ABC, CBS, FOX & NBC Have Lost More Than 77% Of Their Market Share

[Scott5114]

I guess, at that point, then I have to question what's the point of making marriage vows in the first place?

There are a lot of situations in our society where a spouse gets preferential treatment that a long-time non-spouse significant other does not. If you are in the hospital dying, it's often easier to get the staff to allow a spouse access than anyone else. It's a lot easier to get a spouse covered on your insurance than someone who isn't. "Married filing jointly" is a thing but "Boyfriend living with me for the last 30 years filing jointly" isn't. And so on.

Vows are basically just the oath of office for these things.

[kphoger]

I guess, at that point, then I have to question what's the point of making marriage vows in the first place?

There are a lot of situations in our society where a spouse gets preferential treatment that a long-time non-spouse significant other does not. If you are in the hospital dying, it's often easier to get the staff to allow a spouse access than anyone else. It's a lot easier to get a spouse covered on your insurance than someone who isn't. "Married filing jointly" is a thing but "Boyfriend living with me for the last 30 years filing jointly" isn't. And so on.

Vows are basically just the oath of office for these things.

A marriage license only legally requires a 'declaration of intent', though, right?  Not actual vows.

[Scott5114]

A marriage license only legally requires a 'declaration of intent', though, right?  Not actual vows.

Depends on the state! When I got married in Oklahoma they required an ordained pastor to perform the marriage, so presumably they were intending that said pastor would require actual vows, as pastors are wont to do. (We got a random friend of ours "ordained" through a website and the county begrudgingly accepted the printed off certificate once we printed it on fancy enough paper for them.) But I think the last time I brought this up someone dug into it and saw that Oklahoma law had changed since then.

Even if vows are part of a marriage, the two people involved can make their vows whatever they want. "I promise to never make tuna casserole on Sundays and never to stay overnight in Limon, Colorado" could be vows if that's what's important to them. They could at the same time not include any vows about infidelity or staying together forever if that's not important to them.

I think where a lot of people go wrong is considering marriage a Set Of Rules You Must Follow rather than a template to be customized to fit the two people involved in it. The agreement governing my marriage would seem pretty strange to most people, but my wife and I aren't most people.

[kphoger]

I think the last time I brought this up someone dug into it and saw that Oklahoma law had changed since then.

That was me.  Although I don't even remember seeing that it had been the law previously.

my wife and I aren't most people.

It would be weird if you were.

[Max Rockatansky]

As many LoTR nerds as I know, I'm surprised none of them has named a kid Samwise...

No guarantee the kid would like PO-TA-TOES.

[kphoger]

I don't even remember seeing that it had been the law previously.

Here is our previous conversation:

By the way, I'm looking at Statute 43-7, and Section A also permits "a judge or retired judge of any court in this state" to officiate, so I'm not so sure you're correct about that one.  This is similar to Texas law, except that in Texas the minister or rabbi or judge or whatever doesn't even need to register with the state.)

You're probably right, but this wasn't given to me as an option whenever I inquired with the Cleveland County courthouse as to how to go about the legal process of getting married in 2016. Our original plan was to have a judge do a courthouse wedding of the type you see in TV shows and such; we were told that this was categorically not an option in Oklahoma.  (Given that Cleveland County is one of Oklahoma's more urban counties, it is sort of surprising if they were misinformed or intentionally trying to deter us from using that option. Perhaps that wasn't yet part of the law in 2016.)

And here is the 2014 version of the statute:

All marriages must be contracted by a formal ceremony performed or solemnized in the presence of at least two adult, competent persons as witnesses, by a judge or retired judge of any court in this state, or an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least eighteen (18) years of age.

I think you were just given bad information.

[kphoger]

Here's where you can see previous versions of the law:  https://law.justia.com/oklahoma/

Title/Statute 43-7 includes that same language as far back as you can look, which is 2006.

[NE2]

You can watch TV with a computer (or phone, if you want to watch it on a tiny screen) for free if you're willing to sail the seven seas.

High seas piracy sounds like fun games until you find out about the scurvy.

[GaryV]

ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi

No other religions?

[kphoger]

ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi

No other religions?

The statute does include a provision for denominations that don't have ordained clergy, and it interestingly mentions the Baháʼí religion in that context.  However, that's the only mention of any non-Judeo-Christian religion that I see.  So I guess there isn't technically any provision for, say, an imam or other Muslim to officiate a wedding.  I suppose there might be something in case law, but not in Statute 43-7 itself.

