The single life

[Crow]

Now I know why you have the 'strawberry' part, in your profile.

Um...no, you don't.

Be thankful.

[lilpixieofterror]

Um...no, you don't.

Be thankful.

I'm guessing that it's one of God's little mercies?

[Crow]

Better guess than the first time.

[lilpixieofterror]

*pssst, you quoted the wrong post, pixie*

Hey, why not be really radical?

Oops... that is what you get when you are mutitasking.

Not just no, but hell no! I like being single. I like being able to do what I want, when I want; to disappear for days or weeks into some pet project without anyone nagging me about eating or sleeping; to be able to pull onto the highway or show up at an airport heading that-a-way, not knowing where I'm heading until I get there; having the extra money for toys — and not having to worry about someone's life being ruined when one of my toys proves as dangerous as advertised. If a wreck on my bike hands me that final ticket, there's nobody who's going to be left a widow or an orphan. And yeah, I like that a lot.

I haven't really ever been that way, ever. I don't like going somewhere and not knowing where I'm going. It would drive me insane.

No discussion on how to make marriage adjustment easier is complete without mentioning the obvious: Never underestimate the healing abilities of hot make-up sex.

Wouldn't know that.

[lao tzu]

Um...no, you don't.

Be thankful.

"No offense, but I'd rather stay home and read."

Be thankful you don't know what that's about either, Crystal.

[Crow]

I'll bet.

[Cow Poke]

I also don't know.

[Crow]

It's about how reading is fun-da-mental.

[Jin-Roh]

Most people should try living with their fiance/fiancee for a few months before deciding to marry.

This seems intuitively true, by Phoenix is right: it does correlate with divorce. I have known people who start living together once they get engaged and that seems to work okay.

This experience is important to determine whether your personalities are compatible and if marriage is in your best interest.

Don't people consider the interests of the other to be of greater focus in a marriage?

[OfficialPro]

I don't understand how people can get married. As in, I don't fathom how people would want to spend the rest of their lives with each other (50% divorce rate notwithstanding). Having never even had any of the prerequisites, it's something I don't comprehend. I can't imagine liking a guy that much myself.

(But then of course it didn't help that my childhood was messed up by how kids at school, which was only some of the girls but 100% of the boys, treated me.)

[Naatee]

for a christian...???????????

For a Christian, it depends. If you mutually agree to live together for sexual purposes, no. If you mutually agree to live together for the sake of gaining a better understanding of one another, yes.

I wouldn't go that far at all. I would simply pay attention to clues that you find before hand. For example, if he's all nice to you, but is rude with the waitress or waiter, then you are most likely seeing how he will treat you and you can walk away before it gets too deep. Of course, some can hide it better than others, so other ways include asking the same question, mutiple times and at different dates to see if the answers line up. Those who lie tend not to remember their stories so if the answer changes all the time, then you got another warning sign. You could also see who his friends are and how his family is like. Rather we like to admit it or not, the friends we choose can reflect our true selves and we often times do act more like our parents then we'd like to admit. Of course, I'm not saying all of these things are going to be exact (after all, it is possible to have bad parents and still not be a bad person). The most important thing though is this... if it doesn't feel right, than it most likely isn't.

You "wouldn't go that far"? What is so extreme about living together before marriage? But judging from your last comment, there's a big difference between you and I. Personally, I'm a thinker not a feeler; if it isn't logical it isn't true. The Earth may appear flat, but logically this isn't true.

We usually refer to this testing period as "dating." Statistically, if you live with someone before marriage, you're more likely to have a divorce since you're already treating marriage as a sham.

You can test a relationship by dating all you want, but living with someone provides much more insight as to how successful your relationship will be, much more so than dating.

The statistic is true, but your interpretation of this statistic is not very accurate.

Firstly, living with someone before marriage does not suggest that these people are treating marriage "as a sham". Perhaps so for a Christian marriage, but not in regard to marriage in general.

We can probably agree that most Christians believe couples should not live together prior to marriage. So, exactly as you said, Christian couples that live together before marriage are treating their marriage as a sham.

On the other hand, atheists don't find sanctity in marriage, and are more likely to live together before marriage. Atheists are also much less likely to get divorced. Atheists view marriage from a completely different perspective. They feel that marriage is simply a public declaration of mutual love and do not find themselves enticed into jumping into a marriage in order to gain any specific benefit (unless perhaps government benefits). For this reason, an atheist couple will not be put in many difficult situations Christian couples are faced with.

Even though atheists don't believe that marriage should be necessarily "for better or for worse", they're still less likely to get divorced because they give themselves ample time to make the decision, without enticing factor.

