Reflection on Marriage

Kenneth S. wrote in message
...
Tiffany:

Have you ever heard the story about the clock that struck thirteen?
That single event cast doubt on all that had gone before.

You are now telling us that the vows made in a marriage ceremony are
"basically bull****." So I think we know how much attention to pay to
everything else you have said.

As for your shallow "growing apart" argument, I think you will find
that spouses in successful long-term marriages say that their marriage
went through several phases, and they adjusted to those changes.

That is because they are able to handle change. Not all folks can.


The bottom line is that you think that the institution of marriage
should be abolished. You should simply come out and say so.



Initially I stated that couple should wait until they are older and more
settle in life to marry. Some people aren't able to adjust to change in
their lives, others can. If you wait to get married till you are older then
atleast you will know if you or your partner can deal with the changes that
have taken place.

Yes the old vows are bull****. I don't think one should make promises like
that. Every couple should make their own vows as to what is important to
them. Those old vows might work for some, so by god, use them.

T

Tracy wrote in message
news:RAHMb.37605$I06.243364@attbi_s01...
"Tiffany" wrote in message
...
We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure
those
were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I
would
never use them.

Then don't use them. Nowhere is it written stating you must use the
typical
vows. People can write and use their own. Of the three weddings I've
attended over the last six months, only one was "typical". The rest was
not
typical. The other two were more biblical in nature. The one I attended
on
the 28th of December was more religious of all three, but performed
outside
of a church. The one I attended just this last weekend was more of a
biblical lecture than typical vows. For each their own - you know. That
was my primary point. If someone decides to remain single, then so be
it -
but don't be rude and claim people aren't thinking when they decide to
marry. Likewise for those who marry - don't be rude to those who decide
not
to marry. Accept other people's choice and support their choices. Can
you
imagine how different it would be if people were supportive of other
people's marriages? (more below)

No one can make a promise to that extent.

I disagree. Everyone is capable of making that promise. Everyone is
capable of living up to the commitment and promise. It depends on if they
want it to happen, and it helps when others are supportive of their choice
to be married and live up to that promise.

But is it not true
that two people can grow in different directions as they progress
through
life?

Yes - and they can remain together. Those same people share in many
different aspects of life as they build their lives together. No one
should
expect the person they married to remain the same, but instead celebrate
the
growth and learn to live with the differences. It will teach their
children
to do the same - and their children will have better relationships with
all
people in their lives.

Now to the more... here's an example of a marriage on the brink of
divorce,
and how those who are non-supportive versus supportive can impact the
outcome.

I know someone who is threatening to leave her husband in Indiana because
she wants to move back "home" closer to her mother. She has given her
husband an ultimatum. She is from Oregon and has lived all her life (up
to
a year ago) in Oregon. She is home-sick.

The non-supportive attitude is to support the wife's choice to leave her
husband. Allow her to play head games and get her way by throwing a fit
over where they live.

The supportive attitude is to tell her to stay with her husband. She will
always have her family's love in Oregon and she is always welcomed to come
home a visit. Perhaps just a small visit home for a couple of weeks is
all
she should consider, but at no time should anyone support her choice in
leaving her husband. He is *not* abusive. He rarely drinks. He does not
do drugs. He supports his family of 4 (himself, wife, and two kids) on
just
his income. She is a stay-at-home-wife/mother. He doesn't expect her to
work to help support their household, etc. In other words, this man is a
decent man who adores his wife and kids. If he moves back to Oregon
because
he is not receiving the support from her mother (like he should), then
there
is a huge chance he won't find work at all, or near the income level they
were use to.

Do you see where I'm coming from?