[Beltway]

And here is the 2014 version of the statute:
All marriages must be contracted by a formal ceremony performed or solemnized in the presence of at least two adult, competent persons as witnesses, by a judge or retired judge of any court in this state, or an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi and who is at least eighteen (18) years of age.
I think you were just given bad information.

I think in any state you can go the a justice of the peace to perform the ceremony.

The marriage license comes first, they obtain that. Then the officiant signs that.

[Molandfreak]

ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi

No other religions?

The statute does include a provision for denominations that don't have ordained clergy, and it interestingly mentions the Baháʼí religion in that context.  However, that's the only mention of any non-Judeo-Christian religion that I see.  So I guess there isn't technically any provision for, say, an imam or other Muslim to officiate a wedding.  I suppose there might be something in case law, but not in Statute 43-7 itself.

The definition is expanded in §43-7.1:

2. "Religious organization" means any church, seminary, synagogue, temple, mosque, religious order, religious corporation, association or society, whose identity is distinctive in terms of common religious creed, beliefs, doctrines, practices or rituals of any faith or denomination, including any organization qualifying as a church or religious organization under Section 501(c)(3) or 501(d) of the United States Internal Revenue Code.

[kphoger]

As someone who has had relationship issues with this in the past, if one person's sex drive is completely different from the other's, that can cause many, many issues in the relationship. Better not to get the government involved without figuring that out.

People change. Dynamics change. Spending your entire life with someone you're not happy with should not be "imposed" on anyone just because, at one time, you assumed you'd be with that person for the rest of your life. I'd much rather be happy than prideful that I "help up my end of the bargain".

Sex drive is one of the things that changes.

My wife is approaching the age when menopause typically happens.  If she comes out the other side of menopause with a dramatically reduced sex drive (as is fairly common among women), but if mine remains pretty much the same (as is fairly common among men), then should that be reasonable grounds for me to divorce her?

Or if I were to suffer an injury or other medical condition that made me unable to sexually perform as well or as frequently as she desires, then should that be reasonable grounds for her to divorce me?

Is marriage a commitment at all?

[JayhawkCO]

As someone who has had relationship issues with this in the past, if one person's sex drive is completely different from the other's, that can cause many, many issues in the relationship. Better not to get the government involved without figuring that out.

People change. Dynamics change. Spending your entire life with someone you're not happy with should not be "imposed" on anyone just because, at one time, you assumed you'd be with that person for the rest of your life. I'd much rather be happy than prideful that I "help up my end of the bargain".

Sex drive is one of the things that changes.

My wife is approaching the age when menopause typically happens.  If she comes out the other side of menopause with a dramatically reduced sex drive (as is fairly common among women), but if mine remains pretty much the same (as is fairly common among men), then should that be reasonable grounds for me to divorce her?

Or if I were to suffer an injury or other medical condition that made me unable to sexually perform as well or as frequently as she desires, then should that be reasonable grounds for her to divorce me?

Is marriage a commitment at all?

Look. Without spilling all of my personal beans all over the internet, I probably can't give you the exact context which might make you empathize with my position based on my own history.

Let me try to give you a different hypothetical. Two people fall in love in their early 20's and, at that time, their lifestyle is that of an early 20's person -- bars, late nights, etc. They love each other and they get married. As they grow older, one of the partners settles down, doesn't party as much if ever, focuses on a career, etc. The other person continues living their life as if they'll be 23 forever - going out with friends multiple nights per week, maybe job hopping a bit because of their lifestyle, etc. The two communicate about it often, but it always leads to fights because they just can't see eye to eye. One person says "you knew who I was when you met me", and the other person can't 100% argue with that logic, but at the same time, they are no longer the same type of person that they were when they got married because they've grown up.

One person is deeply unhappy because they don't feel like the other person cares about their feelings and supporting the relationship and feels alone. The other person is deeply unhappy because they feel like they're constantly getting nagged and criticized for behavior that their partner used to exhibit as well. In your worldview, those people should stay together because they agreed to do so in front of God, the government, whatever. In my worldview, those people are no longer compatible and wouldn't date each other if they met each other now. Yeah, they should work on it as long as it's possible, but there comes a point where there is a fundamental break that can't just be plastered over, and both people have the right to be happy and to move on with their lives.

