It works like this: On the onset of the marriage the parties lay out the goals of the relationship. A prenup, but more. Decide the financial terms during the marriage, as well as how money will be dealt with should it end. Same with kids. But more than that, the contract establishes broad goals for the marriage itself: Is it for companionship? A passionate love? To bring children into the world? Build financial equity or a business?
Then, when the marriage nears year No. 9, the parties are forced to make a decision. Do they decide — amicably — that the marriage has run its course? If so, the contract has paved a path for a low-animosity split (thanks to the prenup), and the possibility for celebrating a partnership that was successful while it lasted.
Or, the couple decides to sign another 10-year contract, but with changes. Study after study find that a lack of communication is the No. 1 reason people divorce. A forced conversation about the future of a marriage can only be good for any relationship. Gone will be the days of the couch potato marriage, where everyone simply waits out the clock without actually working on the relationship.
108 comments:
This may well be the right type of relationship for some people.
But it is not a marriage.
Wouldn't the seven year itch screw this up? Don't fight nature - make it 7 years.
I bet such a thing would result in a majority of marriages ending at the break. Optimistic fantasies will start dominating the days near the end.
"Working on relationships" is something invented by women's publications.
Sore subject, by about thirty years.
After all that working, I would expect people to have their vacations already planned, paid for, and booked to start the day after the contract ends. If that's a mistake they can always go back and remarry.
Under this system, I probably would have gotten married somewhere along the way. I never met anyone I loved or trusted enough to say "till death do us part", and I now know I was right about that. I just never met that woman, but 10 years? Maybe.....
Nope - never met her either.
I think Palladian nailed this one. This is a female controlling, "Let's talk" horseshit idea. Can you put how often you get blow jobs? That would be a guy inspired contract.
A local radio DJ has been advocating this for years (I think his contract was 7 years).
Hell.
Handbasket.
Maybe it's me, but women never ask me to talk. "Shut up" sometimes. "Get out" occasionally. "Put that away - we're in public" sure, but "let's talk"? never.
Nick:
"I think Palladian nailed this one. This is a female controlling, "Let's talk" horseshit idea. Can you put how often you get blow jobs? That would be a guy inspired contract."
I think those terms are already in some prenups...amount of sex, weight gain, etc.
(Palladian is rh?)
Bago, tell me your deepest hopes and fears; I'm listening.
Titus, Be careful. Let it go. Behave. That's all I'm going to say.
That was prudent Titus.
"Bago, tell me your deepest hopes and fears; I'm listening".
I fear I will let down all the people who count on me, and I hope I will figure out how to avoid that. It's the only thing that really worries me.
Also, last night I watched that movie "The Grey" and my dogs watched it too. It changed our relationship. Now the Alpha position here seems to be in dispute, so that scares me now.
Oh now you guys did it. Whatever Titus said is suddenly and uncharacteristically the most intriguing thing on here. Let me guess - It either involved hog, an insult aimed at normal people or both?
Why get married in the first place.
If this works for you...fine. I doubt it is a sustainable model.
Evi, yes, I can see how one spouse could become apprehensive when it becomes obvious the other is going to check out. Okay, I withdraw the suggestion!
Bago, if your business were to fail, it wouldn't be from your lack of trying your hardest.
Which dog is challenging you? One of the pit bulls :)
Titus spewed venom @ Palladian which he graciously withdrew. For Titus, that's tantamount to an apology. Let's just leave it @ that.
"Titus" didn't graciously remove his comment, an admin deleted it.
Upon introspection, I did "graciously" remove my reference to "Titus's" real name.
I suggest that "Titus" leave me alone, here and elsewhere. I'm through playing games.
Nick, since when does Titus walk back any comment?
You're like Althouse, perpetually cutting him slack.
Why?
If a commenter deletes their comment, there will always be a trace left:
So-and-so said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Only an administrator (and/or thread author) can completely remove a comment on Blogger.
If I was still into games, I'd still be reading and commenting at the old place.
"Which dog is challenging you? One of the pit bulls :)"
It's a pack, and after that movie, they think I'm not only not the alpha, but would make a nice snack.
From my Android... hiding in the closet.
I suggest always hiding in the bathroom if you have a choice.
