How many truly believe that Marriage actually means

[Woggle]

No matter what path you choose in life it is not going to be a 24/7 high. There are ups and downs no matter what.

[carhill]

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

 

From a socialization standpoint, I experienced strong influence and role-modeling in that path. Unfortunately, it was out of sync with prevailing social dynamics and demographics and hence such beliefs caused many years of strife.

 

IME, knowing hundreds of couples over the decades, I struggle to think of any of my generation who are married for life, and fuggetabout the fidelity part since no one can read anyone's mind. My exW's sister and her H I believe are still married and they married as teenagers (17 and 16) after she got pregnant. Another past male friend is still married to his first wife. Both are over or pushing 30 years now. That's pretty much it.

 

I firmly believe that my dad would have only been married once if his wife hadn't left him during the war. Of course, had that happened, I likely would have not been born. He and my mom were married for life and no evidence, inference or suggestion of infidelity ever entered the household in real time, nor would I find anything resembling it later in their papers or the 25 or so years of widowhood with mom. Outlier? Maybe. I don't know. We can never really know, except in our own minds.

 

I believed in the possibility. Reality, OTOH, varies. Myself, I failed. Life is like that I guess, for some of us anyway. I think that underscored the differences in fear level regarding divorce between my exW and myself. I greatly feared divorce; OTOH, having been divorced twice, another one was a cakewalk for her. Very relaxing. She had no such fears nor illusions and was quite calm and deliberate in her interactions. She understood and accepted the realities of our generation and demographics and made them work for her. A great example of pragmatism. It works.

[minimariah]

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.

 

nawl, expanding your world won't do anything for someone who is truly unhappy & depressed. it doesn't work that way. people who consider themselves miserable in their marriages (for longer periods of time!) usually feel that way because their choice of spouse IS wrong and because their marriage isn't fulfilling.

 

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.

 

the will is separate from emotion but keeping your vows isn't. for me - the love & the desire to stay together is the glue. the will and the commitment come from that love. i don't want a partner who will stay with me because he decided to keep his word, do the right thing and for the VOWS - but doesn't really love or want me. no, thanks. i want LOVE to be the main reason you're staying, not a vow. if you don't love me and want me? i don't need you respecting the vows. like, don't stay with me because you said the vows - stay with me because you want to and because you love me. not because you want to keep a promise.

 

the greatest feeling in the world is when you know someone is with you - not because they gave their word, not for the vows, not for the money, not for the kids, not for comfortable life - but because there is nowhere they would rather be.

 

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.

 

you don't need to be SUPER happy in your marriage every single day - but you need to be happy. you need to WANT to stay with that person. it's one thing to be happy and have your bad moments but completely another to be unhappy for longer periods of time.

 

being happy in a marriage means knowing every day that, even on bad days, you want to be with your spouse. knowing that even sharing those "down" moments makes you happy.

 

of course, relationships and marriages like that are rarity.

Edited March 10, 2015 by minimariah

[xxoo]

being happy in a marriage means knowing every day that, even on bad days, you want to be with your spouse. knowing that even sharing those "down" moments makes you happy.

 

That's a good way to put it.

 

Life is hard and full of challenges and "down" moments. It is a blessing to me to have my husband as a partner with me through all of the ups and downs. Thus, I am very happily married.

[minimariah]

That's a good way to put it.

 

Life is hard and full of challenges and "down" moments. It is a blessing to me to have my husband as a partner with me through all of the ups and downs. Thus, I am very happily married.

 

it's absolutely a blessing.

i know very few truly happy relationships & marriages that last.

just finding that type of commitment & connection with someone is super hard.

[Starship]

The decline of marriage is a positive. We live in a much kinder world that 35 or 135 years ago.. Much more religious tolerance, racial tolerance, gender equality...much less violence both socially and domestically.

 

Marriage is no longer the norm in the more progressive nations like Sweden, Denmark, etc. Less than half of Canadian adults are now married...more couples under 40 now live together.

 

Marriage is neither a positive or negative but only has meaning in some context. It is basically a social contract in which woman were protected and children raised under the umbrella of that protection. In modern western societies all individuals are now protected from violence and have basic needs provided for...food, shelter, education, health care. Marriage as a legal instititution has little purpose...common law has replaced issues of property, entitlement, etc.

 

I live with my boyfriend because I love him. Period. No other reason. No obligation or of some servitude or indentured contract.

 

As for marriage being 'forever'...shiver. That's downright scary. No 25 year old knows what like will be like at 40 or 60 or 80. Today we are not so naive to believe people stop growing emotionally and socially. I was a 'girl' at 23 when I got married...it is some type of sadistic god that would want a 23 year old to be unhappy for half of her life because of a 'contract'.

[todreaminblue]

I believe in marriage....and considering marriage is sacred i feel sacredness involves fidelity within the marriage....to me the decline of marriage is actually a negative and rather sad.......

 

 

the beautiful nature fo entwining your life with another for more than life for an eternity...to me is a graceful concept.....with all things beautiful......loyalty, faithfulness,courage, strength,love, compassion, understanding compromise, unity ....mutual respect......many more positives ......

 

theres a reason why marriage is sanctified of god.....its spiritual progression...its biblical and its holy......so i dont feel marriage should ever be taken lightly or for granted.....and i think there should be more marriages not less.....and not follow suit to countries who have statistical proof marriage is declining...to me marriage signifies strength in families...hopeful unions against the breakdown of families....and that is what is happening along with those statistics...is the breakdown and destruction of the family unit...because it so easy to walk away and "change" your mind.and divorce is becoming commonplace......oh well i can try harder next time mentality..marriage should be respected as holy....and desirable...a chance to build strong family units to face the ever changing ways of the world....a front against broken homes.......marriage should not be, at all, considered second rate or outdated..but thats my opinion however old school.....i have never changed my opinion on marriage even though i remain to be....unmarried.....i still believe in it entirely..deb

[carhill]

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?

Forgot to address this one... I used to believe religious-based unions made a difference; over the decades I've moved away from that belief, partly as a function of moving away from organized religion and partly because of accepting reality.

 

In our case, I think our marriage wasn't clearly either since an ordained chaplain officiated but the ceremony wasn't in any religious venue nor couched in religious overtones with the exception of the vows having some references to faith and God.

 

I'd take either venue or method seriously and, additionally, respecting another post regarding people perhaps moving away from formal marriage into more ad hoc life partnerships, extending the question of believe into the realms of those partnerships as well. While we may be a nation of laws and marriage is couched in law as much as in faith, commitment can occur outside of law and faith as well and be just as meaningful to the participants.

 

ETA, my married for life parents got a quickie marriage in Yuma, AZ back in the 50's.

[MJJean]

The decline of marriage is a positive. We live in a much kinder world that 35 or 135 years ago.. Much more religious tolerance, racial tolerance, gender equality...much less violence both socially and domestically.

 

Marriage is no longer the norm in the more progressive nations like Sweden, Denmark, etc. Less than half of Canadian adults are now married...more couples under 40 now live together.

 

Marriage is neither a positive or negative but only has meaning in some context. It is basically a social contract in which woman were protected and children raised under the umbrella of that protection. In modern western societies all individuals are now protected from violence and have basic needs provided for...food, shelter, education, health care. Marriage as a legal instititution has little purpose...common law has replaced issues of property, entitlement, etc.

 

I live with my boyfriend because I love him. Period. No other reason. No obligation or of some servitude or indentured contract.

 

As for marriage being 'forever'...shiver. That's downright scary. No 25 year old knows what like will be like at 40 or 60 or 80. Today we are not so naive to believe people stop growing emotionally and socially. I was a 'girl' at 23 when I got married...it is some type of sadistic god that would want a 23 year old to be unhappy for half of her life because of a 'contract'.

 

Just as society has changed, so has marriage. Is marriage disappearing a good thing? I don't think so. I do truly believe marriage is a stabilizing force in society.

 

Marriage still protects women and children. It also protects the couple. There is no "common law" in my state. If a couple lives together and one leaves, there isn't a whole lot of recourse for the one left behind when it comes to property division and maintaining the residence until the lease is up. If the couple bought a house together it's a whole other multiple court date nightmare.

 

Not to mention things like social security benefits in case of untimely death, the right to make medical decisions (even with POA, Living Wills, and Advance Care Directives a lot of hospitals take relatives wishes into account over a live-in SO), hospital visitation privileges, inheritance (relatives contesting a will happens and a spouse has more of a leg to stand on than a live in) health insurance benefits, etc. The marriage contract covers about 8 other contracts and confers benefits that cannot be had any other way.

 

Basically, as complicated as divorce can be, handling breaking up as a LTR live in can and often is just as difficult and expensive in terms of lawyer and court costs in a hostile split.

 

There are still social benefits, as well. People tend to take a live in situation less seriously than they take a marriage. "If you liked it you should have put a ring on it." and "I don't see a ring on his/her finger!" are evidence of that.

 

I remember when my next door neighbors from either side were chatting near my open window a couple years ago. One married, the other living with his GF. The single one** said his wife wanted him and he had to go home. The other pointed out that they weren't actually married and she was not his wife. Then they went on to have a discussion about the difference between a wife and a long term girlfriend. They married a few months later.

 

** Yes, he was single. Fill out any official form and your choice are Single, Married, Separated, Divorced, or Widowed. A live in may be "taken", but for all intents and purposes they are indeed a single person.

 

A couple with two children bought the house across the street. For about 8 years everyone assumed they were married. We found out at a block party that they never married, but have been committed to each other for the last 19 years including buying a home together and owning a thriving business together. Yet, when the neighbors found out they aren't actually married, I noticed a difference in the way their relationship is treated.

 

Another neighbor is living with her BF. Between them, they have custody of 6.5 children. 2 hers, 2 his, 1 sibling of his kids they took in when his mother lost parental rights because no one else wanted him, 1 together, and 1 on the way. They delayed the announcement of the pregnancy because they get serious flack from family and friends for not being married.

 

I've been a bit guilty of this kind of thinking, myself. When I read threads about someone cheating on a BF/GF I can't help but think "So? They aren't married. They're people who are free to come and go as they please and date as they please!"

 

I don't have a problem with people living together and sharing their entire lives without marrying. My parents were together for 18 years without marrying. Their relationship only ended because my mom passed away. Obviously, the live in arrangement is working well for the couple across the street.

 

I was 24 when I met my husband. He was the same age. Of course we knew we'd be doing a lot of growing and changing in every way over the years. Everyone does. No one stops growing and changing until they die. If the couple has compatible core personalities then there is no reason on Earth why they can't remain married for life unless some drastic change takes place. Addiction, mental illness, traumatic brain injury, etc. come to mind. But even then there is still a possibility of fixing the problems if both are committed and willing to do the work.

 

While I have faith, I don't think it's all about God. For those that believe, it is at least partially about vows before God. For others, it's about being honorable and keeping your word. No God required.

 

As for the more "progressive" countries where marriage is increasingly rare, I don't see that as progress. I see that as reversion. It's like saying we humans are no better than animals. Like we're slaves to the capriciousness of our emotions and sexual needs without the capability and self-discipline needed to form permanent partnerships and problem solve as couples.

[sinatraverdi]

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?

 

It's not a question of individual belief. Anyone can get divorced without even much of a reason. Marriage is for life, "until I change my mind."

[LoveMyHusband]

Ideally, it should mean forever and fidelity should be a requirement. However, that doesn't always end up being realistic. Some marriages aren't meant to be just like any other relationship.

 

That being said, I don't take one type of ceremony - civil or religious - more or less seriously than the other. For me, marriage is marriage and should be treated as such.

[mintcondition]

If you marry for love then your marriage will have a higher chance of failing; people who fall in love also fall out of love. Marrying for love is something relatively new in the human experience, and it amuses me when people invoke religion or a creator into the equation. Take the Bible for example....... marriage was a utilitarian institution, and "love" was not the driving force. Marriage has a much better chance of succeeding if it's an arranged marriage, with women taking on a subservient role. Not that I agree with it, but facts and statistics don't lie.

[Cinnimon]

I think that til death do us part doesn't necessarily mean in the physical sense. I feel if the marriage relationship has died, you have parted.

[Breezee]

I'm of the the mindset that marriage is forever. Unfortunately it doesn't always work that way for everyone, me included since both people have to feel that way. I've always been a one man woman. Both sets of grandparents and parents stayed together till death.

[BlackHat]

Like most men who care to admit it, I got married because it was that or she was going to leave, and I wanted her to stay.

 

I would stay unmarried indefinitely. In fact, I should.

 

Then of course comes all the cheating (on my part).

[Lion Heart]

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?

 

Marraige, like love and beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. It's your individual commitment (or perspective) combined with your depth of character that will provide the strength to carry YOU through when the worst things happen. Worse things never imaginable when you came together in happy states to make vows in front of loved ones (and your God).

If just one of you can carry the marraige in these hardest of hardest times, the marriage may survive. Ofcourse it takes TWO people to come together and continue on.

 

This thread topic is so deep and loaded.

 

Personally speaking ofcourse, I respect 2 people's willing intention on their wedding day to honour each other and be faithful for ever. Wherever the ceremony occurred.

 

Many actions by 1 or both spouses after this day may show their ignorance of these vows but I still respect their original intention by honoring their marraige regardless. If every individual on earth respected marraige then infidelity would be impossible.

 

For me, I have put up with far worse things during marraige than I ever would from a boyfriend. The things you build together like family and property are wider commitments not to be ignored as well.

 

Still after all is said and done if there is no way forward for 2 people to gain a renewed commitment after troubled times, if the damage done is too deep, then I agree with divorce.

 

Lion Heart.

[GorillaTheater]

Thirty one years and still going. Hasn't always been easy, but we're still standing together. I can't say we'll last until death-do-us-part, but I know we'll try our damnedest.

 

I believe in OUR marriage. I can't be bothered to decide for anybody else how their relationships will be defined. Except maybe my daughters.