'Til Death Do Us Part

goofyfish

Analog By Birth, Digital By Design
Valued Senior Member
Marriage - 'tis a splendid thing when it works and an absolute nightmare when it ends in a divorce. No wonder the answer to the question, "Why is divorce so expensive?" is, "Because it's worth it!"

Now I personally don't have such a dark and dismal view of marriage. My own is wonderful, thankyouverymuch. Mrs. Fish tells me she feels the same way and I have no reason to doubt her. I have every intention of staying with her all our days and she feels the same. We're fortunate I guess.

Should marriage be a lifetime partnership? People grow and change. Some friendships last while other whither and die. People are as likely to grow apart, as they are to grow old together. The divorce rate in the United States, often quoted at around the 50% mark, seems to bear that out. If the rate of success in marriage is 1 in 2, why put such frightfully high expectations on a union that is so risky. Imagine if insurance companies would be asked to provide a policy on marriages. The premiums would be prohibitive.

IMHO, the vow would be worthless without "till death do us part."
  • "Do you take this woman, to have and to hold, until it becomes inconvenient?"
    "Do you promise to love her and cherish her, until someone better comes along?"
    "Do you take her, for better or worse, as long as it's fun?"
It is a goal to strive for, not just words thrown in and ignored at whim. The point of divorce is that the marriage vows - including "till death do us part" - have failed. What's the point of making a solemn promise if it can be revoked at any time with no repercussions?

Is a relationship that lasts 50 years or 60 years inherently more valuable than a relationship that has lasted 5 years or 6 years? If you are happy with your first spouse for 5 years, and happy with your second spouse for another 5 years, is that less laudable than being happy with the same spouse for 10 years? Wedding vows are a public declaration of what's going on in the relationship, and in that sense they are immaterial. However, I think they are a good encapsulation of what should build a stable and safe relationship and, in turn, society. The fact that humans in the last few decades have had an attention span problem when it comes to relationships might be reflective of our lower expectations of society.

:m: Peace.
 
I see marriage as mostly a financial partnership, separate from love or commitment. The aspiration to be partners for a lifetime should not outweigh overall happiness. My ex dramatically changed for the worse after the honeymoon. I don’t regret the divorce. Marriage will always be a crapshoot except for those who can withstand any crap. The vows should reflect that.
 
Should marriage be a lifetime partnership?

In my view, it should be. It is the essence of the institute marriage. There are other forms of living together if you want to find a way to arrange mutual financial interests.
 
Originally posted by zanket
I see marriage as mostly a financial partnership, separate from love or commitment. The aspiration to be partners for a lifetime should not outweigh overall happiness.
I'm not against the idea of some sort of legal/social recognition for couples that want to cohabit for financial interests, as long as it's mutually convenient. But to call that marriage would (in my mind) devalue “real, permanent” marriage. I'm proud to be married and to have made a commitment that I will honor even if it hurts, and I'm deeply grateful that I've received a reciprocal commitment.

To find that lumped into the same category, as something much less grand, would be a great shame.

:m: Peace.
 
Most people in our Northwestern society never mature the mentality of a child. There is not many in this society that can be a fully functional human being. How can one raise a familly unless the couple themselfs has matured. I see the 50% rate of divorce as a product of the immaturity of the nation. Unless you have fully developed how do can you know who you love? Let alone take into consideration the need and feeling of another while still maintainintg an individual self.
 
goofyfish - Would you honor your commitment if your spouse (not the wonderful Mrs. Fish, this is just a hypothetical example!) became obese and said “I only stayed slim to get married, sucker!” or was screwing the neighborhood or killed your kids? It’s easy to be committed when the relationship feels better than being single.

One may be committed whether married or not. Why get the state and federal governments involved? I can see only one reason. I am fortunate to have a partner now who likewise separates marriage and commitment, where the latter does not extend to cover voluntary, severely hurtful behavior. If she and I ever get married it will be for the financial benefits.
 
Originally posted by goofyfish
The fact that humans in the last few decades have had an attention span problem when it comes to relationships might be reflective of our lower expectations of society.

Might it be reflective of our growing acceptance of many different kinds of relationships, which may often fly in the face of the traditional expectations? Sure. That doesn't mean that the new expectations are "lower", as though the new kinds of relationships were somehow inferior. Whatever floats your boat, I say. Personally, I find nothing attractive about the idea of a lifelong commitment to a single partner, but I don't have anything against people who do (although I sometimes find the "even if it hurts" attitude disturbing - relationships should last as long as the parties involved are satisfied; dragging your legs to "make it work" seems to defeat the purpose).

The reason the divorce rate is as high as it is and the vows have become trivialized is that marriage offers economic incentives to couples who may not share your attitude about commitment. Moreover, in Western societies marriage has traditionally been a powerful enough symbol of romantic love that the aforementioned couples can't refuse appealing to it.
 
Back
Top