I've been sitting here thinking about the arguing thing and boundaries...
As part of a series done by my Historical Society, I saw a series of mock debates about the constitutional and the forming of our new government. What struck me in some of the debates was what people were arguing. I saw people arguing "their" side, what was best for them. And I saw people arguing what was best for the new government. While taxes weren't much of an issue at that time, I can argue passionately that paying taxes is bad and why. And it is bad for me. There's no one that can argue any different. But for the government? Well, while it is bad for me, it is best for the greater good... in this case, the entity of the government. Now my only argument is about how much I have to pay... hahahahha
So... marriage seems to be the same thing for me. While your H can say he doesn't want to garden and it's a bad thing for him to be doing, what is best for the M? Because there are 3 entities now in this equation... you, your H and your M. You may still disagree about what is best for the M, but the conversation and even the argument, still needs to happen. Upon hearing the other's arguments, one might genuinely see things differently and have a change of heart. Or perhaps find a compromise that does meet the needs of the M. It's not only about the individual anymore.
