in agreement with guido here, specially the point about the car. When buying a car, most people realise that they will buy the car, and that it will run very smoothly to begin with, but over time, it will start to get problems, and will need repairing, and will eventually need replacing, people buy a car, knowing that it will be replaced. How many people still have their first car aftewr 10 or more years of owning it, for that matter how many people still have their car after 5 years of owning it? The same applies to marriage, same as u test drive a car to determine whether your gonna be paying out through your teeth for the first few years to keep it repaired and in good shape, and will still have to end up getting rid of it sooner, u should do the same (in my opinion) with marriage. Ther are no real benefits of marriage that you get without marriage itself. The legal standing about ownership and sharing of earnings dont apply to couples who co-habit, but legal sex and such, sharing of responsibilities and other such things which come with marriage are there even before co-habbitation. Co-habbitation allows you to see teh real person when they wake up 7 days a week, not just one or 2 on odd occasions, co-habbitation lets you see the real person when nothing goes their way, co-habbitation lets you see the real person when they are too tired to care about much, co-habbitation lets you see the real person when the cooking doesnt go their way or the cat shits on the new carpet, and most of all it lets them see the real you, it allows them to see who you really are when all of the abopve happen, and shows you how supportive both partners are of the others problems. Its all well and good being able to sit on the other end of a phone line and comfort, but can u do it in person when you've just been the target of some raw, emotional dischargement. co-habbitation shows you how you would interact, and if the interaction doesnt happnen, then it wouldnt have happened even if you were shackled with the bonds of marriage. The same people who give up with the co-habbitation would be the same kind of people who give up on the marriage, problems can be worked through, but only if you know that at the end of the day, if all else fails and your world turns upside down in disarray, you still have an escape without all kinds of legal and finacial ties which last for many years, and ruin a person in the end.
marriage is all well and good, but if it is going to fail then its an expensive failure, wouldnt you prefer to have a little more knowledge that you have done everything possible to make sure the car you are buying isnt going to break down half a mile from the dealer?

I absolutely disagree.  I have been dating my fiance for a little more than two years and would not consider living together before marriage.  My fiance and I both feel that living together beforehand actually diminishes the chances of having a successful marriage.  It's like that old saying about not buying the cow when you get the milk for free.  People who live together for awhile before marriage often start taking the relationship for granted and devaluing the commitment of marriage.  
The way I see it is like this:  Say you're the child of a wealthy family who always gives you everything you want the second you ask for it.  Ask daddy for a Jaguar and BAM it's yours.  Want $100 to take your prom date out to breakfast after you've shagged her all night?  Here, take $500.  And on and on and on.  Pretty soon, you don't value much of anything cuz it's all given to you on a silver platter.  Contrast that with the kid who grows up in an average, middle-class family knowing the value of a dollar.  The person who knows what it's like to work and sweat for everything they've got.  They value pretty much everything because they know what it took to get it.
I don't want to be that spoiled little brat of a kid who values nothing, who thinks it's cool to claim all the benefits of marriage without any of the commitment or work.  

There are many studies that prove that people who live together before marriage have significantly higher risks of divorce than those who don't.  

   Myth: Cohabitation is just like marriage, but without "the piece of paper."

Fact: Cohabitation typically does not bring the benefits — in physical health, wealth and emotional wellbeing — that marriage does. In terms of these benefits, cohabitants in the United States more closely resemble singles than married couples. This is due, in part, to the fact that cohabitants tend not to be as committed as married couples, and they are more oriented toward their own personal autonomy and less to the well-being of their partner.

Myth: Couples who live together before marriage, and are thus able to test how well suited they are for each other, have more satisfying and longer-lasting marriages than couples who do not.

Fact: Many studies have found that those who live together before marriage have less satisfying marriages and a considerably higher chance of eventually breaking up. One reason is that people who cohabit may be more skittish of commitment and more likely to call it quits when problems arise. But in addition, the very act of living together may lead to attitudes that make happy marriages more difficult. The findings of one recent study, for example, suggest "there may be less motivation for cohabiting partners to develop their conflict resolution and support skills." (One important exception: Cohabiting couples who are already planning to marry each other in the near future have just as good a chance at staying together as couples who don't live together before marriage).

(source: Discovery Health)

My own opinion, gleaned by wading through my own friends' marital failures, is that the majority of couples who divorce early on in their marriage simply gave up too easily.  Things started getting rough, as they enevitably will in any relationship, and they bailed the first chance they got.  It had nothing at all to do with them not knowing if they were compatible because they didn't live together before marriage, it was that they had no concept of the commitment required to sustain a happy marriage.  In the age of gimmie-what-I-want-the-second-I-want-it, I am not surprised that so many people are such flakes.

Now I'm not saying that everyone who lives with their boyfriend/girlfriend before marriage is spoiled or a flake.  Many people make that choice out of necessity and do quite well when they do get married.  Advocating it for the masses is a mistake though and promoting instant gratification with no commitment will only contribute to the problems that face young people considering marriage.

I agree too, it is a better idea to live with the person first. Because marraige is a huge committment and too many people get married too soon and end up in a divorce.
I've been with my b/f for almost 4 years now and we wanted to move in together. We went on vacation together and we fought a lot and now we know that right now in our lives we can not live together. Everyone is different but I'm glad we figured that out before it was too late.
Most people do figure it out too late, so if you are planning to get married I would recommend to live with each other first, its a big step to get married. Usually you don't take big steps you have to take little steps that lead to this big step and one of those little steps is living together first.

i agree guido, i myself have been living w/ my b/f for almost 2 yrs now. although we plan to get married eventually we are in no rush. you learn a lot from a person when you live w/ them. i dont care how much time you spend together you dont really know a person until you have to share a living space and real life stuff like bills and just day to day life.
i have a friend who had a b/f for several years but her and his parents were kinda strict so of course they got married to live together. even though they are still married, it was real hard the first year. i think thats why so many marriages end that first year b/c its such a shock when you live w/ someone for the first time. i think parents should be more open and not so strict about their kids living w/ their boyfriends or girlfriends. my mom was real understanding. plus i have a sister who if she married every guy she lived w/ she would have been married and divorced 3-4 times..lol.

I think it's a bad idea. Why?

One, it takes the fun away from the actual marriage. If you already feel like you are married, then marriage itself will be less special when it rolls around.

Couples that live together before marriage have a higher divorce rate (believe it or not) than couples that don't live together before marriage.

