• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Living "Happily Ever After"...

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Am I the only one who thinks that most humans on this planet seem to place more value on the mere duration of a marriage or relationship than they do on the quality of a marriage or relationship?

We so often say things like we wish to live "happily ever after", but then in so many ways great and small we seem to show that our primary goal is to merely live together for "ever after", rather than to live happily. For instance -- just one example -- so very many people seem to feel that divorce is always for the worse, just as if there could be no such thing as a marriage that was really worth dissolving.

Moreover, there seems to be almost no concept in the popular mind of there being any value in getting into a relationship with someone unless you believe that relationship has the potential to last forever. Who among us honestly thinks knowingly entering into a relatively short term relationship can be a positive thing? And yet, if we believed the quality of the relationship was more important than the mere duration, wouldn't we see such short term relationships as at least sometimes desirable?

To place more emphasis on the duration of a marriage or relationship than the quality of a marriage or relationship is, basically, an argument for quantity over quality. Which usually seems to me a foolish argument.

I think the whole duration over quality mentality is a hideous throwback to the dark ages when loveless marriages were arranged between couples for the purposes of financial stability, social status, and procreation. Back then, it was your duty to get married, and you certainly did not do so for love, for personal growth, or any other such reason. Of course duration mattered more than quality back then! How could it not?

Living happily ever after. Most people won't accomplish that even if they think it's the only way to go. So why idealize it?

[/rant]

Comments? Objections? Questions? Mouth frothing rants?
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
I also see this as craving social correctness.

When I hear people talking with older folks whom have lost a long term mate, - they almost always say it was a good long marriage, even though you know he beat her, or was alcoholic, etc.

There seems to be social shame, especially for women, in not having achieved a long "happy" marriage.

*
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
My marriage was till death did us part. I never thought my wife would depart first. 43 years is a long time that goes in a flash. Fourteen years later I still remember her every day.

I have no Idea why any one would knowingly enter in to a temporary marriage.
If you love some one, you do not count the days, every one of them is special.
It is not like a sickness or punishment that you wish to be over as soon as possible.
It is something you cherish and want to go on for ever.
You can not half love someone.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
My marriage was till death did us part. I never thought my wife would depart first. 43 years is a long time that goes in a flash. Fourteen years later I still remember her every day.

I have no Idea why any one would knowingly enter in to a temporary marriage.
If you love some one, you do not count the days, every one of them is special.
It is not like a sickness or punishment that you wish to be over as soon as possible.
It is something you cherish and want to go on for ever.
You can not half love someone.

Your understanding or grasp of the notion I was trying to get at of relatively short term relationships is a straw man. Such relationships do not imply that the participants view them as a sickness or punishment, as you flippantly suggest, nor as "half love". In fact, that you think of such relationships as "half love" would imply to me that you have no grasp of them.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Am I the only one who thinks that most humans on this planet seem to place more value on the mere duration of a marriage or relationship than they do on the quality of a marriage or relationship?
Maybe (but probably not). I, however, do not know what most humans on this planet think regarding their valuation of duration over quality.
We so often say things like we wish to live "happily ever after", but then in so many ways great and small we seem to show that our primary goal is to merely live together for "ever after", rather than to live happily. For instance -- just one example -- so very many people seem to feel that divorce is always for the worse, just as if there could be no such thing as a marriage that was really worth dissolving.
While so many feel that divorce is the worst, so many more feel that divorce is not the worst. I am of the latter.
Moreover, there seems to be almost no concept in the popular mind of there being any value in getting into a relationship with someone unless you believe that relationship has the potential to last forever. Who among us honestly thinks knowingly entering into a relatively short term relationship can be a positive thing?
Me.
And yet, if we believed the quality of the relationship was more important than the mere duration, wouldn't we see such short term relationships as at least sometimes desirable?
Hmmm. Yes. But more accurately we would see them as sometimes valuable.
To place more emphasis on the duration of a marriage or relationship than the quality of a marriage or relationship is, basically, an argument for quantity over quality. Which usually seems to me a foolish argument.
Interesting, I imagine people might propose that entering into short term relationships is arguing for quantity over quality as well.
I think the whole duration over quality mentality is a hideous throwback to the dark ages when loveless marriages were arranged between couples for the purposes of financial stability, social status, and procreation. Back then, it was your duty to get married, and you certainly did not do so for love, for personal growth, or any other such reason. Of course duration mattered more than quality back then! How could it not?
I am not so sure I agree with your reasoning here.
Living happily ever after. Most people won't accomplish that even if they think it's the only way to go. So why idealize it?