Tracy
~~~~~~~


Not seeing where this pertains to anything I wrote, other then your opinion
on vows. No where was I unsupportive of marriage over all. I stated that the
vows are bull**** and you are correct in that, just don't use them. I won't.
I am not getting into my religious beliefs here but I will add that due to
my beliefs, the vows don't work for me.

You state that people are unsupportive of marriage. Are you talking in
general, your own life or this NG? As many folks here have congradulated you
on your upcoming marriage, I think you mean in general. It must be about who
people surround themselves with because in my little world, there are many
married people, some not happily but they are trying to work things out.
They have lots of support.

As for the last couple you mentioned, I am thinking there can be other
issues there that might not be coming out yet. If she is trully in love with
this man, why would she leave him when, like you suggested, she can visit
her family regurlay?

But I also believe one must do what they have to do in order to be happy.
There are other aspects to think about, like kids so that makes things very
complicated. But if 2 people are married and no longer happy, why should
they remain in such unhappiness in order to outlive a vow?

T

Tracy wrote in message
news:RAHMb.37605$I06.243364@attbi_s01...
"Tiffany" wrote in message
...
We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure
those
were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I
would
never use them.

Then don't use them. Nowhere is it written stating you must use the
typical
vows. People can write and use their own. Of the three weddings I've
attended over the last six months, only one was "typical". The rest was
not
typical. The other two were more biblical in nature. The one I attended
on
the 28th of December was more religious of all three, but performed
outside
of a church. The one I attended just this last weekend was more of a
biblical lecture than typical vows. For each their own - you know. That
was my primary point. If someone decides to remain single, then so be
it -
but don't be rude and claim people aren't thinking when they decide to
marry. Likewise for those who marry - don't be rude to those who decide
not
to marry. Accept other people's choice and support their choices. Can
you
imagine how different it would be if people were supportive of other
people's marriages? (more below)

No one can make a promise to that extent.

I disagree. Everyone is capable of making that promise. Everyone is
capable of living up to the commitment and promise. It depends on if they
want it to happen, and it helps when others are supportive of their choice
to be married and live up to that promise.

But is it not true
that two people can grow in different directions as they progress
through
life?

Yes - and they can remain together. Those same people share in many
different aspects of life as they build their lives together. No one
should
expect the person they married to remain the same, but instead celebrate
the
growth and learn to live with the differences. It will teach their
children
to do the same - and their children will have better relationships with
all
people in their lives.

Now to the more... here's an example of a marriage on the brink of
divorce,
and how those who are non-supportive versus supportive can impact the
outcome.

I know someone who is threatening to leave her husband in Indiana because
she wants to move back "home" closer to her mother. She has given her
husband an ultimatum. She is from Oregon and has lived all her life (up
to
a year ago) in Oregon. She is home-sick.

The non-supportive attitude is to support the wife's choice to leave her
husband. Allow her to play head games and get her way by throwing a fit
over where they live.

The supportive attitude is to tell her to stay with her husband. She will
always have her family's love in Oregon and she is always welcomed to come
home a visit. Perhaps just a small visit home for a couple of weeks is
all
she should consider, but at no time should anyone support her choice in
leaving her husband. He is *not* abusive. He rarely drinks. He does not
do drugs. He supports his family of 4 (himself, wife, and two kids) on
just
his income. She is a stay-at-home-wife/mother. He doesn't expect her to
work to help support their household, etc. In other words, this man is a
decent man who adores his wife and kids. If he moves back to Oregon
because
he is not receiving the support from her mother (like he should), then
there
is a huge chance he won't find work at all, or near the income level they
were use to.

Do you see where I'm coming from?


Tracy
~~~~~~~


Not seeing where this pertains to anything I wrote, other then your opinion
on vows. No where was I unsupportive of marriage over all. I stated that the
vows are bull**** and you are correct in that, just don't use them. I won't.
I am not getting into my religious beliefs here but I will add that due to
my beliefs, the vows don't work for me.

You state that people are unsupportive of marriage. Are you talking in
general, your own life or this NG? As many folks here have congradulated you
on your upcoming marriage, I think you mean in general. It must be about who
people surround themselves with because in my little world, there are many
married people, some not happily but they are trying to work things out.
They have lots of support.

As for the last couple you mentioned, I am thinking there can be other
issues there that might not be coming out yet. If she is trully in love with
this man, why would she leave him when, like you suggested, she can visit
her family regurlay?

But I also believe one must do what they have to do in order to be happy.
There are other aspects to think about, like kids so that makes things very
complicated. But if 2 people are married and no longer happy, why should
they remain in such unhappiness in order to outlive a vow?

T

Bob Whiteside wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...
We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure
those
were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I
would
never use them. No one can make a promise to that extent. But is it not
true
that two people can grow in different directions as they progress
through
life?

You are expressing the casual attitude toward marriage that scares men
away
from it. If marriage vows are only valid until one partner decides to
renege on the vows, they are meaningless. And the concept of growing
apart
is a unilateral feelings based decision about the state of the
relationship
made without the other partner's input.

So how would you change the marriage vows to cover reality? I am
committed
to you until someone better comes along? I will love you until I decide
we
are growing in different directions? I will cherish you until I have a
child who will then become more important to me than you? I will stay
with
you until I decide to leave and take your children and half your assets
with
me?



So there you assume all women are after money. It always ends with the
money. I can not say what would be in a wedding vow. It should be a personal
thing. I am not in the process of marriage so its nothing I sit and think
about. My view about marriage aren't casual. If I were that casual, I would
already been married a few times. I take marriage more seriously and with an
honest attitude then most do.

T

Bob Whiteside wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...
We all know the typical vows used in marriage ceremonies so I am sure
those
were the vows used. Those vows are basically bull**** in my eyes and I
would
never use them. No one can make a promise to that extent. But is it not
true
that two people can grow in different directions as they progress
through
life?

You are expressing the casual attitude toward marriage that scares men
away
from it. If marriage vows are only valid until one partner decides to
renege on the vows, they are meaningless. And the concept of growing
apart
is a unilateral feelings based decision about the state of the
relationship
made without the other partner's input.

So how would you change the marriage vows to cover reality? I am
committed
to you until someone better comes along? I will love you until I decide
we
are growing in different directions? I will cherish you until I have a
child who will then become more important to me than you? I will stay
with
you until I decide to leave and take your children and half your assets
with
me?



So there you assume all women are after money. It always ends with the
money. I can not say what would be in a wedding vow. It should be a personal
thing. I am not in the process of marriage so its nothing I sit and think
about. My view about marriage aren't casual. If I were that casual, I would
already been married a few times. I take marriage more seriously and with an
honest attitude then most do.

T

Keep in mind Kenneth, these groups of which you speak are the same ones who
push for "domestic violence" to include slamming a door, raising one's voice
or protecting one's self from violence, depending, of course, on the sex of
the "perpetrator".
If you think they'll be locked out of trying to change private contracts to
suit their dreams of 'woman = good; man = bad' as if it were a fact of life,
I think you underestimate their determination and agenda.
You are correct to say that marriage has changed. It has become a
meaningless exercise... until it comes time to divorce.
Phil #3


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
AZ Astrea:

Your comments below seem to fit many of the situations everyone
encounters in the present-day U.S. However, consider the following
questions. Did these situations happen anything like as frequently
30-40 years ago? I don't think they did. So what changed during that
period? Was it people, or was it the institution of marriage?

The implication of what you say is that people changed, but the
institution of marriage remained the same. You seem to be saying that
what is needed is that people need to think more before getting married.

However, the plain fact is that predominantly what changed was the
institution of marriage. The main factor in the changes in marriage was
the influence of feminist special interest groups. No-fault divorce got
started in California under the influence of these groups. The
continuing changes in domestic relations law -- virtually all of which
are disadvantageous to men -- are promoted by these groups. And that
process in turn has produced reactions among men.

Of course, you are right to say that people should think before getting
married. However, suppose someone DOES think, and then decides to get
married. Thereafter, that person is in the situation of Ford customers
in the very early days of the automobile: "You can have any color you
want, so long as it's black."

There is only kind of legal framework for marriage available -- the one
where the rules are made by the government, and where the rules are
forever subject to ex post facto change, under the influence of (mostly
anti-family) special interest groups. You never know what you're
getting into until it's time for the divorce.

Some say the answer is to rebuild marriage by doing things like
abolishing no-fault divorce. That would be a step in the right
direction. However, as indicated by the experience of the few states
that have considered covenant marriage, the special interest groups
don't go away when you do this. They remain to start again on the
undermining of marriage.

The better solution is to privatize marriage, and make the legal
framework serve no purpose other than to enforce individual
comprehensive prenuptial contracts. That way, government and the
special interest groups no longer would be able to intrude into the
private affairs of individual families. People would be FORCED to think
before getting married, if for no other reason than that they would have
to agree on the terms of the prenuptial contract.



