What would you consider excess baggage?

[chevalier]

Past is past. I try not to be fussy, as I have items from people’s lists here myself (work history and possibly some more). Besides, imperfections are endearing and real people aren’t free of all possible ill effects of their experience.

I would not normally use the words “excess baggage”, as it would seem to close to seeing people as damaged goods. This doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t take into consideration what economic, social and other duties I’d have to assume, or what sort of things I’d have to take from the in-laws-to-be, if I were to date or marry said person, but that’s from an “I can’t take it” perspective and not “eek! she’s an outcast”. Yes, there would be some pros and cons. The fact I wouldn’t normally date someone doesn’t necessarily mean that things wouldn’t be different if I knew that person already for a lot of good qualities. For example, marrying someone who already had children would be a difficult decision and I wouldn’t normally “cast my net” there (much more so now than, say, if I were 35 and had a stable well-paying job), but this doesn’t mean I would rule out someone I knew for a currently good Catholic, kind and warm person, caring, loyal, attractive to me etc. As far as a turbulent past goes, it would be near-absolute deal-breaker if unregretted and possibly still material in a person I’d see as currently average - though again, being kind and warm (etc. etc.) would outweigh that. Obviously, some things would be pretty much non-issue, but some issues could require concrete proof of change.

Anyway, someone who’s managed to climb out of “those kind of things” may likely be a better person at the current stage than someone who’s always struggled along without too bad but without being that great either (e.g. yours truly). The question who’s unworthy of whom may have a surprising answer, spiritually…

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Oh, Chev, you’re surprisingly mature for someone so young. I think we all need to start praying for you to find someone who deserves you and can make you happy and help you get to heaven.

(I hear it’s harder for lawyers to get in than the rest of us.)

 

[dulcissima]

Oh, Chev, you’re surprisingly mature for someone so young. I think we all need to start praying for you to find someone who deserves you and can make you happy and help you get to heaven.

(I hear it’s harder for lawyers to get in than the rest of us.)

I’ll join you in praying. He’s one of my favorites. I think he needs to find a woman who is level-headed with a smiling demeanor and a hint of mischief, just enough to remind him not to always take himself too seriously.

Praying to St. Therese for you, Chevalier.

 

[chevalier]

Thank you, ladies.

Yes, everyone has their lists of what they want and what they can deal with, but sometimes it might be a good idea to take an inventory of what it is that you have to offer. Perhaps you might find yourself in a position where you could lighten someone’s very heavy load and make it less burdensome.

Agreed.

I’ll join you in praying. He’s one of my favorites. I think he needs to find a woman who is level-headed with a smiling demeanor and a hint of mischief, just enough to remind him not to always take himself too seriously.

I’m after deep types with serenity and wisdom, who know suffering and have compassion, although my campaign list may not fully reflect this… Sense of humour and distance from from reality are welcome too. Should kinda go well with my Peter Pan complex.

(I hear it’s harder for lawyers to get in than the rest of us.)

Depends if you count as among the Pharisees or the publicans. We’re a bit of both, kinda.

Now let’s cash in on that promise of food.

So for all of you claiming that having an ‘ex’ is ‘baggage’ to you…that apparently means that an Decree of Nullity has no impact on whether or not you would consider that person acceptable to you?

Food for thought…

Gimme a burger then. Decree of nullity does mean the person is free to marry and free of an ex’s claim to his/her person. In some cases, it also contains a finding that the person acted in good faith and/or was the victim of deceit. However, a decree of nullity does not unmake the “natural obligations” of that attempt at marriage, including care of children and even obligation to support the ex in some cases. This is a legitimate concern for people who consider marriage. It doesn’t remove a weird ex (if applicable) from the picture either, which is also a legitimate concern. Finally, there may be some psychological damage and you can’t blame people for being cautious about marrying someone who might have difficulties trusting, relating, opening up etc. This does not need to entail a contemptuous attitude, feeling of superiority and negative judgement of character - compare with unwillingness to shoulder someone’s debts, which did not cause opposition. Or looking at job history, which is supposed to reflect on a person’s traits (fault or not fault, what matters is how difficult it’s going to be to live with that person). Taking these things in consideration does not undermine or disrespect the tribunal’s finding that the previous marriage was null.

