|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Marriage
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
I’m currently going through a difficult divorce, and should therefore declare that my opinion of marriage is bound to be rather aggravated. Also, I know it’s meaningless to generalise since there are as many sorts of marriage as there are pairs of married people. Those things notwithstanding, I’ve come to feel strongly that marriage, as a state of being in a relationship, is a bad thing.
Clearly, many people marry for reasons that don’t stand the test, and you only have to look at divorce statistics to know that the vows we make at the altar don’t actually work in and of themselves. At any rate, many marriages fail, and when they do it can be horrid, whether the result is either divorce or a miserable life of marital incarceration.
I feel that the ideal form of partnership between two loving people is choice without any bond of obligation, which is the opposite of marriage. Marriage, it seems to me, is nothing more than a legally binding contract that permits people the right in law to hurt each other when their relationship fails.
What’s the good of marriage? How can it be a preferable state to that of two people choosing on an ongoing basis to share their lives free of contractual obligation but instead by mutual agreement based on common benefit?
[ 10. April 2013, 06:00: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
Yorick:
I tried to PM you with this but your box is full.
I just wanted to offer a quiet place to "talk" - I nearly lost my marriage back a ways and am very glad that my wife is a good woman, and I was able to get good pastoral & professional help.
You want to talk, I'll try to check back a little more than I usually do and listen. And I'll try not to be too "Christain-y"!" Divorce hurts, and it hurts bad.
So if you want to clear a little space, give me a PM.
Best,
Tom
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Firstly, genuine sympathy for your personal situation, and apologies if any objective/'engineering' comments in the following touch nerves, they're not intended to.
I suppose the big question lies in what one means by "marriage". As far as I'm concerned on a practical, pragmatic and emotional level, my friends Mr W & Miss F are just as 'married' as Mrs Snags and I. However, W & F have had neither civil nor religious ceremony; they just got together, committed to each other and (to date) have stuck together.
If their relationship should ever breakdown, I don't see that it would be any less emotionally devastating to them than it would be to me if my marriage 'failed'. And potentially it would be even messier legally.
Which makes me suspect that the difference would be not marriage, but deep commitment versus "Well, it's OK for now, but who knows long term?". The second option feels just a little bit too much like the Princess Bridge "Good night Westley, sleep well, I'll most likely kill you in the morning". I'm not sure I'd want to run a long-term relationship on that basis.
Overall I tend to think that it would do none of us any harm to be told more often that it takes effort on both sides to keep a long-term relationship going, married or otherwise, but that the pay-off is worth it. Of course, if both parties don't have the same goal for a long-term "us" then it all gets a bit sticky :/
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Yorick
I suppose I'm even less qualified than you are to talk about the worthiness of marriage, since I'm single. But I'll have a go anyway...
Your comment assumes that an unmarried couple find it far less stressful to break up than a married couple. But if the love within the relationship was once just as strong, why should this be the case? If a cohabiting couple have possessions and responsibilities in common, they'll have to sort them all out, just as a married couple would. There's no guarantee that a cohabiting couple would somehow be more 'civilised' about it, just because they don't have a 'contractual agreement' to work from. I suppose that some are and some aren't. But some cohabiting couples do call in the lawyers when they split up, and there have been calls for unmarried partners to receive better legal protection.
In an era when marriage is optional, couples probably need to look more closely at why they want to marry in the first place. Woman are often blamed for coercing underprepared men into marriage. I agree that we're in a bit of a muddle.
I hope things get better for you, anyway.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Felafool
Shipmate
# 270
|
Posted
I am sorry to hear what you are going through at the moment, which must be an awful experience, and I hesitate to respond for fear of being trite.
Your question has been asked many times in a number of guises on the board and various answers given. I remember a recent thread in Purgatory: "Why get married at all" but the search engine says it has probably been sent to Oblivion, and I can't find it beyond that.
IIRC, the suggestions for the arrangement known as marriage include the following (in no particular order) :-
1) It's a public commitment to each other which involves society in the respecting of that commitment.
2) It's a legal status which defines progeny and property rights , as well other arcane stuff where 'next of kin' is important.
3) It's a contract which gives some element of security to those involved.
4) For some it has a religious dimension and has varying levels of importance as such.
None of the above prevent divorce or the pain thereof, but might help in reducing some of the trauma which happens when things go wrong in 'common law partnerships' as I have painfully observed within my own family.
On balance I think it has a place in society.
--------------------
I don't care if the glass is half full or half empty - I ordered a cheeseburger.
