Skip to main content

Marriages don't fail because they come to an end.

I am not sure I understand the opposition to same-sex marriage. It is not as if marriage as an institution has been particularly successful in recent times. But this post is not about same-sex marriage. It is about marriage in general.

Something like 33% of marriages end in divorce within a 15 year period.  The number of divorces is highest among men and women aged  40 - 44.  Marriages last on average for a little over 11 years. we talk of marriages that end in divorce as having 'failed'. But is the success of marriage best judged by its endurance? Perhaps there is a better measure of success.


Divorce is not an easy process. Half of couples divorcing having children under 16. David Cameron is pledged to 'strengthen families' by making it tougher to get a divorce.  The Tories see the 'breakdown' of marriage as symptomatic of a 'broken society'. But making it more difficult to divorce may not be the best approach to dealing with the collateral damage of divorce; indeed it may make it worse.


We talk of marriages as having 'failed' if they end in divorce; but marriages don't fail simply because they come to an end. Even a successful marriage might end if one or both people in it change; and people do change. Or at least what they might want changes. The marriage may have been successful in fulfilling the social union between the couple concerned, it might have achieved success with children and seeing them through their early development. The demands of life change with time, with jobs, with promotion or unemployment, with moving house, with stress and these may bring unexpected responses or affects on those involved. Even having children may have an unexpected outcome.

There is no manual for dealing with this.  The expectation that marriage is a life-long commitment may not in most circumstances be sensible.  The social and economic conditions for marriage as a social institution have changed.  "Till death us do part" regardless of context isn't necessarily the best road to happiness.  Even a successful marriage may end in divorce with changing circumstance.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba