Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Initially I typed this as a response in the "Men in Crisis" thread, then I decided it needed it's own thread.
...
Do you think marriage as we know it will eventually die out, and if yes, what do you think will replace it?
Men in Crisis??? Because women are not a factor in the question? I'm not following why it would be there.
You mean marriage as YOU understand it, right? I don't think your definition is universally accepted -- and perhaps never was. I attended my first same sex wedding in the late 70s. It was not legally sanctioned, but it was a commitment. For that matter, my grandfather never had a wedding after my mother's mom died, his subsequent marriage was a common law marriage. In all cases, they were still really married.
To answer your question: no, I do not think mature adults will stop wanting to make commitments to another. Yes, we all face the uncertainty as to whether it will last until death do us part -- I am not even sure that is in the normal vows any longer. It wasn't in mine when DH and I married in '93. Divorces preceded the church's acceptance of them.
I think marriages are a contract between two adults and what or how that agreement entails and plays out is usually unique to those two people, irrespective of their gender or sexual preferences.
Men in Crisis??? Because women are not a factor in the question? I'm not following why it would be there.
You mean marriage as YOU understand it, right? I don't think your definition is universally accepted -- and perhaps never was. I attended my first same sex wedding in the late 70s. It was not legally sanctioned, but it was a commitment. For that matter, my grandfather never had a wedding after my mother's mom died, his subsequent marriage was a common law marriage. In all cases, they were still really married.
To answer your question: no, I do not think mature adults will stop wanting to make commitments to another. Yes, we all face the uncertainty as to whether it will last until death do us part -- I am not even sure that is in the normal vows any longer. It wasn't in mine when DH and I married in '93. Divorces preceded the church's acceptance of them.
I think marriages are a contract between two adults and what or how that agreement entails and plays out is usually unique to those two people, irrespective of their gender or sexual preferences.
Ah, interesting. I have not been to a wedding that didn't include some form of lifetime vow ("For as long as you both shall live," "Til death do us part," "From this day forward," etc.) I have wondered what a couple would say in their vows if they didn't include a forever factor ("I'll love you until I dont" just doesn't sound right. And I'm not being snide. I really can't think of the right words to signify commitment, yet with the realization that it might not last forever.)
The other part of marriage vows that I consider unrealistic is "For better, for worse." Worse. WORSE!! Not just bad, but possibly the absolute worst. So bad you can't even fathom it on the day you're making that vow. Of course no one is their absolute BEST self every day, but I would think a certain level of bad to really bad to worse to even more worse to outrageously monstrously worse would justify ending a marriage. And I think most people would agree with me. So why does anyone even include that phrase "For better, for worse"??? What exactly is that promise supposed to mean?
Ah, interesting. I have not been to a wedding that didn't include some form of lifetime vow ("For as long as you both shall live," "Til death do us part," "From this day forward," etc.) I have wondered what a couple would say in their vows if they didn't include a forever factor ("I'll love you until I dont" just doesn't sound right. And I'm not being snide. I really can't think of the right words to signify commitment, yet with the realization that it might not last forever.)
The other part of marriage vows that I consider unrealistic is "For better, for worse." Worse. WORSE!! Not just bad, but possibly the absolute worst. So bad you can't even fathom it on the day you're making that vow. Of course no one is their absolute BEST self every day, but I would think a certain level of bad to really bad to worse to even more worse to outrageously monstrously worse would justify ending a marriage. And I think most people would agree with me. So why does anyone even include that phrase "For better, for worse"??? What exactly is that promise supposed to mean?
I don't know much about you Kayanne, so I have no idea if you've been married, but unless you're very young, I can't imagine that you haven't been through some pretty low periods in your life. That's what "for worse" refers to in the wedding vows. It means you'll not call it quits when one or both of you goes through a low period. I've been married for thirty-five years, and I can call to mind several really awful times, the worst being the loss of our first child, something neither of us could ever have imagined on the day of our wedding. That vow was our commitment to stick around and heal together, to find strength in each other when neither of us was all together sure we wanted to wake up in the morning. That's the "for worse" part.
Ah, interesting. I have not been to a wedding that didn't include some form of lifetime vow ("For as long as you both shall live," "Til death do us part," "From this day forward," etc.) I have wondered what a couple would say in their vows if they didn't include a forever factor ("I'll love you until I dont" just doesn't sound right. And I'm not being snide. I really can't think of the right words to signify commitment, yet with the realization that it might not last forever.)
The other part of marriage vows that I consider unrealistic is "For better, for worse." Worse. WORSE!! Not just bad, but possibly the absolute worst. So bad you can't even fathom it on the day you're making that vow. Of course no one is their absolute BEST self every day, but I would think a certain level of bad to really bad to worse to even more worse to outrageously monstrously worse would justify ending a marriage. And I think most people would agree with me. So why does anyone even include that phrase "For better, for worse"??? What exactly is that promise supposed to mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kj1065
I don't know much about you Kayanne, so I have no idea if you've been married, but unless you're very young, I can't imagine that you haven't been through some pretty low periods in your life. That's what "for worse" refers to in the wedding vows. It means you'll not call it quits when one or both of you goes through a low period. I've been married for thirty-five years, and I can call to mind several really awful times, the worst being the loss of our first child, something neither of us could ever have imagined on the day of our wedding. That vow was our commitment to stick around and heal together, to find strength in each other when neither of us was all together sure we wanted to wake up in the morning. That's the "for worse" part.
I honestly see both perspectives here, or at least as I perceive them. KJ, I am so sorry to hear about your child. But you are right - that is exactly what I think the "for better or worse" is meant to cover. I've only been married for 10 years, having gotten married late in life, but have seen some serious challenges, although not what you experienced. However, there is a concern about the "for better or worse" vow that relate to things like domestic abuse within the marriage. "For better or worse" should not mean that a spouse has to stay and take abuse. I don't think that is what the vow is meant to mean, but in some true "old school" circles, it does. And to me, domestic abuse is grounds for divorce, period end of story.
We have seen the devastation that the phenomenon of unwedded mothers have brought upon the black race. Is that something we, as a society, should really be encouraging more of?
I honestly see both perspectives here, or at least as I perceive them. KJ, I am so sorry to hear about your child. But you are right - that is exactly what I think the "for better or worse" is meant to cover. I've only been married for 10 years, having gotten married late in life, but have seen some serious challenges, although not what you experienced. However, there is a concern about the "for better or worse" vow that relate to things like domestic abuse within the marriage. "For better or worse" should not mean that a spouse has to stay and take abuse. I don't think that is what the vow is mean to mean. but in some true "old school" circles, it does. And to me, domestic abuse is grounds for divorce, period end of story.
Thank you, CrowGirl. It was a long time ago, but it's what I think of when considering "for better, for worse." It means job loss, financial difficulties, troublesome in-laws, a hurricane/fire/tornado, etc. It's not physical abuse. For me, abuse does warrant divorce.
I don't know much about you Kayanne, so I have no idea if you've been married, but unless you're very young, I can't imagine that you haven't been through some pretty low periods in your life. That's what "for worse" refers to in the wedding vows. It means you'll not call it quits when one or both of you goes through a low period. I've been married for thirty-five years, and I can call to mind several really awful times, the worst being the loss of our first child, something neither of us could ever have imagined on the day of our wedding. That vow was our commitment to stick around and heal together, to find strength in each other when neither of us was all together sure we wanted to wake up in the morning. That's the "for worse" part.
OK, that makes sense, that "for worse" refers to life situations that the couple finds themselves in. In fact, I'm sure I must have known that in the past, but somewhere along the line, I started thinking it meant when your spouse is at his best or worst. I guess that's what my first marriage did to me, because he certainly got worse and worse. But I believed I had to stay "til death do us part." I stayed for 24 years. (I was in a strict fundamentalist church that did not allow divorce, but I have since left religion completely). Thankfully HE eventually decided he wanted a divorce, which was actually one of the kindest things he ever did for me. He set me free when I thought I couldn't free myself. And now I have been blissfully married for 12 years to the absolutely best man I could ever hope for.
So *I* do know that marriage can be wonderful. But as I explained in my OP and subsequent posts, I do see reasons to wonder if marriage is losing its appeal to many people.
Men in Crisis??? Because women are not a factor in the question? I'm not following why it would be there.
You mean marriage as YOU understand it, right? I don't think your definition is universally accepted -- and perhaps never was. I attended my first same sex wedding in the late 70s. It was not legally sanctioned, but it was a commitment. For that matter, my grandfather never had a wedding after my mother's mom died, his subsequent marriage was a common law marriage. In all cases, they were still really married.
To answer your question: no, I do not think mature adults will stop wanting to make commitments to another. Yes, we all face the uncertainty as to whether it will last until death do us part -- I am not even sure that is in the normal vows any longer. It wasn't in mine when DH and I married in '93. Divorces preceded the church's acceptance of them.
I think marriages are a contract between two adults and what or how that agreement entails and plays out is usually unique to those two people, irrespective of their gender or sexual preferences.
I have no idea why you said these things. What do you think my definition of marriage is? You seem to be pretty annoyed by "my definition," which I never specifically stated, but I certainly meant marriage as it is defined and legally allowed in my country, the USA. What did I ever say that made you think "my definition" doesn't include same sex marriages?
We had Time and Newsweek articles about this very subject, back in the late 60s and 70s. Also articles about the death of churches. Yet, both seem to be rocking along.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
