> Personally, I don't think it's a terrible thing that marriages end.
What do you feel that marriages should represent, then? It seems, to me, like one should not promise to remain forever if the design is not to follow through. Beyond the legal requirements of marriage, what else do you think should be implied?
Marriage is probably more due to socialization - from religious marriages to shotgun weddings - than a deep desire to stay committed for the rest of one's life. Is it more likely that people are conforming to social norms, or that they have all found "the one?"
This quite shallow rationalisation. If you live in big city and have more prospects on finding someone else, if your life is all rosy and beautiful you might not have big desire to stay committed to rest of your life or more than couple months. All this ends when you or someone close to you gets sick, you lose your job or money. When you have to support your parents or siblings your dating pool shrinks quite a lot because you do not have time/money to spend on new dates. Your health is not going to be perfect all the time, you might get hit by a bus any time. It is more of insurance policy which you give and receive at the same time.
So again if you live in big city and break your back or whatever, it is far easier to get any help. Think of all those living in some far from anywhere places. People who have to stick together to afford house. Those things create "social norms" and not the other way around. You might be angry at aunts pushing social norms on people without thinking, but they did not invented those norms.
I'm unmarried, so I'm not in the situation yet, but I would be very uncomfortable uttering the standard "till death do us part" lines during my future wedding ceremony. I think it's unreasonable to expect anyone to promise that, at any point in their lives.
I would certainly promise to remain faithful to my partner, and to do my best to support them (emotionally, financially, etc.), and to make them my #1 priority in life, but I would never make a promise that precludes the possibility of divorce. I take promises very seriously, and I wouldn't make one that it's impossible to know if I'd be able -- or even want -- to keep.
As a happily married person I'd like to say: please don't get married. Integrity is important. If you do not mean the words, dont say them. Getting married and not making every effort to stay that way cheapens the concept for those of us who do mean it.
I agree that integrity is important, and I'm curious to know why you think what I've stated lacks integrity. I wouldn't want to be with someone who unrealistically expects me (or anyone, really) to promise to stay with them for the rest of my life, and I wouldn't expect them to promise that to me. I would certainly be happy if that's the way it worked out in the long run, but staying in a relationship "just because" is a terrible idea, and promising to do so paints you into a hole that apparently 40-50% of Americans end up breaking out of despite the promise. Are you suggesting that all or even a significant number of those people are cheapening marriage for you?
I've been to several (secular, and religious but non-Western) wedding ceremonies where nothing along the lines of "till death do us part" was said or promised. Are they, in your mind, not marriages?
At the risk of being hyperbolic: there are quite a few people in the world who believe marriages between people of the same gender "cheapens the concept" for married men and women. Given that HN is generally socially liberal-minded, I'll assume for a moment that you agree with me that those people are wrong. What makes your strict definition ok, while their strict definition is bad?
And I think that's the crux of it: you do you, and I'll do me. Marriage meaning a certain thing to me does not in any way change what it means to you. My being unwilling to make a lifelong promise that I find unreasonable and not in my or my partner's best interests does not take anything away from you.
You can't, but I believe the parent isn't suggesting that, but is suggesting that you commit to stay with that person regardless of whether or not the emotions fade or if there are other problems. Which, I think, cool, if that's what you find value in doing, then do it and be happy. I just -- for me -- don't see the wisdom in committing to stay with someone the rest of my life when I can't know if 10, 20, 40 years down the line that commitment still makes sense to me (or to my spouse).
What do you feel that marriages should represent, then? It seems, to me, like one should not promise to remain forever if the design is not to follow through. Beyond the legal requirements of marriage, what else do you think should be implied?