| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 260.2 | | GOJIRA::PHILPOTT | Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott | Mon Mar 30 1987 13:44 | 11 |
|
Since the writer of the base note is in England I am reminded of a report
in The Times [of London] that said that given the state of British Taxation
and Inheritance laws the correct approach was to "live together" until
one partner is either on his/her deathbed or both are about to retire:
you should then marry!
[This was of course in one of those boring articles that appear just
before the Budget]
/. Ian .\
|
| 260.3 | Affirmative! | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Mon Mar 30 1987 13:51 | 86 |
| As someone who's been married 13 years I can say 1) Yes, it's
worth it, 2) Yes, there are GOOD marriages out here, but 3) No,
there are no PERFECT marriages out here. You hear about the
problems here more than the good marriages for a number of
reasons.
First of all, people tend to camplain more about problems than
they talk about good things. You see this not just here but
throughout life. We've all be flamed or blamed for screwing up
at work (at least I hope it isn't just me), but how often do we
get notes to our management tell them how good a job we did?
Some of us try to do this, but it isn't all that common.
Secondly, most of the topics here get started with somebody
asking questions. Those who are having a hard time of it often
ask more questions than those who are doing well. People just
don't start too many topics about the things they know about or
are confident in. There can be two reasons for this. Either they
don't want to look like they're bragging or they're afraid to
rock the boat. The notion that things go bad just after you say
how good they are is a very old superstition.
Back to the question of marriage. Yes, I heartily endorse it.
BUT, there are a whole lot of things that our culture will
induce you to do wrong, so you want to take care. First of all,
as Marge said, there is too much pressure to get married right
away. Combined with this there's too little emphasis on why and
how you should do it.
Marriage is a very important, and I would say sacred, thing. It
is not to be entered into lightly or ill-advisedly. The
Christian wedding ceremony will tell you that, but when else do
you hear it or hear what that means? The only time I'm aware of
is that in our church the priest will advise you of it AFTER the
the two of you have decided to do it.
Look, getting married involves making a commitment to yourself,
someone else, and to God to spend the rest of your life with
another person, to stand by them through the worst and the best.
The rest of your life isn't eternity, but it is a close to it as
you'll know this side of the grave. This is the only absolute
commitment to another person you'll make (pending deatyh or
blowing the commitment). And you're pledging to put up with the
worst they have to offer as well as the best. It's a big deal!
You don't do this lightly, at least not and succeed. If you're
going to make this promise you want to know first that the other
person is the kind of person that you can live with forever,
that the good things about them are worth the worst (the worst
in combination with YOUR worst). Beyond that you'd better be
sure that they are making the same commitment to you. Ain't
gonna work otherwise.
We also don't advertise that marriage is hard work, or that hard
work shared with someone you love is fun. We make it sound like
everything is supposed to be perfect and if it's not you're not
doing it right. When something does go wrong it's a calamity. In
reality, in working marriages overcoming the difficulties
together is one of the good things--one of the things that
strengthens the marriage.
Beyond all that we've taken the defeatist attitude that failure
in marriage is inevitable, divorce is the norm. It is terribly
important that we be supportive of our friends and neighbors
whose marriages fail. Shunning them is a dreadful thing to do.
BUT, we do no-one a service to say that divorce isn't a failure
or that the people (BOTH people) involved aren't at fault.
Even in the case where an angel marries pond-scum incarnate, the
failure of the marriage is in part the angel's at the very least
they married the wrong person. If we just say "such is life",
"you did nothing wrong", and the like who'se gonna tell them not
to go looking for their next mate in the same old sewers and
swamps? There is no point in hanging guilt on the divorced, but
we mustn't steal from them their responsibility.
The long and the short of it is that yes marriage works, and yes
it is worth it, but you've got to know what you're buying in to
and you both have to be willing to work at it. If you're not, if
that's not what you want, don't get married. Either find someone
that you are willing to share forever with or have a temporary
relationship with the person of your choice. Just understand
that temporary means temporary, and you aren't guarenteed to
like the changes or the ending.
JimB.
|
| 260.4 | forever? | ULTRA::LARU | full russian inn | Mon Mar 30 1987 14:48 | 13 |
| marriage doesn't guarantee 'forever', any more than not-marriage
precludes forever. it's probably best to defer marriage as long
as possible, until you have a really good idea what it's all about.
the media, parents, the church, and society can all fill you with
misinformation and absurd expectations. nobody can tell you what's
right for YOU. celibate priests certainly can't.
a good view against marriage can be found in *marriage and morals*
by bertrand russell...
