That's cool that you've known each other that long. Normally I would ask how long you've been going out, but after knowing someone that long, even if you've only been dating for a little bit, you're probably pretty comfortable around them and such. Which would make the whole moving in thing a lot easier.Pirate Kitty said:Completely subjective.
My girlfriend and I have known each other for twelve years and she moved in with me like a month ago.
54% divorce rate mate. Hell my mother is a primary example. She was married for fourteen years and they ultimately divorced. Ironically years thereafter, she met my father, who she did not marry. Your belief is entirely false, because you insinuate it as though an impossibility to have a stable healthy environment under a single parent household. Marriage, at its core, it nothing beyond a Government issued paper and an overly elaborate party. The emotional investment people derive is purely self-imposed, yet not exclusive. It is entirely possible to remain unwed, yet have an equally wonderful relationship as any married couple.omicron1 said:"Safe sex" does not always work. Surely you would not deny this?
Which means either abortion (which I equate to the killing of a child), unmarried mothers, a lot of hassle and emotional trauma for both parties, or putting the child up for adoption. None of which are especially good things.
The purpose of love is making babies and solidifying an emotional bond. The purpose of marriage is providing a stable environment for said babies to grow up in. You take one without the other and things don't work that well.
The divorce rate was QUITE a bit lower a hundred, two hundred years ago. I wonder what went wrong...Bourne Endeavor said:54% divorce rate mate. Hell my mother is a primary example. She was married for fourteen years and they ultimately divorced. Ironically years thereafter, she met my father, who she did not marry. Your belief is entirely false, because you insinuate it as though an impossibility to have a stable healthy environment under a single parent household. Marriage, at its core, it nothing beyond a Government issued paper and an overly elaborate party. The emotional investment people derive is purely self-imposed, yet not exclusive. It is entirely possible to remain unwed, yet have an equally wonderful relationship as any married couple.omicron1 said:"Safe sex" does not always work. Surely you would not deny this?
Which means either abortion (which I equate to the killing of a child), unmarried mothers, a lot of hassle and emotional trauma for both parties, or putting the child up for adoption. None of which are especially good things.
The purpose of love is making babies and solidifying an emotional bond. The purpose of marriage is providing a stable environment for said babies to grow up in. You take one without the other and things don't work that well.
... you cannot be serious? The reason for that was because in those times women were barely allowed to do anything without their husband's consent, let alone divorce them. It was substantially lower because it was not something readily available to people at the time, not because they were a loving couple.omicron1 said:The divorce rate was QUITE a bit lower a hundred, two hundred years ago. I wonder what went wrong...
And so the spectre of revisionist history comes back to haunt us. Women's rights was about the vote, not about freeing all women from slavery to their husbands. If you look at the history, sure there were cases of domineering, evil husbands treating their wives horribly... but there are such cases today, too. And sure, there were cases (perhaps many cases) where the woman was wronged somehow and couldn't get out - but definitely not 40% of all marriages. Fact of the matter is, divorce nowadays can happen for practically any reason whatsoever - one partner doesn't like the other's habit of not putting down the toilet seat? The "spark" is gone and one of them wants out? He's secretly cheating on her and wants to switch partners?Bourne Endeavor said:... you cannot be serious? The reason for that was because in those times women were barely allowed to do anything without their husband's consent, let alone divorce them. It was substantially lower because it was not something readily available to people at the time, not because they were a loving couple.omicron1 said:The divorce rate was QUITE a bit lower a hundred, two hundred years ago. I wonder what went wrong...