Then they shouldn’t be getting married.
I dunno. My first wife always described her third marriage (which was NOT the one to me BTW :dubious:) as a “good marriage” that broke up amicably when they couldn’t agree on her career ambitions. But she’s also told me that before the divorce she had gained a lot of weight and was drinking heavily. I’ve always thought that what she described as a successful marriage was, in fact, a successful divorce.
Are you saying that divorce should not be allowed?
Of course not.
But you seem to think that marriage should only be entered into if both parties envision remaining wed until one or the other is grub grub. Since you’re saying divorce nonetheless should be allowable, I assume you’re also okay with people deciding to break the commitment if circumstances change. Why, then, do you oppose people recognizing that possibility?
I disagree that “circumstances change.” Divorce just means one or both broke their commitment. They should, by all means, be legally allowed to do it, but the marriage is still a failure and it’s an insult to the institution to hedge that commitment at the outset. If they can’t promise to cmmit to the person for life, “for better or for worse,” then what they’re doing isn’t a marriage. If you take that away from the definition of marriage then nothing is left. It’s just an empty ceremony with no meaning.
I’m gonna have to kill her?
j/k, hon.
I once referred to my dad’s first marriage–which ended some years before he met my mother–as having “not worked out”, and oddly enough, he corrected me: he felt like they did each other a lot of good for a time–they were young and poor and putting themselves through college and they formed a really effective team for that purpose. In the end, the post-college lives they wanted turned out to be very different, and while I don’t think the divorce was easy by any means, from the perspective of 30-odd years (many of them much more happily married to my mother), he feels that in the balance the marriage did more good than harm in his (and her) development.
So by some definitions, I’d call that successful.
I’m sure I can keep my promise, by the way.
That was in Rhoda Morgenstern’s vows to Joe, I remember that even though I was probably 10 when that show was on!
Really pretty lame…if you’re not promising forever, what’s the point? Live in sin and make the inevitable breakup that much easier! 
I’d say, yes, to call a marriage successful it has to go the duration.
If you’re not sufficiently in love that you’re certain you’re gonna beat those odds, then why get married?
Divorce is supposed to be a last resort, not a backup plan.
There’s all sorts of measures. Success of children, for example, I would rate higher than length. In my marriage, I would say that my wife standing next to me when times were hard is as solid a measure of success as anything else.
Please work on your reading comprehension, sir. I added the qualification to assure Shodan that I was NOT trying to do a gotcha. I was not implying that he or anyone else believed that one partner could kill the other without breaking her or his vows.
Okay, I can see if, for instance, one partner were incurably ill and in agony, and the other upped her or his morphine. Can you name another?
Soome odds shouldn’t be beat.
That was pretty much the one I was thinking of.
So you can only think of one such circumstance, I gather.
I can probably think of more if I try hard. Accidents, for instance, or in some bizarro, Skald-like hypotheis where one has to kill the other to save the galaxy or something.
What’s your point?
Here’s another one – a Masada-like situation. The Romans are coming. If they get you alive, the will rape, torture and kill you both. So, at her request, you shoot her and then yourself to ave you both from a fate worse than death.
You can change Romans to zombies and that would work too.
That doesn’t mean that you should embark on your adventure thinking you won’t try.
Seriously, if you’re standing at the altar (or whatever) thinking “Well, I’ll give this a shot, I can always get divorced if it doesn’t work out”, you are not, in any meaningful emotional way, getting married. You’re getting legally married, but again… don’t expect me to buy you a Cuisinart, because it’s not a celebratory event.
Some people feel ‘as sure as they can be’ but not utterly certain when they get married. It doesnt necessarily meant they’re destined for divorce, just that they handle anxiety in a different way from others or have had more bad relationship experiences beforehand. If you have someone you were utterly certain was the one turn out to really really not be, a few butterflies the second time round is hardly unreasonable.
Also its always a crapshoot how the two of you will be together after a variety of life experiences together. There are any number of things that can happen in life that can ruin a marriage that was otherwise doing well. Brain damage is one obvious example where its a question of whether you see the ‘person’ as still being alive or not, and will divide along ideological grounds about whether the marriage is a ‘failure’ or not if the person then divorces them.
Otara
The funnest marriages to watch are the ones that end only when one or both spouses dies. That’s why it’s called the marital arts.