Quantcast
Family

Marriage isn't for you: Author explains viral blog post

Comments

Return To Article
  • BYU Fan in DC Washington, DC
    Nov. 4, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    Brilliant writing, thanks

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    words to live by.

  • shimmer Orem, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 1:26 p.m.

    I actually disagree with a lot of this. Plenty of couples marry without intentions of having children. Not everyone is blessed to have a loving family for their partner to marry into. These people don't deserve to be married? Marrying just to make someone else happy seems a little strange to me.

  • Sasha Pachev Provo, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 1:29 p.m.

    Thanks for this article. More people need to learn this. Now could we make an argument that since this is going to save trillions of dollars in welfare, this should be taught in our public education system as a skill that is perhaps even more important for our economy than math and science?

  • Contrariusiests mid-state, TN
    Nov. 4, 2013 1:29 p.m.

    Very sweet, and so true!

  • Steven S Jarvis Orem, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 1:48 p.m.

    Spot on. If men and women always see marriage in making others happy and then going about doing the things needed to make that happen we would see stronger happier families.

  • foldart OREM, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 2:28 p.m.

    Your Father is a Genius!!! Always remember that advice.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    @ Shimmer: I think you missed the point - marriage is about forming a loving family. By making the marriage about the person you marry, instead of about you, a loving family is created - whether or not there are children and whether or not you came from a loving family originally.

    Marriage is about the person you marry - plain and simple.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 3:04 p.m.

    It seems people are looking for different things in marriage now. It's not necessarily a good thing, because they seem to want marriage to be perfection, or a quick fix, or easy, or shallow. To that end, I tell a lot of people they shouldn't get married, because they shouldn't They haven't got what it takes and won't find it. So it's best they stay out.

  • Cinci Man FT MITCHELL, KY
    Nov. 4, 2013 4:15 p.m.

    I was not looking for someone to walk ahead of me nor behind me. I wanted a partnership of love where we both do things for ourselves and for the other. I have my life and my wife has hers. And we have our beautiful life together where we share goals, ambitions, desires, interests, hobbies, nurturing time, partnership, build our home, raise children and grandchildren, and eat every meal together that we can. Attention is given to all three situations, with a mixture we both feel good about. And we both love each other and serve each other and share in all things married lovers should. It's not just about the other person, in my opinion. We both matter.

  • California Steve Hanford, CA
    Nov. 4, 2013 4:18 p.m.

    My wife and I were married in the SL Temple 30 years ago today. Two sons and three grandchildren later we're still going strong. You're right Seth, it's all about your spouse, children and grandchildren. Best wishes to you in your marriage.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 5:08 p.m.

    A true marriage isn't about you, its about the other person? Baloney. Its about both people.

    This is one of those cute sayings that ought not be taken at face value. Similar to .. "Love means never having to say you're sorry".

    There are certain agreements and expectations when people get married that a person has a right to expect the other person will at least try to live up to. If not a person has a right to consider their options. To do otherwise would mean consigning oneself to a life of needless emptyness and misery.

  • UU32 Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 5:12 p.m.

    While there is some solid advice here, I think the young, inexperienced writer will come to understand marriage at a greater depth as he grows up a bit. His dad hit the nail on the head and was surely inspired to help his son. Marriage is for all involved. It is not a selfish act - which is what the dad seemed to be telling his son "Stop being selfish". However, marriage is also a great blessing to each of the parties for yourself and for your spouse. The greatest happiness I have received in life is due to my marriage. Marriage is for me, and my spouse and my children. Of course, I have the best wife in the entire world, so that is easy for me to say.

  • JP71 Ogden, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 5:48 p.m.

    This article is a mind blower for me. I completely agree with the author. This is one of those philosophies that is as old as time or older. This is the concept of "he that looses his life shall find it". This is a very hard concept for most people to understand. The world in general is too selfish to understand the logic behind this concept. By completely giving your self to your spouse you really benefit. You must think on a different level to truly get this.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 5:50 p.m.

    This philosophy of marriage is flawed. When each person places the other person first, then they lack a "self" for the other person to respond to. The rhetoric of "selflessness" sounds good in theory, but in practice it is nonsense.

    And I have been married for over 30 years, with no religion, belief in god, or doctrines teaching that we have a sacred duty to overpopulate the world!

