How many truly believe that Marriage actually means

[MJJean]

How many believe marriage means for the entire lifetime and that fidelity is not optional? Just curious. Those words are in the ceremony for almost all major religions and for most civil services unless the couple writes their own vows. Yet it seems like an awful lot of people don't believe they are anything more than ceremonial.

 

Also, do you think which type of ceremony, civil or religious, a couple has makes a real difference? In other words, do you take a civil marriage less seriously than a religious one?

[xxoo]

I intend my marriage to be for an entire lifetime, as has been my parents' and grandparents' marriages. Fidelity is easy for us for some reason.

 

We had a religious ceremony, but we are not religious ourselves. For us, it is a personal commitment to each other.

[central]

I don't take marriage as seriously as your question implies. To me, it's a legal contract with rules established by the state. Religion plays no part in marriage for me, but obviously does for many people, and that's their choice. It's not for life, unless it happens to work out that way for a couple. Fidelity, etc., is expected unless you mutually agree otherwise, despite whatever vows you take - but many people clearly don't take that seriously, nor do they always follow their religion's teachings.

[MJJean]

I don't take marriage as seriously as your question implies. To me, it's a legal contract with rules established by the state. Religion plays no part in marriage for me, but obviously does for many people, and that's their choice. It's not for life, unless it happens to work out that way for a couple. Fidelity, etc., is expected unless you mutually agree otherwise, despite whatever vows you take - but many people clearly don't take that seriously, nor do they always follow their religion's teachings.

 

I've always seen a civil marriage ceremony as seriously as a religious one. Both are people giving their word and it's a matter of honor, you know? Which is why I became curious. I can't figure out why so many marry and recite those pledges without meaning/believing them. Especially since it's acceptable to write your own vows where those parts can be omitted or to simply live together without marrying at all.

[central]

Ah, I see what you're getting at. I think many people get caught up in the tradition and romance, and don't think too deeply about the long term meaning of what they're pledging to each other. In some ways, that's not surprising, because they haven't lived long enough to really understand what those things really mean. Some may leave in vows they don't intend to abide by, because someone might notice and be upset - so they leave them in and figure they'll do what they want - or agree to - later.

 

It's a ceremony, with legal implications, but there is a lot of variability in how those laws are applied from state to state and marriage to marriage.

[minimariah]

How many believe marriage means for the entire lifetime and that fidelity is not optional? Just curious.

 

i don't think people realize & understand what a -lifetime- really means. most don't really think about it seriously, they just go with the flow. just because someone was your soulmate when you were 30, it doesn't mean they'll still be that 20 years later.

 

i believe a marriage is supposed to last as long as that love between the couple lasts. & nobody knows how long will that be. when you marry, at that moment? of course you think you found it & that it will last forever. you don't really think about what can and will go wrong.

 

as far as fidelity goes - that has nothing to do with the marriage but with the couple & with their wishes. in other words, if you & your spouse AGREED to be monogamous - you should respect that. if you agreed to have an open marriage? respect that. as long as you and your spouse are good with whatever pact or agreement you have? it'll work.

 

In other words, do you take a civil marriage less seriously than a religious one?

 

civil marriage is the only marriage i take seriously.

[xxoo]

I've always seen a civil marriage ceremony as seriously as a religious one. Both are people giving their word and it's a matter of honor, you know? Which is why I became curious. I can't figure out why so many marry and recite those pledges without meaning/believing them. Especially since it's acceptable to write your own vows where those parts can be omitted or to simply live together without marrying at all.

 

I've been married for 20 some years. I definitely did NOT fully understand what I was committing to when I married. I doubt my parents did, either, still they stayed committed.

 

I kind of understand how people can feel, 5 years later, "I had no idea what I was signing up for!". At least for a first marriage. Multiple marriages? Eh, you should know by now what you're signing up for.

 

To be clear, I'm not implying that I'm unhappy. I'm very happy It's analogous to having a baby. I really didn't know what I was signing up for once the teen years hit It may be beyond the bounds of our minds to imagine until we've lived it.

[Woggle]

A marriage certificate these days isn't worth the paper it's printed on. What matters is how committed a couple and you don't need a piece of paper for that.

[Clockwork]

We had a religious marriage. And yes, we take it very, very seriously - the vows. We didn't just say them. We don't believe in getting divorced either. Only two people in the world can ever break up a marriage. We don't plan to.

[d0nnivain]

Both DH & I totally believe that. We stood up before family, friends & God pledging until death us do part forsaking all others.

 

If it doesn't mean that, just live together until it gets hard or boring.

[Arieswoman]

The first time I got married was in a Registry Office because he was an atheist and I didn't want my God insulted by him making promises in front of a God he didn't believe in.

We both made a commitment to the Marriage as "One man and one woman for life" as defined in the law at the time.

 

I stayed true to my vows. He broke them by cheating.

 

The second time I married was in church. He had not been married before. Normally the Traditional Anglican Church does not marry divorcees if the previous partner is still living. However in this case I could prove that my previous marriage had ended because of his adultery (I had her named on the divorce petition) so it was allowed.

 

I was just as committed to the second marriage as the first (and still am).

 

As a side issue my husband married his AP in a church when she was about 8 months pregnant. It must have been a pretty liberal one ....

[Shepp]

Completely. Always, rest of my life!

 

 

I wouldn't of said the words unless I fully expected 100% commitment, 100% monogamy, my partner for life.

[toolforgrowth]

I believe that modern marriage is a farce and a means of keeping men in a state of indentured servitude.

 

Hey, you asked!

 

What we idolize marriage to be versus what it actually is are two radically different things. I think they're so disparate that any attempt to reconcile the two is essentially futile.

 

Of course, there are always exceptions to every rule, and every successful marriage is proof of that. And you'll get no argument from me about it. It truly makes me happy to hear and witness successful marriages.

 

But by and large, the two are so different, and the penalties have become so harsh, that marriage is just too costly and dangerous.

 

Just my two cents...feel free to toss them in the little bin that merchants keep out for you to put in your extra pennies if you like.

[Clockwork]

I'll still say to this day it is the foundation in which our society is built. The destruction of the family has been detrimental in our society. So yes, it is very important.

[MJJean]

I believe that modern marriage is a farce and a means of keeping men in a state of indentured servitude.

 

Hey, you asked!

 

What we idolize marriage to be versus what it actually is are two radically different things. I think they're so disparate that any attempt to reconcile the two is essentially futile.

 

Of course, there are always exceptions to every rule, and every successful marriage is proof of that. And you'll get no argument from me about it. It truly makes me happy to hear and witness successful marriages.

 

But by and large, the two are so different, and the penalties have become so harsh, that marriage is just too costly and dangerous.

 

Just my two cents...feel free to toss them in the little bin that merchants keep out for you to put in your extra pennies if you like.

 

Women have felt marriage a type of indentured servitude for centuries.

And it is. Ideally, servitude to each other.

 

But my question was more about why say the words, especially when there are other options available, if you don't believe them or lack the ...permanent resolve?...to live out the vows.

 

For me, I meant what I said. But not in that stars and hearts, rainbows, unicorns shooting glitter out their butts kind of way. I made vows because I was and still am in love, but the vows I made are not dependent on that love. I see the vows as more of a perpetual act of the will.

[minimariah]

For me, I meant what I said. But not in that stars and hearts, rainbows, unicorns shooting glitter out their butts kind of way. I made vows because I was and still am in love, but the vows I made are not dependent on that love. I see the vows as more of a perpetual act of the will.

 

oh, they absolutely are.

 

if you were depressed, miserable, sad, abused and utterly unhappy in your marriage - the vows would become less and less important.

 

no one will stay in an unhappy marriage because they want to honor their vows. to honor your vows, you need to WANT to honor them and you need to love & respect the person you're with.

 

vows are a perpetual act of the will but they aren't "removed" from your emotional side.

[waterwoman]

I do. H is the other half of me. When we said our vows we meant them to be for life. We had already lived together for 6 years so we should have been fairly sure of what we were getting in to. My old vicar came out of retirement to marry us - when we visited his home to have a chat about arrangements I remember watching him and his wife interacting so easily and comfortable together in a house full of the memories and mementoes of a long life, lived as a couple, and I wanted that more than anything.

 

**** happened. More than we expected, and we struggled to keep things good. But because we DID mean those vows, and meant them for life, we have worked to make them good again.

 

I don't understand why anyone gets married if they aren't prepared to stick with it as long as is humanly possible. No-one even bats an eyelid at couples living together without marriage. So why bother?

[Michelle ma Belle]

A marriage certificate these days isn't worth the paper it's printed on. What matters is how committed a couple and you don't need a piece of paper for that.

 

I'm going to have to agree with Woggle on this one.

 

Having come from a devout Italian/French Catholic family, I was raised to believe that you grow up, meet someone, fall in love, get married before God, have children and grow old together until we take our last breath. I never questioned it.

 

I was 24 when I married and I can honestly say that I was very aware of the "till death do we part" stuff spoken in our vows if only because of how I was raised. It wasn't something to take lightly.

 

Was I prepared for the how bad things could get in years to come? Nope. I was a romantic and felt that our love could conquer all

 

Now that I'm divorced, I view marriage very differently. The romantic in me still believes in the sacred bond between man and woman that seems to be associated with the signing of the paper BUT reality isn't quite so idealistic unfortunately.

 

I absolutely believe in monogamy and commitment but no longer see the value in a marriage certificate or the ceremony unfortunately. The only exception might be to have and raise children together and/or if one is very religious where any other scenario would be seen as sinful.

 

As I've said before on here, marriage does NOT guarantee anything! A commitment is a commitment. It's as simple as that. You either WANT to be together or you don't. You either WANT to make it work or you don't.

 

Having a piece a paper binding two people together doesn't automatically make couples MORE committed or MORE in love or MORE happy or MORE fulfilled. And it does NOT make you work any harder than any other couple in love and not married. You still have to do the work regardless of a piece of paper or not.

[Woggle]

I view marriage as being similiar to paper money. If there is not enough gold behind that money the money loses value. Without that value it is a worthless piece of paper. Without the commitment and genuine love to back it up it means nothing. I am for marriage but only if it really means something. If it is just a legal status that people move in and out of like some high school puppy love what is the point? People these days treat the way they used to treat teenage dating.

[autumnnight]

I believe the principles of the original post. That said, I am not a marriage at all costs believer. If someone cheats with no remorse, I am not going to shame someone for ending the marriage. If a spouse is beating his wife, I am not going to tell her to pray harder and submit more. If a wife is a meth addict stealing and selling off everything and leaving the baby alone, I do not expect a man to "suck it up for the vow" and stay with her.

 

Marriage is intended to be a lifetime commitment, but some of the legalists need to grow some common sense.

[MJJean]

oh, they absolutely are.

 

if you were depressed, miserable, sad, abused and utterly unhappy in your marriage - the vows would become less and less important.

 

no one will stay in an unhappy marriage because they want to honor their vows. to honor your vows, you need to WANT to honor them and you need to love & respect the person you're with.

 

vows are a perpetual act of the will but they aren't "removed" from your emotional side.

 

Having left an abusive marriage, I totally agree that physical, emotional, and/or financial abuse justify abandoning the vows.

 

The rest...not so much. Frequently, I see people who are depressed, sad, unhappy, and who consider themselves miserable in their marriages. They blame their marriage when the reality is their choice of spouse and marriage aren't the problem. The problem is the person needs to expand their world, not blow it up and start over.

 

I also believe the will is separate from the emotion. Every marriage is going to have periods of epic level suck. During those times the positive emotions aren't the glue that keeps the marriage together. The will, the commitment, is the glue.

 

Obviously, we sometimes fail at both the emotion and the will. But I think the ideal, in real life, is to use emotion and will as redundancies. When one fails, the other takes over.

Edited March 10, 2015 by MJJean

[Ninjainpajamas]

I think it's a bit sickening and deranged how some people can put vows and an intention of commitment and happiness above all common sense and reason. Especially as they grow older, wiser and more aware...Well hopefully.

 

This is not ISIL, or another terrorist group driven by a blind and ignorant zeal. You don't have to live and die by some greater than thou allegiance. This is about two people being happy together and loving each other choice, and I'm not sure why people would so strongly believe in something more important than that in which should bind them...but people actually want people to be forced into something with no way out, like some kind of lifetime guarantee warranty.

 

But sadly from speaking with many unhappily married women, they rather be unhappily married and "work on things" (whatever that even means in practice to them) than consider being happily single.

 

I talked to a woman recently whom is not happily married, has no good feelings about her husband, and yet I asked if she still intended or saw herself married forever....and the answer was of course yes.

 

Obviously there is something much deeper in many women that makes them crave this commitment and companionship, more than their own happiness. Because she's not the first or last married woman I'll meet like this...but I've never met a guy with the same zeal, for men it's more practical and about their own weakness/inability to change it, they are dependent or committed for family sake...not the wife, which is why I think in general its easier for married men to cheat, they accept it for what it is...while many married women live in this delusion that things will magically change and interpret that by every little supporting act they feel is evidence of it.

 

They say marriage is not for everyone, and maybe they mean it's not for anyone who is not foolish and believes in their own delusion so much they cannot question things and accept reality. Very very little happily married couples out there, it's either that standard baseline of them just being content enough to be together or not happy at all...but still of course married.

[JohnAdams]

How many believe marriage means for the entire lifetime and that fidelity is not optional?

 

I believe this. I married young, at 19, I did not go into marriage lightly. I have always analyzed and carefully thought about what I was doing. I still remember thinking, this is for the rest of my life. In my opinion, I made a promise before God, family and friends with my wedding vows.

 

Our ceremony was religious. My Dad, a minister, married us.

[MJJean]

I think it's a bit sickening and deranged how some people can put vows and an intention of commitment and happiness above all common sense and reason. Especially as they grow older, wiser and more aware...Well hopefully.

 

This is not ISIL, or another terrorist group driven by a blind and ignorant zeal. You don't have to live and die by some greater than thou allegiance. This is about two people being happy together and loving each other choice, and I'm not sure why people would so strongly believe in something more important than that in which should bind them...but people actually want people to be forced into something with no way out, like some kind of lifetime guarantee warranty.

 

But sadly from speaking with many unhappily married women, they rather be unhappily married and "work on things" (whatever that even means in practice to them) than consider being happily single.

 

I talked to a woman recently whom is not happily married, has no good feelings about her husband, and yet I asked if she still intended or saw herself married forever....and the answer was of course yes.

 

Obviously there is something much deeper in many women that makes them crave this commitment and companionship, more than their own happiness. Because she's not the first or last married woman I'll meet like this...but I've never met a guy with the same zeal, for men it's more practical and about their own weakness/inability to change it, they are dependent or committed for family sake...not the wife, which is why I think in general its easier for married men to cheat, they accept it for what it is...while many married women live in this delusion that things will magically change and interpret that by every little supporting act they feel is evidence of it.

 

They say marriage is not for everyone, and maybe they mean it's not for anyone who is not foolish and believes in their own delusion so much they cannot question things and accept reality. Very very little happily married couples out there, it's either that standard baseline of them just being content enough to be together or not happy at all...but still of course married.

 

There are a lot of happy's in there. Where did we get the idea that life is about constant or near constant happiness? It's not and never has been. Life is a series of ups and downs lasting for various lengths of time and depends greatly on one's attitude.

 

Show me a person who is happy all the time, or even the majority of the time, and I'll show you their meds.

 

We're responsible for our own happiness. I'd be willing to bet those unhappy people who are still married are married because they know their spouse and their marriage is NOT why they aren't as happy as often as they'd like to be. But it's easy to blame general lack of effort and unhappiness on a spouse or marriage than it is to make real changes in routine, habits, way of thinking, etc.

[xxoo]

There are a lot of happy's in there. Where did we get the idea that life is about constant or near constant happiness? It's not and never has been. Life is a series of ups and downs lasting for various lengths of time and depends greatly on one's attitude.

 

And singles are not in a constant state of happiness, or unhappiness, either.

 

Some people will never be happy enough. Some of them are married. Is marriage the problem?

 

Are we happy? I'm not happy at every moment of the day when I'm doing the mundane work of running a household, balancing work and kids, etc. But when we get in bed at night and snuggle, knowing that we did what we needed to do to take care of our responsibilities, yes, we're happy in that moment. Our lives are rewarding, our family is strong, and we are happy. And we aren't going anywhere!