should love live together befor marrage?is it worng to live with you lover before marrage.
-
Good ideaVoted for by Weydon.
Some people yuo can live with, some people you can't. Figure this out before you vow to spend your life with them.
-
NOVoted for by looking4realtruth.
Sociology 101: The reason, researchers suggest, is that many couples who cohabit before marriage are less committed to marriage in the first place- and a key to marital success is firm committment to one another. Also, I think it's kindof insulting. "Hey hunnie? I love you and all but maybe we should live together just to make sure it'll all work out and I won't get bored with you or something. Just a thought. OUCH! What's with the frying pan!?!?!?!" Plus, if two people live together before marriage, there is a higher chance of them getting divorced. (http://health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articles/divorce.html)
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
Why would you want to be committed to something that you hated?
-
What do you mean?
-
Just that I don't understand the nature of the suggested study. If people who cohabit before marriage or less committed to marriage in the first place, why getmarried at all? What is the connection between living together BEFORE marriage and not being inclined to commit to a person?
-
-
Because if they were committed enough they would not live together, they would just get married. It's like a test drive, to see if they are "compatible" with the other person. And studies have shown that those couples who live together before marriage have a greater risk of divorce, because of the lowered committment level. (PS, re-read my opinion; hehehe)
-
-
What's wrong with the test drive? If a couple tries living together first and realizes they can't do it, the only thing that changes is they didn't have to go through the divorce. Even the analogy itself points out how good it is. Wouldn't you rather test drive a car before you bought it? Or would you be so commited that you'd buy the beloved vehicle with the poor breaks, traction, and steering?
-
-
I would not want a woman who wanted to "see if it would work out" between me and her. I would want a woman who was do devoted and committed that she would never even think of leaving. Anyone below that committment level should not even think of getting married. Unless you will NEVER leave your spouse, (unless rape, violence, adultery, you know) then don't get married. How hard is that? It's these idiots who leave a marriage because, "oh, i'm just not comfortable with him anymore." and "he just doesn't look at me the same way." that screw up marriage for the rest of us. And they're the reasons the divorce rate is so high. And they're the reasons people who intend to get married should not "test drive". Just buy the freakin car. If it's got poor brakes, don't junk it, just replace the brakes. If it's got poor traction get better tires. And hire a mechanic to tighten the steering. People expect everything to be perfect about their marriage. It's ridiculous.
-
-
"I would not want a woman who wanted to “see if it would work out” between me and her" What do you call dating? Besides there's more to it that scrnching your face and rolling your eyes while saying "they want to see if it will work out...". It's simply an obvious choice of human behavior. Haven't you ever had childhood friends who you always got along with better than anything, and then spend the weekend or winter break at their house or vice versa? Or a brother or a sister lol? While you still get along with them great, seeing each other more frequently allows you to get on each others nerves tremendously and you learn their rather annoying household traits. Whether or not this is something you can deal with in terms of LIVING with someone for the REST OF YOUR LIFE is something you might want to get out of the way. "It’s these idiots who leave a marriage because, “oh..." I think you're generalizing too much. Even when people DO say this, there's a decent chance in it being a substitute for them not being able to admit or explain the overall feeling of just not being HAPPY anymore. Nobody's happy all the time with any relationship, but if you spend more time being unhappy and questioning your relationship--for whatever reason, you'd be hurting both parties emotionally by keeping at it for keeping at it's sake. Try to fix it, if he STILL doesn't "look at you the same" or whatever it was that made you happy and in love, then maybe it is time to leave. "And they’re the reasons the divorce rate is so high. " High according to who's standards? It's pretty EVEN with unofficial separations of the past. A little higher, but simply because it's now easier for people to publicly leave rather than be miserable and put a facade for fear of social and heavenly ostracism. "If it’s got poor brakes, don’t junk it, just..." I'm not even sure what this could be an analogy too anymore. How do you fix a woman's metaphorical breaks? How do you fix the fact that your husband "doesn't look at me the same anymore", ie he's decided you've gotten pudgy and older and is bored with you? "People expect everything to be perfect about their marriage. It’s ridiculous." That's what YOU'RE expecting. By testing it out you're saying, "We love each other, but realistically we have NO idea what could happen to us. But I want us to be together, so let's move closer, hope for the best, and enjoy however long the outcome.". By saying "Bah, we don't need that! We're in love so let's get married!" you're expecting this ring and paper to magically mean that all the miseries you face will be toppled over by the fact you CAN'T leave.
