Discussion in 'ABV' started by Jeremy Driscoll, Feb 16, 2014.
You beat me to it.
I believe in separation, of church and state.
But even when you get married to the justice of the piece and do not include any church involvement, if you use the vow till death or for better or for worse you are breaking that vow by getting divorced, and you should not be getting into vows that you will not keep.
Even if that means that the worst is stds and cheating.
Perhaps we need different types of marriage. 5 year marriages. Even then it wouldn't work for Charlie Sheen: he just announced marriage-to-be number 4.
I heard people are trying this. Everything is stated in writing up front, like an automotive lease. There is an option to extend if both parties agree at the end of the specified time, otherwise the dissolution is completed by the original agreement. From NPR . . .
Why Not Take That Marriage Out For A Test Ride?
A high divorce rate means it’s time to try ‘wedleases’
Because the entire point of marriage is to mark a pledge of permanent togetherness.
What your talking about is trial togetherness, their is a word for that, it is called dating, and it is the same thing but without being put in to vows or writing.
Vows today hardly have the meaning they used to. Anything a person vows, can be undone, whether marriage partner, sexual orientation, religion, etc. It's not good or bad, it's just different now.
Edit: if it's death-to-us-part, then it's not permanent.
That's the problem. Look I am ok for vows not meaning the same as they used to under one condition, that both parties are in on the change.
Otherwise you have one part of the marriage thinking this is permanent, but the other party never taking it seriously to go as far as permanent is the problem. If you want to have a marriage under the NEW terms of marriage not meaning permanentness like it used to then that is fine, but all I ask is that you let the person you are marrying made aware of this change so that they can go marry someone who feels the same way about marriage the way they do, so that they can marry someone who wants to be with them permanently too. Otherwise they are getting themselves in to something that has changed in to something new that only one party is aware of with the other actually thinking that this is permanent when it really is not.
This is what marriage means to you Jeremy, not everyone else, and you can't "enforce" your world-view either. I think the King of England and the Protestants had this little argument with the Catholics a while back? You are correct in thinking its a good idea that both parties go into the marriage with the same values. This is what dating/talking is for.
That's my point, people's definitions and feelings change over time. I'm sure most feel it's for life when making the vows, but time can change people. There's no real way to force agreement. Relationships aren't in a vacuum, they change, and each person's perspective can change. Wanting both people on the same page all the time doesn't seem realistic.
I agree with you. Which is why those people need to start being serious when they marry. So that as they are going through those changes they can adapt them to fit the vows of marriage. And if they can not then they were obviously never truly serious about the relationship to begin with and they were stringing the other person along just for the heck of it.
So that the other person who is also changing through time (as we all do) can do so with someone who also appreciates the change but with someone who they are committed to forever.
Nothing in life is guaranteed, except death.
I'm sorry your wife hurt you.
You picked the wrong person and there is NO LAW that should ever be made to make her or you stay.
She should under no law be made to stay with me if she did not want to. What I am saying is if this law existed before we got married, we would have never been married for her to have a vow that would need fulfilled with her staying. This way it would have prevented us from getting married in to a marriage that was not going to last anyways.
Because even she said it herself. She would have never gotten married and given me the impression that marriage was forever, if to her it meant it really had to be forever.
But because divorce is. And always was an option before and after we got married, she did not care about getting married before her mind was completely made up. Well if marriage really was permanent then she would not have had been given the chance to destroy its sanctity because without the option of divorce. She wouldn't marry.
Don't you see? This way we can stop people who do not take marriage seriously from getting married by making them only get married to people they are serious about being with forever by us making them take it seriously by not giving them the divorce option to fall back on.
Please find me a single example of a culture that truly had no divorce provision. Men could almost always get out - even Henry VIII only had a problem because he wanted a retroactive annulment of a marriage that had issue, and where the other party (Katherine of Aragon) was at least as politically powerful as he, if not more so (she was a Hapsburg). Had there not already been a kid, and his wife the aunt of the most powerful person on Earth at the time, Holy Roman Emperor & Emperor of Spain Charles V, a divorce would have been a matter of course.
