In all seriousness (and not in attack mode), where does this come from? Being in California and being very strongly on the “no” side of the ongoing Proposition 8 debate, I get really twitchy when I hear people talk about there being one and only one definition of marriage.
ETA: I should point out, by the way, that I actually do fall into the camp that believes a goal of marriage should be a lifelong commitment. I guess I just don’t think there’s anything wrong with being aware that that goal may not be reached, even though you strive for it, and that not every falling short of a goal equates to failure.
I find this outlook very unhealthy: it doesn’t matter if a marriage was mostly happy, it’s still a failure. I really hope none of you end up getting divorced. I mean, I would hope that anyway, but you’d find it even harder to cope with than most.
The relevant definitions there all refer to making commitments according to religious and civili institutions, but don’t specify what those commitments actually are. Under all of those institutions, marriage is always supposed to be for life. There are no religious or political institutions of marriage which assume the arrangement will be temporary.
Err, yeah. I define “failure” as not reaching one’s goals. It’s not the end of the universe, but not a success. Failing at something doesn’t mean it wasn’t worthwhile. If your goal was to make something last until death, which it presumably was when you swore to do so for the rest of your lives, and that didn’t happen, you failed. Whatever negative associations you have with the word “fail” are your business.
We both know what marriage means to us. No gods involved, no promises of eternity, following the other into the dark, or even for as long as we both shall live. It’s about trust, respect and dependability–no need to say for how long. Some folks may think that’s pretty shallow and ‘why bother’ and that what we have isn’t really part of the institution of marriage. All I can say is, reserve your jugement for yourself and I’ll extend you the same courtesey.
My answer for the OP? A successful marriage is one that doesn’t make either party unhappy. I think a marriage can end successfully in divorce in some cases. But I see no reason for both people to stick to a promise that neither of them want to keep anymore.
Somehow I doubt I’m the only one to have negative associations with the word fail. Man, next you’ll be accusing me of having negative associations with the words unhappy, cruel, and dead!
Anyone who promises to take any action beyond his own death (forever) is a fraud because he promises something he knows nothing about.
Anyone who promises to take any action until the end of his own days ignores the possibility (statistical probability, really) that his actions may not be wanted or even welcome at some point in the future. At that point he begins to keep a promise for its own sake and not because of any genuine affection for the spouse.
I don’t think success is really an either/or all-or-nothing proposition, honestly. I see it more as a gradient, with some marriages being completely successful and some being complete failures, but most being either mostly good or mostly bad. A bell curve, really, with the peak being slightly to the happy side of the happy-to-crappy ratio.
But yeah, I can’t see a marriage that ends in splitting up as being completely successful–if things were still going well, there wouldn’t be any reason to split up, iyswim. If you were mostly happy and split on good terms, I’d say it was a mostly but not totally successful marriage. Sort of the silver medal in the Success Olympics.
As for the different way we treat widows as opposed to divorcees…well, our culture has a script for death because we all lose multiple people through our lives, and the emotional reaction to it is pretty consistent. Divorce, otoh, is something half or so of us go through once or maybe twice, and the emotional reaction to it varies wildly, and it’s only been a few decades since it started to become relatively common. We don’t have a script for it, no things we just do and say automatically because it’s What You Do in this situation. So of course widows get treated differently than people who are getting divorced.
If it isn’t a business arrangement, then why do you need a contract? As, I pointed out before, you don’t need a license to love, honor and cherish someone.
I said 18, not 40-60. The goal here is to raise self-supporting adults, not leeches. It’s okay to help them through college, but I don’t regard it as an obligation.
Maybe should propose some specific scenarios where you think it is okay to put your welfare or happiness ahead of your children’s welfare. Not their happiness, since sometimes looking out for their welfare means making them unhappy.
This isn’t a hijack, since we are arguing about the definition of “success” in marriage. I was getting frustrated because people kept defining success without mentioning children.
You think a marriage without children can’t be successful? Not if there is a conflict about them, perhaps, but lots of couples don’t want children, and others want them and can’t have them, and can successfully weather this adversity. Kids can also turn out to be pains despite the best efforts of parents; that doesn’t make a marriage a failure either.
I’m not suggesting putting my happiness ahead of my childrens’ welfare. I’m suggesting that if increasing my happiness doesn’t affect their welfare, then it’s perfectly reasonable for me to do so. And I’m not of the opinion that divorce is automatically harmful to the childrens’ welfare.
Of course, I entirely disagree that marriage is about raising children to begin with. Raising children may be part of a marriage, but it’s not what it’s about.
Absolutely. By his standards, my husband and I could be deliriously happy together until one of us dies as the age 125, but our marriage wouldn’t be considered successful. Our cousin, otoh, can marry the man she’s got three kids with, and they can continue fighting like cats in a sack for the next 14 years, split up as soon as the youngest one is out of high school, and be considered a successful marriage as long as the kids turn out decently. Which seems rather nutty, to me.
If you aren’t planning on having children, then why get a piece of paper from the government to give you a license to do what you were already doing? As far as I can tell, there are a lot of unmarried couples that are happy.
There are many legal rights and privileges reserved for legally married couples that are not enjoyed by happy couples. This is part of why gay marriage is such a big deal–it’s not just about recognition, it’s about equal opportunities.
Why would you need a piece of paper to have kids? All your parental rights attach regardless of marital status–inheritance, next of kin, tax breaks, the whole nine yards. Of course, it’s easier and more stable for the kids if the parents have automatic rights of inheritance and next of kin for each other. Incidentally, it’s also easier and more stable for childfree couples to have automatic rights of inheritance and next of kin for each other.
First, let me say that I was amused by the phrase, “There are many legal rights and privileges reserved for legally married couples that are not enjoyed by happy couples”. I not sure what point you are trying to make? Are you saying that people who aren’t legally married in the eyes of the state are forgoing significant financial benefits and we should define the success of a marriage with a balance sheet?
I really hope none of you end up getting divorced. I mean, I would hope that anyway, 
but you’d find it even harder to cope with than most.