Why do couples live together without getting married?

[sweep_shot]

Why can't they marry? Always wondered that.

Living together is extremely classless and cheap to me. There is no difference between animals and unmarried couples who live together.

Discuss.

 

[Pakpak]

So the difference between animals and humans is a signature on a piece of paper?

You really are a gift that keeps on coming.

 

[andy0204]

I don't like living relationships,if someone cheats it looks like they are using like a disposable material.

 

[liam26]

Bro, why do you open these type of threads only to get bashed by the Liberals?

 

[sweep_shot]

Bro, why do you open these type of threads only to get bashed by the Liberals?

This world is moving toward a strange degeneracy. Just want to see it stop. Discussions raise awareness.

 

[Hermoine Green]

Why can't they marry? Always wondered that.

Living together is extremely classless and cheap to me. There is no difference between animals and unmarried couples who live together.

Discuss.

i think you have a good point.

Well it depends on religion and society in which people are living. You are a muslim then obviously you cant do that, but people in other religions can live together.

I dont know about Hindi religion much but i have seen in some movies couple living in one house without marriage doing sex e.t.c

For us muslims, yes it is cheap. But for other religions, it might be pretty normal.

 

[Pakpak]

This world is moving toward a strange degeneracy. Just want to see it stop. Discussions raise awareness.

Where grown adults minding their own business are called animals by people like you. Degeneracy indeed.

Since you're highly ignorant maybe you'll need an education. In the west noone marries as it's far cheaper to stay unmarried since divorces cost a lot and marriages aren't cheap where weddings are funded by the entire family of the bride and groom. These may not be all the factors but these are some of the factors.

It's actually scary people like you live in the West.

 

[Pakpak]

i think you have a good point.

Well it depends on religion and society in which people are living. You are a muslim then obviously you cant do that, but people in other religions can live together.

I dont know about Hindi religion much but i have seen in some movies couple living in one house without marriage doing sex e.t.c

For us muslims, yes it is cheap. But for other religions, it might be pretty normal.

It's not a good point at all. It would be like someone calling a man with four wives an animal. It'd be equally stupid. In the west weddings honeymoons evens aren't funded by mummy and daddy like our cultures and cost thousands of pounds so the people find it prudent to not spend that money.

Calling them animals shows the degeneracy OP is accusing of others.

 

[sweep_shot]

Where grown adults minding their own business are called animals by people like you. Degeneracy indeed.

Since you're highly ignorant maybe you'll need an education. In the west noone marries as it's far cheaper to stay unmarried since divorces cost a lot and marriages aren't cheap where weddings are funded by the entire family of the bride and groom. These may not be all the factors but these are some of the factors.

It's actually scary people like you live in the West.

They can always do simple and affordable weddings. No need to spend too much money. People need to show better money management and common sense.

It is hilarious when couples spend thousands of bucks on weddings only to get divorces after 2-3 years.

 

[Pakpak]

They can always do simple and affordable weddings. No need to spend too much money. People need to show better money management and common sense.

It is hilarious when couples spend thousands of bucks on weddings only to get divorces after 2-3 years.

You have no idea how expensive weddings can get. I had part of my Walima in UK. We did nothing fancy at all. Kept it very simple and it still cost a lot. If my parents hadn't helped no way I'd afford it on my own.

Noone has the money to spend 1000s of pounds. People in the West don't have their Ami Jees and Aba Jees spending thousands on weddings. So they have to watch their pocket and save money for kids house car or repay their student debt. Which again for most desis their education is funded by mummy and daddy.

And yes it's hilarious when they spend thousands and get divorced. Hence why they don't marry. You just answered a small part of your inflammatory question from the OP.

 

[sweep_shot]

There is a Bangladeshi lady in my community who gave birth while being unmarried. I am disgusted. She brought shame to my country and my community.

May God give us children with common sense and righteousness.

 

[Pakpak]

There is a Bangladeshi lady in my community who gave birth while being unmarried. I am disgusted. She brought shame to my country and my community.

May God give us children with common sense and righteousness.

Your country? Canada is fairly proud of being tolerant. I know as my spouse is Canadian. They'd be disgusted at bigots who shame other humans. Like I said, its scary people like you live in the West. There are plenty of religious people on PP who live in the UK and most are pretty reasonable. You're either a very good troll or you're too far gone.

 

[sweep_shot]

Question is, where does the "progress" stop?

What's next? Marriage with animals? Marriage with objects?

It is scary how unpredictable and absurd society is becoming.

 

[JaDed]

This world is moving toward a strange degeneracy. Just want to see it stop. Discussions raise awareness.

You wanna stop two individuals from doing something that doesn’t harm you or anyone in any way?

 

[sweep_shot]

You wanna stop two individuals from doing something that doesn’t harm you or anyone in any way?

When two people start something immoral and that is followed by others, it becomes a moral threat to society. We should call it out rather than encouraging it.

When immorality is not kept in check, it turns into a cancer. It initially infects only one part of the body (society) but it eventually spreads.

Why do you think youth are going astray globally? It is because of lack of moral values. Parents are no longer allowed to keep their children in check. End result is for all of us to see.

If you have a child, would you be fine if he/she lives together?