It is possible to know how a person is w/o living with them. You can still spend the night at their house, visit them, have them visit you. In a long term relationship there is no reason why you should not be aware of the living habits of your bf/gf. You can ask your SO how they feel about things like how to spend money, sharing chores, kids, etc.

Also, like someone above said, many people start to take the relationship for granted. They may feel like "why get married?" when they are practically already married. Why give all the benefits of marriage w/o actually being married? It makes no sense. Also, many people claim they want to make sure that they are compatible with the person first and so that is why they want to live together before marriage. So if you don't get along you'll just give up the relationship?? If that's the case, then the relationship wasn't that solid to begin with. The whole point of marriage is to work out your differences, stand by each other for better or for worse.

I will never live together before marriage because I want my marriage to be as special, new, and exciting as can be. I refuse to give my bf all the benefits of marriage w/o actually being married to him.

Also, I have seen many of my friends get engaged and live together before marriage. Now, none of those couples are together today. Marriage is not the same thing as buying a car. People can work out their differences. A car is a machine. The two are not even comparable. There is a reason why people that live together before marriage have a higher divorce rate. Because it's not the best thing to do. It's best to wait until marriage to live together. If you don't believe me about the above statement, I can provide statistics.

i still think that in my situation i am glad i am living w/ my boyfriend now even tho we are not married. the only real advantage when you get married and then get a place together is you already have a lot of stuff to furnish it b/c of the wedding presents...lol. i mean i live w/ my b/f and his friend so i have other roommates. and one day when we get married we will have a place to call our own and it will be special. i just dont think people should feel pressured just to get married so they CAN live together w/out other people judging them. maybe they stay together b/c now they are married and obligated to eachother and can't just walk away. so now they are stuck in a situation that they are not happy w/. everyone makes mistakes in who they think is their life partner. why jump into it and get married only later to find out it wasn't right and by the time you are 30 you've been divorced twice.
as far as completely knowing someone w/out living w/ them that isn't possible so what if you spend the nite on the weekends?!?
when one person is having a bad day they can just not answer the phone or the door and well the other person doesn't see that side of them or have to deal w/ it.
plus another situation is one like my sister was in a few years ago. she and this guy were dating and both had separate apartments. she practically spent all her time at his house only going home to get a change of clothes and maybe spend the nite there 1-2 times a week. so she felt like she was wasting her money to pay rent on her apt. that no one ever spent time in. so she finally decided to move in w/ him. they aren't together now but when they moved in together,like someone said before, they weren't making a life long committment to each other. it worked at the moment. sometimes its just more pratical money and time wise to live together. that doesn't mean you HAVE to marry that person and if you do then thats fine too.

i agree with demon, living to gether is often the most efficient way to live as money is saved, money for rent, and money for travelling, and water and food and such.

the main point of this is to ask what the benefits of being married actually are? cause as i far as i can tell, the benfits are mostly financial, tax wise ,and pension wise and stuff, but then im just a kid and dont know much. in days gone by, the main benefit of marriage was legal sex, but that is no longer the issue, as a society we have grown up and realised that sex is human nature, and should not b confined to an act which is mainly religious in nature.
i myself am of the belief that gods do exist, but only in the minds of people needing to believe something. science has an explanation for most everything ,and when it doesnt have an explanation, often it is the case that the explanation is on its way. we all know that we can play gods ourselves, as the practical definition of a god is artificially creating life, adn contrlling life. we can do this, we could even begin to breed a new human race if we so wishe,d we have access to the same raw element sthat formed us, and are able to simulate the same conditions in which life on earth formed, not over 7 days , but over a period of many millions of years. with the religious side respectfully ignored, for those who beleive are entitled to their beliefs, we are a race of choice, and if people chose to be blind ,they are allowed to be blind, if people chose to believe in a god they may beleive in a god, their choice is respected, even when rejected. so with religion aside, what benifit is there to being married? im sure there must be many, as everyone says they do not want to have these benifits with someone unles they are married, so please do explain what the benifits are, i am most intrigued

[quote=mspersia82,June 03 2003,12:50] [/quote]
[QUOTE=Quote ]Couples that live together before marriage have a higher divorce rate (believe it or not) than couples that don't live together before marriage.[/QUOTE]

I would love to see the statistics that prove this!

[QUOTE=Quote ]It is possible to know how a person is w/o living with them.  You can still spend the night at their house, visit them, have them visit you.  In a long term relationship there is no reason why you should not be aware of the living habits of your bf/gf. You can ask your SO how they feel about things like how to spend money, sharing chores, kids, etc.[/QUOTE]

It's relatively easy to only show someone your best side when you aren't seeing them when you don't want to!

[QUOTE=Quote ]Also, many people claim they want to make sure that they are compatible with the person first and so that is why they want to live together before marriage.  So if you don't get along you'll just give up the relationship?? [/QUOTE]

No, it's so that you can decide if you want to or can sort out your differences, rather than staying together because you feel you have no choice!

[QUOTE=Quote ]Why give all the benefits of marriage w/o actually being married? ... I refuse to give my bf all the benefits of marriage w/o actually being married to him.[/QUOTE]

I thought it was because you love him, not because you were getting a deal!

cheers hereandnow!!!!
you definetly picked up most the points i was trying to make but just couldn't put into words
i definetly was skeptical of that stat about people who live together have a higher divorce rate, but whatever thats not the point.
also as i had pointed out just spending the night w/ someone a couple nights a week yea they can definetly put on a good face when you are around. and that doesn't give you an idea of how that person REALLY is.
and as for your last quote i wonder what "benefits" she is talking about? is it sex or what?
i mean ive know many girls in the past who aren't in relationships for love so much as they want that huge rock on their finger and to make themselves seem succesful b/c they found a "good man" and was able to hang on to him so to speak.
i love my b/f and i would give him the world if i could and he would do the same for me...doesn't matter if we are married or not. we love eachother. im not going to blackmail him into marriage so i can get a ring and he can get these so called "benefits" i just dont see the point.

It is possible to know how someone is if you have been with them long enough, even if you don't live with them. And love is involved but I will not clean up after someone (it happens when you live together) or split finances, etc with someone I'm not married to. Certain things should be reserved for marriage. It has nothing to do with love. Part of being committed to someone is working out your differences, not abandoning the relationship because you don't like how parts of it are going. That is why I feel that if two people are living together that they should be married, that way someone can't just easily walk away. Committed relationships are about not being able to pick up and leave just like that. If I'm investing that much in a relationship and move in with a guy I don't want to take the chance that he will just pick up and leave. If two people are married then they are more likely to work things out rather than just break up if they are having problems.

