[shader]

I think this is one of the major reasons that Americans have so many divorces. They marry for the "feelings", and as soon as those change they want out. The Indians marry for more than that - financial support, children, family name, cultural pressure, etc. The end result is that they are interested in making it happen, and are willing to work for that, whereas Americans think that the fact that it might require effort proves that they are "incompatible".

Imagine if someone tried to run a startup the way most Americans try to manage their marriages; they wouldn't last a week before they gave up - the "feeling" probably wouldn't be there, and there would be something else they'd rather do.

If both you and your spouse want the marriage to work, it can work, whether you "feel" for each other or not. The problem is really when they don't want it to work, and need an excuse.

[dkarl]

Divorce means wasted years, loneliness, traumatized children, and yes, even in America, social stigma. Nobody wants to be on the dating market as a divorcee, because everybody looks at you and wonders what went wrong and what kind of baggage you have. As a never-married guy, I can say that despite my best intentions I view divorcees with suspicion. If you think people take it lightly, then you're wrong.

In reality, marriage in America illustrates the blade of freedom cutting in both ways. I would like to point out that traditional marriages, Indian or otherwise, carry very strong expectations about the partners' roles and the structure of their home life. If one partner fulfills his or her economic and social role, the other partner's expectations are fulfilled. In American marriages, there are fewer culturally determined and socially enforced rules on who brings what to a marriage. That creates a disorienting number of possibilities. It is harder for two people to live together when every choice made by one closes off possibilities for the other. In a marriage where tradition has already closed off all possibilities except one (if indeed any other possibilities are imaginable) there is less disappointment and less reason to resent one's spouse.

Obviously, it would be nice to have a modern marriage contract, a new set of obligations such that if each spouse fulfills his obligations, then both spouses share a mutually beneficial marriage that supports, rather than hinders, their goals in life. That is what traditional marriages offer, but they are too concrete about household roles and duties. Modern attempts to define marriage are rather abstract and dependent on interpretation; probably that's what bothers you when you say that Americans depend on a "feeling" being there. Modern definitions of marriage are very wishy-washy because there's no concrete division of duties to found them on.

[dawson]

I agree with what you're saying, and would like to point out that I don't think this marriage ethic is America's alone.