Lan Barnes wrote:
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.
So why not word the "contract" in such a way as to make it last X years?
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
