If I Remarry...

[chaz345]

Again.......you are saying what you are NOT talking about. It would be much easier if you just plainly said what you ARE talking about.

I have a bunch of times.

Treat each other as Christ calls us to treat our spouses. Doesn't get much more plain than that.

 

[mkgal1]

I have a bunch of times.

Treat each other as Christ calls us to treat our spouses. Doesn't get much more plain than that.

No....it doesn't get much more vague than that.

I was asking for an example of a dating couple........b/c you had said that the dating process cannot be separated from the marriage...and that things still need to be "worked through" in dating--incompatibilities, do.

If you are not going to give an example...let's use mine...the couple that loved a certain sports team together--oh wait...you said they SHOULD break up.

So...you need to come up with another one....b/c what you used was the example Cons gave, which we all agreed on that wasn't a incompatibility--so there is nothing to "work through" there.....and the Christian/non-Christian, which you also said shouldn't get married--so...that is a break up situation as well.

So...we are now left with no example.....so, what are we even talking about?

 

[mkgal1]

Let's go with McS's analogy of the man wanting the woman to wear black stockings (since that can certainly apply to a dating couple). Deal or nor deal? How should THAT be handled....in your opinion? If the woman feels uncomfortable and the man REALLY desires that one...and it comes up during dating......worked through? If so...how?

 

[chaz345]

No....it doesn't get much more vague than that.

I was asking for an example of a dating couple........b/c you had said that the dating process cannot be separated from the marriage...and that things still need to be "worked through" in dating--incompatibilities, do.

If you are not going to give an example...let's use mine...the couple that loved a certain sports team together--oh wait...you said they SHOULD break up.

So...you need to come up with another one....b/c what you used was the example Cons gave, which we all agreed on that wasn't a incompatibility--so there is nothing to "work through" there.....and the Christian/non-Christian, which you also said shouldn't get married--so...that is a break up situation as well.

So...we are now left with no example.....so, what are we even talking about?

You obviously missed where I, twice I think, said that serious incompatibilites discovered during dating should result in the end of the relationship.

 

[mkgal1]

You obviously missed where I, twice I think, said that serious incompatibilites discovered during dating should result in the end of the relationship.

No, I didn't miss it....that is why I am asking you what SHOULD be worked through, IYO. I don't know what the difference even is between "serious" incompatibilities and minor ones, because you have never given any examples to work from.

Here is one of the times you talked about "working through" what you are now calling "differences"....and that is one thing I have asked you repeatedly and you have also never answered that....are you only talking about "differences" or what? What ARE you even talking about?

What I'm saying, and where I don't really think that dating and marriage can be truly completely separated, is this. The "question" raised by this thread was (very roughly) about what it takes to have a good marriage. Some of what it takes to have a good marriage occurs in the dating process when signficant incompatibilites are (hopefully) looked at and the decision is made as to wether or not it's something that can, or should be lived with. (so...of the ones that ARE settled on being "lived with" what is an example of one of those? And what does "doing the right thing" look like?The other part of what it takes to have a good marriage(actually there are many others but let's try to keep it simple) is in what I've called doing the right thing. How you treat eachother, overall, when things are going good, when differences of opinion arise, or when previously un-seen incompatibilities arise.

 

[mkgal1]

The purpose of finding someone compatible through the dating process though is to have a good marriage, right? So with the question basically being "what's necessary for a good marriage" and the typical answer being "find someone compatible" my answer is "no not really, what you do or don't do in the marriage is somewhat more important than finding the right person."

Example then.

 

[Conservativation]

Let's go with McS's analogy of the man wanting the woman to wear black stockings (since that can certainly apply to a dating couple). Deal or nor deal? How should THAT be handled....in your opinion? If the woman feels uncomfortable and the man REALLY desires that one...and it comes up during dating......worked through? If so...how?

This is easy

Either they switch to a "shade of grey" stockings

Or, she wears ONE black stocking

 

[chaz345]

.

 

[chaz345]

Let's go with McS's analogy of the man wanting the woman to wear black stockings (since that can certainly apply to a dating couple). Deal or nor deal? How should THAT be handled....in your opinion? If the woman feels uncomfortable and the man REALLY desires that one...and it comes up during dating......worked through? If so...how?

Why go with something that is obviously a preference and not a difference in core values? But I'll play along,if for not other reason than to show you how impossible it is to break human interaction down into black and white yes/no answers.

First tell me, in quantifiable terms, exactly how uncomfortable she is. Also in quantifiable terms tell me exactly how much he desires it. Each has to examine their own feelings on the issue and decide if the issue is something they can live outside their own preferred way of things being. And when you get down to it, unless you marry an exact duplicate of yourself, that's really what marriage is. I know you don't like the term, but it's all about compromise. Everyone, to a degree is different than everyone else. HOW different one can live harmonously with if the question. Incompatability in the absolute sense is when a difference that the two can't come to a workable, for both of them, middle ground on.

It doesn't matter if the difference is on the preference level or on the core values level other than the fact that preferences are easier to change or work with. But anything, even something as apparently minor as a preference can be an incompatibility if one of both can't give even a little. It's in that give a little process that great marriages are made, not in the finding the right person process.

 

[FaithPrevails]

What you just quoted, IMO(which should matter since I said it) says something quite different than what you said in this thread.

No, not really. Red flags that indicate a person isn't who they say they may be is pretty much the same thing as fleshing out subtle incompatibilities. If it's subtle, it's not obvious.

 

[chaz345]

No, not really. Red flags that indicate a person isn't who they say they may be is pretty much the same thing as fleshing out subtle incompatibilities. If it's subtle, it's not obvious.

It feels to me like you are telling me what I meant. I said that what I meant then is different that what you said in this thread and you say "no not really". How is that not telling me what I meant?

 

[chaz345]

I think I just figured something out though. We, up until now , or at least I, have been thinking of incompatability as being about differences in "big" stuff like core values. I think that's wrong. I think that it's more accurate to say that an incompatibility is any difference, on anything, preference or core value or anything in between that one or both of the people involved won't or can't meet in the middle on. Obviously some things, like core values stuff we can't simply change so that would be a case of can't. But on the preferences type stuff the choice to give a little or not obviously has to be completely voluntary.

 

[FaithPrevails]

It feels to me like you are telling me what I meant. I said that what I meant then is different that what you said in this thread and you say "no not really". How is that not telling me what I meant?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

You said...

What you just quoted, IMO(which should matter since I said it) says something quite different than what you said in this thread.

And I responded that I don't think it's different than what I said in this thread.

No, not really. Red flags that indicate a person isn't who they say they may be is pretty much the same thing as fleshing out subtle incompatibilities. If it's subtle, it's not obvious.

I did not use the words, that's not what you said or that's not what you meant. Please stop reading that inference into posts that challenge what you say. That kind of defensiveness makes it really difficult to have a discussion.

 

[chaz345]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

You said...



And I responded that I don't think it's different than what I said in this thread.



I did not use the words, that's not what you said or that's not what you meant. Please stop reading that inference into posts that challenge what you say. That kind of defensiveness makes it really difficult to have a discussion.

In that other thread I was talking about something else entirely. I was talking about the sorts of red flags that are or should be obvious but that ignored for whatever reason. Like what it is so common with abuse victims where, when looking back, they realize that the warning signs really were obvious. Not at all the same thing as fleshing out subtle differences.

 

[FaithPrevails]

In that other thread I was talking about something else entirely. I was talking about the sorts of red flags that are or should be obvious but that ignored for whatever reason. Like what it is so common with abuse victims where, when looking back, they realize that the warning signs really were obvious. Not at all the same thing as fleshing out subtle differences.

And as I said in that thread, the warning signs aren't really obvious and just being ignored or overlooked. I even used my own situation as an example.

