their contract, their call

I think he's fine for wavering emotionally, he raised a lot of legit concerns about how this would affect him. I would. There's nothing blameworthy on either side. If it doesn't work out, it just doesn't; that happens sometimes, sadly.

I have no idea why he went down the sexist gender roles route at the end of the article. I don't think it makes the slightest bit of difference. If a wife or husband decides to go on a one way adventure without their spouse what they are doing is nothing short of a betrayal. I hope, for their sanity's sake, that if she is selected they divorce before she leaves.

Yes, Octavious, I was puzzled by that as well. I spent several minutes when I came to that section, trying to analyze if I would feel any differently from how I do if the roles were reversed. I don't believe I would.

I think she doesn't betray him by going to Mars, but breaking the marriage over this wouldn't be weird either.

Marriage shouldn't restrict you from living your dream when you see the chance IMO. If it does, either change things or end it I'd say.

That's if she goes to Mars at all of course.

If marriage isn't part of your dream, don't get married.

When a marriage involves a significant sacrifice on behalf of one of the partners (military wives are a good example) it can only be fair if both sides know what they are getting into. If a married man suddenly decides he wants a career in the navy, the impact on his wife should be his first consideration. Anything else is selfish in the extreme.

And this is far worse than the military example. She is never coming back. She is sacrificing her husband's dreams, his ability to hold the one he loves, his sex life... Hell, they won't even be able to have a conversation ever again! I'd rather lose my legs than suffer that.

You can marry for all kinds of reasons. If you want to go to Mars but there's an extremely small chance it happens, why not marry? You both know a trip to Mars isn't going to be turned down and yet you love eachother.

You're basically assuming it's sudden, Octavious. If the love is real, he knows her and knows what she aspires. They both agreed to this marriage, not just she. They both should have known what they might have gotten themselves into.

If he didn't know she wanted this and doesn't accept it, then sure, divorce. Nothing's lost. Not real love anyway.

If she goes to Mars, that's definitely a new chapter, and not just for her. So?

You only know you love her if you let her go.

Of course, if they agreed to grow old together no matter what, they're both morons.

I must admit to playing a tiny bit of Devil's Advocate, but I don't disagree with anything I just wrote :)

"If he didn't know she wanted this and doesn't accept it, then sure, divorce. Nothing's lost. Not real love anyway. [...]

"Of course, if they agreed to grow old together no matter what, they're both morons."

Wow, what a romantic.

Please never marry.

steephie, it's obvious you're still a pre-adult teen from your comments.

i completely echo octavious' sentiment, i was thinking of things to add, but he made the point perfectly.

Marriage just means something else to me than to you, guys. Perhaps I should note that I'm not a Christian. I'll be sure any potential wife knows what it means to me before we marry.

@semck83: nothing wrong with morons, just to be clear. Also, I can quite a romantic, I just don't think marriage adds anything to the romance for me.

For me, marriage adds nothing to real love, since it's just a contract. If you love someone simply because it says so in the contract, you're doing it wrong, therefore the love doesn't change for me in marriage. You just make it official, which means nothing to me. Why should I care if the state knows I'm sharing my life with someone, for example? It's useful to avoid annoying legal stuff, especially when you get children, but love is love. If the girl wants to get married, sure, I'll consider it.

If it's up to me though, I would make your typical marriage commitment way before even considering marriage itself, unless perhaps if it's really just for administration. Or to keep a good friend on a visa in the country if he really wants to stay or whatever.

So, those 'marriage' commitments, which I would make before marriage:

Love no matter what? Easy.
Stay loyal? No problem.
Support in any way possible in times of need? Try to stop me. Hell, I even try to do that for complete strangers, so that's in a sense a commitment I make to everyone before even meeting them.

I could go on for a while, but I think you're starting to see my point: I would make most of those commitments way before marriage.

Now, literally staying together forever? That's a promise I think one can not make in his right mind. Why? Because you can get separated in a literal sense while remaining loyal to eachother. Because you can end up in a situation where the best thing to do is split up for a while because it's safer for both.
All you can do without promising to potentially purposefully waste lives is promising to try to make the best of it.

That's not me talking about marriage though, that's me talking about actual commitments. Indeed, for me, marriage is just for administration, or perhaps because the other person wants it.

Now, I would never agree to a commitment that forces someone to give up his or her deepest dreams. If those dreams end up not matching the commitment as it is now, I would never forgive myself if I kept my wife from following those dreams, so making the commitment work with those dreams or, if absolutely neccessary, ending it altogether, is the lesser of two evils to me.

