Well of course you would. Being widowed means that someone you presumably loved died. Getting divorced means that you’ve relieved yourself of someone you presumably no longer love. Both are worthy of sympathy, but the former is worthy of just a bit more, don’t you think?
-
All marriages that end before the death of one of its members are not successful.
-
Not all marriages that end after the death of one of its members are successful.
Conclusion: Having a marriage end in the death of one of its members is a requirement for a sucessful marriage but proof that the marriage was successful.
Skald seems to disagree with this. Which part do you disagree with and why?
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the arguments you’ve made earlier in this thread, but the impression I’ve gotten is that people wind up divorced through a lack of commitment on at least one person’s fault. You said in response to someone else that you don’t believe circumstances just change.
So how is that not a stigma on a divorced individual? Someone in the marriage failed to live up to their promise(s).
Perhaps it is a matter of perspective; I was married very early in my life and came home early to discover my husband having an affair with another man (well, several other men).
I consider my marriage successful in that we parted on relatively good terms and I did not contract any diseases. That was a little over twenty years ago and while it has made me extremely gun-shy in subsequent relationships, I do consider it successful that I did not contract any life-threatening diseases. I can’t attest for him since he seemed to disappear off the face of the earth after that.
No, I don’t.
My sister’s divorce was much harder on her than my widowhood was on me, for example. The assumption that a divorce is getting rid of someone you no longer love is a flawed one, since we know all divorces don’t spring out of a mutual desire to end it. My sister, the friend of a friend in the OP, both were left by men they loved. Both were married longer than I, so they had even more adjustments to make, plus the pain of rejection.
Loss is loss, and grief is grief. The widowed and the divorced are both suffering through the loss of, the death of, a marriage.
So, no. I don’t think widows are more worthy of sympathy. Some widows are, some aren’t.
My thoughts exactly. Well said. 
Well, this is just logic. If at least one person doesn’t want to be committed anymore, then at least one person has a lack of commitment. I don’t see how purely external circumstances (barring something like one of the peopl ending up in a coma) can change a commitment or make people stop loving each other. If somthingchanges, it’s internal, not external, and internal changes mean that somebody changed their mind.
I still don’t think it’s necessarily some hugely unethical thing to change your mind or decide you made a mistake or whatever (although obviously there are ways to go about it that ARE unethical), I’m just saying it means the relationship failed, not the people in it.
That doesn’t mean that both people broke a promise, and I don’t think it’s necessarily a stigma even on the person who did. I don’t think the success of a marriage necessarily has anything to do with the character of the people in it.
Editor’s Note: I inserted the “not” in brackets, because based on your argument, I’m assuming you accidentally left that out. So anyway, right, what you said. I’m not sure what the disagreement is here. Also, I’ve not encountered this stigmatization of divorce. I’ve only found people to be extremely sympathetic, but that’s just me. I could imagine, perhaps, how it could be stigmatized among the very, very old fashioned. As in, women should still wear skirts and aprons, while tending to the littl’uns and baking ham old fashioned. Everyone else I’ve known (i.e. people whose values don’t have cobwebs on them) understands that divorce is a painful process, and have been very understanding.
I’m not reading the whole thread, so I apologize if this has been said already.
People (okay, women) often tell me, after a breakup, that they’re sad because they “wasted so much time” with the ex. I always ask if they enjoyed the relationship while it lasted, and they usually say yes, except for the last week/month/six months/year/whatever.
To which I say, “well, it wasn’t wasted then”.
If your objective in life is to find somebody, get married, and be buried next to one another, I guess it was a waste. If your objective is to enjoy life, it wasn’t.
I think this attitude is more prevalent in younger women because they think nobody will want them when their looks fade. Men don’t really have as much of an issue with aging, because we don’t have tits that will sag or a butt that will droop, and women often seem to think our faces look better with a few lines or crags.
There’s also the ticking time bomb of fertility. If you’re a woman who has always dreamed of having kids but has put them off until your late 20s-early 30s because of careers, not finding the right guy, or whatever, a divorce is a devastating blow to that hope. Women simply can’t afford to spend the same amount of time on unsuccessful relationships and still have a good chance of having a family.
This thread has really made me wish we could do away with marriage as a legal institution and convert everything to civil unions. It’s not “bilking the government” to start a household with someone just because you think making a promise that you know half the married people out there break is hopelessly naive.
Yah! The reason marriage is such a HUGE BIG DEAL is because it’s foverever. That’s one of the reasons standing up in front of friends and relatives and making that promise is supposed to be such an event!
