6 ms·

I hate mention of marriages failing due to "compatibility issues". It's a total mockery of the intent of the institution. When you marry, you covenant to societ

I hate mention of marriages failing due to "compatibility issues". It's a total mockery of the intent of the institution. When you marry, you covenant to society that you will make yourself compatible with your spouse, even when it's difficult to do so, as long as these terms do not breach a handful of fundamental contractual obligations implied by the marital covenant. If one is "sexually incompatible" with his/her spouse, they should talk about it, recognize the issues, make compromises, and move forward. They should also recognize that while sex is meaningful and important, it can't be a deal-breaker for a marriage -- what happens when a partner contracts a medical condition that precludes their participation in intercourse? This should be recognized as a possibility going in, and people should realize that they can't allow sexuality to overwhelm and consume larger, more important pieces of their relationship. Pornography can cloud this crucial perspective.

lotharbot 13y ago
Medical conditions that preclude participation in everything should be recognized as a possibility going in. For example, I know a couple that was involved in a serious automobile accident. The husband walked away with minor injuries, but his wife was comatose for about a year. She couldn't uphold her marriage vows in any way during that year. Part of the covenant to society is that you will weather difficulties and remain committed to your spouse. A lot of types of "quick fixes" can cloud that perspective.
hedonist 13y ago
When you marry, you covenant to society that you will make yourself compatible with your spouse, even when it's difficult to do so, [...] That's fine for you. Other people have different priorities in their lives. And elevating the sanctity these abstract entities known as "institutions" to the point where they feel miserable, trapped, and unfulfilled do not count particularly high among them. If one is "sexually incompatible" with his/her spouse, they should talk about it, recognize the issues, make compromises, and move forward. That's fine for you, if those are your priorities. But what's fine for you isn't necessarily fine for other people. They should also recognize that while sex is meaningful and important, it can't be a deal-breaker for a marriage ... Again, maybe not a deal-breaker for you. But for other people... I think you see what I'm getting at here.
- sergiosgc 13y ago
  People do not have to marry to be together. Marriage should be regarded as an important step, where you promise to your peers that you will be with your spouse until the end of life. This is valid even without religion. Have a different view? Can't commit to such a long time? That's OK. Marriage is not mandatory in a relationship (and for some people it's in fact detrimental). Just don't marry and live happy.
  - gohrt 13y ago
    That's a proposition. Is there an argument to back it? Why should marriage be life-long, vs time-limited?
    - sergiosgc 13y ago
      It's not a proposition. It is a definition. On Western culture, a marriage is a life long pairing. It is also monogamous, in the same vein, by definition. Is it lifelong and monogamous in every culture? No. It is in ours, though. Is the definition being coopted for non lifelong pairings? I don't think most people marry with divorce in the horizon, so even if marriage allows for divorce, I think the public promise is still one of lifelong commitment.
- cookiecaper 13y ago
  >That's fine for you. Other people have different priorities in their lives. And elevating the sanctity these abstract entities known as "institutions" to the point where they feel miserable, trapped, and unfulfilled do not count particularly high among them. No, that's historically what it has meant to be married. When married, if you have negative feelings, you are expected to resolve them peaceably and well. It is supposed to be illegal to just quit because you can't handle your own emotions. Again, there are a handful of very basic exceptions where a dissolution of the union is allowable, but part of the reason marriage exists is to provide that relational stability -- marriage is about the covenant with society much more than it's about either of the spouses or their feelings, which disciplined, mature adults are expected to control. >Again, maybe not a deal-breaker for you. But for other people... I think you see what I'm getting at here. Yes, I see what you're getting at. You're arguing that marriage has no formal definition ("It may mean that to you, but...") and is therefore a meaningless abstraction in the macro sense. This is not the way things are supposed to be, but I agree that the prevalence of no-fault divorce makes it effectively realistic. This is a very bad thing.
lsc 13y ago
>When you marry, you covenant to society that you will make yourself compatible with your spouse, even when it's difficult to do so, as long as these terms do not breach a handful of fundamental contractual obligations implied by the marital covenant. Maybe you are thinking of your covenant with god? See, though, that's a different thing from a civil marriage. In the eyes of the law, it's a partnership, and one that can be dissolved for 'irreconcilable differences' Personally, I think this is the problem with calling civil marriage 'marriage' - It means an entirely different thing to various religions. (and different religions have different rules, too. A marriage under Muslim religious rules is rather different than one under Christian religious rules... hell, which denomination of Christianity or Islam can make a pretty big difference in the rules, too.)
- sergiosgc 13y ago
  Marriage, civil or religious, is always a compromise by the couple before the society that they will be together for life. The parent comment does not need the crutch of religion, it holds perfectly well using the regular definition of marriage.
- cookiecaper 13y ago
  >In the eyes of the law, it's a partnership, and one that can be dissolved for 'irreconcilable differences' This is a relatively recent development, and imo it's incorrect and demonstrates that the foundations of marriage as a serious social institution were dissolved a long time ago. The fact that people no longer think of marriage this way, and the further fact that our courts and laws have acquiesced to this ridiculous opinion, bode very poorly for the future of stable society. >Personally, I think this is the problem with calling civil marriage 'marriage' - It means an entirely different thing to various religions. No, again, this has nothing to do with religion at this point. Marriage is supposed to be legally binding. No-fault divorce is a new (and imo vastly problematic) thing.
  - lsc 13y ago
    >Marriage is supposed to be legally binding. No-fault divorce is a new (and imo vastly problematic) thing. No-fault divorce is the inevitable result of the fact that women can now be reasonably expected to support themselves without a man.

