On Tue, March 27, 2007 4:25 pm, DJA wrote: > Christian Seberino wrote: >> On Tue, March 27, 2007 1:39 pm, DJA wrote: >> >>> And that risk is what again? And don't bring up anything that has a >>> biological basis because being married (or not) has no direct causal >>> relationship with biology. >> >> Are you saying there is no risk you can gather that exists in >> relationships? >> >>> The basic fallacy with your argument seems to be an assumption that >>> people either don't change, or that if they do change, then at least if >>> they are in a relationship (the formal version - marriage - seeming to >>> be the only relationship you accept as valid), they will both change in >>> the same direction. >> >> Well marriage can't force someone to keep their promise anymore than an >> excercise partner can guarantee you'll make it to the gym every week. >> The >> *hope* of course is that when the going gets tough and one feels like >> breaking their promises they'll think..."Gee I'm married so I should >> take >> this seriously since it is hard to leave..." >> >> Chris > > More often it's harder to stay. And for all the wrong reasons. My > observation says that it's more harmful to the individuals in the > relationship (or marriage if you insist), especially the children to > maintain that relationship past the point where is becomes > dysfunctional, destructive, and downright harmful. > > I've seen this in my own family, and while I have the context of the > history, I still can't see the rationale of maintaining a bad > relationship - other than misery loves company, living with the devil > you know, and just plain denial and fear of the unknown. > > -- > Best Regards, > ~DJA. >
In a rational society, married people should have to re-up, like in the army. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
