What's so bad about living in sin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Time and time again, I see such strong reactions on DCUM to people who say they live with a boyfriend or girlfriend and don't plan to marry.
If they are ok with it, why do people have such a problem with it?
Why isn't it ok to live your life with someone without marriage?

As a man whose girlfriend has asked about living together but I am not interested (we are both late 40s), it's simple - if I do not feel serious enough about her to marry her, why put up with the inconveniences of a shared household? The commitment in a marriage is much stronger, not for everyone, but for me it's how I see things. In my current situation, I want to someday look across a table and see her with a beautiful ring that I bought her, along with everything that promise means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the reasons said in this thread before.

Also, I'm very happy that the financial and legal rights afforded to married couples exist, and I'm happy that those financial and legal rights do not apply to unmarried cohabiting couples.

Why? Because those financial and legal rights lend a sense of permanence to the living arrangement. It means that you are one unit, one household, one family. An unmarried couple rarely intends to be perceived as a family. Mostly the reason they're unmarried is because they always have one foot out the door, not because they have religious objections to marriage. (I hate that this OP makes marriage a religious issue - it's not).

I never made it a religious issue. My point is that it isn't up to you to define what a real family is. It isn't up to you to decide what the rules are.
Marriage means that you get some tax and legal benefits. It doesn't mean that your relationship is more important or permanent than someone else's.

Yeah...it does actually. Making financial and legal commitments to another person means your intertwining your life with theirs in a way that is very difficult and expensive to extricate yourself from. That's called commitment. That's called permanence, in fact. Nobody is arguing that some marriages are made for the wrong reasons or some marriages don't last but at the same time, nobody in their right mind is going to argue that your average LTR couple is more likely to define themselves as a family than your average married couple.

It's permanent until it isn't. My longterm boyfriend IS my family, whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter how you classify it.
Marriage is reversible. My partner and I are as committed to each other as you are to your husband/wife. You can't make these generalizations.

No. Your boyfriend is not family, no matter how you describe him. You can think he is anything, but that doesn't make him such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that for a woman, living together is the worst of both worlds - it brings the limitations of marriage (increased housework and sexual exclusivity) without its benefits (shared finances and security). That's why for me, it's simply a bad deal.

But I don't judge people who do it as long as they realize what the arrangement is, and is not.

I feel the same way. It truly is the worst of both world for a woman. It is the best of both worlds for a man. That's why I look down on women who sign up for this sort of arrangement. Most men would prefer to put off marriage. Now living together first is more common. Women have less time and now are expected to let a mam try them out before marrying. Thanks a lot ladies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the reasons said in this thread before.

Also, I'm very happy that the financial and legal rights afforded to married couples exist, and I'm happy that those financial and legal rights do not apply to unmarried cohabiting couples.

Why? Because those financial and legal rights lend a sense of permanence to the living arrangement. It means that you are one unit, one household, one family. An unmarried couple rarely intends to be perceived as a family. Mostly the reason they're unmarried is because they always have one foot out the door, not because they have religious objections to marriage. (I hate that this OP makes marriage a religious issue - it's not).

I never made it a religious issue. My point is that it isn't up to you to define what a real family is. It isn't up to you to decide what the rules are.
Marriage means that you get some tax and legal benefits. It doesn't mean that your relationship is more important or permanent than someone else's.

Yeah...it does actually. Making financial and legal commitments to another person means your intertwining your life with theirs in a way that is very difficult and expensive to extricate yourself from. That's called commitment. That's called permanence, in fact. Nobody is arguing that some marriages are made for the wrong reasons or some marriages don't last but at the same time, nobody in their right mind is going to argue that your average LTR couple is more likely to define themselves as a family than your average married couple.

It's permanent until it isn't. My longterm boyfriend IS my family, whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter how you classify it.
Marriage is reversible. My partner and I are as committed to each other as you are to your husband/wife. You can't make these generalizations.

No. Your boyfriend is not family, no matter how you describe him. You can think he is anything, but that doesn't make him such.

Well that's silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time and time again, I see such strong reactions on DCUM to people who say they live with a boyfriend or girlfriend and don't plan to marry.
If they are ok with it, why do people have such a problem with it?
Why isn't it ok to live your life with someone without marriage?

