I grew up in a strict fundamental religious family where everything was black and white. Now that I'm (slightly) older, married, and have my own family, I'm becoming very uncomfortable with the black/white approach and prefer to think that most situations fall into a grey area.
So here's where my confusion enters. When most people marry, they include the phrase, "For better or worse" in their wedding vows. To me, this always meant, "I will stay married and committed to you no matter what happens(barring abuse)" However, having been on these forums for a short while now and seeing so many situations and circumstances that no one really talks about, I'm wondering what those words really mean, or if they really have any meaning at all.
Does the "the worse" part mean :
-I will stay married to you even if you refuse to meet my needs
-I will stay married to you at all costs, even if it means sacrificing my own happiness
-I will stay married to you even if we are thoroughly incompatible and cannot function as a team
Should a marriage have stipulations attached? Is it appropriate for a spouse to say, "If you refuse to meet my needs, I cannot be married to you anymore"? I used to genuinely believe that there are NO excuses for divorce, aside from abuse. Now I'm questioning my own beliefs. I see so many of you in sexless marriages and in marriages where your spouse is unwilling to cooperate to ensure that needs are met on both sides. Is that fair for someone to have to spend the rest of their lives, miserable, because they are "stuck" in a marriage that is going nowhere but downhill?
If divorce is acceptable in those situations, then do the words "For better or worse" really mean anything then? If they really don't mean much, it makes the whole institution of marriage seem a bit shallow to me, which makes me very uncomfortable. Perhaps I have a skewed picture of what marriage is. I need a fresh perspective.
On the flip side, if a spouse can use the excuse "You aren't meeting my needs" as a citation for divorce, does that make it too easy to just throw your hands up in the air and give up on the marriage? Where is the line drawn?
I didn't meet my husbands needs for 4 years. I refused to acknowledge them and yet, he told me that he was committed to honoring those vows "For better or worse" and would never leave me. Although I'm ashamed of what I did to him, I am IMMENSELY grateful that he was committed to me 100% the entire time. I did finally come around and we're both working on our marriage as a team now. However, the question has come up, "If I slipped back and refused your needs again, this time for the entirety of the marriage, would you still stay married to me." And his response was that he believes he would not stay. I take this to mean that he respects himself enough to not allow himself to be trapped in an unsatisfying marriage and with someone who does not respect him.
So the original question: What does "For better or worse" really mean? I'm beginning to think that they are merely words. There really are strings attached. There should be strings attached.
I'm just trying to process this in my mind, any thoughts or different perspectives? I'd really love to hear some different ideas, if you have any.
So here's where my confusion enters. When most people marry, they include the phrase, "For better or worse" in their wedding vows. To me, this always meant, "I will stay married and committed to you no matter what happens(barring abuse)" However, having been on these forums for a short while now and seeing so many situations and circumstances that no one really talks about, I'm wondering what those words really mean, or if they really have any meaning at all.
Does the "the worse" part mean :
-I will stay married to you even if you refuse to meet my needs
-I will stay married to you at all costs, even if it means sacrificing my own happiness
-I will stay married to you even if we are thoroughly incompatible and cannot function as a team
Should a marriage have stipulations attached? Is it appropriate for a spouse to say, "If you refuse to meet my needs, I cannot be married to you anymore"? I used to genuinely believe that there are NO excuses for divorce, aside from abuse. Now I'm questioning my own beliefs. I see so many of you in sexless marriages and in marriages where your spouse is unwilling to cooperate to ensure that needs are met on both sides. Is that fair for someone to have to spend the rest of their lives, miserable, because they are "stuck" in a marriage that is going nowhere but downhill?
If divorce is acceptable in those situations, then do the words "For better or worse" really mean anything then? If they really don't mean much, it makes the whole institution of marriage seem a bit shallow to me, which makes me very uncomfortable. Perhaps I have a skewed picture of what marriage is. I need a fresh perspective.
On the flip side, if a spouse can use the excuse "You aren't meeting my needs" as a citation for divorce, does that make it too easy to just throw your hands up in the air and give up on the marriage? Where is the line drawn?
I didn't meet my husbands needs for 4 years. I refused to acknowledge them and yet, he told me that he was committed to honoring those vows "For better or worse" and would never leave me. Although I'm ashamed of what I did to him, I am IMMENSELY grateful that he was committed to me 100% the entire time. I did finally come around and we're both working on our marriage as a team now. However, the question has come up, "If I slipped back and refused your needs again, this time for the entirety of the marriage, would you still stay married to me." And his response was that he believes he would not stay. I take this to mean that he respects himself enough to not allow himself to be trapped in an unsatisfying marriage and with someone who does not respect him.
So the original question: What does "For better or worse" really mean? I'm beginning to think that they are merely words. There really are strings attached. There should be strings attached.
I'm just trying to process this in my mind, any thoughts or different perspectives? I'd really love to hear some different ideas, if you have any.