Chances Are, You’re Married to the Wrong Person


Romeo and Juliet.

Image via Wikipedia

Actually, it should be said, “Chances are 100% that you’re married to the wrong person” (assuming you are married).

You may not be surprised to hear that you’re married to the wrong person. You’ve believed this for a long time, so it resonates. But you are a little troubled, possibly even vexed, that I know this about you. And you’re aghast at the very suggestion that it was bound to be so, that, whoever you are, you married the wrong person.

If this sounds wildly implausible to you, then I recommend reading a post by Lori Lowe, titled “We All Married the Wrong Person”—at her Marriage Gems blog.

In her post, Lori recounts the high points in her interview with Dr. Scott Haltzman, a psychiatrist whose books focus on marriage and family dynamics. Haltzman explains why we should acknowledge that we’ve married the wrong person. For that, we should consider the evidence that it’s true.

  • We never know a person completely when we step into marriage with him or her.
  • Marriage frequently begins with star-crossed lovers, blind to each other’s faults or limitations.
  • We bring unrealistic expectations into our marriages, expectations that cannot be fulfilled by anyone.
  • We all change with time and circumstance, so that we find we’re married to a different person over time.
  • The frequency of divorce is alarmingly high.
  • Couples that remain married acknowledge that they are not always completely happy in their marriages.
  • The pool of marriage candidates may be so large that the odds of choosing the right person are low to begin with.

Lori’s excellent post surfaces many valuable points. There are others to consider.

First, the whole concept of a right person to marry needs to be examined. Even if we allow that more than one person could be right for us, we should wonder:

  1. What does it mean for a person to be right for me?
  2. How would I know that a certain person is right for me?
  3. How would I know later that the person I married is not right for me after all?
  4. And what if every “right person” marries the wrong person—that is, marries someone other than me?

Second, suppose there is no “right person” for anyone to marry, at least in the sense that so many hope for. Anyone you marry will, sooner or later, disappoint. But this does not mean:

  1. You should never marry.
  2. Your marriage to the wrong person cannot succeed.

And it definitely does not mean that:

  1. Any person you marry is good enough.
  2. There is no person who is wrong for you.

Third, some readers will argue from a religious point of view that for those people who should marry, there is always the right person. This, they may say, is tied to the sovereignty of God and God’s special means of guidance for individual believers.

Even if this is true, the questions raised here are still vital. They translate into questions about what God desires for us, how we know what God desires for us, and how we know when we’ve found what God desires for us.

Fourth, we should commit to having a successful marriage, and let go any idealistic notion of being married to just the right person and having a perfect marriage.

Fifth, we should welcome a different conception of the values and rewards of marriage than what is so widely assumed today.

Scott Haltzman’s books:

A book I recommend on decision making for the Christian, and its wisdom approach to marriage decisions, is Decision Making and the Will of God, by Garry Friesen.

Advertisements

Feminist Sensibilities as an Issue for Christian Apologists


Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) wrote that Christians should “make good men wish that Christianity is true, and then show them that it is.” Both tasks are severely neglected by the Church.

It seems we’re surrounded by people who hope that Christianity is not true. The major media, at least, often express suspicion of Christianity. Sometimes, to be sure, the media go further and deride Christianity. But they seldom deride Christianity with arguments that its central truth claims are false. Rather, they deride its attitudes and practices.

Attitudes differ from beliefs (except in the technical philosophical sense that a belief is a “propositional attitude”). What, for example, do Christians believe about the status of women—in society, at the workplace, at home, in marriage? To be candid, Christians don’t agree in their beliefs about these matters. Read more of this post

Betray Yourself, Not Your Sponsors—California Beauty Contestant Scorned by Her Own Handlers


Miss USA

Carrie Prejean, the 21-year-old Miss USA contestant from California, stood up for her values and stood down for the tiara that was almost hers. During the interview phase of the contest on Sunday, Judge Perez Hilton asked Ms. Prejean whether she believes in gay marriage. Prejean answered:

“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. . . . And you know what . . . I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised.”

Ah, yes, but we do no longer live in a land where you can give an answer like that and still win a beauty contest. North Carolina’s Kristen Dalton won the crown and Carrie Prejean got “first runner-up.” Most believe it was her answer to gay advocate Perez Hilton that sunk Prejean’s chances. Some even believe it’s a travesty that she was the acknowledged runner-up after such an “insensitive” and “hateful” public statement about the definition of marriage.

