Comments on: Sears: Let's end disposable marriage (1)

By: MaryT

MaryT — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:56:04 +0000

Stageleft, were you married for 26 years or together for 26 yrs. We are from different generations, mine where divorce was not allowed in Canada, except for adultery. Lots of liars appeared in court cases, to swear to the act.
My grandmother used to say, the secret to a happy, and long lasting marriage is, never be mad at each other at the same time. And, when things seem impossible to fix, write down a list, why I want to leave, why I shouldn’t leave. Compare lists and have a good laugh. 55 yrs for us come Sunday, good times and bad. When asked if divorce was ever considered, my answer, divorce never. No other woman is going to get my tupperware.

By: Mac

Mac — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:49:20 +0000

It’s easy to blame the laws but the reality is our society changed and the divorce rates are a reflection of that change. That’s not to suggest our society won’t change again; I would say it will… but it’s hard to say in what direction…

I would like to think the next generation will give more consideration to their relationships. I know I’m trying to instill that in my kids but only time will tell.

The role of “fathers” as explored in the article is, again, a reflection of societal change. Radical feminism is finally showing signs of faltering. As it fades, the constant accusations of men being oppressors and the tendency of the courts to treat fathers as nothing more than open wallets should also fade.

By: stageleft

stageleft — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:43:42 +0000

Length of time togeher before marriage is meaningless. My wife and I knew each other for only a couple of weeks before we moved in together, we had 4 kids in our household before we got married, we were together for 26 years before we discovered that we were growing apart to a degreee that we were unable to address, and as a result we seperated before we became miserable or began to hate each other…. sometimes that’s the way things go.

That was almost three years ago, we’re still friends, last xmas we both flew to Iqaluit to have a family gathering with our kids and their kids, and as a matter of fact we were out for supper this very evening.

If we had been forced to know each other for longer than two weeks we would have lost out on some very happy years and four great children, and if we had been forced to stay together we would have soon been miserable.

….. and now the question for every one with an opinion on this, which would have been more preferable?

By: Cynapse

Cynapse — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:26:53 +0000

Cohabitation won’t cure the 7 year itch, admittedly. My guess is that the clock was ticking anyway. If they live together before the paper, the entropy of their relationship continues. Cohabitation can prevent the impulsive mistake, IMO.

Marriage is not guaranteed unless there is virtual ownership. I’m sure the divorce rate in the 1940′s would have been much higher if women had more rights. Domestic abuse was just as bad (or according to some women I know, worse) and economic pickings were slim for women so they stuck it out with their drunken louts.

By: MaryT

MaryT — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 23:11:48 +0000

Seeing the results of cohabitation, it seems that the longer a couple live together before marriage, the sooner they divorce or separate. I have always questioned those live-in arrangements and their argument, marriage is only a piece of paper, and our love is deeper than that. And at the same time we have gays/lesbians fighting for that piece of meaningless paper.

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:06:22 +0000

It’s a thought.

By: Cynapse

Cynapse — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:51:48 +0000

The problem isn’t that it’s too easy to get divorced but rather that it’s too easy to get married. One night of drunkenness in Vegas can result in marriage. More commonly, a 6 month courtship that SEEMS to be going well can result in marriage.

Although a lot of people don’t like the idea of cohabitation, I think it would be helpful for the law to require couples to live together for at least 1 year before they can legally marry. The person you meet on dates or at parties for a couple of years can be substantially different from the person you share space with. In the olden days, this disaster-in-waiting was covered for by the social stigma of being divorced (resulting in a lot of down-low infidelity, abuse and “poisoned lovers”). Today, we’re more in the open about our ailments and as bound by tradition for the sake of tradition. But the underlying problem can still be minimized by test driving the situation IMO. Dedicated lovers who have made a real investment are far less likely to walk away from a marriage at the first inconvenience.