[kphoger]

One person is deeply unhappy because they don't feel like the other person cares about their feelings and supporting the relationship and feels alone. The other person is deeply unhappy because they feel like they're constantly getting nagged and criticized for behavior that their partner used to exhibit as well. In your worldview, those people should stay together because they agreed to do so in front of God, the government, whatever. In my worldview, those people are no longer compatible and wouldn't date each other if they met each other now. Yeah, they should work on it as long as it's possible, but there comes a point where there is a fundamental break that can't just be plastered over, and both people have the right to be happy and to move on with their lives.

My broader point is that there's no way, ever, to know any of this stuff ahead of time.  Everybody changes in some ways, and everybody stays the same in some ways.  There's no way to know what a potential spouse will be like twenty years down the line.  You'll both be different people by then, guaranteed, with no way of knowing how you'll be different.  So, to my ears, saying that pre-marital sex is a good way of finding out if you're sexually compatible is basically lying to yourself that one or both of your sex drives won't change in the future.

I'm all for dating awhile and having deep conversations about all sorts of things before you get married, as a way of finding out if your expectations about marriage and life in general are similar or different.  But every wedding is to a large extent a blind commitment to stay together no matter what comes or no matter how they both change with time.  Nobody at 19 years old has any real clue what they'll be like at 49 years old.  No couple making a "till death do us part" wedding vow has ever known what the future would hold for them.  That's the whole point.  No vow would be necessary if they did.

I don't know, man.  I think you and I probably have a different fundamental understanding of what "happiness" even means and how to pursue it, and what "fulfilment" even means and how to pursue it.  And that difference is probably an unbridgeable gulf.

[JayhawkCO]

My broader point is that there's no way, ever, to know any of this stuff ahead of time.  Everybody changes in some ways, and everybody stays the same in some ways.  There's no way to know what a potential spouse will be like twenty years down the line.  You'll both be different people by then, guaranteed, with no way of knowing how you'll be different.  So, to my ears, saying that pre-marital sex is a good way of finding out if you're sexually compatible is basically lying to yourself that one or both of your sex drives won't change in the future.

I'm all for dating awhile and having deep conversations about all sorts of things before you get married, as a way of finding out if your expectations about marriage and life in general are similar or different.  But every wedding is to a large extent a blind commitment to stay together no matter what comes or no matter how they both change with time.  Nobody at 19 years old has any real clue what they'll be like at 49 years old.  No couple making a "till death do us part" wedding vow has ever known what the future would hold for them.  That's the whole point.  No vow would be necessary if they did.

I don't know, man.  I think you and I probably have a different fundamental understanding of what "happiness" even means and how to pursue it, and what "fulfilment" even means and how to pursue it.  And that difference is probably an unbridgeable gulf.

(bolding mine)

Then sounds like we should get a divorce. 

I think, in general, most people that don't just jump into marriage Vegas-style have ironed out enough of the wrinkles that they're going to be happy together forever. But I just don't subscribe to the idea that the same blueprint applies to all relationships. And I don't judge people if they've figured that out for themselves. (Well, honestly I do judge people that have had multiple divorces, because of the whole common denominator thing.)

If anything through this conversation, maybe you've proven to me that marriage, as an institution is kind of a silly concept. As a non-religious person, it doesn't make any more logical sense to me than communion does. But, the pomp and circumstance of the whole wedding affair is one of life's milestones and something to be celebrated (and then add in the tax benefits and all that crap because of the awesome system we've created, and it becomes more of a bureaucratic necessity).

Anyway, what really should be the demarcation of "commitment" is having kids together.

[Rothman]

I see the "is premarital sex immoral" question as separate from justifications for divorce.  Seems to me no matter what is decided sex-wise before marriage, later years can lead to people growing apart so much in other aspects of their relationship that divorce can be the happy option.

[kphoger]

Then sounds like we should get a divorce.

Nope.  I'm in this for the long haul, bub, whether you like it or not. 

If anything through this conversation, maybe you've proven to me that marriage, as an institution is kind of a silly concept.

That's why I asked a while back, Is marriage a commitment at all?  Absent any sort of binding vows, I failed to see what a marriage could even really mean at all—other than a legal entangling of two people's material wealth.  I just find it strange that you hadn't realized the concept's otherwise-silliness before now.

To me, marriage as an institution is anything but silly:  it's basically the bedrock of society in my view.  But that probably doesn't surprise you to read.

Anyway, what really should be the demarcation of "commitment" is having kids together.