I can guess what the venom was. I'll bet $10.00. Any takers?
Wait!
Scale that back, for I am not a betting man.
But it would be something that carries weight in a girlish argument, something that weighs on a vain gay person's mind, way, way, way weighted inordinately on one's mind like a big hairy bear.
I cannot venture a guess, Cub scouts honor. *two finger sign*
Wow, most the internet is not working for me. Yet Blogger is part that is working. Very odd.
"If I don't like you in ten years I can take half of what you've earned an leave" is a contract only a fool would enter.
Either commit or don't marry.
Palladian, Titus lives for drama. If only he and Inga could keep each other amused. But like zombies, they are not attracted by their own kind.
Bah, the idea is an abomination. The problem with modern-day marriage is *not* that they're too constraining and hard to get out of, nor that they're not contractual and legalistic enough. I'd gladly trade gay marriage for an end to no-fault divorce, as a matter of cultural and social policy.
Sometimes I'd like to go back in time and kick Henry VIII in the balls...
Wow! I warned Titus and within a minute it said, "Removed by author." If you read my body of work, there is no indication I have cut Titus "any slack." I don't have the visceral disdain for Titus that people whom he has attacked do. I UNDERSTAND that disdain. I have a visceral disdain for Inga that everyone..wait a minute, bad example.
Having worked w/ aberrant behavior in a maximum security prison and w/ people in society, it has been my experience that if a person corrects their abberant behavior you acknowledge that. If doing that offends your sensibilities, c'est la vie. I do learn more and more that indeed "The road to hell is paved w/ good intentions." My goal was to stop nastiness in its tracks. Apparently, some wanted the nastiness. Well, I also believe in never making the same mistake twice. I won't challenge Titus again. You folks can have your war. Lord knows I've had mine w/ Inga, Annie, LSL and others.
Chip Ahoy nailed it. And, as I've said a few times, I surmise Titus is a fatty.
Nice work, Spinelli.
The other night I went to my friend's art gallery to see a new exhibit.
The artist, Steven Lee Adams, painted his way here-- zig zagging 2000 miles through the Utah and CO mountains, painting the glorious inspired scenery. (That was the show- "I have no art so I’m painting it as I go".)
I go to all her gallery openings. Usually fun because wine is served, and the people who only show up at these things allows us to gab and catch up.
At one point I sat down and talked to this spunky eccentric wealthy gal who lives with her 2 Pit Bulls and her guns--and her sports cars, all dressed like a bag lady. She told me an interesting little story..
The man who checks her drip system and water fountains was due for a visit. So, as usual, he came in through the back gate in her yard. He came in first, before she had a chance to get out there. Anyhow, her 4- year old female Pit Bull attacked the guy-- bloodied his hands and then went for his throat. Luckily, she, the woman, ran out and was able to position herself between the dog and the man as she bobbed back and forth until the injured drip system guy could escape out the gate.
Later, the drip-system man came back in through the front door. She said she offered him some wild turkey, checked out his wounds, and prayed he wouldn't sue her. All was fine and the injuries on his hands were minimal. He was shaken, however.
So eventually, the dog was allowed in, and this time female Pit Bull recognized the man and jumped all over him giving him kisses and love nuzzles, as she tells it, and.. get this... the dog was so embarrassed.
That shifted my paradigm. The dog was embarrassed.
ndspinelli said...
"Titus, Be careful. Let it go. Behave. That's all I'm going to say."
Obviously, Nick wants to have a 10-year relationship with Titus but it's hard because Nick and Titus are already married to other people. Poor Nick. Another lost war but he won't make that mistake again twice.
And Althouse wants to adopt him. Things that make you go hmmmm.
Mitch, yeah, on even further thought, no-fault is the same as a contract system.
Wow, I just googled Steven Lee Adams and this guy's good! Terrific pallet knife control. Probably paints very fast but manages to achieve subtle atmospheric effects.
Adams? The first two names sound familiar.
Limited cohab contracts are old old old news in science fiction.
The chick in the article strikes me as sort of disgusting. It's all fine and good to plan something with an end date, but when you *haven't* planned something with an end date, how do you get to be the "good guy" for going into it with an end date in mind? Seriously... he was perfect for me except for the fighting and lack of physical chemistry? We both came from dysfunctional families and wanted to raise our children differently? Well *that* worked. (eye roll)
How many dogs do you have, Bagoh?