[QUOTE=Quote (mspersia82 @ June 03 2003,12:50)]Also, many people claim they want to make sure that they are compatible with the person first and so that is why they want to live together before marriage.  So if you don't get along you'll just give up the relationship?? If that's the case, then the relationship wasn't that solid to begin with.  [/QUOTE]
Exactly.  And that is why couples should live together first to find out just how solid their relationships are.

I have heard the stats about living together and divorce referenced many times.  While I haven't actually seen the statistics or the study that determined them, I am willing to consider the idea that they may be true.  However, I find it extremely unlikely that living together first actually causes the divorces.  Rather, I think there is a third factor: people who are unwilling to live with their partners before marriage tend to be more conservative, and may therefore be less willing to divorce.  The fact that they stay married does not mean that they stay happily married.

It's not about blackmail either. It's about committment. The benefits? Sharing finances, picking up after each other, having kids together (the chances rise when two people live together), doing wifely duties, the list goes on. I'm not going to sit here and explain everything about what wives do for their husbands. The problem with lots of people today is that they are too quick to do the "in" thing or the most convenient thing for themselves at the time. They only think of the immediate benefits, not the long term negative consequences. The institution of marriage loses its value when people live together before marriage just like sex loses its value if someone goes out and has casual sex all the time. When someone has the attitude that sticking with someone through bad times is being "stuck" that is the wrong way to look at marriage. The right way to look at it is that you will do everything in your power to make your marriage work (unless of course there's abuse involved). Sorry that I have not jumped on the liberal bandwagon. I still believe that relationships (especially when they involve sex) should be taken very seriously. I would never live with a guy out of convenience or to save some money, thinking that if we never get married then it is no big deal. It is a very big deal. I would not date a guy long term that I did not have an intention of marrying. As far as saving money goes, why can't someone live with a same-sex roommate instead? That's what I do and plenty of others do and it works. I value marriage too much to cheapen it by putting myself in a marriage-like situation without having committed to marriage itself.

Here are some stats:

It's not a matter of being conservative. It's a matter of valuing marriage and the committment you have made to another person. Marriage is not just about the good times, it's about the bad as well. The reason why more people that live together before marriage get divorced is because they don't value their committments as much. They often think that because someone falls out of love with their spouse that it is time for a divorce. Newsflash! That lovey dovey feeling never lasts! That is just one example. And people that are not sure of the seriousness of their relationship have no business living together. That is where we differ. Living together is not a casual thing. It's very serious. Children are often created in those types of situations and sorry if anyone disagrees but people that bring children into the world when they are not in a stable relationship are inferior people. Every child deserves the best chance at life. It's not fair to bring a child into the world when he does not have a stable two parent household. People that cohabit before marriage often do this.

If you look at the articles you'll see that besides having a higher divorce rate, people that cohabit before marriage have unhappier marriages than those who don't cohabit before marriage. You can try to "cheat the system" all you want by thinking that you and your bf are "different" somehow than those people in the stats but keep in mind that that's what thousands of people before you have thought and they have not turned out so well. Besides that, sexual satisfaction is higher for couples that abstain until marriage contrary to what many people may think. You don't "test drive" a person. People are not cars. Also, uneducated people are more likely to cohabit and people that live together before marriage are also more likely to be unfaithful in marriage.

Stats: some of these have the primary sources listed. Others don't but they are all saying the same thing. You can try to argue facts all you want but it's not working with me. I look at the facts instead of being bias. If you are objective you'll see that everything I've said is correct. And in case anyone is assuming, I'm not a Catholic.

http://www.smartmarriages.com/cohabit.html

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi5025b_qa.html

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0603.asp

http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/02/03/p13s2.htm

http://www.firstthings.org/blue/marriage_cohabitation.html

http://www.lifeinnovation.com/pdf/ccoverview.pdf

http://members.aol.com/cohabiting/facts.htm

http://www.family.org/cforum/research/papers/a0002965.html

http://www.frc.org/get/if00h4.cfm

Is that enough proof for ya??

I moved in with my boyfreind after a week of dating. I knew him for 2 months before hand, and I would spend the night at his house a couple times a week. THe reason I moved in was due to the fact that the placce I was staying at before was a lot worse then boyfreinds. He rents a room along with his mother and this other guy the same age as him mom. It certainly has been a learning experience, and it has been quite difficult. We have been living together for a year and a half. We just started going to a therapist which is helping out. Even though I have read that conseling for couples is pointless. In Dec. I'm moving from Southern Cali to Norhten Cali to go to a 4 year college, and I'm going to live at my parents house. He might move up, and he might not. In a way I am looking forward to not living with him, and having to pick up after him, but in ways I will miss living with him.

sory but i feel i must jump on the bandwagon again. firstly, ask any statitician, and they will tell you that those results are all well and good, but completely un-generalisable. they fitted the strata of people who composed the data, but do not look broadly enough at everyone.

next, your comment abotu uneducated people living together is completely unfounded, go around the top universities, and find out wether uneducated people co-habbit. you'll fiond that too be completley and utterly wrong, and a view of the very distant past, much like marriage itself.

im still very dissapointed at the lack of specifics about the benefits of marriage despite it being directly asked, maybe that is because people want there to be benifits but when they sit and look at it they can see none. if picking up/ clearing up after a guy menas that the marriage feeling is desensitized, then i pity cleaners and maids all over the world, i pity secretaries, and legal advisors, who have to clear up after both men and women. a wife doesnt have to do anything but support, and that support would already be present if it was a commited relationship.

your statement about despising people who try to bring their kids up without being married is despicable, one idea of co-habbitation is that problems are resolved before its too late, oncve children are put in the picture, parents can no longer have rowdy arguments, and its more likely that there will a dispute in a married couple who didnt live together then ther will in a couple who live together, as the couple who live to gether will have sorted out how to deal with the problems or left, the married couple cant afford to have a divorce ,and this creates more and more tension.

couples who live together dont just get up and go, they dont just leave u suddenly. for the most part, they exist as part of a stable relationship anyway, and so if there is an argument, they know how good a thing they have going and resolve it peacefully, thats what communication is about, but people forget that , they think that being married means they no longer have to worry about the little things, as there are more important 'benifits' to think about, benifits which dont even exist, in most cases, those who get up and leave when co-habbiting are the same people who would be getting a quick divorce. its a ahassle saver, better for the people who hgavent won the lottery, who save for importqnt things like a fam,illy saloon, or a nice house in a nice neighbourhood in which to bring their kids up in.