On second thought, I’d prefer a steak.

By the way, I have some of those things considered baggage, myself. For example, I have close family I love but barely know and rarely see. I wouldn’t rule anyone out on this basis, but people have the right to fend for themselves and think that e.g. it shows I may have received insufficient role example in my childhood, causing some difficulties for a future family-making. Or I have some moments with low income in my work history. Personally, I don’t make much of it (unless there’s a current situation that’s getting to me), but a woman has the right to decide that e.g. I’m not the entrepreneurial go-getter she wants or that not having had a sure well-paying job at all times makes me not good enough as a provider, head of family etc. That’s her right. Same way, someone may want to marry only a person who is on the same footing with regard to “experience” (people are afraid they won’t be able to deal with being compared, with not being the first one, won’t be able to alleviate the loved one’s pain from his or her past injuries and so on). That’s also their right and they don’t disrespect the nullity decree.

Finally, an ex may be baggage in more terms than just being there, seeing the children, having been there before you etc. In some cases, people are not yet over their exes. This probably applies to ex-boyfriends and girlfriends more than divorced spouses, but in some cases it’s difficult to handle when your spouse obviously has feelings for someone and/or the ex-spouse is a best friend (better than you are). In that situation, I think the ex could indeed be straightforwardly referred to as “baggage” (not saying that people err when they say it’s baggage when e.g. the ex was a poor choice one’s now paying for - though there, I’d advocate some leniency, given that it likely was several years before, at least, when the person was less mature).

Got chili?

 

[Irish_Becca]

LOL - it’s interesting how points of view differ. For example, in the future after my annulment is declared, I would like to date a man with children, preferably one who is able to marry in the Church already. If not, then he must be willing to go through the annulment process.

I would also date non-Catholic Christians, as long as they are willing to raise the children in the Church.

I would very likely NOT date someone who had a terrible childhood or struggled with addiction. Call me a cynic, but I have been down that road before and have absolutely no desire to do it again. There is always the strong possibility of relapse, and after my disastrous prior marriage, I would probably just be nervous about that looming on the horizon. Maybe if he had gone through rigorous counseling - but I would have to be completely smitten with him and KNOW that was who God intended for me.

He must have a nice family.

Preferably no crazy ex-wives.

He must be financially stable - not rich, but stable with no large debts.

ETA: No sexual deviancy.

 

[OLHope]

Having tastes and preferences could be seen as non negotiables, but I think I meant excess baggage well, only because I know that excess baggage has that negative connotation attached to it, we all have them, and yes, just because I do not have too much going on, that could be seen as negative to a super multi-tasker who is currently combining fatherhood, his own business, his finances, when he might be looking for someone with the same focuses so they already know how to handle them. Yep, experience trumps the entry level position in many cases for things like this. Just like many have stated, they may have gotten an annulment, but they sure did learn from the past to know exactly what to look for next, no problem in being too picky if you ask me.

 

[chevalier]

LOL - it’s interesting how points of view differ. For example, in the future after my annulment is declared, I would like to date a man with children, preferably one who is able to marry in the Church already. If not, then he must be willing to go through the annulment process.

I don’t want to be preachy, but nullity decree (or refusal of it) should precede dating. Before that decree, one is considered as married to someone else. Plus, receiving the nullity decree is not a given. It may well turn out one’s been dating someone else’s spouse and there’s no possibility of marrying. You don’t want to go there. In my case, it was a different thing - she wanted to reserve the right to have no children, which would have made marriage invalid. It was painful enough. Almost three years ago, but possibly still haven’t fully dealt with it.

 

[whatevergirl]

*Hope, date whom YOU want. I think that there is that fine line between discernment and being too picky. Being ‘‘too’’ picky can cause a person to perhaps pass up some very high quality people. But, it’s YOUR life, you can choose whomever you want to spend it with…I think too many people settle, before marriage. They see the red flags, and keep moving forward, as if those flags will disappear once the ‘‘I do’s’’ are spoken. If in your gut, someone’s past is a red flag, move on…don’t even bother. I think we’d see less divorce rates if more men and women went with their guts, and didn’t ignore red flags and ‘baggage.’ Some baggage is heavier than others. A light carryon might not impede your relationship.

Good luck in your discernment for the right spouse FOR YOU. :hug1:*

 

[Salonika]

whatevergirl:

I think too many people settle, before marriage. They see the red flags, and keep moving forward, as if those flags will disappear once the ‘‘I do’s’’ are spoken.

Totally agree.

As well as it affecting them, it affects others including their spouse who is often expected to do a total makeover and told becasue they cannot or will not do that their spouse never loved them.

It can also affect any children they have as they are told what is wrong with the parent who is unable unwilling to change, especially if they are told that they are so like the parent who will not change.

I find it interesting that such people often are very keen on their spouse/children/other people changing but see no need for them to change.

 

[whatevergirl]

Totally agree.

As well as it affecting them, it affects others including their spouse who is often expected to do a total makeover and told becasue they cannot or will not do that their spouse never loved them.

It can also affect any children they have as they are told what is wrong with the parent who is unable unwilling to change, especially if they are told that they are so like the parent who will not change.

I find it interesting that such people often are very keen on their spouse/children/other people changing but see no need for them to change.

*Yes, agree. This is why when we’re single, we’d be wise to date someone for at least one year, before engagement. Then, have at least a one year engagement. Not that marriages can’t work with quicker dating time, but those are typically marriages where both people are well adjusted to begin with. I firmly believe that if you give someone enough time, their true colors will show. Are there exceptions? Sure? But, if you rush to marry someone you have only known for one year, it’s likely he/she could pull the wool over your eyes.

When in doubt, do nothing. Don’t marry someone either who pressures you to do so…there’s no rush when the rest of your life is at stake. *

 

[chevalier]

Totally agree.

As well as it affecting them, it affects others including their spouse who is often expected to do a total makeover and told becasue they cannot or will not do that their spouse never loved them.

It can also affect any children they have as they are told what is wrong with the parent who is unable unwilling to change, especially if they are told that they are so like the parent who will not change.

I find it interesting that such people often are very keen on their spouse/children/other people changing but see no need for them to change.

Well, I do find it somewhat endearing when a woman “nags” a man a bit to change one or two bachelor habits for the sake of his health (not only physical)… Most of all it shows she cares and that’s priceless.

Plus, to some extent, it goes like this. The women explains to us why putting black socks in one batch of laundry with a white shirt is a bad idea, we tell them why it isn’t a great idea to put coffee on an external hard drive and the world goes round. Just as long as you don’t think he’s going to start treating you like a queen the day after wedding. And don’t count on any life-altering changes you couldn’t live without. Especially if it involves essential matters in marriage - fidelity, indissolubility and children, or the Catholic upbringing of children. Note: if you aren’t able to trust someone on that one, you’d better find another one. Don’t marry anyone who won’t say the truth or keep a gentleman’s agreement.

Incidentally, I skipped an invitation basing on the above premises just as we all talked in this thread. It’s hard but sometimes it has to be done. Regrettably. It’s no fun at all, I’ll grant you that.

 

[Augusta_Sans]

I really think that anything larger than a carry-on is too much. I HATE it when people take up more than their fair share of the overhead bin.

Seriously though, deal breakers:

1. failed marriage, paired with either blame for the ex-wife or a lack of understanding about why it failed
2. young children, because I feel that single parents with young children should focus on raising those children, not finding a replacement spouse
3. smoking, illegal drugs, or other self-destructive behavior, because I cannot begin love someone who does not love himself

I can’t think of 2 others, actually. Those 3 cover it all, I think!