I would let her do what she always wanted to do, out of love. I would miss her, I would always try to be there for her, I would never stop loving her, but I would let her do what she wants so badly, and I would live a happy life in the knowledge that she's exactly where she always dreamt of being.

I wouldn't want her to become some sort of prisoner that, while loving my company, would rather be free, to give a comparison. I would let her be free, even if that means I die alone.

Hell yeah, I'm a romantic, just in a different way. I would never put us above her if she wants to make a change, and if she wouldn't let me put myself above us, I wouldn't make the commitment to her in the first place.

She would be more important to me than us, and I think that's true love. I would want her to be happy, and know she would want the same, and I would do anything to make that happen, even never seeing her again, if that's for the best.

I'm not a christian either, steephie. And I don't want to be accused of ad hominem, so I won't say you're wrong because you're too young. I will say that I would be interested in your opinion in 5 or so years, if not later.

Also, I agree marriage is technically just a contract, the point is that it is a contract signifying being life partners, I would still repudiate the actions of the wife if they weren't married but just civil partners, or even no contract, but had signalled they were life partners in some way.

I agree you ultimately want them to be happy, and not "some sort of prisoner", but if they would "rather be free" than be with you, you aren't really life partners. Not to become a moral authority, you and everyone else can do what you want. But I would never marry someone that is like "yeah i will be with you forever, unless a better option (be that george clooney or a trip to mars) comes up", and I would not marry someone who I would leave for a "better option". And, again, I use marry, but any way of agreeing that you're life partners.

I suppose we just disagree, but to explain my point a little better hypothetical situation:
The year is 2010 or something. Say I meet someone, and we really hit off. Hell, we even want to marry (/commit, but marry sounds clearer so I'll be using that word. Shouldn't matter).
Small problem though: her deepest dream: going to Mars, forever. Not like that's a real option, but whatever. She doesn't want to let go on that dream, but she really wants to be with me.

If your solution would be to either make her give up that dream or not marry altogether, I simply have to disagree.
I would marry, without the promise to physically stay together, so we can be married, settle down and be happy and everything, and she can dream. If that dream somehow comes true, awesome for her.

Better, here's a hypothetical situation*

if she says to you explicitly "hey steephie, i really like you, and want to be with you forever - with the disclosure that i would leave you, forever to go to mars" then you are more informed. Then you have the opportunity to think: "ah i doubt it will happen so it's ok" (i think this is the idiotic judgement); "oh, so she doesn't love me the way i would want, maybe we shouldn't get married"; "oh, this is fine, even if she did go i wouldn't mind"/"oh, this is great, i want to insert a marry jessica alba clause for myself!". I prefer the second one, but between the second and the next two, i think it is personal choice, and you can rationally decide either, even if I wouldn't. I feel the idiotic judgement is idiotic because a) travel to mars was always very likely in our lifetimes, but also b) it's ignoring the information. If she didn't tell you though I think that's problematic

You missed a couple of options. I would go with: "Well, I'm happier with her than alone, and in the worst case scenario I'll end up alone again *after* being happy together for a long while, and I will have supported someone in living her dream. So it should definitely be a consideration to commit."

I would not want any commitment to elimimate the chance of becoming the kind of human each one of us would want to become.

Sure, one should definitely consider if moving to Mars really will give the best total net result in happiness if that makes sense, and there's a decent chance it won't when the chance actually arises, in which case it shouldn't happen, but in this case, that might be different. I think excluding the option in advance is wrong.

It's not like it would go like: "So... Remember that clause? Well, bye!". It would be an extremely hard decision, but if you can both agree that Mars is the better option, why not?

In most cases, you would of course end up staying together, but if you marry someone who wants to be a true pioneer and you won't come along, well, surely you know what you're getting into?

Steephie, do you really think you would be happier with two years of marriage, two kids, and then she leaves and you are there, by yourself, for 60 years, raising the kids and working full time by yourself? Not sure if you would or should ever be with someone else? I feel that your attitude is actually an unhealthy one. Many people in abusive or harmful relationships reason that they are happier with the person than without - but it's not just a simple case of "they make me happy/I would be sad without them, guess i should be with them". And you say "a long while", you have no idea when they will jet off - maybe it will be just after you incur a large debt together or something. Ultimately though I think your option was basically a rendition of my last two options, you just expounded on it to make your view seem more valid....