/bruce
|
| 260.5 | You have to kiss a lot of frogs.... | OWL::LANGILL | | Mon Mar 30 1987 16:07 | 23 |
| Sure there are good marriages - I have had two of them. The first
one ended in divorce, but that didn't make it all bad. It lasted
for 17 years and was good for about 15 years of that time. What
changed? I changed and he didn't. What was right for me at 18
was certainly not right for me at 35, and to consider that it would
be is to me ridiculous. When I look at my 22 and 17 year olds I
certainly hope that they are going to change - they'll never survive
otherwise.
Granted, to most people that have been divorced, divorce is a painful
process. What with the kids, the things, the hurt feelings, it's
bound to be a painful way to close to a relationship. That's the
risk that you take. Would I prefer not to have had the first marriage,
because of the pain? No, then I wouldn't have the good part, the
kids.
I remarried at 36, will this one be forever? Probably, he's someone
I could have been happy with all along. We share the same attitudes,
goals and ideas. He is ten years older than I am, so I also have
to consider that I may outlive him. If that happens, I would probably
marry again. I like to have someone to come home to.
|
| 260.6 | Pay your money and take your chance... | RDGE00::LIDSTER | still hangin' in there... | Mon Mar 30 1987 19:57 | 45 |
|
I wholeheartedly support the argument that Marriage is an enormous
commitment and that you have to go through hell and high water to
make it a success.
From my own experience, I can remember standing in Church saying
all the words including the "till death us do part" bit. Five years
(and one impending divorce) later I realise that I didn't know what
I was doing or the enormity of the responsibility/commitment I had
gotten myself into. I worked incredibly hard to make my marriage
work and I'm sure my (ex)wife would say the same. We found that
we just couldn't make each other happy so decided to split. Maybe
we're no happier apart but we're both a lot more content.
I dont think that any people considering divorce look forward
to it - it's just part of modern life and is yet another of those
mountains that have to be climbed to gain knowledge/experience.
My advice to anyone thinking of getting married would be to
talk to each other and never stop. the minute you stop, you're in
trouble. I'm not particularly anti-marriage but I don't see myself
launching into it with quite the same "gay abandon" that I did last
time.
My father gave me some very wise words (oh why didn't I listen
to him the first time !). He said marry :
someone from the same background as you and/or
someone with the same interests as you and/or
someone that you are desperately in love with and
could not bear the thought of living without
At the end of the day, I believe it is a bit of a lottery because
however hard you make work - your partner might give up. Having
said that, armed with the experience of my first marriage, I firmly
believe I'll make a better job of my second (and hopefully last!)
optimistically yours,
Steve
|
| 260.7 | No guarantee. Hard work. | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Mon Mar 30 1987 22:50 | 16 |
| I hope you didn't read my note as saying that marriage
guarentees "forever". Quite the contrary. I was trying to say
that you don't get forever without hard work, but that what you
promise at marriage is forever (at least for this life). This is
a hard promise to keep, so you want to be sure you understand
it before you make it.
On the other hand, forever is hard enough to acheieve that you
are FAR more likely to acheive it if that's what you set out to
and commit to from the start, than if you just enter into an
open-ended relationship without the commitment. You might get it
by accident, but it ain't likely.
JimB.
JimB.
|
| 260.8 | | FOLES::FOLEY | Rebel without a clue | Tue Mar 31 1987 01:00 | 13 |
|
Just remember:
"Love is blind. Marriage is an eye opener"
My Mom
When you think about it, it is SO true. I wouldn't mind thinking
about getting married but it would have to be the "right" person.
(Whomever they may be and whatever they may be like)
mike
|
| 260.10 | Marriage is FUN | OASS::VKILE | | Tue Mar 31 1987 14:01 | 14 |
|
Let's lighten up a very ponderous discussion. Marriage is wonderful,
it's fun and for me, it's easy. I love it, I'd do it again in a
heartbeat and I adore my husband. He's the center of my world,
the one who makes it all worthwhile and I can't imagine life without
him. He's my best friend. I tell him things my oldest girlfriends
don't know. He's my partner in the truest sense of the word. I
disagree more with my coworkers than I do my husband. We never
argue and differences of opinion are met with compromises we can
both live with. Marry someone like him and you'll never regret
it a day in your life. I certainly haven't.
Vicki
|
| 260.11 | do the first half right! | YODA::BARANSKI | Searching for Lowell Apartmentmates... | Tue Mar 31 1987 15:52 | 18 |
| I think that more needs to be said about what comes *before* the 'together
untill death' part...
From what I'm hearing, about 50% of the people are saying that they did not know
the person that they married well enough. What happened to long engagements?
Have they devolved into 'living together'?
My marriage did not 'fail', it never was, because I never learned what the real
person was like before I married them. I feel that I could still live up to the
'till death do us part', but I feel that I never reached the point where that
applied.
The other half of the people are saying that the couple grew apart. I don't
understand a couple letting this happen. Can anyone explain? It seems to me
that this is breaking the 'till death do us part' vow. It also seems like it
would be real tough to pin the blame for it on any one person.
Jim.
|
| 260.12 | | APEHUB::STHILAIRE | | Fri Apr 03 1987 16:45 | 39 |
| I think my marriage was "worth it" because, like others have said,
my ex-husband and I had 7 happy years together. We stayed married
for 5 1/2 more and should have split up sooner than we did. But,
the first 7 were good years. Just as some people (including me)
feel there is too much pressure in society for people to get married
in the first place, I think there is too much pressure for married
people to stay together "until death do us part". If people grow
apart over a long-term marriage, and are no longer happy together,
what's the sense in making them stick out the rest of their lives
in misery, growing to hate each other more and more, just because
they once decided they were in love and wanted to get married.
Toward the very end of my marriage there were times that I thought
my ex-husband was one of the worst jerks who ever walked the earth.
But, now, two years after splitting up, dealing with him as a friend
and my daughter's father, I realize what I had lost sight of. That
is a very decent, good, intelligent person, who actually sees a
lot of things the same way I do. Divorcing him made me remember
a lot of the reasons why I liked him in the first place, but without
the romantic love and sexual attraction.
Sometimes romantic love and sexual attraction just go away like
a cold - one day you have it and the next day it's gone. If we
only get to live once and then have to face oblivion (and I'm not
convinced this isn't the case) why should we then have to spend
the rest of our lives without romantic love and romantic sex. Why
can't we just move on without guilt or hatred. I am bothered by
people whose lifestyles take this to an extreme by falling in and
out of love 10 times a year, but I was in love with my ex for 8
1/2 years, and then it ended. I don't consider that a failure.
It's just the way it is. We're both happier now, and we still
like each other as people. I don't regret the marriage, but I'm
glad it's over.
It's not that I don't believe in marriage anymore, but that I don't
really see why it should be necessary, especially for people who
don't want to have any more kids.
Lorna
|
| 260.13 | maybe.... | NEXUS::GORTMAKER | | Mon Apr 06 1987 22:12 | 17 |
| Marrage when it is good is REAL good but when it is is bad it
is REAL bad. Few if any in betweens for me.
Mine was very good for awhile and became very bad when outsiders
(inlaws,now outlaws) became involved against my wishes and not hers.
You would think 2000 miles would have been enough seperation to
prevent that.
I think i would do it again but would avoid some things like the
black death.(i.e. the inability to seperate from family and accept
ones own life as their own and run it as such)
-jerry
P.s. My ex has been married and divorced for the same reason since
we were divorced. Will she learn in time to have a good marrage?
I really hope so.
|
| 260.14 | There's nothing wrong with Marriage! | CSC32::C_HAMPTON | | Thu Apr 16 1987 19:08 | 57 |
|
I tried entering this in directly through notes and
got an error "NETWORK PARTNER EXITED"!!! ARGHHHH! It was better
the first time.
Oh well, here goes again...
After 2 marriages (currently going through the 2nd divorce) I started
to wonder what the problem was. I talked with my parents and friends
to try and find out what I was doing wrong. They couldn't help me.
Everyone has their ideas on what life, love and marriage is all about
and that's why I think we are all confused today. Way back when,
people didn't talk about what it would take to have a "good" marriage,
we just grew up knowing that the purpose in our life was to get
married and continue the family name.
I decided to see what the "experts" wrote about "life". I
came across an excellent book called "The Road Less Traveled"
by Dr. Scott M. Peck. He is or was a psycologist that wrote
about his patients dealings with life and relationships. He
seems to have a good view on how we cope. I learned from that
book about self discipline and LOVE. Dr. Peck discusses how
the "falling in love" syndrome happens to all of us. Falling
in love is not genuine love, it is a sexual attraction that
NEVER lasts. Genuine love, however, is NOT a feeling, it is
what one chooses to do out of interest for another.
I feel that I had "fallen in love" in both of my marriages
and that is possibly why they didn't last. I couldn't figure
it out. I thought that was the way it was supposed to feel!
I know now that people have to be compatible and get to know
eachother fairly well before making the big commitment!
I feel educated and more aware of what a relationship is supposed
to be all about. I look forward to having a long lasting, happy,
relationship in the future and probably marriage again!
There is another book that I would like to recommend. It is
called "LOVE" by Leo Buscaglia. It is interesting reading
and I think if EVERYONE read it that we all would be a little
less confused!
I don't want anyone to think that I believe everything that I
read, it is just that I feel that I have had many of the questions
that I have been asking myself answered.
There is nothing wrong with marriage. I feel that we all make
mistakes at something or another, it's just that divorce is a
mistake that is harder to recover from.
I hope that everyone enjoys a happy marriage at least once in
their life!
Carole...
|
| 260.15 | Sometimes you get lucky | NCADC1::PEREZ | Batches, we don't need no stinkin' batches | Thu Apr 23 1987 22:53 | 17 |
| Boy, hearing about all the marriages that worked for years then
broke up makes me leery of making proclamations.
Any way, I agree with .10. Marriage is fun. I've been married
to the same person for 16 years. We started at 19 and grew up
together. Have a 15 year old that I'm looking forward to KICKING
OUT. I guess what I'm saying is that we've worked TOGETHER to make
it work.
Do we disagree? You better believe it!
Do we fight? Like cats and dogs, but with respect!
I guess it all comes down to -- I like my wife. In the end there's
noone I'd rather come home to. She's the only person I know that
I don't have to talk to when I have nothing to say.
D
|
| 260.16 | how it's done on my planet | SKYLIT::SAWYER | i'll take 2 myths and 3 traditions...to go.. | Fri Apr 24 1987 16:08 | 69 |
|
having seen/read so many of the replies to the basic topic of
marriage i'll not bother to read replies 1-15 because i'm sure they
are all things that have been said many times and have little to
no value in conjunction with reality.
that's as pleasant as i get.
marriage is an outdated and no longer needed tribal custom.
we moved out of the jungles a long time ago and it's time we
started acting civilized.
are you in love?
then tell the person how you feel.
if the person reciprocates this feeling you may then discuss
the possible options.
option 1. live together until you no longer want to live together.
option 2. live apart and visit a lot.
option 3. do nothing except keep seeing/dating each other until
you both feel a change is needed. That change can be either
moving in together or seperating entirely.
It is not important for 2 people to fall in love and remain
together for ever. There are no prizes awarded for longevity.
It IS important that each person try to be as happy as she/he
can be and avoid hurting other people.
Honesty helps but you don't get much of that in here.
Mostly fairy tales.
Face it, you do not know, no one knows, how you or they will
feel in 2 or 5 or 10 years.
MOST people (except noters, it seems) grow and change as they
live and learn. It's perfectly possible AND OK for two people
who once loved each other and were on the same wavelength to
grow apart and no longer be happy with each other.
There is nothing wrong with that.
The problem is, people promise to love forever and then when
they find this is unrealistic they get mad at each other...
"you promised!"
so make no such promise.
promise to love and help and to avoid hurting each other
but DO NOT PROMISE FOREVER!
take each day/week/month as they come....enjoy each other...
and IF the time comes that you need to seperate....do it with
out anger or hostility!
Everyone has the right to change her/his mind about absolutely
everything, including love and relationships.
and during the relationship make sure you keep as many of your
old friends as you want to (sometimes we outgrow our friends, too)
and keep making new ones.....that way....instead of being lonely
after a 10 year relationship....you'll have a network of friends
to help give you consolation and friendship.
And tell your kids this too so they don't go around in the same
stupid, painfull circles that our current generation of "mature
adults" is experiencing.
you're welcome
rik
|
| 260.17 | Variety is wonderful | ORION::HERBERT | Lookin for a raindrop in a downpour | Mon Apr 27 1987 14:13 | 32 |
| Re: .16
Okay, I hope this doesn't ruin my reputation with you other noters...
but I, personally, agree with reply .16. However, rik, I think
you will probably get flamed on this one. Once in the Sexcetera
notesfile (probably my first reply to a note ever) I honestly
answered the question of "Why did you get married?" I simply wanted
to share mine and my husbands reasons...which seemed different from
the other hundred replies. Our reason was for convenience in society.
We both felt that marriage was a social ritual. We were quite happy
and satisfied just to be together...but the struggle of being accepted
by society standards, buying houses, and all that stuff...made us
decide just to go with it and PLAY THE GAME.
Unfortunately, my response was flamed by a Christian who insisted
that marriage was something special under God. Okay, that's their
opinion. But they also insisted that there was something very wrong
with my thinking. Shoot, I was only answering the base note to
the best of my ability. Anyway, that turned me off to notesfiles
real fast for quite awhile. So, flamers...live and let live. If
you flame people for having the opinions that they do, you are limiting
the variety of your own world...and you're probably missing something
you could learn.
However, rik, the same goes for all of the people that believe in
marriage the way they do (which you don't agree with). If it works
for them, that's all that matters. Some people may agree, some people
may think it's stupid, some people may just let it be...
We're all different...but we're all in this together.
Jerri
|
| 260.18 | "____ and Marriage, ____ and Marriage ..." | CGHUB::CONNELLY | Eye Dr3 - Regnad Kcin | Mon Apr 27 1987 21:03 | 37 |
| re: .17
That reminds me, I looked up "Marriage" in my parents' Funk & Wagnalls Standard
Reference Encyclopedia last week, and these are the reasons it listed for the
existence of this particular social institution:
1. "FOUNDING AND MAINTAINING FAMILIES" (what's a family? a "basic
social unit" that equates to either "parents and their
children" or larger groups "related by blood or marriage")
a. insure care of children during their years of "relative
incapacity"
b. identify the male parent and delineate his duties
c. recognize and foster "mutual dependence" between partners
2. "INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR SEXUAL INTERCOURSE"
3. establish "PROPERTY CONNECTIONS"
a. exchange "material securities" between families (dowries,
etc.) at time of marriage
b. fix chain of inheritance
4. social alliance or "COLLABORATION OF THE FAMILIES" of the partners
The difference between 3. and 4. is evidently one of emphasis: the former
relates to economic concerns, the latter more to social/political concerns
that might not necessarily be property-related (status, prestige, etc.). The
institutional framework for sex is deemed necessary both because of the power
of sexual emotions (giving them a high potential for being socially disruptive)
and because of the need for breeding rules (exogamous and endogamous codes,
etc.).
Notice that LOVE IS NEVER MENTIONED ANYWHERE in the above! Probably the
reason for this is that the institution of marriage pre-dates our modern
conception of romantic love by quite some time. In other words, marriage as
an institution arose without reference to romantic love, but with reference
to plenty of other more tangible entities (sex, parenthood, property, etc.).
You could try to squeeze romantic love out of some combination of 1C. and 2.,
but I think you'd be pushing it.
(I also checked a book called "The Social Order", picked at random in my
local library, and it came out with basically the same information as above.)
|
| 260.19 | Love is really quite old, you know | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Mon Apr 27 1987 23:33 | 62 |
| RE: .18
The reasons for marriage that you list are all quite true and
fairly universal. There is no denying that, nor would I want to.
On the other hand the idea that one might marry for love is not
quite as new invention as we are often given to believe.
While it is true that the notion of Courtly Love has conditioned
our modern view of romantic love quite a bit, romance and
romantic love are really not all that new an invention. If you
will, for instance, look into the Bible--even if it has no part
in your religious life, it is a source book on what was believed
by at least some of the ancients--you will find the connection
between love and marriage shows up quite often.
The first Scriptural reference to this connection that I find is
in Genesis. In Chapter 29, you will find the story of Jacob who
served Laban for seven years in order to win Laban's daughter
Rachel in marriage. The story of how he had to first marry Leah,
Rachel's older sister shows how the social aspects of marriage
were important (just as your Funk and Wagnalls indicates), but
it also shows that the ancients, like us, married for love, at
least at times.
This being the case, why don't modern sources speak of the
relationship between love and marriage? I'm not sure, but I can
make a couple of guesses.
First of all, we are, as a culture, moderately out of touch with
our forebears. We have forgotten the reasons for many things
that we do. As our culture evolves it does so slowly and thus
the change is not always as clear to us as it might be. We can
often miss changes that take a generation or less changes that
are slower are even harder to notice. Because of our loss of
touch with our ancestors, we often believe things that aren't
true or that are half-true.
The advent of Chivalry and Courtly Love is so dramatic a event
in history that we are fascinated by it, and because it was so
dramatic we tend to over-rate to treat it as if it was the
invention of something wholely new rather than just a change of
emphasis. We act as if the knights and their ladies invented
love rather than just making it focal to their lives. It is more
romantic to believe that they invented romance.