So you are pining for a situation that has existed in maybe 1% of the cultures in history, and even then only really as a tool for controlling women, not as a tool to keep MEN in marriages they do not like. And I am speaking as someone who was divorced by the (admittedly crazy) woman I loved and pretty much still love. I haven't even had a girlfriend since, and I've been divorced for 12 years. 'Course I been handicapped and bald since my divorce, which really doesn't help/
And my last comment - sorry to get nasty - but GUYS LIKE YOU are a big reason divorce has to be legal. You have claimed you do not think your ex should have been forced to stay, but that is what you would have gotten (if you were lucky), and on some level, IMHO, seem to want, sans legal divorce. Imagine the spousal murder and simple desertion rates you'd get without divorce. Banning it would not stop marriages from dissolving, just from dissolving legally and equitably. Just like mj prohibition has not gotten rid of mj use. Just ruined the lives of many who ignored the immoral law.
Achhhh...........first we have religious fundamentalists..........then political fundamentalists, and now........marriage fundamentalists.
Ya know, I think I'm still pissed that my parents didn't get divorced but stayed together "for the sake of the kids". If they were REALLY thinking about "for the sake of the kids", they would have gotten divorced and spared me, my brother and my sister the years of turmoil, arguments, screaming and general unhappiness and mistrust that occurred in the household on almost a daily basis. I would have MUCH rather lived with a single parent than listening to screaming and yelling till all hours of the morning. Great fucking role models. (lol............damn, I haven't thought about this in decades)
The ONLY thing that is permanent is the certainty of change. (damn, that sounds good and I just made it up)
That doesn't support divorce. All that means is that they need to grow up and stop arguing. Or at least argue in a happy and quiet understanding manner, you know like respectable mature people do without the need for extreme arguing.
Jeremy, do you do everything that you "should" do?
Or at least I try the best I can.
When it comes to no brainers like divorce.
Bullshit...........no, I take that back. Double bullshit.......
But let me ask you another question. Who defines "should" for you? And if it's you who is doing the defining, isn't it also valid that other people would define the "shoulds" for themselves as well and that more than likely, their "shoulds" will be different than your "shoulds", and if they are different, does that make your "shoulds" right and their "shoulds" wrong?
I don't even know you and I call bullshit. You are neither a saint nor a buddha or this thread wouldn't exist. You SHOULD try to be more understanding of your ex, people who have been trapped in truly destructive marriages, people who have found themselves married to serial philanderers or unrepentant addicts.
Don't need to be a budda or a saint to know to do what is right in life. Being a non budda or a non saint does not mean you should use it as excuse to do as much wrong as you can. You should always try to do what you should do. I do the best I can, if I do not always do what I definitely should at least I am trying.
Once thing I certainly will not do, is marry someone who thinks that once you are married it is forever, then divorce them because I was never seriously committed to the marriage.
Just because I am not a saint does not mean I do not know what I should or should not do.
Well, I'm sorry for the hurt you are feeling. There is nothing quite so miserable as to lose the love of a cherished life partner: even if through no fault of your own. I suspect most every one of us has a story of love lost should we choose to dwell upon the past. But reliving the past will not help you get over the pain. I know they are trite words, but Time does heal wounds. Only you have the ability to make it better. At first, you may have to fake it, but over time you will be genuinely happy again. You can bet on it.
What hurt? I have a gf. Since 2010. We are already happy.
But just because I am happy and even though I was miserable when I was married, does not mean, that I am going to forget the lesson I learned, and that is that divorce makes a joke of marriage, and is unnecessary.
In fact I had my ex offer to take me back, and I turned her down. So I do not know where you are coming from with this fake it till you make it, and this time heals wounding. Because you are preaching to the quire. You are telling me stuff I already know.
I'm more happy with my current gf then I ever was married.
Thank God for divorce.
I agree that there are exceptions... when marrying someone you don't just promise to stay married to them ... there are a whole host of promises made ... (such as love, cherish, be faithful, ...) ...
Separate names with a comma.