Family: Marriage Hypotheticals

[Jack]

It may have been a poor choice of title. I was simply trying to act upon the suggestion that the discussion should be split off from the thread where we do have an actual person in an actual situation.

That makes more sense. I wonder if what you were aiming for would have been better served by a post specifically asking to discuss the purpose and value of marriage in different traditions, using yours as a starting point? I'd be more interested in taking part in that discussion, anyway; if I'm misreading your goal I may start it myself.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Darkhawk]

You do not endure the situation for love of the compensation, but for the love of your God or the love of the person(s) on whose behalf you are undergoing the suffering.

Wait, you're now calling someone who is abusive "the person on whose behalf you are undergoing the suffering"?  Seriously?

Any compensation is merely a token of appreciation as to what that expression of love meant to the other party.

It means that they can create hell on earth for their spouse without consequences!  That's what it means to them!  Why is this ever a good thing, to you, or to your god?

[Darkhawk]

Darkhawk, you have been trying to get me to say that I am wrong, or at least to say 'what if' I am wrong. Here is your chance. But, again, I don't think that it's valid to extend that testing to historical accounts where it is too late to see any changes in the situation. I don't know the particulars. I don't know if they really did reach out to my God. I don't know whether, if they did, they were willing to hang in there until they received the answer. If a man like Daniel had to wait three weeks for his answer [Daniel 10:12-13], and I have had to wait thirty-plus years and counting for mine [but, then, I'm no Daniel!], then, for someone I've never met...I can't say.

Look.  There are hundreds of people out there who are being counselled with this same advice.

Some of those counsellors take actual positive glee in keeping people in bad situations because the idea of marriage is more important than humanity, too, so it's worth keeping in mind that that's who your allies are.

If you think that none of the people for whom it fails - who are, in this country, largely drawn from Christian communities, and more often from the Baptist and Evangelical parts thereof - have prayed to your god for deliverance, I genuinely do not know what to say.  It has not come for them.

Human problems keep requiring human solutions.

If we proceed in an actual circumstance along these lines and the respondent reports that there has been no significant positive development in two weeks' time, I will agree that I was wrong when I said that my God was willing to help out in the marriage of anyone who asked for his help. Furthermore, I will expect to be righteously upbraided if I take the coward's way out and try to blame the victim for a lack of faith or any other such evasion. If anyone's faith or anyone's God is being tested here, it is mine. The only condition I seek to impose is that the person asks my God for his help and authorizes me to intercede on his/her behalf for my God to send that help.

 
So your answer is, in fact, that yes, you are only willing to consider the evidence of people who you personally have prayed for, because of the sample of hundreds of people from Baptist, Evangelical, and related traditions who have already tried the same thing you propose and failed you don't believe there are sufficient believers in your god to make a reasonable sample.  That in this entire community of people who default to prayer for solutions to such things, no spouse, no pastor, or no friend has actually done the thing.  It would be your prayers who would make that kind of difference, nobody else - not in any of the many stories that exist out there - could possibly be pure enough or doing it right.

You're going to have to get cracking.  There's someone out there being beaten half to death by their spouse right now, and I bet you're not praying for them.  If nobody else can do it....

[mandrina]

No. I have never been married. I have never even had a real date, unless you count those two hours in the theme park in Orlando. And those who are closest to me are all in successful long-term marriages. My parents, fifty-five years, two kids. My sister, twenty-five years, eight kids.

I can understand if you want to discount my words accordingly. Monday-morning quarterbacking is always easy. But while I recognize that my position is unpopular and completely contrary to what the wisdom of this world would advise, I believe it still needs to be stated.

i;m going to be honest here, my thoughts go something like this. "I did my best parenting before I had kids"  That's what you are doing.  You are giving marriage advice to 'hypothetical' people in abusive or untenable relationships without any personal experience even of a good marriage.

[ehbowen]

Wait, you're now calling someone who is abusive "the person on whose behalf you are undergoing the suffering"?  Seriously?

 
Actually, when I wrote that I was thinking of the larger issue of suffering in general, such as the intelligence officer who endures a brutal interrogation for the love of his country or the third-century Christian who is about to be martyred in the Colosseum for the love of her God.

But, yes, it does apply to the case you pose as well. While you do not have to love the things which they do—and you must not, if they are harmful or evil—you do need to continue loving the person themselves. You promised to, remember?

It means that they can create hell on earth for their spouse without consequences!  That's what it means to them!  Why is this ever a good thing, to you, or to your god?

It is never a good thing, either to me or to my God. But the alternatives, in the form of artificially restraining the range of moral choices or in the abandonment and subsequent loss of a volitional, moral personality, are even worse.

[ehbowen]

i;m going to be honest here, my thoughts go something like this. "I did my best parenting before I had kids"  That's what you are doing.  You are giving marriage advice to 'hypothetical' people in abusive or untenable relationships without any personal experience even of a good marriage.

 
Guilty as charged. And if you want to discount my words based upon that, feel free.

You should know that I didn't always see things this way. At one point I felt the same way that [most of] you do. Back in the late '70s my maternal grandmother was in a loveless second marriage to a man who kept moving her farther and farther away from her family and support structure. She was miserable, and I urged her to get a divorce. She did. But it was then, after it was final and I watched her weeping over the court's decree, that I began to wonder if what I had learned in school and from watching popular TV shows really represented Ultimate Truth.

[MadZealot]

But the alternatives, in the form of artificially restraining the range of moral choices or in the abandonment and subsequent loss of a volitional, moral personality, are even worse.

From where I sit, it looks like your position is the one doing the artificial restraint-- by denying an abuse victim the agency, power, or right to get the hell away from their abuser.  

I'd even say forcing em to suffer for some bugfucky 'ultimate truth' would deprive such a victim of volitional and moral personality by consigning them to a slow death of a thousand punches. (Or, a quick death by severe beating, which does happen.)

[Darkhawk]

But, yes, it does apply to the case you pose as well. While you do not have to love the things which they do—and you must not, if they are harmful or evil—you do need to continue loving the person themselves. You promised to, remember?

I am fairly certain you are not privy to the contents of my marriage-related promises and obligations and certainly are not in a position to condescendingly lecture me about them.  Being factually wrong does not help you there either.

There is absolutely no obligation to remain bound to someone who is refusing to uphold their agreements.  If such promises were made but founded on the other party's lies, there is no obligation to continue to be cheated.

Your argument is basically that someone who has been defrauded in marriage cannot consider that a breach of contract, and thus should stay no matter how much the other party fails to uphold their promises.  And, further, that no matter how deep the fraudulent behaviour goes, they are not only not able to consider that agreement void, but must uphold the terms they agreed to before they were cheated.

This continues to be blatant excuse-making for abusers, who are according to these supposed "principles" basically home free once they have secured a victim.

It is never a good thing, either to me or to my God. But the alternatives, in the form of artificially restraining the range of moral choices or in the abandonment and subsequent loss of a volitional, moral personality, are even worse.

 
... so you think that "artificially restraining the range of moral choices" is ... not the thing you are vehemently arguing for?  Even though you are explicitly saying that some moral choices should not be made in order to cater to your apparent desire to serve the needs of the abusive rather than the abused?

[MadZealot]

There is absolutely no obligation to remain bound to someone who is refusing to uphold their agreements.  If such promises were made but founded on the other party's lies, there is no obligation to continue to be cheated.

Was just coming back here to post a comment to this effect.  Seems to me there're tons of ways a person can break the faith of their marriage compact.  Once the faith is broken against you, I'd say that lets you off the hook for upholding your end, since the other person's actions have effectively voided the contract.

The wronged spouse arguably could hold to their end in the interest of holding some high moral ground.  But when said spouse stays to get beaten again, or watch their kids get beaten, again; or is forced to watch their partner destroy themselves in addiction; or is exposed to a STD nobody wants because of their partner's infidelity; well, 'holding the high ground' doesn't palliate or ameliorate jack shit.  

Any external expectation to hold-to in such harmful circumstances can be equally described as unrealistic, naive, and idiotic.

[Jenett]

She was miserable, and I urged her to get a divorce. She did. But it was then, after it was final and I watched her weeping over the court's decree, that I began to wonder if what I had learned in school and from watching popular TV shows really represented Ultimate Truth.

 
You know, people's lived experience is complicated.

It's also entirely possible that hers was too (and honestly, we can't know if this is what your grandmother felt, because you are, I am pretty sure, not a mindreader, and because there's a lot of social pressure for people about how they talk about relationships and the end of relationships and *especially* to family members.)  

Anyway. It is entirely possible to grieve for the end of a relationship, or for the relationship you wish you could have had, or to be overwhelmed by the logistical and practical changes that divorce brings in many dimensions, and still have the divorce be the Absolutely Best Available Choice.

Sometimes life is challenging like that. And often people absolutely can't articulate that, or can't until some time and healing has passed, or they get overwhelmed by the immediate stuff. Caring for the person means understanding that, not enforcing your narrative about what's going on in their head and their heart and their soul.

(And while it's still true today for a lot of people, it was even *more* true in the 70s and the 80s, and the 90s that there was a tremendous amount of stigma for women about divorce. This was partly due to attitudes that you've expressed in this thread, that they should have done more, stuck it out, made it work, even when it was destroying them. And it was partly because of socialisation around being in a relationship being the only legitimate way to be a woman. Which, y'know, might be reasons for tears too.)

[Morag]

She was miserable, and I urged her to get a divorce. She did. But it was then, after it was final and I watched her weeping over the court's decree, that I began to wonder if what I had learned in school and from watching popular TV shows really represented Ultimate Truth.

 
Weeping over a divorce from an abusive partner doesn't mean that the victim should have stayed, or that the divorce was wrong, or that leaving a bad situation is wrong. It just means people need to grieve sometimes, even when they're making the right choice.

My mom wept and wept and wept and wept over her divorce from my biological sire. It broke her heart. It broke her heart that the love of a good woman had not been enough to change him, because he was an abuser and could not be changed. It broke her heart that she'd failed to live up to his family's expectation of her, that she would be "the one" who would finally reach him. (She was wife #3, for the record.)

The fact remains if she'd stayed with him, she would be dead, and I wouldn't be posting here, because I would be dead as well. He would have killed her and I would have committed suicide. Period, full stop, that is what would have happened and I know this for a fact.

As it was the divorce went on for 10 years of litigation as he continually sued her and made our lives miserable, went for custody of me time and time again, broke into our house numerous times, had her followed, hired a man to break her legs, and threatened time and time again to kill her. He had me followed by a PI when I was an adult and living on my own and almost got me evicted. He committed tax fraud against me and made the past several years HELL; I am only NOW getting things sorted out with Rev Can.

Now that I've cut him out of my life I still have horrendous nightmares that my bio sire is going to kill my mother, or my husband, and kidnap me to "re-educate" me so I don't hate him anymore. I would be zero per cent surprised if the news broke tomorrow that he has bodies buried on his farm. Sometimes I wonder if he killed the woman I knew who lived on his island; they never caught her murderer and she was exactly the type of woman he'd threaten to kill: loud, brash, free spirited, unwilling to take anyone's shit. He's on wife #7 and NONE of them have been able to "reach him".

But according to you the blame lays at their feet, not his, because they didn't pray hard enough.

Well my bio-sire is atheist anyway; told me he'd disown me if I ever converted to Christianity; once screamed at me for an hour for saying "Bless you" when someone sneezed.

But yeah, I'm sure your god would totally have changed his psychopathy if only the right person prayed. The screams of anguish from so many of his victims weren't enough to reach your god's ears, apparently.

[ehbowen]

From where I sit, it looks like your position is the one doing the artificial restraint-- by denying an abuse victim the agency, power, or right to get the hell away from their abuser.  

I'd even say forcing em to suffer for some bugfucky 'ultimate truth' would deprive such a victim of volitional and moral personality by consigning them to a slow death of a thousand punches. (Or, a quick death by severe beating, which does happen.)

 
Please quote me the sentence where I have said that a spouse should remain in an abusive or threatening situation for even one night.

I have never said that any human agency or government should "deny" the option of divorce. In a fallen world, it is a necessary although hopefully little-used escape valve. When I speak of taking divorce off the table as an option, it is by the free choice of the spouse in question. I believe that in those cases where that is done, another option will open up. Either a resolution for the situation will appear, or else you will receive the strength to bear up under it.

[ehbowen]

Anyway. It is entirely possible to grieve for the end of a relationship, or for the relationship you wish you could have had, or to be overwhelmed by the logistical and practical changes that divorce brings in many dimensions, and still have the divorce be the Absolutely Best Available Choice.

Jenett, I will agree that in many cases divorce is a logical option. I will agree that it is a workable option. I will agree that it is a necessary option. I will not agree that it is the best option.

[Redfaery]

Jenett, I will agree that in many cases divorce is a logical option. I will agree that it is a workable option. I will agree that it is a necessary option. I will not agree that it is the best option.

But it can be the ONLY option.

[ehbowen]

But it can be the ONLY option.

 
No. It is never the only option.