Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I start a thread titled: What's so wrong with marriage?

Find the right person and marriage is awesome!

Marriage is an accepted institution that is expected of most people.
Deciding not to marry is not. Marriage doesn't need it's own thread.

Expected by who? The church?

Some of you are too old fashioned. Wake up. We no longer have to follow stupid traditions.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Can I start a thread titled: What's so wrong with marriage?

Find the right person and marriage is awesome!

Marriage is an accepted institution that is expected of most people.
Deciding not to marry is not. Marriage doesn't need it's own thread.

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.

Can I start a thread titled: What's so wrong with marriage?

Find the right person and marriage is awesome!

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think it is a great deal for men. They get free maid service and sex. Women get used. That's why I don't like it.

The hell are you talking about? "Free maid service and sex".

When you are married, is the "maid service" no longer free?

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think it is a great deal for men. They get free maid service and sex. Women get used. That's why I don't like it.

So married women can provide sex and maid service if they're married? Men get used. That's why I don't like it.

OP, I think it is a great deal for men. They get free maid service and sex. Women get used. That's why I don't like it.

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.

Exactly. They are getting the perks of having a wife, without fully committing. It's like marrying a guy who isn't marrying you back.

LOL @ "fully committing"

Last time I checked the definition of commitment did not include a requirement for marriage.

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.

Exactly. They are getting the perks of having a wife, without fully committing. It's like marrying a guy who isn't marrying you back.

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 think "living in sin" is ok if you are absolutely on the same page about what the next step is, and if there is to be a next step.

That said, I tend to think that living together for purely financial reasons is a bad idea. It makes it so much harder to move on from a relationship that has run its course.

I've never lived with anyone because I've never been engaged. I take it pretty seriously.

partner and I have been cohabitation happily for 10 years. We have no children, or plans to have them. I'd like to get married, he doesn't.

To all who think it's the same thing and that marriage is just a piece of paper, I'd advise you to rethink that.

If your partner dies, or becomes legally incompetent you do NOT have the same rights as a spouse to health or end of life decisions, property, etc.

If you split, even after 20 years, you have no legal right to division of assets, etc.

If you don't want to get married, get a cohabitation agreement. Make sure you are listed as next of kin on all documents. Get everything and anything in writing to show that you are indeed in a partnership to protect yourself.

I personally have zero issue with how and what other people do with their lives.

I see no problem with living with someone without being legally wed to them. As long as our relationship was solid and we were compatible and everything was working out, then I don't see what problem there would be.

If anyone else had an issue with it, then what would I care? I cannot stand people who judge others anyway.

The only people who this really bothers are usually fundamental Christians and really uptight Conservatives.

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.