Why is marriage considered different than other relationships?

[pollywag]

Going to the church, signing a document and wearing rings on your fingers is all an "act", an act put on to either appease others, to let the world know you are together, or to prove to the world you are worthy of love. If you are living with someone and share all the same things you would under a marriage, ie. finances, children, responsibilities you ARE married. You don't need to sign a paper to prove that. The commitment does not change once you do, in fact a lot of relationships FAIL after that paper is signed. It's all in what you envision for yourself and how much you need the approval of what others collectively think.

 

Infidelity and loss of love certainly does not stop anyone who is married, most marriages fail because of those two very things and so if you can't preserve monogamy, respect OR trust with a paper what makes you think that paper is even worth anything more than some placebo psychological symbol used as a form of acceptance amongts the masses?

You don't need a pair of rings or a paper to make sure you never hurt the person you love by failing them with respect or loyalty, you need a determined head and a good heart. The problem is that people magically think "marriage" will give them that and find out the hard way it doesn't.

[complicatedlife]

Going to the church, signing a document and wearing rings on your fingers is all an "act", an act put on to either appease others, to let the world know you are together, or to prove to the world you are worthy of love. If you are living with someone and share all the same things you would under a marriage, ie. finances, children, responsibilities you ARE married. You don't need to sign a paper to prove that. The commitment does not change once you do, in fact a lot of relationships FAIL after that paper is signed. It's all in what you envision for yourself and how much you need the approval of what others collectively think.

 

Infidelity and loss of love certainly does not stop anyone who is married, most marriages fail because of those two very things and so if you can't preserve monogamy, respect OR trust with a paper what makes you think that paper is even worth anything more than some placebo psychological symbol used as a form of acceptance amongts the masses?

You don't need a pair of rings or a paper to make sure you never hurt the person you love by failing them with respect or loyalty, you need a determined head and a good heart. The problem is that people magically think "marriage" will give them that and find out the hard way it doesn't.

Damn, Polly! Where ya been hiding? Lol.

 

Totally agree, though I will say that because I know that there are some people who have religious and/or spiritual ideas, I can understand why they would want to be married.

[complicatedlife]

I am starting to wonder what the point of the discussion is. Because now it has gone off into something that does not even come close to my original question.

 

I hope it's gotten back on track again.

 

You know what my gripe is? Perhaps you can understand:

 

Why do we have to conform to what society believes is the "norm" for relationships? Why can't the couple choose what works best for them, and then we as a society support them in their choice, whether that choice is marriage or not? Because as far as I can see from this thread that you have started, the vast majority has told you that from an emotional aspect, marriage has no difference compared to other relationships.

[clv0116]

Come on, accept responsibility! You have certainly made many insinuations that a marriage is better - you called marriage a Mercedes, etc.

 

I also clearly said that there are exceptions, which was the entire POINT of the Mercedes comment. Can't you do better?

[pollywag]

Damn, Polly! Where ya been hiding? Lol.

 

Totally agree, though I will say that because I know that there are some people who have religious and/or spiritual ideas, I can understand why they would want to be married.

 

 

I'm all over the board... just look for my snout and black cloak, I'm around...;)

 

I agree there is definitely a religious factor and for those people who are highly traditional and religious I can't see it any other way. But even so that has become a circumstance of convenience because technically and strictly from a religious stand point a lot of what happens between couples before marriage sexually speaking and with co-habitation it would defy the purpose of marriage in the first place since none of that should be taking place prior to marriage. Right? Yet we all adapt what we like and what is "do-able" for us and we make it our "religion". I mean where is all that religion when you are screwing every tom dick and harry, or sally, kim and sandy before you settled down? If we are brutally honest no one is really "that" religious anymore. But I digress in the name of religion, I can see marriage being the only "recognized" option and I do accept that.

 

 

For everyone else it's no different than what kids do in highschool wanting to fit in and to be accepted as part of the cool clique. We perpetuate this behaviour well into our adult life, we have this insatiable need to be accepted and we place a great value on our romantic status in order to be accepted in society. If you are not married and with a child you are less of a human being because of that. Whaaaaaaaaat? How can someone be so minimized in their own self-views to think that the only way they can have any sort of presence in this world is to be tied to someone else by a paper and a couple of rings? I see so many truly unhappy married couples, marriage doesn't equal happiness it doesn't equal trust it doesn't equal security it doesn't equal any of those things if the union is made with someone that cannot be any of those things. Regardless of how well they fit the bill at the time the "will you.." and "I do's... were exchanged. You see so many really young couples, the women in particular express their concerns about how there is a lot of disconnect in the relationship, there is a lot of uncertainty and yet these very same people think that "marriage" the act of, will change that and magically turn the relationship into something better, healthier.

 

People relate to people, whether we marry, live together or decide to commute once a week to be with our significant other, it doesn't matter it is all irrelevant if you can find a common ground to be and want the same things in order to grow and progress in respect and love. The only true purpose of marriage is for monogamy (which more than half marriage don't respect anyway) and to give children the same last name. That's it. But you can 100% do those things unmarried so what's the difference? NOTHING.

 

I look at the Infidelity board on here for example, and I see how many marriages are destroyed by infidelity, what a joke! What a joke it is to face the world and tell them "Look at me, look at us, we are meant to be an we are going to make it through thick and thin" only to go ahead down the road and back stab each other in the worst possible way, and then on top of it they have to announce after the shame and pain of infidelity "we are going to try to make it work because we are married and we respect our vows"

Whaaaat? You "respect your vows"!?!?

 

It's a joke. Let's just see it for what it is shall we?

[complicatedlife]

I also clearly said that there are exceptions, which was the entire POINT of the Mercedes comment. Can't you do better?

 

For you?

 

 

NO!!!! Lol. Nor do I care to. You don't respect people's differing opinions. Not very becoming as a charateristic. Until you started to behave condescendingly, I certainly did respect your comments.

[Owl]

So assumptions aside, the fact of a marriage being involved does NOT make a relationship "better" or "more valid," particularly when SOME marriages DO include spousal abuse, child abuse, cheating, etc. etc. etc. It is the RELATIONSHIP ITSELF that makes it more or less valid.

 

Well...here's the flaw in your logic.

 

Those "other" relationships are also just as prone to abuse, cheating, etc... as a marriage. So I don't buy into your "particularly" statement at all. Any long term relationship has just as much odds of being prone to the same pitfalls...marriage or not.

 

The relationship itself is indeed what makes it "more valid" or not.

 

But the question was: "Why are marriages considered different from other relationships?"

 

I've explained why they are CONSIDERED different. You're trying to contend that they AREN'T different. I'm not really arguing which is better...I'm explaining why one is CONSIDERED better.

 

See the break here?

 

But this whole thing about infidelity is a just a red herring...cohabitation relationships are just as prone to it...the difference is that the offense is CONSIDERED "less" of an offense if the couple wasn't married, only cohabitating.

 

I'm not saying that the offense IS less. It's not.

 

But I'm also not buying into this whole tangent trying to pin infidelity or abuse on marriages...that's horsepucky.

 

I'm not saying that a marriage is "better" than cohabitation...I'm saying that it's considered better.

 

Trying to pin abuse and infidelity on marriages is an attempt to claim that cohabitation or similar relationships are better...again...BS.

 

As far as "open marriages"...we could go down that tangent...but again, we're talking about "normal" relationships...not dysfunctional or abnormal ones. And cohabitation relationships AGAIN face the same issues with "open" and such.

 

If you want to try to demonstrate that a marriage is a LESS desireable relationship than cohabitation...that would be a whole different thread, no? Just as trying to prove a marriage is better.

 

That wasn't the question posed here.

[complicatedlife]

Well...here's the flaw in your logic.

 

Those "other" relationships are also just as prone to abuse, cheating, etc... as a marriage. So I don't buy into your "particularly" statement at all. Any long term relationship has just as much odds of being prone to the same pitfalls...marriage or not.

 

The relationship itself is indeed what makes it "more valid" or not.

 

But the question was: "Why are marriages considered different from other relationships?"

 

I've explained why they are CONSIDERED different. You're trying to contend that they AREN'T different. I'm not really arguing which is better...I'm explaining why one is CONSIDERED better.

 

See the break here?

 

But this whole thing about infidelity is a just a red herring...cohabitation relationships are just as prone to it...the difference is that the offense is CONSIDERED "less" of an offense if the couple wasn't married, only cohabitating.

 

I'm not saying that the offense IS less. It's not.

 

But I'm also not buying into this whole tangent trying to pin infidelity or abuse on marriages...that's horsepucky.

 

I'm not saying that a marriage is "better" than cohabitation...I'm saying that it's considered better.

 

Trying to pin abuse and infidelity on marriages is an attempt to claim that cohabitation or similar relationships are better...again...BS.

 

As far as "open marriages"...we could go down that tangent...but again, we're talking about "normal" relationships...not dysfunctional or abnormal ones. And cohabitation relationships AGAIN face the same issues with "open" and such.

 

If you want to try to demonstrate that a marriage is a LESS desireable relationship than cohabitation...that would be a whole different thread, no? Just as trying to prove a marriage is better.

 

That wasn't the question posed here.

 

I totally agree that no matter what the relationship is, they are all prone to the same kinds of destruction(s).

 

However, if we are going to go back to PKN's original question, he did go into detail with his question, and it is my understanding that he was asking from an emotional standpoint; I hope he corrects me if I am wrong:

Why is a marriage considered so different than other relationships? You read thread after thread of how people (like me) lose that love, passion, desire for their spouse. Which in a normal (pre-marriage) relationship would be a signal that you move on. But divorce is ugly so people cheat or just stay and are unhappy.

 

I know you see those "special" couples that are that perfect match that last forever, but those seem more like the exception than the rule.

 

But why is marriage supposed to be so much different?

[mental_traveller]

Going to the church, signing a document and wearing rings on your fingers is all an "act", an act put on to either appease others, to let the world know you are together, or to prove to the world you are worthy of love. If you are living with someone and share all the same things you would under a marriage, ie. finances, children, responsibilities you ARE married.

 

There's a giant difference between this and marriage. If you are married and get divorced, a whole set of laws come into play for dividing up the assets. If you are unmarried, then you basically keep your own property that you brought in, and only shared assets such as a joint bank account or jointly-owned property get divided up by the courts.

 

Lots of rich guys thought like you do and learned to their cost how wrong they were. Try telling the judge in a divorce court that the marriage was just an "act", how wrong can you be!

 

There are also big differences in terms of what happens if you die or are incapacitated. If you are married then your spouse inherits by default, and gets to decide what happens if you end up on life support. If you are married then you have more custody rights and alimony rights in a break-up than if you aren't married.

 

There there are issues like being able to get visas/citizenship if you live or were born in different countries. In parts of the world you can't share rooms in hotels or apartments unless you are legally married. Culturally and legally, much of the world simply won't respect a relationship that is not marriage.

 

Really it's a huge difference. If marriage didn't matter than I would have been married and divorced 4 or 5 times by now already. It does matter, and since I don't want to lose half my wealth, my house, or end up paying alimony for the rest of my life, I will never tie the knot.

[mental_traveller]

May I ask what is the difference in investment between a married couple of 50 years versus a non-married/cohabitating couple of 50 years?

 

When the cohabitors break up they won't get raped in court on the whims and prejudices of a bunch of strangers.

[taylor]

Going to the church, signing a document and wearing rings on your fingers is all an "act", an act put on to either appease others, to let the world know you are together, or to prove to the world you are worthy of love. If you are living with someone and share all the same things you would under a marriage, ie. finances, children, responsibilities you ARE married. You don't need to sign a paper to prove that. The commitment does not change once you do, in fact a lot of relationships FAIL after that paper is signed. It's all in what you envision for yourself and how much you need the approval of what others collectively think.

 

I really thought hard about this whole marriage issue...why did I get married as opposed to cohabitating.

 

I remember my husband suggesting cohabitation after we dated 9 months. I remember telling him, "No, I'm worth more than that."

 

I don't know why that was my reply. Just the way I thought at the time..as if to say, "If you love me ENOUGH, and if you value me ENOUGH, you will want to MARRY me." I am sure it is society that puts this kind of thinking in a young girl's mind...that if a man thinks highly enough of you, he will show you how important you are to him by marrying you.

 

Please do not bash this comment. I am simply being honest about how a young girl can think and feel.

 

I guess I got married because I needed to feel secure in the knowledge that my husband loved me and valued me enough to make a formal commitment for life.

 

I do not agree that going to church, signing a piece of paper or wearing rings are "acts," implying that they are not done with sincere intent or are done just for show.

 

Going to church is a step couples take who want their union to "include" God...they want to make it a three-way covenant.

 

Signing a piece of paper makes the union legal and binding and there are advantages to having a legal union.

 

The wedding ceremony and the wearing of the rings are both traditional rituals recognized in many societies. And many societies are deeply rooted in their traditions and their rituals. These are not just "showy acts."

 

I wear my ring as a symbol and reminder of my committment to love my husband.

 

Getting married, making it legal, and wearing my wedding ring have nothing to do with my need for approval from others.

 

 

You don't need a pair of rings or a paper to make sure you never hurt the person you love by failing them with respect or loyalty, you need a determined head and a good heart.

 

The ring and the piece of paper are not a guarantee that couples won't hurt each other or fail each other. Anyone entering marriage knows this before going in. Many couples, especially those married in church ceremonies, take premarital classes where all of the pitfalls and the "hard work" of marriage are spelled out. The classes are designed to let couples examine their compatibility, explore their reasons why they are choosing to enter marriage and to be made aware that marriage is not a bed of roses. The bottom line of these classes is, "Here's the reality. Are you SURE you are willing and ready for this?"

 

All relationships, whether married or cohabition, hope for respect, loyalty, and a good heart.

[taylor]

May I ask what is the difference in investment between a married couple of 50 years versus a non-married/cohabitating couple of 50 years?

 

I don't think there is any difference in investment between a married or cohabitating couple of 50 years. Both have invested equal amounts of time. But there is no way to know which partner(s) have invested more of their hearts or more of their energy. It all depends on the relationship, not on their arrangement.

 

And there is no way of knowing which couple is HAPPIER, or if either couple IS happy, based on length of time together or on type of arrangement. It varies case to case.

[taylor]

since I don't want to lose half my wealth, my house, or end up paying alimony for the rest of my life, I will never tie the knot.

 

Marriage is a HUGE leap of faith. But couples take that risk every day because of their faith in the relationship and their willingness to take that risk.

 

If you don't have that faith or aren't willing to take that risk, it's wise not to tie the knot.

 

Sidenote: If you and your spouse both worked to build the wealth and to buy the house and contents, why would you not be willing to give your spouse half?

[pkn06002]

So there is an emotional difference just not one that makes the relationship guaranteed to be all warm and fuzzy. That emotional difference is the belief (at the time) that you care enough to make a life long commitment.

 

You know as I wrote that a thought came along. That idea of a life long commitment is great if you live to be 45, but how many of us really understand the impact of that type of commitment when we are in our 20's and we are going to live to be 50,60 ---- 100.

 

This thread has also gotten me thinking about another question, I need your guys opinions on the forum to post it in. The question is this

 

When couples "fight for their marriage" be it from infidelity or just neglect what are they fighting for?

 

What do you guys think a question worth it's own thread?

[Kasan]

When couples "fight for their marriage" be it from infidelity or just neglect what are they fighting for?

