Must marriage be forever and ever?

tmarie64 wrote:Yes, Warlord. I agree. My mom told me she and Dad were best friends. I waited until I found a man that I was truly friends with, a man that I LIKED before I "fell in love".
My husband is my best friend. I think that's why so many marriages fail today, people don't take time to become friends, they go straight to sex and marriage. If you don't LIKE each other, how can you expect to live together for any real length of time? (hypothetical "you", of course)

my last three exes were all friends first and we are still friends; but only because I make the effort to keep it friendly

I think there's a huge portion of plain dumb luck involved in meeting someone you can be compatible with longterm. Granted, you certainly must work at keeping the relationship healthy, but a lot of it is simply being in the right place at the right time as well as being capable of relating effectively in an intimate relationship.

gillyflower wrote:"Forgiving" is such an emotional laden word, I'm sorry I used it. I do not forgive in the Christian sense. I simply do not harm myself by carrying around a grudge or anger toward people who can no longer affect me and who I do not wish to allow to further affect my life. Speaking only for myself, I have found that letting the negative emotions go and embracing the delight inherit in today only improves my life. I refuse to let another person from the past ruin my day. I firmly believe that "Living well is the best revenge." (George Herbert)

Preach it.

gillyflower wrote:I have found that letting the negative emotions go and embracing the delight inherit in today only improves my life. I refuse to let another person from the past ruin my day. I firmly believe that "Living well is the best revenge." (George Herbert)

I agree 100%. You know where the real JOY is to be found in situations like this? It's when the realization comes (and it only comes in hindsight) that one's birth parents are not the only parents one will ever have. There have been so MANY who have played that REAL parental role in my life. There are four men (although they were hardly the only ones) who particularly stand out. One was a college math teacher. One was the therapist who broke the final veil of the biggest lifelong illusion in my life. One was a psychiatrist, who was actually a client of mine for many years. Another was a friend, who was actually younger than me. He showed me a different side of life that I never knew before, simply by being his beautiful self and treating me very differently than I ever thought could be the norm. When the realization hits that one's birth parent is not the only parent one will ever have and when the realization hits that in many ways, I have had the BEST of all possible parents, in spite of what I was born into, THAT is when one's life truly begins to change and you know beyond all doubt life can never again be the way it was the first 20 years of one's life.

Aw, HK.

((((HK))))

What you speak of HK, & yes darlin, makes you are very insightful!

HK. To back to what you said about not being able to forgive your parents. I understand. For nweither can I forgive my own father for all the hell, all the abuse, physical, mentally, & sexualy that he didto all of us his children. Yet something good did come out of it. It taught me what not to do as a parent & human being. It taught me to become a loving Husband, Father, & Grandfather. Because I vowed to never let myself become like him. And there's one other person I cannot forgive. My brother Michael. Because of all the evilhe's done in his life. Because of all those he murdered in cold blood. Without a ounce of remorse.

Willow. I honestly don't know how I could survive without PB&A in my life. She's my LADY, my LOVE, my SOULMATE, my BEST FRIEND. And I never get tired of telling people that.

((((((Warlord))))) You are a very special person.
I am so glad you and PB&A found each other.

warlordofks wrote:For nweither can I forgive my own father for all the hell, all the abuse, physical, mentally, & sexualy that he didto all of us his children.

I could, if he showed remorse. Instead, he acts as if he knows everything and REPEATEDLY invalidates my experiences and feelings. And it's very simple. I won't be abused because I do not deserve it. Any who don't get that rule has no place in my life whatsoever.

warlordofks wrote:
It taught me what not to do as a parent & human being.

There's a massive amount of joy in that, when you KNOW you are living it by the response you get from others in your life.

warlordofks wrote:
there's one other person I cannot forgive.........Without a ounce of remorse.

BINGO! Why forgive when they do not demonstrate remorse?

tmarie64 wrote:Then why get married at all, HK? Why bother playing commitment if you're not truly going to MAKE one?

Why end up in a marriage where the partners take each other for granted or believe that, since they are married, they can 'let themselves go,' (whether it be physically, emotionally, toss manners out the door, skip sex, whatever.) If you know that marriage contract is up for renewal or cancellation every year, it seems to me it would serve to keep BOTH partners on their best behavior towards each other, rather than getting slack towards the commitment or each other as time goes on.

In other words, the idea that a marriage commitment is 'for life' (much like a murder conviction) is a wholly man-made construct that I do NOT believe is necessity, or even valuable as an ideal. People can change over time and grow apart. If two married people grow in different directions over periods of years such that they no longer have much in common, why not cancel the contract or fail to renew? It will allow both to go out and seek new partners who better fit the people the each have grown into over the years.

Well, the idea was that it protects the children, which is does, and insures that the wife (or husband) doesn't get dumped for a younger model. It is also protection for the wife who stays home, both parties agreeing to that, and doesn't have a job or pensions because of it.

Personally, I think it makes more sense for siblings and grandparents to raise and support the women who are bearing children and continuing the line. That way everyone could have sex with whomever they wish and go home at night to the people who don't base their love and commitment on sex or if they "let themselves go."

