"Until death do you part". Obsolete?

[Catholic_Lady]

From my pov it is making a promise that is hard to hold. Together till it stop being enjoyable for us both would be far more honest I think.

This seems a bit shallow to me, to he honest. Either you love someone and are committed to them, or you aren't. 

Obviously, if there is abuse of any kind or infidelity, or if one person just decides they don't give a crap anymore, that leaves the other person with no other healthy option but to walk away. But again, this is last resort scenarios. This isnt "meh, not fun anymore, so I'm gonna find someone who is more fun." 

This is personal to me, because I am so grateful that my husband didnt leave me when times got really hard for him because of me. He suffered through losing his only child late term in the pregnancy of a very sick wife - who then had infertility and all the hardships that come with that. Those were not fun times. He could have left me for someone fertile, who could give him children, and not have this constant cloud of grief and stress. 

But he stuck by me because he loves me and is committed to me, and promised me that he would be there through thick and thin.

[Catholic_Lady]

From my pov it is making a promise that is hard to hold. Together till it stop being enjoyable for us both would be far more honest I think.

Life often stops being enjoyable whether you have a partner or not. The idea is that your partner helps you through the non-enjoyable parts and you do the same for them. A lot of the crap life throws at you is a lot easier to deflect when there are two of you.

Of course, if you expect to be "in love" every day of your life, that's not going to happen.

Well said, Dom

[GirlyMan]

It's not obsolete to the one's who's dying.

[Minimalist]

In fairness, for most of human history death used to come a lot sooner.

I think they used do die a lot from simple infections. Little wounds we slap a bandaid on today. Science to the rescue, hygiene and science.

A mastodon sticking a tusk up your ass wouldn't have done much for longevity, either!

[Thumpalumpacus]

This seems a bit shallow to me, to he honest. Either you love someone and are committed to them, or you aren't. 

Obviously, if there is abuse of any kind or infidelity, or if one person just decides they don't give a crap anymore, that leaves the other person with no other healthy option but to walk away. But again, this is last resort scenarios. This isnt "meh, not fun anymore, so I'm gonna find someone who is more fun." 

Life is too short to spend it unhappy, especially because of someone else. Surely part of love is wanting to see your partner happy?   

I'm saying this as someone who has himself taken love for granted before, to my own lasting regret. But all the same, if our happiness is not a shared goal, walking away is not necessarily a knee-jerk reaction; it's a last resort for a reason.

[Minimalist]

Historically all of this love shit is a fairly recent development.

https://www.livescience.com/37777-histor...riage.html

1. Arranged alliances

Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.

And there are a dozen more points.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

When I was a teenager, I'd look at girls just as much as any heterosexual teenage boy. I thought it was kind of the default to marry and have kids. But nowadays, it seems like divorce is no longer a last resort. Sometimes, it seems like a given. Is a commitment "'til death do you part" silly to expect now? Have things changed? Is this a good thing? Why/why not?

I think "until death do us part" is something that both spouses should still strive for, and dont find that silly at all. There is so much on the line when you marry someone, including shared children. Divorce should be a last resort, in my opinion. With the exception of infidelity and abuse, many issues can be worked out if *both* parties are willing to give it their all. Of course, it doesnt work if only one of them is willing.

People change.

[julep]

When I was a teenager, I'd look at girls just as much as any heterosexual teenage boy. I thought it was kind of the default to marry and have kids. But nowadays, it seems like divorce is no longer a last resort. Sometimes, it seems like a given. Is a commitment "'til death do you part" silly to expect now? Have things changed? Is this a good thing? Why/why not?

I think "until death do us part" is something that both spouses should still strive for, and dont find that silly at all. There is so much on the line when you marry someone, including shared children. Divorce should be a last resort, in my opinion. With the exception of infidelity and abuse, many issues can be worked out if *both* parties are willing to give it their all. Of course, it doesnt work if only one of them is willing.

While I agree that couples should work on their relationship and issues that arise, people do go in different directions sometimes that are unpredictable, especially when age at the time of marriage is young.  I’m super glad that my husband divorced his first wife, whom he married at age 21, after four years (no kids).  We have been married for more than 20 years at this point.  Till death do us part wasn’t part of our wedding vows, but we have stuck with each other nonetheless, through many tough times.  

I’m also glad my parents got divorced, after marrying at 19 and 21 and disappointing one another for the next 17 years.  The divorce process wasn’t fun for us kids, but both of them are much happier apart than together.  When I try to imagine what holidays and get togethers would have been like over the last 40 years with them together, I shudder at the idea.

[SYZ]

I was married for 15 years, but we got divorced 36 years ago. We didn't have any kids, and just split
all our assets 50% each. It was an amicable separation, and although we now live on completely
opposite sides of Australia, we still communicate socially. She remarried, and I found my soul mate
with whom I've lived for more than 30 years now.

