5 ms·

Personally, I don't think it's a terrible thing that marriages end. If we all lived to be a thousand years, but our psychology and perception of time remained o

Personally, I don't think it's a terrible thing that marriages end. If we all lived to be a thousand years, but our psychology and perception of time remained otherwise unchanged, I doubt many would make it the whole way from 30 to 999 with the same partner. I daresay that it would be rather unusual for anyone to do. That said, for those who wish to see their marriages last, compromise and change tolerance seem quite necessary.

mathgeek 9y ago
> Personally, I don't think it's a terrible thing that marriages end. What do you feel that marriages should represent, then? It seems, to me, like one should not promise to remain forever if the design is not to follow through. Beyond the legal requirements of marriage, what else do you think should be implied?
- alexpetralia 9y ago
  Marriage is probably more due to socialization - from religious marriages to shotgun weddings - than a deep desire to stay committed for the rest of one's life. Is it more likely that people are conforming to social norms, or that they have all found "the one?"
  - ozim 9y ago
    This quite shallow rationalisation. If you live in big city and have more prospects on finding someone else, if your life is all rosy and beautiful you might not have big desire to stay committed to rest of your life or more than couple months. All this ends when you or someone close to you gets sick, you lose your job or money. When you have to support your parents or siblings your dating pool shrinks quite a lot because you do not have time/money to spend on new dates. Your health is not going to be perfect all the time, you might get hit by a bus any time. It is more of insurance policy which you give and receive at the same time. So again if you live in big city and break your back or whatever, it is far easier to get any help. Think of all those living in some far from anywhere places. People who have to stick together to afford house. Those things create "social norms" and not the other way around. You might be angry at aunts pushing social norms on people without thinking, but they did not invented those norms.
- kelnos 9y ago
  I'm unmarried, so I'm not in the situation yet, but I would be very uncomfortable uttering the standard "till death do us part" lines during my future wedding ceremony. I think it's unreasonable to expect anyone to promise that, at any point in their lives. I would certainly promise to remain faithful to my partner, and to do my best to support them (emotionally, financially, etc.), and to make them my #1 priority in life, but I would never make a promise that precludes the possibility of divorce. I take promises very seriously, and I wouldn't make one that it's impossible to know if I'd be able -- or even want -- to keep.
  - craigds 9y ago
    As a happily married person I'd like to say: please don't get married. Integrity is important. If you do not mean the words, dont say them. Getting married and not making every effort to stay that way cheapens the concept for those of us who do mean it.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      I agree that integrity is important, and I'm curious to know why you think what I've stated lacks integrity. I wouldn't want to be with someone who unrealistically expects me (or anyone, really) to promise to stay with them for the rest of my life, and I wouldn't expect them to promise that to me. I would certainly be happy if that's the way it worked out in the long run, but staying in a relationship "just because" is a terrible idea, and promising to do so paints you into a hole that apparently 40-50% of Americans end up breaking out of despite the promise. Are you suggesting that all or even a significant number of those people are cheapening marriage for you? I've been to several (secular, and religious but non-Western) wedding ceremonies where nothing along the lines of "till death do us part" was said or promised. Are they, in your mind, not marriages? At the risk of being hyperbolic: there are quite a few people in the world who believe marriages between people of the same gender "cheapens the concept" for married men and women. Given that HN is generally socially liberal-minded, I'll assume for a moment that you agree with me that those people are wrong. What makes your strict definition ok, while their strict definition is bad? And I think that's the crux of it: you do you, and I'll do me. Marriage meaning a certain thing to me does not in any way change what it means to you. My being unwilling to make a lifelong promise that I find unreasonable and not in my or my partner's best interests does not take anything away from you.
xupybd 9y ago
You haven't felt the pain of a relationship ending? You don't see the value committed and deep long term relationship? The kind only possible if both parties commit to sticking with each other through thick and thin?
- Arizhel 9y ago
  No, because it's just a silly romantic fantasy, that's all. People change, and relationships come and go. Embracing change (as this article recommends) means not holding onto relationships after they've gone stale.
  - saltcured 9y ago
    I think one of the compromises being inadequately discussed so far in these threads is that people sometimes need to realize they are holding onto a personal identity or value system that has gone stale, and ruin relationships in the process. I think that the process of letting go of attachments, in the spiritual sense, is really about internal desires and inflexibility in the individual. This can emerge as a toxic effect in all their relationships.
  - imron 9y ago
    > No, because it's just a silly romantic fantasy, that's all. It's actually more than that. Failed marriages are more likely to lead to negative outcomes in life, with single-parent households more likely to be in poverty, children more likely to abused by non-biological step-parents or partners, and children of failed marriages also more likely to get involved in criminal behaviour (both as a juvenile and an adult). Which is not to say that all failed marriages lead to those problems, or that stable marriages don't, just that there is a greater likelihood of it happening, and when applied to society as a whole the effect is noticeable, and therefore there is a benefit to society in promoting stable, healthy, long-term relationships.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      I suspect the negative outcomes aren't because "failed marriages are bad", it's because we have stigmatized them to the point that support networks for divorced people in these situations are very poor and lead to negative outcomes. There's plenty of evidence to show that children raised by married parents who stay together "just for the kids" have a bunch of their own problems because of that. Maybe those problems are less bad, but I'd still suggest that's the case merely because that's the more "socially accepted" thing to do. I think promoting stable, healthy, long-term relationships is fine, but stigmatizing those who "fail" at that for whatever reason is the root cause of the negative consequences you describe.

mathgeek 9y ago

> Personally, I don't think it's a terrible thing that marriages end. What do you feel that marriages should represent, then? It seems, to me, like one should not promise to remain forever if the design is not to follow through. Beyond the legal requirements of marriage, what else do you think should be implied?

alexpetralia 9y ago
Marriage is probably more due to socialization - from religious marriages to shotgun weddings - than a deep desire to stay committed for the rest of one's life. Is it more likely that people are conforming to social norms, or that they have all found "the one?"
- ozim 9y ago
  This quite shallow rationalisation. If you live in big city and have more prospects on finding someone else, if your life is all rosy and beautiful you might not have big desire to stay committed to rest of your life or more than couple months. All this ends when you or someone close to you gets sick, you lose your job or money. When you have to support your parents or siblings your dating pool shrinks quite a lot because you do not have time/money to spend on new dates. Your health is not going to be perfect all the time, you might get hit by a bus any time. It is more of insurance policy which you give and receive at the same time. So again if you live in big city and break your back or whatever, it is far easier to get any help. Think of all those living in some far from anywhere places. People who have to stick together to afford house. Those things create "social norms" and not the other way around. You might be angry at aunts pushing social norms on people without thinking, but they did not invented those norms.
kelnos 9y ago
I'm unmarried, so I'm not in the situation yet, but I would be very uncomfortable uttering the standard "till death do us part" lines during my future wedding ceremony. I think it's unreasonable to expect anyone to promise that, at any point in their lives. I would certainly promise to remain faithful to my partner, and to do my best to support them (emotionally, financially, etc.), and to make them my #1 priority in life, but I would never make a promise that precludes the possibility of divorce. I take promises very seriously, and I wouldn't make one that it's impossible to know if I'd be able -- or even want -- to keep.
- craigds 9y ago
  As a happily married person I'd like to say: please don't get married. Integrity is important. If you do not mean the words, dont say them. Getting married and not making every effort to stay that way cheapens the concept for those of us who do mean it.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    I agree that integrity is important, and I'm curious to know why you think what I've stated lacks integrity. I wouldn't want to be with someone who unrealistically expects me (or anyone, really) to promise to stay with them for the rest of my life, and I wouldn't expect them to promise that to me. I would certainly be happy if that's the way it worked out in the long run, but staying in a relationship "just because" is a terrible idea, and promising to do so paints you into a hole that apparently 40-50% of Americans end up breaking out of despite the promise. Are you suggesting that all or even a significant number of those people are cheapening marriage for you? I've been to several (secular, and religious but non-Western) wedding ceremonies where nothing along the lines of "till death do us part" was said or promised. Are they, in your mind, not marriages? At the risk of being hyperbolic: there are quite a few people in the world who believe marriages between people of the same gender "cheapens the concept" for married men and women. Given that HN is generally socially liberal-minded, I'll assume for a moment that you agree with me that those people are wrong. What makes your strict definition ok, while their strict definition is bad? And I think that's the crux of it: you do you, and I'll do me. Marriage meaning a certain thing to me does not in any way change what it means to you. My being unwilling to make a lifelong promise that I find unreasonable and not in my or my partner's best interests does not take anything away from you.

xupybd 9y ago

You haven't felt the pain of a relationship ending? You don't see the value committed and deep long term relationship? The kind only possible if both parties commit to sticking with each other through thick and thin?

Arizhel 9y ago
No, because it's just a silly romantic fantasy, that's all. People change, and relationships come and go. Embracing change (as this article recommends) means not holding onto relationships after they've gone stale.
- saltcured 9y ago
  I think one of the compromises being inadequately discussed so far in these threads is that people sometimes need to realize they are holding onto a personal identity or value system that has gone stale, and ruin relationships in the process. I think that the process of letting go of attachments, in the spiritual sense, is really about internal desires and inflexibility in the individual. This can emerge as a toxic effect in all their relationships.
- imron 9y ago
  > No, because it's just a silly romantic fantasy, that's all. It's actually more than that. Failed marriages are more likely to lead to negative outcomes in life, with single-parent households more likely to be in poverty, children more likely to abused by non-biological step-parents or partners, and children of failed marriages also more likely to get involved in criminal behaviour (both as a juvenile and an adult). Which is not to say that all failed marriages lead to those problems, or that stable marriages don't, just that there is a greater likelihood of it happening, and when applied to society as a whole the effect is noticeable, and therefore there is a benefit to society in promoting stable, healthy, long-term relationships.
  - kelnos 9y ago
    I suspect the negative outcomes aren't because "failed marriages are bad", it's because we have stigmatized them to the point that support networks for divorced people in these situations are very poor and lead to negative outcomes. There's plenty of evidence to show that children raised by married parents who stay together "just for the kids" have a bunch of their own problems because of that. Maybe those problems are less bad, but I'd still suggest that's the case merely because that's the more "socially accepted" thing to do. I think promoting stable, healthy, long-term relationships is fine, but stigmatizing those who "fail" at that for whatever reason is the root cause of the negative consequences you describe.