Posts: 265 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I have great empathy for the 50% of us who end up with divorce (that's the4 Cdn statistic and I presume it is similar elsewhere). As a middle aged person who marriage has worked for 30+ years, I don't have personal insight, but I have plenty of others. Two things come immediately to mind.
First, "until death do us part" is not necessarily a promise, it is a threat, and we unknowingly utter it to each other, believing in error that the words are totally a promise.
Second, most of us who've had successful marriages are lucky. Lucky in the sense that we knew no more or less about the very idea of marriage, and how to know that 'this person' was the right one. Frankly, I think most of us choose used cars more carefully, and don't let our emotions - falling in love - misguide us to people we'd be better not being with.
I'm am sorry for your pain. Friends who've been through it tell me that it is worth divorcing if the vision of being happier is better than the marriage. And it will get better.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
1) It's a public commitment to each other which involves society in the respecting of that commitment.
2) It's a legal status which defines progeny and property rights , as well other arcane stuff where 'next of kin' is important.
3) It's a contract which gives some element of security to those involved.
4) For some it has a religious dimension and has varying levels of importance as such.
Firstly, thank you for your kind comments, and those of others above. Please ignore my personal circumstances for the purposes here- I disclose them only because I know how they colour my opinion. Don’t worry about sparing my feelings, despite my gratitude for your sensitivity and kindness.
I’m sure marriage has a place in society too, but I feel its place is falsely based on the idea that it does more good than it actually does. To answer your specific points:
1) Public society plays no great part within the private slings and arrows of marriage, and its commitment to the partnership therefore counts for corresponding little. All the congregants at a wedding cannot make the marriage work, nor can the public wearing of rings hold a couple together in private.
2) The legal protection is a double-edged sword. It can hurt the vulnerable as well as protect.
3) I doubt the obligation of marriage offers better ‘security’ than commitment to it by choice.
4) I would like to know more about the religious element of marriage, regarding how it makes marriage a good thing. Please explain.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
I don't think there is *one, sole* Christian position on marriage. In my theological neck of the woods, marriage is seen as "a gift of God in creation", i.e. a good thing which (like food, say) is available to all irrespective of their relationship to God as the giver.
I know marriage is difficult, and I don't think it is getting any easier, but in the UK it is still the case that 58% of marriages do not end in divorce.
What are the benefits? Well first there is a public declaration of intention by which two people say to the world at large we are off limits to other people, and we are committed to each other in a particular way which we ask others to respect. That, hopefully, gives the relationship space to grow.
Secondly, there is a mutual commitment to love, that is to seek the best interests of the other, and to trust them to look after one's own best interests. It isn't a guarantee, so much as a presumption in favour of the good intentions of either party to the relationship. Where it works it can provide a context within which a couple are able to trust in each other's commitment and to 'come out of their shells' and be known by each other for the people they really are. That context can be a place both of healing and of growth.
Of course if the relationship breaks down, two people who know each other deeply and intimately can intentionally or unintentionally inflict much greater hurt because of that knowledge than a stranger would be able to.
Ideally the strength of the marriage bond is not inward looking, but becomes the place of security from which the couple can be more effective and caring as parents, and reach out in love to others too.
It is something which has huge potential for good, but also huge potential for harm or loss as well.
If I draw an imperfect analogy with a business partnership, the partnership needs commitment and stability to grow. The partnership agreement isn't unbreakable, but does offer a degree of certainty within which the partners can attempt things that would not be possible in a relationship which did not have some degree of permanence. Because of that degree of permanence I have the security to look at lifetime investment, if I thought everything was going to end next month I'd be much less willing to invest time and energy. Of course, if I have invested at the lifetime level, and things then break down, the cost and pain is that much the greater.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
I get where you are coming from. After my divorce, I felt pretty much the same way. in fact, I would not have formally remarried had there not been a compelling legal reason to do so (immigration). By that I mean that I'd have happily (or un, as the case may have been) continued my relationship with the man who became my second husband without the formality of marriage. I agreed to formalize only because of the immigration issue, figuring it didn't matter to me either way, but this way he could stay in the country.
I'm still married to him 22 years later, but we have been through hell and back again, and there were definitely times when I thought it would be better to end it (and perhaps I was right). in the end, we're doing fine, but it took many years of hell , and a year long separation to get us here. worth it? dont' know. I guess so, but then again, I don't know what would have happened had we ended it when most reasonable people would have. Perahps I'd be happier now. perhaps not.
Anyhow, I had for a long time soured on the idea of formal marriage (as a legal thing), and am only now slowly coming around to thinkin that perahps it does have benefits.
But here's the thing: if we had never legally married, breaking up would not have been any easier. it may have been somewhat leally esasier (but then again, perhaps not.. we have kids, we'd have had to make some arrangements. having a legal document formalizing those arrangements can be a good thing). it would certainly NOT have been emotionally easier. it's not the legal side of diorce which makes it hell, it's the emotional side of breaking up what was once a loving relationship. and THAT would happen in any case. not being legally married does not make that part go away.
The only alternative that avoids that pain is not to love anyone, ever, for fear that the love may end. "I am a rock, I am an island. and a rock feels no pain. and an island never cries".
Seems a sad and lonely way to avoid being hurt.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I would like to know more about the religious element of marriage, regarding how it makes marriage a good thing. Please explain.
I think this is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The religious element doesn't make a marriage meaningful -- it provides a context for the meaning that is already there. Perhaps Josephine will come along and explain the Orthodox notion of marriage as a podvig, or spiritual struggle. But the upshot in this context is that the Church helps us understand what we are going through -- it doesn't mean we go through something different (except to the extent that having a place to stand can allow you to move the world.)
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Some very reasonable and thought-stimulating comments for me here- thank you.
Regarding choice then. Mutatis mutandis, isn’t it better in principle that two people should be together by choice than by the obligation of a legally binding agreement? Marriage is a contract that negates the element of choice, such that a married couple is bound whether or not they may decide to be together. You cannot choose to be together if you are married (except insofar as you may divorce). Choice is destroyed.
Without obligation, it’s choice that holds you together in partnership. This, I feel, is a higher ideal.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Some very reasonable and thought-stimulating comments for me here- thank you.
Regarding choice then. Mutatis mutandis, isn’t it better in principle that two people should be together by choice than by the obligation of a legally binding agreement? Marriage is a contract that negates the element of choice, such that a married couple is bound whether or not they may decide to be together. You cannot choose to be together if you are married (except insofar as you may divorce). Choice is destroyed.
Without obligation, it’s choice that holds you together in partnership. This, I feel, is a higher ideal.
Your point is a good one. Times have changed the meanings and reasons for marriage. The detachment of sexuality and it's pleasures, and the no longer inevitability of children, the raising of the status of women so they are not economically dependent among other things make the formal institution of marriage much less relevant. The rule where I live seems to be that young people will cohabit and consider marriage only if they decide to have children.
I can see it cutting both directions. At the time we were married, cohabitation was not really possible. It did occur, but landlords routinely rejected renting to such couples, and the family pressures to conform were much stronger. If we'd been in the same situation these 33 years later, I'm fairly certain the pressure would have been not to marry, as we were both students at the time.
On the other hand, on the high end of rejection, people do say that marriage is "merely a piece of paper". It does seem to me and to my spouse that it is quite a bit more than that, but to exactly say what that more is, is tremendously difficult. There is something about the commitment and living it out. It is here that church and faith probably come more to bear. It is also, I think, from the embeddedness within a community, what garners respect from others, and the sense of meeting with approval.
I do believe that people deserve to be happy, that divorce costs far too much financially often with the side effect of enriching lawyers. I have wondered if lawyers unconsciously promote conflicts and prolongation of proceedings because this affects their income, with the joke being (if it is a joke, because it also seems true), that the cost of the divorce is directly proportional to the equity in the marital house.
My final point is that 200 year ago, people lived maybe to age 40 if they were lucky. Romeo and Juliet probably had less than 10 years possible together at the time of their suicides. This, and the economic necessity argument, makes me consider that the undiscerning choices we make for romantic partners probably has not come up for critical examination by societies until our affluent age of self actualization.
How many people take the prospective spouse in for medical and psychological examination before committing? They go to marriage prep classes which have nothing to do with proper assessment, and approving family and friends hardly have the credentials to assess properly. But buying a car or home, we all check them out carefully and use experts to provide a check and inspection.
There's another issue with churches doing a very poor job regarding support and help with divorce, but that's for another time.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
First, I am truly saddened by your circumstance. It is a difficult thing.
Commitment is a purpose of marriage. Yes, unmarried couples can have the same level of commitment as married. But, from my observation and studies I've read, this generally is not the case.
BTW, no prophet, the 50% statistic is misleading as it counts remarriages which have a higher failure rate. IIRC.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
I hold that no one should be allowed to marry under the age of 50. You would of course be permitted to co-habit, own property in common, have children etc.
If, after several decades of tolerating each others habits, seeing each other through successes, failures, joys, bereavements, minor and major illnesses, cats, houses etc, and when what looks as you had are going - only then can you do all that stuff about loving and cherishing till death do you part.
Also by that time, chances are nobody else would have you, plus the pension benefits will be kicking in.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Regarding choice then. Mutatis mutandis, isn’t it better in principle that two people should be together by choice than by the obligation of a legally binding agreement? <snip for brevity>
Without obligation, it’s choice that holds you together in partnership. This, I feel, is a higher ideal.
<tangent>Anybody who uses "mutatis mutandis" properly gets two gold stars in my book.</tangent>
With no-fault divorce, doesn't that become kind of moot? The marriage certificate then isn't any bar to separation at all, and it must be seen to play a different role. People choose to get married, and every day after that they choose to stay married by not filing for divorce. Sure divorce nowadays is more tricky than saying, "I divorce you" three times and changing the locks, but it's the destruction of the relationship that's the painful thing.
The legalities make it worse, but they're not the source of the pain. If a couple with children were merely cohabitating, they would still have to fight about the children and the joint property, and if they disagreed about something really major, it would undoubtedly end up in court.
Maybe things are different in Blighty than in the States in that regard?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
My final point is that 200 year ago, people lived maybe to age 40 if they were lucky. Romeo and Juliet probably had less than 10 years possible together at the time of their suicides. This, and the economic necessity argument, makes me consider that the undiscerning choices we make for romantic partners probably has not come up for critical examination by societies until our affluent age of self actualization.
A slight tangent, but no.
If a Middle Ages man survived childhood, they had every good chance of making it to 60 or more. A Middle Ages woman, not so high, depending on the vagaries of child-bearing, which killed often. If they gave birth like shelling peas, then a married couple could see out 30-40 years together.
So the thinking through bit with regards to longevity has most likely been done.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What Doc Tor said. People often make the mistake of misinterpreting the "life expectancy" numbers. A life expectancy of 40 doesn't mean that most people only live to 40. It means if you average in the dead babies with the people who live a normal life span, it comes out to 40. Because infant and young-child mortality was so huge, their short lives grossly skewed the average. If you made past 5, you could expect a nice long age. Unless you died giving birth as Doc Tor says. Or war if you're male. Or the plague. But if Romeo & Juliet managed to avoid war and the plague and death in childbirth, they could have had a happy (one hopes), long marriage.
[ 04. February 2013, 17:27: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I hold that no one should be allowed to marry under the age of 50. You would of course be permitted to co-habit, own property in common, have children etc.
Wouldn't things like joint property or having children together require a legal set-up very much like modern marriage law? I'm not sure if there's any advantage to what you're proposing.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Can I just ask the obvious:
"Is finding a mate, getting married, and staying married and having a good marriage, all nothing more than a matter of luck?"
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Can I just ask the obvious:
"Is finding a mate, getting married, and staying married and having a good marriage, all nothing more than a matter of luck?"
Nope. Luck is a huge component, especially for that first bit (see this Tim Minchin video), but while it's a necessary component, it's not a sufficient one. There's a lot of hard work and not-being-an-asshole involved as well.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's a lot of hard work and not-being-an-asshole involved as well.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Can I just ask the obvious:
"Is finding a mate, getting married, and staying married and having a good marriage, all nothing more than a matter of luck?"
As an thoughtful observer to the whole thing, it seems to me that although some people get by on a whole lot of luck, it's better to approach the whole thing with a lot of care and consideration.
It's strikes me that the development of romantic love in Western culture took a seriously wrong turn somewhere. Instead of helping people to make happy marriages because they're free to marry for love instead of for dynasties and dowries, etc., it's ended up actually making it harder for people to marry successfully. It's very strange.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
That Tim Minchin vid should be required viewing for teenagers. And, well, everyone prior to taking vows or moving in together.
[ 04. February 2013, 18:31: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What’s the good of marriage? How can it be a preferable state to that of two people choosing on an ongoing basis to share their lives free of contractual obligation but instead by mutual agreement based on common benefit?
To me, marriage is precisely two people choosing on an ongoing basis to share their lives. I stay with my husband because I choose to do so, daily. The vows we made on our wedding day were a declaraion of our intent to do this. They don't of themselves keep us together. Sure, couples shack up together after a conversation aout giving it a go, but there is then room for misunderstanding of each person's expectaions for the relationship. The value of marriage lies in the cards-on-the-table approach to making a mutual decision about the future of the relationship.
