Hacker News Reader

Comment by unit91 | Hacker News Reader

"Embrace change" may be a great idea, but I don't think it gets to the heart of the issue. I think the key to staying married is having two people who are committed to staying married. From that, other things follow: embracing change, learning to be a better spouse, etc.

I've only been married for 12 years, but I can absolutely say that my wife and I have always been very happy and willing to be accommodating, precisely because we're committed to lifelong marriage for religious reasons. I've met a lot of people who think that sounds like a prison sentence, but for me it's been bliss.

View on HN

I agree with you, and my wife and I will have been married 27 years in June. I will add that not only is part of my motivation for staying married religious (I'm Catholic), but I also depend on God's help to keep us together. Marriage can be hard, but it's absolutely worth it. Learning to love the same person for a lifetime makes one a better person.

I'm sorry if this offends you and the person you replied to, but why are you committed to staying married for religious reasons?

Why are you not committed to staying married because you love your partner unconditionally and because they are your best friend that you love to spend time with?

It seems totally bizarre to me (being Atheist) to marry, and stay married, for religious reasons, or to believe that yourself is so special above all other people that God would help you.

I can understand people having faith in a higher power(s) and following traditions and beliefs, etc. But the bit that baffles me about these two comments is that your marriage sounds like it almost now only exists for religious reasons and you no longer love your partner for what ever reason that made you want to get married to begin with.

Instead of "stay married, for religious reasons" I'd say "stay married, with religion as an anchor" (not sure if OPs agree, but I'd suspect they might). Religion is not the primary reason, but added security.

> love your partner unconditionally

There is no such thing. That's an ideal, not something you can build a marriage on.

> best friend that you love to spend time with

Is every day like that?

Marriage has good and bad days. Religion can help to carry on through the bad days, by

1. restricting the quick exit paths

2. giving tools to resolve the issues, e.g. forgiveness

Forgiveness is not strictly the domain of religion.

My version of "religious reasons" reads: I promised by wife what I will love her and stay faithful in marriage. I will do everything to keep this promise. And I pray to God to help me keep this promise.

> Why are you not committed to staying married because you love your partner unconditionally and because they are your best friend that you love to spend time with?

This seems awfully naive. I think the point of they NY times article is that this isn't sufficient? I would definitely say this is not sufficient.

You seem to think that 'religion' taints or devalues a marriage. I've often wondered what role spirituality should play in a relationship. I think it's probably grossly undervalued. I suspect there is at least a tiny bit of nihilism at the heart of every (unnecessary) marriage break down, no matter how much love or friendship there may have been. Spirituality is a way, perhaps the most reliable way, to combat this nihilism. For cerebral types, it's too easy to convince yourself that it's all pointless and rationalise packing it in. I'm not talking about 'religion' in the sense of an institutionalised faith, spirituality can mean many different things some of which are compatible with an Atheism. I find that considering the the mysteries of the universe, however briefly, helps my marriage a lot. As does being with someone that is willing to do the same.

I don't believe religion taints of devalues marriage. I'm trying to understand, based on the comments, it seems like they are only still married because of their religious beliefs. This sounds like they do not love who they are married to which to me is wrong.

I'm trying to understand why they say that they continue to be married because of their religious beliefs.

Plenty of religious people, and plenty of non-religious people, stay married for life.

But I have literally never heard someone say they strive to stay married because of religion.

Not either of the posters you've replied to, but I don't believe either of them said that they're only in the marriage for religious reasons. They want to abide by the restrictions their religious beliefs places on them. They may be lucky that their marriage is working out, and that they've been able to work through the problems they've encountered. Maybe someone without their religious beliefs might have thrown in the towel earlier, but they personally don't think that's the way to go. But who knows, maybe someday they will hit an impasse and decide their personal happiness is more important than their religious beliefs. But for _now_, they are happy and stable enough that their religious beliefs help (as another poster suggested) to anchor them.

Full disclosure: I'm an atheist who thinks staying in relationships solely for religious regions is sad and a waste. I just believe you're misinterpreting their statements.

> it seems like they are only still married because of their religious beliefs.

Every marriage will fall on hard times. Religious beliefs can get you through.

I know many friends who are happy and in love but would have gotten divorced if not for religious beliefs convincing them to hold on.

Well, the other key is so obvious: be nice to each other.

The couples I see that fall apart complain about each other behind each other's backs to their friends. They're snarky, disrespectful, when they fight they fight dirty. When they get resentful they retaliate instead of talking.

Just. Be decent. Like each other.

It's not that hard if you can work on not being selfish, self-centered, or self-righteous.

Actually, it can be VERY hard.

If it's hard to like someone, you probably shouldn't get married to them. Spending years of your life with someone who grates on you is worse than being single.

