If you don't believe in marriage until death then

[ElizaG]

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. (...)

 

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?

Of course it would be great for them to have relationships with elders. I think that all children can benefit greatly from that. But as your post suggests, what your parents did wasn't seen as taking on a "family relationship" in a formal way, let alone actually becoming the children's Grandma and Grandpa. Which is not to diminish the importance of their role, in practical terms. It was just different.

 

Maybe this comes down to whether we think certain roles and relationships have an inherent nature and meaning? Sorry if I'm not expressing this well... but for instance, if my husband and I couldn't have anything outwardly resembling a normal marital relationship, we would still consider ourselves just as much married as we ever were, because being married is the nature of our relationship. We believe that this has a reality of its own.

 

One could say that this is heading into spiritual territory, but it's certainly not exclusively Christian. I think it's more of a philosophical stance, but I don't have the big words to explain it that way. (I'm sure the Greeks had something to say about it, but my own lack of classical education prevents me from framing it in those terms. :tongue_smilie:)

[Jenny in Florida]

What lovely vows...did you write them yourself??

 

No, unfortunately. We lifted them from "A Nightmare Before Christmas."

 

But there's a story that makes it make sense. I promise!

[ktgrok]

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.

 

ok......so he wouldn't fix himself, and you divorced him. Doesn't that mean you broke YOUR vow of "til death do us part"? Did you include in your vows "until death do us part, unless you cheat on me"? Cause I've never heard that in a wedding ceremony.

 

Or does the fact that he didn't live up to the "forsaking all others" mean it is ok to break your vow of "till death do us part"? And if so, then maybe others feel that a spouse not living up to the "honor and cherish" part is just as valid a reason for divorce. It's in the vows after all.

[Corraleno]

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.

:iagree:

I've never met anyone for whom divorce was anything less than utterly gut-wrenching, even when both parties agreed to it and there were no children involved. I think it's highly insulting to imply that just because someone will not absolutely unequivocably rule out the possibility of divorce, then their vows are "meaningless."

 

Jackie

[Catwoman]

:lurk5::lurk5::lurk5:

 

Just sitting here, reading along, and waiting for the inevitable trainwreck.

 

I can already hear the locomotive on the tracks... ;)

 

These threads always turn ugly. I have decided that, rather than participate beyond my post on one of the early pages, I'll just watch from the sidelines this time around. Anyone care to join me? I've got :lurk5:

[Scarlett]

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.

 

Because generally if you can get along that well divorced maybe you could have stayed married. Why couldn't he have 'worked on his issues' before his marriage blew up? I'm not judging the divorce, perhaps you had a great reason for divorcing him...but just like with 'my' marriage why didn't my XH fix himself and keep his child's FOO together.

[Scarlett]

:lurk5::lurk5::lurk5:

 

Just sitting here, reading along, and waiting for the inevitable trainwreck.

 

I can already hear the locomotive on the tracks... ;)

 

These threads always turn ugly. I have decided that, rather than participate beyond my post on one of the early pages, I'll just watch from the sidelines this time around. Anyone care to join me? I've got :lurk5:

 

 

Ooh yum thanks. When I first started reading this thread that is what *I* thought *I* would do. What is wrong with me!!! I can't stop posting!

[Scarlett]

ok......so he wouldn't fix himself, and you divorced him. Doesn't that mean you broke YOUR vow of "til death do us part"? Did you include in your vows "until death do us part, unless you cheat on me"? Cause I've never heard that in a wedding ceremony.

 

 

:) My actual wedding vows said 'according to God's marital arrangement', so yes, I consider that the same thing as 'unless you cheat on me. Since I consider that scriptural grounds for divorce/remarriage. (which is different from scriptural grounds for divorce without remarriage)

 

Or does the fact that he didn't live up to the "forsaking all others" mean it is ok to break your vow of "till death do us part"? And if so, then maybe others feel that a spouse not living up to the "honor and cherish" part is just as valid a reason for divorce. It's in the vows after all.

 

You might be mixing me up with someone else who thinks there is never a good reason to divorce. I do. I just hate it and I just think 'we', as a society, should be more concerned with the level of family break up going on.

