Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dartvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!harpo!decvax!dartvax!rccall From: rccall@dartvax.UUCP (R. Christian Call) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: "A travesty" ? Message-ID: <1770@dartvax.UUCP> Date: Sun, 3-Jun-84 01:57:13 EDT Article-I.D.: dartvax.1770 Posted: Sun Jun 3 01:57:13 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Jun-84 20:05:08 EDT References: <1279@proper.UUCP> <7290@umcp-cs.UUCP>, <226@ihopa.UUCP> Organization: Dartmouth College Lines: 25 Jeff Sargent says in a recent article: > I like Tom Chmara's article. This reminded me to respond to a point > raised last week by Rsk the Wombat: the idea of having marriage ceremonies > omit any indication of sticking together for life. I think that such a union > is a travesty of marriage. In it, each partner is implicitly saying to the > other, "I'll stick with you for a while, but if the relationship sours, I'll > bag it!" Marriage for life says, "I'll stick with you for life; I'll do my > best to keep the relationship good; if it sours, I'll be vulnerable and honest > with you as we both work the thing out." I see nothing wrong with the omission of the indication of sticking together for life; nor do I see an implicit "I'll bag it!" in the omission. I would say that Jeff is finding an implicit anti-promise in the omission of a promise. Sometimes things just don't work out, no matter how hard two people may try. People change and grow apart. Jeff, would you feel right about staying married to someone in a relationship that just wasn't working for either of you? Many people would not; and that, I imagine, is the reason that they omit the "lifetime promise" from the marriage ceremony. It doesn't mean that they won't try to work out their problems, but it does mean that they will refuse to torture themselves any further if it turns out that the relationship simply cannot work.