And are they Pit Bulls? Do you specialize in Pit Bull rescue?
or any dog?
Yes, Synova, that was completely asinine...lol, except for the lack of chemistry and the fighting.
" no-fault is the same as a contract system"
No. Contract system has to do with the relationship's established broad (and specific) goals and no-fault has to do with the causes for ending the contract before the agreed upon term ends. Not the same thing at all.
For example: Nick has expressed his desire to have - in his 10-year contract - the specific number of blow jobs he is required to provide. That would be an example of a specific established goal.
No-fault, by contrast, has to do with whether or not he has met the specifics of his blow job obligation during the 10-year term and, more importantly, whether or not it should matter, in the division of assets, liabilities, custody, etc., if he fails to meet that established obligation.
Thanks for clearing that up, Meade.
Nick: The 10:41 comment last night "removed by author" was a deborah comment. I think you mistook it for a self-deleted Titus comment.
If you click on the time stamp for the post, it shows the authors of deleted comments.
Palladian is correct in that only an administrator can remove all traces of a comment. I know this because Titus started spamming my blog with worthless shit and removed them.
ricpic - Steven is one of my favorite living artists.
The legal stuff spooks me.
You're welcome. More and more states now have no-fault systems for divorce. The 10-year contract proposal would actually reverse that trend in that a 10-year contract would establish explicit thresholds that must be met in order to renew the contract. For example, in Nick and Titus's contract there will likely be a specific number of blow jobs Nick must provide Titus over the 10-year term. In addition, Titus might specify, say, the number of minutes Nick must envelope Titus's hog or even where Nick must allow Titus to deposit his chizz. For instance, on Titus's socks but not on Nick's.
Likewise, Nick might write into the contract the specific amount of money Titus will be expected to earn. A vague "live fabulously" will be lined-out and Nick will be able to write in the exact dollar amount.
April, I have only 4 dogs right now. Three rescue pit bulls, and my own German Shepard who does a great job as the matriarch keeping the others in order. I stopped taking new ones home for a while to get ready for the wedding here, so now I will probably bring in a few more. I've had as many as ten at one time, but four is a really easy number to handle. I take two or three to work with me every day so they get lots of socialization. It's really good for them to meet and play with all those people and noise and activity, and it has also turned around a lot of people who were scared of them before, but who now welcome them around.
I volunteer and support a rescue that started out as a Pit Bull rescue, but has morphed to now handle any kind or size of dog. We actually adopt out more small ones now days - over 300 dogs a year go through us. I handle most of the bigger dogs and Pits at my house. We used to adopt out Pits everyday, but now they are very hard to get adopted. Insurance and homeowners groups have made it too difficult to take one home. Still many people, especially those who have had one before, love them and want nothing else.
I get the embarrassed dog thing. I have a young pit bull who just can't control her excitement for long, so when I leave her home, she often will just tear a dog bed to shreds out of boredom. I can tell when she has done it, because she doesn't greet me at the door. She sits outside the house with a very sad "ashamed" look, and won't come back in until I call her. There is no way else to describe it. She is simply ashamed of what she did, like she fell off the wagon.
There's a scene in the original Star Trek where Kirk destroys a bunch of disintegration chambers so these two planets have to stop their computer-calculated war. The idea is an ugly, messy war will promote lasting peace.
The one guy defends their system by saying, "But we are a killer species, we have admitted it to ourselves."
Kirk responds, "Yes, but some of us are less cold-blooded about it."
That exchange seems appropriate to this thread but I never fully understood why Kirk considered that such a good come-back so I'm probably missing something.
Marry, is that you?
There was probably an allusion to the Vietnam War in there that went over my head.
Just a hunch.
10 - holy cow. I really don't know much about Pit Bulls, so I find it interesting how they behave and how they are so misunderstood. I was shocked to find out they feel embarrassment, or what we humans define and project as embarrassment.
Anyway- Animal rescue is God's work. Helping those without a voice is a really special deal. I imagine LA has a rather over-whelming homeless dog problem.
I find it interesting how they behave and how they are so misunderstood.