As a man whose girlfriend has asked about living together but I am not interested (we are both late 40s), it's simple - if I do not feel serious enough about her to marry her, why put up with the inconveniences of a shared household? The commitment in a marriage is much stronger, not for everyone, but for me it's how I see things. In my current situation, I want to someday look across a table and see her with a beautiful ring that I bought her, along with everything that promise means.

Fine for you. But why devalue someone else's relationship because it's not what you want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the reasons said in this thread before.

Also, I'm very happy that the financial and legal rights afforded to married couples exist, and I'm happy that those financial and legal rights do not apply to unmarried cohabiting couples.

Why? Because those financial and legal rights lend a sense of permanence to the living arrangement. It means that you are one unit, one household, one family. An unmarried couple rarely intends to be perceived as a family. Mostly the reason they're unmarried is because they always have one foot out the door, not because they have religious objections to marriage. (I hate that this OP makes marriage a religious issue - it's not).

I never made it a religious issue. My point is that it isn't up to you to define what a real family is. It isn't up to you to decide what the rules are.
Marriage means that you get some tax and legal benefits. It doesn't mean that your relationship is more important or permanent than someone else's.

Yeah...it does actually. Making financial and legal commitments to another person means your intertwining your life with theirs in a way that is very difficult and expensive to extricate yourself from. That's called commitment. That's called permanence, in fact. Nobody is arguing that some marriages are made for the wrong reasons or some marriages don't last but at the same time, nobody in their right mind is going to argue that your average LTR couple is more likely to define themselves as a family than your average married couple.

It's permanent until it isn't. My longterm boyfriend IS my family, whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter how you classify it.
Marriage is reversible. My partner and I are as committed to each other as you are to your husband/wife. You can't make these generalizations.

NP here. If you have actually gone through all the legal hoopla to make it as close to legalities conferred in marriage like named beneficiary for each other's retirement savings and have wills naming each other as beneficiaries and have joint accounts and debts and have the documents to make life or death medical decisions if the other person is incapacitated and have a fair division should you split up ...then I will agree. I'll be honest it wasn't until I did estate planning that I realized how much trust legally speaking you put in your spouse versus a boyfriend. That said, there may be plenty of reasons you don't want that level of legal intertwining. As a PP mentioned if I'm older I probably have more to lose by getting married.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that for a woman, living together is the worst of both worlds - it brings the limitations of marriage (increased housework and sexual exclusivity) without its benefits (shared finances and security). That's why for me, it's simply a bad deal.

But I don't judge people who do it as long as they realize what the arrangement is, and is not.

I feel the same way. It truly is the worst of both world for a woman. It is the best of both worlds for a man. That's why I look down on women who sign up for this sort of arrangement. Most men would prefer to put off marriage. Now living together first is more common. Women have less time and now are expected to let a mam try them out before marrying. Thanks a lot ladies.

I wouldn't live with a man without being married because of my personal preferences, but I look down on people like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not okay for practicing Christians. If you aren't one, go for it.

Practicing Christians very often commit adultery - that is also a kind of sin, is it not? What about priests who are pedophile? There is religion and there is morality. Two different things.

Oh, yay, more anti-Christian talk.

Yes, Christians commit adultery. That doesn't mean it's not a sin.

But it makes zero sense. Are 'religious' people supposed to be using their religion as sort of a guide in life? Setting morals?

If you are going to practice, why would you not stick to those morals?

Answer: Religion is a giant hoax. People want to believe there is some guy upstairs who will just forgive them for being a piece of shit while on earth. And the churches take full advantage of these idiots.

I don't personally know any Christians who are "pieces of shit". Sorry you've had a bad experience.

You could be going to Church and be a practicing christian and commit all kinds of sin. You could be an atheist and be extremely moral.

Pedophelia and rape and hurting someone - that should be considered sin and immoral and illegal.

[Anonymous]

If I break up with my partner, we will split our stuff, work out our custody and child support arrangements, and go our separate ways. We will also change our various powers of attorney and change documents that relate to finances, property, and health. We won't have to wait around a year and pay Big Brother to give us permission. Been there, done that. It was ridiculous. Marriage is not the answer or preference for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Marriage is losing relevance. If there isn't a legal or religious reason, I don't see much point in it.

