|
Live-in Marriage: Agree or Disagree?
Link |
by
on 2010-09-04 09:55:13 |
|
Title says it all. Are you in favor of Live-in Marriage? This is the kind of marriage were you already stay at one house and live together like a real family. The only thing is that this marriage is not legal or should I say no marriage in church or judge happened. Agree or Disagree? We're having our first debate so I need help on this one. PRO or CON? Thanks  |
|
Re: Live-in Marriage: Agree or Disagree?
|
|
This is neither pro nor con but the thing with Live-in Marriages is that the couple MAY still address themselves as single and being single entitles you to a lower tax requirement (here in the Philippines, at least). Personally, I'm against live-in relationships because at any time, when disagreements happen, what happens is that if for example, the man leaves the household and decides to never return, the man is not responsible with whatever may happen to the woman and child if they had one. So in the end, the one who got left behind must fend for his/herself without the help of the partner because there's no responsibility involved. Another, there is a sense of being unsure because loyalty is very much questionable through time. As I've said earlier, the man or woman may leave at any time, unless there is a written contract between the two parties. tl;dr Live-in relationships don't have same integrity and responsibility as true marriages (whether under a judge or a priest). |
|
Re: Live-in Marriage: Agree or Disagree?
Link |
by
 
on 2010-09-06 08:00:02 |
|
Of course, Live-in marriage are quite a sight nowadays. At a standpoint, there are no major pros and cons of it. True love and trust between couples need not have to be in black and white. A live-in married couple can be as happy and rejoicing as an officially-married couple. However, marriage with pen and paper does benefit the couple, with official documents of marriage present surrogates as an abet tool to repel marriage mishaps. Better prepare an umbrella in case of rainy days. In my opinion, I would personally rather to have my marriage in official documents. It's better to show others that my wife's officially married to me. And the oaths and vows exchanged between couples during the marriage ceremony gives a higher integrity and responsibility for the two parties. So yeah, in conclusion. I stand in-between both lines of agreement and disagreement. Per contra, it's up to the individual and their partner whether or not to agree with live-in marriage.     |
|
Re: Live-in Marriage: Agree or Disagree?
Link |
by
on 2010-09-06 08:34:23 |
actually I don't really get it, seems just the same... but some neighborhood might making it such a problem because of it's legality...  |
|
Re: Live-in Marriage: Agree or Disagree?
|
|
I think rationally, live-in relationships can in principle work out. There are numerous pluses and minuses to marriage and live-in relationships. For me, I think a plus for live-in relationships is that you can test the compatibility of your partner before marrying, or performing the ''wedding'' ritual. You get to know eachother's habits better, living style, etc which can avert an emotional obligation, say if it doesn't work out after marriage. Although, pre-marital sex within a live-in relationship I could say might be more riskier if either partners have multiple partners. Live-in relationships probably would give much more freedom to both partners seeing as how if things don't work out, either one can talk and confront with one another and simply move out with all those hassles. Though one might feel insecure about the relationship if this were the case, but it does test the depth of the relationship I must say. It can get quite complicated if a child is born because of legal issues, etc. You don't get the same benefits as marriage for insurance policies, etc, etc. And some religions condemn such relationships or some taboo might still be attached to it whereas social approval is stamped from day one from marriage. However you do get to avert all the drama, costs of marriage, etc which is one plus but when legal issues arise, it can be hard to differentiate who gets what property, etc without evidence. Within a marriage, you have more legal benefits and problems/challenges are more likely to be confronted and resolved I presume with this binding institution set up in place allowing for longer-term commitments, although a live-in relationship can operate this way too if the couple is really mature and serious about it instead of breaking up if one conflict arises. Then again, divorce can happen within a marriage just as easily as a breakup in a live-in relationship with most divorces over financial issues. So I conclude, marriage and live-in relationships are purely situational. Individualism and secularization (questioning of old traditional rituals/systems/institutions) with modern lifestyles probably promote live-in relationships, although marriage is still dominant for the most part of the world. Some countries, provinces and states have a common-law marriage which grants additional rights to these live-in relationships under specifications (ie : cohabit 3 years or longer, etc) while others prohibit with strong sociocultural norms. |