[/rant]

Comments? Objections? Questions? Mouth frothing rants?
Happily ever after is a way to suggest that they never had another conflict, so you needn't worry over them. It is characteristic of fairy tales. It is not the real world and for that reason it is idyllic and makes for good story. It meshes well with our beliefs that if I could just do this or get that everything would be fine. It is far from real. We can no more anticipate a happily ever after than we can anticipate perpetual youth or magical fairies. Asking why any of these are idealized is a relatively easy question to answer. The idea of such notions appeals to our desires. I think what you are driving at is the question whether doing such causes detriment. I am sure we could find correlation with some detriment, but is onus of such a detriment sit with the people who believe or the stories?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Living happily ever after. Most people won't accomplish that even if they think it's the only way to go. So why idealize it?

[/rant]

Comments? Objections? Questions? Mouth frothing rants?

No. When couples marry and start a family it's good to stick together and make an effort together for the sake of the children and each other, so marriages for family surely differ from your model of popping into and out of relationships?

No. When couples are introduced into arranged marriages they actually have exactly the same chance of success in happiness as when couples choose each other. I know arranged-marriage couples who are dedicated as well as one couple where the husband is a tw-t.

No. It's best (and very lucky) for a couple to fall for each other totally as time goes by. When this happens they have been given 'happiness-ever-after' although illness and/or death can smash all that to the winds.

No. Jumping in and out of relationships devalues each further relationship (been there long ago) and unsettles mind and heart.......... a feeling of shallow hopelessness develops ....... well it messed me up, anyway. :) A mate of mine has given up the pain and intends to go it alone, which is sad because I reckon he jumped in to every relationship rather than waiting for that spark, so better to be alone for a long time at the start than to be alone for a long time 'for ever after'.


??
 

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Am I the only one who thinks that most humans on this planet seem to place more value on the mere duration of a marriage or relationship than they do on the quality of a marriage or relationship?

[/rant]

Comments? Objections? Questions? Mouth frothing rants?

Marriage whether Good, Bad or indifferent is a constant trial. Two independent people trying to coexist. Most people understand this and are significantly impressed with long term marriages. Add to it the fact that today there is no real social disadvantage to divorce and it is even more impressive. At least 3 times in my 20 year marriage I thought of divorce and we worked through it. I have a good marriage with happy times and bad times and we have yet not given up.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Your understanding or grasp of the notion I was trying to get at of relatively short term relationships is a straw man. Such relationships do not imply that the participants view them as a sickness or punishment, as you flippantly suggest, nor as "half love". In fact, that you think of such relationships as "half love" would imply to me that you have no grasp of them.

I read a science fiction book in the late 50's that was set on the premise that their life was so convoluted because of FLT and a mobile life style that permanent marriage was impossible. So that all marriages were temporary even only a day long. you picked up a marriage at the same stage as you were at in your life (marriage) newly wed. with children, advanced years or what ever.
the crux was that you had to "sign up" to marriage to be part of the system. You were a contributor......to a sort of universal marriage.
 
Last edited:

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
When couples marry and start a family it's good to stick together and make an effort together for the sake of the children and each other...

No. Not always the case...

I grew up in a toxic environment. I would likely have been far better off had my parents split early in my childhood, as I would have foregone the mental/emotional/physical abuse that led to personal challenges, not only in my childhood, but into my adult life.

I was insightful enough (and not locked into mindset @Sunstone alludes to in his OP) to recognize the toxicity in my own relationship and ended up getting divorce for the benefit of my children and myself (and probably even my ex). All involved ended up the better and happier for it as a result.
 
Last edited:

BSM1

What? Me worry?
My marriage was till death did us part. I never thought my wife would depart first. 43 years is a long time that goes in a flash. Fourteen years later I still remember her every day.

I have no Idea why any one would knowingly enter in to a temporary marriage.
If you love some one, you do not count the days, every one of them is special.
It is not like a sickness or punishment that you wish to be over as soon as possible.
It is something you cherish and want to go on for ever.
You can not half love someone.

I'm sorry for your loss and I understand where you're coming from. We're in our forty-sixth year of marriage and I consider that "short term". I think most people think of relationships in terms of time instead of experience.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I think @Ingledsva is on to something in his post above.

Quality of life, including married life, is of course more important than duration along time.

But that is from the perspective of the people directly involved.

By contrast, the most confortable stance for people from the outside is one that does not expect a lot of effort to acknowledge the actual situation of the relationship. Time is easy to measure and comparably uncontroversial. It makes for a convenient metric that people can agree on, even if it does not hold a lot of meaning in and of itself.