lotharbot 13y ago

Medical conditions that preclude participation in everything should be recognized as a possibility going in. For example, I know a couple that was involved in a serious automobile accident. The husband walked away with minor injuries, but his wife was comatose for about a year. She couldn't uphold her marriage vows in any way during that year. Part of the covenant to society is that you will weather difficulties and remain committed to your spouse. A lot of types of "quick fixes" can cloud that perspective.

hedonist 13y ago

When you marry, you covenant to society that you will make yourself compatible with your spouse, even when it's difficult to do so, [...] That's fine for you. Other people have different priorities in their lives. And elevating the sanctity these abstract entities known as "institutions" to the point where they feel miserable, trapped, and unfulfilled do not count particularly high among them. If one is "sexually incompatible" with his/her spouse, they should talk about it, recognize the issues, make compromises, and move forward. That's fine for you, if those are your priorities. But what's fine for you isn't necessarily fine for other people. They should also recognize that while sex is meaningful and important, it can't be a deal-breaker for a marriage ... Again, maybe not a deal-breaker for you. But for other people... I think you see what I'm getting at here.

sergiosgc 13y ago
People do not have to marry to be together. Marriage should be regarded as an important step, where you promise to your peers that you will be with your spouse until the end of life. This is valid even without religion. Have a different view? Can't commit to such a long time? That's OK. Marriage is not mandatory in a relationship (and for some people it's in fact detrimental). Just don't marry and live happy.
- gohrt 13y ago
  That's a proposition. Is there an argument to back it? Why should marriage be life-long, vs time-limited?
  - sergiosgc 13y ago
    It's not a proposition. It is a definition. On Western culture, a marriage is a life long pairing. It is also monogamous, in the same vein, by definition. Is it lifelong and monogamous in every culture? No. It is in ours, though. Is the definition being coopted for non lifelong pairings? I don't think most people marry with divorce in the horizon, so even if marriage allows for divorce, I think the public promise is still one of lifelong commitment.
cookiecaper 13y ago
>That's fine for you. Other people have different priorities in their lives. And elevating the sanctity these abstract entities known as "institutions" to the point where they feel miserable, trapped, and unfulfilled do not count particularly high among them. No, that's historically what it has meant to be married. When married, if you have negative feelings, you are expected to resolve them peaceably and well. It is supposed to be illegal to just quit because you can't handle your own emotions. Again, there are a handful of very basic exceptions where a dissolution of the union is allowable, but part of the reason marriage exists is to provide that relational stability -- marriage is about the covenant with society much more than it's about either of the spouses or their feelings, which disciplined, mature adults are expected to control. >Again, maybe not a deal-breaker for you. But for other people... I think you see what I'm getting at here. Yes, I see what you're getting at. You're arguing that marriage has no formal definition ("It may mean that to you, but...") and is therefore a meaningless abstraction in the macro sense. This is not the way things are supposed to be, but I agree that the prevalence of no-fault divorce makes it effectively realistic. This is a very bad thing.

lsc 13y ago

>When you marry, you covenant to society that you will make yourself compatible with your spouse, even when it's difficult to do so, as long as these terms do not breach a handful of fundamental contractual obligations implied by the marital covenant. Maybe you are thinking of your covenant with god? See, though, that's a different thing from a civil marriage. In the eyes of the law, it's a partnership, and one that can be dissolved for 'irreconcilable differences' Personally, I think this is the problem with calling civil marriage 'marriage' - It means an entirely different thing to various religions. (and different religions have different rules, too. A marriage under Muslim religious rules is rather different than one under Christian religious rules... hell, which denomination of Christianity or Islam can make a pretty big difference in the rules, too.)

sergiosgc 13y ago
Marriage, civil or religious, is always a compromise by the couple before the society that they will be together for life. The parent comment does not need the crutch of religion, it holds perfectly well using the regular definition of marriage.
cookiecaper 13y ago
>In the eyes of the law, it's a partnership, and one that can be dissolved for 'irreconcilable differences' This is a relatively recent development, and imo it's incorrect and demonstrates that the foundations of marriage as a serious social institution were dissolved a long time ago. The fact that people no longer think of marriage this way, and the further fact that our courts and laws have acquiesced to this ridiculous opinion, bode very poorly for the future of stable society. >Personally, I think this is the problem with calling civil marriage 'marriage' - It means an entirely different thing to various religions. No, again, this has nothing to do with religion at this point. Marriage is supposed to be legally binding. No-fault divorce is a new (and imo vastly problematic) thing.
- lsc 13y ago
  >Marriage is supposed to be legally binding. No-fault divorce is a new (and imo vastly problematic) thing. No-fault divorce is the inevitable result of the fact that women can now be reasonably expected to support themselves without a man.