AZ Astrea wrote:

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:jF%Lb.17584$5V2.29458@attbi_s53...
I arrived home around 12:30 pm today after spending the last 26 hours
prior
to that time doing the following:

more than 11 hours driving
about 4 hours at a wedding
about 4 hours just "relaxing" at a hotel
about an hour eating breakfast this morning
and about 6 hours sleeping

During the drive home my mother and I had a chance to talk about
marriage
overall. We seen a bumper sticker which read "I think therefore I'm
not
married". I found this bumper sticker sad. As I sat in the church
witnessing my nephew get married to a wonderful young lady, I observed
her
family. All were non-supportive in her choices of a husband. It
brought
memories back to my mother of my sister & brother-in-law getting
married,
and how his family was not supportive of their marriage. They just
"knew"
their marriage wouldn't last, but my sister and brother-in-law
recently
celebrated their 25th wedding anniversary. So back to the bumper
sticker
and why I found it sad. The bumper sticker shows how some are truly
non-supportive of marriages. It is sad, and wrong, that there are
those
who
are unable to practice what they preach (support choices). So why
can't
we,
as a society, support marriages? Don't these people realize we can
considerably decrease the divorce rate if we support other people's
choices
of being married? If I could I would have held up a sign to the woman
driving the car with that bumper sticker that read "people like you is
the
reason we have such a high divorce rate". In my opinion, she wouldn't
have
gotten the point - because she isn't thinking. How can she, or anyone
else
like her, expect others to support her choices when she isn't
supporting
theirs? Marriage is the foundation to a strong family. Family is the
foundation to any society. It teaches us how to relate to others, how
to
interact with each other, and how to get along with others. People
who
are
non-supportive of a marriage is shaking the foundation of that
marriage.
It
will cause a weaker family, and hence increase the chances of
divorce -
heartache - and trouble with our kids. If only people understood what
they
are causing by not being supportive. If only people could look beyond
themselves and see how they - themselves - could impact others.
-------------------
"I think therefore I'm not
married".
Perhaps she has never been married and never intends to get married.
Maybe
it's a statement that because there is such a high divorce rate that she
has
thought it over and will not get married.
For myself, not only have I never been married but I have never had any
desire to have children. I understood myself early enough so as to not
bring that kind of pain into my life when I wasn't ready to commit. I
am 44
and have spent the past 6 1/2 years with the person who I will likely
one
day marry. I am happy to be childfree and while it would have been nice
if
J was childfree also, well, I'm in no hurry to get legal so we will
probably
wait a few more years until there is less, (hopefully less), cs to pay.
I think you were projecting a lot onto what that woman may have been
expressing in her bumper sticker. Perhaps if more people would really
stop
to think about what they are doing before getting married and having
kids
there would be less divorce. Too many people just "follow the script"
of
finish school, get married, start a career, have babies, and then sadly,
have an affair, get divorced. Too many divorces, too many unwanted
children, if people would just stop and think..........

~AZ~

Keep in mind Kenneth, these groups of which you speak are the same ones who
push for "domestic violence" to include slamming a door, raising one's voice
or protecting one's self from violence, depending, of course, on the sex of
the "perpetrator".
If you think they'll be locked out of trying to change private contracts to
suit their dreams of 'woman = good; man = bad' as if it were a fact of life,
I think you underestimate their determination and agenda.
You are correct to say that marriage has changed. It has become a
meaningless exercise... until it comes time to divorce.
Phil #3


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
AZ Astrea:

Your comments below seem to fit many of the situations everyone
encounters in the present-day U.S. However, consider the following
questions. Did these situations happen anything like as frequently
30-40 years ago? I don't think they did. So what changed during that
period? Was it people, or was it the institution of marriage?

The implication of what you say is that people changed, but the
institution of marriage remained the same. You seem to be saying that
what is needed is that people need to think more before getting married.

However, the plain fact is that predominantly what changed was the
institution of marriage. The main factor in the changes in marriage was
the influence of feminist special interest groups. No-fault divorce got
started in California under the influence of these groups. The
continuing changes in domestic relations law -- virtually all of which
are disadvantageous to men -- are promoted by these groups. And that
process in turn has produced reactions among men.

Of course, you are right to say that people should think before getting
married. However, suppose someone DOES think, and then decides to get
married. Thereafter, that person is in the situation of Ford customers
in the very early days of the automobile: "You can have any color you
want, so long as it's black."

There is only kind of legal framework for marriage available -- the one
where the rules are made by the government, and where the rules are
forever subject to ex post facto change, under the influence of (mostly
anti-family) special interest groups. You never know what you're
getting into until it's time for the divorce.

Some say the answer is to rebuild marriage by doing things like
abolishing no-fault divorce. That would be a step in the right
direction. However, as indicated by the experience of the few states
that have considered covenant marriage, the special interest groups
don't go away when you do this. They remain to start again on the
undermining of marriage.

The better solution is to privatize marriage, and make the legal
framework serve no purpose other than to enforce individual
comprehensive prenuptial contracts. That way, government and the
special interest groups no longer would be able to intrude into the
private affairs of individual families. People would be FORCED to think
before getting married, if for no other reason than that they would have
to agree on the terms of the prenuptial contract.



AZ Astrea wrote:

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:jF%Lb.17584$5V2.29458@attbi_s53...
I arrived home around 12:30 pm today after spending the last 26 hours
prior
to that time doing the following:

more than 11 hours driving
about 4 hours at a wedding
about 4 hours just "relaxing" at a hotel
about an hour eating breakfast this morning
and about 6 hours sleeping

During the drive home my mother and I had a chance to talk about
marriage
overall. We seen a bumper sticker which read "I think therefore I'm
not
married". I found this bumper sticker sad. As I sat in the church
witnessing my nephew get married to a wonderful young lady, I observed
her
family. All were non-supportive in her choices of a husband. It
brought
memories back to my mother of my sister & brother-in-law getting
married,
and how his family was not supportive of their marriage. They just
"knew"
their marriage wouldn't last, but my sister and brother-in-law
recently
celebrated their 25th wedding anniversary. So back to the bumper
sticker
and why I found it sad. The bumper sticker shows how some are truly
non-supportive of marriages. It is sad, and wrong, that there are
those
who
are unable to practice what they preach (support choices). So why
can't
we,
as a society, support marriages? Don't these people realize we can
considerably decrease the divorce rate if we support other people's
choices
of being married? If I could I would have held up a sign to the woman
driving the car with that bumper sticker that read "people like you is
the
reason we have such a high divorce rate". In my opinion, she wouldn't
have
gotten the point - because she isn't thinking. How can she, or anyone
else
like her, expect others to support her choices when she isn't
supporting
theirs? Marriage is the foundation to a strong family. Family is the
foundation to any society. It teaches us how to relate to others, how
to
interact with each other, and how to get along with others. People
who
are
non-supportive of a marriage is shaking the foundation of that
marriage.
It
will cause a weaker family, and hence increase the chances of
divorce -
heartache - and trouble with our kids. If only people understood what
they
are causing by not being supportive. If only people could look beyond
themselves and see how they - themselves - could impact others.
-------------------
"I think therefore I'm not
married".
Perhaps she has never been married and never intends to get married.
Maybe
it's a statement that because there is such a high divorce rate that she
has
thought it over and will not get married.
For myself, not only have I never been married but I have never had any
desire to have children. I understood myself early enough so as to not
bring that kind of pain into my life when I wasn't ready to commit. I
am 44
and have spent the past 6 1/2 years with the person who I will likely
one
day marry. I am happy to be childfree and while it would have been nice
if
J was childfree also, well, I'm in no hurry to get legal so we will
probably
wait a few more years until there is less, (hopefully less), cs to pay.
I think you were projecting a lot onto what that woman may have been
expressing in her bumper sticker. Perhaps if more people would really
stop
to think about what they are doing before getting married and having
kids
there would be less divorce. Too many people just "follow the script"
of
finish school, get married, start a career, have babies, and then sadly,
have an affair, get divorced. Too many divorces, too many unwanted
children, if people would just stop and think..........

~AZ~

Tiffany:

You reject the idea that people should honor vows they have freely
made. You reject the notion of commitment. So you are rejecting
marriage.

Your approach isn't of course unusual. Unfortunately, it's exhibited
by most of the politicians who make the laws on marriage and divorce.
That's one reason why I argue that, to all intents and purposes,
marriage as a meaningful institution has already been abolished in the
U.S.

When people want to -- or are forced to -- handle change in themselves
and in others, they always find ways of doing so.