Divorce doesn't necessarily mean hatefulness, distress, belligerence, shame, or financial ruin. Different
strokes for different folks I guess.

[Unsapien]

I used to work with a guy who would proudly proclaim "my wife and I have had 17 wonderful years together...... and 17 out of 35 isn't bad."


I'll be married 49 years in the Fall.

My wife and I were happy for 25 years, then we met.   



But seriously...

I'm pretty sure that "... for as long as you both shall live" was in our wedding vows which seems like a bit of a better spin on it.

Problem with todays society is the way it stresses instant personal gratification, basically so businesses can sell you as much stuff as your credit will bear, but it's not a way to promote healthy relationships. Because it's not about getting what you want or need from somebody, it's about deep empathy. When they're sick you feel sick. When they're happy, you're happy etc. In that way you're linked to them, that's how relationships last a life time.

I hate the phrase "they complete me", sounds to needy which gets back to the whole "it's all about MY feelings/needs".

Two "incomplete" people would have a hard time coming together to make a complete and stable relationship.

You want to be two "complete" people coming together to make something new. That means to me that people should live on their own, be comfortable doing all the things that life needs you to do on your own first. Then find someone that you want to be with, not feeling you "need" to be with.

That's my thoughts anyway, I never looked for a partner or a relationship, I just kinda fell into it. My wife and I never really "dated" we just liked spending time together and made it permanent.

[Old Man Marsh]

When I was a teenager, I'd look at girls just as much as any heterosexual teenage boy. I thought it was kind of the default to marry and have kids. But nowadays, it seems like divorce is no longer a last resort. Sometimes, it seems like a given. Is a commitment "'til death do you part" silly to expect now? Have things changed? Is this a good thing? Why/why not?

I think "until death do us part" is something that both spouses should still strive for, and dont find that silly at all. There is so much on the line when you marry someone, including shared children. Divorce should be a last resort, in my opinion. With the exception of infidelity and abuse, many issues can be worked out if *both* parties are willing to give it their all. Of course, it doesnt work if only one of them is willing.

People change.

Of course they do. They can't wear the same underpants all the time.

[Minimalist]

I hate the phrase "they complete me", sounds to needy which gets back to the whole "it's all about MY feelings/needs".

Which reminds me of the old observation:  "A man is not complete until he is married.  Then, he's finished."

[Szuchow]

From my pov it is making a promise that is hard to hold. Together till it stop being enjoyable for us both would be far more honest I think.

This seems a bit shallow to me, to he honest. Either you love someone and are committed to them, or you aren't. 

Obviously, if there is abuse of any kind or infidelity, or if one person just decides they don't give a crap anymore, that leaves the other person with no other healthy option but to walk away. But again, this is last resort scenarios. This isnt "meh, not fun anymore, so I'm gonna find someone who is more fun." 

This is personal to me, because I am so grateful that my husband didnt leave me when times got really hard for him because of me. He suffered through losing his only child late term in the pregnancy of a very sick wife - who then had infertility and all the hardships that come with that. Those were not fun times. He could have left me for someone fertile, who could give him children, and not have this constant cloud of grief and stress. 

But he stuck by me because he loves me and is committed to me, and promised me that he would be there through thick and thin.

What you deem shallow I see as being realistic - I preffer not giving promises that I'm not sure I can keep. Also it is better to be honest - vows such as one discussed are cheap. Just look at the number of divorces.

[Szuchow]

Life often stops being enjoyable whether you have a partner or not. The idea is that your partner helps you through the non-enjoyable parts and you do the same for them. A lot of the crap life throws at you is a lot easier to deflect when there are two of you.

Of course, if you expect to be "in love" every day of your life, that's not going to happen.

From my pov it's just highly unrealistic vow and so I see no reason to bind myself with such.

And so you shouldn't. What works for one person doesn't have to work for another.

I won't. 

Going by number of divorces it seems to not work for auite the number of people.

[SYZ]

Going by number of divorces it seems to not work for quite a number of people.

Definitely.  Which makes the until death thing irrelevant.

In Australia, in 2016, there were 118,401 marriages and 46,604 divorces—with the rate of divorce
decreasing by 3.9% from the previous year.  There are apparently several contributing factors to
the continuing decrease in the Australian divorce rate: less people are getting married to start with,
more couples are cohabiting before marriage, and people are getting older when they marry. The
marriage rate per 1000 people has dropped from 9.3 marriages in 1970, to only 4 in 2016.

So... nearly 40% of marriages end in divorce.

More couples are now living together before committing to marriage and are living together for
longer periods of time. Many people consider cohabitation as a precursor to marriage, and a means
of testing the relationship before committing to marriage. The number of couples living together has
increased markedly from 16% of couples in 1976, to 80.8% of couples in 2016.

And this is pleasing: Australia has seen a dramatic change in the type of marriage ceremony performed
over the past century. In 1902, over 96% of marriages were performed by religious ministers and
there were almost no civil celebrants. In 1999,  51% of marriages were conducted by celebrants.
In 2016, 76% of marriages were conducted by civil celebrants—which is now clearly the preferred
type of marriage by Australians.

As a footnote, it's sad (and condemnable in my opinion) that more than 40,000 children were involved
with divorcing parents in 2016.

[Dancefortwo]

On June 25th my husband and I will celebrate our 30th wedding anniversery.   I've done a lot of stupid things in my life but saying yes to his proposal was the smartest thing I've ever done.  I can imagine though, that if I had married either of the two boyfriends I dumped before I started dating Michael I would have been one miserable human being.   

What can I say, we adore each other.  It's a simple as that.

[vulcanlogician]

Been married four times, divorced once.

So you're a Mormon?

[Dānu]

From my pov it is making a promise that is hard to hold. Together till it stop being enjoyable for us both would be far more honest I think.

This seems a bit shallow to me, to he honest. Either you love someone and are committed to them, or you aren't. 

Obviously, if there is abuse of any kind or infidelity, or if one person just decides they don't give a crap anymore, that leaves the other person with no other healthy option but to walk away. But again, this is last resort scenarios. This isnt "meh, not fun anymore, so I'm gonna find someone who is more fun." 

This is personal to me, because I am so grateful that my husband didnt leave me when times got really hard for him because of me. He suffered through losing his only child late term in the pregnancy of a very sick wife - who then had infertility and all the hardships that come with that. Those were not fun times. He could have left me for someone fertile, who could give him children, and not have this constant cloud of grief and stress. 

But he stuck by me because he loves me and is committed to me, and promised me that he would be there through thick and thin.

What you deem shallow I see as being realistic - I preffer not giving promises that I'm not sure I can keep. Also it is better to be honest - vows such as one discussed are cheap. Just look at the number of divorces.

That depends upon what the promise being made is. If the promise is to remain together forever, that's one thing. If the promise is to try to remain together, to love each other, "in sickness and in health," then that's another. Your argument depends upon interpreting the "vow" as a promise to fulfill a contract to remain together forever, and first of all, that's not necessarily what is being promised, nor is it imho an accurate reflection of the meaning that couples attach to their vows. You may find different meaning in it. That's your choice. That doesn't make your meaning necessarily the meaning that couples and others should or do attach to it.

[jerryg]

Do people get married with the assumption they'll get divorced nowadays?

[Unsapien]

Do people get married with the assumption they'll get divorced nowadays?

Apparently, according to this California lawyer's website at least, most married couples don't think that their marriage will end in divorce.

https://www.oceansidedivorcelawfirm.com/...tatistics/

Despite half of all marriages ending in divorce, only 11% of couples state that there’s a chance their marriage could end in divorce and less than 5% have a prenup in place to protect their interests should they divorce

[*]15% of divorcees wish they had put a prenup in place before getting married

[Catholic_Lady]

From my pov it is making a promise that is hard to hold. Together till it stop being enjoyable for us both would be far more honest I think.

This seems a bit shallow to me, to he honest. Either you love someone and are committed to them, or you aren't. 

Obviously, if there is abuse of any kind or infidelity, or if one person just decides they don't give a crap anymore, that leaves the other person with no other healthy option but to walk away. But again, this is last resort scenarios. This isnt "meh, not fun anymore, so I'm gonna find someone who is more fun." 

This is personal to me, because I am so grateful that my husband didnt leave me when times got really hard for him because of me. He suffered through losing his only child late term in the pregnancy of a very sick wife - who then had infertility and all the hardships that come with that. Those were not fun times. He could have left me for someone fertile, who could give him children, and not have this constant cloud of grief and stress. 

But he stuck by me because he loves me and is committed to me, and promised me that he would be there through thick and thin.

What you deem shallow I see as being realistic - I preffer not giving promises that I'm not sure I can keep. Also it is better to be honest - vows such as one discussed are cheap. Just look at the number of divorces.

Are you married? I just feel like this mentality (leaving when things "aren't fun anymore") is such an odd thing to say about someone you supposedly love so deeply. 

My spouse is like family to me. If he starts cheating on me, abusing me, or decides he doesnt wanna be with me anymore (which I have full faith and trust that he won't do any of those), obviously that leaves me with no choice but to move on. But would I voluntarily leave him if life got hard or "not fun" for whatever reason? Of course not. He's family.  

Yes, there is a lot of divorce, but getting divorce isnt like getting cancer. Usually it happens because one or both people stop trying in one way or another when things get difficult. I can't control other people's actions, but that doesnt mean I cant control my own. I can make the choice to remain dedicated to my spouse even when life gets hard. It seems like a cop out to say that just because a lot of other people get divorced, I won't make any promises myself. Other people's decisions in their marriage make no bearing on what I choose to do with my own.

[Szuchow]

This seems a bit shallow to me, to he honest. Either you love someone and are committed to them, or you aren't. 

Obviously, if there is abuse of any kind or infidelity, or if one person just decides they don't give a crap anymore, that leaves the other person with no other healthy option but to walk away. But again, this is last resort scenarios. This isnt "meh, not fun anymore, so I'm gonna find someone who is more fun." 

This is personal to me, because I am so grateful that my husband didnt leave me when times got really hard for him because of me. He suffered through losing his only child late term in the pregnancy of a very sick wife - who then had infertility and all the hardships that come with that. Those were not fun times. He could have left me for someone fertile, who could give him children, and not have this constant cloud of grief and stress. 

But he stuck by me because he loves me and is committed to me, and promised me that he would be there through thick and thin.

What you deem shallow I see as being realistic - I preffer not giving promises that I'm not sure I can keep. Also it is better to be honest - vows such as one discussed are cheap. Just look at the number of divorces.

Are you married? I just feel like this mentality (leaving when things "aren't fun anymore") is such an odd thing to say about someone you supposedly love so deeply. 

My spouse is like family to me. If he starts cheating on me, abusing me, or decides he doesnt wanna be with me anymore (which I have full faith and trust that he won't do any of those), obviously that leaves me with no choice but to move on. But would I voluntarily leave him if life got hard or "not fun" for whatever reason? Of course not. He's family.  

Yes, there is a lot of divorce, but getting divorce isnt like getting cancer. Usually it happens because one or both people stop trying in one way or another when things get difficult. I can't control other people's actions, but that doesnt mean I cant control my own. I can make the choice to remain dedicated to my spouse even when life gets hard. It seems like a cop out to say that just because a lot of other people get divorced, I won't make any promises myself. Other people's decisions in their marriage make no bearing on what I choose to do with my own.

I'm not married nor I ever intend to be. 

Being tired of this "discussion" I will say this frankly - promising that one does not leave other till death will do it's part looks to me like virtue signaling and is akin to saying things like: I would never worship tyrant god/would never support fascists, etc. It's arrogant statement of belief in oneself and arrogance isn't something that I approve. Life may turn differently than one imagined and choices previously thought abhorrent may become tempting. 

In the end it is deeds that matter not promises that as Syz post shows are often empty.

[Dānu]

I don't think it would be virtue signaling if you actually are going to do something to make it a reality. Virtue signaling to me means trying to acquire the accoutrements of virtue without doing anything to deserve them, and I don't think the marriage vow qualifies under that definition. In fact, the very act of declaring that you're committed to that goal in a public and spectacular way places burdens on you that no married couple simply abandons once the preacher and the wedding guests have left. Taking on a burden by making a public commitment to it is not really virtue signaling, and the act of putting that burden on yourself is not itself empty.

An analogy. If Joe Biden commits publicly to changing his behavior and then does so, that's not virtue signaling. And besides, you seem to be objecting to the unlikelihood of fulfilling that ideal. That one may not fulfill an ideal does not make committing to it an empty promise or virtue signaling. Many people are committed to the ideal of a good government, or a truly democratic presidential election. I doubt you would find their commitments or public expressions of commitment towards those ideals hollow and empty. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Szuchow]

I don't think it would be virtue signaling if you actually are going to do something to make it a reality.  Virtue signaling to me means trying to acquire the accoutrements of virtue without doing anything to deserve them, and I don't think the marriage vow qualifies under that definition.  In fact, the very act of declaring that you're committed to that goal in a public and spectacular way places burdens on you that no married couple simply abandons once the preacher and the wedding guests have left.  Taking on a burden by making a public commitment to it is not really virtue signaling, and the act of putting that burden on yourself is not itself empty.

For me it is just bragging and asking for pat on the shoulder - it is saying that one is so good that one will stay with another no matter what. It reeks of arrogance and unwaranted certainty. Take note that I speak of vow itself - in this day and age it is cheap as divorce does not exactly make one outcast. 

Promises in which words like "never" or "till death" plays a role don't seem sound to me. I think that it is best and most honest to speak of trying. 

What I find hollow is promise containing words mentioned above. I'm not against people being true to themselves but words I see as cheap. What burden is promise to not leave one partner when partner is healthy? What burden is declaring that one stands for some principles when one standing consists of mere words spoken behind safety of house walls? 

In short I am against certainty and much preffer people being aware that what seem easy now may not be so tomorrow. I don't like arrogance in any form - and till death do it's part is as arrogant statement of belief in oneself as such statements can get.

[Dānu]

What burden is promise to not leave one partner when partner is healthy?

The traditional vow is to love one another, "in sickness and in health." You need to address the reality, not some distorted misrepresentation of it.