[ktgrok]

Because generally if you can get along that well divorced maybe you could have stayed married. Why couldn't he have 'worked on his issues' before his marriage blew up? I'm not judging the divorce, perhaps you had a great reason for divorcing him...but just like with 'my' marriage why didn't my XH fix himself and keep his child's FOO together.

 

I can be near him without animosity because it is limited periods of time, and I don't have to live with him. When I go to pick up my son and neither of them have showered in days, and I can tell my ex hasn't brushed his teeth, isn't eating enough, and has quit yet another job to sit home and do nothing, I can say "whatever" and leave and not be angry or upset about it. If I had to live with him, and support him financially and emotionall while he refused to take care of himself or work or go to school, yeah, that would be another issue. If I had to live with him and hear him tell me how he never loved me as much as his first girlfriend, that would be an issue. If I knew that while i was working 13 hour shifts and commuting an hour each way to keep the lights turned on he was laying in bed all day ignoring our son, not even feeding him (at the time a preschooler), all those hours, then staying up all night on the internet we would have a problem. But now that he lives with his parents I knwo that my son has something to eat at least when he is there, and because it is limited to weekends I can make up for any emotional neglect or lack of boundaries when he is with me. We are great divorced, but were awful married.

 

I'm sure if you think about it there are a lot of people in your life that you get along with fine in limited ways, but couldn't stand to be married to.

[ElizaG]

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.

Once more, I didn't say the above. :confused: I observed that "family is forever," and later qualified this to be a generally held belief within our own society. Maybe there are other societies that would disagree with this, though I'm not familiar with them.

 

Nor is the primary goal of marriage in all cultures to "make a family."

NB, I didn't say "make a family" (which would seem to imply a nuclear family arrangement), but "make them family," i.e., form bonds of kinship. Do you know of any traditional cultures in which forming bonds of kinship isn't a central part of the definition of marriage? I ask in seriousness, because I've never heard of any.

 

(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.

Again, you seem to be disagreeing with something I didn't say. I'd clarify, but I really don't think anyone wants me to type it all out again. :tongue_smilie:

[justamouse]

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.

:iagree:

 

I totally agree with you here.

[ktgrok]

:)

 

You might be mixing me up with someone else who thinks there is never a good reason to divorce. I do. I just hate it and I just think 'we', as a society, should be more concerned with the level of family break up going on.

 

I don't know anyone that loves divorce....we just like it better than an awful marriage.

[KingM]

:) My actual wedding vows said 'according to God's marital arrangement', so yes, I consider that the same thing as 'unless you cheat on me. Since I consider that scriptural grounds for divorce/remarriage. (which is different from scriptural grounds for divorce without remarriage)

 

You might be mixing me up with someone else who thinks there is never a good reason to divorce. I do. I just hate it and I just think 'we', as a society, should be more concerned with the level of family break up going on.

 

I don't think "we" should be doing anything. Would you have wanted the the rest of us deciding you should remain married to your ex? No, you wanted the ability to make that determination yourself without legal or moral sanction. It was up to you to decide what was healthy for you, not up to the collective "we."

[Scarlett]

I can be near him without animosity because it is limited periods of time, and I don't have to live with him. When I go to pick up my son and neither of them have showered in days, and I can tell my ex hasn't brushed his teeth, isn't eating enough, and has quit yet another job to sit home and do nothing, I can say "whatever" and leave and not be angry or upset about it. If I had to live with him, and support him financially and emotionall while he refused to take care of himself or work or go to school, yeah, that would be another issue. If I had to live with him and hear him tell me how he never loved me as much as his first girlfriend, that would be an issue. If I knew that while i was working 13 hour shifts and commuting an hour each way to keep the lights turned on he was laying in bed all day ignoring our son, not even feeding him (at the time a preschooler), all those hours, then staying up all night on the internet we would have a problem. But now that he lives with his parents I knwo that my son has something to eat at least when he is there, and because it is limited to weekends I can make up for any emotional neglect or lack of boundaries when he is with me. We are great divorced, but were awful married.