 

[Salonika]

chevalier:

Well, I do find it somewhat endearing when a woman “nags” a man a bit to change one or two bachelor habits for the sake of his health (not only physical)… Most of all it shows she cares and that’s priceless.

Plus, to some extent, it goes like this. The women explains to us why putting black socks in one batch of laundry with a white shirt is a bad idea, we tell them why it isn’t a great idea to put coffee on an external hard drive and the world goes round.

As long as this is mutual this shouldn’t automatically be a dealbreaker unless it is done with the purpose of fundamentally changing the person because they disapprove of the way they intrinsically are.

Where it would become a deal breaker for me in any close relationship is when the other person wants me to fundamentally change myself without considering making changes themselves.

In my parents case my mother (an very outgoing woman who needed lots of personal contact) married a very quiet and reserved man, and then thought that if he loved her he would become much more outgoing and enjoy the change it! She thought the same about me!

I’m all for people stretching themsleves and trying other than their natural preferences but I think there is a limit to doing this. It also depends for me on the other persons’s motive for wanting the me to change - if it is mainly to make their own life easier I think it is suspect. Meeting each other half way is another thing and can be interesting and fun.

chevalier:

Don’t marry anyone who won’t say the truth or keep a gentleman’s agreement.

This comment brought another no no for me in all close relationships. In very close/intimate relationships telling other people about things that have been said in confidence or are very personal. Occasionally you can get a very interesting and incorrect account of your views.

 

[chevalier]

Agreed on both accounts, although in some cases I don’t think it’s bad to ask for advice or even get a willing ear. Can’t really expect someone to do without and bottle it in himself. Obviously, can’t have a healthy relationship with an advisor constantly plugged in, either.

 

[Gertabelle]

I do think it is only fair that if I have not married, not done riske behavior, not joined in behavior that produced a child, or have children who I must keep my love and focus on moreover than anyone else in the world…, that I look for those things as well in another man. I think because excess baggage means you term that with more stress than a relationship can handle when it has been broken before in other situations that the more innocent person in the relationship was never responsible for creating in the first place. If I marry into a relationship where he has a child or children, the mother of that child is around, and there are always complications that arise, and they are never handled tastefully by anything that I have witnessed. She won’t go away, the kids never go away. They are not supposed to. If the mother past away or moves far far away, then there will be instant control/listening issues with the kids. Many parents say, “now you do what _____ tells you to”…, I dont want to hear the “you’re not my mommy!” line if I have to discipline a child that already made their mind up on hating me. I have seen some really nasty mean things that broken families have had to trudge through.

Thanks be to God, as a teacher I have seen many “split” parents successfully parent their children without “baggage.” These fortunate children have each had two parents who honored a child’s need to be loved and to have two parents who are united in honor and respect for the family. Some of the parents have married others, some have remained single, but all of these unique families have put aside their fear of complications (and their illusions of perfection) and their immature tendencies for the sake of other human beings.

My son, at the wise old age of six (and three years after his father decided he didn’t want to be married), is a compassionate, playful, honest, affectionate, and joyful child. And if I ever do marry, my future husband will see this little boy as a treasure, and the possibility of helping to raise him (along with me and his father) as a blessed vocation and gift from God. In short, being open to being a step-parent requires a maturity and faith that comes only with God’s grace.

Those who have followed the Lord’s commands are pleasing in His sight. But His love is also on those who have strayed and then repented, returned, and are now following His commands.

Gertie

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Haha, Gertabelle… I suppose some people would think St. Joseph should have viewed Mary and the Christ Child as excess baggage…

It does take a special kind of man to step in and fill a need that some other man left to fill.

If that’s the hunger of a child for a good, responsible father, I have known some very good, holy men who have changed lives by doing that.