The divorce stats are depressing, but are there comparable stats for cohabiting couples? My guess is that they would be even more depressing and the hearts involved, no less broken.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I would like to know more about the religious element of marriage, regarding how it makes marriage a good thing. Please explain.
For us Orthodoxen, the purpose of the sacrament of marriage is not childbearing, or sharing responsibilities, or having a companion in your old age. The purpose of marriage is what we call theosis -- becoming by grace what God is by nature. The whole point of being married is to learn how to love the way God loves -- without limit, without condition, without exception, without end -- and to learn how to receive love the same way. For some people, the first part of the podvig is harder, and for others, the second part is harder. But both, together, are the reason we get married.
And that's why marriage involves a commitment. Learning how to give and receive love makes you terribly, terribly vulnerable. It can be a terrifying process. And if you're not sure that your partner in this process is going to be there for you, it is, for most of us, utterly impossible.
There are other podvigs, other paths where you can learn this kind of love. But, as hard as marriage is, the other paths are harder. Monasticism is the usual alternative to marriage. It involves learning to love, not by practicing the skill with one particular person in one particular relationship, but learning it as a universal. And that is extraordinarily difficult. For most of us, learning to love just one person as God loves them, and learning to receive love from them as we receive God's love -- for most of us, that's hard enough. Somewhere along the way, by learning what we learn about love in our marriage, we learn to extend that love to others as well. Monastics try to take a more direct route.
Whichever path you take, we see learning to love and to receive love as the most important thing you have to learn in life. In some ways, it's the purpose of everything you ever do. But it is especially the purpose of marriage.
When you enter marriage this way you have to acknowledge up front that sometimes it hurts, sometimes it stinks, sometimes you would rather anything but this. Cutting off yourself, giving of yourself to another person -- sometimes that's a lot to ask, and sometimes it feels like too much. But that is sometimes the point -- there isn't too much. And sometimes you have to love in spite of the pain. Because "I love you as long as you make me happy" isn't the way that God loves us.
Sometimes, though, the podvig of marriage turns out to be too difficult after all. Sometimes, instead of learning how to love through the pain, you end up becoming scarred and bitter. Sometimes it's better to acknowledge that the marriage has died, and you need to mourn and weep for a while, and then you need to find healing for the injuries that the marriage inflicted on your soul. And you need to find forgiveness for the injuries you inflicted -- on your spouse, on your children, on friends and neighbors and others who were part of your life as a couple.
I'm sorry you're going through that now. I hope you find healing on the other side.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Can I just ask the obvious:
"Is finding a mate, getting married, and staying married and having a good marriage, all nothing more than a matter of luck?"
As an thoughtful observer to the whole thing, it seems to me that although some people get by on a whole lot of luck, it's better to approach the whole thing with a lot of care and consideration.
It's strikes me that the development of romantic love in Western culture took a seriously wrong turn somewhere. Instead of helping people to make happy marriages because they're free to marry for love instead of for dynasties and dowries, etc., it's ended up actually making it harder for people to marry successfully. It's very strange.
In part, it is how people conceptualize "romantic love."
First, "Love at First Sight" does not exist. Sorry.
Second, as the Tim Minchin vid mentions, there is no "one perfect person." And the corollary to this is all relationships require adjustments.
Third, as Crœsos stated, the process does not end at finding someone, but begins there. It is like a car. You might find one you really fancy and it might suit your needs and wants better than any other, but it will still require maintenance.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
It is all very strange .
Until a person has witnessed a seemingly contented marriage crumble right in front of their eyes , I'm not sure they ever fully understand just how strange a thing it is.
Marriage is a fine ideal, I'm still glad many many people still aspire to it, and indeed live it.
Yet having myself been divorced , and since then living unmarried, contentedly with a partner, (not without it's difficulties), I know full well where Yorrick's logic is coming from.
Maybe luck does play a part in all long-term relationships . There though that phrase -- a person can make his/her own luck.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Re life expectancy, Dor Tor post.
That people had the likelihood to live long lives if they avoided the pitfalls of disease, war, childbirth death etc. This is not at all what I got from reading Guns, Germs and Steel (Jared Diamond). He made the point that the dominant farming cultures lives much shorter lives than the hunter gathers if war is left out. 30s and 40s for the former, and into the 60s for the latter.
