AngelRho wrote:
tl;dr warning, but I can't help it. I get deeply angered by the subject of divorce. You'd think I'd wise up by now and ignore topics like this:
We all allow our buttons to get pushed. You'd think I'd wise up and stop reading Inuyasha's post's. But that ain't happenin' any time soon, either.
Quote:
You're assuming that marriage is defined as something that I do not agree that it is. I don't believe in love as the sole basis for marriage. I think one OUGHT to love one's spouse, but people get married for lots of reasons. My opinion is that marriages are too often founded on the wrong ideals. Love "sounds" good, but it isn't realistic. And you didn't SAY that your assumption was that two people love each other, so forgive me if I'm misreading you. You didn't even hint at it, but based on what people generally consider a "real relationship to be," I arrived at that assumption. Do correct me if I'm wrong.
The "real relationship" has no consistency from one couple to the next. Even within one marriage, the "real relationship," changes from one day to the next. That is why I choose such a vague description. My only definition of marriage is the legal definition--and that is the only relationship that the court is competent to sever. I fully support a religious view that sets out that religious marriage is indissoluble or dissoluble only by religious authority. But those views have nothing to do with legal marriage or the dissolution of
legal (rather than religious) marriage.
Quote:
My formula is this: Two people can choose to be together for whatever reasons they want. Love might play an important role here, but it need not be the sole factor or even a major factor in forming the relationship. Upon the marriage agreement, they agree to cohabit and work towards mutually beneficial and common goals. It's an obligation that, in the mind of either spouse, must be renewed each day and not at any time for any amount of time be forgotten. There must be agreement on what a "mutually beneficial" relationship is and a lifelong commitment to providing it. That can mean ANYTHING, but a reasonable amount of exclusivity should be assumed. In that process a means of resolving conflict must be established that does not involve compromise, and a course of action must be decided ahead of time in the event conflict cannot be resolved. Love need not have anything to do with it, but I'd contend that the actions performed in maintaining the marriage contract are themselves acts of love despite any emotional pain they might cause.
In other words, learn to get along, and deal with it.
First we have to establish what a "real relationship" is, and love has nothing to do with it. Part of the agreement is "no matter what." There is no such thing as "giving up," no such thing as being "done." You married that person. Deal with it.
My own marriage has not been a smooth ride. It's much easier to be single or in a relatively un-committed relationship based around "love" or "being in love." If you can't handle not being in love or if you can't handle hard times, don't promise someone that you'll always love them when you can't or that you'll be with them "for richer or poorer, sickness and health" when you aren't prepared in the least for things in life to go horribly wrong. BEEN THERE. And we're doing just fine.
What I don't get about marriage based on "love," and I'm using that term loosely, is why it is people always promise other people they'll always love them and suddenly "fall out of love." That p!$$3z me off. Really? You make this promise and then you "fall out of love"? Come on! You promised to love that person, so LOVE THAT PERSON!! ! Nobody asked if it was easy. Nobody asked if it was convenient. Nobody asked how many p00-filled diapers and how much infant diarrhea you'd have to wade through, and how much vomit and urine you'd have to clean up, and how much garbage you'd have to sack up EVERY SINGLE DAY and how many dishes you'd have to wash and how many dinners you'd have to cook before you finally just LOST IT. Nobody asks to go bankrupt, to lose their house, their car, EVERYTHING. And you think it's just OK to "be done with it" when a person's life is crashing down, their whole world is falling apart around them, and nothing in or about the world makes sense anymore? If you can't keep a simple promise to stay with someone and help them and keep them from feeling alone when BOTH of you are at your rock-bottom worst, PLEASE DON'T GET MARRIED!! !!
Absolutely unacceptable.
Love is not enough. No, strike that--love is plenty. Love is more than enough. I think we've just forgotten what love really is and how BIG it is, and I think we've banished from our minds that we have the ability to CHOOSE to love someone and love them forever, no matter what. At least for a lifetime, if not forever. I'm convinced that the two biggest killers of marriage are Stupidity and Laziness. Stupidity for not knowing the person you marry, and Laziness for refusing to leave the comfort of a failing status quo and fix things. It doesn't have to get fixed overnight. All someone needs to know is that a genuine effort is being consistently made on the part of a spouse AND that person must accept what they have--failings and all.
I almost married this girl once... We'd been having some trouble for quite some time and I'd just started having doubts about whether I was marrying someone I could really spend my life with. We decided to consult the university counselor to help us kind of sort through things, and I finally admitted I no longer even WANTED to work things out (she wasn't in the room at that time). The guy offered to let me borrow the book When Love Is Not Enough. I politely declined, had the wedding called off, and we "officially" broke up not too many weeks after that. I can honestly say that if we had gotten married, I'd have been just as adamant about keeping the marriage together as I am with the woman I ended up marrying instead. The difference would have been whether deep down I felt it was really a marriage worth defending. My wake-up call was when another very sweet young woman took interest in me and I realized I didn't have to settle for what I had. That relationship didn't work out very well either, I was devastated, but the experience taught me that I had the right to (and could) expect better both from myself and from a life partner.
And in that sense, no, love isn't enough at all. It might start with love, or it might start with lust (yes, like with my wife!), but ultimately that's not all that makes a marriage. Promises are made. They should be kept.
...
Look, I do understand that divorce is sometimes necessary. I think deception is part of attraction, and we never really reveal all of who and what we are to our potential spouses when we're dating and become engaged. It's not a good thing to deceive anybody, but I think it's just instinctive to do so. So someone might be a nice guy/girl right at first and you only really discover who they are after you get married and end up in a violent, abusive marriage. I get that, and I get that there might be a domestic abuse cause for fear of one's life if they are forced to stay with their marriage partner. If my wife got pregnant by another man, I'd insist that she give the baby up for adoption as that would be the only way I could stay with her after the shame of something like that happening. I have two friends who got married just a few short years ago, the husband promising his wife he wanted children and that he just wasn't comfortable with sex before marriage. It turns out he doesn't like sex at all and isn't interested in the least with having children. The girl just wanted to get married, and I think she was desperate to get married quickly. Well...things haven't turned out well for them at all, I'm not convinced they are happy at all, but for whatever reason they're still together. I couldn't get into a marriage under false and/or broken promises like that, and I think everyone has the right to expect more out of marriage than that. So I can understand SOME need for divorce. I just can't comprehend the reckless casualty of the kinds of marriage/divorce cycles that we see. People being stupid. That's the only explanation I can think of for it.
All of which sounds eminently noble and idealistic, but I'm afraid that I do not think that any of it is applicable to any person other than you--even your spouse.
The law must speak to
all people. It is one law of marriage that applies equally whether people are male, female, gay, straight, bisexual, religious, atheistic, moral, perverse, rational, emotional or just plain nuts. Your concept of marriage is entirely foreign to the concept of marriage understood by others. Perhaps we've allowed Hallmark to define too many moments, but there's no putting that genie back in the bottle.
_________________
--James
22 Sep 2011, 9:12 pm