Another reason for it is that the "soft sciences" in their
attempt to be sciences try to deal with clear, objective,
measureable facts. This can be seen in such things as
behaviorism, an approach to the study of psychology which looks
at the external behavior, rather than the internal motives and
thought processes. The social aspects of marriage are external,
observable, and verifiable. Love is much more subjective, much
harder to get your hands on.
Finally, a lot of our recent culture has gotten pretty cynical.
Tina Turner's song "what has love got to do with it?" really
speaks to the feelings of a large segment of the populace. We
have become disillusioned with some of the aspects of the "great
dream" of our fathers, and in rejecting it we reject a vast
array of values that the dream was built on.
JimB.
|
| 260.20 | haven't we argued this in another note? :^) | CGHUB::CONNELLY | Eye Dr3 - Regnad Kcin | Tue Apr 28 1987 00:16 | 16 |
| re: .19
> On the other hand the idea that one might marry for love is not
> quite as new invention as we are often given to believe.
True, Jim, but the idea that _most people_ marry for love is new to our
era (say the last 100 years), relatively speaking. The idea that love _is_
romantic love as opposed to companionate affection or sexual infatuation or
intellectual affinity or social convenience is also new, relatively speaking.
Love and marriage DO NOT "go together like a horse and carriage", except in
song. Two people can love one another for life without ever getting married
--and two people can marry and stay together for life without necessarily
being "in love" in the romantic sense. The connection between the two is
often tenuous, and may only seem of such vital importance in a culture like
ours that is dedicated to perpetuating the commercial mythology of "romance".
|
| 260.21 | Marriage works for many of us | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Tue Apr 28 1987 00:30 | 108 |
| I've put off replying to Mr. Sawyer's note (260.16) because it
is tempting to reply not to the meat of the note but to the form
and the tone. As a result, let me address myself first of all to
the basic tone and approach. I don't find them objectionable
(either as a member or as a moderator of this file). I merely
find them distracting.
First of all, rejecting the replies and their validity without
reading them, doesn't sit very well. It gives the impression
that the author is not very interested in a dialog, and make it
hard to know how to reply, or whether it is even worthwhile.
Second, assuming that the author has correctly intuited what has
been said by those of us who support the institution of
marriage, the blanket condemnation that it has "little to no
value in conjunction with reality" strikes me as more than just
a little intolerant of beliefs with which the author disagrees
and again brings to question whether it is even worthwhile to
attempt a dialog.
All that being said, I will recognize that Mr. Sawyer's style
and mine are quite different, and I should not be put off by it.
As I say, I do not object to this style, but I do find it a
little hard to get past. If that difficulty shows through in the
following, I apologize in advance.
Personally, I'm not so convinced that things are as bad as they
look to Mr. Sawyer. Although I do have many friends who have
divorced, who have gone through hard times, I don't think that
the "stupid, painful circles" that he says our current
generation is going around in, are anywhere near universal. In
fact, the vast majority of my friends are happy the vast
majority of the time.
It is hard to live through the failure of a marriage and there
is a lot of pain in that situation. However, there is no reason
to believe that all marriages HAVE to fail or even most of them.
Many do, but that doesn't mean that marriage is at fault. It may
be that failure was caused by the particular way that the people
involved looked at marriage or tried to implement it.
In one thing, I do agree with Mr. Sawyer--it is not wise to
marry for the wrong reasons or to make promises that you don't
intend to live up to. Many marriages that fail do so because the
couple either shouldn't have married, or weren't yet prepared
for marriage. I won't generalize from this that no-one should
ever marry.
For my money, you should only marry if you are both willing to
really commit to a permanent relationship, and to spending the
rest of your life working on that relationship. You should only
marry if the other person is as important to you as you are
yourself. You must be prepared to trust that the other person is
equally committed to the relationship. If you don't have
complete faith and trust, you're not ready. If you're not
ready--don't marry.
If love, trust and commitment are important to you, if you are
willing to commit the rest of your life to building a life, a
relationship, and a family with someone else, then marriage can
be a magnificent thing, and you shouldn't be afraid of it or
reject it from fear of pain or failure.
Those who no longer believe in marriage often say that no-one
can predict how they will feel in the future and that you can
not, therefore, promise to love forever. This, I feel is based
on two misunderstandings. The first is that love is merely
something that you feel, something that happens to you. As I've
said many times in this file, love is an action. It is the act
of valuing, caring for and considering someone else as much as
yourself. Loving is something you do, and you CAN promise to do
anything. Whether you wish to or ought to is a question only you
can answer, but it is possible.
