill. And maybe 'every generation' thinks that because it is true. Yeah, I'm sure that African Americans today think society is going downhill because, you know, everything was so great 50 years ago. Personally, I am reading a lot of verbal applause from those who are patting themselves on the back because they are upright and moral. I am ashamed that this is the way Christianity is being portrayed. I can assure you that all Christians aren't this judgmental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 And I tried. For years. And years. But it turns out it takes TWO people to make a marriage work. I couldn't force my husband to stop being neglectful, or mean, or emotionally damaging to me and my son. He had to do that work, he had to fix himself, and he didn't. For that matter, why didn't you fix your marriage with your ex? I'm imagining it was because you couldn't control his behavior anymore than I could control my husband's behavior. He didn't cheat on me, but would have one day I'm sure. He was just too lazy to bother at that point. But see when I say 'why not just fix it?' I am talking not just to the yous and mes of the world. I am talking to our exhusbands too. Why not fix it...or in many cases, fix yourself, figure out what makes you so selfish and mean and stop it. Just stop it. I didn't ask for much at all. But he couldn't be bothered to do ANYTHING to make our marriage bearable or to set boundaries to stop himself from cheating on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlett Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Yeah, I'm sure that African Americans today think society is going downhill because, you know, everything was so great 50 years ago. Personally, I am reading a lot of verbal applause from those who are patting themselves on the back because they are upright and moral. I am ashamed that this is the way Christianity is being portrayed. I can assure you that all Christians aren't this judgmental. Because I think society as a whole is going downhill you think I am patting myself on the back and being judgmental? :confused: And I didn't say it has anything to do with Christianity. Seriously I am confused by what you are saying here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Because you took a freaking VOW to love, honor and cherish until death do you part! In my state, to be married, you simply have to state "I will be your wife" and "I will be your husband" in front of someone legal (in our case the hospital chaplain). NOTHING I said or signed had the above words. I am an ISTJ and our "motto" is "Our Word is Our Bond". I would never, ever vow to something I was not CERTAIN I could keep. I did need a stupid piece of paper for insurance and SS, etc. Our child is far and above a more important bond that the paper or the words, or even our intentions. He's the "freaking" part. Or to quote that rather sad Neil Young song: Already one, already one. Now only time can come between us. Already one, our little son, won't let us forget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Nyssa Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Going back to the OP, I think that most people, when they marry, do believe "until death do us part," but when difficult times come up, sometimes they just can't face it. Sometimes things are too hard. We had an example of this in our own family-- similar to the thread about the husband who was brain-injured-- and while I do not think that the spouse who divorced did the "right" thing, I certainly understand it, & have compassion for the situation, and would not blame them or condemn them for that. Probably everyone's threshold for what they can bear is different. People who marry young, may have no idea how difficult life can be. Of course they have no idea what 'til death do us part' means. How could they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeannpal Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Because I think society as a whole is going downhill you think I am patting myself on the back and being judgmental? :confused: And I didn't say it has anything to do with Christianity. Seriously I am confused by what you are saying here. You are right. I don't think you understand what I am saying. I am sure you are a genuinely a nice person.W e just seem to have differing views on society as whole. And it wasn't you who mentioned Christianity. It is the general assumption that all people define marriagein the same way here in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Both of these relationships are part of the broader category of family. Immediate family, at that. As such, their nature and purpose are intimately connected with the nature and purpose of the family. How could it be any other way? To read some of the posts here (again, I'm speaking of the ones who see divorce as not really a big deal), it would seem that either A) marriage is not really about becoming family Well, if marriage is primarily about "becoming a family" then what's wrong with polygamous marriages? They "make a family" — and one could even argue that they make a stronger family, because there is a broader support system and people might be less likely to divorce if they could simply add another spouse without divorcing the first one. In some cultures, a widow is expected to marry the brother of her late husband, to keep "the family" together. What's wrong with that? What would be wrong with "communal marriages," where multiple partners of both sexes commit to a long-term relationship raising their children together in one big family? Of course, if you believe that marriage can only consist of one man and one woman married until death parts them, then you're back to arguing that your personal religious beliefs should apply to everyone else. Jackie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I see society steadily going down hill. And maybe 'every generation' thinks that because it is true. Murder rates are down in the US. I think this is a great thing!!! I really don't want to be murdered! http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm (But shhhhhhh on the possible cause of this.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmilyK Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 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. I guess this really sums it up for me. I plan to be in it for life; I know my parents and in-laws have been. But I have found the other threads too painful to read because of what feels like judging others' decisions. I had one friend go through something similar a decade ago. He couldn't have been any kinder or more ethical, but there really wasn't a person to be in a relationship with anymore. He took care of her, her parents, and is the kindest man. I feel you can't judge until you walk in someone's shoes. I believe in a lifetime commitment, which he showed (to his wife and her whole family), but he wasn't willing to give up on any companionship for the rest of his life. Who am I to judge that? I right now have one of my best friends going through something similar. She doesn't want to remarry but has to get away from extreme verbal abuse brought on by illness (long story and I don't feel OK to get into the details here). But who am I to judge her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thescrappyhomeschooler Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 :iagree: My marriage is not a business transaction. My vows are sacred. Well, that's why I think the religious definition of marriage should be separate from the civil definition. Throughout history, lots and lots of marriages have definitely been business transactions- to join land together, to provide homes for unwanted daughters, to join two powerful families, and on and on. Even now, some cultures actually draw up marriage contracts outlining the "rules" of the marriage. I dated an Indian guy whose parents were trying to arrange a marriage for him. They faxed him the resumes of potential wives, with their housekeeping, cooking and intellectual skills all laid out in black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Florida Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) 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. 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. 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 haven't read farther into the thread yet, because these three posts sum it up nicely for me. I have also admitted elsewhere that, for me, at least, making sure that the person I trusted to do so had the legal power to make significant medical decisions for me was a factor. Ours is the second marriage for both of us, after each of us married young to the wrong person. When we married, we certainly planned for it to be until death parts us, even though those words were not in our ceremony. I still plan for that to be the case. However, life does throw curve balls now and then. No, I would not divorce him because he developed dementia. No, a serious physical injury or disability wouldn't do it, either. (Actually, my husband has some health issues that I knew right up front might eventually become more serious.) I take my marriage seriously. But something catastrophic and completely unimaginable? I'm not arrogant enough to pretend that would never change things for us. Edit: I also meant to say congratulations to AdventureMoms! I'm really happy that you were finally able to get married. I wish the option were open to everyone, everywhere. Edited January 31, 2012 by Jenny in Florida Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingM Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I believe in lifelong marriage. My imagination is sufficiently advanced, however, that I can envision scenarios in which a marriage doesn't last for an entire life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElizaG Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Using phrases like "since the beginning of time" and "throughout history" to refer to a specifically Christian definition of marriage (monogamous, till death) is extremely ethnocentric. There have been many MANY different definitions of marriage "throughout history." My argument didn't presume a specifically Christian definition of marriage. Perhaps you're mixing up my post with someone else's. What I said was: 1. In all the traditional cultures I've heard of, the significance of marriage is that it takes two people and makes them family. (This could include polygamy, etc. Each dyad still constitutes two people, and these two people have become family, as viewed by that culture.) 2. In our society (speaking of contemporary USA and Canada), there's a strong generally held belief that family is forever. To disown a family member is something that's considered "out there" -- not done lightly, and not for reasons outside that person's control. And we wouldn't just choose someone else from outside the family to take that family member's title and role. So when people in our society speak as if divorce is no big deal, as some (not all) have done in this thread, there seems to be an inconsistency there. That is all. If you disagree, please disagree with I've actually written, not with some other thing that I might happen to believe. Because maybe this isn't just a religious issue. Maybe it's something else, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Rat Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I think we need to also remember that until very recently, historically speaking, the average life expectancy was 40. We are now living, especially with heroic medical measures, dang near forever. So. A husband or wife is brain damaged at 30. The spouse is supposed to remain united for another 50 years? I think it's unrealistic. JMHO. I think it would be completely isolating and lonely. There is middle ground here. It's not all or nothing. A person can remain committed to a severely disabled spouse AND live a fulfilled life with someone else. There is enough room in some people's lives and hearts for different arrangements. I don't "worry" for one minute that my hubby will ditch me the second I sneeze. But, if I had the mentality of a child or worse, was in an irreversable vegetative state, I would really want him to live a full life without me. That is love to me. Love is not selfishly demanding those ties be kept when severe circumstances prevent it. I would like to think that I would lovingly care for my husband for the next 40 years if all he could do was stare blankly at me. I would love to think that that would be enough. Realistically, I might feel otherwise if I had to walk in those shoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 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:Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmilyK Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Some of the posts in this thread seem to be coming from the perspective that marriage is about taking two people and making them a couple. So if the couple have done the things they've set out to do together -- e.g., raising children to adulthood -- and they're no longer happy, then the marriage would be over. No big deal; it has served its purpose. Almost like like some sort of husk that can be discarded. (I'm not saying everyone who's open to divorce feels this way, but it seems that some do.) The thing is, in every traditional culture throughout history that I can think of, marriage is about taking two people and making them family. And family doesn't just last until the children are grown. It is forever. For better or for worse. In difficult circumstances, families can end up estranged from one another -- but, in our society at least, for one family member to disown another would be seen as a huge deal that would affect the whole extended family and, to some extent, the broader community. It's not something that would be done in a casual, "no harm no foul" sort of way. And not for something unintentional like a disability. Having the misfortune of being disabled doesn't make you "not family" any more. Or if it does, stop the planet; I want to get off. I'm trying to imagine how people would react if an adult son put his mother with Alzheimer's into a top-notch care facility, then disowned her and went out to get another one. Because, you know, he really felt sad without a mother figure in his life, and his children needed a grandmother to rock in a rocking chair and bake them cookies. And that other woman just wasn't the same person any more. :001_huh: To some of us, it seems like the same thing. I guess here's where I'd disagree. I don't think you should discard a marriage, but I think there are ways to honor the family commitment without a lifelong exclusive sexual/romantic committment. If I'm (for example) permanently brain damaged and don't know who my husband is, I don't mind if he gets companionship elsewhere, and if he needs to get married again, so be it. I do feel he needs to treat me well -- get me good care, visit me, etc -- take care of my aging parents as I would if I could, put our kids above all. That's where I think the honor and family is. I agree your grandparent example is odd. But I don't think there's anything wrong with someone being in an Alz facility, expecially if they are a danger to themselves, or don't know who anyone is. And if that was my parent, I would do everything I could to be good to them, but if I found someone else to bake cookies with my kids, or attend grandparents' day at school, I would feel sad but not guilty. My parents certainly sat with other people's grandkids at those days so those kids wouldn't be alone. I guess I don't think everyone's needs are necessarily met within a family relationship. Should grandkids whose grandparents have dementia or are dead not have relationships with elders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Well, that's why I think the religious definition of marriage should be separate from the civil definition. I agree – as long as there are legal benefits and restrictions tied to marital status, I think it's unfair for people to be excluded from federal/state/legal benefits on religious grounds. If members of certain faiths believe that only heterosexuals should be allowed to marry, then marriage should be a religious institution without legal status, and some other institution (civil union or whatever) should be the basis for the federal/state/legal benefits that are currently given to married couples. Jackie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Florida Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Because you took a freaking VOW to love, honor and cherish until death do you part! Except, as many of us have already explained, some of us didn't take that vow. Here's what my husband and I said: My dearest friend, if you don't mind. I'd like to join you by your side, where we can gaze into the stars. And sit together, now and forever. For it is plain as anyone can see, we're simply meant to be. So, we did say "forever," but we also said "if you don't mind." If either of us gets to the point where we "mind" too much, I don't think there's shame in changing the rules. I'll say one more time that divorce is not an idea I like. I don't plan to divorce. It would be heartbreaking for my whole family, I'm sure. But I won't pretend it's not an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Except, as many of us have already explained, some of us didn't take that vow. Here's what my husband and I said: My dearest friend, if you don't mind. I'd like to join you by your side, where we can gaze into the stars. And sit together, now and forever. For it is plain as anyone can see, we're simply meant to be. So, we did say "forever," but we also said "if you don't mind." If either of us gets to the point where we "mind" too much, I don't think there's shame in changing the rules. I'll say one more time that divorce is not an idea I like. I don't plan to divorce. It would be heartbreaking for my whole family, I'm sure. But I won't pretend it's not an option. What lovely vows...did you write them yourself?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I kept thinking about the man with the 11 year old mind. My ds is 11. I can't imagine just getting another 11 year old because he no longer fits my idea of what an 11 year old boys should be. It is still not a valid comparison or helpful argument regarding decisions about a marriage fundamentally changed by one of the partner's medical issues changing them radically. I'm not sure it's even necessary to delineate why it's not valid; but being married to someone is not being a parent to them. I don't agree with the thought process behind your use of the word "replace" in these scenarios, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Florida Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 What I find "wow" is how snide that was. All you hear is that "as long as we both shall find each other entertaining"? Honestly? Clearly, you are either choosing not to hear, or intend to simply ignore what you are hearing. Your words are degrading. And, my goodness, that you think marriage has been the one-man-one-woman concept of your religion? The concept of marriage has changed even the books Christians consider to be scriptures. It once included a soldier and a female prisoner of war (who could be used sexually and then "returned"), and a rape victim and her rapist. I've met Christian people who insist one is married to their first sexual partner, even if one was a victim of child rape (and therefore never supported their daughter actually marrying a man once she was an independent woman). Her parents used the Bible. There you go. That was all of the thought they needed. Their definition of marriage was the only one, too. Just as they did, you have one definition that you insist is the only one. What you are willing to accept as marriage is only a fractional subset of what is considered marriage by much of the world. You are going out of your way to degrade folks with a different perspective. Differing points of view are one thing. Disparaging another person and their marriage is quite another kettle of fish. This post deserves a good and sincere "wow!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stages Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I doubt most people think of divorce as "no big deal." I truly believe that for most people, it would be a heartbreaking decision only made after very careful consideration, especially if there are children involved. I don't understand is why it matters to others why a couple gets divorced. If you (general you, not anyone in particular) can accept divorce under some circumstance (adultery, for example), what practical difference to you does it make if my husband and I divorce because we don't like each other anymore? The outcome is the same if he cheated or not- we would still be getting a divorce. Or, would he have to actually cheat to make it acceptable for me to divorce him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I doubt most people think of divorce as "no big deal." I truly believe that for most people, it would be a heartbreaking decision only made after very careful consideration, especially if there are children involved.I don't understand is why it matters to others why a couple gets divorced. If you (general you, not anyone in particular) can accept divorce under some circumstance (adultery, for example), what practical difference to you does it make if my husband and I divorce because we don't like each other anymore? The outcome is the same if he cheated or not- we would still be getting a divorce. Or, would he have to actually cheat to make it acceptable for me to divorce him? Thank you. I can see you are new here. The assumption of the frivilous marriage and divorce is epidemic here. I agree with your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 The thing is, in every traditional culture throughout history that I can think of, marriage is about taking two people and making them family. And family doesn't just last until the children are grown. It is forever. For better or for worse. My argument didn't presume a specifically Christian definition of marriage. Perhaps you're mixing up my post with someone else's. What I said was: 1. In all the traditional cultures I've heard of, the significance of marriage is that it takes two people and makes them family. (This could include polygamy, etc. Each dyad still constitutes two people, and these two people have become family, as viewed by that culture.) 2. In our society (speaking of contemporary USA and Canada), there's a strong generally held belief that family is forever. I disagree with both of these statements. (1) The assumption that "in every traditional culture throughout history" marriage is always assumed to be "forever" — till death do us part — is not true. Nor is the primary goal of marriage in all cultures to "make a family." (2) I don't think there is a "strongly held belief" in the US these days that marriages last "forever." I don't think anyone goes into a marriage planning on divorce, but I think people are pretty realistic about what the odds are. Jackie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Florida Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Well, with these parameters, it would be a whole lot easier to just not get married. Live together. The vow part doesn't mean anything anyway. Much easier to disentangle your affairs if there is no legal marriage. Someone just moves out. Problem solved (except for the kids). No, not always. In the United States, at least, many things are a whole lot easier for married couples than for live-together couples. If one parent is staying home to care for children, he or she may not be covered on the working parent's health insurance. If one partner is hospitalized, the other one may not be considered "family" for the purposes of making medical decisions or even visiting. There's more, but those were the ones that popped into my head immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 do.) The thing is, in every traditional culture throughout history that I can think of, marriage is about taking two people and making them family. And family doesn't just last until the children are grown. It is forever. For better or for worse. I can agree with this. My ex husband is no longer my spouse, but he will always be family. He is my son's father, and my first husband. We have no hatred of each other. We are both MUCH healthier without each other. He has worked on his issues to an extent, and is a much better father part time than he was full time. My son sees him regularly, and we work to make sure that there is no animosity. I suppose that is rare, but I don't see why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts