3 ms·
> If people divorce because they have no other reason to stay together (no survival level risk, children, common missions etc.) how is it “ruined” ? You aren't
by Kbelicius 5y ago
> If people divorce because they have no other reason to stay together (no survival level risk, children, common missions etc.) how is it “ruined” ?
You aren't reading what GP has written so maybe you'll read it if I quote it without the context. GP wrote: "Instead we have ruined the institution by making the main reason for it to be 'love'.".
So the answer to your question would be, it isn't. The institution of marriage isn't ruined, in GPs view, by the act of divorce when love is gone and there are no other reasons to say together but when entering in to marriage when no other reason besides love exists.
- makeitdouble 5y agoSorry, it still makes no sense to me, but perhaps I’m just missing a viewpoint. Marrying and divorcing based on love alone, with nothing else at stake doesn’t look to me like a bad thing. If it wasn’t for that, half of the people wouldn’t be marrying I think, and as an institution it would be in a way worse shape. Perhaps GP isn’t embracing divorcing as a sane rational decision, and that would be the “ruined” part, on which we would diverge.
- judge2020 5y ago> Marrying and divorcing based on love alone, with nothing else at stake doesn’t look to me like a bad thing. This is just the difference of opinion OP is making; they see marriage as having the functional purpose of dedicating one's life to the other person, sharing responsibilities and goals with them (and taxes), ie. the development of platonic love; this is required if the couple doesn't want to divorce when/if that eros / romantic love dies out. In reality, nobody likes going through a divorce, so if they do marry without being ready to commit to shared goals like this, they're hoping that eros love never dies out, which I bet doesn't happen often.