I agree that integrity is important, and I'm curious to know why you think what I've stated lacks integrity. I wouldn't want to be with someone who unrealistically expects me (or anyone, really) to promise to stay with them for the rest of my life, and I wouldn't expect them to promise that to me. I would certainly be happy if that's the way it worked out in the long run, but staying in a relationship "just because" is a terrible idea, and promising to do so paints you into a hole that apparently 40-50% of Americans end up breaking out of despite the promise. Are you suggesting that all or even a significant number of those people are cheapening marriage for you?
I've been to several (secular, and religious but non-Western) wedding ceremonies where nothing along the lines of "till death do us part" was said or promised. Are they, in your mind, not marriages?
At the risk of being hyperbolic: there are quite a few people in the world who believe marriages between people of the same gender "cheapens the concept" for married men and women. Given that HN is generally socially liberal-minded, I'll assume for a moment that you agree with me that those people are wrong. What makes your strict definition ok, while their strict definition is bad?
And I think that's the crux of it: you do you, and I'll do me. Marriage meaning a certain thing to me does not in any way change what it means to you. My being unwilling to make a lifelong promise that I find unreasonable and not in my or my partner's best interests does not take anything away from you.
I've been to several (secular, and religious but non-Western) wedding ceremonies where nothing along the lines of "till death do us part" was said or promised. Are they, in your mind, not marriages?
At the risk of being hyperbolic: there are quite a few people in the world who believe marriages between people of the same gender "cheapens the concept" for married men and women. Given that HN is generally socially liberal-minded, I'll assume for a moment that you agree with me that those people are wrong. What makes your strict definition ok, while their strict definition is bad?
And I think that's the crux of it: you do you, and I'll do me. Marriage meaning a certain thing to me does not in any way change what it means to you. My being unwilling to make a lifelong promise that I find unreasonable and not in my or my partner's best interests does not take anything away from you.