English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

better. or for worse"..I think that is unreasonable...People now a days will NOT put up with crap...1. Abuse. whether verbal or physical..2. proven infidelity 3. guy flat out refuses to work and the bills are piling up....or whatever....the reason...severe brain damage..i could not stay with someone and if i were like that i would expect him to leave me...He would be suffering if he did NOT LEAVE...AND PUT ME IN A HOME. Actually, i knew someone that left due to his wife wanted to move to a different state and he did NOT want to...What is your take on that???...remember abuse was not in the bible at the time....

2007-11-26 04:11:45 · 32 answers · asked by sweet 4 in Family & Relationships Marriage & Divorce

32 answers

yeah

2007-11-26 04:13:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

"for better or for worse" means, in my own opinion, that you won't just give up on each other when times get hard (money is tight, one of you gets sick, there's a problem with your kids, at work...you wouldn't quit just because of a little fight about laundry).
It does not mean you should stick around through abuse, whatever the Bible says. The Bible has nothing to do with it.
I don't think it's right that the couple you know got divorced just because one wanted to move and the other didn't. Why did she want to move? Was it for a job? Why didn't he? For his job as well? It should have been a decision and a compromise made together, not hard "my way or the highway". Marriage is SUPPOSED to be about love, and if you truly love someone, you won't leave them based on the fact that they want to make a smart career move. You'll be happy for them and try to work it out, or at least discuss it. It doesn't sound like they should have been married in the first place. Today it seems like marriage is just the next "level" of dating, after exclusively dating. It's not a commitment anymore, and no one ever views it that way anymore. It's SUPPOSED to be a commitment, not just something you can leave when you get tired or bored.
Yes, abuse is wrong. Infidelity is as well - no, you shouldn't stay married. Nor with one "refusing" to work. That's not the compromise I was talking about.
Quit viewing marriage as a temporary thing...and think of it more as "for better or worse" as it's meant to be...and you won't have this problem anymore.

2007-11-26 04:27:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You're wrong. The bible does talk about appropriate behavior that a man should have toward his wife and that a wife should have towards her husband. It also discusses that divorce is acceptable in cases of infidelity. Most priests and pastors agree that divorce is also best in abuse cases. The bible also discusses how God does not like lazy men or lazy women. Divorcing a person because they have cancer, brain damage or some other physical limitation is not a good reason. If you feel like you would not remain with someone if they become incapacitated, it is important for you to make that very clear to them before you get married.

2007-11-26 04:46:20 · answer #3 · answered by Sondra 6 · 0 0

For better or worse - ONLY up to a certain point. There is a fine line between abuse and being submissive. If you feel you're being abused - verbally, emotionally, physically, psychologically and financially deprived - by all means forget about those marriage vows because frankly speaking - those vows are indeed crap when things are already out of hand. Only those who say "you're supposed to stay married" don't know what the heck they're talking about and stay away from them. Marriage is still a choice. Abuse is when you let it keep on happening. It should stop.

2007-11-26 04:17:44 · answer #4 · answered by Equinox 6 · 1 1

If a woman OR a man maried someone .. presumeably they KNOW what that person is like BEFORE they marry the person..if not..then so? They chose to marry someone else without really knowing them,,, or their family.. or former sposues or girlfriends of any.of without knowing friends reallly well.. ( my mother always said "birds of a feather flock together" and she was right ) ........

I can tell you have never read the scriptures at all by what you state, by the way. Best to not pretend you have when asking things in this forum.

Your statement seems to be geared toward you thinking that just because you didnt plan on problems that might crp up..brain damage or whsatever..that means you can get tired of the situation and make it go away. That is very very childish and mean of you and pretty much shows how your own parents raised you.

By how you are stating this dilemma for mankind..and I ask you to reread what you wrote..you are saying that in your opinion.. people ought to be able to commit murder even if it offends God and breaks his commandemernts..just because someone else broke them.

2007-11-26 04:53:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Abuse was not in the bible... but it no doubt took place. And I'm pretty sure the bible intended for people who really care and love each other to get married, so chances of those less than desirable things wouldn't happen. Fights clearly would, but abuse, infidelity and so forth probably wouldn't. But people get married on the drop of a pin these days, so the divorce rate isn't all that surprising... but it's justifiable. People should probably get in tune with themselves and both figure out what they really want and what their supposed loved one wants before jumping into marriage. But people are pretty dumb... so they'll keep doing dumb things.

2007-11-26 04:18:27 · answer #6 · answered by ruthaford_jive 6 · 2 0

The term "for better or worse" is not in the Bible. However the Bible says to stay married to death except in the case of adultery....and that is a believer's spouse is a nonbeliever and leaves them, they are not bound. Abuse is not mentioned but since the Bible commands a man to love his wife as Christ loves the Church, to put her needs before his own, be willing to lay down his life for her--then I consider abuse to go against the very nature of marriage.

Not sure I understand your question here.

2007-11-26 04:17:02 · answer #7 · answered by aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 4 · 3 0

Abuse was a given during the time the Bible was written.

Of course the commitment you make to someone in marriage should be "for better or worse", but like you said there are some circumstances that could be considered grounds for leaving.

However, I think that if your partner is sick that is no reason to leave them. Thats when they need you the most. Leaving them will make them worse or kill them.

2007-11-26 04:16:55 · answer #8 · answered by sshazzam 6 · 4 0

You don't seem to know much. Here are some facts you should consider for the future:

1. There is no Santa
2. All men cheat
3. Marriage sucks
4. Everyone lies (you even lie to yourself)

Good luck and Happy Holidays. Email me
if you want honest answers from a man that doesn't
lie anymore.

2007-11-26 04:56:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Leaving biblical applications out of the equation does it occur to you that moving to a different state is something that can compromised on? Or that if you have given your word to honour a commitment leaving someone who is ill or becomes impaired shows you to be dishonourable and heartless. Abuse is subjective, to some it is name calling to others it is fists flying, so it depends on the person's outlook.

Get real, life is full of hardships, challenges and dilemmas, that which allows us to overcome such things is ethics, honour and intelligence. You should try them sometime.

2007-11-26 04:26:31 · answer #10 · answered by Rebecca W 7 · 2 0

Also, when people want you to stay in it for "the kids"

Children that grow up in a home with a loveless marriage, or abusive marriage (whether it be emotional or physical) are more likely to think that is how love is, and more likely to continue the pattern.

I dated a guy that grew up in a very unstable home, and trust me, the pattern DOES continue. Needless to say, I didnt stick around. By the way, he was VERY religious (strike 2, seeing how im a non-believer) but did not act very christian.

2007-11-26 04:14:15 · answer #11 · answered by melissa 4 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers