This union is best before...

[edrik]

I was just invited to the fiftieth anniversary of old neighbors of mine where they will celebrate their years of happiness by renewing their marraige vows. Does anyone else find doing so under these circumstances odd? I understand a couple renewing their vows after being separated or riding out an affair, but people do this to celebrate their

Comments

[shadowzbecoming]

Many people do not proscribe to the 'till death do you part' stipulation in a nuptual contract. I would imagine that the increase in marriage vow renewal is done to contrast the cultural trends as well as to set a model for immatation.

[edrik]

If they don't proscribe to that notion doesn't seperation or divorce tends to be the result? After all, I know of no couples who got married thinking, "We'll be married for twenty-five years, then see whether or not we want to renew then."

[shadowzbecoming]

Statistically speaking ~50% of marriages do end in divorce. Additionally, not all marriages are dictated by "Till death do you part" cerimoniously, to the best of my knowledge, thouse seem to be limited to highly religious traditions. Handfasting, in particular, is a marriage rite that stipulates a yearly renewal untill otherwise decreed. There are also Civil Unions, which are kin to marriage but maybe less perminant

[edrik]

Marriages that use the phrase, "Till death do you part," are specific to certain traditions, true, but the sentiment is not exclusive to those traditions. Marriage, you see, is not about traditions or cultures of any sort. An odd thing about marriage is virtually every culture has some variant of it. Not every culture celebrates birthdays, death-days, or passages into adulthood. I can think of none that do not celebrate marriage, however. The notion is fundamental to the emotions we feel given the right circumstances, it seems

[shadowzbecoming]

Also, "you don't know there aren't none" is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy

[edrik]

There are many things the negative of which people do not know. That does not make them true. Similarly, the possibility something may exist does not make it true. An argument for something's existence is not valid unless there is some reason given to believe in it's existence.
As to the marriage I refer to, well, that goes into a seperate discussion of my issue with marriage, mainly that as it should be a focus on the emotion, the notion behind the contract, aside from those based in the legal, is flawed. Also, if there are significant differences between the two as you insist, then a civil union cannot count as marriage in this instance. Come to think of it, however, I have never heard of people renewing their Civil Union vows.

[shadowzbecoming]

There are many things the negative of which people do not know. That does not make them true. Similarly, the possibility something may exist does not make it true. True. However, I would say that only in the capacity that one is familiar - a finite system- that while it is a non-reality, that in an expanded system it is also does not make the potential untrue: There is a scientific principle that discribes the behaviours of electrons. It describes the way the electron can move, and what spaces it can occupy in a molecular system. There are the spaces, and there are the nodes. The nodes are impassable... but yet, the electron moves between them. Why?

As to the marriage I refer to, well, that goes into a seperate discussion of my issue with marriage, mainly that as it should be a focus on the emotion, the notion behind the contract, aside from those based in the legal, is flawed. So you disagree with the notion of the contract of marriage, but you wish the focus on emotion asides from legality? What notion is that? I thought

bahumbug

[shadowzbecoming]

http:/www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/marriage.htm < -- that is the link, blasted email direct response program ate my html!