4 ms·

> there's not really such a thing as a bad marriage so much as selfish participants This is absurd. It's constructed of a series of suppositions, only a few of

> there's not really such a thing as a bad marriage so much as selfish participants This is absurd. It's constructed of a series of suppositions, only a few of which I'll address. First is that people are static. This simply isn't true. We all know that we all change - not just in age, wisdom, and so on, but in tastes, politics, religious dedication, and the lines we draw between wrong and right, just to name a few. In just these ways, people can grow apart. The distance between these changes can, in fact, cause "irreconcilable differences." Sometimes these changes are brought about by dramatic stress events, from the death of a child to major swings in financial stability. The way in which these events change the unwilling participants can again lead to incompatibility where once there was compatibility. But worst is the idea that if people just "work on it" they can overcome anything. Sometimes overcoming growing apart - be it over time or rather quickly - is best done by removing yourself from a situation that is no longer positive, and has little ability to become positive again. This is where I find religion quite often inserts itself negatively. While I agree with a poster above that regular attendance at religious gatherings does often help a couple share a support network, share common beliefs and similar circles of friends, etc., religion often tells you only divorce or failed marriage is an abomination, and a personal failure requiring lifetime penance. It then follows by labeling that person as an outcast, no longer worthy of the community they had once belonged to. These are just a few reasons (not to mention physical/substance abuse, and so on) that marriages can fail without it being personal failure. Your assertion does nothing but pile on further stigma to those who have gone through divorce. No one wants their marriage to fail, but when it does, it isn't always personal failure that requires additional shaming from outsiders.

jasonparker 12y ago
Gotta disagree with you: marriage is a contract, forsaking all others, so long as you both shall live. Divorce means your word is worthless, and that your own wants are more important than your word. It IS a personal failure, but go ahead, rationalize all you want.
- ska 12y ago
  One part of what marriage is, is a contract between two people. But remember that you don't get to decide the terms of that contract for them.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Gotta disagree with you: marriage is a contract, forsaking all others, so long as you both shall live Not all marriages are presumed to be "for as long as you shall live". Though they don't usually have a set term, civil marriages (at least around here) are not that tied to Christian values anymore.
- king_jester 12y ago
  > marriage is a contract, forsaking all others, so long as you both shall live Not everyone views marriage as a contract or as something that cannot be broken ever. The legal status of marriage in a jurisdiction != how people feel about and treat marriage. > Divorce means your word is worthless, and that your own wants are more important than your word. Giving your word on something isn't a clause that requires you to give up your own wants and needs. For example, if you married someone and one day they become abusive, you are not obligated to stay and take said abuse. > It IS a personal failure, but go ahead, rationalize all you want. This attitude is so unhelpful and smacks of a superiority complex.
- disallusioned42 12y ago
  People are more important than promises. The only reason we value promises is because they make life in general better for people. I've personally experienced and seen multiple others in the situation where ending the marriage really truly was the best thing for both parties. In these cases, your strict adherence to word/contract is patently absurd and creates nothing but pain and suffering.
Xcelerate 12y ago
> series of suppositions ... First is that people are static. I don't know of anyone who believes people are static. You even say yourself in the next sentence "We all know that we all change". No one (at least that I'm aware of) goes into marriage expecting the person they marry to stay the same over time. Another HN poster (can't remember who) put it beautifully once: marriage is an agreement to learn to love the person that each of you become over time. A marriage is a promise, a vow, to commit to this. Now, I could certainly see a situation where two people tell each other at the altar "I promise to love and support you always, well... unless we change too much". However, both people should be aware of these terms! You can't make an agreement that you will always, unconditionally support the other person, and then back out of it later because you changed your mind. If both people are in agreement that they might change and get divorced later before the marriage begins, then fine with me. It's not that different than dating with some legal benefits. But if one person thinks they're going into something permanent, and the other person has doubts about it, then that is really not fair to the first person, and I would argue it's essentially evil to be that dishonest to someone. > further stigma to those who have gone through divorce There is a stigma, but it's not on divorce; it's on someone who goes back on their word. What are my terms for divorce? If there is abuse or cheating. Those are my only conditions. And before I marry anyone, I will make it very clear that these are the only conditions in which I will abandon them, and if they don't like those terms they can marry someone else. The stigma associated with the vast majority of divorces is that one (or two) people were unable to keep a promise. I don't want to be associated with these kinds of people. My life is simpler and happier if I associate with people who will keep their word at any cost. Maybe your experience is different.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jjoonathan 12y ago
  > marriage is an agreement to learn to love the person that each of you become over time The supposition that it is always possible to learn to love the other person is as ridiculous as the supposition that people are static. > If both people are in agreement that they might change and get divorced later before the marriage begins, then fine with me. Everyone who gets married knows that the possibility of divorce exists and roughly what divorce proceedings entail. How does making these details explicit as opposed to implicit help anyone? > There is a stigma, but it's not on divorce; it's on someone who goes back on their word. I would wager that very few people are as hot-to-trot as you are on the notion of honor in contract literalism. > My life is simpler, more enjoyable, and happier if I associate with people who will keep their word at any cost. Maybe your experience is different. It is. Honesty is valuable, but by my way of reckoning there is little honesty in the practice of enshrining outdated guesses about the future. A promise made without implicit limits is a lie.

