Lets say, for example, that divorce will suddenly make your ex-spouse an uninsured ward of the state? Would that be holding to your vows?
We can come up with scenarios all day long and never have a good answer for this question. After having been married twice for a total of 27 years, I can tell you that my idea of “forever” has changed as I’ve matured. Forever is a word manufactured by Hallmark as far as I can tell.
It does make me wonder, however, if there is a correlation between those who are strongly biased toward “keeping their vows” and the number of years they have been married.
I’m not lecturing anyone about anything. I gave my views on what marital vows meant to me, in response to msmith537’s claim that marital vows are “not really a real vow” but only “ridiculous boilerplate” that nobody really takes seriously.
I do not assume other people should follow my moral code; I do get peeved when other people assume that everybody follows theirs.
Yes, that’s totally it. :rolleyes:
A perfectly fair stance, IMO.
So if/when you get/got married, you leave out all the “boilerplate,” right? Because it’s clear that you don’t in fact mean the bit about “richer and poorer, sickness and health, death do us part.”
A lot of people – probably most, nowadays – regard marriage as more or less a contract between two autonomous individuals, and one that can be rescinded at any time. I don’t agree, but provided they’re both being upfront about it, I don’t really object. But that is not the only possible approach to marriage. Some of us really do mean every word of the boilerplate.
It would be just as fair, and equally insulting, to wonder if there’s a correlation between those who are strongly biased against keeping their vows and the number of times they’ve been divorced.
Fair enough…sort of. I’m not “strongly biased against keeping (my) vows”. Making a blanket statement that “I will keep my vows no matter what” is essentially the same as “I will NOT keep my vows no matter what”. Most people don’t go into a marriage intending to break their vows.
I entered into marriage with the intent that it would be forever. I was wrong. Circumstances change, people change, feelings change. Thankfully I’ve never been in the situation of the OP but I know in my heart that if my partner was no longer “in there”, then my marriage would be over. My commitment would remain to tend to my partners needs but the lack of an emotional and physical connection would likely be a deal-breaker for me.
I don’t know about number of years, but I tend to think that exposure to really awful outcomes tends to change our attitudes toward life. Before we get married, or before anything really bad ever happens to us, we think we’ll behave in picture-perfect ways. Once bad stuff starts happening, we see more shades of grey in everything, and I think we tend to get less certain about whether things are always right or wrong.
This isn’t the place for a discussion of what exactly constitutes “brain death” or a vegetative state, but yes, I know those situations would necessitate some difficult decisions.
I do believe in souls, by the way. And also that if the brain is dead, the soul is gone. So, if I were to find myself in that situation, I would have to very carefully assess my wife’s condition. I might need advice from medical professionals, and from people whom I would trust to advise me on ethics. My presumption would be that I’d be bound by my vows until I’m convinced that my wife is no longer living. I would be open to discussion about what exactly “living” means.
I’d have a problem with that. Depriving my wife of health insurance? No, don’t think I could do that. “In sickness and in health”? I meant that.
Don’t know. I’m 50 years old, so I’m pretty sure I’ve dropped whatever romantic and silly ideas I had about “love” and “forever” by the wayside.
All I’m saying is that when I, or anyone else, makes a promise, they should keep it. As I said earlier in this thread, I have no problem at all with anyone who knows they can’t or won’t keep such a promise and so doesn’t make it, or who tailors that promise to suit their needs and end up with a promise they can keep.
Well, an irrevocable coma sounds like a pretty good approximation of death to me. Hell, when the original wedding vows were first conceived, the medical state of the art was such that a coma like that would have meant death within a very short time. Hence, problem solved, and the spouse could then remarry (or just fool around).
Let it stand for the record: If I’m ever in such a state, I would wish that my spouse remain married to me from a legal standpoint because it gives him the ability to protect the body that has not yet figured out that I’m dead. And, once he’s got things in place to see to my care, may he find whatever friendshop, comfort and hopefully love he can, and never consider it adultery - for at that point, mentally and spiritually, I am already dead.
If I’m in a persistent vegitative state, my spouse should have them harvest my organs and move on. Just because I’m still breathing doesn’t mean I’m alive in any spiritually meaningful sense of the word.
It isn’t cheating in my eyes when I’m already dead in every respect except the strict biological definition.
Cheating? I’d say that depends on the couple. If my wife tells me that I can have sex with another woman, that is not cheating. If I sneak and do it, it is cheating.