You mean like when they jump over the fence and tear the arms off a neighbor and eat his face?
Sorry, I forgot the link.
LINK
McSweeney died five days or so after the neighbors' dogs had torn off one arm and partially torn off another, as well as chewing off a good part of his face. A very misunderstood breed.
Humans really shouldn't criticize other species for their viciousness.
It's kind of like Obama calling someone a liar.
This is just a formalization of something that's been at work for a long time. As someone said in the whole debate over redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships, marriage was wrecked long before including gays was brought up.
That said, we can expect more deconstruction ahead.
I'll remember that, Bagoh, next time I tear someone's arms off and eat their face.
(I hope I don't regret saying this...)
About Titus: nothing but sadness.
Over the years, I was nothing but kind to Titus. It wasn't appropriate for me to engage him in his patter, but I try to remember there's a real human being behind each of these names, and to have a care for that person.
My reward was to have Titus say some vile things about me, more than once. If memory serves, he apologized the first time.
So I simply stopped giving any response. This is the first time I've said anything about it; but perhaps some good can come of it. I don't write off anyone. Well, that's not quite true; but I'm not supposed to, and this time I want to listen to my better angel.
That said, we can expect more deconstruction ahead.
Did you catch the CNN article on polyamory over the weekend?
People have no obligation to stay in an unhappy marriage, and I think to do so, is an abomination. All this does is make it much more orderly. Traditinal marriage was created for a different culture with different rules. It may have been a very valuable institution, but when you change everything else around it, it's not realistic to expect that one piece to continue to fit and work well.
People will always be free to stay in a loving committed relationship as long as they want, but what are we to do when they no longer want it? Should we have an institution that punishes them for falling in love in the first place and growing apart later? Because if that's the only option in a modern era of equal and independent sexes, people will simply stop doing it.
Icepick:
I did not; I'm looking at it now.
But there are some noteworthy "tells" in this section, which I've put in bold:
It's not just a fling or a phase for them. It's an identity. They want to show that polyamory can be a viable alternative to monogamy, even for middle-class, suburban families with children, jobs and house notes.
"We're not trying to say that monogamy is bad," said Billy Holder, a 36-year-old carpenter who works at a university in Atlanta. "We're trying to promote the fact that everyone has a right to develop a relationship structure that works for them."
Hmm. Doesn't that sound a lot like the rhetoric we heard for many years, in terms of gay and straight pairings?
Yes, the article goes on to say that "many" polyamorists don't advocate changing marriage law. Tick-tock, tick-tock...
And for the record, I don't like it when the neighbors let their children run lose either.
Hmm. Doesn't that sound a lot like the rhetoric we heard for many years, in terms of gay and straight pairings?
Yes, it does. And as I have asked many times through the years, if male/female isn't sacrosanct in the idea of marriage, why is the number "TWO"?
Bagoh20 said:
Traditional marriage was created for a different culture with different rules.
Really, how so?
Wait, scratch that. Here's the question I really mean:
What differences in culture between now and the world in which "traditional marriage was created" are meaningful?
(Hint: it's kind of a trick question; because in order to answer it properly, you have to be clear about just what culture you have in mind, in which "traditional marriage was created." And that really is the interesting question: what culture was that?)
Icepick, I could show you links all day long of much more horrible deeds done my your breed - the white male human. You wanna compare? Hell, I could pick any one of a thousand that has done more damage than all the pit bulls that ever lived.
But I wouldn't therefore assume that you, and everyone like you is a serial killer or mass murderer. Would that be fair?
Icepick:
This came clear to me recently when a parishioner asked me, why is it wrong for two men to have sex? I gave him as good an answer as I could give, working from the Church's teaching, based on Scripture and Natural Law.
But the next day, it occurred to me: if you set aside those bases--as many would like the Catholic Church to do--then a broader question remains: why is any particular sexual behavior "wrong"? What criteria could be defended for saying, ____ is a sin?
As far as I can see, consent, or the lack of it, is the only defensible criteria. "Ick" is not.
Fr. Fox. The difference is in men and women. Neither has the role they did before, or more importantly the limits.
We both know it's not the same world now. You can't put that genie back in the bottle. People have the right to live traditionally, but they no longer have the requirement to. You can't just pretend the last 50 years didn't happen.
So I ask again, what should we expect of people who are in a loveless marriage? The traditional thing was to just accept it for a lifetime.
But I wouldn't therefore assume that you, and everyone like you is a serial killer or mass murderer. Would that be fair?
Don't care if it is fair or not. I do know that everyone that wants to be a drug dealer or pretend they are a drug dealer in my neighborhood has one. I do know that people openly breed and sell them in my neighborhood for fighting. I do know that my neighbor with the violent tendencies keeps at least two, and sometimes more of them at his house. When he leaves them couped up too long, they do things like tear the doors off the hinges to get outside and run loose. (I'm 6'1" and 240 pounds, and I'd have a hell of a time tearing a closed exterior door off its hinges barehanded.) I know that when they're doing that, the animal control people and the cops leave them the hell alone, because they're scared shitless of them.
I do know that, unlike people, dogs don't have any civil rights. I do know that if someone wants a dog, there are millions available that aren't known for their prowess at ripping arms off people. I do know that people selectively breed, or even fix, their pets all the time. Given those facts, pitbulls as a breed could go the way of the dodo in under 15 years with hardly a euthanasia ever done.
I also know that pitbull owners always make the most stupid fucking comparisons possible when defending their beloved killers. My neighbor, who breeds them for fighting, likes to tell me how much more dangerous chihuahuas are. Yeah, keep that line of argument up. I'll make a note of it the next time I see a story about a chihuahua ripping the arms off of an adult. (The story I linked to earlier isn't the only story of pitbulls ripping arms off people in Florida, as there was another such case in the panhandle a year or so ago.)
"you have to be clear about just what culture you have in mind, in which "traditional marriage was created." And that really is the interesting question: what culture was that?)"
The one where women had to marry, and then accept what they got for a lifetime. That ain't coming back, and good riddance. It may have made society more stable, but that's not everything. And in the long run it may not even turn out have been more stable than where we are going. We really don't know.
To the Father's point,
I'm probably a bit younger than most of the participants here. My parents divorced when I was 2. Had a good life---always considered my parent's divorce a good thing. Always had a bit of an issue with the Church's teachings on divorce and birth control --- never really understood. Now, I think I completely understand. We've cheapened and refashioned and mutilated something beautiful and precious in the name of convenience. It's like going to Wendy's instead of Morton's for dinner.
bagoh20 said...
Fr. Fox. The difference is in men and women. Neither has the role they did before, or more importantly the limits.
We both know it's not the same world now. You can't put that genie back in the bottle. People have the right to live traditionally, but they no longer have the requirement to. You can't just pretend the last 50 years didn't happen.
I'm not trying to be quarrelsome, but if you're simply comparing now with 50 years ago, then I'd point out that society and culture has been through far more drastic changes than what has happened in recent decades, without reaching the conclusion that marriage no longer works.
Or, let me say it this way. When were people really suited to a life-long marriage, without problems? When was that golden time? I don't think it ever existed.
So I ask again, what should we expect of people who are in a loveless marriage? The traditional thing was to just accept it for a lifetime.
Well, it depends on what you mean by "love." If you mean romance and affection, that's one thing. Marriage has not always been about romance, and need not be. But that's different from love.
Love is a choice, an act of the will. A husband and wife who feel no "spark" can still behave lovingly toward each other; and if one does not, the other still can.
For example, if two people separate--because they fight, or because one spouse is always intoxicated, or one spends too much, etc.--they can still act lovingly toward each other: providing some material support, being charitable in how they speak toward one another, cooperating, when possible, for the sake of family, particularly children.
No, I realize they often don't do these things; but I don't accept the notion that they cannot. Even if they get a civil divorce, then do these things, and I would argue, they ought to.
Example: someone in my family got a divorce. On one level, that's his/her business. But on another level, it's all our business. That person's spouse was a member of our family. Why were the rest of us supposed to "divorce" ourselves from that person? Yet isn't this what often happens?
And, of course, when there are children that came from the marriage, my case is clear.
So I'll say the shocking thing: couples ought to think about staying together "for the sake of the kids." Not every case; but children would be way better off if the adults thought less about their own happiness, and more about their responsibilities.
