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]

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.

So, in short, yes, seperation or divorce or annulments tend to be the end result. Which may attribute to why a renual of vows is in an increasing trend.

And like you said, while you may not know of any couples who got married thinking "We'll be married for twenty-five years, then see whether or not we want to renew then." does not mean that such circumstances do not exist. Personally, the "marriages" of cellebrities come to mind... but then, they are probablly - knowing none myself- thinking "How much publicity will this get me?" or "I'll try marriage for -insert finite period of trial time here- and see if it makes me happy."

[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.

Handfasting is no exception. The end conjoining is ultimately permanent, if the couple chooses to go through with it. The temporary period only lasts for a year and a day. After this, the couple must either make to commitment to stay together, or decide they are not, in fact, for each other. Civil unions are not meant to be temporary either. To my understanding, it is only a change of phrase because of issues regarding the use of the word "marriage." Also, "you don't know there aren't none" is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. Something is proved by its presence, not by the absence of proof as to its non-existence. Finally, celebrities who use marriage as a publicity stunt are, one: not getting married thinking, "we'll give this marriage a serious try for a little while." And two: not really getting married. They are making no vows. They are merely reciting empty words.

[shadowzbecoming]

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

All I was saying is that you do not know.. All you know is your exsperiance, and in your exsperiance you have indicated that you know of no couples who would go forth with such a mindset. You are one person, you may know many people, however, as many people as you do know, there are substantually many more people you do not know.

First, adressing the empty words devoid of vows: Such words, while devoid of the vows, are the communcatory vessels for the vows. If they are not cemented spiritually, they they are conscript leagally. So they are vows in that sence. The 'how much publicity will this get me?' is not mutually exsclusive to the 'trial marriage' mindset. They could well go in hand.

Now, speaking from a point of unathourity hear - mearly for conversation perspectives and discussion. Having done no research, ie, I wish I had a url to refer you to:

From my understanding, Civil unions are quite a bit different from marriage, in fact vastly different from Civil marriages - leagally speaking: in fact, that may be why there is so much discorse in politics regarding such. To my memory I can think of one instance where a Civil union would be considered a temporary engagement in need of renewal - I belive a period of 7 years. If it is not the civil marriage, I do believe there are many instances of couples deciding they would only like to be married for a set period of time to be determined by themselves, and they go ahead and get married. I can also recal there are instances of couples getting married with the sole understanding that it will be for a set defined period of time (3 years, 5 years, 7 years, ect.) as they so decree.

But what I wonder now, is to what portion of a marriage you are refering... the intangible or the tangible? If it is the intangible... grasping/understanding such a concept may never be possible.

I suppose it is a lot like falling in love or God in that regard. :)

[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 the notion was the emotion that was protected by the contract. The contract being society's recognition for that emotion's existance.