 

[MenInG]

Guys if you dont like this thread - dont post - no need to make any personal remarks about thread starter.

 

[minamino]

Live-in relationships are the new wave. I wouldn't mind it. I don't want to get married and have a whole burden of someone on my life. You can live-in without having kids. If you get married, there is always pressure of having kids.

 

[Syed1]

This thread is like if I'm on a keto diet and my buddy is having a juicy beef burger which causes me to go crazy and all judgemental over their dietary choices

 

[Justcrazy]

The reason is responsibility , people these days are no longer strong enough to take responsibility.

 

[JaDed]

When two people start something immoral and that is followed by others, it becomes a moral threat to society. We should call it out rather than encouraging it.

When immorality is not kept in check, it turns into a cancer. It initially infects only one part of the body (society) but it eventually spreads.

Why do you think youth are going astray globally? It is because of lack of moral values. Parents are no longer allowed to keep their children in check. End result is for all of us to see.

If you have a child, would you be fine if he/she lives together?

Astray globally? This is one of the most peaceful times in history.. so maybe going astray creates peace and progress in all fields then it doesn’t matter.

Immorality is dependent on societies , western societies and even now East Asian ones have no issue with it and they are the ones your family has preferred to migrate to and you choosing to live in, so clearly they are driving the economic force and your idea about moral and that of conservative society wasn’t clearly making economic and scientific progress.

It’s ok to critic but its not your place to judge them, you can criticize their actions but when you say they are going astray that’s a judgement.

My cousins have had living relationships and they were able to do it in western countries and its their choice, all of them did marry their partner too but even if they didn’t I wouldn’t had an issue, so no I wouldn’t disown my child or relative based on living relationships, irrespective of my critique about their choices.

It’s their personal choice and it’s not your place put restrictions on something that doesn’t cause you any harm with taxes or anything.

 

[Abdul]

Why does it bother you? You're a nobody.

 

[Abdul]

Where grown adults minding their own business are called animals by people like you. Degeneracy indeed.

Since you're highly ignorant maybe you'll need an education. In the west noone marries as it's far cheaper to stay unmarried since divorces cost a lot and marriages aren't cheap where weddings are funded by the entire family of the bride and groom. These may not be all the factors but these are some of the factors.

It's actually scary people like you live in the West.

I couldn't agree more with the last line. Some people just deserve to be told "go back to your own country" by the westerners.

 

[Abdul]

When two people start something immoral and that is followed by others, it becomes a moral threat to society. We should call it out rather than encouraging it.

When immorality is not kept in check, it turns into a cancer. It initially infects only one part of the body (society) but it eventually spreads.

Why do you think youth are going astray globally? It is because of lack of moral values. Parents are no longer allowed to keep their children in check. End result is for all of us to see.

If you have a child, would you be fine if he/she lives together?

Yes, I'd be completely fine with it if my kids want to live together with their partner. I don't see anything wrong with it. The west isn't Bangladesh.

 

[Abdul]

There is no difference between an animal and a conservative.

 

[sweep_shot]

Why does it bother you? You're a nobody.

I am nobody and you are not a nobody. Cool!

Don't get triggered. Keep it civilized.

Yes, I'd be completely fine with it if my kids want to live together with their partner. I don't see anything wrong with it. The west isn't Bangladesh.

Was asking Jaded. You are irrelevant. Not sure why you try to get my attention so hard.

I couldn't agree more with the last line. Some people just deserve to be told "go back to your own country" by the westerners.

I can assure you no westerner has ever told me that.

 

[Abdul]

I am nobody and you are not a nobody. Cool!

Don't get triggered. Keep it civilized.



Was asking Jaded. You are irrelevant. Not sure why you try to get my attention so hard.



I can assure you no westerner has ever told me that.

> Conservative animal proceeds to compare animals and humans.
> Proceeds to tell me to "keep it civilized."

Ok, buddy.

 

[Kroll]

Silly thread but just to humour op.

Some partners might be in polyamorous relationships. Marriage from a religious sense isn't as valued as it used to be.

Some find the cost of weddings excessive to bother going to the expense of it all. Some have been cohabiting for years and have just used to that way of living together.

More socially acceptable nowadays especially in the West. Whole lot of other factors but you get the gist.

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Why can't they marry? Always wondered that.

Living together is extremely classless and cheap to me. There is no difference between animals and unmarried couples who live together.

Discuss.

I think there is a larger picture if we get out of the notion that "Let people do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn't harm you". Which is mostly true but perhaps not always.

There is much more of a broader scenario that effects an entire society as a whole.

In my personal opinion, the sexual intimacy (which is obviously a natural human need) comes with a baggage if you take the religious guidance.
And that baggage is "commitment and monogamy" ESPECIALLY on the males.
Such couples are encouraged in general to stay committed more strongly, and work towards forming a strongly knitted family.

This commitment and monogamy between couples not only has an effect on the couples themselves, but also it hugely effects the society in which such couples live.

On the other hand, couples can remove or dilute this condition of trying to be "strongly committed and monogamous", and jump straight into sexual intimacy.