And about the point of "ick" for gay sex. When I married and inherited inlaws, I was the liberal black sheep of the family (yes, they were that socially conservative). At my bro-in-law's house one day, everyone was discussing why gay sex was disgusting. I said, "well if you think about it, regular sex could be seen as pretty messy and disgusting too. Why is it ok? The point isn't what is socially acceptable; it's what is acceptable to God." Crickets. Fast forward a few years and most of my inlaws are now socially liberal non-Church goers and I'm the conservative crazy. My opinions haven't changed. I'm always amused by this.
Bagoh20:
Let me say it this way: no matter how much we might say the marriage went away, when there are children, then the reality of the marriage continues. It's a broken marriage, but not a non-existent one.
So, yeah, it sounds hard to say tough it out, but that's what parents do. That's part of life. And, I'd argue, that's what love is.
So, in that sense, a couple who has trouble in their marriage, but makes the best they can (even if they separate), for the sake of the others involved, is not "loveless," but actually being quite loving.
Icepick, For about the last 7 years I have been surrounded by pit bulls virtually 24/7. I find strange ones running the street, and I bring them home, I pull them out of dog pounds. Dogs that don't know me at all, and have often been abused. I've worked with hundreds of them, and I have never been attacked, not even once. I have been attacked and bitten by many other breeds though. That may be some strange coincidence, or maybe I'm just more careful with them, but those are the facts I have from direct experience. Should I ignore it all.
I know what you say is true about some pits and of course some owners of them, I do battle with those people all the time, and we have stolen dogs to get them away from assholes who make them mean, but my experience with the breed is also true and valid. It's not as simple as calling a whole breed bad, anymore than a whole race, or ethnicity of people, just because you read bad things about them a lot. We can both be right here to some degree. We just have different extrapolations from different data.
I said:
"you have to be clear about just what culture you have in mind, in which "traditional marriage was created." And that really is the interesting question: what culture was that?)"
Bagoh20 said:
The one where women had to marry, and then accept what they got for a lifetime. That ain't coming back, and good riddance. It may have made society more stable, but that's not everything. And in the long run it may not even turn out have been more stable than where we are going. We really don't know.
Yes, but..."traditional marriage" has such ancient roots, that it doesn't merely belong to those cultures where women "had" to marry. Lots of cultures, between the misty past and, say, AD 1970, have allowed women legal and economic resources to refuse marriage.
And, in any case, which version of "traditional marriage" do you mean? If you mean "heterosexual marriage" (the only kind anyone knew until a few years ago), that includes marriage for live and marriage subject to divorce, and marriage for one man and one woman, and polygamous marriage.
My point is to say, I think you need to refine your point. That's why I said my question was kind of a trick question: not an invalid one, but one that would be stickier than it might seem.
Bagoh20:
It occurs to me I may be more interested in the historical/philosophical issues here, than you. I don't mean to get into "tall grass" where you weren't aiming to go.
It's not as simple as calling a whole breed bad, anymore than a whole race, or ethnicity of people, just because you read bad things about them a lot. We can both be right here to some degree. We just have different extrapolations from different data.
It is as simple as stating that this breed is more dangerous than just about every other. I know of at least two cases in the last three years in FLorida where pitbulls have attacked people without provocation AND RIPPED OFF THEIR ARMS. I don't know of any other breed doing that, even Rottweilers. You like pits, that's great. Lovely. Personally I want them away from me and especially away from my daughter and wife.
Condemning pitbulls and gay people because of the actions of a few is a stupid thing to do. Just because one attacks you viciously and shits in your house and rolls around in it, that's no reason to say that all of them are bad. The same goes for pitbulls.
Only real men know how to bust balls. Sad.
chick, I apologize for being wrong about author or administrator. I won't make that mistake again either.
Haz, Thanks.
Fr. Fox,
Even though, I never did it, I love traditional marriage. I think it's just about the greatest thing two people can do, but that's when the two people have been smart enough or lucky enough to have chosen wisely.
It's like Icepick and I on pit bulls. We have different experiences that teach us different perspectives on the same subject, and I don't think he's wrong, nor am I on it, we just emphasize the facts we know personally.