 

[sanctamaria17]

I think it really does depend on your stage in life. Let’s see…

Current drug/alcohol abuse (past is their past, as long as they’ve worked to overcome it)
Serial infidelity
Refusal to pay taxes, child support (if he has kids), etc
Family involved with organized crime (good shot he is too or at least I’d be putting my life in danger…)
Refusal to seek treatment for illness (mental or physical)
History of violent behavior
Divorce with no annulment

Must-haves and deal breakers…I have my own but that’s not what the thread’s about.

 

[OLHope]

I think it really does depend on your stage in life. Let’s see…

Current drug/alcohol abuse (past is their past, as long as they’ve worked to overcome it)
Serial infidelity
Refusal to pay taxes, child support (if he has kids), etc
Family involved with organized crime (good shot he is too or at least I’d be putting my life in danger…)
Refusal to seek treatment for illness (mental or physical)
History of violent behavior
Divorce with no annulment

Must-haves and deal breakers…I have my own but that’s not what the thread’s about.

Gr8 list! I concur!

 

[OLHope]

Thanks be to God, as a teacher I have seen many “split” parents successfully parent their children without “baggage.” These fortunate children have each had two parents who honored a child’s need to be loved and to have two parents who are united in honor and respect for the family. Some of the parents have married others, some have remained single, but all of these unique families have put aside their fear of complications (and their illusions of perfection) and their immature tendencies for the sake of other human beings.

My son, at the wise old age of six (and three years after his father decided he didn’t want to be married), is a compassionate, playful, honest, affectionate, and joyful child. And if I ever do marry, my future husband will see this little boy as a treasure, and the possibility of helping to raise him (along with me and his father) as a blessed vocation and gift from God. In short, being open to being a step-parent requires a maturity and faith that comes only with God’s grace.

Those who have followed the Lord’s commands are pleasing in His sight. But His love is also on those who have strayed and then repented, returned, and are now following His commands.

Gertie

Gert, our situations are different, granted. It is just my own opinion that if he has kids already, then he needs to tend to their needs and affection far over mine. No need for a step mother ever commanding over your kid. Perhaps that is not the style where you are at, but over here is a different story. I see more vicious attacks on the kids who have to adjust to a new life, and then see the newer families somehow squeeze out the attention they crave. It’s like the movie Juno, when Juno comments on a mom that is not there because she is off with her “replacement” family, not to say that the step mother character was not amiable or good to her…, but there seemed to me a disconnection for that character that I often times see in real life with these types of situations.

 

[OLHope]

Haha, Gertabelle… I suppose some people would think St. Joseph should have viewed Mary and the Christ Child as excess baggage…

It does take a special kind of man to step in and fill a need that some other man left to fill.

If that’s the hunger of a child for a good, responsible father, I have known some very good, holy men who have changed lives by doing that.

I believe St. Joe flew off the handle until the Angel Gabriel came to tell him it as ok, and to chill. If I had been courted by a man with many kids, and he was widowed/annuled, and the Angel Gabriel came to me in my dreams and said, “Uh Hope, its hopeless, you’re sterile, take a hint and get married, this guy is great and so are his kids.” I’d be all over that guy, but not without the reservation that I could have long term problems with his ex-wife if he is annuled. My position there would always be to step back and never make decisions, never protect, and never discipline, where in a nuclear family I have those rights, and crave them because that is my nurturing instinct to do so.

I think we can talk all day about resentments going back and forth, but I have to admit, that reading a lot of the threads on here have given me this understanding. I suppose some of you have teenage daughters or young adult daughters you teach to respect themselves and look for the same behaviors in a man. As much as when you grow older, your outlook slims for the right candidate, I dont think you can place an age where she should get her priorities for marriage ready. I dont think it is supposed to happen that way. It isnt any better for the single population, finding that needle in the haystack is difficult for everyone regardless of status.

You know, when you know, and that’s it. If you thought you knew, then it just means that your EB list is more detailed because you got to run the gambit already. All of this comes with God’s grace and goodwill, we are here to serve him if we feel a call to marriage.