Is it wrong to break up with your partner after they became paralysed?

[j.man]

You asked a stupid question and got a stupid answer. I wouldn't expect anyone to stick with me through sickness and through health unless we'd exchanged vows or promised to exchange vows which relayed just that. That's kind of the whole point.

[abitbroken]

Sorry, its "in sickness and in health". I know someone who is paralyzed from the mid section down - they are still the same person, but simply use a wheelchair and need assistance at times. If you married someone and they became sick and you leave because of it, then you should not have married in the first place. This person has a wife and they have a happy marriage.

 

If this person is 20, i think the answer is do to a lack of maturity. But if he is older, this is his sincere belief. Becoming paralyzed is a rare thing. Its likely not going to happen, but other illness might. I this is really bothering you then maybe you should talk about what marriage means -- if you were to get married and one of you got cancer or something....what vows actually mean.... He may or may not be the right person -- or mortality or commitment is not on his radar.

[katrina1980]

Sorry, its "in sickness and in health". I know someone who is paralyzed from the mid section down - they are still the same person, but simply use a wheelchair and need assistance at times. If you married someone and they became sick and you leave because of it, then you should not have married in the first place. This person has a wife and they have a happy marriage.

 

If this person is 20, i think the answer is do to a lack of maturity. But if he is older, this is his sincere belief. Becoming paralyzed is a rare thing. Its likely not going to happen, but other illness might. I this is really bothering you then maybe you should talk about what marriage means -- if you were to get married and one of you got cancer or something....what vows actually mean.... He may or may not be the right person -- or mortality or commitment is not on his radar.

 

Agree with abitbroken, but adding a couple need not be legally married to be fully committed to each other.

[Batya33]

Agree with abitbroken, but adding a couple need not be legally married to be fully committed to each other.

 

True and in this scenario my answer might change depending if it was a boyfriend as opposed to a spouse and if a boyfriend the general situation - did we live together, children involved, his financial situation, etc. Nothing do with "fully committed" and has to do with nature of commitment. A legal commitment involving marriage vows "till death do us part/sickness and health" is a different type of commitment from being boyfriend/girlfriend. In the latter situation it would depend on what that meant.

[Seraphim]

I would totally expect for better or worse from a spouse.

[katrina1980]

@Bat, what about commitment from the heart?

 

Which to me, has more value than a marriage license anyway.

 

But I'm a bit of a weirdo on this forum lol, I think that's pretty much been established already.

 

I don't mean in a negative way, I'm an anomaly.

 

To each his/her own though.

 

Just know what I would do, that's all.

 

And would hope my bf would choose to do also. :)

[Hollyj]

I would never marry that person or have kids with them period. Marriage is forever, even despite illness or injury.

 

I agree. I would rethink the relationship and his commitment.

[bluecastle]

I hear you K and abitbroken, and agree for the most part.

 

Maybe OP can come back and let us know how old they are, but the whole "together since high school" part led me to assume (perhaps falsely?) that they are both still very young.

 

And, well, asking this question after a minor procedure also kind of radiates "youth" to me.

 

At the risk of generalization, I think men and women tend to develop at much different rates, which gives them a different sense of mortality. In my early 20s it was hard for me to see much further than a year, whereas my gf back then was already, and understandably, thinking about things like marriage and kids; at 39 I live my life knowing I'll be 60 in about five minutes, dead in about fifteen, and I say that as someone who very much wants to live to 165 and would love a partner in crime for the ride, even if/when the ride involves wheelchairs for one or both of us.

 

Somewhere in there my understanding of commitment has evolved as well, so if I were, let's say, to be asked this question by my wonderful gf of only 4 months—who would never in a zillion years ask it because she's got enough real fish to fry, though whom I'm exclusively with in hopes of colonizing Saturn together in 100 years—my answer would be the same as yours K: we'd figure it out together. Then we'd laugh and cuddle and do whatever with our still-functioning bodies.

 

That said, this all just feels to me like anxiety being thrown about somewhat recklessly. Maybe low-simmering anxiety about the core health of their connection, maybe a pinch of anxiety from being "spooked" about life after a hospital visit, maybe a generalized anxiety that colors OP's approach to life and is just something her partner, any partner, is going to deal with on occasion.

 

It also feels a bit like immaturity on OP's part, since even the idea that he would be with paralyzed her if married did not soothe, but just triggered another round of alarmist, sabotage-tinged thinking—that he would be with her, in her hypothetical paralyzed state, not because he would be as gaga as ever but because he'd made a vow of commitment and stuck to it.

 

That's a very, very tiny needle she's asking him to thread, is all I'm saying.

[Batya33]

@Bat, what about commitment from the heart?

 

Which to me, has more value than a marriage license anyway.

 

But I'm a bit of a weirdo on this forum lol, I think that's pretty much been established already.

 

I don't mean in a negative way, I'm an anomaly.

 

To each his/her own though.

 

Just know what I would do, that's all.

 

And would hope my bf would choose to do also. :)

 

That's because you see a license as a piece of paper and separate from a commitment from the heart. I do not other than in a marriage of convenience or just for a green card (or if the couple agrees it's only a piece of paper -up to them). I see it as a symbol of a commitment from the heart. And SO much more! And so does my husband and I would have said NO to a proposal from anyone who felt as you do about marriage vows. I think if two people make a commitment "in sickness and in health" then they should keep that promise whether it's in the form of a marriage ceremony or not -a promise is a promise. To my knowledge the boyfriend-girlfriend commitment doesn't automatically include that. But marriage vows do -and if they don't the couple has to agree to not include that part (have no clue whether an officiant would allow that but that's for another day).

[j.man]

Point is that if he were committed to staying with you paralyzed, you'd be engaged or married (assuming it a life goal of his and yours) as it's intrinsic. If you so insisted on asking a goofy question, "would you stay married / leave a marriage if your wife got paralyzed?" would tell us a whole lot more than asking whether he'd stay with you specifically and within a context of you two not having yet made the life commitment that marriage is. And then you could make a values-based assessment on whether that's a stage you need to be at right now or not, and whether you feel you're wasting time and need to move on. I don't have enough information to even speculate in that regard.

 

And that's half the reason the question is so silly. If you're not engaged or married, there's zero point in preceding the commitment or promise to commit to staying with you ever-after while you've got functioning legs, never mind should you hypothetically become paralyzed.

 

There's a reason we as a society tend to make a pretty big distinction between marriage and a relationship.

[katrina1980]

Many people/couples don't believe in the institution of marriage.

 

Or don't believe it's necessary to feel truly committed to each other, in the same way married people do.

 

Even more so in some cases, judging from the high divorce rate in this country (the US) currently. In CA it's 87% last I checked.

 

Although I was engaged a few years back after six years together, I am one of those people and will leave it at that.

 

I also don't give a hoot about what's happening in society or what society thinks, and never did.

 

I do me, and always have. Always will.

[Batya33]

Many people don't believe in the institution of marriage.

 

Or don't believe it's necessary to feel truly committed to each other, in the same way married people do.

 

Although I was engaged a few years back after six years together, I am one of those people and will leave it at that.

 

I do not believe it is many. I believe the opposite is true in my experience. And I don't need anyone but me and my husband to believe in marriage (and of course it's great that our family and friends supported us too -takes a village!). But in this particular situation they are boyfriend and girlfriend and the nature of their commitment is unclear because they are NOT married. If they were married we could assume it included "in sickness and in health". In this particular situation -not yours, not mine, not anyone else's they didn't promise that as boyfriend and girlfriend because if they had she wouldn't have felt the need to test him with her hypothetical especially at a kind of vulnerable point for her when she had a minor procedure. So the real issue is not whether he'd stay with her - because maybe how she brought it up and when gave him the cringies. Maybe his answer would have been different if she hadn't brought it up in this (manipulative?) way.

 

And yes if you were engaged I hope at that time you believed in the institution of marriage because engagement is a promise to marry -a commitment to marry -and you've focused an awful lot on commitments other than the marital one in your comments. Certainly people change in their beliefs about that. You're entitled now that you're not engaged to reflect on your past beliefs and change them - that happens to many people with many sorts of beliefs!

 

I felt truly committed before marriage. The end. I felt truly committed after marriage. The end. Both are 100% true. The marital commitment didn't change the truth of our commitment. It changed the type and strength of our commitment -because there are different ways to strengthen a commitment. Two people can be truly committed and when they get married they remain truly committed and the marital commitment adds dimensions to that true commitment, and different facets -without touching the "truth" of the commitment. Just like being married parents changes the commitment too. I don't think married people can be presumed to believe that the marital vows make the commitment truer. Maybe some do. I wouldn't know. I wouldn't presume. And more importantly, I do not care because I know what it means to me and to my husband and our child.

 

Our child is all about us being married, about us being a family where his parents are together and married to each other. Especially since a number of his friends have divorced parents (or as he called it "divided"). He loves the idea of marriage, has already proposed to someone (oh well, he's only 10) and I love that he feels that way, I love being able to reinforce that one of the reasons our family bond is so strong is because his parents chose to marry each other for better or for worse, in sickness and in health. He asked me a few years ago "so let's say ONE SECOND after the wedding you change you mind???" So I discussed the concept of annulment (LOL) and explained to him that typically the people marrying want to make those promises and unless they find out that they were lied to for example they wouldn't change their minds one second later. I love that he pondered that and obviously considered the weight of the marital commitment. And that is also why I am here in sickness and in health. If we did not have a child I would feel exactly the same way. And the fact that we have a child means even moreso do I feel that way - I would want him to see us as a family unit whether one of us is well or ill or whatever.

[Seraphim]

But we are “ doing us too.” Married doesn’t mean we are not doing us. The divorce rate in Canada is 38%.

[katrina1980]

>I felt truly committed before marriage. The end. I felt truly committed after marriage. The end. Both are 100% true.

 

Yeah, this is how I feel too abit, which is why I don't feel marriage is necessary for me.

 

My ex very much wanted to get married, so I agreed because it was important to him, which I think reflected my commitment to him too, over and above marriage.

[Rose Mosse]

I am married and was not married for awhile. I raised a child without being married for awhile. I questioned the use of marriage in the first place but learned that it's another way to validate a shared relationship (one of many). In my instance, I used it to validate or bring another level of relationship status into our lives and to utilize the means legally and make certain financial matters a bit more fluid between my husband and I for purposes of security and future planning within our family. It is not purely emotional for me. There are different aspects to marriage. I also felt personally that I needed to grow spiritually and going through the difficulties of a very religious marriage (yes, very funny if you knew me in person or what I have represented throughout my life), pushed me to view life, death, spirituality and made me question some very uncomfortable things that I had not been able to face or question. Of course, it's easier to leave unanswered, uncomfortable questions in a dark place, never to be revisited. I wanted to revisit those questions and in achieving the type of marriage I wanted, I brought more peace and greater understanding to my (personal) world.

 

I don't think there is any one answer for anyone. But I do think that we should live according to the laws of the universe that support growth, love, compassion, fairness and kindness. I think we owe that to each other as human beings. If something (whatever it is or may be) pushes a person to greater understanding, that is the entire point. I do not feel these questions the OP raised were worthless. They are pushing her towards another understanding of life, death and the ability to govern ourselves despite disability or other trauma. I think those thoughts are important and she should give herself the time and patience she needs to grow in her understanding.

[katrina1980]

Everyone, every couple, should do what's right for them. The end.

[Batya33]

>I felt truly committed before marriage. The end. I felt truly committed after marriage. The end. Both are 100% true.

 

Yeah, this is how I feel too abit, which is why I don't feel marriage is necessary for me.

 

My ex very much wanted to get married, so I agreed because it was important to him, which I think reflected my commitment to him too, over and above marriage.

