| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/7/2009 1:49:17 AM | | I agree with Spoken For. Already anticipating the break up means there is no real commitment to begin with. When the going gets tough, the Hedonist goes running. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/7/2009 1:50:18 AM | Marriage is for the other people you love: Your parents, your siblings, your kids, your neices and nephews, your grandchildren. Marriage is about Family. If you get married, it means you commit and everyone who loves you both can understand that you will be together. Like a team, a couple, etc.
If you are just roomies or F buddies or palsie-walsies, then - how is everyone else supposed to know who you two are?
Marriage is a commitment you make and, an arrangement you make for the sake of all the other people you love. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/7/2009 5:18:03 AM | When I was younger and wanted to start a family, I couldn't imagine doing that without being married, not because I think it is wrong, it just wasn't the way I envisioned having a family.
Today I don't know whether I would be opposed to long-term cohabitation but I also don't see marriage as creating a duty, it is a public affirmation of commitment, a promise to the partner and to God that one intends to remain in the union, and with the witnesses of family and friends to support that union.
Given no fault divorce, I don't see it as any more binding than living together because even if the marriage places some pressures on one's choices, it is still a choice, each and every day, to ignore those vows and let the relationship wither and die or to really embrace them as meaning spending the rest of your life making that relationship better.
Too many people see marriage as the goal rather than the jumping off point for a new relationship with greater meaning and intimacy. They stop doing and caring about those things that made them want to marry in the first place. Marriage isn't a panacea and doesn't automatically guarantee happily ever after. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/8/2009 3:20:36 PM | Dear James3paris,
A piece of paper does not change anything, people change. If more people recognized that being comitted IS a form of freedom and not a life sentence, more people would celebrate and embrace the instution of marriage. Marriages fail because people get a false sense of security and don't feel they need to work at the relationship. All relationships need to be nutured or they will fizzle, married or not. Years ago people just stayed in miserable marriages no matter what(without working at it). Once the stigma attached to divorce became less important in society, more people chose the easy way out! If you feel something is lost after a marriage is legalized, than it will be. If you feel whole, happy and complete in your marriage you gain a lifetime of true happiness!!! Who would not comit to that? Most people (even sinicks) appreciate a couple who is truly in love and comitted to each other. It won't always be easy, but nothing truly worth fighting for ever is.  | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/8/2009 3:34:54 PM |
I side with landra2 and feel the same way. LTR doesn't have the level of commitment. It's also easier to walk away.
The truth is if it ain't working for the right reasons why stay together for the wrong reasons.. seriously .. if the marriage is a bad match .. sticking together to keep light each other in the azz is no way to live.. paper trained or not paper trained.. There is no sacred covenant to marriage it resides between two who love .. pledges to one another are sacred.. weddings are just an ego trip and money poorly spent.. it is about the fairy tale .. and the world is no fairy tale.. If you have what it takes to give a damn .. marriage is not necessary as most today don't even understand what the activity and boundaries require.. so marriage is being used by people who wanna be LTR's but can't .. honor is not a ceremony it is a deep and intrinsic part of someone's personal character .. few own it .. therefore few should get married..
I personally know more miserable and unhappy married people than I do people who live together LTR... the ones that understand being human is more important than ceremonial bs... and a good large debt to live happily ever after ...
I say that is a couple gets together and realizes the divorce ahead of time and you know that the person you chose can offer you a decent divorce if you ended your love.. life .. then and only then do you decide to get married as no one else would be worth the go.. itis about resilience and believing in each other .. not many have the courage it takes to confront who they are..let alone marry someone for who they are... | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/8/2009 3:57:00 PM | msg1.
We always hear folks say things like "it's only a piece of paper." Aside from that, what do you think is the difference between being a committed couple living together and being a married couple?
To answer the question:
Essentially nothing execept one the "LTR" gets no tax incentive, while the other LTR called a "marriage" gets a tax incentive and a shiny legal document. Woot. Woot!
Carrot and stick anyone? With an extra slice of "do the right thing" hubris on the side. ;)
9to9 | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/8/2009 4:43:39 PM | | This is a complex question. I'm reading a book on this topic that I'd like to suggest to you: "Unmarried to Each Other", by Dorian Solot and Marshall Miller. It covers many of the reasons that people typically choose to get married or not including: finances, personal and public opinions, kids, religion, legal matters including health insurance, changing role statuses within the relationship... It also discusses possible alternate commitment celebrations for people who decide that marriage is not the right option for them. Very interesting! I hope you will check it out. It might aid in some good discussions between you and you SO. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/8/2009 5:07:35 PM | | I have been engaged 3x, and 3x I found something out about the persons that made me thank every god and goddess for saying "no". I believe there is some1 out there, though. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/8/2009 5:29:28 PM | Marriage is a fine institution...for those who need to be institutionalized. ...hehehe....Wasn't me that said it! | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/8/2009 5:53:55 PM |
Marriage is a fine institution, but who wants to be in an institution?
The one, The Only.....Groucho Marx! | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/8/2009 6:47:40 PM | | Marraige only has as much value as the person signing the paper. Commitment does not need a signature. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/9/2009 10:57:03 AM | I think the biggest difference between a couple living together and being a married couple is lack of commitment. To me, marriage isn't just a piece of paper. There's a much greater meaning behind it all. Marriage is a part of God’s plan. It’s a covenant, not just some sort of institution created by the government. I think when a couple is truly committed, marriage follows, doesn’t it? Otherwise, you could just be like, well I’m not sure if I will still love you in 10 years so we can just go through all the actions of a married couple and remain unmarried. I think the meaning of marriage has gotten twisted over the years.
I was actually watching some show this morning, I forget what it was, but they were talking about this very topic. They were saying that studies have shown that the majority of couples who live together either marry or break up within 2 years. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/9/2009 8:45:34 PM | They must have updated their study. At least 3 years ago the then study showed that people that lived together before marriage were more likely to divorce. The then study also concluded that remarried couples had a higher chance of divorcing (65%) than first-timers (50%). Personally, I don't believe in studies. I don't believe in percentages either.
By the Way, Long Term Relationship doesn't necessarily mean Living Together. That doesn't mean that people that like this arrangement aren't as loving or monogamous, or as committed as married people (I don't like comparing myself to that lifestyle because married doesn't equate to uncompromising standards, highter values, or better morals). It's a nice concept for the young who want to start families. Hopefully, your's will last a lifetime. If not, you'll know what I'm talking about when you get older. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/9/2009 10:47:14 PM | | I think it says more about the commitment to a relationship if you both have the option to leave but want to stay together. I'd rather be in a LTR where I know he's there because he wants to be, not because he's stuck there. Aside from that, divorce is expensive, painful, drawn out and usually gives lopsided results that leaves one person very screwed, and not in the good way. While I'd love to be all romantic and believe that I'd stay with the same person forever, sometimes even truly spectacular relationships fizzle out, even end on good notes just because you decided the relationship had run its course, and then you both move on - something that is much easier to do without a divorce. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/9/2009 11:06:19 PM |
I was actually watching some show this morning, I forget what it was, but they were talking about this very topic. They were saying that studies have shown that the majority of couples who live together either marry or break up within 2 years.
Then it's probably a good thing they didn't get married, right? Statistics are finicky - there are so many interpretations and questions that could be asked about that data. Would those couples have succeeded if they had gotten married after two years? Sooner? Why did they break up? Why did the others get married? Did the married couples in that study stay married? Were they happily married? How old were these people, what was their age bracket, how much money did they make, did they have kids together - you get the idea. Just because unmarried couples living together happens to correlate to breaking up after two years doesn't really say much if you can't show that 1) them not being married, and 2) them living together was the cause of the breakup. Not to mention that you could never, ever prove that if they hadn't lived together, theywould have gotten married. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/10/2009 5:21:57 PM |
"living together" is much easier to walk away from, and I see it as a way for people who don't want to make a real commitment to get what they want.
I don't believe a marriage license guarantees or demonstrates commitment. However, it does guarantee a financial obligation (of varying degrees) should things head south. Commitment is proven in a number small, and seemingly insignificant acts every day.
If you need the license to have someones dedication proven to you; I would suggest there is something wrong with the relationship. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/11/2009 3:17:43 PM | | From the way the laws are just being in a ltr is a lot better. Getting married doesnt mean the person will be more faithful or better to you. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/12/2009 6:28:36 AM | Everything that message 34 by james3paris said. When I think of Marriage, I think of a God-given covenant, not a piece of paper. LTRs don't capture the spiritual promise.
Before there were courthouses, there was marriage. Most people hear feel that LTR is a way of "walking away easily." This doesn't fit with the definition of marriage without the civil registration. If you're measuring marriage by the social cost of walking away, marriage is not for you. Regardless of the choice to register your marriage before the courts, marriage is still a promise, an act of faith, a ministry on to itself. I feel that to be true even among my atheist and irreligious married friends. They may not use those words, but the continual renewal of a promise to each other shows that marriage is definitely more than a piece of paper. | |
|
Home
login 
