Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    
    I would just caution against taking statistics  like "%60 of
    couples....divorced" too seriously. This is an unqualified 
    variable which could exist for completely different reasons.
    
    Don't be too hasty in assigning causality to some controversial
    condition which many are only to ready to point at, and call
    a "statistic" (and later, a "fact") ..
    

    
    In your case when you are both in agreement and both want to marry I
    would say go for it!  I would hazard a guess (and from personal
    experience) that most problems come about because the expectation of
    one may not be that of the other.  What I mean is that for one partner
    living together should naturally lead to marriage.  For the other it
    may not be so but they feel obliged to marry the person they have been
    living with.
    It may also be that couples who have lived together may expect it to be
    different after they are married and find it isn't so.
    My advice would be to "pop the question" first, discuss your lving
    arrangements and then make the decision from there.  What does your
    girlfriends think?
    Every relationship is different.  Do what is right for YOU and don't
    let statistics put you off.  If you are aware of the problems that may
    occur you can help prevent them or work it out more easily *if* they do
    happen.
    
    		Holly

    I'm all for it! 
    
    On the you don't know them until you've lived with them 
    principle (and lived with them for a goodly amount of time).
    
    BUT, a lot of whether you should or shouldn't is a matter of personel
    ethics, morals, principles etc and so what anyone else thinks is
    probably vastly irrelevant!
                    
    Let us know how it goes and  all the best to you both,
    
    Judith.

    
    I'm all for it too.  A lot of personality clash or learning or
    confusion or "but I thought you...." can come out of being in close
    proximity with another person for long periods of time.  And if you can
    keep the "magic" going when you're living together, I think if you
    commit yourselves to loving one another after marriage the same way (if
    you intend to get married, which isn't totally necessary to some), then
    it could be a good first step to a great long-term relationship.  I
    haven't been in any live-in relationships where the magic lasted more
    than a year and a half, but at least we found it out earlier instead of
    later (and I doubt the living together caused the breakup, but rather
    made us see sides of each other that we didn't necessarily feel were
    compatible....and then the magic wore off and we were just left with
    each other - two standard-issue human beings complete with flaws).
    
    -Jody
    

    
    I believe that your SO's views are key in this.
    What does she want to do?
    
    I chose to live with my partner and I've found it a tremendous
    on-going education - about myself as much as him. 
    If your heart says "yes", go for it!
    
    'gail
    

    I'd personally do it *instead* of marriage.  Involving the law in your
    love life more often than not gets nasty, eventually.  If/when you
    split up, (and the statistics are definitely in favor of the eventual
    split up), suddenly the law acts as if you have no minds at all and
    IT expects to dictate the terms of the dissolution.
    
    To those who say marriage isn't much different than living together -
    I disagree.  It's very different.  The minute you tie the knot your
    friends disappear, thinking that you're probably always having sex and
    they don't want to bother you.  This doesn't generally happen with
    live-ins.  And once you tie the knot, family comes out of the woodwork
    and starts expecting Sunday "family" things that they don't expect from
    live-ins.  A married couple is often considered a "social unit" and
    there are expectations, (such as 'when is the baby coming?'), that
    live-ins don't have to endure.  Marriage makes your union official
    and public and that means your friends start to retreat and your 
    families start to encroach.  Then too there's the enormous guilt if 
    you've had a huge wedding funded by one of the families complete with 
    expensive gifts, etc, should you decide to vacate.  And that's even 
    *before* the lawyers start rubbing their hands together.
    
    If you must marry, definitely live together first.  That way you can
    get over all the nagging little personal habits of the other one
    and learn to peacefully coexist *before* the outside world begins to 
    assert itself on your union.
    
    Yes, I'm a true cynic.  I love my cat but I have no intention of taking
    her to city hall and putting a law on the books that says I will pat no
    other.  I guess I just don't get this idea of getting the law involved 
    in romance - no matter *what* 'your heart says'.  People in love are
    generally the least qualified to see the forest for the trees and to
    act rationally.  Enjoy the stars in your eyes but take a step back
    before legally binding yourself to them because once the sun comes out,
    (and it will), the stars will all disappear.

