Spoiler Now with some windows opened: Spoiler
People who build relationships based on emotions instead of promises have no need to get married. Your marriage ends when your partner no longer loves you. I would think you would have a legal and moral obligation to file for divorce since I don't think you would have the right to call yourselves married. You can still keep your commitments to your partner, but the marriage has ended because your partner no longer can keep his/her commitments to you. People do not have to act in a certain way after divorce. There are no rules somewhere that say what to do. Divorce does not mean leave to never be seen again.
People will look at you funny.
To say it again, you are not divorcing them, you're already divorced. You can't have a marriage with an unwilling partner. Is it more important for couples to remain married than to love each other? I think it's much better to be there for someone cause you want to, not because of commitment. And couples can be together without commitment, to take it on faith that the other will always be there for you. To have no need for insurance.
When I was taking about marriage, I was referring to the commitment made by two people. Marriage is a contract between two people in the states, a legal transaction. A ceremony or oath is up to each individual couple. So, people's definition of marriage might not be the same. For some it might just be a piece of paper.
Ugh. That one snowball in Okami took me forever to realize that it had no purpose.
About that, the contract should be forfeit, not just can't enter anew. Although, a person with Alzheimer's can still be competent. The contract will only be forfeit if the spouse's mental competence has deteriorated by so much. But I also believe that there's a difference between love and marriage. You don't have to be married to someone to still love them or care for them.
I'm not saying it's a justifiable reason. I've been saying you're already divorced once one partner becomes unable to make informed decisions for oneself. EDIT: Also, just to be clear, a marriage contract requires both parties to be mentally competent.
To love someone else just for simply being would only be possible if that love was unconditional, and thus artificial.
The only thing I care about in a relationship is that each party stays happy. If something happened to me where I become no longer myself, like a permanent coma, the last thing I would want is my lover to stay romantically bound to me the rest of his/her life. I don't see the point of a "romantic contract" when a party, not necessarily at his or her fault, breaks it. I don't know how a romantic relationship would continue if it was left up to only one person. Please, this is getting out of hand. Please debate in a respectful manner.
I think mine would be the PS2, out of any gaming system the PS2 is the one I used the most. It has many great titles that I will cherish. I have never owned a PS3, Xbox 360 or high-end computer.
Divorce =/= abandoning, at least in my point of view. If I divorced someone I loved because he/she has Alzheimer's, I would want to make sure that person is well cared for, like any decent person. But I would want my romantic loyalties to go elsewhere if I can't satisfy them with him/her.
Alzheimer's is not like amnesia. It doesn't get better, people with Alzheimer's get progressively worse over time. And yes, just because something can't be remembered doesn't mean it didn't happen. But this doesn't mean it will happen again.
In my current opinion, when your partner forgets they're married to you, you two are no longer married. But that doesn't mean you don't still love him/her, and because you're not married, doesn't mean you've abandoned him/her. Sorry for repeating myself.
I agree, mutual love was the phrase I was looking for. To continue to "be married" after a party falls out of love or to completely forgets they were in love is not a marriage at all. For example, if I stop loving my spouse for whatever reason, that spouse no longer has the right to call me his/her significant other. EDIT: Although, there could be periods of lucidness... It's never a black or white answer.
No, it does not mean nothing. I still loved that person in the time we presumably spent together, I just no longer love. I would want my partner to leave me if that person no longer loved me. EDIT: Just to elaborate on this post, would you want your partner to stay with you if you knew that he/she was no longer happy being with you?
I believe a a person is a person as soon as they have brain activity (my argument on abortion), and so I believe a person is dead when they cease to have any brain activity. Alzheimer's is a gray line for me.
I don't really see a reason to say with a vegetable the rest of your life. "Be a man" as you call it is the exact type of obligation I was talking about, the only thing you are doing is denying yourself to be happy and find another. If a person changed into some I no longer loved, I would leave. Of course, I would only stay with a partner that would do the same with me if I ever changed. I was only comparing Alzheimer's with a person who's a vegetable. I was not calling a person with Alzheimer's a vegetable.
Of course, according to marriage vows, no reason would be a legitimate reason to leave your spouse. I'm not one to marry, but I believe you should stay with a person cause you want to, not out of obligation. You should only stay with your partner if you still love him/her. Would you call a vegetable your significant other?
So it would be asking too much for someone to change the styles so that it only affects posts?
