Reflection on Marriage

Tracy wrote in message
news:nqpNb.56883$nt4.88121@attbi_s51...
"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Tracy wrote in message
news:RAHMb.37605$I06.243364@attbi_s01...
"Tiffany" wrote in message
...
Do you see where I'm coming from?


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.

I was talking in general. My reflection had nothing to do with the people
in this group, or my relationship I have with my boyfriend. Nor was my
reply meant to be taken that I was attacking you, etc... In fact, I didn't
think this thread would go in the direction it did. In a way I'm glad it
did, because it is an important topic which has impact nearly 100% of the
people who participate in this group. Basically if people, in general,
supported marriages and the commitment those vows are suppose to
represent,
most people in this group wouldn't be here.

Personally speaking, I've only heard from one person in my life who is not
supportive of me getting married. That person is very down on marriage
totally. But that is another topic, and one which has no impact on my
decision to get married. I love the man I'm with, we've talked and
thought
about our decision many times. Tonight was the first night in weeks we've
started to get back into our normal routine due to vacation, the holidays,
and the snow.


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?

Yes she can visit her family regularly. She was just here in Oregon this
last September. She's my cousin, and at the time she was here I didn't
know
she was living out of state. I just found out this last weekend she had
moved last year. There isn't anything else going on, otherwise I would
have
heard it all by now. Gossip runs rapid in my family, so there isn't
anything more to the story other than she is home sick. She has the
thinking ability of a child - literally. Don't get me wrong, she is a
nice
person. She is great mother to her baby, and she is pregnant with her
second. She does love her husband, etc. Her only problem is her
dependency
she has to my aunt - therefore she is home sick. My Aunt will not tell
her
to stay home with her husband. Instead she'll feed into her children's
abnormal behavior and treat them like little children. It is probably why
they still act like little children.

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?

She is happy with her husband. I strongly believe that most people live
their lives on a whim. Once the moment hits that they are no longer happy
&
on cloud-9 they want out of their marriage. Instead of sticking it out
and
working on the reasons behind them being "unhappy" they walk away blaming
the other person for their unhappiness.

Another person in my family was on the verge of leaving their husband
after
10 years of marriage. I talked to them concerning their "unhappiness" and
you know what ended up happening? She listened to me and followed my
advice. That person was my older sister who just celebrated her 25th
wedding anniversary. She is more in love with her husband than she was
when
they married. Her "unhappiness" didn't go away over night. It took her a
couple of years, but once it hit her that is all it took. Can people
become
happy with a relationship after they have become unhappy with it? You bet
they can, but sometimes it takes having the right people around them
supporting their marriage to make it happen. It is the reason I make sure
I
never forget to send them a great anniversary card every year. I want
them
to know the love they have for each other is not only appreciated between
the two of them, but others too.

Then I have to stop and think about my grandparents who remained married.
Although my maternal grandmother passed away back in '99, my grandfather
still to this day considers himself married and still very much in love
with
my grandmother. Were they happy every day of their lives while being
together? No. Did they have issues from time to time? They sure did. I
remember in the 70's some in my family even tried to talk her into leaving
my grandfather due to issues. But the key is they worked through them
never
losing sight on what is truly important. Their priorities was their
family.
Even after their kids had grown into adults and moved on with their lives,
their family was still top priority. I may not have agreed with
everything
they did, but I'll tell you - my maternal grandparents taught me more
about
marriage and love when my grandmother was slowly dying then anyone else
had,
or ever could. My grandmother spent nearly 80% of her life married to one
man.


Tracy
~~~~~~~

I was also surprised at the length this thread has gotten. Good for you to
make us all think. I am glad everyone is supportive of your upcoming
marriage.

I do believe every couple will go through ups and downs. But sometimes both
parties aren't willing to do what it takes to make it work. One quick
example. Couple I know married for 8-10 years, 2 kids, wife has major health
issues, father is ADHD, kids are ADHD, ADD, SAD, ect. Father doesn't seek
help.... can't take care of kids, when he is alone with them, he will forget
to feed them. I know there are 2 sides of this story and I only hear from
the wife's side so this example will sound one sided. Mother is in so much
pain ALL the time. Her list of medications are outrageous. Husband does
nothing to help around the house and even now, is not working but still does
nothing. She is fed up, has personally been seeing counselors but husband
won't. He will go once and state all is well. This has been going on for
years. The effect on the kids is traumatic. She is at the point where her
health has gone so bad that every single doctor she sees says to have him
move out and work on rebuilding the relationship like that. With him in the
house, thee effects on her health and the kids are destroying them. She says
she has lost all love for him but I think if they got some space between
them and he did seek help, things could be rebuild. Its hard for her to see
it that way though. She just wants to sleep and be able to relax a bit in
the home.

I am not religious but I do pray for them.

T

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Phil:

I think we're pretty much in agreement that politicians in the U.S. at
present dance to the feminist tune. Nothing will change until that
ceases to be the case.

At the political level, there have to be organizations that will
promote the interests of men when those interests are in conflict with
those of women. Unfortunately, we are still a long way off the latter
situation.

However, in the meantime, I think there are worthwhile steps that can
be taken by individual men. For example, in private conversations men
can speak up about issues where the interests of the two sexes are in
conflict. That will take us some way in the direction of ending the
current situation where, as Warren Farrell says, "in the battle of the
sexes, only one side shows up."

This and below, I do and will continue to do. Whenever I hear sexist
conversations, I try to make people think about what they believe and why.
Phil#3


Men should start to challenge the anti-male comments that women
frequently make, instead of sheepishly agreeing with them (sometimes in
hopes of softening up a woman to whom they are attracted). For several
years, I've been trying to make a practice of doing this. On the one
hand, there's an obvious risk that men who do this will be considered
dogmatic bores. But I've found that it can be done with a light touch.
In a significant number of cases women who routinely make anti-male
comments will back off, and may even reconsider what they are saying.





Phil #3 wrote:

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Phil:

I don't think the criterion for making a change has to be that all
problems will be solved. The criterion should be whether the change
would make things better than the present situation.

I'm not so naive as to think that my proposal would result in the
enemies of marital stability, and the anti-men groups, going away with
their tails between their legs. What I'm saying is that it would be
much more difficult for the course of individual marriages to be
affected by outside forces if those marriages were controlled by
individual prenuptial contracts, instead of by the constantly changing
whims of politicians who are trying to pander to special interest
groups.


And therein lies the conundrum, politicians must agree to the change and
as
we all know, they answer to the special interest groups (feminists) more
than to the population in general.
Phil #3



Phil #3 wrote:

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~

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Phil:

I think we're pretty much in agreement that politicians in the U.S. at
present dance to the feminist tune. Nothing will change until that
ceases to be the case.

At the political level, there have to be organizations that will
promote the interests of men when those interests are in conflict with
those of women. Unfortunately, we are still a long way off the latter
situation.

However, in the meantime, I think there are worthwhile steps that can
be taken by individual men. For example, in private conversations men
can speak up about issues where the interests of the two sexes are in
conflict. That will take us some way in the direction of ending the
current situation where, as Warren Farrell says, "in the battle of the
sexes, only one side shows up."

This and below, I do and will continue to do. Whenever I hear sexist
conversations, I try to make people think about what they believe and why.
Phil#3


Men should start to challenge the anti-male comments that women
frequently make, instead of sheepishly agreeing with them (sometimes in
hopes of softening up a woman to whom they are attracted). For several
years, I've been trying to make a practice of doing this. On the one
hand, there's an obvious risk that men who do this will be considered
dogmatic bores. But I've found that it can be done with a light touch.
In a significant number of cases women who routinely make anti-male
comments will back off, and may even reconsider what they are saying.





Phil #3 wrote:

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Phil:

I don't think the criterion for making a change has to be that all
problems will be solved. The criterion should be whether the change
would make things better than the present situation.

I'm not so naive as to think that my proposal would result in the
enemies of marital stability, and the anti-men groups, going away with
their tails between their legs. What I'm saying is that it would be
much more difficult for the course of individual marriages to be
affected by outside forces if those marriages were controlled by
individual prenuptial contracts, instead of by the constantly changing
whims of politicians who are trying to pander to special interest
groups.


And therein lies the conundrum, politicians must agree to the change and
as
we all know, they answer to the special interest groups (feminists) more
than to the population in general.
Phil #3



Phil #3 wrote:

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~