jasonparker 12y ago

Gotta disagree with you: marriage is a contract, forsaking all others, so long as you both shall live. Divorce means your word is worthless, and that your own wants are more important than your word. It IS a personal failure, but go ahead, rationalize all you want.

ska 12y ago
One part of what marriage is, is a contract between two people. But remember that you don't get to decide the terms of that contract for them.
icebraining 12y ago
Gotta disagree with you: marriage is a contract, forsaking all others, so long as you both shall live Not all marriages are presumed to be "for as long as you shall live". Though they don't usually have a set term, civil marriages (at least around here) are not that tied to Christian values anymore.
king_jester 12y ago
> marriage is a contract, forsaking all others, so long as you both shall live Not everyone views marriage as a contract or as something that cannot be broken ever. The legal status of marriage in a jurisdiction != how people feel about and treat marriage. > Divorce means your word is worthless, and that your own wants are more important than your word. Giving your word on something isn't a clause that requires you to give up your own wants and needs. For example, if you married someone and one day they become abusive, you are not obligated to stay and take said abuse. > It IS a personal failure, but go ahead, rationalize all you want. This attitude is so unhelpful and smacks of a superiority complex.
disallusioned42 12y ago
People are more important than promises. The only reason we value promises is because they make life in general better for people. I've personally experienced and seen multiple others in the situation where ending the marriage really truly was the best thing for both parties. In these cases, your strict adherence to word/contract is patently absurd and creates nothing but pain and suffering.

Xcelerate 12y ago

> series of suppositions ... First is that people are static. I don't know of anyone who believes people are static. You even say yourself in the next sentence "We all know that we all change". No one (at least that I'm aware of) goes into marriage expecting the person they marry to stay the same over time. Another HN poster (can't remember who) put it beautifully once: marriage is an agreement to learn to love the person that each of you become over time. A marriage is a promise, a vow, to commit to this. Now, I could certainly see a situation where two people tell each other at the altar "I promise to love and support you always, well... unless we change too much". However, both people should be aware of these terms! You can't make an agreement that you will always, unconditionally support the other person, and then back out of it later because you changed your mind. If both people are in agreement that they might change and get divorced later before the marriage begins, then fine with me. It's not that different than dating with some legal benefits. But if one person thinks they're going into something permanent, and the other person has doubts about it, then that is really not fair to the first person, and I would argue it's essentially evil to be that dishonest to someone. > further stigma to those who have gone through divorce There is a stigma, but it's not on divorce; it's on someone who goes back on their word. What are my terms for divorce? If there is abuse or cheating. Those are my only conditions. And before I marry anyone, I will make it very clear that these are the only conditions in which I will abandon them, and if they don't like those terms they can marry someone else. The stigma associated with the vast majority of divorces is that one (or two) people were unable to keep a promise. I don't want to be associated with these kinds of people. My life is simpler and happier if I associate with people who will keep their word at any cost. Maybe your experience is different.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jjoonathan 12y ago
> marriage is an agreement to learn to love the person that each of you become over time The supposition that it is always possible to learn to love the other person is as ridiculous as the supposition that people are static. > If both people are in agreement that they might change and get divorced later before the marriage begins, then fine with me. Everyone who gets married knows that the possibility of divorce exists and roughly what divorce proceedings entail. How does making these details explicit as opposed to implicit help anyone? > There is a stigma, but it's not on divorce; it's on someone who goes back on their word. I would wager that very few people are as hot-to-trot as you are on the notion of honor in contract literalism. > My life is simpler, more enjoyable, and happier if I associate with people who will keep their word at any cost. Maybe your experience is different. It is. Honesty is valuable, but by my way of reckoning there is little honesty in the practice of enshrining outdated guesses about the future. A promise made without implicit limits is a lie.