 

Oh and to me it's not just about being "truly" committed -marriage in my opinion adds so much to the commitment, enhances the love and the commitment, etc -not for everyone but for me. I know many people who feel truly committed AND feel very strongly about the need and desire to be married to each other. I personally think it's wrong to marry someone where one person believes marriage is important and the other does not. To me that is far too risky and much much better if the couple is on the same page (barring marriages of convenience). In your case you say it reflected how strong your commitment was. I can see many cases where it would have nothing to do with the non-marrying kind person's commitment but just basically a fear of losing the person if he or she said no to marriage. I'm glad you had good intentions FWIW.

 

It is whatever is best for the couple so in the OP's case I think what would be best for her is not to marry or have a child with someone who feels as he does about better or worse and for her to seriously consider why she needed to ask that question of him.

[j.man]

If it weren't for all the legal sense it makes, I don't think I'd have minded one way or the other whether we went with the formal institution. As I mentioned in another thread just a bit ago, I proposed when my head and heart were already in "committed for life, through sickness and in health" mode. It wasn't a leap for me and I came in one end and out the other feeling the same. Some people can relate and understand. Others can understand but not relate. Some can't do either. It's all good. You do you. But in this thread's case, I'm operating on the assumption the OP and her boyfriend are among the stark majority who do have marriage as a life goal. Should she come back and clarify they in fact don't, and if they're in a time and position that's generally sympathized with as the pivot point they'd otherwise be seriously considering marriage, then I might give his answer some actual weight.

 

But just as a matter of odds, I'll stick to my bias that if they were at that point of commitment, they'd at least be engaged, and until then the question she posed is arbitrary.

[Batya33]

If it weren't for all the legal sense it makes, I don't think I'd have minded one way or the other whether we went with the formal institution. As I mentioned in another thread just a bit ago, I proposed when my head and heart were already in "committed for life, through sickness and in health" mode. It wasn't a leap for me and I came in one end and out the other feeling the same. Some people can relate and understand. Others can understand but not relate. Some can't do either. It's all good. You do you. But in this thread's case, I'm operating on the assumption the OP and her boyfriend are among the stark majority who do have marriage as a life goal. Should she come back and clarify they in fact don't, and if they're in a time and position that's generally sympathized with as a comparable pivot point, then I might give his answer some actual weight.

 

But just as a matter of odds, I'll stick to my bias that they were at that point of commitment, they'd at least be engaged, and until then the question she posed is arbitrary.

 

Very well put. I agree.

[Rose Mosse]

If it weren't for all the legal sense it makes, I don't think I'd have minded one way or the other whether we went with the formal institution. As I mentioned in another thread just a bit ago, I proposed when my head and heart were already in "committed for life, through sickness and in health" mode. It wasn't a leap for me and I came in one end and out the other feeling the same. I'm operating on the assumption the OP and her boyfriend are among the stark majority who do have marriage as a life goal. Should she come back and clarify they in fact don't, and if they're in a time and position that's generally sympathized with as a comparable pivot point, then I might give his answer some actual weight.

 

But just as a matter of odds, I'll stick to my bias that they were at that point of commitment, they'd at least be engaged, and until then the question she posed is arbitrary.

 

I agree with you factually but not entirely as it's a bit narrow. Spiritually and emotionally (thinking bigger than the facts themselves) and in terms of a much larger concept, bigger than you or I, I believe her questions are valid. The very questions themselves evoke concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, in sickness and in health regardless of relationship status and right down to the bare bones of human to human and how we feel about our place in society or as human beings in general in relation to each other depending on any number of circumstances.

 

Those concepts coming up with the OP are indicative of emotions and emotions make us human (this is part of the human condition). Whether we are more predisposed to being emotional or analytical, varies from individual to individual. In this respect I agree with your analysis but I don't feel that it is entirely encompassing. I think greater understanding and enlightenment comes from pushing ourselves to understand each other despite our natural temperaments.

