hertz
Posts: 1315
Joined: 8/7/2010 Status: offline
|
quote:
I happen to think that most people entering a marriage that is monogamous really do understand that "in sickness and in health" part does include a possible situation in life where one party may become ill. Doing otherwise, in My opinion, is rather short sighted. Two things strike me about this. Firstly, I am not convinced many of us go into marriage with the absolute ability to ensure that the vow we make today is something we will be able to live by tomorrow. Personally, I think this sort of 'forever and ever' vow was fine a thousand years ago when neither party was likely to live past 40, but nowadays, when both parties could live to be 90, and married for 70 years, I suspect it is a bit of a task to keep it going. We all understand the vows I am sure, but I suspect none of us realise what they might actually mean in any real sense. This might be short-sighted, but most of us, when it comes to this really are short-sighted. If you know at the age of 30 how you are going to feel about your partner at the age of 70, then you are a truly outstanding human being. Secondly, not every long term relationship is a marriage in the conventional sense. Sometimes, long-term relationships are not created in the exchange of vows in a church, public building, or anywhere else for that matter. It doesn't make any practical difference that some relationships evolve from a drunken fumble at a party into a into long term relationship, but sometimes the basis on which a relationship is built may be less than clear, and it may not be possible to point at the vows made in a ceremony and say: 'This is what you contracted to do - now deliver!' EDIT The 'in reply to' is wrong. I'm quoting LadyPact...
< Message edited by hertz -- 8/23/2010 9:50:16 AM >
|