> Because marriage is intended as an act of lifetime committent

For most of history marriage was property transfer, let's not pretend it's something more romantic than it is.

> For most of history marriage was property transfer,

Failing to see how this debunks either 'lifetime committment' or 'positive relationship' which are the only logical assertions I made - I did not attempt to qualify how to ascertain 'positive'; financial benefit can also be construed as 'positive'.

That's the fairy tale definition. For many, it's just a legal term.

Referring to a "lifetime committ[m]ent to what is seen as a positive relationship" as a fairy tale is pretty ridiculous.

The oaths made in a typical marriage are impossible, dangerous ideals that, once made, can guilt people into sticking to bad situations.

Bad people don't tend to go around being bad unless they think they can get away with it. Once someone has pinky swore to dedicate their life to them, no matter what they might do, the true colors come out. I've seen it too many times, the idea does more harm than good.

Life-long good marriages exists, I hope to achieve one myself, but the silly oath doesn't help them in any way, and it makes the bad ones worse.

> The oaths made in a typical marriage are impossible

> Life-long good marriages exists

I'm sure you have this reconciled somehow, but it sounds contradictory to me.

Impossible was a poor word choice. I meant like no one could honestly make the promises, because no one can predict how people and situations will change over a life time.

Maybe if the oaths contained an "unless you become an asshole" clause, they'd be more valuable.

hence the second statment:

"Preferable to 'failing' in the sense of staying in a 'failed marriage' (where the 'positive relationship' is no more positive) perhaps, but both of these are 'failures'. "

Thanks - I specifically worded this as generically as possible precisely to avoid getting into 'fairy tale' definitions, but yet, people are happy to reverse-project their own values onto a neutral statement to attack the some strawman in their heads.

sigh.