If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
"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~ |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Reflection on Marriage
"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~ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
marriage is under fire!! | Jorkoy | Spanking | 0 | July 29th 04 09:31 PM |
Marriage Tax Bonus Expansion = Singles Tax Penalty Expansion | Jumiee | Single Parents | 0 | June 9th 04 10:49 PM |
Survey to gauge ideas on marriage | [email protected] | Foster Parents | 0 | September 20th 03 05:26 PM |