Obviously it wouldn't go like that, don't straw man the argument - the point is with "the clause" (a term I dislike), you can point to the fact you weren't making a life committment, necessarily. Life sucks if you plan it all at least partially around, or at least in mind, of someone you thought would always be there, and then they fuck off, whether it be for mars, another person, or anything else (and no, i'm not a lonely divorcee, but I have seen the affects of it).

When you marry, unless there is "a clause", the idea is you intend to be together, in sickness and health, rich or poor, (go read the rest of the traditional vow).

"True pioneer" is an interesting term. When the first colonists went to the new world they could console themselves that, despite the place being largely a shithole full of new and exiting ways to die, it did at least have some redeeming features.

Mars has no redeeming features. If she makes the final cut her entire future will be lived out in what is essentially an airtight caravan, whilst scientists on Earth excitedly monitor what new medical difficulties arise from living in low gravity with greater exposure to radiation, and psychologists set up sweepstakes on who will go crazy first.

This is less heroic adventure and more like the rabbit volunteering to enter the animal experiment labs. And her hubby will get to watch it all on global news. How sweet

Still, in your somewhat unlikely scenario she is rather less guilty of betrayal. The husband has every right to be upset or try and talk her out of it though.

@SD: I straw man the discussion? The discussion isn't about why I think you can't say for certain she's "betraying" him then? You're the one bringing up kids and normal situations, which this isn't.
Also, you're the one that brought up the word "clause", so don't complain about that. I'm just going along with your wording.

Children are a whole different commitment, completely beside the point. Other than that, if I let her go and she goes, that almost automatically means she would let me go too. I could go on with my life like it was before the 2 wonderful years, basically.

The 'development' of the relation would probably end up in two ways:
The first is changing those dreams to end up with a 'normal' commitment because she's ready to leave Mars or whatever behind.

The second way I have in mind is helping eachother develop in an independent way, so while supporting eachother through better and worse, you try to make sure you can both support yourself too, so you keep the option of both following your other dreams open, should you choose to do something.

Yes, it takes a different mindset to make it work. I'm just saying that some could make it work. You just start out with a bit less of a commitment. A step between 'just' dating or living together and what you associate with marriage, because you're not sure you should make the full step yet.

And @Octavious: you're completely right. I was looking at it from her perspective though. Indeed, actually going to Mars is a stupid idea IMO.

If you marry someone, I assumed (perhaps mistakenly), that you would live normally, and assumed, perhaps mistakenly, the things that go with it. I still used it, and you can complain of the wording - many philosophers complain of the wording they are compelled to used.

So you are talking about a utopia! Where you do things together, without any plans and the relationship can just be terminated - I'm not even talking about the emotional stress, but really come on.

For me, marriage/a life commitment is saying, you are my ultimate dream. But perhaps I'm just an idealist.

I agree some could make it work, and they should go for it, but I do think it should be stated, rather than assumed.

"For me, marriage/a life commitment is saying, you are my ultimate dream."

That's one commitment, yes. If you can't go that far though, I don't think that's a reason to never go beyond dating.

"I agree some could make it work, and they should go for it, but I do think it should be stated, rather than assumed."

Then we agree.

perfect! and in this case i don't seem to see a place where the wife said, by the way hubby, before we get married you should know, mars = a go for me

Grey area.
Of course, one could argue that she never agreed to not going to Mars, so she can go. I agree that's too easy though.

We don't know what they discussed before marriage, what he knew about her wanting this, and how much this decision was discussed before it was made. Besides, he seems to have had an open mind when they got married, looking at the quote he wanted in for example.

He seems more like a 'we'll see what happens' kind of guy. In fact, I could see him doing it to her too, if he wouldn't get bored on Mars so quickly.
If they consciously kept it in the middle when they got married, I don't think you can just blame her and be done with it.

You can also turn it around: he promised to support her no matter what, so that includes a trip to Mars.

I just don't think the article tells us who's to blame, but he didn't exactly 'play safe' if he absolutely didn't want any other dreams to be followed that could mess with the marriage.

For the record, when a girl asks to kiss me or something, I either say no, subtly change the subject (that actually happened when a girl asked if I wanted to kiss her in a group chat and I couldn't tell wether she was joking or not, still don't know... I'll figure that one out though :P) or, when most people would say yes, I would propose a dinner first. Then I would make sure we get to know eachother better during the dinner, and do a little reality check when the time is right: I would say that I really want to go through with it and would love her forever, but I would ask if she could live with the fact that if we go through with this, she would probably be the second most important thing in my life.

So I would personally make sure that's clear, way before marriage is even an option to consider.

I would of course do it in such a way that she realizes I really love her, but there would be no confusion possible about my priorities at that moment.