    Re .0: I strongly recommend living together first. If nothing else,
           your mutual expectations will be in alignment, increasing your
           chances of long-term success. It may inform you that the match
           is inappropriate, before you've incurred the costs of getting
           into and out of a marriage.
    
    The previous reply presents the case that the law (and lawyers) make
    the process of ending a marriage difficult. I think that's exactly as
    it should be -- you're obviously not going into the marriage casually,
    and you shouldn't be able to exit on a whim. Imagine the divorce rate
    if the legal system recognized the three-times-repeated "I quit thee!"
    
    Marriage is a commitment (oooh, original concept!) and all that ritual
    of the invitations, the wierd clothes, the religious mumblings, the
    gifts, the toasts, the friends, the famous words ("Do you, X, take Y to
    be your everlasting SO?") -- all this serve to deepen and enforce the
    commitment. This is genuinely useful, when you're depressed or angry or
    otherwise disposed to say bag-this-marriage.
    
    - Hoyt

    re .0
    
    The following is not necessarily my openion of morality or 
    what everyone should do but,
    
    My interpretation of the statistics is that the chances for
    the marriage working is not particularly whether the couple
    lived together or not per se, but that those who chose not
    to live together may well have a higher standard of "morality"
    which also includes a commitment to marriage and working
    out the problems in order to "make the marriage work".
    
    A commitment to the marriage and a willingness to work on the
    problems "together" (it's us against the problems not you against
    me) will be the key to whether the marriage will work or not.
    Because I GUARANTEE there will be problems.  
    
    Marriage is not like living together.  Once you are married, there
    will (maybe naturally) be greater expectations on *each other*  to
    uphold *your end of the marriage*.  This will be another pitfall
    to look out for.
    
    fred();

There is no universal answer to this question.  It heavily depends on the
two people involved, and their respective definitions of and feelings
about commitment, trust and marriage.  I don't view marriage as a "ball and
chain" - it is to me the ultimate symbol of commitment in a relationship,
and not something to be entered into (or sundered) lightly.

I don't agree with Sandy's rather pessimistic view of marriage, but hers
is certainly a popular opinion among those who have gone through the pain
of a divorce.  Though I have been through the agony as well, I feel I have
come out the "other side" and am ready to love and commit myself once more.

				Steve

> -- you're obviously not going into the marriage casually,

I beg to differ.  Many people go into marriage *very* casually thinking
love is all they need.  I think it should be at least as difficult to
get married as it is to get divorced, to weed out the romantics.

>Imagine the divorce rate if the legal system recognized the three-times-
>repeated "I quit thee!"

Imagine the marriage rate!  It would soar, too!

>Marriage is a commitment 

No, marriage *should be* a commitment.  To the majority of its adherents,
it really ends up being just a transient state.

> ...and all that ritual... serve[s] to deepen and enforce the commitment. 

Not always.  Mostly it serves to turn little girls into women salivating 
with desire to have their turn at being "queen of the day" and simply 
looking for a willing co-star.  I say take away all the princess-like 
trappings and let marriage be the simple and somber life choice that it 
should be and then the carnival or queen-of-the-day aspect of it won't be 
such a strong draw for little girls.  And as for men, how many do you know 
who've taken their vows seriously, year in and year out?  Relatively few.  
You're talking the romantic side of it - how things *should* be.  I'm 
talking about how they mostly are.  To a romantic, I'm cynical.  To a 
realist, you are naive.

>This is genuinely useful, when you're depressed or angry or otherwise 
>disposed to say bag-this-marriage.

Not in my case.  I was MORE depressed when I knew I wanted out and I felt 
I couldn't easily bag-this-marriage in part *because* of all the hoopla 
everyone went through to help get me into it.  How do you face Dad and
say, "Remember that 5 grand you spent last year?  Well..." 
    