Sometimes you don't truly know someone until you marry them.

Or rather hardtimes(financial, illness, children, etc) can change the person you once 'liked' into someone you may not.

I dunno... there's still a line one crosses when you stop treating you spouse as a person and start treating them as an adversary.

The things I've heard people say about, or worse, to their spouses sometimes stretches my definition of basic human decency.

Regardless of how someone changes, every person deserves basic respect. Even little things like complaining about bad habits behind a person's back fosters resentment borne of disrespect, resentment that can grow and fester. Resisting that urge and instead treating ones partner with dignity is a critical skill many couples lack.

I don't think anyone's arguing against what you're saying. It's just that you may like someone, and then at some point down the road, you or they change in a way that causes you to stop liking them. It's unfortunate, certainly, but it happens. Sometimes it's reversible, sometimes not.

The stigma against divorce (made worse when driven by religious edict) is often why things turn into the bad state of affairs you describe: spouses treating each other as adversaries, speaking about them negatively behind each other's backs, etc. If you get to the point where you don't like your spouse anymore, just get a divorce. No, that's not a decision that should be made lightly, but unless you have a really good reason to stay in a relationship that makes both parties unhappy, it's crazy to stay together.

> The stigma against divorce (made worse when driven by religious edict) is often why things turn into the bad state of affairs you describe: spouses treating each other as adversaries, speaking about them negatively behind each other's backs, etc.

I doubt the stigma of divorce has any such impact. Plenty of second marriages contain hatred, anger, resentment, etc

I doubt it's the only impact, but dismissing it as not having any impact seems incorrect.

What's the rationale that is has an impact?

Was there significantly more abuse etc when divorce was more heavily stigmatised?

> Sometimes you don't truly know someone until you marry them.

You should just live together for a few years first then.

People do change over time, it's in our nature. You're a different person at 25, at 30, at 35. Marriage is hard, there's a lot of luck involved, lots of compromises that need to be made in order to make the whole thing go forward. My failed marriage is one my worst (probably the worst) failures in my life, especially as I was thinking that I was having it all under control. I wasn't.

That's assuming things don't change. Surely people can start our liking each other but change their opinions over time.

This is such a good point. Agree completely.

> From that, other things follow: embracing change, learning to be a better spouse, etc

In my experience, the harder it is to dissolve a relationship, the worse it is. There's no incentive for good behavior because the other person has to stick with you no matter what. Adult relationships with siblings and parents are often quite toxic for this reason.

I think your own example contradicts the idea that the harder it is to dissolve a relationship the worse it is.

Adult relationships with parents and siblings can indeed be toxic.

However, you aren't actually forced to stick with them no matter what.

In fact, for the most part, it takes consistent effort to keep family in your life.

As a contrast it's much harder for most of the population to quit their job and stop associating with their boss and yet the employer-employee relationship is often a lot less toxic.

> As a contrast it's much harder for most of the population to quit their job and stop associating with their boss and yet the employer-employee relationship is often a lot less toxic.

There's usually _much_ less emotion involved in the employer-employee relationship. In my experience when a significant amount of emotion gets involved, it's more often negative emotion, and then you start hitting problems where you feel trapped in a job with no alternatives.

Many of the worst spousal relationships are ones where one spouse feels trapped and cannot leave for religious, financial, social, etc. reasons.

>> the key to staying married is having two people who are committed to staying married

This is all it is. Too many people focus on instant gratification and short-term expectations. Most failed marriages (well, long-term relationships in general) happen due to boredom and the inventing of excuses to be unhappy, simply because the honeymoon period is over. Well guess what? If you give up on one relationship because it got "boring", you're in for a wake up call when that becomes the case with every subsequent relationship.

Barring exceptions such as abusive relationships, the grass will not be greener on the other side with a new relationship. The grass will become the same shade of green you already had. The path to success is learning how to fertilize the grass you already have, instead of replacing the grass every time it starts to turn brown.

> Most failed marriages (well, long-term relationships in general) happen due to boredom and the inventing of excuses to be unhappy, simply because the honeymoon period is over.

I'm actually curious as to whether or not this is true. It's certainly true in some cases, but the absence of the honeymoon period is absolutely necessary to determine if a relationship has long-term potential. We're completely incapable of making a rational determination of that while in the honeymoon phase.

I suspect that many relationships end after the honeymoon phase more because one or both parties realize that, after the hormones have died down a bit, they just don't have enough else in common (beyond their initial emotional attachment) to forge a lasting relationship. And that's ok! It's good to figure that out, especially if you can do so before you've made a long-term commitment.