So if we are to compare two societies where a majority lives as unmarried couples with little to no commitment vs a society where couples try to be monogamous and committed, then perhaps we may be looking at two very different pictures.

And who suffers or benefits the most? Believe it or not, it starts with the kids.

Lets take the example of Brazil, and look the number of homeless children. The number of such children (up to 8 million kids in the streets) is not only staggering but their living conditions are even worse.

Philippines is another mind boggling example where the sexual abuse on millions of homeless kids is so widespread that the govt, instead of trying to curb problem, passed a law that brings down the minimum sexual consent age to just 12 years. And no wonder pedophiles love to flock to Philippines.

How do you think such a society will look like when such kids become grown ups and they form the majority of population in a few decades?

In a different way, this social problem is wide spread in countries like USA as well.
Besides 2 million homeless kids, there are 100 and thousands of kids either living in foster homes or waiting to be put with a foster family. The physical and mental abuse, many of these poor kids go through is horrendous.

The less monogamous society may also have a higher chance of widely spread STD's.

You come back and argue that unmarried couples should practice safe sex and not have off-springs? well, tell that to people in Brazil, Philippines, USA and many other countries that are going through this excruciating pain of broken homes and broken families, and millions of unmarried couples living together.
(yes drug abuse also contributes A LOT in forming the shape of a society - but that's a different topic)

And here is the gist of this for those who still think that it's only a "piece of paper".
The off springs of animals are naturally designed to know and do many things on their own. They naturally know how to survive in the wild once they grow up. Birds know how to build a nest without anyone teaching or training them. They know to feed their off springs, they know how to get shelter, they know how to migrate from one weather condition to another one etc.

On the other hand, human off-springs require A LOT of training. We are born with almost a blank brain. Aside from protection, food and shelter, human kids need to be taught almost EVERYTHING. They need to be sent to schools to learn different traits and develop skills that help survive better in the human society. They need to taught on how to talk, present themselves, use intelligence and logic to tackle various day to day life scenarios. LOL HECK, we even need to be taught on how to wipe our rear end after taking # 2.
But more importantly, unlike animals in the wild, humans need to make choices everyday. And they need training for that.

So no, humans and animals are not the same. That "piece of paper" makes a tremendous difference.

On the other hand, in a society where couples are strongly committed with a marriage bond (that piece of paper) where they try their best to go through thin and thick and form a closely knitted family; the kids get the benefit and enjoy a lot more protected, loved and nourishing environment. And hence such a society may have an entire different picture.

Obviously, there are exceptional cases in both scenarios so please don't waste time in coming back with such an example.

My personal view on this is that, I am not against anyone deciding how do they want to live their life. Obviously, everyone is free; however, there are unseen repercussions of some of our actions.

I believe, we should make wise choices because in the end, we will be responsible for our choices made on free will.

 

[last_knight]

Posters criticising OP should give us few examples of this practice in Royal Families of Europe. If there is none, they should review their stance.

Why is this justifiable for masses but not acceptable for Royals ?

 

[DeadBall]

Posters criticising OP should give us few examples of this practice in Royal Families of Europe. If there is none, they should review their stance.

Why is this justifiable for masses but not acceptable for Royals ?

What are you going on about.

 

[sweep_shot]

I think there is a larger picture if we get out of the notion that "Let people do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn't harm you". Which is mostly true but perhaps not always.

There is much more of a broader scenario that effects an entire society as a whole.

In my personal opinion, the sexual intimacy (which is obviously a natural human need) comes with a baggage if you take the religious guidance.
And that baggage is "commitment and monogamy" ESPECIALLY on the males.
Such couples are encouraged in general to stay committed more strongly, and work towards forming a strongly knitted family.

This commitment and monogamy between couples not only has an effect on the couples themselves, but also it hugely effects the society in which such couples live.

On the other hand, couples can remove or dilute this condition of trying to be "strongly committed and monogamous", and jump straight into sexual intimacy.

So if we are to compare two societies where a majority lives as unmarried couples with little to no commitment vs a society where couples try to be monogamous and committed, then perhaps we may be looking at two very different pictures.

And who suffers or benefits the most? Believe it or not, it starts with the kids.

Lets take the example of Brazil, and look the number of homeless children. The number of such children (up to 8 million kids in the streets) is not only staggering but their living conditions are even worse.

Philippines is another mind boggling example where the sexual abuse on millions of homeless kids is so widespread that the govt, instead of trying to curb problem, passed a law that brings down the minimum sexual consent age to just 12 years. And no wonder pedophiles love to flock to Philippines.

How do you think such a society will look like when such kids become grown ups and they form the majority of population in a few decades?

In a different way, this social problem is wide spread in countries like USA as well.
Besides 2 million homeless kids, there are 100 and thousands of kids either living in foster homes or waiting to be put with a foster family. The physical and mental abuse, many of these poor kids go through is horrendous.

The less monogamous society may also have a higher chance of widely spread STD's.