 

I'm sure if you think about it there are a lot of people in your life that you get along with fine in limited ways, but couldn't stand to be married to

 

:eek: Ok, I get it. Oh, and one more :eek:

[Scarlett]

I don't think "we" should be doing anything. Would you have wanted the the rest of us deciding you should remain married to your ex? No, you wanted the ability to make that determination yourself without legal or moral sanction. It was up to you to decide what was healthy for you, not up to the collective "we."

 

And again I'm not talking about 'me' being involved in your actual decision making. I'm talking bigger picture...like support....education.

 

But honestly if I had given over decision about my marriage to someone else I am sure that marriage wouldn't have last 26 years.

[Lady Florida.]

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:

[TranquilMind]

Jenny in Florida: 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.

 

 

Forever is kind of the same idea as until death do us part.

 

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.

 

 

But wait. The "if you don't mind" is now construed to mean if at any time you mind in the future, these words - including the forever part - are null and void? Interesting.

 

I do not understand going into marriage with an optional out. Sure, something could happen. Someone could have an affair and leave. Someone could do something horrible. But to go into the marriage with an accepted exit strategy is just odd to me.

 

Why bother? I wouldn't. I'd just live with someone if I was going to have that mindset. It is just easier.

 

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.

 

:confused:

[Mrs Mungo]

1. Anyone who thinks generational problems are recent has *not* read Aristophanes or Euripides. :lol: The elders were aghast when racy Spartan ways became trendy among the younger generation. Wearing their hair loose, playing the lyre instead of pipes, geez.

 

2. Anyone who thinks there has been one idea of marriage throughout history, hasn't read history *at all*.

 

I'm Native American. My tribe was matrilineal. Women married outside of their clan and the husband moved in with her family. Her male brothers or uncles took a lot of care in raising her children because the dad was not really considered family. The women owned their house, its contents and the fields surrounding the house. In a divorce (which was not uncommon), she kept everything, including the kids. If the wife died, then the wife's sisters would raise the kids.

 

So, before you start saying things like "I mean in OUR culture," understand that you are being extremely ethnocentric and rude. There is no OUR culture on this board. It is a diverse place out here on the internet.

 

Of course, I also reject the notion that the dominant US culture is one that holds marriage to be sacred.

 

3. Even in more recent times I think divorce was probably more common than a lot of people realize.

 

My great-grandmother (who, I am sure, was older than any of the people here) was married 4 times. Her ex-husband (my great-grandfather) married my step-great-grandmother who divorced her first husband because when she was having a baby at the hospital the nurses told her that her husband was having a baby with another woman at the same hospital at the same time.

 

Yes, my grandparents stayed married until one of them died. Yes, my parents are still married (but my MIL was married 3 times). No, not everything was rainbows and unicorns. I've been married 17 years and we've had our own hardships. Without a desire to stick it out our marriage would not have lasted 17 weeks. But, that doesn't mean I think it's for everybody.

 

There are things you cannot fix. Life throws a lot of curve-balls and some are easier to deal with than others.

 

I agree with my ancestors that, in general, marriage and divorce are matters between a couple. They are not the business of the whole village.

[Jenny in Florida]

Forever is kind of the same idea as until death do us part.

 

 

 

But wait. The "if you don't mind" is now construed to mean if at any time you mind in the future, these words - including the forever part - are null and void? Interesting.

 

I do not understand going into marriage with an optional out. Sure, something could happen. Someone could have an affair and leave. Someone could do something horrible. But to go into the marriage with an accepted exit strategy is just odd to me.

 

Why bother? I wouldn't. I'd just live with someone if I was going to have that mindset. It is just easier.

 

:confused:

 

 

I'm glad you feel qualified to interpret my wedding vows. It's good to know I can depend on you for that.

 

Look, the big, fat truth is that EVERYONE has that potential out, at least in the United States legal system. You might not think divorce is acceptable, but that wouldn't stop you from being divorced if your husband decided that's what he wanted.

 

And I'm pretty sure I already explained why it isn't "just easier" to live together without being married, if we're just looking at the practicalities.

 

I wanted and want to be married. I love my husband and plan to be married until one of us dies. It's not like I get up every morning and wonder to myself whether today would be a good day to file the divorce papers. All I'm saying is that I didn't come into marriage thinking or believing that it was irrevocable, because that's not true. I also did not bring into our marriage the religious baggage that some folks do.

 

I'll make you a deal, though? I won't ridicule your beliefs and life choices if you'll reciprocate.

[PinkInTheBlue]

1. Anyone who thinks generational problems are recent has *not* read Aristophanes or Euripides. :lol: The elders were aghast when racy Spartan ways became trendy among the younger generation. Wearing their hair loose, playing the lyre instead of pipes, geez.

 

2. Anyone who thinks there has been one idea of marriage throughout history, hasn't read history *at all*.

 

I'm Native American. My tribe was matrilineal. Women married outside of their clan and the husband moved in with her family. Her male brothers or uncles took a lot of care in raising her children because the dad was not really considered family. The women owned their house, its contents and the fields surrounding the house. In a divorce (which was not uncommon), she kept everything, including the kids. If the wife died, then the wife's sisters would raise the kids.

 

So, before you start saying things like "I mean in OUR culture," understand that you are being extremely ethnocentric and rude. There is no OUR culture on this board. It is a diverse place out here on the internet.

 

Of course, I also reject the notion that the dominant US culture is one that holds marriage to be sacred.

 

3. Even in more recent times I think divorce was probably more common than a lot of people realize.

 

There are things you cannot fix. Life throws a lot of curve-balls and some are easier to deal with than others.

 

I agree with my ancestors that, in general, marriage and divorce are matters between a couple. They are not the business of the whole village.

:iagree: Very, very well put. If I " :iagree: " with every time I agreed with you on many topics you would be fairly sick of me. Well written.

 

I'm glad you feel qualified to interpret my wedding vows. It's good to know I can depend on you for that.

 

Look, the big, fat truth is that EVERYONE has that potential out, at least in the United States legal system. You might not think divorce is acceptable, but that wouldn't stop you from being divorced if your husband decided that's what he wanted.

 

And I'm pretty sure I already explained why it isn't "just easier" to live together without being married, if we're just looking at the practicalities.

 

I wanted and want to be married. I love my husband and plan to be married until one of us dies. It's not like I get up every morning and wonder to myself whether today would be a good day to file the divorce papers. All I'm saying is that I didn't come into marriage thinking or believing that it was irrevocable, because that's not true. I also did not bring into our marriage the religious baggage that some folks do.

 

I'll make you a deal, though? I won't ridicule your beliefs and life choices if you'll reciprocate.

 

Exactly my thoughts as well.

 

MY marriage and the interpretation of its boundaries and meanings are just that; mine. Since my husband is a part of that marriage I hope that our thoughts match from now to death. Sometimes that doesn't happen.

 

MY marriage is not a vow with God. My marriage is not a religious decision. My marriage is a decision between my husband and myself. I really, really do not appreciate continuously reading opinions on these two threads that speak as if someone's opinion is the one and only correct opinion. Your opinion does NOT invalidate mine.

 

I don't believe a filed paper with the government makes my marriage and we would have been happy to have kept our decision to be married strictly between ourselves but there are just too many things that make filing that durned paper worth it. :) I don't stay married because that paper is on file or I might or might not (I have no idea what I said anymore) have said a particular word at a particular moment. I stay married by choice and love. Even when it isn't particularly easy and fuzzy. Not because I'm forced.

[Mrs Mungo]

I stay married by choice and love. Even when it isn't particularly easy and fuzzy. Not because I'm forced.

 

And, really, what's more beautiful than that? Choosing to be married. Every day.

[PinkInTheBlue]

And, really, what's more beautiful than that? Choosing to be married. Every day.

 

Exactly! I love the fact my husband is with me every strictly because he also chooses US and not just because he's vowed and promised. He chooses me and I choose him. And we work on that choice all the time. :)

[Caitilin]

And, really, what's more beautiful than that? Choosing to be married. Every day.

 

:iagree:I choose to love my husband, and him only, every day of our marriage.

[TranquilMind]

Jenny in Florida: I'm glad you feel qualified to interpret my wedding vows. It's good to know I can depend on you for that.

 

Well, I am rather qualified at interpretation. If you were saying something contrary to what I wrote, please let me know.

 

These were your exact words:

 

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.

 

You: 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.

 

To which I responded:

Me: But wait. The "if you don't mind" is now construed to mean if at any time you mind in the future, these words - including the forever part - are null and void? Interesting.

 

So that IS what you said.

Look, the big, fat truth is that EVERYONE has that potential out, at least in the United States legal system. You might not think divorce is acceptable, but that wouldn't stop you from being divorced if your husband decided that's what he wanted.

 

True. But it also wouldn't change my principles.

 

And I'm pretty sure I already explained why it isn't "just easier" to live together without being married, if we're just looking at the practicalities.

 

Oh, but it is, financially. You just split things up and go. You don't have to pay attorneys thousands of dollars to fight it all out for you, in most nonmarital instances.

 

I wanted and want to be married. I love my husband and plan to be married until one of us dies. It's not like I get up every morning and wonder to myself whether today would be a good day to file the divorce papers. All I'm saying is that I didn't come into marriage thinking or believing that it was irrevocable, because that's not true.

 

Marriage is for life, in my view. To think, "Well, I can always get out if it gets bad" seems to me a death sentence. There WILL be things that aren't so great. That's life. And it would still be my view even if I got ditched. That wouldn't change what is right or wrong.

 

I also did not bring into our marriage the religious baggage that some folks do.

 

Baggage? Or principles?

 

I'll make you a deal, though? I won't ridicule your beliefs and life choices if you'll reciprocate.

 

I am not "ridiculing your beliefs and life choices". I'm simply examining what you are actually saying here. I thought that is what we did on forums.

Edited January 31, 2012 by TranquilMind

[TranquilMind]

Exactly! I love the fact my husband is with me every strictly because he also chooses US and not just because he's vowed and promised. He chooses me and I choose him. And we work on that choice all the time. :)

But he vowed and promised BECAUSE he has chosen you. He is not staying with you because he vowed and promised.

[Caitilin]

But the choice is renewed every day of the marriage. It is not a one time event, but a continuous rededication of ourselves to one another.

[Happy2BaMom]

Baggage? Or principles?

 

Wow, I really think you have no idea how sanctimonious and holier-than-thou you sound.

 

Do your principles extend to trying to take the Sermon on the Mount as literally as you took your marriage vows?

[YLVD]

I haven't read the rest of the responses. But here goes.

 

I've been married. It didn't change my level of commitment, to be honest. I'm divorced because he became an abusive adulterer. I'm currently in a relationship, and he is my partner, but I'm not sure if I'll ever marry again. I am more committed to this man than I ever was to my ex husband.

 

I'm an atheist and thus marriage is not based in religion for me. I believe that it's best to marry for live. However, life gets in the way. I don't know that I think that lifelong marriage is natural *gasp*. I think it's something that is great but takes a lot of work. I can see why many fail.

 

Anyways, I don't care what others do with marriage, their own views, etc. I don't try to put my morality on anyone else. If someone wants to marry for insurance reasons..fine. If they want to marry because their religion says that marrying for life is best, and they think that, kudos!

[YLVD]

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.

 

:iagree:

[YLVD]

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.

 

You are completely wrong on this. Virtually all statistics say the opposite. I remember studying it in some marriage and the family courses. Marrying under 25 is far more likely to end in divorce. I know that it did for me. Stats back that up.

[YLVD]

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?

 

I so agree with you, on all of this.

[ElizaG]

So, before you start saying things like "I mean in OUR culture," understand that you are being extremely ethnocentric and rude. There is no OUR culture on this board. It is a diverse place out here on the internet.

Not sure if I'm among the people this is aimed at, but if so, I'm aware that the Internet is a diverse place. And what I wrote wasn't what you've described above:

 

In our society (speaking of contemporary USA and Canada), there's a strong generally held belief that family is forever.

Would you agree that it's at least somewhat meaningful to speak of "generally held beliefs" in "contemporary American society" and "contemporary Canadian society?" Or do you find these phrases to be just as rude as the one you gave as an example?

 

BTW, when I put that geographic restriction on it, it's not because I assumed everyone on the Internet was American or Canadian, or both. It's because all of the people whose posts prompted me to write mine (*) had previously identified themselves as such.

 

(* Standard disclaimer: again, not everyone who said they might accept divorce in some dire circumstances. These were statements to the effect that marriage is a contract that can be re-evaluated at any time, or that they couldn't see the harm in divorce if the children were grown, etc.)

 

Anyway, I'm sorry if I gave offense. Thank you for sharing the information about your tribe's culture. I didn't know that some Native Americans had this custom:

 

Her male brothers or uncles took a lot of care in raising her children because the dad was not really considered family.

 

It does show a very different perspective on marriage and family life.

[YLVD]

Why not just fix it? Much easier than divorce. (In most cases)

 

Aren't you divorced? Clearly, it cannot always be fixed. I'm divorced also.

[YLVD]

Cheaper too. And less devastation to the kids.

 

Actually, study after study has shown that children are far less damaged when parents divorce than if the parents are in a dysfunctional or unhappy marriage. That was another thing that I remember studying in college. I have a book right next to me that explains it all.

[YLVD]

I know what you mean.

 

My kids never even heard the word "divorce" growing up and only had a vague idea that this happened until the last couple of years. They are very secure in this, but a couple of times along the way when they heard of other kids' parents divorcing, they wanted some reassurance that any arguments were just that - normal arguments, not anything serious. They have been affected by what happened to other families.

 

This should not be. It sure wasn't true in my small primarily Catholic town growing up. I can't remember a single couple getting divorced where we heard about it until late high school.

 

This is not the case for today's kids.

 

A lot of the time, there isn't divorce because people were shunned and women did not have the resources to leave, even when they were abused, children sexually abused, etc. I also grew up in a Catholic town.

[mommyrooch]

:lurk5::lurk5::lurk5:

 

Just sitting here, reading along, and waiting for the inevitable trainwreck.

 

I can already hear the locomotive on the tracks... ;)

 

These threads always turn ugly. I have decided that, rather than participate beyond my post on one of the early pages, I'll just watch from the sidelines this time around. Anyone care to join me? I've got :lurk5:

 

I'm here with you. ;) I've read the entire thread but like you, I have just decided to watch from the sidelines. I'm honestly surprised that it has lasted this long without becoming the train wreck you speak of. I have some :lurk5: too if you're running low. :tongue_smilie:

[LucyStoner]

Why not just fix it? Much easier than divorce. (In most cases)

 

As someone who had a serious issue in my marriage (that most would consider grounds for divorce and resulted in 12+months of counseling and 7 months of living apart) and did fix it (we are very happy and celebrating 10 years married this next month, with over 6 years from the time we separated), I agree people should work at their marriages. However, as you have personally experienced a divorce, you know as well as anyone that divorce needs to be an option. It is not your place or my place to decide what should or should not happen in someone else's marriage.

[LucyStoner]

Because generally if you can get along that well divorced maybe you could have stayed married.

 

 

My parents could not live together in peace. They simply could not. My dad did commit adultery once and they reconciled and tried to make it work. They later separated when I was 17 but remained married until my mother's death ten years later. My parents never divorced due to religion and finances and general fondness for each other. They were excellent co-parents to their adult children and they regularly socialized with each other and took care of each other. My dad picked her up every few days for grocery shopping, errands, medical appointments, volunteer work they did together, babysitting grandkids together etc. And they would have dinner or see a movie or ballgame together as well. I used to tease them about their new boyfriend or girlfriend- each other.:001_smile: However, had they ever attempted to live together again I have no doubt they would have reverted back to making each other miserable. Just because someone divorces or separates from their spouse, does not mean that the original bond between the spouses is gone and can't be repurposed into something that works for them. My dad never dated again until my mom was dead. My mother, I think, discreetly dated a couple of men while they were separated. There is no one here qualified to judge the situation. Certainly their brand of separation worked better for the family than my ILs- where my FIL hurtfully refused to attend our wedding because my MIL and her new husband would be there.

[Corraleno]

Marriage is for life, in my view. To think, "Well, I can always get out if it gets bad" seems to me a death sentence. There WILL be things that aren't so great. That's life. And it would still be my view even if I got ditched. That wouldn't change what is right or wrong.

 

Baggage? Or principles?

 

I am not "ridiculing your beliefs and life choices"

No, you're just helpfully pointing out that you know what's right and you have principles, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, has no principles, would bail as soon as their relationship hit a rough patch, and should never get married in the first place. :rolleyes:

 

Wow, I really think you have no idea how sanctimonious and holier-than-thou you sound.

Oh, I think she knows exactly how she sounds.

 

Jackie

[KidsHappen]

:lurk5::lurk5::lurk5:

 

Just sitting here, reading along, and waiting for the inevitable trainwreck.

 

I can already hear the locomotive on the tracks... ;)

 

These threads always turn ugly. I have decided that, rather than participate beyond my post on one of the early pages, I'll just watch from the sidelines this time around. Anyone care to join me? I've got :lurk5:

 

I am watching and biting my tongue so far. :tongue_smilie:

[Aelwydd]

Forever is kind of the same idea as until death do us part.

 

Actually, the definition of "forever" is "everlasting" or "eternally," which in terms of time, is quite a bit lengthier than the mere mortal lifespan.

 

It would seem to me that by demanding her vows assume the same meaning as "till death do we part," you're actually arguing for a much lower standard.

 

(Waiting for the kind, and surely very amused LDS posters on this board, to chime in.)

[KidsHappen]

My parents married in 1946.

 

Ok, I know this is rude and I appologize in advance but exactly how old are you? I am in the older group of women on this board and your parents married at roughly the time my parents were born. Even allowing for wide variances in mothers ages at birth, by my calculations you would have to 55+ or closer on to 60. And you still have teens in the home that you are homeschooling? Also, your use of the language certainly doesn't sound like someone of that age group and your world view from an older era.

 

For comparison: My grandmother was born in 1908. My grandfather was an alcoholic man who abused both her and the children. The only reason she didn't divorce him was because he died at the ripe old age of 57.

 

My MIL was born in 1933 and has been married and divorced 5 times.

 

My parents were born in about 1945 (43 & 45 I think) and got divorced after 20 years.

 

I was born the in the early to midish 60's (not quite 50 yet) and my first marriage lasted 10 years. I have been married to my current husband 21 years. On a side note, I am not Christian so this really doesn't apply to me but my ex was unfaithful. That is not the reason I left him though, nor was it required for my divorce. It would have just been a convenient excape clause if I had needed one. I think that may be used as an excape clause for a lot more of those that need one than they might like to admit. In my opinion, abuse is a much more acceptable reason to divorce than infidelity. Many more marriages recover from infidelity that from abuse.

 

Approximately 50 % of all marriages in the US end in divorce and that statistic has been about the same for several decades so generations or eras don't seem to have as big an effect as you sugest. I don't think it has much to do with Christianity either as Christians divorce at roughly the same rate as the general public. It appears that a minor subset of the board is of the mindset that marriage is until death or infidelity while the majority have different standards. That is the great thing about America, you can conduct your marriage as you see fit and I can do the same. That doesn't make my way right and your way wrong. It just makes the different. I utterly fail to see the reason for the outrage some are feeling because others see things differently (especially when the others do not belong to the same religion as the the outraged person).

Edited January 31, 2012 by KidsHappen
Typos

[KingM]

Ok, I know this is rude and I appologize in advance but exactly how old are you? I am in the older group of women on this board and your parents married at roughly the time my parents were born. Even allowing for wide variances in mothers ages at birth, by my calculations you would have to 55+ or closer on to 60. And you still have teens in the home that you are homeschooling? Also, your use of the language certainly doesn't sound like someone of that age group and your world view from an older era.

 

For comparison: My grandmother was born in 1908. My grandfather was an alcoholic man who abused both her and the children. The only reason she didn't divorce him was because he died at the ripe old age of 57.

 

My MIL was born in 1933 and has been married and divorced 5 times.

 

My parents were born in about 1945 (43 & 45 I think) and got divorced after 20 years.