Tiffany wrote:

Kenneth S. wrote in message
...
Tiffany:

Have you ever heard the story about the clock that struck thirteen?
That single event cast doubt on all that had gone before.

You are now telling us that the vows made in a marriage ceremony are
"basically bull****." So I think we know how much attention to pay to
everything else you have said.

As for your shallow "growing apart" argument, I think you will find
that spouses in successful long-term marriages say that their marriage
went through several phases, and they adjusted to those changes.

That is because they are able to handle change. Not all folks can.


The bottom line is that you think that the institution of marriage
should be abolished. You should simply come out and say so.



Initially I stated that couple should wait until they are older and more
settle in life to marry. Some people aren't able to adjust to change in
their lives, others can. If you wait to get married till you are older then
atleast you will know if you or your partner can deal with the changes that
have taken place.

Yes the old vows are bull****. I don't think one should make promises like
that. Every couple should make their own vows as to what is important to
them. Those old vows might work for some, so by god, use them.

T

Tiffany:

You reject the idea that people should honor vows they have freely
made. You reject the notion of commitment. So you are rejecting
marriage.

Your approach isn't of course unusual. Unfortunately, it's exhibited
by most of the politicians who make the laws on marriage and divorce.
That's one reason why I argue that, to all intents and purposes,
marriage as a meaningful institution has already been abolished in the
U.S.

When people want to -- or are forced to -- handle change in themselves
and in others, they always find ways of doing so.

Tiffany wrote:

Kenneth S. wrote in message
...
Tiffany:

Have you ever heard the story about the clock that struck thirteen?
That single event cast doubt on all that had gone before.

You are now telling us that the vows made in a marriage ceremony are
"basically bull****." So I think we know how much attention to pay to
everything else you have said.

As for your shallow "growing apart" argument, I think you will find
that spouses in successful long-term marriages say that their marriage
went through several phases, and they adjusted to those changes.

That is because they are able to handle change. Not all folks can.


The bottom line is that you think that the institution of marriage
should be abolished. You should simply come out and say so.



Initially I stated that couple should wait until they are older and more
settle in life to marry. Some people aren't able to adjust to change in
their lives, others can. If you wait to get married till you are older then
atleast you will know if you or your partner can deal with the changes that
have taken place.

Yes the old vows are bull****. I don't think one should make promises like
that. Every couple should make their own vows as to what is important to
them. Those old vows might work for some, so by god, use them.

T

So you think everyone who gets married should stay married no matter what? I
don't agree with vows that are apparently unattainable. Apparent by the high
divorce rate. Why not make a commitment to stay committed as long as both
parties want to?

My approach is that of a generation who has watched their parents be
miserable, all in the sake of staying married. One that has watched
Grandparents die unhappy with the life they had lived with a spouse they
didn't love but stayed together for the sake of the vows.

I would never suggest someone stay miserable in order to keep to the vow.

T
Kenneth S. wrote in message
...
Tiffany:

You reject the idea that people should honor vows they have freely
made. You reject the notion of commitment. So you are rejecting
marriage.

Your approach isn't of course unusual. Unfortunately, it's exhibited
by most of the politicians who make the laws on marriage and divorce.
That's one reason why I argue that, to all intents and purposes,
marriage as a meaningful institution has already been abolished in the
U.S.

When people want to -- or are forced to -- handle change in themselves
and in others, they always find ways of doing so.

Tiffany wrote:

Kenneth S. wrote in message
...
Tiffany:

Have you ever heard the story about the clock that struck thirteen?
That single event cast doubt on all that had gone before.

You are now telling us that the vows made in a marriage ceremony are
"basically bull****." So I think we know how much attention to pay to
everything else you have said.

As for your shallow "growing apart" argument, I think you will find
that spouses in successful long-term marriages say that their marriage
went through several phases, and they adjusted to those changes.

That is because they are able to handle change. Not all folks can.


The bottom line is that you think that the institution of marriage
should be abolished. You should simply come out and say so.



Initially I stated that couple should wait until they are older and more
settle in life to marry. Some people aren't able to adjust to change in
their lives, others can. If you wait to get married till you are older
then
atleast you will know if you or your partner can deal with the changes
that
have taken place.

Yes the old vows are bull****. I don't think one should make promises
like
that. Every couple should make their own vows as to what is important to
them. Those old vows might work for some, so by god, use them.

T