Having kids changes your life way more, and taxes your relationship way more, than getting married.  When you get married, you basically get to live with your best friend.  When you have kids, almost every aspect of your life now revolves around them and will do so for the foreseeable future.  Your hypothetical club-hopper could leave his wife at home and go party it up, I suppose, without kids, but that would be a whole other level of bad if she's then stuck at home cleaning up a sick kid's vomit every hour.

[Max Rockatansky]

That is the one good aspect of not having a kid.  I never had to change my mode of life. 

Marriage alone really didn't change things much for me given Jessica is into a lot of things adjacent to my own interests.  She also doesn't care what weird mountain roads I go drive or what hikes I go do if they don't interest her.

[JayhawkCO]

That's why I asked a while back, Is marriage a commitment at all?  Absent any sort of binding vows, I failed to see what a marriage could even really mean at all—other than a legal entangling of two people's material wealth.  I just find it strange that you hadn't realized the concept's otherwise-silliness before now.

To me, marriage as an institution is anything but silly:  it's basically the bedrock of society in my view.  But that probably doesn't surprise you to read.

It's still a commitment. But commitments end sometimes. Contracts get voided. Is it a better situation if it doesn't end? Sure. And obviously I had realized the irrational aspects of marriage prior, this conversation just confirmed it.

And no, it doesn't surprise me to read. I'm trying to think exactly what I would place as the "bedrock of society" -- probably law and order.

[wxfree]

"Till death do us part" was written back when it meant "until one of us gets the consumption and dies 10 to 20 years after getting married as a teenager."  I think it's great when marriage really works.  Sometimes they realize that it's better to be miserable together than it is to be miserable alone, and that's not great, but it can work.  But I don't think that being unable to live with someone for 50 or 60 years should be seen as a failure.

In the old days, marriages were more durable.  Mobility was lower and opportunities were fewer.  The range of thought was more limited.  Life was mostly about survival.  It's only natural that people occupied with the daily task of not dying are going to naturally stick together.  It is not a failure or a degradation of human nature that people who have opportunities, including women having the opportunity to do something other than being a housewife, but also having non-career opportunities, such as wasting hours on the Internet reading about roads, or the ability to travel easily into the city, or to go camping in the parks, and just basically the opportunity to know more, think about more, and become more complex and developed people, just can't stay the same basic survival-minded people whose minds are limited to the job, the home, and the kids, that they would have been if they'd lived a century earlier.  People are going to change more when their minds are more fully developed and their horizons are broadened.  This isn't because they're less worthy than the ancients who stayed together for life, even when that was longer than 20 years.  It's because more of their potential is unlocked.  This is good, but there are costs, and one of those costs, for some of them, is great difficulty staying the same person that someone else fell in love with.

I don't know what is the best way to adjust for this.  I think it's a bad idea to focus on the permanence of relationships knowing how often that doesn't work out.  You feel like you should do it, and you feel like that's the only way things could ever be and it could never change.  And you continue to feel that way until it changes.  I think the terms should be adjusted, because honesty is important, and because it shouldn't be assumed to have been a failure if it doesn't last for life.  It's entirely possible to have 20 great years together and then be ready for something else.  And that should be okay.  And you shouldn't have to wait until you hate each other, after trying to make it work out, to move onto the next step.  A committed relationship should be focused on making you the most you can be, not on limiting your growth so you don't change and grow apart.  I do think that permanence is best, when it's the realization of an aspiration, and not a prison.

[kphoger]

"Till death do us part" was written back when it meant "until one of us gets the consumption and dies 10 to 20 years after getting married as a teenager."

No, it was written in 1549, back when the average life expectancy of an adult (who had already survived the high rate of infant and childhood mortality) was in the 50s–60s.

The man who wrote it lived to be 66 years old.  His first wife died during childbirth, but he and his second wife were married for more than twenty years.  That marriage ended not because one of them got consumption, but because he was burned at the stake.

Don't forget that, before modern medicine, infant and childhood mortality rates really skew the "average" life expectancy numbers.

[LilianaUwU]

hi everyone how's the discussion about cable TV goi-

[wxfree]

hi everyone how's the discussion about cable TV goi-

Apparently, most of the population has gotten divorced from the television networks.

[kphoger]

hi everyone how's the discussion about cable TV goi-

I blame the cable TV networks' glorification of pre-marital sex.  We'd all be better off if they were portraying realistic sex between married 55-year-olds.