People may live together because they aren't ready to commit. Married people who hate each other live together can continue to live together "for the kids."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've seen my friends go through divorces. What a humongous pain in the ass. Extricating is easier when it doesn't require a waiting period and trip to see a judge. Maintain separate assets if you don't want to get married.

+10000. The rest of you are bonkers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the reasons said in this thread before.

Also, I'm very happy that the financial and legal rights afforded to married couples exist, and I'm happy that those financial and legal rights do not apply to unmarried cohabiting couples.

Why? Because those financial and legal rights lend a sense of permanence to the living arrangement. It means that you are one unit, one household, one family. An unmarried couple rarely intends to be perceived as a family. Mostly the reason they're unmarried is because they always have one foot out the door, not because they have religious objections to marriage. (I hate that this OP makes marriage a religious issue - it's not).

I never made it a religious issue. My point is that it isn't up to you to define what a real family is. It isn't up to you to decide what the rules are.
Marriage means that you get some tax and legal benefits. It doesn't mean that your relationship is more important or permanent than someone else's.

Yeah...it does actually. Making financial and legal commitments to another person means your intertwining your life with theirs in a way that is very difficult and expensive to extricate yourself from. That's called commitment. That's called permanence, in fact. Nobody is arguing that some marriages are made for the wrong reasons or some marriages don't last but at the same time, nobody in their right mind is going to argue that your average LTR couple is more likely to define themselves as a family than your average married couple.

It's permanent until it isn't. My longterm boyfriend IS my family, whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter how you classify it.
Marriage is reversible. My partner and I are as committed to each other as you are to your husband/wife. You can't make these generalizations.

No. Your boyfriend is not family, no matter how you describe him. You can think he is anything, but that doesn't make him such.

That's not for you to say. Who the fuck do you think you are?
You don't know the experiences these people have had. You don't know for what reason they consider themselves to be family.
You are a true piece of shit to put a value on someone's relationship when you basically bought your family.

[Anonymous]

This is going to sound like the 1950's, but as the father of a daughter in her mid 20's considering living with her bf, when she has asked me for advice, my answer is don't do it. He's a nice enough guy but she foes most of the housework for what? So she can worry about him someday proposing. I try to be open minded but also know how men think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I view people who live in sin as low class.

Pretty much. It's not even a statement about them, really, but higher classes have a higher rate of marriage. It stands to reason that people will see you as lower class for not marrying.

The only people who rate your "class" based on your marital status are classless people. You can consider yourself high class based on your income...but that doesn't mean you have any class at all. And this is a perfect example

What are you talking about? Numerous studies have shown the that more wealthy and educated you are, the more likely you are to be married.

That's about income, not class. By identifying a particular group by class instead of income, you come across as snobby.

Education is about class, not income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the reasons said in this thread before.

Also, I'm very happy that the financial and legal rights afforded to married couples exist, and I'm happy that those financial and legal rights do not apply to unmarried cohabiting couples.

Why? Because those financial and legal rights lend a sense of permanence to the living arrangement. It means that you are one unit, one household, one family. An unmarried couple rarely intends to be perceived as a family. Mostly the reason they're unmarried is because they always have one foot out the door, not because they have religious objections to marriage. (I hate that this OP makes marriage a religious issue - it's not).

I never made it a religious issue. My point is that it isn't up to you to define what a real family is. It isn't up to you to decide what the rules are.
Marriage means that you get some tax and legal benefits. It doesn't mean that your relationship is more important or permanent than someone else's.

Yeah...it does actually. Making financial and legal commitments to another person means your intertwining your life with theirs in a way that is very difficult and expensive to extricate yourself from. That's called commitment. That's called permanence, in fact. Nobody is arguing that some marriages are made for the wrong reasons or some marriages don't last but at the same time, nobody in their right mind is going to argue that your average LTR couple is more likely to define themselves as a family than your average married couple.

It's permanent until it isn't. My longterm boyfriend IS my family, whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter how you classify it.
Marriage is reversible. My partner and I are as committed to each other as you are to your husband/wife. You can't make these generalizations.

So why are you not married?