Marriage in 2005

[Zaac]

In the space of ten minutes this morning, I was sitting in front of the tv wondering what is going on?

Katie Couric was doing this piece about Toxic relationships. She was talking to a Dr. Gail Sailtz. http://talkshows.about.com/gi/dynam...&zu=http://www.msnbc.com/news/today_front.asp

At one point, Dr. Sailtz started talking about a wife who wanted to go to work, and the husband didn't want her to work, but wanted her to stay home and take care of the home. The Dr. said something to the effect of letting him know that this is not the marriage you signed up for, and unless he lets you work, it's time to get out of there.

I was shocked.

And not two minutes later, I see this promo where this lady is taking off her wedding ring and throwing it up in the air with a huge smile on her face as "Single Again" or "Suddenly Single Again" or something like that comes up on the screen.

I'm thinking, has the world lost it's mind? WHy such a nonchalant attitude about what is supposed to be a life-time committment?

Very sad.

 

[Spyr]

In the space of ten minutes this morning, I was sitting in front of the tv wondering what is going on?

Katie Couric was doing this piece about Toxic relationships. She was talking to a Dr. Gail Sailtz. http://talkshows.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=talkshows&zu=http://www.msnbc.com/news/today_front.asp

At one point, Dr. Sailtz started talking about a wife who wanted to go to work, and the husband didn't want her to work, but wanted her to stay home and take care of the home. The Dr. said something to the effect of letting him know that this is not the marriage you signed up for, and unless he lets you work, it's time to get out of there.

I was shocked.

And not two minutes later, I see this promo where this lady is taking off her wedding ring and throwing it up in the air with a huge smile on her face as "Single Again" or "Suddenly Single Again" or something like that comes up on the screen.

I'm thinking, has the world lost it's mind? WHy such a nonchalant attitude about what is supposed to be a life-time committment?

Very sad.

I guess it has to do with how you view marriage to begin with. For someone who sees it as a life-time committment divorce must be horid. But for others, like me, marriage is more of a step in life that can be undone if one chooses too. You can be friends with a person and then decide not to be. You can be dating someone and then not. You can be married and then decide it's not what you want. Nothing is really set in stone. Should a person really stay in a marriage if they aren't happy?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

In the space of ten minutes this morning, I was sitting in front of the tv wondering what is going on?

Katie Couric was doing this piece about Toxic relationships. She was talking to a Dr. Gail Sailtz. http://talkshows.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=talkshows&zu=http://www.msnbc.com/news/today_front.asp

At one point, Dr. Sailtz started talking about a wife who wanted to go to work, and the husband didn't want her to work, but wanted her to stay home and take care of the home. The Dr. said something to the effect of letting him know that this is not the marriage you signed up for, and unless he lets you work, it's time to get out of there.

I was shocked.

And not two minutes later, I see this promo where this lady is taking off her wedding ring and throwing it up in the air with a huge smile on her face as "Single Again" or "Suddenly Single Again" or something like that comes up on the screen.

I'm thinking, has the world lost it's mind? WHy such a nonchalant attitude about what is supposed to be a life-time committment?

Very sad.

Yep.

 

[Zaac]

I guess it has to do with how you view marriage to begin with. For someone who sees it as a life-time committment divorce must be horid. But for others, like me, marriage is more of a step in life that can be undone if one chooses too. You can be friends with a person and then decide not to be. You can be dating someone and then not. You can be married and then decide it's not what you want. Nothing is really set in stone. Should a person really stay in a marriage if they aren't happy?

Exactly how should marriage be viewed then if not for life? If your purpose is not to stay with that person for life, why would you marry them in the first place?

A step that can be undone? Sweet Jesus. Is this really how folks view marriage?

If it's not what you want, couldn't you have slowed down and taken the time to find this out BEFORE you got married?

A step that can be undone. I am floored. And it takes a lot to floor me.

 

[Clem is Me]

In the space of ten minutes this morning, I was sitting in front of the tv wondering what is going on?