the idea of marriage itself is a relict of a defunct society of religion, religion is slowly dieing, and the sooner the better i say, think of the wars that could be prevented cause the soldiers ask for more of a reason then, "our god says so".
marriage was religions way of controlling people, like every other aspects of religion, it was designed to control and manipulate, now u can have sex and children cause our god says it is now right and proper, bullshit i say, if you are someone who is religious then i apologise, i respect your beleifs, and accept that u are entitled to them, but in my opinion i have no need for that kind of control, for there is already a government in the country, thay already control me enough.

if you dont beleive that co-habbiting is for you, then so be it, and i hope that your partner if you find yourself lucky enough to get one, will think the same, but do not insult the rest of the population, with more foresight and more brains then you, who see and accept the benifits of living together, which are real and tangible, compared to the so called "benifits of marriage" which are not. ther will be many people with many different views, but i personally highly recomend anyone thinking about a serious relationship to co-habit befor marriage, so that you can tell whetehr you will be spending the next few months either trying to heal form mental injuries f where your parntere was different to what you expected,.

happy co-habbitation!

Guido, the articles I posted have the primary sources listed. Have you taken a statistics class? I have and I've also conducted experiments with professors (used to be a psych major) and I know that modern techniques of sampling people randomly almost always yield very accurate results. Regardless of which website it is on (catholic or not) that does not take away from the validity of these studies. As I mentioned before, I am not a catholic either.

Also, I agree with your comment that the higher divorce rate may be attributed to the types of people that are more likely to live together before marriage in the first place. I'm not denying that. It makes a lot of sense. Regardless, the proof I've posted shows that there are a lot of drawbacks to living together before marriage.

Also, studies show that people that live together before marriage are reportedly unhappier IN MARRIAGE than those couples that did not live together before marriage. So the arguement that those people are unhappier is moot.

Also, I said that undeducated people are more likely to live together before marriage because that is what studies show. It is typical for people in denial to deny the validity of proof when it does not support the claim that they are trying to make. I'm not surprised. However, I look at things objectively. I take into account not only those experiences of those people around me (many of which support what I'm saying) but studies as well. I'm taking an Animal Behavior class right now that discusses some of the demographics of relationships in Western societies and my 2 professors are giving the same information.

I believe that children should only be brought into this world when they have the best chance at life. The household must be stable and for the most part marriages are much more stable than situations where two people just live together. I'm not talking about the exceptions. I'm looking at averages here because that is what matters. I value children more than anything. It is obviously that society is degrading. You can't deny that. Part of the reason it is degrading is because people are not valuing the institution of marriage anymore. Out of wedlock pregnancies are not acceptable. Studies show that children from these situations have a much harder time succeeding in life. This is not just me talking, it's years of research that shows this. You can argue facts all you want but your arguement will not be very strong if you don't start backing up what you have to say.

again as someone who has taken stat classes, and as a person i like to think of my self as open minded, and able to look at things from as many different points of view as possible (even tho i only argue 1 of them ) statistics can be used to either your advantage but at the same time then can be used against you. and you are wrong in saying that random sampling is the most efficient, it is instead widely acclaimed as the least efficient as it does not take into account what kind of people it is looking at, whether they make up a high proportion of the population, whether they are completely differenet to the rest of population. all methods of sampling have their own disadvantages and advantages, and it is impossible to get a truly accurate survey.

the most accurate surveys have actualyl been carried out to prove something that the person doing the survey doesnt beleive in, for example, a a left wing political group finding that the right wings group has better policies.

never rely on statistics, they are never performed on rreal people, ud get a better statistic on this site if u set up a poll about co-habitation

Funny, that's not what they teach here at UCLA. I was taught that random sampling is the best way to get a sample representative of the entire population. The reason that they are more accurate is that they are random. If the sample were not random, some kind of bias would be introduced. That is why they use samples of several thousand people, because odds highly favor the random sample being composed of the types of people that truely represent the population, in about the same proportions. I've heard the excuses for why statistics are so bad and not to be believed but facts are facts. If someone is intending to skew the results of their study then I doubt they would waste time, energy, and not to mention money conducting it in the first place.

Well, well, well. We have the makings for a true novel on this thread, so I must participate. I cannot and will not represent my opinion as anything more than my opinion. I couldn't care less whether couples live together first or not. And if I based my life experiences on statistics, I'd probably be agoraphobic.

My wife and I were both brought up in conservative households so the question of living together was never an issue. We both hold what would be classified as "traditional values" I suppose.

Now, to address this question of test-driving and really getting to know someone. I've been with my wife for 19 years (18 married), and I can tell you that we are both significantly different people today than we were all those many years ago. So I honestly can't sign-up to the notion that living with someone prior to marriage is an indication of what a lifetime together will be. As you grow older, you have life experiences that simply change your outlook on life. It is these difficult times that test the true committment to one another. Don't get me wrong, a couple who live together, unmarried, for 20 years will experience the same thing. My point is simply that living together for a few years is not an indication of what your lives will be like 10, 15, 20+ years from now.

Benefits of Marriage: Death and taxes. When I die, there will not be any contestation of my property. I cannot say with any authority that an unmarried couple would not be the same, but my limited legal mind says that families of a co-habitant are more likely to contest an estate/will than legally married partners. And, filing taxes jointly saves my wife and I significant $$ at tax time.

Now, a question that I have always wondered about along the lines of the marriage, no marriage topic. People who choose not to marry often say "It's just a piece of paper (the marriage certificate) and we don't need a piece of paper to validate our love." Now if you're of this opinion, and it is just a piece of paper- What's the big deal about getting it?

Finally, let's all remember that this is a public forum, open to the views of all with very little restriction. Let's respect each other's opinions for what they are and not try to impose our differing values on other members.

Remember, these are just my experiences, opinions and observations.

I completely agree with you ?wiseman?. One thing I would add is that there are many more benefits to marriage than death and taxes. Studies have shown that married couples report greater happiness and lower stress levels than unmarried couples just living together. There are so many other benefits also but I will not get into all of them. And I completely agree with you that many people do change and mature with age which is why the most important thing in any serious relationship are the abilities to deal with those changes, work out differences, and stick by each other.

My posts are not inflammatory. If you choose to see them that way then it's not up to me. I am very opinionated and some people are uncomfortable with that. As everyone can see, I never insulted anyone in any way or tried to impose my beliefs on anyone else. I just state my opinions like everyone else on this board.