-
-
-
Yes YES! YEESSS! You got it! "You can't leave so deal with it!" And I know marriage will never be perfect. It's ridiculous to expect a perfect marriage. It doesn't exist. Anyone who leaves a marriage because they're not happy, I have no respect for that person. They have no will, no strength, they gave up, they ran away, however you look at it, they've failed. They're a failure. They destroyed the marriage. There's a difference between dating and living together so don't bring dating into this. If you have to test whether you can live together for the rest of your life with someone then you're not ready for marriage with them. Over half of all marriages (I live in the US) end in divorce. I'd say that's pretty damn high. A 50% FAILURE rate? Not acceptable. And I don't expect the ring and paper to do anything. THAT'S whats wrong with marriage today. All it is is a ring and paper. You can easily rip or countermand that piece of paper and you can just as easily take off your ring. Marriage isn't about either of those two. It's not a temporary alliance. It's not a test. Once you're in, you're in for the duration, so get used to it. And I wouldn't want a woman who didn't feel exactly the same way.
-
-
"They’re a failure" And what's wrong with that? They've obviously identified the marriage failed, at least they're mature enough to admit it and move on. Lots of relationships fail. It's never a picnic, it's never throw your hands in the air no big deal. But it's something you deal with. "If you have to test whether you can live together for the rest of your life with someone then you’re not ready for marriage with them" Yes. Exactly. You're not ready for marriage with them, so you live together. It's a step towards marriage, but doesn't definately mean you're going to get married. But you love them so you're going to step forward and try. "Over half of all marriages (I live in the US) end in divorce. I’d say that’s pretty damn high. " Is the glass a little more than half-full or half-empty ;) I don't think it's THAT high actually. Over 70% of romantic relationships in general fail. If you get up to the stage of marriage you probably like each other some, and once married you should try harder to work out problems. But you shouldn't be trapped in eventual misery because an agreement that didn't work out. "It’s not a temporary alliance. " It's not anything. It's a symbol and nothing more. When I marry I'm not going to love my fiance any more or less than the day before. I will not feel that NOW I'm in it for the long haul, when before I just thought she was pretty rad. I will already in my heart have decided that I want to spend my life with this person and will do what I can to maintain this feeling between the both of us. The marriage is just my way of letting everyone else know it, for traditional reasons. Marriage was formed around the ideas of financial benefits, alliances, and arrangements. The women rarely had any choice in it. Polygamy was fairly regular. It really had little to do with romantic love. There is nothing sacred or evil about marriage itself. It has no inherent qualities of its own, other than an official agreement between people. You make it what you will, and mine will be centered around love.
-
-
Yes; you can have a marriage centered around love, and I'll have a marriage centered on love AND committment. I'll be happy.
-
-
LOL Well committment will be key too. It will already be key when we get to marriage. There will be no affairs (unless it's one of the sexy, swinging relationships!) and a strong desire to work through problems rather than run from them. But I will understand that sometimes it just happens to people anyways. Hopefully I'll be happy too.
-
-
That's where you're wrong. Committment should supercede love. Because even in the best of marriages there will be times when the love is absent. That's when the committment needs to be strong enough to barrel through the problems. There are no unsolvable problems.
-
-
I have to disagree. There will certainly be times where there love is absent, but my love for what I know we can achieve will be what makes me strive to fix things. Without any love around and only the knowledge that I've laid myself into a committment, I will feel more like I'm doing my taxes than fervently trying to reapir something that is truly important to me. While I am sure there are unsolvable problems in general, I suppose you may be right in terms of relationships. The solutions may not be the greatest choice, but they're there. Such as divorce, for instance.
-
-
No, divorce is not a solution, it is giving up. It is thinking that there is no solution. Maybe thats why people cheat on their spouses, because they think of them nothing more than taxes. Of course, if they were committed to the other person, and actually kept the vows they made when they got married and accepted that they could not be broken at any cost, they would not think this way. ANd divorce is a solution? Tell that to the children of divorced parents. And I did mean that there were no unsolvable problems in a relationship. But there are also no unsolvable problems in general either. If you think differently, name 5, and I'll tear each of them apart.
-
-
"No, divorce is not a solution, it is giving up" How is that not a solution? If you were engaged and became unhappy with your relationship and no amount of discussing or working at it improved things, breaking it off is a viable solution--but because you're wearing rings, leaving is now "giving up"? "Maybe thats why people cheat on their spouses, because they think of them nothing more than taxes. " You're totally missing and supporting my point (somehow). I think people will only start thinking of their relationship as doing their taxes if nothing they do is making it work anymore, but they "can't" divorce. So instead they cheat (which--apparently, makes divorce a solution. So maybe it was just a sly way to get a thumbs up from people who disagree with divorce). "when they got married and accepted that they could not be broken at any cost, they would not think this way" I would never get married if this was the case. I would swear to my girlfriend that I want to spend the rest of my life only with her, will work my hardest to keep us as happy as we are, and will stay loyal and true. I would go into this extra-legal agreement with the deepest sincerity in my heart and would be ecstatic if we spend our lives together. But I would not be so foolish as to make an unbreakable and irreversable agreement that involves nearly every aspect of my life and base it only on the extremely dynamic nature of being a human being. "Tell that to the children of divorced parents" I will. And after I'm done explaining thoroughly that this is not their fault and both their parents still love them, and if they're still freaking out I'll tell them to stop being so selfish because it would have been worse living in a house of people who hate each other anyway. And then I'd ask you if you're basing your decision on the nature of marriage and divorce on children alone, and if that means that those without kids are free to divorce as they please. "But there are also no unsolvable problems in general either." I doubt YOU or anyone could tear apart any problem presented to you, but theoretically you could argue "we don't yet have the methods needed" or "God knows" ofr questions such as explaining the origins of the universe, or solving an unsolved crime.
-
-
Well good then. I hope you don't get married unless you never intend to get divorced. And so should everyone else. Anyone who sees divorce as a solution to an unhappy marriage should never get married. As for "ther is no unsolvable problems", first of all, I have yet to see a problem listed. The origins of the universe is not a problem. Soving an unsolved crime is not a problem. Try facing the issue instead of avoiding it.
-
-
"Anyone who sees divorce as a solution to an unhappy marriage should never get married." Only if you're using your random definition of it, that implies it is a deep soul connection between two people because they love each other and therefore the bond cannot be broken. This is not the original definition nor the current definition. If this what YOU want to make out of marriage, then be my guest. But I see no reason for you to go so far as to say everyone should share your definition. What is your (random again) definition of a problem? While I might be willing to see someone not seeing figuring out the origins of the universe as a problem, per se, I cannot understand how an unsolved crime is not a problem.
-
-
Marriage: the legal union of a man and a wife in order to live together and often to have children. Anyone who does not intend to stay married should never get married. Duh. It is a lifelong committment that should never be broken. The only reason it is broken so easily is because people have distorted the meaning of marriage like you have done. It is now only a legal document binding two people together. That is wrong. As for my definition of a problem: a doubtful or difficult matter requiring a solution. Solving an unsolved crime is not a problem. The unsolved crime itself is a problem. But what i was talking about was an active live problem. Something that is happening now. An unsolved crime is a problem of the past. I'm talking about the present. Sorry for confusing you.
