Marriage

Chi_ZETABBW · #1 05-17-2001, 08:10 PM

Would you ever marry someone for reasons other then LOVE?

My first husband I married for love.

Sweet Deliverance · #2 05-17-2001, 08:55 PM

No! Being that marriage is instituted by God and God is love, to me, it makes sense that the main reason to join in holy matrimony is love. Too many people marry for "not the best reasons" like sex only, jealousy, spite, being pregnant (and not loving each other in spite of that). But I would never marry someone I didn't love, and I love my fiance.

------------------
Sweet Deliverance's PHI-losophy:
"What you do or do not do today determines what you can or cannot do tomorrow."

lil_sunshine · #3 12-12-2001, 08:40 PM

Of course not!!! I might be silly sometimes when it comes to making people laugh, but I'm NOT crazy! Marrying someone for any other reason than love kinda defeats the purpose. Originally, marriage was created for the purpose of procreation only. But nowadays, people marry for so many different reasons, it's hard to tell if they're the right ones. Just some food for thought.

DOVE1920 · #4 12-12-2001, 11:55 PM

I don't know. I'm only 20 so there's no telling what I would do! Reasons other than love include:
MONEY
Stability
physical attraction

I dunno

PrettyKitty · #5 12-13-2001, 12:12 PM

NO, but I will marry for reasons in addition to love...

SoTrue1920 · #6 12-13-2001, 02:06 PM

I hope I'll never have to get married again, but to be honest, yes, I could marry for other reasons than love. Companionship, sharing of household finances, stability.

Ms. Magazine had a great article on what some people call a "Boston marriage ". I could see myself in a relationship like that with my best friend. We're each other's primary caregivers and companions, but we're not sexually/romantically involved. I could even see myself in an arrangement like that with a male friend, if my current marriage didn't work out, or if by some unfortunate event, my husband passes away before I do.

Shelacious · #7 12-13-2001, 03:03 PM

I think that love has to be the underlying basis of any successful marriage. So the short answer is NO, I wouldn't marry for reasons other than love exclusively.

Having said that, I would marry if I loved someone but there were other circumstances that made the partnership decidedly more compelling. I love my boyfriend with everything in my soul, but it's not only because of love that I'd marry him...there's got to be something more than love there, but LOVE must be the underlying foundation of our marriage.

DOVE1920 · #8 12-13-2001, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shelacious
I think that love has to be the underlying basis of any successful marriage.

I agree. But what is the definition of a successful marriage?

Royalty · #9 12-13-2001, 03:31 PM

I will marry for love in addition to the promise of a fulfilling future. This FF includes prosperity (money), happiness, everlasting friendship, and cute kids (kidding). It would seem that there's got to more than love ie the promise of a good future with Brother X.

Her Dopenezzz · #10 12-13-2001, 05:36 PM

No. Love HAS TO be a Pre-Req.

Kimmie1913 · #11 12-13-2001, 05:50 PM

Interestingly enough, historically many sociaologists say love has NOT been the primary reason people get married. It has been a factor but not the catalyst to cause them to choose to marry.

I did a research project on this topic once. There are a number of legal scholars who believe the decreasing importance of these other reasons is a contributing factor in the decline in the marriage rate and the marriage success rate. For instance, one reason they cite is historically men HAD to marry the mother to have any rights to their children. Today, that is not the case, therefore not an incentive for men to marry any longer. Historically, financial disparity and economic biases against women made marriage a financial necessity for women. Today, this is no longer the case, therefore no longer an incentive for women to marry. These are just a few of the examples.

So, is LOVE enough? Is more required? Do you need other reasons or factors to be in play to decide to marry someone beyond love?

Her Dopenezzz · #12 12-15-2001, 05:31 PM

"So, is LOVE enough? Is more required? Do you need other reasons or factors to be in play to decide to marry someone beyond love?"

Of course just marrying for love is not enough. But, love has to be there in order for the marriage to be fulfilling and passionate. Without it, all you have is a contract - legal and binding.

Shelacious · #13 12-15-2001, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DOVE1920

I agree. But what is the definition of a successful marriage?

I think this is a question everyone must define on their own. My definition of a successful marriage is one where I feel I have still managed to love and respect this person at the end of the day, week, year, lifetime, in spite of the trials and travails of this partnership--and I would hope he could say he felt the same. I have to look at the marriage on a day-to-day basis--did I trust, love, respect this man today? Did I tell him? It sounds silly, but I know I will have to continually be mindful in my marriage to not take it, or him, for granted if I want my side of the partnership to work (I know my where a few of my own flaws lie).

For others, they may define success differently, and as a result, look at different barometers to gauge the success of their marriage. One of the major discussions I will hope to always have with my mate: check to ensure what both our barometers are! If I look at success one way and he another (and we are unaware of each other's measures)---that's asking for someone to always be disappointed and unsatisfied.

Shelacious · #14 12-15-2001, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmie1913
Interestingly enough, historically many sociaologists say love has NOT been the primary reason people get married. It has been a factor but not the catalyst to cause them to choose to marry.

Oh, I agree with you. You look at your grandparents, or great-grandparents (even maybe your own parents)--these folks didn't always marry for "love" per se, and had these very long unions. Then you have folks who marry for "love" and their relationship lasts about 2-5 years. Now whether these longs unions required one person to be very satisfied and the other to be totally miserable is a different story. Many women I know paid dearly of their own happiness to stay in a long union for the happiness/satisfaction of their husband/children. Is that wrong? Maybe, maybe not. I think some sound arguments can be made from either side.

I still think that if the husband and wife are to be mutally satisfied in the relationship, the love and the respect has to be there. I don't mean monkey love (that's an ugly term, but I keep hearing so...)-- passionate, booty-shaking love though, and I think that's where folks in relationships today get all messed up. Once the passion is gone, they realized that they never really loved and/or respected their partner, so there goes the marriage. True love and respect for your mate has only a small percentage to do with butterflies in your stomach, and how often you have fantastic sex, and how much they "do" for you. It has more to do with what you're willing to sacrifice and invest in a person because you believe in them. How much you respect their opinions. How much they want you to be happy. What sacrifices and investments they are willing to make in YOU for the long haul. It's really a more qualitative thought process, and that's why what you find in a lover may not be the same things you should look for in a mate--because the type of love and respect required isn't usually the same.