You come back and argue that unmarried couples should practice safe sex and not have off-springs? well, tell that to people in Brazil, Philippines, USA and many other countries that are going through this excruciating pain of broken homes and broken families, and millions of unmarried couples living together.
(yes drug abuse also contributes A LOT in forming the shape of a society - but that's a different topic)

And here is the gist of this for those who still think that it's only a "piece of paper".
The off springs of animals are naturally designed to know and do many things on their own. They naturally know how to survive in the wild once they grow up. Birds know how to build a nest without anyone teaching or training them. They know to feed their off springs, they know how to get shelter, they know how to migrate from one weather condition to another one etc.

On the other hand, human off-springs require A LOT of training. We are born with almost a blank brain. Aside from protection, food and shelter, human kids need to be taught almost EVERYTHING. They need to be sent to schools to learn different traits and develop skills that help survive better in the human society. They need to taught on how to talk, present themselves, use intelligence and logic to tackle various day to day life scenarios. LOL HECK, we even need to be taught on how to wipe our rear end after taking # 2.
But more importantly, unlike animals in the wild, humans need to make choices everyday. And they need training for that.

So no, humans and animals are not the same. That "piece of paper" makes a tremendous difference.

On the other hand, in a society where couples are strongly committed with a marriage bond (that piece of paper) where they try their best to go through thin and thick and form a closely knitted family; the kids get the benefit and enjoy a lot more protected, loved and nourishing environment. And hence such a society may have an entire different picture.

Obviously, there are exceptional cases in both scenarios so please don't waste time in coming back with such an example.

My personal view on this is that, I am not against anyone deciding how do they want to live their life. Obviously, everyone is free; however, there are unseen repercussions of some of our actions.

I believe, we should make wise choices because in the end, we will be responsible for our choices made on free will.

Thanks for this detailed post. My view is similar.

This post describes what I was trying to express.

 

[moghul]

If you think its bad , don;t do it
Don;t lecture other people and don;t tell them they are doing something bad, its their issue not yours.

 

[last_knight]

What are you going on about.

Smart attempt of deflection.

It simply explains you don't have examples to quote where members of Royal Families have stayed with a partner, in a relationship, without a marriage bond.

 

[amax]

Pskistan should move toward dating culture , marriage is outdated concept

 

[Tubs]

Humans are animals.

Not everyone believes in outdated, religious ideals of cohabiting. Is that not a good enough reason?

 

[kingusama92]

One person will label live-in relationships as "degeneracy" while another will find having 4 wives or getting married to your cousin as degenerate behavior.

Plus, somewhere in between these two will be another person finding both as degenerates while believing a life with one non-related partner in marriage is the way to go.

Everyone has reasons for why their way is legitimate.

This is why using words such as classless, cheap, or degenerate only brings you down as a person.

 

[Savak]

Each there own but in a live in relationship gives you a better idea of the person you wish to spend your life with. Better than marrying someone arranged marriage style you knew nothing about at all and the person turns out to be an absolute monster

 

[Abdul]

This is why using words such as classless, cheap, or degenerate only brings you down as a person.

You forgot animal.

 

[Syed1]

Each there own but in a live in relationship gives you a better idea of the person you wish to spend your life with. Better than marrying someone arranged marriage style you knew nothing about at all and the person turns out to be an absolute monster

Aren't you getting arranged marriage as well

 

[Abdul]

Aren't you getting arranged marriage as well

Laughing too hard right now

 

[Gayle_Force]

I overall disagree with live in relationships. However, what I think is a bigger issue is the way OP describes people who live in such relationships. It’s pretty low and uncivilized to call people animals just cause they have a different opinion.

Really should get off this self imagined high horse.

 

[pakistanisgreat]

Why can't they marry? Always wondered that.

Living together is extremely classless and cheap to me. There is no difference between animals and unmarried couples who live together.

Discuss.

totally agree with you. This is how it spouse to be. If you look at Christianity and Judaism, they are suppose to marry as well. This culture of girl friend and boy friend and living unmarried started not long ago.
Living in western world i have met few families which they still feel bad about having girl/boy friends.

The other biggest problem lately you will see is everyone will tell you "it is my life and my business". that is worse thing happened.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

You can't justify it from a religious pov but its alright if that's what people want.

 

[Gayle_Force]

If two adults want to live with each other without marriage it’s their choice. However, the cost of marriage issue that some people have raised is flawed as you can simply go to court and register a marriage without hurting your bank.

Outside of religion, my basic issue with live-in is that the sense of responsibility is taken out of the relationship and both parties have the ability to just walk away without much consequences anytime things get a little tough.

 

[kingusama92]

totally agree with you. This is how it spouse to be. If you look at Christianity and Judaism, they are suppose to marry as well. This culture of girl friend and boy friend and living unmarried started not long ago.
Living in western world i have met few families which they still feel bad about having girl/boy friends.

The other biggest problem lately you will see is everyone will tell you "it is my life and my business". that is worse thing happened.

To be fair, people following the same religion barely hold similar views of what's right for society.

4 wives vs 1 wife
Cousin vs non-related
Arranged (elders decide everything) vs Arranged (not forced) vs Love
Marriage Within Your Race vs Marriage Outside Your Race


Everyone has their belief system for what's right and everyone assumes they're the best person for following that specific way of living.

Eventually, you realize humans don't know what they're doing and will always believe their way is great.