I absolutely agree that "having two people who are committed to staying married" is certainly a way to staying married, but that's like saying "the key to being ok with keeping your hand on a hot stove is being committed to not caring how much it hurts". It's true because it's something of a tautology, not because it's a good idea. Being committed to staying married when there are better alternatives might keep you married, but at what cost?

>> they just don't have enough else in common (beyond their initial emotional attachment) to forge a lasting relationship

This is the fallacy. That somehow there is a magical formula that determines "compatibility". I'm of the opinion that nearly any two people, put together, should be capable of making a lifelong relationship work. Outside of one of the people being completely hopeless, such that they would be incapable of ever maintaining any meaningful relationship.

The way you get to grow old with a partner is obtained by the very simple means of having a committed partner. And therein lies the secret sauce. You don't look for the "perfect match". You match with anyone willing to have a go at life together, and you ride out the long and hard journey. The way to win is to realize that life is mostly made up of shit circumstances, and that life is too short to be lonely. You're better off having someone, anyone, rather than having nobody.

> This is the fallacy. That somehow there is a magical formula that determines "compatibility".

I never suggested there was, and agree with you that there isn't. A ton of things go into compatibility, and determining the compatibility between two people is a case-by-case, very personal thing.

> I'm of the opinion that nearly any two people, put together, should be capable of making a lifelong relationship work.

I think we're going to have to just disagree, then, because I don't share that opinion. I of course don't believe in something silly like soulmates, and I do think people can be compatible with many more people than they think they could be, but it's a matter of degree, and I think most arbitrary/random pairings likely won't/can't turn out well.

Put another way, perhaps nearly any two people put together could make it work... but at what cost to both of them? For some pairings it would be low cost, and for others drastically higher. Why would that cost always be worthwhile, just for the sake of having a long-term relationship?

> You're better off having someone, anyone, rather than having nobody.

Is this really how you feel? I find that incredibly sad to be honest.

I absolutely do not agree with that. I've been in a relationship before with someone was absolutely disastrous for my mental health.

No chance in hell I would choose a life with her over a life of solitude, given the choice.

> Being committed to staying married when there are better alternatives might keep you married, but at what cost?

The evidence shows, on average, divorcees end up poorer and less happy than couples who stick together through tough times. The evidence shows, again on average, the children of divorcees are worse off.

The problem is people are amazing at self-deception. They are terrible judges as to whether they are going to be happier/better off post-divorce.

I don't have all the answers. But its clear that sticking together is more often than not the right strategy.

> The evidence shows, on average, divorcees end up poorer and less happy than couples who stick together through tough times.

How do you even measure the latter bit? Happiness is entirely based on self-reporting, and a divorcee can't say "I would have been happier had I stayed together", because they literally cannot know that. Likewise, someone who stuck it out can't say "I would have ended up less happy had we broken up", because, again, that's unknowable. They can guess, and of course people will want to believe they made the right choice sticking it out, so I could see why they'd report greater happiness.

I think your point about people being great at self-deception cuts both ways: they may not be able to accurately predict whether or not a divorce will make them happy in the future, but they're also likely to rationalize the decision to stay as being better when they have no real basis in doing so.

Regarding poorness and:

> The evidence shows, again on average, the children of divorcees are worse off.

I think it's worthwhile examining why that is the case. It's telling that we say that people who have divorced have "failed" marriages. It's a negative. It creates shame, and people feel pressured, due to religion or other social reasons, to stay together. Could it not be that people end up poorer and children end of worse off after a divorce mainly because we as a society do not have the proper support structures in place to keep divorcees from experiencing negative outcomes?

And hell, a decent amount of the "poorer" bit could be ascribed to the cost of the divorce itself, including court fees, lawyers, etc. Alimony also ends up being "inefficient": a friend of mine got divorced a few years ago and was required to pay alimony to his former spouse. The end result was the the money was not enough to bring her up to her standard of living during marriage, and the expense on his side was enough to drag his standard of living down as well.

As an aside, do you have any references that support your claims? I'm very interested in reading them.

> How do you even measure the latter bit?

Basically they look at people who are going through marital problems and collect self reported happiness levels then follow up a few years later and collect self reported happiness levels again.

Some of those couples will have divorced. Some will still be together.

There are certainly issues with these studies but overall they paint a pretty clear picture.

> It creates shame, and people feel pressured, due to religion or other social reasons, to stay together.

I don't think there is a lot of evidence for this view.

The high rate of divorce indicates to me there isn't much of a stigma at all.

And there are plenty of sources extolling the benefits of divorce.

> And hell, a decent amount of the "poorer" bit could be ascribed to the cost of the divorce itself,

It could be. Why should divorce costs should be excluded?

> As an aside, do you have any references that support your claims?

I haven't looked at these studies in years but I'll see if I can dig them up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com