    "I want somebody to share
    Share the rest of my life
    Share my innermost thoughts
    Know my intimate details
    Someone who'll stand by my side
    And give me support
    And in return
    She'll get my support
    She will listen to me
    When I want to speak
    About the world we live in
    And life in general
    Though my views may be wrong
    They may even be perverted
    She'll hear me out
    And won't easily be converted
    To my way of thinking
    In fact she'll often disagree
    But at the end of it all
    She will understand me

    ...Someone who'll help me see things
    In a different light
    All the things I detest
    I will almost like..."

    Depeche Mode: Somebody

    Now those are inspired words!

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Nov. 4, 2013 11:06 p.m.

    Live your life for life to have a life to live for.
    It's more than a conclusion, it's a commitment.
    Love that thought. Marriage ain't for me.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 7:09 a.m.

    ".' That was probably the most beautiful experience of my life. And I hope that this article can help others to have an experience like that."

    ---

    It doesn't matter how much we love the person we're with, some of us just aren't allowed.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 12:06 p.m.

    To "Ranch" who says that some people are not allowed to get married? There are all sorts of religious and non-religious people willing to officiate in marriage ceremonies for gays in every state. You could probably find somebody willing to perform a marriage ceremony for you and your significant other here in Utah.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 2:08 p.m.

    @RedShirtUofU;

    There is a certain legality issue to be overcome first.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    Nov. 5, 2013 3:53 p.m.

    To "Ranch" that is different. You said that you just wanted to be married. Any willing minister or whatever can perform a marriage ceremony.

    What you want is not part of marriage. You want government benefits. If what you wanted was government benefits, why didn't you say so? Why hide behind marriage to make your quest for benefits seem legitimate.

    Do you have to have government recognition of your marriage to make it any more valid in the eyes of you and your other? If you do need the government recognition, doesn't that mean that your marriage is more for show than an actual marriage relationship?

  • The Solution Dayton, OH
    Nov. 6, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    @A Scientist:
    I love Depeche Mode's Somebody and even had it played at my wedding reception. But the idea that you lose your own "self" or identity by being selfless shows that you have no idea what the word selfless means. Selfless means that you are not constantly focused on your needs, that you do not always have to be right, that the success of the ones you love is also your success, etc. Being selfless is a characteristic that helps build your personality, not detract from it. I'm sure you don't think that your 30 years of marriage could have survived if was about you and not your spouse. If that is the case in a marriage, then a spouse has put up with a lot of crap and probably abuse.

    Certainly there is a lot of benefit for both parties involved when true love abounds in a marriage. And certainly, just like these newly weds, we sometimes make mistakes and get selfish from time to time.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Nov. 6, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    @RedShirtUofU --

    "You said that you just wanted to be married. Any willing minister or whatever can perform a marriage ceremony.

    What you want is not part of marriage. You want government benefits. "

    What part of "equal protection under the law" is so difficult to understand?

    Church ceremonies are all sweet and heartwarming, but they don't mean much legally.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 6, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    To "Contrarius" you missed the point. "Ranch" said that he wanted to be married to his significant other. Anybody can get married, regardless of the law. Just look at the polygamists that are married multiple times. In the minds of the polygamists they are married to each and every woman that their clergy says they are.

    If a gay person want to be married, there is nothing stopping them. What you and Ranch want are the legal benefits of marriage to be extended to gays, which has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Please read this article and tell me what legal issues are involved with what was posted on the blog.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Nov. 6, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "If a gay person want to be married, there is nothing stopping them. What you and Ranch want are the legal benefits of marriage to be extended to gays, which has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Please read this article and tell me what legal issues are involved with what was posted on the blog."

    You will find extremely few straight couples who would be willing to give up those legal recognitions/benefits/rights, or who would consider marriage to be a separate entity from those legal recognitions/benefits/rights.

    I challenge you to do a survey of straight married couples. Ask a good sample -- at least 100 -- if they think that marriage as a concept has nothing to do with the legal recognitions, benefits, and rights associated with the institution.

    I can tell you how the vast majority are likely to answer.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 7, 2013 1:19 p.m.

    To "Contrarius" what makes a couple married. Is it the legal benefits, or the civil/religious ceremony?

    Again, what are the legal issues involved with thinking of your spouse's needs ahead of your own? I am still waiting on your response to this one.

    Do you define marriage by the legal benefits or do you define it as a religious ceremony meant to unite 2 people?

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Nov. 7, 2013 3:46 p.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "what makes a couple married. Is it the legal benefits, or the civil/religious ceremony?"