Either way, when people were married for things other than happiness, the reasons for marrying and for staying married differed from today.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Again, that is average life expectancy. And the data is not conclusive regardless.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
A quick Google gives 30% infant mortality rate in medieval rural England. That has to skew your averages hugely. If you get 30% fails on your grades, you'd better have a hell of a lot of A's if you want a B average.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I would like to know more about the religious element of marriage, regarding how it makes marriage a good thing. Please explain.
For us Orthodoxen, the purpose of the sacrament of marriage is not childbearing, or sharing responsibilities, or having a companion in your old age. The purpose of marriage is what we call theosis -- becoming by grace what God is by nature. The whole point of being married is to learn how to love the way God loves -- without limit, without condition, without exception, without end -- and to learn how to receive love the same way. For some people, the first part of the podvig is harder, and for others, the second part is harder. But both, together, are the reason we get married.
And that's why marriage involves a commitment. Learning how to give and receive love makes you terribly, terribly vulnerable. It can be a terrifying process. And if you're not sure that your partner in this process is going to be there for you, it is, for most of us, utterly impossible.
There are other podvigs, other paths where you can learn this kind of love. But, as hard as marriage is, the other paths are harder. Monasticism is the usual alternative to marriage. It involves learning to love, not by practicing the skill with one particular person in one particular relationship, but learning it as a universal. And that is extraordinarily difficult. For most of us, learning to love just one person as God loves them, and learning to receive love from them as we receive God's love -- for most of us, that's hard enough. Somewhere along the way, by learning what we learn about love in our marriage, we learn to extend that love to others as well. Monastics try to take a more direct route.
Whichever path you take, we see learning to love and to receive love as the most important thing you have to learn in life. In some ways, it's the purpose of everything you ever do. But it is especially the purpose of marriage.
When you enter marriage this way you have to acknowledge up front that sometimes it hurts, sometimes it stinks, sometimes you would rather anything but this. Cutting off yourself, giving of yourself to another person -- sometimes that's a lot to ask, and sometimes it feels like too much. But that is sometimes the point -- there isn't too much. And sometimes you have to love in spite of the pain. Because "I love you as long as you make me happy" isn't the way that God loves us.
Sometimes, though, the podvig of marriage turns out to be too difficult after all. Sometimes, instead of learning how to love through the pain, you end up becoming scarred and bitter. Sometimes it's better to acknowledge that the marriage has died, and you need to mourn and weep for a while, and then you need to find healing for the injuries that the marriage inflicted on your soul. And you need to find forgiveness for the injuries you inflicted -- on your spouse, on your children, on friends and neighbors and others who were part of your life as a couple.
I'm sorry you're going through that now. I hope you find healing on the other side.
Are there podvigs open to unmarried people who are not monastics? As in, is it that you're either supposed to marry or become a monastic?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's a lot of hard work and not-being-an-asshole involved as well.
That's going into our marriage prep notes.
"Nuclear" marriages tend to be a lot more explosive than those which are embraced and supported by families and friends. It helps the learning, the hard work, and the not-being-an-asshole if there are some good accountability links. That's not as "busybody" as it sounds.
I thing one of the issues is the double-meaning of "exclusive". The "forsaking all others" part of the marriage vows was inter alia establishing a top priority. Unfortunately, it tends to reinforce some kind of "its our business, not anyone else's" outlook which can be really damaging if one of the partners needs their dominance meter recalibrating.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Are there podvigs open to unmarried people who are not monastics? As in, is it that you're either supposed to marry or become a monastic?
A podvig is simply a spiritual struggle that you have embraced as part of your path towards theosis. But it's not like each person has only one podvig. Most of us have many podvigs -- we're fighting on many fronts at the same time.
So, yes, there are podvigs that are open to people who are neither married nor monastic. They're not hard to find. Sometimes you get to choose a podvig (as with marriage and monasticism). Sometimes a podvig chooses you (as with chronic illness).
So marriage is one podvig that a person may have. Monasticism is another. Taking care of elderly parents, or young children, or anything else that you do where you take steps (however small) towards becoming more like God ... any of it can be a podvig, if you embrace it as such.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I now have a burning desire for a Can Haz Podvig bumper sticker.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Some very reasonable and thought-stimulating comments for me here- thank you.
Regarding choice then. Mutatis mutandis, isn’t it better in principle that two people should be together by choice than by the obligation of a legally binding agreement? Marriage is a contract that negates the element of choice, such that a married couple is bound whether or not they may decide to be together. You cannot choose to be together if you are married (except insofar as you may divorce). Choice is destroyed.
Without obligation, it’s choice that holds you together in partnership. This, I feel, is a higher ideal.