I like the idea of marriage as a renewable short-term contract, although I think that a couple who has children ought to have a longer term. Perhaps until the children are legally adults or with a provision whereby relatives agree to help raise the children if the marriage is dissolved before the children are grown.

I think we Americans have lost valuable resources by being so mobile and independent that a good many kids grow up hardly knowing they have other relatives than their siblings and parents. It could be beneficial, I think, for extended family to have a more active role in helping to raise children.

I used to think it was tiresome having to spend so much time visiting relatives when I was a kid. Now, I'm glad that my parents insisted that my sister and I get to know as many relatives as we could. Having done so is now a valued part of my heritage even though there were several of them that I didn't like. Being told that I have one grandfather's curly hair and that my voice is just like a great-grandmother's gave me a feeling of family that would have been hard to come by otherwise.

But, HK, as I said... If you enter it with the "until something better comes along" attitude, WHY get married at all?

Don't get married if you don't want to at least TRY to make a lifetime commitment... Just shack up.
You contend that holding the proverbial gun to their head will make the marriage good? That's just not true. You think a marriage is good with people tippy toeing around and not being themselves? Acting like they are always dating?
That would suck. Not something I would want... Happily married 21 years.

And, staying together "for the kids" only makes EVERYONE miserable, both parents AND the kids. If you're not happy, leave. Don't pretend that the kids don't know or won't notice that you are miserable.

I sometimes wonder if those who don't get married are more inclined to work at their relationship because they can't rely on the marriage certificate to hold them together. Because they can walk out the door anytime, perhaps they realise that they have to work at it.

Just a thought. As I said, it's not like I have a healthy example to compare it to.

I think very few people rely on a marriage certificate - they rely on promises made to them. Now if the person's word isn't good, they will leave at any time anyway.

One person can work very hard at a marriage and commitment but if the other person doesn't have that in him or her, it still isn't going to work. One person can turn themselves inside out to please someone else and that person might still leave. I've known lovely people who've had their spouses leave for really bad people who beat them up or otherwise behave badly toward them.

I think most married couples go through periods when they aren't really happy with the other person. That is pretty normal in my experience.

Ebon, it's been my experience, knowing many people who shack up, that the shack ups are far more likely to dump and run when they think things are going south.
The marriage license means commitment. Those people were willing to say, "I want to spend my life with you", and they are more likely to work on things than the shack up who is saying, "Let's have a sleep over until one of us gets tired of it".
That marriage license is a promise, for those who get married for the right reasons, that they will try to make a life with each other for life. Through rich and poor, sickness and health... not just for the fun, or just until they find something better.
Gilly's right. Any married person who says they have never gotten aggravated/tired of their spouse and wondered what life would be like as a single person is a liar. Just the same as any married couple who says they never argue/fight is a liar. But wondering is all it is for a lot of us, because we have that paper that reminds us we PROMISED something and a promise shouldn't be broken because one is bored.

I think it's risky to generalize on this as on so many issues.

After all, the divorce rate was at 50% last time I heard a few years ago. Probably higher now unless people can't afford to divorce what with the economy as bad as it's been. So, being married doesn't necessarily mean there's more commitment.

I've known a good many people who lived together for years with a much deeper commitment than Tina implies is the case with "shackups." As Ebon indicated, they either expressed to me or appeared to believe that because the other person could pack up and leave any old time, they worked harder at preserving the commitment than they would if married.

In fact, hubby and I married after ten years together mostly because my job sucked and after consulting with him one day when I'd had enough, I walked out. We got married primarily so we wouldn't have to pay COBRA (which is outrageously expensive) until and unless I got another job. At the time, his company paid all medical insurance premiums. Mercenary little me, in short.

We were somewhat concerned that being married would lead us to take each other for granted. Fortunately, we've worked at maintaining the relationship just as before.

So, I'd say that having that marriage paperwork doesn't necessarily represent any more of a promise to each other than the mere fact of day by day commitment to being with that person.

It is a risk to generalize. On the other pole from you Dot, I know a woman who has lived with three men, just this year, so she doesn't take her commitment seriously, except at the moment and that soon passes. And I know another woman who is divorcing husband number 5, and another who is considering divorcing the husband she has married twice and a man who is divorcing his third wife, and a couple who aren't married but live together and plan to marry. Who knows if it will last?

Don't you think that whether or not one does make and keep a commitment has more to say about the persons themselves?

gillyflower wrote:Don't you think that whether or not one does make and keep a commitment has more to say about the persons themselves?

Absolutely, which is primarily why I suggested that it's risky to generalize about level of commitment to "shacking" or marriage either one.

I think we're all socially conditioned to believe that marriage is taken more seriously (after all, it's to society's advantage for that belief to be maintained.) But in actuality, I agree completely with you, Gilly, that whether or not a relationship lasts depends upon the level of commitment those involved have to each other.

For those who are members of religions that discourage or forbid divorce, I suspect that the promises of marriage may be more binding. There would be all the weight of their upbringing with its teachings of right and wrong as well as the belief that marriage is a lifelong commitment.

Dare I suspect that Tina regards the promises of marriage more seriously than others of us may because she is Catholic?

An aside...I'm suspicious (perhaps unreasonably so) of the expression Tina used above, "getting married for the right reasons."

What are "right reasons" for one couple might be anathema to another.

For instance, I know of an elderly married couple who both are gay. They married in the 1950's when being openly gay was extremely difficult. As far as I know, they lead separate romantic lives but have lived harmoniously and represented themselves as a married couple socially for all these years.

So, are theirs "right reasons" for getting married? I would say so.

A former co-worker of mine went through a bitter divorce years ago when her son was a toddler. She ended up with a somewhat less-than-satisfactory settlement, she told me, and thus lived for several years with a prominent physician who was gay. He needed to keep up appearances as a lifelong bachelor, so she and her son had a nice home, and the doctor had a date for the various social events he attended. She said he typically bought her a new outfit for the more lavish occasions as well as paying for her to have her hair and nails done, so she got some great clothes and was able to run in social circles she'd never have been involved with had she not been his live-in companion.

She said this arrangement worked well for several years as the doctor was quite athletic and did "guy stuff" with her son, teaching him to play golf and tennis and occasionally taking him to ballgames.

Was this "living together" arrangement wrong? Again, I would say no even though their "relationship" was a complete pretense.

No. I regard it more seriously because I've seen more people move from house to house, man to man, woman to woman in shack up situations than I have seen people divorce dozens of times.
My own sister shacked up with every guy she ever dated... The one she finally married she never shacked with. They dated, they married. They never lived together until they married. She has been happier with him than any of the other men.
You don't see a lot of people divorcing, marrying, divorcing, marrying, etc. You see far more shack up... move out... shack up with another... move out...etc.
You love me enough to want to shack up with me, you love me enough to marry me.
My religion has nothing to do with my feelings on this. I wouldn't hesitate to file for divorce given reason.
My feeling comes from being raised by parents of an older generation, mom was born in 1925, dad was born in 1918. They didn't let my sister and her boyfriend sleep in the same room in their house, even though they lived together for 3 years.
We had a friend in my husband's unit in Germany who stopped speaking to us because we wouldn't let him and his girlfriend shack up at our house. They wanted to spend the night, we told them she could sleep in our spare bedroom, he could sleep on the couch.

The "Right Reasons"... you respect and love each other.
You both enter a relationship with eyes open in agreement. (your gay couple fits this. They both knew what they were getting in to.)
NOT because the woman is knocked up.
NOT because they make each other horny.

Your coworker was not shacking up, she was a roommate. Roommates are not shack ups.
I would have thought that much would be obvious.

tmarie64 wrote:
Your coworker was not shacking up, she was a roommate. Roommates are not shack ups.
I would have thought that much would be obvious.

Not obvious to me.

I was brought up with the belief that a man did not live with a woman unrelated to him or to whom he was not married, unless of course, it was something like a room rented from an elderly widow or a housekeeper with separate quarters. Even though the latter more nearly characterized my co-worker's situation, they did pretend to be a couple.

Up until about ten years ago, this living arrangement would have been quite socially unacceptable in my part of the country anywhere outside the larger cities. Even though this occurred in Wichita in the 1980's, she said they did have to be very discreet about what exactly their relationship was and where she lived. As I recall, it eventually dissolved when someone at her son's school became suspicious and made noises about alerting Social Services. I don't know, maybe as her son got older he said something too specific about where he and his mom lived and with whom.

DotNotInOz wrote:

tmarie64 wrote:
Your coworker was not shacking up, she was a roommate. Roommates are not shack ups.
I would have thought that much would be obvious.

Not obvious to me.

I was brought up with the belief that a man did not live with a woman unrelated to him or to whom he was not married, unless of course, it was something like a room rented from an elderly widow or a housekeeper with separate quarters. Even though the latter more nearly characterized my co-worker's situation, they did pretend to be a couple.

Up until about ten years ago, this living arrangement would have been quite socially unacceptable in my part of the country anywhere outside the larger cities. Even though this occurred in Wichita in the 1980's, she said they did have to be very discreet about what exactly their relationship was and where she lived. As I recall, it eventually dissolved when someone at her son's school became suspicious and made noises about alerting Social Services. I don't know, maybe as her son got older he said something too specific about where he and his mom lived and with whom.

Dot. Wichita still hasn't changed very much.

tmarie64 wrote:You love me enough to want to shack up with me, you love me enough to marry me.

I disagree with you on this. Divorce is expensive, and people who've been divorced are often gunshy about risking that possibility again.

Whether or not a couple chooses to formalize their relationship is their decision. Marriage isn't necessarily the end-all; it's primarily a social statement, "We're a couple," which gets legal benefits.

As long as they're adults without kids living with either of them, I see no reason why living together isn't okay, especially if it's two elders who want to keep their finances separate in order to simplify their estates.

When you have young kids, I think you need to consider how not being married might impact them.