There is also the practical need to deal with the consequences of marriages and of their endings. Unpredictability is unconfortable, and at some level many (most? nearly all?) people, if given the choice, would rather have their friends and family settle into conveniently lasting and predictable roles for many years at a time.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Hi George...........
Well, in the case of 'children in marriage' I reckon that a stable, cohesed parent-couple can make a massive difference to the development of the children. Growing up with a parent team has got to be good.
Sure. If it is a functional enough team, which is not always the case.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Hi George...........
Well, in the case of 'children in marriage' I reckon that a stable, cohesed parent-couple can make a massive difference to the development of the children. Growing up with a parent team has got to be good.

That doesn't tell me why you reckon it so.


Isn't this fallacious thinking though? People can be unstable and still stay together. Moreover, they can ne stable amd be separated. I am not sure if "stable" adds anything. And "cohesed parent-couple?" It seems as though you might be using fluffy language instead of substance to make an argument. Then after all of this that option 1 is good does not mean that option 2 is not better.

Your earlier statement seemed to imply that it was good for a couple to stay together and that it was also better than them splitting apart. I am asking for your reasoning.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
No. Not always the case...

I grew up in a toxic environment.

Me too.......
Toxic couples crush kids.
Bust homes don't help kids.

But entering a marriage (with kids in mind) not expecting it to last 'for ever after' is different from 'hoping and trying for ever after'. :)
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Sure. If it is a functional enough team, which is not always the case.

Sure, but who would marry to have kids with not much intention of staying together.
Surely it's best to marry with the expectation of a family sticking together, that's all.

If a couple don't value the concept of staying together, then it might be best not to bother marrying, let alone having sproglets.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
That doesn't tell me why you reckon it so.


Isn't this fallacious thinking though? People can be unstable and still stay together. Moreover, they can ne stable amd be separated. I am not sure if "stable" adds anything. And "cohesed parent-couple?" It seems as though you might be using fluffy language instead of substance to make an argument. Then after all of this that option 1 is good does not mean that option 2 is not better.

Your earlier statement seemed to imply that it was good for a couple to stay together and that it was also better than them splitting apart. I am asking for your reasoning.

How interesting!
You did not mention the children in that 'family marriage' once.
I think I made it quite clear that where a couple want to marry and have a family then they should place 'value' on the prospect of cohesing, bonding, and staying together.

If a couple don't place value on the stability of their marriage at that point then they'd be better off not bothering.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Am I the only one who thinks that most humans on this planet seem to place more value on the mere duration of a marriage or relationship than they do on the quality of a marriage or relationship?

We so often say things like we wish to live "happily ever after", but then in so many ways great and small we seem to show that our primary goal is to merely live together for "ever after", rather than to live happily. For instance -- just one example -- so very many people seem to feel that divorce is always for the worse, just as if there could be no such thing as a marriage that was really worth dissolving.

Moreover, there seems to be almost no concept in the popular mind of there being any value in getting into a relationship with someone unless you believe that relationship has the potential to last forever. Who among us honestly thinks knowingly entering into a relatively short term relationship can be a positive thing? And yet, if we believed the quality of the relationship was more important than the mere duration, wouldn't we see such short term relationships as at least sometimes desirable?

To place more emphasis on the duration of a marriage or relationship than the quality of a marriage or relationship is, basically, an argument for quantity over quality. Which usually seems to me a foolish argument.

I think the whole duration over quality mentality is a hideous throwback to the dark ages when loveless marriages were arranged between couples for the purposes of financial stability, social status, and procreation. Back then, it was your duty to get married, and you certainly did not do so for love, for personal growth, or any other such reason. Of course duration mattered more than quality back then! How could it not?

Living happily ever after. Most people won't accomplish that even if they think it's the only way to go. So why idealize it?

[/rant]

Comments? Objections? Questions? Mouth frothing rants?
Well, having a spouse, children, a house, a family, and a cat seem to require long term commitment. Mileage may vary, but after 28-30 most women and men with reasonably stable careers will look for those. Earlier than that, not usually, at least for urban folks.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Sure, but who would marry to have kids with not much intention of staying together.
Surely it's best to marry with the expectation of a family sticking together, that's all.

I don't think that is a given, or even that there is much of a choice in the general case.

If a couple don't value the concept of staying together, then it might be best not to bother marrying, let alone having sproglets.

Personally, I think we should outgrow already the expectation that the biological parents should automatically be the main guardians and references for children.
 
Top