That said, if everyone in good faith tried, it didn’t work out, that’s one thing, but “as long as we both shall love” just isn’t the same kind of commitment as “eternity”.
FTR, our ceremony was non-religious but still included a “to infinity and beyond” type of clause. (Well, not in those words. Cellgal didn’t want me quoting Toy Story. 
)
ETA: I think that a lot of marriages started in good faith can sill be successful if they don’t end up being “till death”, but I expect that the initial commitment should be to more than just “for the time being”.
As far as I’m concerned, the primary purpose of marriage is raising children. If you do a good job raising your children and after they have moved out of the house, you decide to pursue other interests and manage to divorce without major rancor or small arms fire then you have done your job. Congratulations.
If you aren’t planning on raising children and want to live together and love, honor, cherish each other for the rest of your life, then you don’t actually need a license from the government to do that.
The important point is that once kids enter the picture, then it isn’t about you anymore. Unless your spouse is some sort of abusive psycho nutjob that might damage the children, then suck it up and do your job and make sure you don’t have anymore children, because that is going to mean you are stuck for 18 more years.
I don’t think it’s as much about looks as about fertility. If a woman wishes children, she don’t have an unlimited amount of time to accomplish that; particularly if she wants a large family or want to go far in her career and yet be her children’s primary caregiver during the earliest years of their lives.
I did. Thanks.
All marriages are limited in time. is you case any different from a couple whose marriage ends after one dies after 50 years? They might not have made it to 60, after all. You might well have made it to 32 years happily - I have so far. What if you experienced some awful tragedy in your 11 years that would have split you - why worry about what you had being happy in the case of hypotheticals?
I kind of feel that I’m at a T-ball game here, with success defined so that almost everyone is successful. If a marriage ends in divorce it was not successful, which does not mean that either person in it is a louse. We don’t have perfect information when we marry, and circumstances or unanticipated personality quirks can mean getting divorced is for the best. Successful people can have unsuccessful marriages. A team can go into a football game and lose despite their best efforts. Is that an excuse for the team to go in without an expectation of winning? You can recognize that they did their best and still admit that they lost.
BTW, I’d add one condition here - I think a successful marriage can also be ended by mental disability and still be successful. My father-in-law’s 93 year old girlfriend’s husband was like this for quite some time (he is dead now) and I don’t see begrudging her things that would be wrong if he was still there. That wasn’t a successful marriage, but that was because of things long before him getting sick.
If my wife was taken from me, I’d be devastated. If she chose to leave me, I think it would be worse.
I think a marriage is successful when it is entered into with the good-faith expectation of “forever together” and when both people, in good faith, nurture it to the very best of their abilities for as long as they are able.
I don’t think part-by-death is a requirement, but as Ender said, it is a pretty good indication that a marriage was successful. (But not necessarily, as there are, I’m sure plenty of people who rejoiced the day their nasty spouse finally kicked the bucket.)
I had not considered the fertility thing. Good point.
Actually you don’t need a license to raise children either, though I suspect it makes life simpler.
I’m curious how close you are to the post-children state. We’re past it, and I wouldn’t consider our marriage successful if we split the moment they left. When we got married we planned to have children, and did, but I don’t think we would have split if we turned out not to be able to. Marriage was about each other, and not kids, and about committing.
I’ve seen evidence that kids might do better if parents separate when there is major incompatibility, even if neither is a psycho nutjob. No personal experience, happily. I agree that kids mean it isn’t about you any more, but getting married also means it isn’t about you anymore, but about us.
The problem with saying “well, people change” to rationalize the idea that a successful marriage can end in divorce is that the whole point of a truly successful marriage is love. Love that changes and grows with the other person and love that mitigates your changes so you don’t become someone your lover can’t live with. (Other parts, too, but those are the ones that matter for this discussion.)
I entered into my marriage knowing that my husband and I would change. I hoped I would actually; who wants to stay the same person they were at 20 anyway? I chose to have faith in him and in myself that we would grow together in our changes. Without that faith there is no point in making those marriage vows. You’re just asking for trouble, actually. (we’ll have been together 2 decades in the next few years, so I guess we’ve succeeded in that so far and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.)
Marriage is like a race in a way. Have you successfully won the race if you biff it 30ft from the finish line? Nope. You get a lot of sympathy and you can be proud of the race you ran before that point, but you didn’t finish so the race as a whole was not a success.*
*exempting highly rare circumstances like the people who divorce someone in a coma or after dementia sets in and any other crazy arguments of that sort.