 

What do you guys think a question worth it's own thread?

 

Definitely worth it's own thread.

[taylor]

So there is an emotional difference just not one that makes the relationship guaranteed to be all warm and fuzzy. That emotional difference is the belief (at the time) that you care enough to make a life long commitment.

 

You know as I wrote that a thought came along. That idea of a life long commitment is great if you live to be 45, but how many of us really understand the impact of that type of commitment when we are in our 20's and we are going to live to be 50,60 ---- 100.

 

This thread has also gotten me thinking about another question, I need your guys opinions on the forum to post it in. The question is this

 

When couples "fight for their marriage" be it from infidelity or just neglect what are they fighting for?

 

What do you guys think a question worth it's own thread?

 

Sure it's worth it's own thread. But it all comes down to what the value of marriage is and much of that is being discussed right here in this thread.

 

If you value marriage you will fight for it.

 

I fought hard this past year to save my marriage from emotional infidelity at a time when I didn't value my husband or the relationship.

 

The thing is, pkn, you can still value MARRIAGE even if you temporarily lose sight of the value of your partner or the relationship.

 

When I was in the midst of my EA, the OM became very valuable to me and the more valuable he became and the more valuable my relationship with him became, the less valuable my husband and our relationship became.

 

The value shift was all based on where I was able to get my needs met and from whom.

 

I disrespected my marriage. I stopped honoring it. But I never lost sight of the value of marriage. Marriage is an ideal we, as married people, aim for. How close we get to that ideal depends on what we are willing and able to bring to the relationship.

 

Just because a relationship goes bad...turns sour, doesn't mean marriage itself is a bad thing.

 

Our MC asked me many times if and why I wanted to save my marriage. She asked why I wanted to recommit. She asked these questions when my head and heart was still very full with thoughts and feelings of the OM...not my husband.

 

And my answer to her was that I still saw value in my marriage and I still valued marriage as an institution.

 

I fought to get my marriage back on track because years ago I met a man that I loved enough to commit to for the rest of my life. I gave him my heart and he gave me his heart and we promised to take care of our hearts for as long as they beat.

 

Along the way, that love got lost, confused, tangled and twisted.

 

But in the end, that man and I stood before each other and thru the tears we could still see the value and meaning that we brought to each others' lives. And we remembered our commitment..to love for better or worse, in good times and bad; in sickness and health..til death.

 

It's easy to be committed in the good times. The real test of your love and commitment is when you hit the rough waters...when you hit the brick wall...when you feel like you are stuck in the muck. That's when you find out how true your love is and how strong your commitment is.

 

 

I knew I still loved my husband. And I knew he was STILL the one I wanted to spend the rest of my life with.

 

He's the one I want to share my joys and sorrows with. He's the one I want holding my hand at the moment of my last breath..the one I want to whisper to me, "Your life mattered to me."

 

Did you ever see the movie, "Shall We Dance"?

 

The wife hires a PI to follow her husband because she suspects infidelity. The PI asks her why her marriage is so important to her. She says this to him (paraphrased from my limited memory): As you go thru life you want to know that your life matters to someone...that it counts for something to that one special person you love and who you know loves you back.

 

I am fighting for my marriage because when the end of my life comes and I am looking into my husband's eyes I will be glad knowing that HE was the one I shared it with.

[pkn06002]

Any suggestions for a title for my other question? I can't boil it down to something short.

[taylor]

Any suggestions for a title for my other question? I can't boil it down to something short.

 

How about, "Why do you value your marriage?"

 

OR

 

"What makes a troubled marriage worth saving?"

[pollywag]

I really thought hard about this whole marriage issue...why did I get married as opposed to cohabitating.

 

I remember my husband suggesting cohabitation after we dated 9 months. I remember telling him, "No, I'm worth more than that."

 

I don't know why that was my reply. Just the way I thought at the time..as if to say, "If you love me ENOUGH, and if you value me ENOUGH, you will want to MARRY me." I am sure it is society that puts this kind of thinking in a young girl's mind...that if a man thinks highly enough of you, he will show you how important you are to him by marrying you.

 

Please do not bash this comment. I am simply being honest about how a young girl can think and feel.

 

I guess I got married because I needed to feel secure in the knowledge that my husband loved me and valued me enough to make a formal commitment for life.

 

I do not agree that going to church, signing a piece of paper or wearing

 

 

I can see what you are saying completely Taylor, and it's no reason to get bashed for what you said. I think then you would agree the only difference between the two is strictly psychological, nothing more nothing less.

 

 

Some people dismiss those that have been cohabiting in a relationship as "well that's different you are not married" not the same thing. It's no different it is the exact same thing. If you are 21 and living together that might be different for the simple fact that you are starting out, have less experience with relationships and the chances that you might want to terminate a relationship and move on are probably higher when you are that young and not obliged to a leagal paper, but as you get older you don't need to be married in order to feel that certain level of commitment that lets you stay with someone for the long haul. If you are common law there is nothing difference, financial is the only true difference and some married people never join their bank accounts as some people living together do join them. It's all the same deal you can do the exact same things as you would married as you do living together. It's psychological is what I am saying and what you seem to be confirming with your example Taylor.

 

By the way are you still married Taylor?

 

 

Also, the idea that because you are not married what is yours is yours and what is theirs is theirs is not true, if you fall under common law you can still try to get part of a house or whatever it is that you want materially speaking from your partner if you wished to pursue it that way.

[OpenBook]

How about, "Why do you value your marriage?"

 

OR

 

"What makes a troubled marriage worth saving?"

 

OR

 

"Fighting to save your marriage - is it worth it?"

[taylor]

I can see what you are saying completely Taylor, and it's no reason to get bashed for what you said. I think then you would agree the only difference between the two is strictly psychological, nothing more nothing less.

 

 

Some people dismiss those that have been cohabiting in a relationship as "well that's different you are not married" not the same thing. It's no different it is the exact same thing. If you are 21 and living together that might be different for the simple fact that you are starting out, have less experience with relationships and the chances that you might want to terminate a relationship and move on are probably higher when you are that young and not obliged to a leagal paper, but as you get older you don't need to be married in order to feel that certain level of commitment that lets you stay with someone for the long haul. If you are common law there is nothing difference, financial is the only true difference and some married people never join their bank accounts as some people living together do join them. It's all the same deal you can do the exact same things as you would married as you do living together. It's psychological is what I am saying and what you seem to be confirming with your example Taylor.

 

By the way are you still married Taylor?

 

 

Also, the idea that because you are not married what is yours is yours and what is theirs is theirs is not true, if you fall under common law you can still try to get part of a house or whatever it is that you want materially speaking from your partner if you wished to pursue it that way.

 

Pollywag,

 

I don't want to make any sweeping generalizations about why males and females in a society choose marriage. Understanding why I decided to enter into marriage was enough soul-searching for me to handle.

 

So, yes, I would say as a young girl in love with a young man, having dated for 18 months total, the desire for marriage was partly psychological as I had a need for security. I think it was also partly emotional...the longing to know that he desired to give his heart to me totally, completely and forever.

 

Of course, the meaning of marriage deepened over the years...the essence of the committment...And it most definitely took on its greatest meaning this past year as we struggled with what our marriage meant to us..its purpose and value..and what committment, responsibility and obligation meant as well.

 

Yes, I am still married. My husband and I are in marriage recovery and have been for exactly one year this week. We are redefining our marriage and attempting to affair-proof it; meet each other's needs, and rediscover the love that got buried along the way.

[PinkKittyKat]

I can see what you are saying completely Taylor, and it's no reason to get bashed for what you said. I think then you would agree the only difference between the two is strictly psychological, nothing more nothing less.