[Batya33]

I agree with you factually but not entirely as it's a bit narrow. Spiritually and emotionally (thinking bigger than the facts themselves) and in terms of a much larger concept, bigger than you or I, I believe her questions are valid. The very questions themselves evoke concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, in sickness and in health regardless of relationship status and right down to the bare bones of human to human and how we feel about our place in society or as human beings in general in relation to each other depending on any number of circumstances.

 

Those concepts coming up with the OP are indicative of emotions and emotions make us human (this is part of the human condition). Whether we are more predisposed to being emotional or analytical, varies from individual to individual. In this respect I agree with your analysis but I don't feel that it is entirely encompassing. I think greater understanding and enlightenment comes from pushing ourselves to understand each other despite our natural temperaments.

 

Yes. And I don't like when/how/in what context she raised it.

[j.man]

I agree with you factually but not entirely as it's a bit narrow. Spiritually and emotionally (thinking bigger than the facts themselves) and in terms of a much larger concept, bigger than you or I, I believe her questions are valid. The very questions themselves evoke concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, in sickness and in health regardless of relationship status and right down to the bare bones of human to human and how we feel about our place in society or as human beings in general in relation to each other depending on any number of circumstances.

 

Those concepts coming up with the OP are indicative of emotions and emotions make us human (this is part of the human condition). Whether we are more predisposed to being emotional or analytical, varies from individual to individual. In this respect I agree with your analysis but I don't feel that it is entirely encompassing. I think greater understanding and enlightenment comes from pushing ourselves to understand each other despite our natural temperaments.

Thing is I'm not so sure. As I mentioned, while I still would have cringed, had she asked, "Would you leave your wife?" or "If we ended up married, would you leave me?" rather than simply and pointedly "Would you leave me," she would have gotten an answer actually mildly worth getting. I think that would tell us much more about his condition rather than her preempting a whole slew of steps of progression to put him in a no-win hypothetical situation. Again, at least with the details provided with them simply being boyfriend-girlfriend, I don't think he's really in a position of assuring of a future while she can run a 5K, never mind should her legs go kaput. And that's probably the only semi "right" answer he could give, though I hardly expect pretty much anyone to come up with something savvy when put on the spot with such a question.

 

I think she shot herself in the foot (perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy) and unfortunately got zilch for it when she could have gotten at least a little bit of workable knowledge framing the question to make it about him and his morals rather than for self gratification. There's no answer he could provide to make her happy which wouldn't essentially put him on the hook on a level of commitment which shouldn't preempt, at the very least, an engagement.

[SherrySher]

I agree with, Blue.

 

If you're both very young, OP it's not a fair question to ask. But seeing as you did ask, you got your answer. He's not ready to be in a place of full time commitment. He doesn't want to be tied down, with a situation like this or marriage, etc.

He's too young for it and he wants to explore life more before committing.

 

That's fair.

 

As for you, you want some man to say that he'd do anything to be with you or to stay with you. It seems a bit much if you are this young.

 

But I do see where you're coming from. You might wait a few years for the men around you to mature and to be in the same mindset as you are.

 

Right now, you and your boyfriend are not thinking the same.

He's thinking, dating, having a good time for now...you're thinking till death do us part.

[katrina1980]

To clarify, it was not that marriage was important to my ex, but not to me.

 

It became important to me (with him) because it was important to him. I became excited about it actually.

 

To me that is also commitment, acknowledging your partner's needs and having the desire to meet those needs, out of love, loyalty and your commitment to each other.

 

I know how you feel about marriage Bat, you have wanted marriage since your early 20s, I respect that!

 

I feel differently. I am not against marriage per se, but for me it depends on who I'm choosing to marry, how he feels about it, how I feel about it, with him, and how committed we both are to each other prior to.

 

There are a lot of different variables and nuances involved (for me), not just me wanting to be married.

 

My commitment is there either way.

 

I hope that clarifies things some.

[SherrySher]

As for your question, I think any reasonable person who was in love with their partner and was serious about them, would obviously stay with them no matter what happened.

 

Unless they're someone who has fake love or is a total jerk, in which case, they would have never been worthwhile for a relationship anyhow.