The other misconception is that life is just something that
happens to you. Like love, life is an action, life is something
you do. If you choose not to take charge of your life, to just
let your life wander aimlessly, you will find that life just
happens to you. On the other hand if you take your life in your
hands you can be the master of it. Just as you can commit to
love, you can commit to join your life with that of your
beloved, to steer it not down the same path but down one
that parallels theirs.
It is true that our lives change, that we change, and that we
grow, but none-the-less we have, if not absolute control, at
least partial control over how they and we grow and the
directions taken. Whatever my life, I have pledged there will
always be room in it for my wife and children.
And children brings up another aspect. If you can't make a
commitment to your spouse that will extend over at least a
couple of decades, what of the commitment to your children?
Isn't there a commitment to a child when you bring it into the
world? Don't you take the responsibility to live with, love and
support your child? If you can do that, and do it without a
promise of co�peration and reciprocity, is it not that much
easier to make a commitment to a willing partner?
Of course, I believe that the commitment of marriage is what
makes it possible to fulfill this terrible blind promise we make
to our children. My wife and my marriage both make the it
possible for me to fulfill my commitment to my three boys. I
suppose that I could do it without her, but I sure wouldn't want
to. How others manage to bring up children without the base of a
marriage to do it from, I'm sure I don't know.
JimB.
|
| 260.22 | | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Tue Apr 28 1987 00:47 | 6 |
| RE: 'commercial mythology of "romance"'
----------
Fiddle sticks!
JimB.
|
| 260.23 | wish I had said that | CREDIT::RANDALL | Bonnie Randall Schutzman | Tue Apr 28 1987 09:27 | 8 |
| RE: .21:
Well said, Mr. Burrows. I've been wanting to say the same thing
in this discussion for a couple of weeks now, but couldn't find
the words to explain the commitment my husband and I made to each
other. Now you've done it perfectly.
--bonnie
|
| 260.24 | Committment without marriage | ORION::HERBERT | What a long, strange trip it's been | Tue Apr 28 1987 16:16 | 50 |
| Re: .21
Jim,
I can see what you are saying and I think your attitude is a very
healthy one. However, being one of those people that doesn't believe
marriage is necessary (at least for me), I would simply like to reply
to some of your comments in an effort to offer another point of view
from a different perspective.
> ...two misunderstandings. The first is that love is merely
> something that you feel, something that happens to you. As I've
> said many times in this file, love is an action.
I agree that love is a choice; not something that just happens.
But I don't think choosing to love someone, and committing that
love for life, has to be followed up by the action of marriage.
The ritual of marriage is only valuable for some people...because
of their religious beliefs, or customs, or whatever. For those
people, I feel that marriage is very important and necessary to
maintain their structure of life.
At the same time, there are those whose structure of life is very
different, and one in which even "widely-recognized" rituals and
customs do not add value.
> Just as you can commit to love, you can commit to join your life
> with that of your beloved, to steer it not down the same path
> but down one that parallels theirs.
Again, I agree with this, but although I think committment is
needed for marriage, I do not think marriage is needed for
committment. Just because I do not feel marriage is necessary,
does not mean I'm not willing to make a committment to my husband
and children. My love and devotion would be just as strong whether
I was married or not. Again, this is true for me...I'm not saying
that it is a valuable belief for everyone.
These comments have not been made to be argumentative. I'm simply
sharing another view. I do not think views different from mine are
wrong for other people. To each his own. But I find it very
interesting to examine all different kinds of views as we each
continue to grow and change. I hope that other people can accept
my views as being valuable for me. If each of us has views that
are working for us, why would there be a need to change, simply for
the purpose of defining one law?
It has been a pleasure discussing this with you,
Jerri
|
| 260.25 | Fiddlesticks! | RTOADA::LANE | A Macaw on each Shoulder | Wed Apr 29 1987 06:02 | 6 |
| RE: .21 and .23
Bonnie - did I say somewhere in here that Americans did not really
understand/use sarchasm correctly - I take it back!
Andy.
|
| 260.26 | Not so far apart | DSSDEV::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Wed Apr 29 1987 19:19 | 19 |
| RE: .24
Ah, we may be closer than you think. There are many things that
appear to be marriages that I don't believe are, and vice versa.