Fred makes a good point about basic morality.  Such people who might
not live together before marriage might be more inclined to honor their
vows.  That's great for the kids but is it worth it to be trapped by 
one's own morals into remaining in a marriage one may no longer want?
People need to figure out what their personal goals of marriage are. 
Too many people expect marriage will give them something.  But unless
love, (and the legal expression of love), is looked at as the opportunity 
to give something to someone else, it will eventually disappoint.
                                                                

    Steve, my divorce wasn't painful at all.  Except for the pass his
    octogenarian lawyer made at me, I was ecstatic!  My opinion is NOT sour
    grapes or the opinion of one who's 'been burned'.  My ex was even,
    (and still is), a real nice guy who still occasionally visits my folks.

    RE: .6 & .11  Sandy, it sounds like your "friends" were very 
    shallow and misguided if they avoided you simply because you 
    were married. Your inlaws sounded a bit presumptious if they
    expected a family dinner every Sunday. I've been married nearly
    8 years and have never experienced either of the two "phenomenons"
    you described.
    
    You do sound rather bitter in your condemnation of marriage.
    
    Paul C.

    I have two girls and one of these days I may be faced with this
    "situation".

    At the moment, I'd give my blessing to 'co-habitation' with one very
    big "B-U-T".  I would beg my daughter(s) to insure that no children
    resulted during the co-habitation.

    Basically, what harm can come of it (babies notwithstanding)?

    The other admonition that I would give is that of the time span. 
    "Common Law" differs from state to state.

    /The General/

    OH, come on.  What newly married person hasn't heard the reticence 
    from a friend when asking "How come you never drop over anymore?"  
    My friends were no more or less shallow than the general public.
    
    And I didn't say specifically my in-laws were demanding dinner every
    Sunday.  Good heavens.  BOTH families tended to expect more "family"
    types of situations whether it meant going shopping with one of them
    during the week, (I hate shopping), expecting me to host a holiday
    in order to display my "official" status, etc, (which made me feel like
    everyone was watching me play grownup and smiling condescendingly).  
    
    I was saying only that familial expectations increase and I wasn't
    talking of the millions of little ways these expectations play.  I am 
    in full agreement that there are exceptions to everything, (just like 
    the basenote author is hoping to be one).  And you can actually win 
    the lottery, too.

    	Betty Davis made a famous statement that women became stars
    when men began to think they didn't go to the bathroom. 
    
    	Dating is usually proper and exists for only a few hours at
    a time. Manners and guards are up. People are generally curteous
    and respectful.
    
    	Living together brings out the reality of the other person.
    Body functions, cleanliness, habits, and the wacky routines. The
    reason that many marriages fail is because of a hidden agenda. The
    husband and wife fight over something totally irrelavent, when the
    true complaint she has is that he doesn't put the toilet seat down
    and his discomfort is that she has normal body functions similar
    to his. Living together lowers expectations and destroys fantasy.
    That leads to better understanding...BUT, living together is not
    marriage. There is really nothing to make either party try to work
    out problems. Often immaturity allows either to just leave the
    relationship. Too many people are just so lazy that they won't put
    themselves out to even try to save themselves.
    
    Try spending a couple of weeks together on a vacation in a cabin
    or camp where you both have to perform some homemaking chores to
    get a "feel" for living together. If it seems to feel comfortable,
    then discuss living together for a short period of 3-6 months. If
    your both as in love and happy as now.......maybe it is time to
    tie the knot.
    
    Good Luck
    
    Ken

    
    
    I think if you are both comfortable with it then go for it.
    I have lived on and off with my boyfriend for the past four years.
    In fact we have shared the same apartment now for the longest we
    have ever which is almost two years.  
    
    It certainly will shatter any myths you have about marriage though.
    It forces the two folks into dealing with the little things in life
    that most folks disagree on.  Like who is going to feed the cat,
    take out the garbage, make dinner.  It really is a slap of reality.
    
    I have had alot of fun with it and would recommend it.  If you are
    both going to marry you are going to live together.  Why not work
    out the little details before you make everything legal?  You may
    just find out that you live very well together, but then again
    you may find that there are differences between your daily lives that
    neither of you can overcome as a team.  The key is compromise!!
    
    
    
    Good luck,
    Mi

    It's *very* difficult (probably impossible, ultimately), but try
    to remember that your relationship, and your marriage, and your
    wedding, and everything else, are what *you and your partner*
    decide they are.  There is an incredible amount of hidden agenda
    around what relationships and marriage are "supposed" to be.  Try
    to let all that stuff go: all the prince/princess charming stories,
    all the "ball and chain" stories, all the fidelity, commitment,
    love, etc. expectations, and make your relationship (and possibly
    marriage) what is right for *you*.
    That is a long-winded way of saying, forget the statistics.  Do
    what is in your heart.  There is no way to logically decide to
    get married; at some point you need to jump off the cliff and have
    faith.
    Live together?  I'm all for it.  Is it the thing for you to do?
    I don't know.
    Living together is not the same as being married...but it helps.
    
    Have a sense of humor.

    
    
    I have heard the same statement that marriage changes people.
    
    How?  What are the most significant differences.
    
    I have been with my guy now for four years and we are very committed
    to each other.  In fact we plan to marry.  However, he is constantly
    saying that things will be different after we marry.  He thinks that
    I am going to change into an oger who will want to know where he is
    at all times and what he is doing.  I disagree.  I do not keep him
    under my thumb now, why should I when we marry?  
    
    Also, what changes are the men supposed to go thru?  Is he going to
    be a bear to live with?  Will he miraculously start to put the seat
    down?  Will he all of a sudden not ask me what part of the meal he
    is going to prepare?  
    
    
    What is all this talk of marriage changes you?
    
    Michele

    re .18  What are the differences.
    
    I have no first hand experience with the situation, but--what 
    I have read on the subject of why so many live_in-then_mary
    relationships fail is that one partner or both will tend to
    put up with the shortcommings of the other when living together.
    Then when they marry, whether consiously or subconsiously,
    one partner, or both, begin to think that marriage gives them
    some sort of *power* to change/control the other person. After
    having the relative freedom of living together, the other
    partner is resentfull.  It all goes to &^ll from there.
    
    fred();

    my experience, in brief:
    
    1) Living together with one woman made us both realize that we were
    wrong for each other, and prevented a marriage that wouldn't have
    worked.
    
    2) Living with another one is making me how compatible we really are,
    and will probably lead to good marriage, by way of a good relationship.
    
    -roger
    

    How does marriage change things...
    For me, I think the biggest change was/is in the way we view time.
    Our time frame has shifted from planning about next week or next
    month to planning about 5 years from now or 10 years from now.
    I suppose if we had conflicts (which, thank goodness we mostly don't),
    this shift in time perception could lead to problems (the realization
    that I've got to put up with ...x behavior... for the next *40 years*!)
    
    Our view of money changed.  Both of us felt very guarded about
    sharing our combined money, both wanting to maintain some degree
    of financial autonomy.  Now, it all just goes in the same pot.
    If we were uncomfortable with the way the other person handled
    money, that would be a problem.  I think it's easier to sidestep
    that one if you aren't married.
    
    We now have more a sense of being a team, a partnership, helping
    each other through life. 
    
    For us, not all that much really changed, but it's still definitely
    different to be married.  I guess we didn't have many hidden agendas
    and/or expectations lurking in the shadows.  I guess some people,
    if they don't truly know their inner selves, get caught by their
    own expectations of marriage.  As long as you (and your partner)
    are realistic, as long as you (and your partner) know your own self 
    and feel centered in yourself, marriage should hide no pitfalls.
    It *will* be different, but you'll be able to deal with it.
    
    Living together can help in the process of knowing your inner self.
    If you (and your partner) are truly at peace with your inner self,
    you'll do fine.
    
    I know this may sound sort of hand-waving new-age mystical, but it
    is the way it is as it is for me.  I think you need to find the
    grounding of your spiritual self to be truly successful at this
    marriage business.  (Notice that getting in touch with your 
    "spiritual self" may have nothing at all to do with "God", 
    whatever that is.)
    