Completely agree in spirit. However, divorce does in fact provide the choice. And I agree with others that long term relationships that end, especially with shared property, history and children is painful regardless of the legal ramifications.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
And btw, a book that has recently changed my life, if anyone is interested. "Mating in Captivity" by Esther Perel.
Disappointed that I didn't see this thread earlier.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Can I just ask the obvious:
"Is finding a mate, getting married, and staying married and having a good marriage, all nothing more than a matter of luck?"
As an thoughtful observer to the whole thing, it seems to me that although some people get by on a whole lot of luck, it's better to approach the whole thing with a lot of care and consideration.
It's strikes me that the development of romantic love in Western culture took a seriously wrong turn somewhere. Instead of helping people to make happy marriages because they're free to marry for love instead of for dynasties and dowries, etc., it's ended up actually making it harder for people to marry successfully. It's very strange.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Dynasties and dowries generally made MEN happier with marriage, generally not women. And with those kinds of things, mistresses and affairs were so common as to be unusual if there was fidelity. Today people marry for love. And that's a whole new ballgame. And that means adultery is not so commonly accepted. So one person is responsible for our love and our financial backing or survival. Wow. It's like we've entered a new world.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I’m currently going through a difficult divorce, and should therefore declare that my opinion of marriage is bound to be rather aggravated. Also, I know it’s meaningless to generalise since there are as many sorts of marriage as there are pairs of married people. Those things notwithstanding, I’ve come to feel strongly that marriage, as a state of being in a relationship, is a bad thing.
Clearly, many people marry for reasons that don’t stand the test, and you only have to look at divorce statistics to know that the vows we make at the altar don’t actually work in and of themselves. At any rate, many marriages fail, and when they do it can be horrid, whether the result is either divorce or a miserable life of marital incarceration.
I feel that the ideal form of partnership between two loving people is choice without any bond of obligation, which is the opposite of marriage. Marriage, it seems to me, is nothing more than a legally binding contract that permits people the right in law to hurt each other when their relationship fails.
What’s the good of marriage? How can it be a preferable state to that of two people choosing on an ongoing basis to share their lives free of contractual obligation but instead by mutual agreement based on common benefit?
I'm so sorry to serially post like this but I want to make two more points. There us no such thing as a bond without obligation.
And marriage is not preferable, imo. However, Im not sure that living a life with someone with shared lives is much better. Children alone make this an agonizing ordeal to go through.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
We do have a problem with marriage. It is less relevant, less useful, in a pragmatic social sense. Humans have a strong innate tendency to form pair bonds, but absent a good deal of social support (and pressure) they don't tend to be either permanent or sexually exclusive. In hunter-gatherer societies, they tend to be rather casual, and separation and infidelity are not seen as major crises (which doesn't mean they aren't emotionally important for the individuals involved, just not socially critical).
It probably makes most sense to see marriage as an adaptation to agriculture: if farming is important, being able to acquire, hold, protect, and work land matters, and a stable, enduring kin group is the way to do that. It follows that women get treated as breeding stock (as in the OT).
In industrial and post-industrial societies the imperatives change, and marriage is adaptive only for those who have significant property concerns. There's been a lot of fuss about this in the US press recently--how the working class is abandoning marriage (specifically women choosing not to marry the fathers of their children because they don't want an unemployed man around the house). Some people argue that marriage leads to greater prosperity, but I think they have the causal relationship backwards--affluent people can afford marriage. And even then--I know couples who I am quite sure stay together only because they dread the financial chaos of divorce.
As for the spiritual significance of marriage--I don't buy the idea that marriage is divine in origin. It's entirely a human invention, but it becomes a spiritual thing, a podvig, when we dedicate it to God. That is our choice.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Dynasties and dowries generally made MEN happier with marriage, generally not women. And with those kinds of things, mistresses and affairs were so common as to be unusual if there was fidelity. Today people marry for love. And that's a whole new ballgame. And that means adultery is not so commonly accepted. So one person is responsible for our love and our financial backing or survival. Wow. It's like we've entered a new world.
So now we've entered a world where women are happy with marriage but men aren't? How does that help us?
As it happens, I've never understood how Christian societies have managed to create a theology around the tolerance of male adultery. I've never heard such a theology enunciated, but someone somewhere must have written about it, since it seems to have been taken for granted in some circles that the seventh commandment applies only to women.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
Dynasties and dowries generally made MEN happier with marriage, generally not women. And with those kinds of things, mistresses and affairs were so common as to be unusual if there was fidelity. Today people marry for love. And that's a whole new ballgame. And that means adultery is not so commonly accepted. So one person is responsible for our love and our financial backing or survival. Wow. It's like we've entered a new world.
