Divorce from marriage-with-children (EVEN IF the children are for-the-most-part 'finished maturing') should be illegal ... it in-fact DOES break the contract. The term of the contract says "until death do us part." By-contract, divorce means that one-or-both parties would rather die than -continue the relationship. Why do we force them to live?
This is beyond absurd... Do you even brain, bro? I'm guessing you're not married, and you don't have kids.... Right?
I do have a marriage contract but I don't see the words "Til death do us part" in it. I think this phrase is just part of a marriage vow that couples say when they get married in a church? And as for vows or promises - people are not really expected to fulfill them all the time, marriage or not. It's just the way it is, although it's not bad to try and keep them. Just my opinion though.
You do realize that some vows do not actually have the til death do us part bit in them, don't you? May people write their own vows these days, and many people exclude the til death do us part. Especially gay partnerships/marriages. It would be silly to have the two people involved in the marriage die just because they have gotten divorced. People change, and it is naive to think that you will get married and everything will just suddenly be perfect.
This disgusts me. I didn't sign my vows.. I signed my license and then my certificate. A promise is not a signed contract and it's not a promise to put up with unhappiness. I have no problem breaking a promise if someone doesn't hold up their end of the bargain. Every single person on this planet deserves a life of happiness and if someone is holding them back from that, they have every right to break that contract. That contract that asks your personal info so your government can properly stock you as a couple instead of two singles.. nothing more. ugh
I'm not sure whether this is meant as a joke or you are just trolling. It certainly can't be a proper serious topic... I'm pretty sure those words aren't on any contract, neither would it make sense for them to be, of course killing people because they want a divorce makes even less sense.
I don't think this is a serious question. At least I hope it isn't. Some marriage vows do contain that phrase, but to think that someone should be murdered because he/she wants a divorce is beyond absurd. I do think that many people don't take marriage seriously or don't want to work at it, but this is just crazy.
Divorcees aren't asking for death, they are trying to go on with their lives and get out of a marriage that feels like death. OP, I suppose you also think that wives should "obey" because it says so in those archaic old vows. Have you actually been to a wedding in the last 20 years? People write their own vows now, so hardly anyone speaks the words that you are quoting anymore. If you actually think that people should be murdered for being unhappy in their marriages ,then you are a terrifying human being.
Not sure if this thread is serious or a parody. No, divorcees aren't asking for death. That phrase has a religious connotation. Not everyone who gets married is religious. Sometimes things just don't work out and getting divorced is better than being in a miserable marriage for the rest of your life.
This isn't the first trollish sort of thread that this poster has posted on this form. And also, they have not replied to the responses that their thread has garnered either. So I can only assume that this is not meant to be serious? Lol. But it sparks discussion all the same, which I suppose is a good thing. There is never any such thing as a silly question To me, staying married to someone who you don't love or doesn't love you, is death. Divorcing is life again.
He DID reply. He pressed "dislike" to every single comment, probably to sabotage our reputations and standing as posters. I went back and liked everyone's comments to balance it out, and also because I agree with them. It's just wrong to deliberately attack people's reputations and lower their scores just because they disagree with you.
Lol. Ok, so maybe he was serious then. If he's going as far as trying to damage everyone's reputation, then he probably is. Talk about having no life. I have never understood dislike systems. Well, I understand them. But I don't think that they're particularly necessary. I think that, like facebook, forums benefit more from just a like system, unless the forum is a forum where money is being exchanged - buyers and sellers and all of that - and users need to know who is a scammer and who isn't. Happy 'liking.' Lol.
I apologize for the dislikes. I misunderstood the forum-exchange 'rules' as saying 'you can't post if your exchange-rating is too low' rather than "you can't subscribe new if your rating is too low (but if you're already subscribed, just stop posting BAD & post better)." And I did a bunch of BAD posting, getting me a bad rating ... posting a bunch of off-topic stuff---SOME OF IT in the off-topic folder That, and I was away from my computer for a little while so I was having to get all my 'blogging' in as fast as I could. But now I'm back, so I can 'disagree' without 'disliking': And RE: the general responseIt was my understanding that the purpose of a wedding-ceremony was 'to bring public witness to this contractual-agreement between two people"---that's why the minister mentions "all the witnesses gathered here."
Marriage is definitely not a decision to be taken lightly. But it should not be a legally binding contract either. If anything, this thread brings to light the ridiculous tradition of bringing the law into a matter of love. It is between the couple to decide when the relationship is over, and up to the court how to divide the stuff.
Especially with what they've turned marriage into! In the beginning, Eve was Adam's "help meet for him. And (after God gave Adam all the animals, but none of them were good enough) the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Gen 18b, 21-24) Later, the marriage became sort of a 'symbol' for the combining of land-tracts or families' functions---"This land is my land, this land is your land," as if we're both its deed-holder; the crops I grow are mine & yours, just like you grew them too (and of-course you protect them just the same way). Was it Fiddler on the Roof that 'started' the public-acceptance of "marriage for looove's sake"? That's the first place I saw it (of course Tseitel & her boyfriend were REALLY a good match). Maybe the pre-'legal marriage' homo-setup of "Life-Partner" was better than 'legal marriage,' because that's what the marriage ORIGINALLY WAS (and what the 'wedding' was originally "bearing witness to a contract of" ... the word 'wedding' is actually ROOTED IN the word for 'placing a bet,' betting that 'these two will stay together')! Now the word has lost its true meaning
Before divorce wasn't taboo, men owned their women and could do whatever they wished in or outside the marriage. I'm not sure when it was ever a respectful thing as a whole; it's always been an individual thing. I agree, government should not have their hands in it. That's the choice of the couple though and most people don't believe they're married until the government says they are.. marriage is not in a piece of paper or whether people saw it happen or not, it's in the couple themselves.
I agree that marriage is defined by how the actual couple thinks of themselves. My sister and her boyfriend have been together how many many years now. He raised her child - from another man - from when that child was more or less a baby. They have owned two houses together now. They are still together and going strong. They are married in the eyes of our immediate family. And they, themselves, think themselves to be married. They don't need anybody else to tell them that they are or that they aren't.
Exactly. My husband and I were together for 7 years before we got married. And we didn't get married for romantic reasons lol. Complete and total respect, no cheating, no head games, no jealousy or lies, totally in love.. yet most of the couples I knew were divorcing or should have been. No respect in so many marriages and to go into it thinking you aren't married until a group of people you don't know and doesn't know you says you are, I think many enter marriage with the wrong mindset. If you aren't married before you get paper married, then what's the point exactly? I honestly don't understand the whole thing anymore. The older I get, the less I understand anyone lol.
That is a fabulous way to put it, JosieP. If you don't consider yourself married before the actual official papers are signed?/printed up, then what is that point? That is a very good litmus test to see whether or not you are doing the right thing where getting married is concerned. I shall be using that line with other people from now on. And before you ask, no. You're not getting any royalties for the copyright
Dammit! lol.. As long as you record the answer so we can have a giggle together lol. It's true though isn't it? Like a ring and a piece of paper does anything to create more than you already have. Like I've said.. it's just used as the ultimate romantic gesture now.. no real thought put into it. We can probably thank the jewellery companies for the dumbing down of marriage lol..