    A couple of books I found helpful:
    	A Conscious Person's Guide to Relationships, by Ken Keyes.  He's
    	also written another good one that I don't remember the title of.
    
    	Mirages of Marriage, I don't know the author.

I think if you both really want to live together beforehand you should.  Listen
to your hearts.  I would temper that with the thought that you shouldn't expect 
too much from doing that, with regard to "practice for being married".

I think it depends very much on the people involved, it works for some and
not for others.  My ex and I lived together before we married.  Looking back,
I don't think it helped us.  Marriage was different than living together, I
didn't feel my expectations changed much when we married, but my ex's seemed,
to me anyway, to change alot.  

Unfortunately, my divorce taught me much more about my needs in a relationship 
than living together did.  If I ever get married again, which I see as a very 
real possibility, I think I'd be less likely to cohabitate beforehand, or at 
least to expect too much from it.  Much would depend on my partner, and how 
we fit.

Good luck, hope it works out for you.

     I believe that living together IS NOT that helpful in establishing
    whether a marriage will work.  Another thing is that if you decide to
    get married after living together, do you expect her parents to provide 
    you with a big wedding?  Many parents feel that this is not warranted 
    since you have been living together.  Having two girls (like Jerry), I 
    don't think I'd be real happy if one announced that they were going to 
    live with their boyfriend.  (Gee Jerry, you are starting to sound like 
    a liberal :')) (private joke).  Think how you'd feel if your daughter
    (who you've tried to raise to the best of your ability) told you this 
    news.  You may say it wouldn't bother you now, but I ASSURE YOU it would.  
    Now, before I get hit with what a sexist pig I am (and I may very well be),
    I am giving my honest feelings as a father with two daughters who I
    love very much.
    
    Mike

    I also agree that you have to have a sense of humor when you get
    married.  (I can hear everyone saying to themselves, "Mike's wife sure
    has to have one, she married him.")  Some people thing that marriage
    will cure their problems, and when it (marriage) doesn't, they think
    kids will.  I almost made that mistake.  If it's right, you know it.  
    
    
    Mike
    
    P.S. Jerry, have you heard the one about pulling up your sox? :')
        

Another problem some people have is that they believe that when they get
married, they can stop putting any effort into the relationship.  Wrong!

			Steve

    amen.  AMEN.  and AMEN!!! to -1
    
    When you LIVE with someone, you've just GOTTA work at it!
    
    tony
    (who's happier now than EVER, married to Brenda!)
    

    I think the success of the marriage depends on the effort
    that is put into growing together.  The growing goes on all
    the time.  Living together first is a way to start the growing
    together without the legalities of marriage.
    
    SO, I'm for living together.  If you can'tmake that work
    then you've saved yourelves a big hassle.
    
    BTW, I thought the complaint was not RAISING the toilet 
    seat, rather than not LOWERING it...
    
    BIll
    

    
    
    To fathers of daughters:
    
    Do you think you would tend to be more upset if your daughter told
    you she wanted to live together than if it was your son who told
    you he wanted to live together?
    
    Also, would you tend to be more critical of the man your daughter
    wants to live with?
    
    
    I think that most fathers of girls feel they have to be more protective
    of thier daughters in general.  Why is this?  
    
    
    Also, if you were willing to pay for the wedding, why would you not
    pay for a wedding if your daughter were living with her future husband
    before the wedding?
    
    Michele

    RE: -1  Fathers more protective of girls then boys-Because males are 
    physically stronger than females.  This is a biological fact. 
    
    Son vs daughter living together:I wouldn't be happy in either case, 
    but the girl would be looked down upon more than the guy.
    
    
    Wedding: Because a wedding is a celebration of a husband and wife
    starting a new life together.  
    
    Mike

    RE: .28

    I am the father of two daughters.  I can't answer as to how "different"
    I would feel were it my son, since, I don't have a son.

    I would *encourage* my daughters to try the "living together" for a
    while with the admonition that NO CHILDREN result from the
    co-habitation and that the "time frame" is monitored (different states
    have different definitions of 'common-law').

    This does not come easy for I am of the old school of no sex before
    marriage, and, all that fine southern heritage...however...as I
    learned in college, there's no better way to ruin a friendship than to
    live together (dorm mates with best friends).  I'd rather they find out
    before they say "I do".

    If my daughter said she wanted to co-habitate before marriage I would
    not be as concerned with her mate as I would be if she up and decided
    to marry the guy first.  If there are any serious incompatibilities
    they'll find it out while they're co-habitation....after you say "I do"
    it's a whole new ball game.

    Jerry_father_of_two_wonderful_girls

    Addendum to .31...
    
    If they are getting married, most states make the HIV test mandatory
    before issuance of the license (I think...I hope)...
    
    If they wanted to co-habitate I would INSIST as strongly as possible
    that BOTH of them take the HIV test FIRST.
    
    Jerry

    Hi.  I am for living together before marriage.  I lived with my last SO
    for almost a year, and it 1) taught me what "real" commitment was like
    2) taught me to be responsible for someone other than myself
    3) made me see the idiosyncracies that mostly are hidden when you are 
       dating and, when dating, you normally present the best side of 
       yourself
    
    In living together, my SO and I wanted to take the "plunge". 
    Unfortunately, this couldn't happen, due to catastrophic illness on his
    part, and his passing away made me feel like a true "widow", in every
    sense of the word.
    
    In my current relationship, I would not hesitate to live with him.  My
    sister lived with her SO for two years.  They have been married for
    almost 7 (happy and unhappy - depends on how you look at it) years.
    As far as marrying after living with a man -- I would want to assume
    the financial burden (wedding), rather than having my parents assume it.  
    You are
    two people caring for one another and living together.  No longer are
    you "at home".  I think this makes a big difference ...
    
    As a Catholic, sometimes I felt major guilt in my choice of living
    together before marriage, but I was truly happy, and I'll never regret 
    my choice -- I had a whole year of wonderful memories of my sweetheart
    that I'll always cherish.  And I thought my parents would have a heart
    attack, they just took it in stride ...
    
    Tammi

re .32 Jerry,

To my knowledge, only one state *requires* an HIV test as a pre-
requisite for a marriage license. (Illinois - I *think* - not sure.)

If they fall into one of these categories, there's no need for an 
HIV test:

	- they're both virgins and
	- they've never shared IV works;
	- they've only had safe sex (condoms, preferably with
	     Nonoxynol-9)

I picked up a brochure on the subject during a visit to a local hospital, 
but I can't find it right now.  If I do, I'll type it in.

Also, a negative HIV test is not a *guarantee* that a person has not been 
infected, due to the incubation period of the virus.  Being re-tested 6-12 
months after the last 'risky' behavior is a smart idea.

Cheers,
Deb (who does *NOT* endorse mandatory testing)

    My youngest daughter who turns 20 next week has decided to move in with
    her boyfriend.  She has been sharing with two wonderful guys for the
    past year.
    
    Her boyfriend who is 20 one month later and Stacy talked over their
    decision with both myself and his mum.  He has only just moved out of
    home.  Now those who know me do know what a protective mum I am, but
    this guy is a doll (he thinks I'm great for instance (^'  ) but the
    fact that they talk over all their decisions with both mothers is
    wonderful.  I am totally relaxed about this one, but would have put my
    foot down about the past two.  Yes its a shame they are both so young,
    but they are going into this decision with their eyes open and both
    mothers behind them. 
    
    I might also add that Stacy and I are friends more than mother and
    daughter and we talk over everything, from her fears to her dreams and
    what she's feeling most of the time.  She also has a maturity far
    beyond her years.  
    