If you publicly and formally pledge to love and live together
permanently, I would probably contend that you are marrying. On
the other hand if the commitment is conditional or not
permanent, I wouldn't regard it as marriage.
(We'll ignore for the moment my religious beliefs about how you
should go about marrying, OK? I'm trying to define what I regard
as marriage.) I don't have a hard and fast definition, but it
needn't be a specific ritual, type of cerimony or piece of
paper. The basic ingerdients are two people of opposite sexes
(or perhaps of the same sex, depending on your moral and
religious scruples), and a public formal pledge of love, trust
and commitment.
JimB.
|
| 260.27 | it's too big | CGHUB::CONNELLY | Eye Dr3 - Regnad Kcin | Thu Apr 30 1987 08:21 | 7 |
|
After writing a 94 line response and rereading it, I think it would
take more like 940 to do this topic justice. That's more than I have
the time or energy for right now, so I will withdraw from the
discussion for the forseeable future. But there are differing
opinions on this subject, and I hope we can tolerate that.
paul c.
|
| 260.28 | | NISYSI::KING | Crazy person behind keyboard. | Thu Apr 30 1987 12:53 | 5 |
| Re: basenote and title. If a person has to wonder whether or not
to get married then that person is not ready to.
REK
|
| 260.29 | I agree with you | RDGE00::BURRELL | you want it by WHEN !?!?!?!? | Fri May 01 1987 06:38 | 18 |
|
> Re: basenote and title. If a person has to wonder whether or not
> to get married then that person is not ready to.
Being the instgator of this note I would agree with you that
I'm not ready to marry. ( also the fact that I'm not going
out with anybody has something to do with it :-)
The purpose of this Note was that in earlier ones Noters
had talked about their divorces or break-ups with a range
of emotions from 'maturity' [:-)] through resignation to
bitterness. So I wanted to know if they would marry again
given the correct circumstances/person and what people thought
of the 'institution of marriage'.
Paul. Still_growing_up_and_enjoying_every_moment_of_it !!
|
| 260.30 | | NISYSI::KING | Crazy person behind keyboard. | Fri May 01 1987 10:37 | 6 |
| Paul, i state again If a person has to wonder whether or not
to get married then that person is not ready. It doesn't matter
whether its the first or second or....... The fact remains that
a person has to be sure he/she/it is ready.
REK
|
| 260.31 | | 2B::ZAHAREE | Licensed TO KNOW (lic# eng571027773) | Fri May 01 1987 11:39 | 7 |
| re .30:
Great. You have now answered the wrong question twice.
[Your point is a good one]
- M
|
| 260.32 | Re-posted with permission... | CSSE::MARGE | Notes: The great leveler... | Tue Jun 30 1987 19:21 | 40 |
| <<< BETHE::$DISK3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
-< The New Soapbox >-
================================================================================
Note 347.49 Marriage - why? 49 of 49
TMCUK2::KARVE "To err is human to um is divine" 32 lines 30-JUN-1987 09:16
-< A psychologist writes... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Marriage and similar partnerships are all about balancing the books,
balancing the give and take. If the relationship is out of balance,
one or both partners will try to get it back on an even keel: take
up golf, go to night classes, have an affair, [ START NOTING :-)].
Buying a bunch of flowers for your wife is a balancing act.
People will got to any lengths to balance the books: mothers
will offer daughters as sexual partners, turn a blind eye to the
maltreatment of their children. Nothing is spared from the balance
sheet: religion, conscience, dignity, children, freedom, life itself"
" LOVE - is a selfish business. We love people because of the way
they make us feel, which may be chivalrous, protective, gallant,
beautiful, clever witty or just needed. When we ask the question
"What on earth does she see in him ? We must look for the answer
not in HIM but in HER " - The reality of love is what is happenning
inside you. "
"On breaking up - What puzzles me is why people should feel so guilty.
What processes have imbued in us this sense of constancy, this desire
for order and predictability? Why cannot we not accept that we are
no less good a person but we have changed: mutatis mutandi. We have
tried for millenia to become couples: now we must learn to uncouple
in the least damaging way "
reprinted, and condensed w/o
permission from an interview
with Dr. Masud Hoghughi in the
Daily Telegraph 30/6/87
Regards,
Shantanu Karve
|
| 260.33 | MARRIAGE A SNAP ... PARENTHOOD TOUGHER | VAXUUM::MUISE | | Wed Sep 30 1987 16:05 | 7 |
| I found marriage to be fun and easy... until children. Then you'd
better have some real comittment and love to keep it smooth.
Jacki
|