The Laman Griffin Complex

I believe that living together is the best way for a couple to get to know each other without the makeup and a nice, hot shower. Unless you plan on pulling a Harvey Fierstein (abstract reference) every morning then your partner will see the 'real you' (shriek!)

Marriage can be a big pain in the wazoo, quite frankly. And if you have kids, well, forgettabout it! You'll never get rid of the other person. Yet here's the problem that I call the "Laman Griffin Complex." To reference, Laman Griffin was a despicable real life persona in Frank McCourt's autobiography,Angela's Ashes. When the poor Irish family was evicted from their home, the matriarch moved in with her cousin and had sexual relations with him in exchange for financial security. It had also been a long time since she had been a, shall I say, "wide receiver." Despite the abuse, the mother lived with him and reduced herself to a five-and-ten concubine believing that they shared a mutual agreement. Well Laman Griffin eventually leaves the entire family in the gutter.

All men are not like Laman Griffin but the complex can apply to more functional relationships. A woman enters a relationship with a man who, in her delusions, believes needs her as much as she needs him. She shares her body and cooks his food. She cleans his home. This situation can continue for many years until one day, the "Laman Griffin" decides to make her leave. Or, he could leave. The woman leaves the relationship a used entity. The man can easily replace her, and often does. Without a commitment like marriage, the woman becomes a man's concubine. He has nothing to give her, and she gives everything to him.

I am not suggesting that all relationships are like the one I mentioned above, yet, I believe a woman has to make sure she does not lose any of her dignity.

[QUOTE=Quote (mspersia82 @ June 06 2003,18:37)]My posts are not inflammatory.  If you choose to see them that way then it's not up to me.  I am very opinionated and some people are uncomfortable with that.  As everyone can see, I never insulted anyone in any way or tried to impose my beliefs on anyone else.  I just state my opinions like everyone else on this board.[/QUOTE]
No offence, but have you re-read your posts?

There is a difference between passing an opinion and passing judgement ...

wow, this thread is a battle field!
My opinion is that, it's a bad idea to live together first, before marriage.
Why? well, i'm a conservative kind of guy, that's just the way i'm, i don't see a high cost wedding or that "piece of paper" as a annoyance or liability, in fact i see it as a bonus, a gift, something to be proud of .
Maybe i'm not being realistic, but i don't want to live with some one if i'm not sure that i love her enough to be my wife. And the idea if living togheter, i feel that it kind of spoils my idea of a marriage.

I completely agree with Mr. Wiseman and Pink Pony's "Laman Griffin Complex" is very interesting. Also i will add that for the purposes of this board it think it is unnecessary to show statistics and academic degrees. I think that a good idea will sustain by itself, without the need to be shielded by any external aid (i.e. stats). Although it's interesting to see such an enthusiastic discussion, it get's kind of boring after a while, when the main question pass to the background.

Yippi, I always reread my posts which is how I know that none of them are inflammatory. I have not passed judgement on anyone here. Just because I believe that people that have children out of wedlock are selfish, irresponsible, and morally inferior does not mean that I am insulting anyone personally on here. If they choose to be insulted by my posting ( a stranger that they will never meet) then they ought not to be posting on here. There's no reason to get offended by someone else's opinion.

[QUOTE=Quote (mspersia82 @ June 09 2003,10:27)]Yippi, I always reread my posts which is how I know that none of them are inflammatory.  I have not passed judgement on anyone here.  Just because I believe that people that have children out of wedlock are selfish, irresponsible, and morally inferior does not mean that I am insulting anyone personally on here.  If they choose to be insulted by my posting ( a stranger that they will never meet) then they ought not to be posting on here.   There's no reason to get offended by someone else's opinion.[/QUOTE]
Definitions:

Opinionated: unduly adhering to one's own opinion or to preconceived notions.

A slippery slope to ...

Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

What I've noticed often is that oftentimes when someone is very opinionated and outspoken but also considered by many to be "conservative" that they are labeled judgemental and criticized more so than someone who is dead set in their beliefs but those beliefs are more "liberal". It just seems a bit hypocritical when people that are supposed to be liberal and are supposed to support free speech and freedom of expression resort to labeling someone because that person's belief's differ from their own. I am very openminded which is why I even bother to read other people's opinions. Just because I know who I am and what I believe in in the end, does not make me bigoted or closeminded. All you "liberals" should remember what values you're supposed to be upholding if you call yourself an American.

Just out of interest; many people here are not American. In fact, we have Members and Guests from all over the world that come to the sexinfo101 site and board.

That broad perspective is one of the reasons we have such a wide (and often lively) range of opinions on topics.

Viva le difference!

I realize that but even if someone is not an American, hopefully they would be able to agree to disagree and respect that some people have different opinions than their own. There are plenty of other people on here that are probably dead set in their opinions and they are not called judgemental for it because their beliefs are more "liberal". I've noticed this on almost every message board I've ever been to. "Conservatives" are often criticized or bashed while liberals (no matter how truely inflammatory their posts) are allowed to say whatever.

[quote=mspersia82,June 09 2003,10:27][/quote]
[QUOTE=Quote ]I have not passed judgement on anyone here.  Just because I believe that people that have children out of wedlock are selfish, irresponsible, and morally inferior does not mean that I am insulting anyone personally on here. [/QUOTE] Classifying people as "selfish, irresponsible, and morally inferior" (just one amongst your numerous barbs) is not an insult or passing judgement? I'd love to hear your idea of what is!

[QUOTE=Quote ]There's no reason to get offended by someone else's opinion.[/QUOTE] Oh really!? No, being called names isn't insulting if you are total insensitive.

[QUOTE=Quote ]All you "liberals" should remember what values you're supposed to be upholding if you call yourself an American.[/QUOTE] It's amazing how a bigoted attitude can be self-justified by "waving the flag". Last time I checked, the Constitution didn't include the right to "brand" or belittle others for holding different morals.

[QUOTE=Quote ]"Conservatives" are often criticized or bashed while liberals (no matter how truely inflammatory their posts) are allowed to say whatever.[/QUOTE] No-one is being bashed for their views (except by you) as a conservative or otherwise. They are "being bashed" (as you put it) for being intolerant and judgemental!

Now please don't be offended by any of this, after all ... it is only my humble opinion!

I have not personally judged anyone on here. It is my opinion that people that choose to put their own happiness first at the expense of an innocent child are bad people. If I were on here claiming that murderers are cruel and evil, nobody would say anything. Because it's a child many people don't care. That's what's wrong with society today, people don't value children anymore. I'd like you to point out a post where I have personally insulted someone by name. You can't because I have never done it. I have not called anyone names on here. Again, I'd like you to find proof where I personally insulted someone. How is my attitude bigoted just because I have strong opinions? YOU only feel that it is because I refuse to adopt your liberal attitude. I am the only person on here that has been called judgemental and bigoted. I have not insulted anyone on here but they have insulted me. I'm not surprised by your selective reading. You only see what you want to see. That much is very obvious.

My opinion goes like this... I would never purchase a car that I couldn't drive first, and the car is something I am planning on replacing... To get involved, until death do you part, how could you not test everything you can to make sure you are making the right decision?

People tend to think that the path they choose in their life is the best path available for others.  (Assuming they're not in prison or living a miserable life.)

The average person who did not live with their spouse before being married will recommend that others do as they did.  Those who lived with or are currently living with their significant other will suggest that you do the same.

Why not just ask everyone here whether they lived with their spouse before being married, and whether they are married to them still?  That will give you much more useful information than this flamefest...

That being said, I believe that it's best to live seperately until married.  (And yes, I did the same.)  If arranged marriages can work in countries around the world, then people who choose their own spouse can work out their differences.  It's all about being willing to endure the storms together.

P.S. - Yes, we're married still.

wow, im finally returning to my computer after a long absence, and of course one of the fist places i check out is this web-site it has been a most usefull site for open m inded debatee and planty of good advice. reading through this topic, which i specifically picked out as i feel i have strong views on this topic, but wee'll get to that. it has been a bloodthrirtsy battle i can see, it is much like i wouyld expect to find after walking out on a battle field at the end of ww1!
i spologise, i have a fair amount to say so this post will be quite lenghty, i aiom to keep the lenght down, but there are many things that have been said that i would like to comment on, so bear with me...if u dare....

on a presonal note i am not married, and i have not lived with my significant other, much to my dissapointment, i still live with my parents, but on the occasions where they go away on holiday, and i house sit, i often invite my girlfriend to stay with me for a while, and we live ads though we area couple living together, as such, we share a bed, we take it in turns to use the shower, and the bathroom, we both clear up any mess, we both do the little household chores, neceesary to maintain a house, and and to maintain harmony in our lives. and we do it together, for that is the way life should be. if we had the funds available i do not doubt that we would live together, but currnetly it is not a viable event, i repeat, currently.

next, mspersia82, i would very strongly disagree, ifnd myself reading your posts, and i do not feel that i can just leave what you are saying without adding to it, and this is immflamatory. this is not always a bad thing, in fact it is what is so good at a debate, if everyone were to read each otheres comments, and not feel moved to respond then the debate would quickly wither and die. That is not to say however that i agree with what you have said, and while i am very opinionated on the fact that i feel it should be compulsury to live together before marriage. However, to be open minded one must consider all other possible points of view, and be able to identify the advantages, and disadvantages of the counter argument, the other points of view. to date, none of your post have shown that, and this merely ssays to me that you appear to be veryu close minded, although im sure that if this were not the case then you would show such open mindedness at some point.

ALso, you say [QUOTE=Quote ]I'd like you to point out a post where I have personally insulted someone by name. You can't because I have never done it. I have not called anyone names on here. [/QUOTE]. I beleive this is because you do not know anyones name, and if you did then you would personally attack their beleifs. that is the general gist of your posts, but instead of concentrating them on just one specific person, you generalise everyone who does not share your belief to be inferior. you have also mentioned at one point that u are not a catholic, and i feel that her is the place to say that you dont have to be to be as imperialitically minded as them, that is that you must enforce your opinion on everyone that you can, and anyone who does not conform with your opinion is inferior, the catholics would say that they were unholly, and this is the same thing.

However to be fair, you are not the only person to show such judgemental approaches to argument, and we should all remeber that this is not a judgemental forum, merely a place where everyone should be able to express their views with out offending anyone who is likely to read them, admittedly this is impossible, at best difficult, as controversy offends too many people, and this cannot be helped.

Next, i very sincerly renounce this comment [QUOTE=Quote ] All you "liberals" should remember what values you're supposed to be upholding if you call yourself an American.[/QUOTE] i very definatly dont call myself an american, im completly not american and very proud of it, i have nothing against americans, but i hold values dearer then your afore mentioned constitution, as that is again just another piece of paper, and only has meaning if u require it to. i require no piece of paper to tell me what is right and wrong.

Also, i'v enoticed that you often refer to children, but my thought on that matter is that is it better for the children to frow up with 2 people that love each opther, regardless of some piece of paper, or is it more important for them to grow up knowing that married paople have no way out, that they have the life of arguemnt, and anger, instead of a life of peace, happiness and contentment. at the end of the day, a co-habbiting couple can show more of life to a young child then a couple married who bitch anbd fight, and leave the child in turmoil, as my experience of couples whpo have married but continue through life even tho they dont get on (especially arrqanged amrriages, which only work because both participants disregard any personal inconvenience becuase their RELIGION (ooh look, back to that word again, as it it doesnt controll enough things!) tells them they must respect their parents decision. well for all americans out their, its the same as the president declaring nucleur war on a country whoes football team beat the best american football (yeah ok, i know its american football, more similar to the game rugby, for all those non-americans out their). its the same principle, but oh well we will leave that for further discussion at a later time

at the end of the day mspersia82 has been very 1 sided, as has many of the people also discussing this topic on this forum, and that is because liveing toghether before marriage is afterall a VERY controversial matter, and is entirely up to the people in question, not genrelaisable to anyone else, and that is it. happy battleing, and well done (in my opinion anyway) to anyone who has the guts to stand against age old, long dead tradition, and lives with their partner instead of marrying them

(for the record, i was brought up in the roman catholic religion, and have parents with very traditional views, however they have the foresight to realise that not every one shares their views, and also welcome other points of view!)

[QUOTE=Quote ]Children are often created in those types of situations and sorry if anyone disagrees but people that bring children into the world when they are not in a stable relationship are inferior people. [/QUOTE]
Mspersia, while I do not agree that all single parents are "inferior people," I do agree that it is a shame that there are so many unplanned pregnancies, often among couples that are not ready for children. However, I fail to see how not cohabitating would solve this problem. Pregnancy is not caused by cohabitation, it is caused by sex. There are many couples who are not living together but are having sex, and there are some couples who are living together and do not have sex. In fact, I lived with my current boyfriend for over a month before we had sex for the first time. If we had not been living together, we probably would have started having sex at the same point in our relationship.