-
-
"Marriage: the legal union of a man and a wife in order to live together and often to have children. " Where did you pull that out of!? "Anyone who does not intend to stay married should never get married" But in your definition it doesn't even say that! "The only reason it is broken so easily is because people have distorted the meaning of marriage like you have done." How? If you're arguing that we're "distorting" marriages REAL meaning, you must once again realize that marriage is "supposed" to be about arrangements for financial and political reasons. With polygamy and misogyny. Even in the last 100 years it was largely about keeping women domesticated. Only recently has it been able to be something about love and choice--which is great. But this doesn't mean that it HAS to be lifelong, just like it's original and "inherent" meaning. "Something that is happening now. An unsolved crime is a problem of the past. " That doesn't make sense. Of course it happened in the past, that's why it the crime was committED. The act of solving it is the only present action.
-
-
I pulled that definition of marriage out of an oxford dictionary. Marriage is not "supposed" to be about financial and political reasons. And it was not about keeping women domesticated. Marriage is a lifelong committment to another person. Unless you intend to keep that committment, you should not get married. And to get back on the subject, love should not live together before marriage because people who live together before marriage have a greater chance of getting divorced.
-
-
That was the only definition or the one that most suited what you're trying to say? "Marriage is a lifelong committment to another person. Unless you intend to keep that committment, you should not get married. " According to whom? Even in your definition-of-most-convenience it doesn't say that. "have a greater chance of getting divorced." Not really. It's pretty even. Probably the only difference would be the conservative people who refuse divorce for almost any reason and live on miserably. Why would you want to do that either yourself or the one you "love"?
-
-
That was the dictionary closest to my desk. Thank you for proving my point that society now takes marriage way too lightly. And the only reason the dictionary doesn't inlclude the word lifelong in there somewhere is because of the prevelence of (spits the word) political correctness in our society. No, it's not "pretty even". (http://health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articles/divorce.html) You don't have to "live on miserably". You control whether you're miserable or not if you are, then talk to your opposite-sex spouse about it. Of course, that means your spouse must be willing to talk to you. And THAT means, don't take chances when getting married. Divorce is giving up, which is just cowardly. If you're unhappy, talk to them; don't throw a pity party and get divorced.
-
-
"That was the dictionary closest to my desk. " That was the only deifnition in the dictionary? "Thank you for proving my point that society now takes marriage way too lightly." Again with this "NOW" theory. If you're going to back to marriages true meaning, for THE BAZILLIONTH TIME, then it involved polygamy and dowries and external arrangements. "And the only reason the dictionary doesn’t inlclude the word lifelong" So...The definition is perfect, except for the parts it just HAD to leave out, but we can ignore that. Either your infallible nearest dictionary with the one definition for a many-definitioned word is your evidence or it isn't. "The reasons for this are not well understood. In part, the type of people who are willing to cohabit may also be those who are more willing to divorce. There is some evidence that the act of cohabitation itself generates attitudes in people that are more conducive to divorce, for example the attitude that relationships are temporary and easily can be ended." That's what I've been saying! I'm defending the point that marriage CAN be temporary, and that those who cohabit before are usually not so conservative as to think that there's nothing they can do to escape their unhappy relationship. "A recent large-scale, long-term study suggests otherwise. While it found that parents' marital unhappiness and discord have a broad negative impact on virtually every dimension of their children's well-being, so does the fact of going through a divorce. In examining the negative impacts on children more closely, the study discovered that it was only the children in very high-conflict homes who benefited from the conflict removal that divorce may bring. In lower-conflict marriages that end in divorce — and the study found that perhaps as many as two thirds of the divorces were of this type — the situation of the children was made much worse following a divorce. Based on the findings of this study, therefore, except in the minority of high-conflict marriages it is better for the children if their parents stay together and work out their problems than if they divorce." This is the vaguest study I have ever seen. The reason is obviously because there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to measure someone's internal "dimensions of their well-being". I just conducted a study that people that who cohabit before marriage are ten thousand times more awesome than those who don't. I list no statistics, sources, and leave no acknowledgement to the fact that measuring awesome is subjective and impossible. But it's a study, so don't argue. "You control whether you’re miserable or not" The logic of this conversation just plummeted off a cliff. But next time you're bored out of your mind in class or getting yourself beaten to a pulp, just turn on a bliss switch you big negative-nelly! "then talk to your opposite-sex spouse about it. " I've already addressed that talking things out is the best solution. But that sometimes this doesn't work. "Divorce is giving up, which is just cowardly." I'm not getting married to show off how brave I am. "If you’re unhappy, talk to them; don’t throw a pity party and get divorced." Don't throw a self-righteous party and trap and you and one you claim you love just because you're too "brave" to divorce.
-
-
Yes, marriage CAN be temporary; for people with no morals.
-
-
What about marriage implies that only those with "no morals" would leave? I have a feeling the answer is going to be about what marriage is "supposed" to mean. You really just need to face the fact that your definition of marriage is just as made up as most of contemporary Western counties. It's not supposed to be anything but an arrangement between people and it has been very dynamic in nature throughout time and cultures. Even if marriage DID originally mean what you think it meant, it still would be a pretty silly concept. It's like NOW you're devoted to this person and love them fully. Before--the day before even, you were just fooling around. Your closest friends and family? Meh. But wearing rings? That's forever. Even if they break your heart. It's forever, so enjoy it you immoral fool. I mean, come on. You love them the same. You are devoted to other people. If the "officialness" inspires someone to be with me more than actually WANTING to be with me ebcause they love me and the experiences we shared, I would feel so insulted. I hope this gets so small only one letter will be on each line.
-
-
(We're getting closer. :) ) Fine. I agree to disagree. Marriage to me means a lifelong committment that you don't get invlolved in unless you intend to keep it, marriage to you means a stage in a relationship preceding divorce. AND TO GET BACK ON THE SUBJECT: PEOPLE WHO INTEND TO GET MARRIED SHOULD NOT LIVE TOGETHER BEFOREHAND BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A GREATER CHANCE OF THEM GETTING DIVORCED IN THE FUTURE.
-
-
"I agree to disagree." YAY! You big, politically correct diplomat, you! ;) "marriage to you means a stage in a relationship preceding divorce." HAHAHA! Well, to be more accurate, marriage to me means a symbolic tradition that represents the love and committment I already feel and hope will always stay. "TO GET BACK ON THE SUBJECT" LOL, and I still insist that people who cohabit before marriage are just more willing to get divorced, and the miserable rate is identical.
-
-
I'm not being PC, I just know that it's useless to argue with someone who's definitions of what you're arguing about is different. "people who cohabit before marriage are just more willing to get divorced"- I firmly agree. The miserable rate is not identical; when you do your own published study and prove this, I'll change my mind.
-
-
"when you do your own published study and prove this, Ill change my mind." Well that's a little silly. As I already said, these "studies" into just how "miserable", "happy", or whatever can never be scientific because it's all subjective. The official nature is irrelevent. You can see it, but it won't mean anything...Yet they still do get published. There are already published works on both sides of our debate. Publishers don't only put out the definitive truth. Just look at the Bible! ;)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
yeah, from what I've seen about 'couples who live together' most, atleast one side, has absolutely no interest in getting married. 50% failure rate for any marriage. well, that's ye ole glass half-empty or half-full quandarry, no? I don't know much about marriage, or love, or relationships for that matter, but I don't think any problem is unsolvable. I think love is something you work at. Communication is key, an' all. But, hey, I'm in love with a guy who loves me, but we can't talk to eachother because...we're exactly alike. or something. lame.
-
-
love VS marrageVoted for by eternalsol.
i thank that love is love no matter if your marred or not.granit marrage is a wonderful thang and it is ment for you to marry when your ready. but how about living with your lover,is it wong to live with him/her before marrage?in my mind its not worng if you live with each other you should be abel to shear love no matter if you married or not.love and marrage can compare but they also contrast. the compareson of love and marrage is that two people are loving each other as one. but they contrast caues the law sees marrage as a ligel bind between to people. i come to the conclusion wether its worng or iligel to live with you lover.like i sed in my mind its not worng.buth what do u think?
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free