 

It's quite possible for the poster to be much younger but with older parents. My grandparents' oldest child is 21 years older than their youngest. By that math, the poster could have been born in the mid to late 60s.

 

Speaking of that sort of thing, did you see that President John Tyler (born in 1790) still has living grandchildren?

[AdventureMoms]

Marriage is for life, in my view. To think, "Well, I can always get out if it gets bad" seems to me a death sentence. There WILL be things that aren't so great. That's life. And it would still be my view even if I got ditched. That wouldn't change what is right or wrong.

 

Baggage? Or principles?

 

I am not "ridiculing your beliefs and life choices". I'm simply examining what you are actually saying here. I thought that is what we did on forums.

 

Well, to you, "I can always get out if it gets bad" sounds like a death sentence, while to me "I can't ever, ever leave even if that means we'll all be miserable for the rest of our lives" sounds like a pretty awful way to live.

 

I love the way you imply that only religious people have principles, then in the next sentence claim that you are not "ridiculing your beliefs and life choices". Nice.

[Carrie12345]

Well, to you, "I can always get out if it gets bad" sounds like a death sentence, while to me "I can't ever, ever leave even if that means we'll all be miserable for the rest of our lives" sounds like a pretty awful way to live.

 

.

:iagree:

 

My husband and I have worked through a lot of %#!? in our 12 years together, not because we were obligated by contract, but because we love each other and want to be together. If that ever stops being his motivation, I'd rather he leave. I have no desire to be someone he's stuck with.

 

We married for legal, social, and romantic reasons.

[AdventureMoms]

:iagree:

 

My husband and I have worked through a lot of %#!? in our 12 years together, not because we were obligated by contract, but because we love each other and want to be together. If that ever stops being his motivation, I'd rather he leave. I have no desire to be someone he's stuck with.

 

We married for legal, social, and romantic reasons.

 

Exactly.

[Aelwydd]

I do wonder if some of this boils down to personality more than anything else. Both of my sisters would agree with and reject most anything but the "till death do us part" type of marriage, but they are both given to jealousy.

 

I'm not a jealous person by nature, and I'm not a possessive one either. I love my dh and don't want anyone else but him; however, it has never bothered me on those occasions when dh has had another woman express interest in him. (I actually took it as a compliment to my tastes.)

 

I know other considerations, such as religious belief, definitely play into this. But I thought I should bring this aspect up.

[AdventureMoms]

I do wonder if some of this boils down to personality more than anything else. Both of my sisters would agree with and reject most anything but the "till death do us part" type of marriage, but they are both given to jealousy.

 

I'm not a jealous person by nature, and I'm not a possessive one either. I love my dh and don't want anyone else but him; however, it has never bothered me on those occasions when dh has had another woman express interest in him. (I actually took it as a compliment to my tastes.)

 

I know other considerations, such as religious belief, definitely play into this. But I thought I should bring this aspect up.

 

That is a good point, also. I am also of the non-jealous type. I know a lot of women who kinda freak out when someone looks at their spouse, or REALLY freak out when they think their spouse may have glanced at someone else. I have a hard time even comprehending that.

[Jenny in Florida]

Oh, but it is, financially. You just split things up and go. You don't have to pay attorneys thousands of dollars to fight it all out for you, in most nonmarital instances.

 

Right, because unmarried couples never buy homes together or have joint bank accounts or children or any of that.

 

Oh, wait . . .

 

Baggage? Or principles?

 

You know what's amazing? I have principles, too.

 

One of my values is treating other people with respect.

[Aelwydd]

That is a good point, also. I am also of the non-jealous type. I know a lot of women who kinda freak out when someone looks at their spouse, or REALLY freak out when they think their spouse may have glanced at someone else. I have a hard time even comprehending that.

 

Yeah, my one sister especially finds it weird when I sometimes join in with DH in "rating" another woman. He'll say, "She's hot," and I'll say, "Yeah, but I like that one there more."

 

She thinks I should be furious with him, but that would be hypocritical of me, since I enjoy looking at other attractive men and women also. Looking doesn't mean acting, and I'm not interested in an affair. But, she is of an entirely different mind on that matter.