Before you say, "I do"........

[Bronzepen]

Originally posted by Moose

Assuming that these two were having difficulties, right? Of course they wouldn't be able to help each other out with the shape the marriage is in, but the marriage would remain the same and unchanged.

 

No. They had no difficulties to begin with. The difficulty began when one did not know if the other is still alive after so many years. The marriage is definitaly not the same. An outside factor has made a significant change in the marriage.

 

Is the marriage unworkable?

 

Can anything be done to make it work?

 

How can one person make it work?

 

How can there be a marriage when there is only one person?

 

Yes, yes, Love transcends all distance and has no bounds. But in this case it's just like a missing person. Do you ever let go?

 

Look at this again, particularly the first two words:

 

 

 

And I stand by that.....personally. Here we go again with you all calling me judgmental, cramming my religion down your throats, or whatever you can come up with.

 

These thoughts and views are MY personal thoughts and views, I'm allowed to have and to express them just as you are.....I don't give a care if you agree with them or not.

 

 

No moose, your taking this too personally. No one (at least not me) is calling you anything.

 

It's fine to have personal beliefs. Your beliefs are your own. I respect that. What you have to accept is that not everyone is going to agree with you, no matter how much you believe your convictions.

 

I think you do care how if people agree with you or not. Look at your responses whenever someone questions you. It irks you. Then you get all flustered and say "Well it's my personal view."

 

Like I said, I respect your views but don't get all bent out of shape because I question them.

 

If you don't want your views questioned then don't post them.

 

For what it's worth, I agree with your first post. All good points.

[Mustard Bomb]

Assuming that these two were having difficulties, right?

 

Read the scenario post.

 

 

No one is questioning your right to have an opinion. You have asserted a premise I find to be very odd and interesting, and I am thinking about it. I sincerely do not understand why you would have the authority to judge all situations and make these kinds of claims.

 

It's one thing to look at society and notice trends, the way you did with disposability. People should think about their choices carefully when getting married. Neat, and valid.

 

It's another thing to state that at least one party in every divorce is lazy and selfish, regardless of the situation. Of course that kind of statement is going to warrant rigorous inspection - it's vastly overstated and presumes too much authority on the part of the speaker. Of course you will be confronted with scenarios that disprove your claim and of course your authority to judge will be questioned. That's the way of debates.

 

I think you had a great idea, got excited, then wildly tried to launch from premise A to premise G without building the proofing structure. Even if you had, you would not be able to prove a universal generalization that claims internal knowledge of motivation.

 

It's all very fascinating, and totally fun to debate.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

Jeez.....I couldn't even say it's raining cats and dogs without you writing a paragraph explaining how that could never happen

raining cats and dogs is a normal hyperbolle, yours madeno sense about voices and wind.

.....I simply mean that there isn't any sense in you marrying if your core belief is that, It's a simple civic contract that can be suspended at will. I'm keeping a mental note to never make a deal with you whether it's verbal or written.......your idea of honor in this aspect is very weak.

*yawn*

 

I stated a fact--definition of marriage, you;re tjhe one stating a belief and demanding we follow.

There wasn't anything wrong with how things were 50 years ago.....what you described wasn't the norm in every household, it's just what YOU chose to focus on.

Your mistkaen. immorality is not new, the only thing that;s new is the gloriious right to escape a marriage that you don;t want to be in.

 

The only people threatened by divorce are ignorant men who don;t like the idea of their women having a right to ditch their lame asses.

[Zoot]

Somehow....debating bases on a person's question and finding debate beyond care....seems even more ignorant.

[Mustard Bomb]

your idea of honor in this aspect is very weak.

 

I missed this.

 

I beg your pardon, Moose. I will assume you were mentally ill when you wrote this. Dyermaker's honor and knowledge surpasses yours exponentially, and it continously surprises me that he condescends to be generous enough to consider your perpetually illogical arguments. If I had his intelligence and background, I would ignore you straight out. You would be so lucky to have any dealings with him.

 

Why don't you actually -read- his arguments, as foreign as that activity might be to you?

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Zoot

Somehow....debating bases on a person's question and finding debate beyond care....seems even more ignorant.

what?

[Zoot]

Give your opinion of the situation...not debate on how the person should've worded it.

[Mustard Bomb]

Huh? What a non-statement. The idea that at least one of every divorced persons is 'selfish' or 'lazy' is stupid no matter how you try to spin it. Moose has no right to judge, and he knows it. He's a smart guy, who made an idiotic point, but lacks the courage and cajones to just own up to his ignorance.

 

This is ridiculous. You are becoming ridiculous for defending it, Zoot.

[Zoot]

It's Moose's post. He made it and stated what he believed to be true. If you disagee that's fine. Don't burn him at the stake for it. Give him your opinion without attacking his.

[Mustard Bomb]

I'm not biblical enough to want to burn anyone at the stake.

 

It's a stupid point. That does not mean Moose is necessarily stupid, but there is no way the point itself is not ridiculous. His first point is great; his second point is well, dumb. I'm not willing to pretend otherwise.

[binturong]

So I have a scenario, one that CAN and probably does happen a lot. What if a couple got married, knowing that there would be certain deal breakers. So both husband and wife both know that if, say, one of them cheated, the other wouldn't stand for it and they'd divorce. If one cheats, is the person who was cheated on lazy and selfish because he/she leaves the cheater? Or is it the cheater who was lazy and selfish because that person went outside of the marriage to get something?

 

I think some things can be black and white in a marriage. "If you do X, I will leave you." Does that mean I shouldn't have gotten married? If my husband, who hasn't cheated on me in the 6 years we were together before marriage, has an affair, knowing the consequences, why should I want to "help" him in any way and stay in that marriage? If he were to cheat, it would be just the same as if he were saying "I don't want to be married to you anymore" because he will have known the consequences prior to committing the adultery. Or what about things like wanting kids? What if both husband and wife wanted kids at the time of the marriage, but the husband changes his mind afterwards? Should the wife stick around, missing out on something she wants, because she HAS to stay married to that same person forever? I think it's all well and good to say that people should get to know their significant other very well before marrying them, but it's going a little too far to say that there are no circumstances under which divorce is acceptable.

[Moose]

I'm trying to be more receptive to you guys. So let me just say that by claiming in EVERY divorce, there is someone either selfish or lazy may of been a stretch for you to understand where I'm coming from. Mustard, you're right, I don't know EVERY single couple that's been divorced. But you cannot disagree that in most cases that you know of, whether personally, or just heard there is a motivating factor which seems to fit in either being selfish, or lazy. That's not judging either, it's fact.

 

You are all right, MAYBE not in all cases of divorce, so let me admit I'm wrong for making such a bold and harsh statement. ( I'm trying to learn how to make my points more clear and accurate, I ask for patience here).

 

raining cats and dogs is a normal hyperbolle, yours madeno sense about voices and wind.

 

You're right. But I would think out of all people, you'd understand what it was I was saying.

 

I stated a fact--definition of marriage, you;re tjhe one stating a belief and demanding we follow.

 

Which is what YOU and other people have a right to think marriage is. I don't demand anyone to follow my belief, if I demand anything it would be that you make it clear that this, "fact defintion of marriage", is what you and society want to believe it is. It's not what I would define marriage as, but that's just me. It seems that YOU are the one demanding we think a certain way.

 

The idea that at least one of every divorced persons is 'selfish' or 'lazy' is stupid no matter how you try to spin it.

 

Without spinning it, come up with a senario, a realistic, normal senario that is, and break it down. When you get to the root of the problem, chances are it's either because one or the other isn't getting what they want out of the marriage, or they aren't willing to work on the problems in the marriage. Notice, I said the CHANCES are, I don't see how you can argue that. Further more, I'm not judging. I'm stating fact. Big difference. When you continually accuse me of judging others, I start to think that your problem is more on a personal level with me and where I stand religously.

 

binturong, to answer your question, my thought is the one who cheated is the selfish one for going outside the marriage for something they desired. Incidently, infidelity is the only excuse and grounds for divorce according to Jesus. And I agree, but even if it's excused, that wouldn't prompt me to go out and file the next day, I would feel obligated to try and work things out. I personally feel that if a spouse has cheated, there is obviously something lacking in the marriage, and that's when the non-cheater could possibly fall into the lazyness catagory by ignoring areas that are lacking within the marraige.

 

But that's just me.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

You are all right, MAYBE not in all cases of divorce, so let me admit I'm wrong for making such a bold and harsh statement.

bravo.

You're right. But I would think out of all people, you'd understand what it was I was saying.

i dont. i recognize, of cuorse, thatit was metaphorical, but i didn;t get the metaphro. it seemed you just didnt want to addres the fact that marriage is a nonpermanant civic contract--regardless fo any PERSNOAL significance you place on it.

It's not what I would define marriage as, but that's just me. It seems that YOU are the one demanding we think a certain way.

no, im demanding you seperate a fact from a belief.

 

belief: marriage is a covenant with god that can never be broken withjout censure

 

fact: marriage is a civic contract that has no gaurantee of perma nence.

 

beliefs are personal, and it malkes no sense to demand conformity to your belief--or even to be alarmed for a lackthereof .

facts are universal, and recognizing that marriage isn;t permanent unles oyu want it to be doesn ;t circumvent your belief, it just helps you avoid delusion.

When you get to the root of the problem, chances are it's either because one or the other isn't getting what they want out of the marriage

why is this threatening to you?

 

the way i see it is at one point people, especially women, could rarely divorce and now they can. if people arent getting what thehy want out of marriage, why stay? to keep moose happy?

 

coherenbtly state why we should be alarmed at a ruising divorce rate--avoid non sequiturs like "dead beat dads" which has nothing to do with divorces, or untruths like "costs of keeping divroce courts open" when it;s clearly a source of revenue.

[Moose]

no, im demanding you seperate a fact from a belief.

 

It's my thread though Dyer. I know now that when I'm reponding to other threads, I need to be more clear on what I claim as fact, and what I claim as belief. It's very difficult for me to seperate the two since I've been literally trained to take my belief and apply it to my everyday life.

 

I am trying to learn though.

 

why is this threatening to you?

 

I don't understand why you would think it's threating to me? I was trying to prove a point.

 

the way i see it is at one point people, especially women, could rarely divorce and now they can. if people arent getting what thehy want out of marriage, why stay? to keep moose happy?

 

And the way I see it is that you made a commitment. Without it being based on my beliefs, I still feel that when a person says they're going to devote themselves to each other for life, they should do it. Not to keep moose happy, but because if you stick by what you promised, you bring to yourself honor and respect. And really, if you can stick to your commitment your marriage could be stronger than ever by getting through your mistakes.

 

coherenbtly state why we should be alarmed at a ruising divorce rate--avoid non sequiturs like "dead beat dads" which has nothing to do with divorces, or untruths like "costs of keeping divroce courts open" when it;s clearly a source of revenue.

 

I'll try. But it's obvious that anything I say won't be alraming to you since you've already conformed to society and taken to it quite well. So for me to try and make you understand seems to be a fruitless undertaking. Regardless, I think that the ever increasing divorce rate is teaching future generations that we can't even count on the people we love to follow through on promises. That marriage is just a legal document. I will have to say that from what you've shown me, maybe it's best that this does happen so we can usher in the second coming sooner.....who knows?

[binturong]

Originally posted by Moose

binturong, to answer your question, my thought is the one who cheated is the selfish one for going outside the marriage for something they desired. Incidently, infidelity is the only excuse and grounds for divorce according to Jesus. And I agree, but even if it's excused, that wouldn't prompt me to go out and file the next day, I would feel obligated to try and work things out. I personally feel that if a spouse has cheated, there is obviously something lacking in the marriage, and that's when the non-cheater could possibly fall into the lazyness catagory by ignoring areas that are lacking within the marraige.

 

But that's just me.

 

You know, I can agree with you about the non-cheater being selfish by initiating a divorce. Because obviously the cheater has nothing but his/her own interests at heart, so who is looking out for the non-cheater? I think in this case, the non-cheater NEEDS to be selfish, if only to guaruntee that they won't get any diseases. This is all assuming that the non-cheater had no idea that anything was lacking within the marriage and the cheater never thought to bring it up. Me, personally, I wouldn't take it well if my husband decided to cheat on me, then after the fact, tell me that I'm lacking and another woman was able to satisfy him. It wouldn't make me want to try to be the "perfect" wife for him. It would make me want to castrate him. So I suppose I would be considered lazy too, because IMO, once the cheating is done, there is no turning back. Heh...and if that situation were ever to happen to me? I don't think I'd care one bit about being called lazy or selfish.

 

But what about the other scenario about having children? I don't think there's any way to compromise there...

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

I was trying to prove a point.

Im asking you to do just that.

Without it being based on my beliefs, I still feel that when a person says they're going to devote themselves to each other for life, they should do it.

That IS your beliefs--the actual marriage contract says nothing about love, devotion, sex, or lifetime commitment.

 

By the way, please dont assume you can speak for my b eliefs. i hjaven;t presented any beliefs in this thread, i;m just reminding you of fact--so yuo can stop the moral pissing match.

[moimeme]

but because if you stick by what you promised,

 

Yes, well that's the problem, isn't it? If your spouse promises to be faithful and then cheats, he's reneged on the promise, hasn't he? In most contracts, if the initial conditions aren't met, that renders the contract null and void.

 

and that's when the non-cheater could possibly fall into the lazyness catagory by ignoring areas that are lacking within the marraige

 

I could not disagree more vehemently with this. Cheating is entirely the cheater's fault. If the cheater feels the marriage isn't all s/he needs, then it is that person's responsibility to bring that subject up with the spouse and try to resolve it. Expecting the spouse to read the cheater's mind, figure out what's wrong, and how to fix it is just plain stupid, not to mention exceedingly unfair.

 

A LOT of people refuse to discuss problems because it's 'uncomfortable' for them. So rather than stretch their own little comfort levels, they pretend the problems don't exist or allow the problems to fester in their uncommunicative little souls. Then they go have affairs rationalizing that since they're not getting their 'needs' met, they deserve to find them elsewhere. Had they had the guts to deal with the issue with the spouse, and do the work to resolve it, including getting counselling if necessary, they would be taking their responsibilities seriously. But to go off whining that your marriage isn't good and then find solace in the arms of someone else bespeaks a shameful cowardice.

 

If the problems in the marriage don't get resolved after all reasonable attempts are made to have them resolved (and that does not mean sitting back waiting for the spouse to realize something's wrong), then divorce, but do NOT cheat.

 

And that you should then blame the affair on the betrayed partner is odious.

[Moose]

But what about the other scenario about having children? I don't think there's any way to compromise there...

 

That is a tough one. The husband would fall under the selfish catagory if they got a divorce. The wife would be in an unfortunate position. This is why honor is so important to me. If they had both agreed prior to the marriage, then he should stick to it. The wife would be looked upon as the honorable one if she chooses to stick to her commitment. Also, this is were laziness could come into play. If the wife chooses to just give up instead of trying to convince her husband to have children, she could be considered as the lazy one.

 

Either way, so you see were these two catagories come into play?

[Moose]

Im asking you to do just that.

 

I still don't understand. Just exactly what is it that you're asking? I apologize for being so....slow.

 

That IS your beliefs--the actual marriage contract says nothing about love, devotion, sex, or lifetime commitment.

 

So, are you saying that only my beliefs require a man to stand by what he says? Here I thought all this time it was a given. Am I missing something? It's been 17 years since I got married, but I clearly don't remember any contract put before me and Mrs. Moose to look over and sign. So, where is this contract? What does it say? When was it introduced? Who drew it up?

 

Yes, well that's the problem, isn't it? If your spouse promises to be faithful and then cheats, he's reneged on the promise, hasn't he? In most contracts, if the initial conditions aren't met, that renders the contract null and void.

 

Again, I personally don't look at marriage as, "most contracts". You may, and others may, that's up to you.

 

Expecting the spouse to read the cheater's mind, figure out what's wrong, and how to fix it is just plain stupid, not to mention exceedingly unfair.

 

Maybe to you. But not to me. I don't expect the spouse to read minds, but I do expect my spouse to know when something amiss. I expect myself to ensure my wife's need are met too, because it's my job, no matter how unpleasant it can be. I wouldn't ask anything from my spouse that I wouldn't do myself.

 

 

A LOT of people refuse to discuss problems because it's 'uncomfortable' for them. So rather than stretch their own little comfort levels, they pretend the problems don't exist or allow the problems to fester in their uncommunicative little souls. Then they go have affairs rationalizing that since they're not getting their 'needs' met, they deserve to find them elsewhere. Had they had the guts to deal with the issue with the spouse, and do the work to resolve it, including getting counselling if necessary, they would be taking their responsibilities seriously. But to go off whining that your marriage isn't good and then find solace in the arms of someone else bespeaks a shameful cowardice.

 

I AGREE 100% PERCENT!!!

 

If the problems in the marriage don't get resolved after all reasonable attempts are made to have them resolved (and that does not mean sitting back waiting for the spouse to realize something's wrong), then divorce, but do NOT cheat.

 

And that you should then blame the affair on the betrayed partner is odious.

 

That's your opinion, and you're allowed to have them no matter how wrong you are.

[Moose]

That's your opinion, and you're allowed to have them no matter how wrong you are.

 

Let me rephrase that to no matter how wrong I think you are....sorry

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Moose

It's been 17 years since I got married, but I clearly don't remember any contract put before me and Mrs. Moose to look over and sign. So, where is this contract? What does it say? When was it introduced? Who drew it up?

you never signed marriage papers?

 

are you legally married?

Again, I personally don't look at marriage as, "most contracts". You may, and others may, that's up to you.

specu;lating ab out my beliefs isn';t neccessary, i havent presented them.

 

*sigh*

 

its hard enough to type, so i won;t keep repeating myself and watch as you refuse to recognize what i;msaying. (example :

So, are you saying that only my beliefs require a man to stand by what he says? )

 

summary:

 

1. you believe marriage is a sacred commitment to never be brokemn

 

2. in actuyality, it;s not. yuor belieds have thankfully not yet been legislated

[Thinkalot]

Originally posted by Moose

This is so true. As a matter of fact, Mrs. Moose said that the day she realized she couldn't change me, and began to work on not being so manipulative is the day the weight of the world fell off her back.

 

Her exact words were, "I don't expect you to make me happy anymore, It's up to ME if I want to be happy or not....."

 

I am a late entry to this thread, and I am not engaging in some of the current debate...just wanted to say this comment rings very true with me. I have just been told, by more than one source, both family based and professional, that this is what I need to realise and accept. Once my happiness is secure from within, and I dont try to force him to make me happy by doing what I think I need...a lot of weight will leave my shoulders.

 

We marry in about 3 months, and both of us are thinking hard about things we can do to improve ourselves and our relationship and to give it the best chance of surviving the long haul.

 

We've come through a lot already, and learnt a lot. But the path of personal growth is unending.

[dyermaker]

its hard to spelll missouri with a screwd up hand, but here;s relevant statute from you rstate.

 

451.010. Marriage is considered in law as a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential.

[Thinkalot]

Originally posted by Moose

.......but, it seems there is always at least one person who is lazy or selfish in every divorce.

 

Cant say I agree with that though Moose. Sometimes things happen, which cannot be fixed, despite the best efforts and intentions of both people. Perhaps one spouse changes so much, in such a radical fashion, that the bonds which initially drew the people together are gone, for example. I'm not saying that is good, but it does seem to be life.

[Thinkalot]

Originally posted by dyermaker

its hard to spelll missouri with a screwd up hand, but here;s relevant statute from you rstate.

 

lol dyer...you are certainly determined to prove the point.