Observe:

  1. Carrie Prejean gave an unpopular but honest answer. She could have been dishonest and probably won the contest. To her credit, she stood by her values. But it isn’t her answer that bothers gay rights activists; it’s her attitude about gay rights and the definition of marriage.
  2. Carrie Prejean’s attitude is that marriage should be between a man and a woman. She cannot be accused of “gay bashing.” What she said is not a form of hate speech. As she said, she intended no offense to anyone. She simply said what she believes, as asked. My view? If you’re going to ask a question like that one, you’d better be able to handle the answer. Notice, no one has objected to the question, or to Hilton Perez for asking the question. So Prejean should have been free to answer, without recrimination, the question she was asked.
  3. Carrie Prejean was not “inclusive” enough in her answer, say her critics. But if she had answered that she approved of gay marriage, she would have excluded many Americans who also disapprove, including all those from her own state who passed Proposition 8 with their vote in November.
  4. Gay rights advocates are bound to take offense even if Carrie Prejean meant no offense. Gay rights advocates are duty-bound by their cause to take offense. It is a strategic requirement in their effort to persuade others of gay rights. “Being offended” is an acquired taste. It comes natural when you’ve trained for it.
  5. A beauty pageant is a popularity contest. Because of her answer, Carrie Prejean is unpopular with certain people. Which people? Gay rights activists. Who are gay rights activists? This is an important question. Some gays are not gay rights activists. Many gay rights activists are not gay. Gay rights activists are engaged in a strategy to marginalize anyone who believes that there is no “right” to gay marriage. You may believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. But do you have a right to believe this? Do you have a right to say so? Doesn’t matter. Gay rights activists will do anything in their power to ensure that if you believe it you will be made a pariah.
  6. Perez Hilton took umbrage at Carrie Prejean’s answer to his pagaent question. AssociatedContent.com reports that the way Prejean “worded her answer seems to have infuriated Perez Hilton, who called her a ‘dumb bitch’ on his video blog, then apologized, but only for calling her a ‘dumb bitch.’ (Apparently, the ‘half a brain’ lines were still valid.)” So Hilton, in contrast to Prejean, is an intelligent and broad-minded person of good will who thinks Carrie Prejean deserved to lose the crown because of her “unfortunately worded remarks” (as they’re called over at AssociatedContent.com).
  7. Former Miss USA, now director of the Miss California USA pageant, Shanna Moekler has also made it publicly known that she’s disappointed in Carrie Prejean. As state pageant director who sought sponsors for Prejean’s participation in the pageant, Moekler was embarrassed and indignant, and said that Prejean had betrayed her sponsors. Apparently, Prejean should have betrayed herself and her own values, instead. This is very revealing about Moekler’s own moral compass. We should like to know who the sponsors are and which ones are so offended. In view of serious economic reversals in this country, it’s become imperative that Americans know more about the moral compass of corporate leaders. So tell us, Ms. Moekler, which sponsors are embittered by Prejean’s integrity?
  8. In the general election of November 2008, Californians voted to approve Proposition 8, affirming traditional marriage and prohibiting gay marriage. So it is especially poignant that Miss California defied gay rights activists’ opposition to Proposition 8. Talk about an embarrassment to the prickly denizens of the entertainment community in our state. I’m betting that future California contestants will be vetted for their views on gays rights issues.
  9. I admire Carrie Prejean’s courage. She knew she might be asked about gay marriage, and she hoped she wouldn’t be. She knew it would be risky to answer with honesty. She now says she would give the same answer over again. The test she passed may be much more significant than she realizes. Prejean’s courage will be rewarded with greater courage. That’s how growth in virtue works.
  10. She didn’t win the crown, but Carrie Prejean may now have more of a platform to inject greater judgment into public discussion of the gay rights debate. Greater judgment is sorely needed. But it won’t be enough to explain traditional convictions by saying only “this is how I was raised.” Prejean was pressed for time to answer a serious question tossed off by a cynical activist. Tender-hearted people need to ask the gay rights activists tough questions. Carrie Prejean is a tender-hearted person. May she and others equip themselves with knowledge of the sober facts about gay rights strategists and the plight of the gay community, and marshal these facts in the public square for the public good. For this purpose, I commend the work of Voddie Baucham on this sensitive topic.

Coming Post: Are you a Gay Rights Advocate?

Quotes on Parenting


“I would my father looked but with my eyes.” —Hermia, daughter of Egeu, in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Egeus was determined to wed his daughter to Demetrius, a man of his own choosing and against the wishes of Hermia to marry Lysander, the man she loved. The play depicts the tension between a father, who demands submission to his authority, and his tenderhearted daughter. The artwork here was discovered by Bill Huntley
in a children’s book during a visit to Greece.

When one has not had a good father, one must create one. —Friedrich Nietzsche

To bring up a child in the way he should go, travel that way yourself once in a while. —Josh Billings

A mother who is really a mother is never free. —Honoré de Balzac

The first half of our lives is ruined by our parents and the second half by our children.” —Clarence Darrow

The fundamental defect of fathers is that they want their children to be a credit to them. —Bertrand Russell

Don’t limit your child to your own learning, for he was born in a different time. —Rabbinical saying

No matter how old a mother is, she watches her middle-aged children for signs of improvement. —Florida Scott-Maxwell

Insanity is hereditary—you can get it from your children. —Sam Levinson

People should be free to find or make for themselves the kinds of educational experiences they want their children to have. —John Holt

%d bloggers like this: