As a disclaimer I am not telling people to do the following regarding Ecclesiastes, but I got a moral theoretical and…almost (maybe) rhetorical concept regarding divorce. Now as we know Marriage is a Trinity between the spouses and God, and to symbolize that are the wedding rings that symbolize the promise between the spouses and with God. Let us acknowledge the financial and paper aspect of marriage. Right off the bat, to me that sounds self explanatory, but on taxes and on other forms national or by city (local) that can give benefits.
Should we identify marriage by what is on paper or by spirit convictions and conviction of wills? I tell you this, that marriage should be the latter.
Now with the promise of the rings in the event of a divorce, a paper divorce is not going to divorce you, because it seems to me that there is still a covenant despite what is shown on a local or national database. To me a true divorce is one of spiritual convictions. As if to say, “Return to sender” the spouses could consensually give their ring back to the spouse who originally ringed them on their wedding day, and they could do one of two things: bury their rings/drop them into the ocean or hand them over to a Church Cleric (of which I doubt they would be down for) wherein which he/she either buries them or drops them into the ocean. For this, if this is anywhere at all a must the spouses must consensually discern on the matter and seek discernment counselling from a Church Cleric.
As I began with a disclaimer, I must say that by the definition of human nature, we adapt so we can overcome. As we evolve in the physical so to must we evolve in spiritual matters, and if you want to to argue to say that there is no spiritual matter I would argue that there is, but if you are adamant then think about the emotional matters and try to adapt around that.
We must adapt not just within our external environment(s) but within our internal environment(s), and as marriage is not a bargaining entity it is indisputably an adaptive entity. In marriage we must adapt to the pair-bonding dynamics of marriage where the husband should not think about himself as well should the wife, but adapt to the new concept and adapt in accordance to the spouse. We no longer have our old mold, but we have a new mold wherein our mold grows to adapt to internal and external environments or we must match our mold to the marriage concept that surrounds the other spouse.
Well, I believe I have picked apart my disclaimer well enough. You don’t have to agree with the theory or rhetoric as it is nothing but a mere opinion as is the nature of a theory/rhetorical theory. I hope you enjoyed reading!