 

[ElRaja]

because people live to long.

it was easier getting married when people lived till abt 50, get married at twenty, thats thirty odd years.

now people living to 100, the idea of spending 70 or 80 years with someone is crazy.

but i digress, from a non religious pov there is no difference between live in lovers and wedded couples.

the thread should really be why are muslims couples living together and not marrying, if that is an issue, cos it makes no sense to talk about everyone.

 

[Pakpak]

If two adults want to live with each other without marriage it’s their choice. However, the cost of marriage issue that some people have raised is flawed as you can simply go to court and register a marriage without hurting your bank.

Outside of religion, my basic issue with live-in is that the sense of responsibility is taken out of the relationship and both parties have the ability to just walk away without much consequences anytime things get a little tough.

Not really. Noone wants to remember their wedding day memory of a desk and a signature paper. Everyone wants to invite people, have proper events, share it with family and friends, have honeymoon etc. None of which is cheap. Its like saying why do people have beds when they can sleep on mattresses?

 

[Gayle_Force]

Not really. Noone wants to remember their wedding day memory of a desk and a signature paper. Everyone wants to invite people, have proper events, share it with family and friends, have honeymoon etc. None of which is cheap. Its like saying why do people have beds when they can sleep on mattresses?

It’s a choice people make to have expensive marriages but it’s not mandatory.

What is being said here by some is that people prefer live-in as it is cheaper than the cost of getting marriage. That by itself is not a valid reason as people have option to get married without incurring much cost.

 

[Gayle_Force]

because people live to long.

it was easier getting married when people lived till abt 50, get married at twenty, thats thirty odd years.

now people living to 100, the idea of spending 70 or 80 years with someone is crazy.

but i digress, from a non religious pov there is no difference between live in lovers and wedded couples.

the thread should really be why are muslims couples living together and not marrying, if that is an issue, cos it makes no sense to talk about everyone.

20-50 is the prime age for most people so if you spend that time with one person than chances are you can spend the rest of the life with them too.

Secondly, there is a big difference between marriage and live-in. Marriage comes with an implied responsibility and there are major consequences for ending the relationship. These responsibilities and consequences are not nearly as severe in a live-in.

 

[jaf348]

There is a Bangladeshi lady in my community who gave birth while being unmarried. I am disgusted. She brought shame to my country and my community.

May God give us children with common sense and righteousness.

People like you are the reason why honour killings are so prevalent in South Asian culture.

 

[sweep_shot]

People like you are the reason why honour killings are so prevalent in South Asian culture.

I do not support honor killing but I definitely support disciplinary action.

If I had a daughter like that, I would be pretty ashamed.

 

[jaf348]

I do not support honor killing but I definitely support disciplinary action.

If I had a daughter like that, I would be pretty ashamed.

What if it was your son that impregnated that woman? Would you and the community be equally ashamed?

 

[sweep_shot]

What if it was your son that impregnated that woman? Would you and the community be equally ashamed?

Yes.

My son would be kicked out if he does this type of crap.

Not married yet and this is just a hypothetical scenario.

 

[James]

What I will start this otherwise judgey post by saying is that I don’t think cohabiting is a problem in society and there are often legitimate reasons for doing it. Many couples cohabit for very long periods of time and are very happy. They are very welcome to do as they please.

My personal opinion though: I truly adore the institution of marriage, I think it is one of the greatest, purest and most wonderful ideas that us human beings have successfully adapted and still widely practice; and, equally, I am not at all a fan of cohabiting!

I do think there is a question of commitment there - if you’re sure, you get married; but if you cohabit for years and you’re still not married, then I would be wondering why. Secretly on the lookout for the next best thing? Maybe.

Research shows that the birth rate for married women is much higher than in unmarried women. If a couple is married, they’re “all in”: fully committed to one another, joint mortgage, having children, growing the family. That’s really got the potential to become something special.

Economically speaking, you can get married in many places for less than 100 dollars - here in the UK, it costs 50 quid in some regions. Yes there is external pressure to go completely over the top with the ceremony, reception and honeymoon, but these are all issues of choice.

The excuse of “not having enough money” doesn’t make sense in the end. Anyone who really genuinely wants to get married can do so: in its basic legal form, it is deliberately designed to be entirely affordable.

Ultimately, with no divorce required and with children a lot less statistically likely to be around, it’s much easier to walk away from a cohabiting arrangement than from a marriage. Cohabiting unmarried couples surely know this full well. And still they don’t get married, to their supposed life partner. The overarching question, which us happily married people with mortgages and children have the right to ask of them, is why.

 

[Itachi]

I had a live in relationship with one of my ex.

Live in relationship gives a better idea of who that person are. Everyone talks about physical aspect of a relationship but ignores the emotional aspect of it.

The double standard is astounding. OP, who shames the woman who gave birth without getting married, goes silent about the guy who also played the other major role in the consequences.

I don't have any issues with Conservative. Just don't try to shove your opinion to others now and then. You aren't perfect. Only God can decide which act is shameful and let HIM decide at the end of the day.

If two adults are living their life without impacting anyone else's, then let them do their own thing and you mind your own business. Don't be that aunt in the society who bitches bad about others yet has hole in their own home.

 

[Itachi]

Ultimately, with no divorce required and with children a lot less statistically likely to be around, it’s much easier to walk away from a cohabiting arrangement than from a marriage. Cohabiting unmarried couples surely know this full well. And still they don’t get married, to their supposed life partner. The overarching question, which us happily married people with mortgages and children have the right to ask of them, is why.

No one puts a gun in your forehead asking you to get married. If you believe there's discrimination between marriage and live in where it comes to mortgage and children, then you shouldn't complain because marriage is a very wonderful institution (as per your view) and these minor bindings just a part and parcel of it. By your logic, unmarried couples doesn't have the privilege of enjoying the happiness i.e. come along with the marriage and hence, imo, there will be some give and take.

On one hand, you'll cherish the marriage but on the other hand, complain about the outcome when it goes south.

Again double standards.

 

[MRSN]

marriage becomes burden if it doesn't go well esp for a middle class family..

For example a couple spends about 5-10 lacks each and they are from a middle class family and after few months they find out they can't coexist. Now knowing that they have spent almost all of their savings on this marriage they can't just divorce and look for alternatives. So they are forced to be together and then we see all the issues coming up.

Marriage should be a choice not a mandatory thing to do.

 

[MRSN]

It’s a choice people make to have expensive marriages but it’s not mandatory.

What is being said here by some is that people prefer live-in as it is cheaper than the cost of getting marriage. That by itself is not a valid reason as people have option to get married without incurring much cost.

not just cheap marriage but financial problems can be even bigger after marriage esp after having kids. Beside financial issues , if chemistry between the couple is not that good then all sorts of problems come to surface and you feel about marriage like you have become slave.

 

[Dios]

Because it's their life and they have every right to live it the way they seem fit.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

So the difference between animals and humans is a signature on a piece of paper?

You really are a gift that keeps on coming.

What other differnece is there? Animals don't have opposable thumbs so a signature is quite a difference in the overall scheme of life.

 

[Tubs]

What other differnece is there? Animals don't have opposable thumbs so a signature is quite a difference in the overall scheme of life.

Firstly, humans are animals.

And the main difference between humans and other non-human animals (in this context) is the cognitive abilities to read what's on the paper, and decide whether or not they want to sign it, then acting accordingly. Are you agreeing with OP or just joking around?

 

[Pakpak]

It’s a choice people make to have expensive marriages but it’s not mandatory.

What is being said here by some is that people prefer live-in as it is cheaper than the cost of getting marriage. That by itself is not a valid reason as people have option to get married without incurring much cost.

Like I said it's an invalid point. People also can stop complaining about expenses and live in tents like hermits and bicycle to work but noone does that either.

 

[CricketCartoons]

People who do these immoral acts, like live in, drinking and fornication also pretend to be liberal to hide their moral corruption.

 

[Kriketer]

I think animals are the ones who don't mind their own business and pass on judgement on others. I personally don't agree with it either but animals is not a label I would use.

A person from a third world country is very much expected to use such terminologies to describe others so no surprises about the thread. Education and common sense go a long way. Learn to structure an argument.

 

[in_cutter]

Why can't they marry? Always wondered that.

Living together is extremely classless and cheap to me. There is no difference between animals and unmarried couples who live together.

Discuss.

Live & let live. It’s none of your business tbh.

 

[Ryw]

Its because of money, people loose half of their hard earned property after seperation to other half, which is in most cases "female" for example xyz is a millionare, abc is having hard times, abc marries xyz and after divorce, abc will get half of the property according to laws.
Most of them marry at the age of 65 or 75 and that is the reason, i am talking about west Read about marriage laws

 

[sweep_shot]

Its because of money, people loose half of their hard earned property after seperation to other half, which is in most cases "female" for example xyz is a millionare, abc is having hard times, abc marries xyz and after divorce, abc will get half of the property according to laws.
Most of them marry at the age of 65 or 75 and that is the reason, i am talking about west Read about marriage laws

Right. I know the laws but I still find it baffling that they would go for that solution.

I bet most of these folks end up with miserable lives in the long run because there is no blessing in what they are doing.

Living in is a symbol for irresponsible materialism.

 

[MRSN]

Right. I know the laws but I still find it baffling that they would go for that solution.

I bet most of these folks end up with miserable lives in the long run because there is no blessing in what they are doing.

Living in is a symbol for irresponsible materialism.

so married couple is blessing I agree but what about married couples cheating on their partners? what would you do if you found out your wife was cheating on you? divorce her, split your money, financially support her kids, found some other partner, spend money on new marriage, this becomes quite q hectic. At least with relationships you can end it without any hurdle as there is no legal obligations such as.

 

[Mamoon]

I don’t agree with the concept. You are basically a married couple that doesn’t want to commit.

If you want to commit then don’t live together.

 

[Slog]

I don’t agree with the concept. You are basically a married couple that doesn’t want to commit.

If you want to commit then don’t live together.

What if you want to get to know the person better by living with them first?

 

[Mamoon]

What if you want to get to know the person better by living with them first?

But this getting to know them better often extends to years. They end up having kids etc. but yet they don’t want to get married.