    That's a good question. What do you think the answer is?

    Do you really think most straight couples would be satisfied with just a ceremony, and no legal recognition of their status?

    "Again, what are the legal issues involved with thinking of your spouse's needs ahead of your own? "

    Ooooo, there's tons there. Spouse's needs include: your spouse's need to get health insurance from your own employer. Your spouse's need to inherit from you when you die. Your spouse's need to make legal decisions for you if you become incapacitated. Your spouse's need for legal guardianship of your joint children.

    There's a bazillion of em. I could go on -- and on -- but you get the idea.

    "Do you define marriage by the legal benefits or do you define it as a religious ceremony meant to unite 2 people?"

    Certainly not as a religious ceremony. Millions of married people never have any religious ceremony at all -- yet they consider themselves to be just as married as people who go to church for the ceremony.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 7:40 a.m.

    To "Contrariuser" since you define marriage as the legal benefits, there is nothing more to discuss. You will never accept the advice that was given in the article because marriage to you is just a legal means of obtaining some benefits.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Nov. 8, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "since you define marriage as the legal benefits, there is nothing more to discuss. "

    Phhhht. I never said any such thing.

    "You will never accept the advice that was given in the article because marriage to you is just a legal means of obtaining some benefits."

    Why do you exclude legal rights for your spouse from "thinking of your spouse's needs ahead of your own? " do your spouse's needs somehow not include the need for legal rights?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 8, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    To "Contrarius" then explain yourself. Answer the questions that I have asked.

    Again, what are the legal issues involved with thinking of your spouse's needs ahead of your own?

    What makes a couple married? Is it the legal benefits, or the civil/religious ceremony?

    What are the legal issues involved with thinking of your spouse's needs ahead of your own?

    If marriage is "Certainly not as a religious ceremony", then what is it? Even the civil ceremonies are based on religious ceremonies. They just replace clergy with a government official.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Nov. 8, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    @Red --

    "Answer the questions..."

    I already did. But I'll be happy to answer them again. ;-)

    "what are the legal issues involved with thinking of your spouse's needs ahead of your own?"

    As I already said -- "Spouse's needs include: your spouse's need to get health insurance from your own employer. Your spouse's need to inherit from you when you die. Your spouse's need to make legal decisions for you if you become incapacitated. Your spouse's need for legal guardianship of your joint children. There's a bazillion of em."

    "What makes a couple married?..."

    Yes to all of the above. It isn't an either/or situation.

    "...then what is it? Even the civil ceremonies are based on religious ceremonies. "

    Actually, religious ceremonies are based on civil ceremonies. Waaaay back in history, marriage was civil first -- then religious later.

    "Marriage" is a lot of things. It's one of the most complex and all-encompassing relationships in our lives. It can't be boiled down to one isolated incident.

    Trying to over-simplify marriage only turns it into something it isn't.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 8, 2013 12:08 p.m.

    To "Contrarius" apparently there cannot be further dialog.

    You obviously see marriage as the legal benefits that you get, and see it as a highly complex issue. I see it as a simple thing that unites 2 people.

    You see sacrificing your needs for your spouses as just providing "stuff", like insurance or legal issues. I see it as giving up my wants to make my spouse happy. You don't seem to be concerned with the happiness of your spouse, but just want to do the minimum to reduce or prevent complaint.

    Marriage is simple, if you see it as something that is complicated then you are obviously doing something wrong. If you have food, shelter, and clothing, all you need for a happy marriage is to care more for the needs and wants of your spouse than you do your own needs and wants. It really is that simple.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Nov. 8, 2013 12:39 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701 --

    "You obviously see marriage as the legal benefits that you get,"

    Sez you. ;-)

    "and see it as a highly complex issue. "

    Yup, that part's true.

    "I see it as a simple thing that unites 2 people."

    If you think marriage is simple, then you must never have been married yourself. ;-)

    "You see sacrificing your needs for your spouses as just providing "stuff", like insurance or legal issues."

    Oh, heavens no. I never said any such thing.

    Remember, you specifically ASKED for those legal issues. I neither stated nor implied that there was all there is to marriage.

    "I see it as giving up my wants to make my spouse happy."

    And that's just great. You go ahead and do that.

    In the meantime, the rest of us will also be worrying about protecting our spouses legally.

    "You don't seem to be concerned with the happiness of your spouse, but just want to do the minimum to reduce or prevent complaint."

    LOL!! That's an amusing fantasy you've got going there.