Hacker News Reader

Comment by hedonist | Hacker News Reader

When you marry, you covenant to society that you will make yourself compatible with your spouse, even when it's difficult to do so, [...]

That's fine for you. Other people have different priorities in their lives. And elevating the sanctity these abstract entities known as "institutions" to the point where they feel miserable, trapped, and unfulfilled do not count particularly high among them.

If one is "sexually incompatible" with his/her spouse, they should talk about it, recognize the issues, make compromises, and move forward.

That's fine for you, if those are your priorities. But what's fine for you isn't necessarily fine for other people.

They should also recognize that while sex is meaningful and important, it can't be a deal-breaker for a marriage ...

Again, maybe not a deal-breaker for you. But for other people... I think you see what I'm getting at here.

View on HN

People do not have to marry to be together. Marriage should be regarded as an important step, where you promise to your peers that you will be with your spouse until the end of life. This is valid even without religion.

Have a different view? Can't commit to such a long time? That's OK. Marriage is not mandatory in a relationship (and for some people it's in fact detrimental). Just don't marry and live happy.

That's a proposition. Is there an argument to back it? Why should marriage be life-long, vs time-limited?

It's not a proposition. It is a definition. On Western culture, a marriage is a life long pairing. It is also monogamous, in the same vein, by definition.

Is it lifelong and monogamous in every culture? No. It is in ours, though.

Is the definition being coopted for non lifelong pairings? I don't think most people marry with divorce in the horizon, so even if marriage allows for divorce, I think the public promise is still one of lifelong commitment.

>That's fine for you. Other people have different priorities in their lives. And elevating the sanctity these abstract entities known as "institutions" to the point where they feel miserable, trapped, and unfulfilled do not count particularly high among them.

No, that's historically what it has meant to be married. When married, if you have negative feelings, you are expected to resolve them peaceably and well. It is supposed to be illegal to just quit because you can't handle your own emotions.

Again, there are a handful of very basic exceptions where a dissolution of the union is allowable, but part of the reason marriage exists is to provide that relational stability -- marriage is about the covenant with society much more than it's about either of the spouses or their feelings, which disciplined, mature adults are expected to control.

>Again, maybe not a deal-breaker for you. But for other people... I think you see what I'm getting at here.

Yes, I see what you're getting at. You're arguing that marriage has no formal definition ("It may mean that to you, but...") and is therefore a meaningless abstraction in the macro sense. This is not the way things are supposed to be, but I agree that the prevalence of no-fault divorce makes it effectively realistic. This is a very bad thing.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

And this doesn't seem to be a very effective line of discussion, either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com