 

[ElRaja]

20-50 is the prime age for most people so if you spend that time with one person than chances are you can spend the rest of the life with them too.

which is why divorces peak at the far end of that range, i dont know abt the rest of the world, but statistically in the uk less than half of marriages are expected to last 20 years.

you have the love in phase, then the kids phase, by the time the kids have grown up some people realise that was the only reason they were together.

i think these stats are too high, clearly it shows people get married because its a cultural thing, you shouldn't be getting married unless you honestly can see yourself doing the whole "till death do us part business", which in modern times means, more than 50 years.

Secondly, there is a big difference between marriage and live-in. Marriage comes with an implied responsibility and there are major consequences for ending the relationship. These responsibilities and consequences are not nearly as severe in a live-in.

i disagree about implied responsibility, ive known a few couples who have been live in partners for around ten years before getting married, didn't have any affect on their lifestyle at all.

the only major difference is financial consequences, and that being the deciding factor is a horrible reason to persist with a relationship imo.

 

[sweep_shot]

What I will start this otherwise judgey post by saying is that I don’t think cohabiting is a problem in society and there are often legitimate reasons for doing it. Many couples cohabit for very long periods of time and are very happy. They are very welcome to do as they please.

My personal opinion though: I truly adore the institution of marriage, I think it is one of the greatest, purest and most wonderful ideas that us human beings have successfully adapted and still widely practice; and, equally, I am not at all a fan of cohabiting!

I do think there is a question of commitment there - if you’re sure, you get married; but if you cohabit for years and you’re still not married, then I would be wondering why. Secretly on the lookout for the next best thing? Maybe.

Research shows that the birth rate for married women is much higher than in unmarried women. If a couple is married, they’re “all in”: fully committed to one another, joint mortgage, having children, growing the family. That’s really got the potential to become something special.

Economically speaking, you can get married in many places for less than 100 dollars - here in the UK, it costs 50 quid in some regions. Yes there is external pressure to go completely over the top with the ceremony, reception and honeymoon, but these are all issues of choice.

The excuse of “not having enough money” doesn’t make sense in the end. Anyone who really genuinely wants to get married can do so: in its basic legal form, it is deliberately designed to be entirely affordable.

Ultimately, with no divorce required and with children a lot less statistically likely to be around, it’s much easier to walk away from a cohabiting arrangement than from a marriage. Cohabiting unmarried couples surely know this full well. And still they don’t get married, to their supposed life partner. The overarching question, which us happily married people with mortgages and children have the right to ask of them, is why.

Great post, James. I fully agree with this post.

Nothing is purer than marriage. All the brand new liberal fads aren't replacements for marriage.

 

[sweep_shot]

so married couple is blessing I agree but what about married couples cheating on their partners? what would you do if you found out your wife was cheating on you? divorce her, split your money, financially support her kids, found some other partner, spend money on new marriage, this becomes quite q hectic. At least with relationships you can end it without any hurdle as there is no legal obligations such as.

I personally support death penalty for cheating spouses. They are the scums.

The concept of splitting wealth is pretty stupid. Women get things too easily. I think there needs to be a balanced law for divorce.

 

[Gayle_Force]

not just cheap marriage but financial problems can be even bigger after marriage esp after having kids. Beside financial issues , if chemistry between the couple is not that good then all sorts of problems come to surface and you feel about marriage like you have become slave.

Yes and that’s exactly my point it’s the post marital commitments including financial and emotional commitments that IMO people in live-in relationships are trying to avoid.

 

[humzy]

In the west, marriages are at a 50% divorce rate today, so statistically it makes sense not to marry

 

[Gayle_Force]

which is why divorces peak at the far end of that range, i dont know abt the rest of the world, but statistically in the uk less than half of marriages are expected to last 20 years.

you have the love in phase, then the kids phase, by the time the kids have grown up some people realise that was the only reason they were together.

i think these stats are too high, clearly it shows people get married because its a cultural thing, you shouldn't be getting married unless you honestly can see yourself doing the whole "till death do us part business", which in modern times means, more than 50 years.



i disagree about implied responsibility, ive known a few couples who have been live in partners for around ten years before getting married, didn't have any affect on their lifestyle at all.

the only major difference is financial consequences, and that being the deciding factor is a horrible reason to persist with a relationship imo.

These discussions are hard to have without backing of actual stats. I would argue that based on my observation most modern western marriages don’t even last 10 years let alone 20. IMO Live in is partially a factor as people have grown accustomed to the no commitment relationships.

Also, the responsibility in marriage is not just financial but also emotional. Live in by its very definition requires no commitment what so ever. It’s great that it worked for a few people you know but IMO most live ins don’t work out like that.

 

[Vega]

I think there is a larger picture if we get out of the notion that "Let people do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn't harm you". Which is mostly true but perhaps not always.

There is much more of a broader scenario that effects an entire society as a whole.

In my personal opinion, the sexual intimacy (which is obviously a natural human need) comes with a baggage if you take the religious guidance.
And that baggage is "commitment and monogamy" ESPECIALLY on the males.
Such couples are encouraged in general to stay committed more strongly, and work towards forming a strongly knitted family.

This commitment and monogamy between couples not only has an effect on the couples themselves, but also it hugely effects the society in which such couples live.

