I hate mention of marriages failing due to "compatibility issues". It's a total mockery of the intent of the institution. When you marry, you covenant to society that you will make yourself compatible with your spouse, even when it's difficult to do so, as long as these terms do not breach a handful of fundamental contractual obligations implied by the marital covenant.
If one is "sexually incompatible" with his/her spouse, they should talk about it, recognize the issues, make compromises, and move forward. They should also recognize that while sex is meaningful and important, it can't be a deal-breaker for a marriage -- what happens when a partner contracts a medical condition that precludes their participation in intercourse? This should be recognized as a possibility going in, and people should realize that they can't allow sexuality to overwhelm and consume larger, more important pieces of their relationship. Pornography can cloud this crucial perspective.
When you marry, you covenant to society that you will make yourself compatible with your spouse, even when it's difficult to do so, [...]
That's fine for you. Other people have different priorities in their lives. And elevating the sanctity these abstract entities known as "institutions" to the point where they feel miserable, trapped, and unfulfilled do not count particularly high among them.
If one is "sexually incompatible" with his/her spouse, they should talk about it, recognize the issues, make compromises, and move forward.
That's fine for you, if those are your priorities. But what's fine for you isn't necessarily fine for other people.
They should also recognize that while sex is meaningful and important, it can't be a deal-breaker for a marriage ...
Again, maybe not a deal-breaker for you. But for other people... I think you see what I'm getting at here.
People do not have to marry to be together. Marriage should be regarded as an important step, where you promise to your peers that you will be with your spouse until the end of life. This is valid even without religion.
Have a different view? Can't commit to such a long time? That's OK. Marriage is not mandatory in a relationship (and for some people it's in fact detrimental). Just don't marry and live happy.
It's not a proposition. It is a definition. On Western culture, a marriage is a life long pairing. It is also monogamous, in the same vein, by definition.
Is it lifelong and monogamous in every culture? No. It is in ours, though.
Is the definition being coopted for non lifelong pairings? I don't think most people marry with divorce in the horizon, so even if marriage allows for divorce, I think the public promise is still one of lifelong commitment.
>That's fine for you. Other people have different priorities in their lives. And elevating the sanctity these abstract entities known as "institutions" to the point where they feel miserable, trapped, and unfulfilled do not count particularly high among them.
No, that's historically what it has meant to be married. When married, if you have negative feelings, you are expected to resolve them peaceably and well. It is supposed to be illegal to just quit because you can't handle your own emotions.
Again, there are a handful of very basic exceptions where a dissolution of the union is allowable, but part of the reason marriage exists is to provide that relational stability -- marriage is about the covenant with society much more than it's about either of the spouses or their feelings, which disciplined, mature adults are expected to control.
>Again, maybe not a deal-breaker for you. But for other people... I think you see what I'm getting at here.
Yes, I see what you're getting at. You're arguing that marriage has no formal definition ("It may mean that to you, but...") and is therefore a meaningless abstraction in the macro sense. This is not the way things are supposed to be, but I agree that the prevalence of no-fault divorce makes it effectively realistic. This is a very bad thing.
Medical conditions that preclude participation in everything should be recognized as a possibility going in. For example, I know a couple that was involved in a serious automobile accident. The husband walked away with minor injuries, but his wife was comatose for about a year. She couldn't uphold her marriage vows in any way during that year.
Part of the covenant to society is that you will weather difficulties and remain committed to your spouse. A lot of types of "quick fixes" can cloud that perspective.
>When you marry, you covenant to society that you will make yourself compatible with your spouse, even when it's difficult to do so, as long as these terms do not breach a handful of fundamental contractual obligations implied by the marital covenant.
Maybe you are thinking of your covenant with god? See, though, that's a different thing from a civil marriage. In the eyes of the law, it's a partnership, and one that can be dissolved for 'irreconcilable differences'
Personally, I think this is the problem with calling civil marriage 'marriage' - It means an entirely different thing to various religions. (and different religions have different rules, too. A marriage under Muslim religious rules is rather different than one under Christian religious rules... hell, which denomination of Christianity or Islam can make a pretty big difference in the rules, too.)
>In the eyes of the law, it's a partnership, and one that can be dissolved for 'irreconcilable differences'
This is a relatively recent development, and imo it's incorrect and demonstrates that the foundations of marriage as a serious social institution were dissolved a long time ago. The fact that people no longer think of marriage this way, and the further fact that our courts and laws have acquiesced to this ridiculous opinion, bode very poorly for the future of stable society.
>Personally, I think this is the problem with calling civil marriage 'marriage' - It means an entirely different thing to various religions.
No, again, this has nothing to do with religion at this point. Marriage is supposed to be legally binding. No-fault divorce is a new (and imo vastly problematic) thing.
I disagree. No-fault divorce is the result of skewed moral perceptions and broad disconnection from reality. No-fault divorce has hurt women very seriously, which is evident from the precipitous increase of divorce rates since no-fault was established as the effective norm (NY was a fault state into the 2000s on paper, but effectively no-fault in implementation (no substantiating evidence was really required, and it was a forgone conclusion that a judge would grant the divorce once the divisions of assets, custody, etc., were agreed by both parties)).
I doubt we'll ever agree on this, however, as you apparently see the destruction of meaningful marital covenants as an emancipation.
The Scandinavian countries and Australia have this problem solved. Divorce doesn't hurt women if there is income parity, no stigma and comprehensive social services for children.
No-fault divorce has hurt women very seriously, which is evident from the precipitous increase of divorce rates since no-fault was established
Does not follow.
No-fault divorce has caused higher divorce rates. You haven't offered any basis for claiming that those higher divorce rates harm either the women or men involved, let alone that they harm the women disproportionately as you imply.
Divorce is hundreds to thousands of years old, in Christianity, Catholocism (annulment), Islam (featuring time-limited marriage contracts, and Judaism (Get) -> most of the Western world.
I recognize that, and I think there are good reasons for justifiable divorce to exist. No-fault divorce is newish since the last major social reboot, coming into being starting in the 60s.
Marriage, civil or religious, is always a compromise by the couple before the society that they will be together for life. The parent comment does not need the crutch of religion, it holds perfectly well using the regular definition of marriage.
If one is "sexually incompatible" with his/her spouse, they should talk about it, recognize the issues, make compromises, and move forward. They should also recognize that while sex is meaningful and important, it can't be a deal-breaker for a marriage -- what happens when a partner contracts a medical condition that precludes their participation in intercourse? This should be recognized as a possibility going in, and people should realize that they can't allow sexuality to overwhelm and consume larger, more important pieces of their relationship. Pornography can cloud this crucial perspective.