 

 

Some people dismiss those that have been cohabiting in a relationship as "well that's different you are not married" not the same thing. It's no different it is the exact same thing. If you are 21 and living together that might be different for the simple fact that you are starting out, have less experience with relationships and the chances that you might want to terminate a relationship and move on are probably higher when you are that young and not obliged to a leagal paper, but as you get older you don't need to be married in order to feel that certain level of commitment that lets you stay with someone for the long haul. If you are common law there is nothing difference, financial is the only true difference and some married people never join their bank accounts as some people living together do join them. It's all the same deal you can do the exact same things as you would married as you do living together. It's psychological is what I am saying and what you seem to be confirming with your example Taylor.

 

By the way are you still married Taylor?

 

 

Also, the idea that because you are not married what is yours is yours and what is theirs is theirs is not true, if you fall under common law you can still try to get part of a house or whatever it is that you want materially speaking from your partner if you wished to pursue it that way.

 

This is true.

 

Me and my bf are technically common law now. If we broke up I could contest for items that we purchased since we started living together.

 

Not that I ever would!!!!!

 

My bf wants to get married to me to make a public easily perceived statement that he is serious about me, that we are serious about eachother. Sucks that people DO perceive marriage as that, but we don't mind, it's our choice. I don't agree with anyone being pressured, though.

[pollywag]

.

 

So, yes, I would say as a young girl in love with a young man, having dated for 18 months total, the desire for marriage was partly psychological as I had a need for security. I think it was also partly emotional...the longing to know that he desired to give his heart to me totally, completely and forever.

 

What does that mean in the long run though?

 

 

 

Of course, the meaning of marriage deepened over the years...the essence of the committment...And it most definitely took on its greatest meaning this past year as we struggled with what our marriage meant to us..its purpose and value..and what committment, responsibility and obligation meant as well.

 

Ok but I take it you are recovering from infidelity on one of your parts, correct? So how did the meaning of marriage deepen over the years when there was infidelity? Can you please explain this? When the purpose of getting married to begin with is to prove to the world that you are special enough for each other that you are DONE with sleeping with or loving other people?

 

 

Yes, I am still married. My husband and I are in marriage recovery and have been for exactly one year this week. We are redefining our marriage and attempting to affair-proof it; meet each other's needs, and rediscover the love that got buried along the way.

 

This could have happened to you living together and without a marriage paper, could it not? You could have been living together for 10yrs and one day decided you needed space and split up and gone your seperate ways only to get back together again to rediscover the meaning of your love for each other.

 

My point is your marriage agreement does not provide or pevent anything that a living arrangement when you are commited to one another does. The idea you feel more "special" or more "loved" because he decided to marry is my point exactly that psychologically the paper makes a difference.

[taylor]

What does that mean in the long run though?

 

You ask some hard questions, pollywag.

 

Again, I can only answer them in terms of my own personal experience because I do believe marriage is a very personal decision and people enter into it for a myriad of different reasons.

 

I don't think as a young girl entering into marriage that I gave the "long term" much thought. I was in love and had faith that I had found the man I wanted to spend the rest of my life with.

 

Marriage is a leap of faith because you don't know what the "long run" is going to look like. You agree to FOREVER not even knowing what that all entails.

 

I chose marriage over cohabitation because I believed it was the ultimate way two people show their love and commitment to each other.

 

I felt SECURE in the knowledge that my husband did indeed love me completely because he wanted to MARRY me. If he did not want to marry, but wanted to cohabitate, I would have questioned his love and commitment to me. I would have felt like he did not love me ENOUGH to marry me.

 

I needed "proof" that he loved me enough and the only "proof" in my book was that he was willing to marry me. If he was willing to marry me, he was committed. If he wasn't willing to marry me, he wasn't committed. And if he wasn't committed, I wasn't going to put my heart on the line. I wasn't willing to take that risk. I wasn't going to hand a man my heart if he couldn't prove to me he was committed to me or loved me enough to marry me.

 

 

I measured his level of commitment to me by his willingness to marry me. It made me feel secure that he loved me enough and was committed to me enough for me to hand my heart over to him.

 

As a young girl, this is how I thought. It may not be completely logical or rational. It may be full of holes. But it is how I thought at the time I entered into marriage. This was my thought process as I chose marriage over cohabitation.

 

I was not thinking of the long haul. No one knows what FOREVER feels like until you've been married for years and years. Certainly no young man or woman can begin to know what FOREVER feels like. Yet, they make this decision...they agree to FOREVER...not really having a birds-eye view of what FOREVER is.

 

Again, marriage is an INTENT. And that intent is made in good faith. It is not a guarantee. It is a leap of faith.

[taylor]

Ok but I take it you are recovering from infidelity on one of your parts, correct? So how did the meaning of marriage deepen over the years when there was infidelity? Can you please explain this?

 

Pollywag, like I said, you ask some tough questions.

 

Yes, there was an infidelity on my part...a 7 month emotional affair that ended a year ago.

 

The best way I can think of to answer this question is to give you an analogy.

 

Marriage is like the building of the Hoover Dam. You declare your intent to build the dam (marriage ceremony). You declare you are committed to building the dam (vows). You declare the dam will last forever..or at least that is your intent. And you declare you have the drive (the love) to motivate you to build the dam in the first place.

 

You begin to lay the block for the foundation. Every day, year after year, you continue to lay the block. You are driven to build it strong and solid...and you do.

 

Flood waters pound against your dam but you are secure in the knowledgte that you have built a strong dam that can withstand any formidable stressor.

 

You continue to maintain your dam, determined to keep it strong against the rough waters that pound it. You lovingly maintain it year after year, committed to it and driven to keep it intact.

 

As time passes, you become more and more secure in the knowledge that you have built a strong dam and that there is no amount of water that can bring it down.

 

You start to slack off on maintenance, truly believing your dam is invincible. You turn your attention to other things that demand your attention.

 

And while you aren't looking, rough waters begin to erode the dam. The dam weakens ever so slowly...so slowly that you aren't even aware it's happening. You continue to rest easy, having faith that your dam can withstand anything. Truly, you don't even give it much thought because everything "seems" to be functioning fine..or good enough...so you think.

 

And then one day the dam springs a leak..a small one. No big deal. You patch it quickly and return to your other matters. But the seal doesn't last. It springs another leak, and then another, and another. And water starts to trickle out the other side of your dam...and then it begins to flow (mounting marital problems).

 

You aren't quite sure what to do about it. Every "patch" you try doesn't seem to seal the leak and you don't know why.

 

While you stand there scratching your head and arguing with the engineers, the dam starts to crack and water starts to gush out the other side. The dam begins to deteriorate at a rapid rate as the rushing waters erode it and begin to threaten the vary foundation of the dam.

 

You don't know how to fix the dam. The damage is more than you can handle. You panic. You get scared. You lose hope. You give up. You try to soothe the pain of losing something you built but couldn't seem to save (the affair).

 

And then you think about the commitment you made a long time ago and you think about what drove you to build that dam in the first place. You decide you want to rebuild because you remember the value that the dam had and you have hope that you can rebuild it stronger and better than the first one, using the lessons that you learned (marital recommitment).

 

So you begin the arduous task of starting all over again, building a dam that will be "leak-proof." (marital recovery)

 

********

 

If the meaning of commitment didn't deepen and the value of marriage hadn't grown stronger over the years, I wouldn't be fighting to save my marriage. I would have walked long ago when problems started to "spring" up. I would have run from the marriage AND never returned once the marriage started to crumble.

 

Yes, I did run from the marriage at the point where I thought the marriage could not be saved...at the point where I thought the marriage was already gone...washed down river. But I did not let the emotional affair turn into a physical affair. I do believe my commitment held me back many times from letting that happen. AND I did return to my marriage because I realized it was possible to save it..we would find a way...and I wanted that...because I still saw value in it.