If one couple cohabitates and the other does not, but both are sexually active, they will have an equal chance at an unwanted pregnancy (assuming cohabitation is the only variable--i.e. both couples are using the same form of birth control, etc.). However, if both of these couples have an unwanted pregnancy, and each couple decides to have the child and raise it together, I doubt that they would be equally unprepared for parenthood.

The couple that is not already living together will have only nine months to get used to each other before it is time to get used to the baby, and they will have to deal with the hassles of pregnancy at the same time. If, even after the pregnancy is discovered, they choose not to live together before getting married, they will have even less time, since even shotgun wedings take time to plan. During this time, the man will be able to offer relatively little support to his child's mother-to-be, because he will be in a seperate house from her. This couple will be looking for a home while it should be looking for baby clothes. They will be arguing about whose turn it is to take out the trash when they should be figuring out whose turn it is to watch the baby. In addition to waking up to cries in the middle of the night, they will be tossing and turning as they adjust to a shared bed.

When the child of the cohabitating couple is born, his or her parents will already be adjusted to living together. They may choose to get married, which will be an adjustment, and adding a third member to the household will definitely be an adjustment, but these adjustments will be far easier to make if they do not have to adjust to each other at the same time.

A married couple that was already planning to raise a child would probably have an easier time adjusting to parenthood than either of these couples. However, unplanned pregnancies happen whether or not marriage does, and they also happen whether or not cohabitation does.

[QUOTE=Quote ]I never insulted anyone in any way or tried to impose my beliefs on anyone else. [/QUOTE]
When you say "people that bring children into the world when they are not in a stable relationship are inferior people," you are insulting everybody who has gotten pregnant or has gotten someone else pregnant while unmarried and chose not to abort. You could not list every person you insulted with this statement, because there would not be enough space on the entire site. The fact that you did not use these people's names does not make the comment less insulting or hurtful to these people. What's said is said, but in the future I would advise you to put more thought into the effect your comments may have. Statements like this are more likely to get people angry at you than to get them to agree with you.

[QUOTE=Quote ]If I were on here claiming that murderers are cruel and evil, nobody would say anything. [/QUOTE]
There are a few crucial difference between murderers and single parents.

First of all, no I don't know anyone's name on here but I do know their screen names and I have not specified anyone. That is my belief and I am entitled to it. I am very openminded. The fact that I'm on here reading other people's posts proves that. However I know who I am and what I believe in and for that reason I have a strong opinion about the subject. You can't prove in any way that I am closeminded. If people choose to be insulted because a stranger on the internet hates certain actions then that is their problem. My posts are not inflammatory though because I have not insulted anyone personally as I've said before. I only have an opinion and have posted it. Anyone who calls it inflammatory must be offended because they see the truth in my statements. Either that or they disagree and cannot accept a difference of opinion.

Girlygirl I know that children come from sex but studies have shown that couples that live together are much more likely to get pregnant than other couples that don't live together. This is simply because the opportunity is there. There are probably other reasons. And couples that are married do have a "way out" It's called divorce. My parents are divorced and there is nothing wrong with divorce as long as the parents can remain civil with each other for the children's sake. It's just a fact that marriages on average are more STABLE than couples just living together. You can try to argue this all you want but it is a fact supported by statistical evidence. Single parents are doing a great injustice to their children. Regardless of how loving the two parents are, their relationship is not as stable as it could be. Parents need to give their kids the best possible chance at life by not getting pregnant before marriage. It's just that simple. It's obvious that I value the welfare of children more than a majority of people on this site. The fact that I am against abortion (ie murder) and many people on this site support is is proof of this.

mspersia,

reading other peoples posts doesn't make you open-minded, it just means you know how to read!

being open-minded means actually being prepared to consider anothers point of view.

deliberately using words and expressions such as "murder, morally inferior," etc. to pass judgement and label others in such a way that you know will upset or offend them is inflammatory! your point can be made much more effectively by using objective language - as it is, even when you make a good point it is all but obliterated by your presentation.

labelling a group of people and them calling them names is no less offensive than calling an individual a name! ifi said "all purple people are thieves", then i think a purple person might just be offended - don't you?

sometimes it is not what you say, but how you say it that maks the difference between it being accepted or rejected!

you are very quick to point out how right you are about everything and how anyone with a different opinion is "obviously wrong" - well, it seems to be obvious only to you!

learn to be a little more tolerant of others and you might find them a little more tolerant of you!

think about all that before you reply!

[QUOTE=Quote (Guido @ May 05 2003,22:28)]In this age of short-lived marriages, sky-high wedding costs and abandoned children, does it make any sense to marry someone without having lived with them first?

I would argue that you don't know anyone really until you have lived with them for some time. A relationship is a big enough gamble without putting all your eggs in one basket and shaking it up!

Take some time, check each other out and then decide if this is forever - before you take the vow that says "till death us do part!"

IMHO [/QUOTE]
I totally agree wit this. My mom however doesn't. See, my and my husband desided that it was time to move in together, after being engaged for 2 yrs. And it was perfect timing when we did because my mother was getting married and moving out of our house at the same time. I highly recomend people who are planning to get married to live together first and get to know the person inside and out before marriage.

firstly mspersia, you seem to be rely on statistics again, and if you have done what you say you have, you should know that very few people who work with and use statistics have any kind of respect for them becuae they KNOW that they do not show a true picture, and there is no 2 ways about that.

secondly, you maintain that you are not close-minded, and i respect you as i have little reason not to, and say that while you may as a person be very open minded, none of the posts displayed on this site, neither in this topic, nor any other, have shown the kind of open-minded ness of which u speak. whether this is a misconception is impossible to tell, but it is an observation and one which i expect many people will agree with.

thirdly, [QUOTE=Quote ]Single parents are doing a great injustice to their children[/QUOTE] implies that you are of the mindset that think unmarried couples are not legitimate couples, so a pair of cohabiiting parents are still considered a single parent familly, and this is a grave misconception.

marriage has very little relevance on a childs upbringing. his parents could be married or unmarried, and that would make no difference to whether they stayed together or not. if both parents are there to look after and help the child, then it is not a single parent familly, so if both parents live with the child, then it is not a single parent familly regardless of whether the parents are amarried or not. more often then not, 2 people living together offer a stable base from which to maintain a familly, and marriage does not come into that.

i also guess from your last statement that you are a vegan and live in a house which doesnt get cleaned, for every thing you do during your day kills something, and if thas what you want to call murder then call it murder. i personally would say that murder is the wrongfull killing of an innocent being, so a criminal being hung is not murder, its punishment. a dog suffereing from a debilitating disease being killed is not murder, it is release. in the same way, terminating bringing a child into the world where it will not have a sufficiently good chance at life is not murder, it is a practicality.