So now we've entered a world where women are happy with marriage but men aren't? How does that help us?
As it happens, I've never understood how Christian societies have managed to create a theology around the tolerance of male adultery. I've never heard such a theology enunciated, but someone somewhere must have written about it, since it seems to have been taken for granted in some circles that the seventh commandment applies only to women.
Oh no, I didn't say that women are happier in marriage and men aren't. I'm saying that we have entered a world where marriage is no longer meant for financial and social security, but is meant for intimacy. IntImacy is much harder to establish in the long term than financial and social security. Then, when passion wanes, we want out.
I also am not concerned with whether it "helps us" or not. It is what it is. Society has changed. So if we want the long term relationship to survive, we need to change with it. The mandate for long term relationships is no longer only security, but intimacy, love and passion.
"Intimacy has shifted from being a by-product of a long-term relationship to being a mandate for one." (Mating in Captivity, Esther Perel.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
"Intimacy has shifted from being a by-product of a long-term relationship to being a mandate for one." (Mating in Captivity, Esther Perel.
I wonder if she doesn't have it the wrong way around. ISTM that intimacy used to be a pretty common thing -- you lived and died within walking distance of where you were born, and just about everyone around you knew you for your entire life. Now, the only long-term relationship that you are likely to have on a daily basis is with a spouse.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Are there podvigs open to unmarried people who are not monastics? As in, is it that you're either supposed to marry or become a monastic?
A podvig is simply a spiritual struggle that you have embraced as part of your path towards theosis. But it's not like each person has only one podvig. Most of us have many podvigs -- we're fighting on many fronts at the same time.
So, yes, there are podvigs that are open to people who are neither married nor monastic. They're not hard to find. Sometimes you get to choose a podvig (as with marriage and monasticism). Sometimes a podvig chooses you (as with chronic illness).
So marriage is one podvig that a person may have. Monasticism is another. Taking care of elderly parents, or young children, or anything else that you do where you take steps (however small) towards becoming more like God ... any of it can be a podvig, if you embrace it as such.
Oh thank you for explaining - I think I was thinking of podvigs being in line with Jewish mitzvot.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Fool on the hill:
"Intimacy has shifted from being a by-product of a long-term relationship to being a mandate for one." (Mating in Captivity, Esther Perel.
I wonder if she doesn't have it the wrong way around. ISTM that intimacy used to be a pretty common thing -- you lived and died within walking distance of where you were born, and just about everyone around you knew you for your entire life. Now, the only long-term relationship that you are likely to have on a daily basis is with a spouse.
--Tom Clune
Exactly! Intimacy was a by product of the life you lived together and there was no need to get all of your intimacy from one source-your spouse. Now, today, all of our needs for intimacy have to come from our spouse. A tall order-probably an impossible one. Which is why we need to change.
And as for the religious/spiritual aspect (note, I am an agnostic/atheist but I do understand aspects of Christianity), I would think that it is much more within God's plan for us to choose our spouses, build an effective long term relationship with intimacy than to choose our spouses based on a dowry of rubies or the promise of being the queen socialite or the countess of whatever. And typically, in most spiritual matters, we are failing at it. Well, about 50 percent of us.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Marriage, it seems to me, is nothing more than a legally binding contract that permits people the right in law to hurt each other when their relationship fails.
That's not marriage. That's divorce.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It certainly helps to be friends if you're married. Some people seem to marry enemies or frienemies.
My other comment as this discussion has developed is whither the children? Realizing that not having children has become a valid choice birth control became legal (which is only within my lifetime). Marriage is also about a child raising environment.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
A podvig is simply a spiritual struggle that you have embraced as part of your path towards theosis.
Sounds like the Muslim term Jihad.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
Really sorry to hear what you're going through Yorick. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'm not about to get any prizes for marriage myself. However, as a Catholic, genuinely believing marriage is indissoluble, the *lack of choice* is somehow... liberating.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ecumaniac
Ship's whipping girl
# 376
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Marriage is also about a child raising environment.
If one partner is going to take on the larger burden of childcare with the resultant loss of income, job security and marketable workplace skills that come with it, then they really do need the legal protections of marriage or some such equivalent.
--------------------
it's a secret club for people with a knitting addiction, hiding under the cloak of BDSM - Catrine
Posts: 2901 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