Sometimes, yes, they can be. But, especially with an abuser, those things can be well-hidden until after the fact. Or, they will even change the behavior if it is addressed in the dating stage until after marriage then revert back to the behavior that was raised as a concern.

 

[FaithPrevails]

Compatibilty:

Core compatibility should be determined first.
Subtle incompatibilities should be examined as thoroughly as possible.
It should be understood/expected that incompatibilities will surface throughout a relationship/marriage and need to be addressed.

Doing the right thing:

Addressing incompatibilities in the dating phase - to include determining if there are any dealbreakers present and accepting them if there are and breaking up.

Finding a compromise that works for both parties for subtle incompatibilities that can be addressed and worked through. This could/should include some instances where one party or the other "gives in" on an issue that may not be that much of a sticking point for them. It doesn't always have to be middle ground.

Committing to the marriage covenant unless physical safety becomes an immediate issue. Dealing with any issues within the marriage respectfully and as calmly as possible.

Behaving in a Biblical manner (ie Fruits of the Spirit, Ephesians 5) towards your spouse.

 

[Conservativation]

For example, the people here discussing compatibility should consider themselves incompatible.

 

[chaz345]

And as I said in that thread, the warning signs aren't really obvious and just being ignored or overlooked. I even used my own situation as an example.

Sometimes, yes, they can be. But, especially with an abuser, those things can be well-hidden until after the fact. Or, they will even change the behavior if it is addressed in the dating stage until after marriage then revert back to the behavior that was raised as a concern.

In any case I was talking about something different there than I am here.

 

[chaz345]

Compatibilty:

Core compatibility should be determined first.
Subtle incompatibilities should be examined as thoroughly as possible.
It should be understood/expected that incompatibilities will surface throughout a relationship/marriage and need to be addressed.

Doing the right thing:

Addressing incompatibilities in the dating phase - to include determining if there are any dealbreakers present and accepting them if there are and breaking up.

Finding a compromise that works for both parties for subtle incompatibilities that can be addressed and worked through. This could/should include some instances where one party or the other "gives in" on an issue that may not be that much of a sticking point for them. It doesn't always have to be middle ground.

Committing to the marriage covenant unless physical safety becomes an immediate issue. Dealing with any issues within the marriage respectfully and as calmly as possible.

Behaving in a Biblical manner (ie Fruits of the Spirit, Ephesians 5) towards your spouse.

I agree completely.

The point about one or the other sometimes giving in rather than a middle ground on everything is a good clarification/refinement of what I said.

 

[mkgal1]

I think I just figured something out though. We, up until now , or at least I, have been thinking of incompatability as being about differences in "big" stuff like core values. I think that's wrong. I think that it's more accurate to say that an incompatibility is any difference, on anything, preference or core value or anything in between that one or both of the people involved won't or can't meet in the middle on. Obviously some things, like core values stuff we can't simply change so that would be a case of can't. But on the preferences type stuff the choice to give a little or not obviously has to be completely voluntary.

WE....had NO idea what YOU have been "thinking about"....because YOU have never answered when asked. I, on the other hand...have NOT been talking about core value "stuff" and have posted what I have been thinking about....nothing right or wrong about either one's preferences....but, what I am talking about is a part of who these people are. Same thing with Dallas's examples that she posted pages and pages ago....that you said were an extreme. So....what is doing the Christlike thing then? You have two people (as in my example a long time ago, as well).....they have a great time during a certain sports season....they respect one another....they see a lot of great character traits in the other....and they DO decide to get married...even though during off season, he loves to go out and be with lots of people--or he enjoys staying in, and having lots of people over...but, he HATES to be around quiet--it drives him stir crazy. She, OTOH, hates the fast-paced....loud....many conversations going at once kind of deal....she loves to spend her time alone (or with him--just the two of them)...she loves to be home, and even considers organizing the closets to be a fun night. Neither one is "wrong"..........what is reacting in a Christ-like way? Let's say it is Friday night and they are making plans.......what to do? How to do it? Paint me a picture of what it looks like in your mind, Chaz.