I GUESS I DIDN'T SAY THIS LOUD ENOUGH!

A lively, healthy debate is a good thing, but let us also remember tolerance; it is possible to express an opinion without "labelling", name-calling or being judgemental of each other or others.

It is hard to know how to intervene here as everyone seems to be having a great old time slamming each other. But please remember ... the sign of a healthy mind is an open one; please let us all try and remember that!

Thanks (again),
the moderator

[QUOTE=Quote (skyclad @ May 06 2003,04:39)]I absolutely disagree.  I have been dating my fiance for a little more than two years and would not consider living together before marriage.  My fiance and I both feel that living together beforehand actually diminishes the chances of having a successful marriage.  It's like that old saying about not buying the cow when you get the milk for free.  People who live together for awhile before marriage often start taking the relationship for granted and devaluing the commitment of marriage.  
The way I see it is like this:  Say you're the child of a wealthy family who always gives you everything you want the second you ask for it.  Ask daddy for a Jaguar and BAM it's yours.  Want $100 to take your prom date out to breakfast after you've shagged her all night?  Here, take $500.  And on and on and on.  Pretty soon, you don't value much of anything cuz it's all given to you on a silver platter.  Contrast that with the kid who grows up in an average, middle-class family knowing the value of a dollar.  The person who knows what it's like to work and sweat for everything they've got.  They value pretty much everything because they know what it took to get it.
I don't want to be that spoiled little brat of a kid who values nothing, who thinks it's cool to claim all the benefits of marriage without any of the commitment or work.  

There are many studies that prove that people who live together before marriage have significantly higher risks of divorce than those who don't.  

   Myth: Cohabitation is just like marriage, but without "the piece of paper."

Fact: Cohabitation typically does not bring the benefits — in physical health, wealth and emotional wellbeing — that marriage does. In terms of these benefits, cohabitants in the United States more closely resemble singles than married couples. This is due, in part, to the fact that cohabitants tend not to be as committed as married couples, and they are more oriented toward their own personal autonomy and less to the well-being of their partner.

Myth: Couples who live together before marriage, and are thus able to test how well suited they are for each other, have more satisfying and longer-lasting marriages than couples who do not.

Fact: Many studies have found that those who live together before marriage have less satisfying marriages and a considerably higher chance of eventually breaking up. One reason is that people who cohabit may be more skittish of commitment and more likely to call it quits when problems arise. But in addition, the very act of living together may lead to attitudes that make happy marriages more difficult. The findings of one recent study, for example, suggest "there may be less motivation for cohabiting partners to develop their conflict resolution and support skills." (One important exception: Cohabiting couples who are already planning to marry each other in the near future have just as good a chance at staying together as couples who don't live together before marriage).

(source: Discovery Health)

My own opinion, gleaned by wading through my own friends' marital failures, is that the majority of couples who divorce early on in their marriage simply gave up too easily.  Things started getting rough, as they enevitably will in any relationship, and they bailed the first chance they got.  It had nothing at all to do with them not knowing if they were compatible because they didn't live together before marriage, it was that they had no concept of the commitment required to sustain a happy marriage.  In the age of gimmie-what-I-want-the-second-I-want-it, I am not surprised that so many people are such flakes.

Now I'm not saying that everyone who lives with their boyfriend/girlfriend before marriage is spoiled or a flake.  Many people make that choice out of necessity and do quite well when they do get married.  Advocating it for the masses is a mistake though and promoting instant gratification with no commitment will only contribute to the problems that face young people considering marriage.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with you on this, only because I was in the situation. I think that a little part of you is also in the frame of the mind of religious beliefs. That is the same as my mother. But in todays day and age, I have noticed so many people getting divorced very soon after marriage.
Also you are taking this in a wierd situation when you talk about the wealthy fammy approach. Maybe people are not all wealthy, maybe even poor and still want to get married, and move in together.
And you can go on ahead with all you fact and Myths, the fact of the matter is is untill you are in the situation you really have no room to judge. I mean I know this is your opinion. I am just backing myself up.
Everyone is different.

[QUOTE=Quote (mspersia82 @ June 03 2003,12:50)]I think it's a bad idea. Why?

One, it takes the fun away from the actual marriage.  If you already feel like you are married, then marriage itself will be less special when it rolls around.

Couples that live together before marriage have a higher divorce rate (believe it or not) than couples that don't live together before marriage.

It is possible to know how a person is w/o living with them.  You can still spend the night at their house, visit them, have them visit you.  In a long term relationship there is no reason why you should not be aware of the living habits of your bf/gf. You can ask your SO how they feel about things like how to spend money, sharing chores, kids, etc.  

Also, like someone above said, many people start to take the relationship for granted.  They may feel like "why get married?" when they are practically already married.  Why give all the benefits of marriage w/o actually being married? It makes no sense.  Also, many people claim they want to make sure that they are compatible with the person first and so that is why they want to live together before marriage.  So if you don't get along you'll just give up the relationship?? If that's the case, then the relationship wasn't that solid to begin with.  The whole point of marriage is to work out your differences, stand by each other for better or for worse.  

I will never live together before marriage because I want my marriage to be as special, new, and exciting as can be.  I refuse to give my bf all the benefits of marriage w/o actually being married to him.[/QUOTE]
So what you are saying is that because I lived with my husband before we got married isn't special? What exactly in your opinion are the benifits of mariiage that you can't / shouldn't if you are engaged???

[QUOTE=Quote (mspersia82 @ June 03 2003,12:53)]Also, I have seen many of my friends get engaged and live together before marriage. Now,  none of those couples are together today.  Marriage is not the same thing as buying a car.  People can work out their differences.  A car is a machine.  The two are not even comparable.  There is a reason why people that live together before marriage have a higher divorce rate.  Because it's not the best thing to do.  It's best to wait until marriage to live together.  If you don't believe me about the above statement, I can provide statistics.[/QUOTE]
You can go ahead and give statistics till your blue in the face. There are people out there like myself that are or have been in the situation and everything is working out fine. I am still waiting to hear from someone that is in the same boat as me....