Katie Couric was doing this piece about Toxic relationships. She was talking to a Dr. Gail Sailtz. http://talkshows.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=talkshows&zu=http://www.msnbc.com/news/today_front.asp

At one point, Dr. Sailtz started talking about a wife who wanted to go to work, and the husband didn't want her to work, but wanted her to stay home and take care of the home. The Dr. said something to the effect of letting him know that this is not the marriage you signed up for, and unless he lets you work, it's time to get out of there.

I was shocked.

And not two minutes later, I see this promo where this lady is taking off her wedding ring and throwing it up in the air with a huge smile on her face as "Single Again" or "Suddenly Single Again" or something like that comes up on the screen.

I'm thinking, has the world lost it's mind? WHy such a nonchalant attitude about what is supposed to be a life-time committment?

Very sad.

Because marriage is, for a great number of people, a stupid anachronistic idea.

 

[suzybeezy]

Because marriage is, for a great number of people, a stupid anachronistic idea.

Then those people shouldn't get married. Most people that enter into marriage don't enter it thinking this is a temporary situation, most people when they are taking their vows believe it's a life long committment. I think if more people were educated about marriage before they actually got married, we'd have far less divorce.

 

[Clem is Me]

Then those people shouldn't get married. Most people that enter into marriage don't enter it thinking this is a temporary situation, most people when they are taking their vows believe it's a life long committment. I think if more people were educated about marriage before they actually got married, we'd have far less divorce.

I agree with your first sentence completely. Actually I agree with you rparagraph, but not in the respect I think you intended. I have come to think that marriage should be a religeous matter only, and that the government should be removed from the marriage equation completely. Instead we could form domestic partnerships or some such, and renew them every few years if appropriate. These would serve the legal function of marriage but without the religeous nonsense. If you wish to stop renewing the contract you would appear before some board that would determine responsibility for child support and visitation, division of assets and such. Just get marriage away from government completely.

This would have the added benefit of allowing xhurxhes to govern who gets married and why without government interferance. Everyone wins.

 

[Spyr]

Exactly how should marriage be viewed then if not for life? If your purpose is not to stay with that person for life, why would you marry them in the first place?

A step that can be undone? Sweet Jesus. Is this really how folks view marriage?

If it's not what you want, couldn't you have slowed down and taken the time to find this out BEFORE you got married?

A step that can be undone. I am floored. And it takes a lot to floor me.

When two people get married they love the person they're with, they want to spend their life with that person. But sometimes, if couples get married to fast or circumstances change drastically, they might wake up and realize that they're no longer with the person they married, that they've changed completely. In such cases sometimes divorce is better than living a life of animosity or subdued hostility.

There are those who would never leave a marriage no matter what, but divorces happen for a reason and sometimes they're valid ones.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

In the space of ten minutes this morning, I was sitting in front of the tv wondering what is going on?

Katie Couric was doing this piece about Toxic relationships. She was talking to a Dr. Gail Sailtz. http://talkshows.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=talkshows&zu=http://www.msnbc.com/news/today_front.asp

At one point, Dr. Sailtz started talking about a wife who wanted to go to work, and the husband didn't want her to work, but wanted her to stay home and take care of the home. The Dr. said something to the effect of letting him know that this is not the marriage you signed up for, and unless he lets you work, it's time to get out of there.

I was shocked.

And not two minutes later, I see this promo where this lady is taking off her wedding ring and throwing it up in the air with a huge smile on her face as "Single Again" or "Suddenly Single Again" or something like that comes up on the screen.

I'm thinking, has the world lost it's mind? WHy such a nonchalant attitude about what is supposed to be a life-time committment?

Very sad.

People's feelings change. End of story. Who I love today and want to spend the rest of my life with, may not be the same person in ten years.

Love comes and goes, as does marriage. I'm not sure what you aren't grasping.

 

[Isis-Astoroth]

At one point, Dr. Sailtz started talking about a wife who wanted to go to work, and the husband didn't want her to work, but wanted her to stay home and take care of the home. The Dr. said something to the effect of letting him know that this is not the marriage you signed up for, and unless he lets you work, it's time to get out of there.

Women have rights just as men, if I were married and my husband had this medieval attitude that my only place was the home, then I would divorce him,; views such as those keep women held back. If a person is no longer happy with their marriage then there is nothing wrong with divorce; religion has created this view that life long committment is the only choice, but it isn't, and shouldn't be. It isn't the 1600s anymore.

 

[Westvleteren]

And the situation described in the OP is not a disagreement about what to have for dinner. It's a major life decision that two people whose lives are intertwined are not together on.

Everybody enters into marriage thinking the circumstances of their relationships and of their lives will always be the same. It's an idealistic institution, and not one to be jumped into and out of lightly; but by the same token, when something major in your life changes, the marriage sometimes isn't able to change with it.

On the other hand, I think there are ways to compromise even on big issues without just walking away. A trial period with a part-time or temporary job, for instance, to see how it goes, would have been a better solution than just tossing out the marriage.

 

[Niels]

Everybody enters into marriage thinking the circumstances of their relationships and of their lives will always be the same. It's an idealistic institution, and not one to be jumped into and out of lightly; but by the same token, when something major in your life changes, the marriage sometimes isn't able to change with it.

I agree with what you're getting at here... but I've gotta wonder, when did people get the idea that "the circumstances of their relationships and lives" will always be the same? While I don't think *everybody* enters into marriage denying things could change, many do seem to have this odd kind of idealism. And it won't take long for a relationship based on expected perfection to fall apart. It seems in past generations were better equipped to handle setbacks without divorcing. Maybe because both men and women worked harder than they do today (less tech etc., more plowing of fiels and rearing of children)... or the fact that they didn't have movies projecting this "happily ever after" myth. And they most certainly didn't have as much media glorifying divorce. More accurately, it should be "happy sometimes, sad others, dealing with life ever after". Vows tend to get at this... but it seems they don't mean as much to people.

Guess we're so sheltered and spoiled that adults haven't matured by the time they're married. They think everything will be perfect. Well, I don't. I hope things are great, will work to meet ideals and make ends meet... but not expect perfection or an easy time even.

 

[seebs]

People are taught that vows are a social ritual devoid of meaning. Maybe we shouldn't teach kids this.

 

[Niels]

Women have rights just as men, if I were married and my husband had this medieval attitude that my only place was the home, then I would divorce him,; views such as those keep women held back. If a person is no longer happy with their marriage then there is nothing wrong with divorce; religion has created this view that life long committment is the only choice, but it isn't, and shouldn't be. It isn't the 1600s anymore.

I agree the wife should't be coerced, told her only place is the home etc. But why find out so late? Didn't they even talk about their values while thy were dating... just to get an idea of who they were marrying?


However, disagree with you that marriage as an institution is backward.

It isn't the 15,000 BCE's either... people running about in tribes, having promiscuous sex in temples etc. not producing much in terms of what we value today. The nuclear family was a foundational institution durring the *modern* era... (and the ball was rolling a couple thousand years before that... coicinding with the eventual rise of reason and reniassance) and I'd even go so far as to say it is (or at least was) a major reason why we've culturally and materally advanced from our 'caveman' roots. It's provided the stability on which disciplines like science and architecture etc. could advance.

 

[nadroj1985]

People's feelings change. End of story. Who I love today and want to spend the rest of my life with, may not be the same person in ten years.

It's my bet that one of the keys to a successful marriage is to realize what you've said, and make the commitment of marriage something other than a commitment to feel a certain way forever. No one can make such a commitment. The commitment, rather, should be to be with and support the person no matter what one feels.

Marriage as such would not be a proclamation of loving feelings, but of a conscious decision to love one's spouse no matter how one feels about them at any particular moment; it's a commitment to a person, not to a feeling. If marriage is not this, I might agree with Clem that it is a "stupid and anachronistic idea."

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

People are taught that vows are a social ritual devoid of meaning. Maybe we shouldn't teach kids this.

...And teach them what instead?

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

It's my bet that one of the keys to a successful marriage is to realize what you've said, and make the commitment of marriage something other than a commitment to feel a certain way forever. No one can make such a commitment. The commitment, rather, should be to be with and support the person no matter what one feels.

Marriage as such would not be a proclamation of loving feelings, but of a conscious decision to love one's spouse no matter how one feels about them at any particular moment; it's a commitment to a person, not to a feeling. If marriage is not this, I might agree with Clem that it is a "stupid and anachronistic idea."

I don't really see any way in which a nonloving marriage would ever work.

People have a right to be with the person that they are in love with.

 

[praying]

I don't really see any way in which a nonloving marriage would ever work.

People have a right to be with the person that they are in love with.

So people should go about marrying and divorcing everytime the wind changes on their emotional rollercoaster. What about children? Marriage at the very least is meant to be a SERIOUS undertaking not an emotional whim.

 

[nadroj1985]

I don't really see any way in which a nonloving marriage would ever work.

People have a right to be with the person that they are in love with.

You're missing my point. My point is that love is not a passive feeling, but an active decision. Marriage is not about living with someone for the time when your feelings are disposed positively toward the person, and leaving them when they're not; it is about deciding to love someone, no matter what your feelings are. Of course nonloving marriages can't work- to love the person is the vow you make when you marry them. Love is the business of marriage. But, a nonloving marriage is not the result of unfortunate circumstances which we cannot control -- it is the failure of the spouses to love each other.

Don't misunderstand me, though. I still think everyone ought to have the right to divorce their spouses, and I still think there are probably situations where divorce is advisable. But, I think that the vows are generally not taken seriously enough, or are taken in a different sense than what they should be indicating.

 

[Westvleteren]

I agree with what you're getting at here... but I've gotta wonder, when did people get the idea that "the circumstances of their relationships and lives" will always be the same?

I was getting at the fact that most people marry during their youth. When I got married the first time, I was 21, fresh out of college, and thought I knew everything. I was in luv, would always be in luv, and nobody could tell me any different.

While I don't think *everybody* enters into marriage denying things could change, many do seem to have this odd kind of idealism. And it won't take long for a relationship based on expected perfection to fall apart. It seems in past generations were better equipped to handle setbacks without divorcing. Maybe because both men and women worked harder than they do today (less tech etc., more plowing of fiels and rearing of children)... or the fact that they didn't have movies projecting this "happily ever after" myth. And they most certainly didn't have as much media glorifying divorce. More accurately, it should be "happy sometimes, sad others, dealing with life ever after". Vows tend to get at this... but it seems they don't mean as much to people.

I think in the past, people married for different reasons and expected different things out of marriage. It was more a pooling of resources and companionship than a love-match. Women would just roll their eyes and shake their heads when men drank too much or even cheated on them, because it wasn't necessarily a reflection on their dignity as an individual when their husband did these things. And vice-versa.

Then there's the fact that marriages in the past just flat-out didn't last as long. It's only been in the past 100 years that a woman could be reasonably assured of living past her child-bearing years.

And people (read: women) had fewer choices in the matter. If you were a 24 year-old woman with three kids, no way to support yourself and no place to go, you were stuck. But I also think that knowing she had no place to go encouraged a woman back then to make things work when a modern woman, who knows she has an escape hatch, wouldn't. (Of course, there was a lot of just plain, old enduring going on as well. Hard to compromise when you don't have choices.)

But I think there probably is a media element as well. I think people go into marriage, especially when they're young, believing in effortless happily-ever-after. My second marriage has been through rockier times than my first marriage ever did, but I'm more mature about what I want out of marriage and what I expect out of it, so I'm prepared to work at it.