So if you are a Christian and feel that you must be married to have sex, children, companionship, it is probably better to avoid living with your partner before marriage, unless you feel that you can live together and control these natural urges. But from an atheist's perspective, you can still have all the benefits of a marriage without being officially declared married. (although I'm sure most atheists probably wouldn't want to have children until they're married, or at least know they're in love with each other)

This seems intuitively true, by Phoenix is right: it does correlate with divorce. I have known people who start living together once they get engaged and that seems to work okay.



Don't people consider the interests of the other to be of greater focus in a marriage?

It's illogical to say that this correlation suggests that living together before marriage will increase your own odds of having a failed marriage. The reason why this statistic is accurate is because Christians make up the large majority of US population. Christians hold marriage sacred, so if a Christian couple chooses to live together before marriage -- which they consider unacceptable -- it's likely for the wrong reasons (ie sex). Now if you want to live together to test the waters, this will only help you.

These types of marriages fail because of the type of people that usually peruse them against their own Christian values. If these particular Christians do not find marriage to be sacred, why would they even hesitate to get divorced if they feel it is necessary. Many Christians will stay married unhappily just to avoid disapproval.

A label does not magically destroy a relationship. If you truly love someone and live with them before marriage, being labeled as married will not magically destroy the relationship.

[lilpixieofterror]

You "wouldn't go that far"? What is so extreme about living together before marriage?

Easy, if you are living with another person that you have an attraction to, I can almost guarantee that you can't do that forever without anything happening. There's a reason that Paul says to run away from such situations because I doubt that anybody can do that forever.

But judging from your last comment, there's a big difference between you and I. Personally, I'm a thinker not a feeler; if it isn't logical it isn't true. The Earth may appear flat, but logically this isn't true.

And if you haven't noticed, people are not always logical. It is illogical to beat your spouse and yet... people do it all the time. That attitude would get you far in the academic or scientific world, but not very far when it comes to dealing with people.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

The statistic is true, but your interpretation of this statistic is not very accurate.

Let's see.

Firstly, living with someone before marriage does not suggest that these people are treating marriage "as a sham". Perhaps so for a Christian marriage, but not in regard to marriage in general.

Actually it does. It is entering a relationship with someone on a total level but saying "I don't want to make a commitment to you." It is essentially testing another person. My wife and I did not need to live together and we got used to the concept just fine when we were married because our marriage is based on a prior commitment to one another for better or for worse.

We can probably agree that most Christians believe couples should not live together prior to marriage. So, exactly as you said, Christian couples that live together before marriage are treating their marriage as a sham.

Except I'm not speaking of just Christian couples.

On the other hand, atheists don't find sanctity in marriage, and are more likely to live together before marriage.

Which is the problem. It gets us into the metaphysical idea of what marriage is. Is it something sacred? Is it a covenant two people make between themselves and for theists, in the sight of God, that they will honor one another? Is it one of trust that you don't know all the ins and outs but are willing to trust that person?

Atheists are also much less likely to get divorced.

First, I'd like a source. Second, considering the minority position of atheists, I don't think we have enough of a sample. Atheists in many societies still live with Christianized values.

Atheists view marriage from a completely different perspective. They feel that marriage is simply a public declaration of mutual love and do not find themselves enticed into jumping into a marriage in order to gain any specific benefit (unless perhaps government benefits). For this reason, an atheist couple will not be put in many difficult situations Christian couples are faced with.

What difficulties?

I can see marriage as a declaration of mutual love, but also much more than that. So far, while we have had disagreements, we have yet to have any fights or arguments because we talk everything out immediately. When I'm wrong, I admit it. When she's wrong, she admits it.

Even though atheists don't believe that marriage should be necessarily "for better or for worse", they're still less likely to get divorced because they give themselves ample time to make the decision, without enticing factor.

And Christians don't?

So if you are a Christian and feel that you must be married to have sex, children, companionship, it is probably better to avoid living with your partner before marriage, unless you feel that you can live together and control these natural urges. But from an atheist's perspective, you can still have all the benefits of a marriage without being officially declared married. (although I'm sure most atheists probably wouldn't want to have children until they're married, or at least know they're in love with each other)

To which I'd say, why get married if you can have all the benefits without? Once again, it is treating marriage as a sham. Also, I don't think you should have sex before marriage. Not because I have a low view of sex, but I have an exceptionally high view of it and believe the action is too sacred to treat lightly.

btw, drop the nonsense about it being logical that the Earth is flat. The ancients didn't believe it was. The medievals didn't believe it was. That's a modernistic notion that that was what was believed.