On the other hand, couples can remove or dilute this condition of trying to be "strongly committed and monogamous", and jump straight into sexual intimacy.

So if we are to compare two societies where a majority lives as unmarried couples with little to no commitment vs a society where couples try to be monogamous and committed, then perhaps we may be looking at two very different pictures.

And who suffers or benefits the most? Believe it or not, it starts with the kids.

Lets take the example of Brazil, and look the number of homeless children. The number of such children (up to 8 million kids in the streets) is not only staggering but their living conditions are even worse.

Philippines is another mind boggling example where the sexual abuse on millions of homeless kids is so widespread that the govt, instead of trying to curb problem, passed a law that brings down the minimum sexual consent age to just 12 years. And no wonder pedophiles love to flock to Philippines.

How do you think such a society will look like when such kids become grown ups and they form the majority of population in a few decades?

In a different way, this social problem is wide spread in countries like USA as well.
Besides 2 million homeless kids, there are 100 and thousands of kids either living in foster homes or waiting to be put with a foster family. The physical and mental abuse, many of these poor kids go through is horrendous.

The less monogamous society may also have a higher chance of widely spread STD's.

You come back and argue that unmarried couples should practice safe sex and not have off-springs? well, tell that to people in Brazil, Philippines, USA and many other countries that are going through this excruciating pain of broken homes and broken families, and millions of unmarried couples living together.
(yes drug abuse also contributes A LOT in forming the shape of a society - but that's a different topic)

And here is the gist of this for those who still think that it's only a "piece of paper".
The off springs of animals are naturally designed to know and do many things on their own. They naturally know how to survive in the wild once they grow up. Birds know how to build a nest without anyone teaching or training them. They know to feed their off springs, they know how to get shelter, they know how to migrate from one weather condition to another one etc.

On the other hand, human off-springs require A LOT of training. We are born with almost a blank brain. Aside from protection, food and shelter, human kids need to be taught almost EVERYTHING. They need to be sent to schools to learn different traits and develop skills that help survive better in the human society. They need to taught on how to talk, present themselves, use intelligence and logic to tackle various day to day life scenarios. LOL HECK, we even need to be taught on how to wipe our rear end after taking # 2.
But more importantly, unlike animals in the wild, humans need to make choices everyday. And they need training for that.

So no, humans and animals are not the same. That "piece of paper" makes a tremendous difference.

On the other hand, in a society where couples are strongly committed with a marriage bond (that piece of paper) where they try their best to go through thin and thick and form a closely knitted family; the kids get the benefit and enjoy a lot more protected, loved and nourishing environment. And hence such a society may have an entire different picture.

Obviously, there are exceptional cases in both scenarios so please don't waste time in coming back with such an example.

My personal view on this is that, I am not against anyone deciding how do they want to live their life. Obviously, everyone is free; however, there are unseen repercussions of some of our actions.

I believe, we should make wise choices because in the end, we will be responsible for our choices made on free will.

(1) Do you still consider the 4 wives as monogamous?

(2) Do you consider the sexual relationship with the slave women too as monogamous?

(3) Do you still consider buying a slave girl by a master from the slave market, then having "Temporary Sexual Relationship" with her, and then selling her again in the slave market after fulfilling his sexual lust, as monogamous relationship?

 

[Vega]

In west people live together with CONSENT of each other.

While religions allowed masters to rape dozens of slave girls after buying them, without their consents.


So, who is closer of having an ANIMAL type attitude?

 

[Vega]

Muslims have absolutely wrong Ideas about the West. They could not comprehend the REAL reasons. They watch everything from the prism of Islam.

Let me first bring this fact in notice to the Muslims, who believe that it is due to Islam that families stay together.


https://www.arabtimesonline.com/new...ng-60-percent-year-interest-driven-marriages/

Divorce rate in Kuwait reaches an alarming 60 percent this year

Around 60 percent of marriages in Kuwait have ended in divorce so far this year, according to statistics issued by Ministry of Justice for the first quarter of 2017.

The total number of marriages registered in the first two months of 2017 was 2,001, while the registered number of divorce cases was 1,193.

In the same period last year, the number of marriages was 2425 and number of divorces was 1,180. This indicates that the rate of marriages has been declining while the divorce rate is increasing in Kuwait.




https://gulfnews.com/uae/government...within-first-year-of-marriage-1.1563170934599

28.5% of UAE couples divorced within first year of marriage

Abu Dhabi: A new report issued on Sunday has revealed that almost 30 per cent of UAE divorces that took place in 2018 were dissolved within the first year of marriage.

A total of 5,467 marriage contracts were registered last year, according to the Abu Dhabi Statistics Centre (ADSC) who released the report for Marriage and Divorce Statistics 2018 for the Abu Dhabi region, indicating a six percent annual increase of marriages since 1979.

The report pointed out that the number of registered divorce cases rose to 2,025 in 2018 from 1,859 in 2017, an annual increase of 4.2 per cent since 1975.

The new statistics also found that 28.5 per cent of marriages ended in divorce within the first 12 months, which equates to 1,558 of marriage contracts.

The centre’s study also showed that 62.2 per cent of divorces took place within the first four years of marriage.