I have a different experience with marriage too. My mother was married 4 times so far. She may well do it again, although she swears she won't. My 3 siblings and I all have different fathers, but we have always been very close, and still are, and never considered ourselves anything but a nuclear traditional family.
At Christmas and holidays it was not uncommon for more than one father to be there at dinner.
The fact is that she chose poorly, marrying a violent abusive man at 17, only to run away in order to save her life and my older sister's. Her second husband, my father, was a sweet and generous man, but a distant, lost alcoholic. She divorced him to marry the love of her life, and a man who gave me an amazingly wonderful childhood. He died suddenly in his fifties, and my mother remained unmarried for many years until she found another very sweet man to marry and spend many of her senior years in a very happy marriage again.
The point is that this may sound non-traditional and maybe even non-serious about marriage, but I see it differently. Her choices to leave husbands and marry others were the right choices, wise decisions that made her children and herself safe and just as important happy. I don't discount the importance of being happy as a parent, and how much better that makes the lives of your children. I'm extremely grateful for her courage to make those leaps when staying was the social norm expected. It is what it is, and if it's bad, I think people should fix it, not accept it, and that often requires divorce. What is beautiful about marriage is the love and the relationship and the success of it - not the tradition of it. Without the success, I don't see the point.
I wish our nation never married Obamacare. We need a divorce, because it clearly was a drunken Las Vegas marriage, and I feel hung over.
One thing that gays and pit bulls have in common is the fact that most people don't want to put anything in their mouth.
It's just not safe. Just sayn'
If Titus were awake he would say that is fab.
Just to tie it all together: Here is Mom fighting a pack of vicious pit bulls single-handed.
Adorable pic, Bago. What a sweet lady.
Yeah, I'm sure all the dog fighters and drug dealers are drawn to the pitbulls merely because they're misunderstood, just like teh gays. It couldn't possibly be because they're naturally vicious and blood-crazed.
The pitbulls, not teh gays.
Of course pit bulls are vicious. Just look at that photo w/ Bagoh's mom!
Kind of a silly argument. Of course pit bulls can be vicious and dangerous. (& excellent guard dogs.) If treated properly, they can be calm and loving. Like most dog breeds.
Leaving failed relationships for whatever reason takes a lot of courage. People often stay because of loyalty, responsibility and cultural tradition and expectation, even if the love or the passion are long gone.
That said, others throw it all away over a skirmish.
I cannot grasp the pre-nup of any of these silly modern contracts. You roll the dice.
And as my hero Mike Rosen says.. Why does divorce cost so much?
...because it's worth it.
"You roll the dice."
It's that type of thinking that, in the history of marriage, has led so many people into so much trouble. "God does not play dice," said Einstein. What does the Fr Fox say?
Did you sign a 10 year contract with Ann?
God is perfect.People? Not so much.
"Did you sing a 10 year contract with Ann?"
I sing it every day. (With corrected grammar).
I doubt a song will hold up in court.
Let me guess: Rather than stay in your marriage out of loyalty, responsibility, cultural tradition and expectation - after you decided the love and passion were long gone - you took your husband to court? Am I right?
Huh? Not at all.
I'm not the type of person to take someone to court.
We are talking about you and Ann and your opinion of a 10 year marriage contract. Did you sign one? Would you sign one? Of course not. You're in love!
"You roll the dice."
Meade said:
It's that type of thinking that, in the history of marriage, has led so many people into so much trouble. "God does not play dice," said Einstein. What does the Fr Fox say?
Two things. In one sense, any marriage is a matter of rolling the dice: no matter how well you know each other, no matter what you do to prepare and discern, you cannot know what tomorrow brings. "For better or for worse"--what's "worse"? Infidelity? Mental illness? An accident rendering ones spouse a quadraplegic?
Maybe no one should marry then? We can just procreate, without marriage? Pretty soon, we can do it in a laboratory.
Or, we can just stop procreating. That's some folks' answer: http://vhemt.org/.
But as far as what April meant, I'll let her answer that.
As far as what God does...God created the world for humanity; God created humanity to be in relationship with God; and many times, in Sacred Scripture, he called it a marriage. When he became man, he called himself the Bridegroom.
And he chose not to have a prenup or a trial marriage. Of all people, he had reason to; but he did not.
"Two things"...I ended up saying three. Oops.
Post a Comment