    ...dale

    Janice and I lived together for over ten years before getting married.
    I recommend it - with some caveats. We treated it as "for real." As far
    as we were concerned we might never get married. We bought houses
    together, worked out finances, talked about wills, bought insurance,
    argued about the kitchen, all that domestic sort of stuff, but it was
    never "this doesn't really matter until we get married". We worked out
    our rules for fighting (if you don't think you need rules because you
    aren't going to fight, well all I can say is that I wish you luck! By
    the way, our rules are:
    
    	1) NO PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. NONE. NEVER. NOT EVEN "JOKINGLY".
    		(yes, I'm shouting. This one is the most important.)
    	2) You can always get a hug, just by asking. (Even, no, ESPECIALLY in
    		the middle of a fight.)
    	3) You are still loved, even when fighting, and will be told so if
    		you need it - just ask (see rule #2)
    
    For us, the knowledge that the other person "could just walk away" made
    us work harder. If I ever though "oooh! I wish I could just leave!" I
    realized that I could. I stayed because I wanted to, not because I
    thought I had to or should.
    
    George Bernard Shaw was a nasty old misogynist, but I like him anyway.
    Here is a quote of his that I find particularly apt.
    
    	"Those who talk most about the blessings of marriage and the
    	constancy of its vows are the very people who declare that if
    	the chain were broken and the prisoners left free to choose,
    	the whole social fabric would fly asunder. You cannot have
    	the argument both ways. If the prisoner is happy, why lock
    	him in? If he is not, why pretend that he is?"
    
    		"Maxims for Revolutionists" Act III
    
    	-- Charles

    
    re 29
    
    Mike,
    
    What does physical size have to do with protecting your girls vs guys?
    
    To me that would imply that you would want to be walking 2 steps 
    behind your girls at every waking moment to ensure no physical harm
    comes to them. (of course this is taking it to an extreme)
    
    What is this "instinct" that fathers of daughters have that make
    them be more overprotective?
    
    I grew up without a father so I did not experience this with my Dad.
    That probably is part of why I do not understand this overprotection
    issue.  
    
    
    Also, why would the girl who would live with one of your sons be looked
    down upon more than the boy who would live with one of your daughters?
    What is your reasoning?  
    
    
    Michele

    
    
    Herb,
    
    I didnt mind your statement.  I'm 26 if it makes any difference.
    
    From the interactions I have seen with my friends and thier fathers,
    there appears to be alot of fear on the part of the father in finally
    letting his daughter be "free" (if we can use that term) of the
    restrictions.  Meaning, the fathers are much more reluctant to let
    the girls go out into the "real world" than the boys.  
    
    I see this as a potential problem maily due to the fact that 
    each sex is going to have to live/work in the real world sooner or
    later.
    
      I have come to the conclusion that most fathers are afraid
    of being in second place with thier daughters.  Afterall, they were
    the first man the daughter fell in love with.  The "competition"
    of any male seeking the affections/love of the daughter may be
    (and often times is IMO) felt as a threat by the father.  
    I have noticed that my mom is like that with my brothers.  
    
    
    Maybe it is something that I will never be able to truly understand
    until I become a parent??
    
    Michele

    Michelle,
    
    
    I am not saying that I would look at the two differently, as he (the
    boy who moved in with my daughter (God forbid)) would not be one of my
    favorite people because it would be showing a lack of respect for me.
    (Granted, my perception)  Also, as was mentioned in -1 a father
    conditions his son for the hard knocks, and it's his responsibility to
    protect the women in his family.  Call it old fashioned or whatever you
    like, but this is part of the man's responsibility as a Father/Husband.
    It's in the contract :')
    
    
    Mike

    RE: .34

    Whether or not the "state" insisted on the test...."daddy" would.
    
    In Texas, for *years*, a VD test was required before a marriage license
    is issued (probably is still required)...I see nothing wrong with
    mandatory testing in this case (before bringing children into this world).

    Jerry

    Re .36:
    
    I like your rules a lot, esp. the fact that you will deliver the "you
    are loved" message at any and all times, on demand. Part of the
    adjustment of living with my wife was learning that she couldn't hear
    my words when I shouted; the only message that got through was "I hate
    you" (which for SURE wasn't what I was trying to communicate). I try to
    leaven the gripes with affection and gentleness, so she keeps hearing
    the "I love you." And nowadays I only shout in mock: it makes the kids
    laugh.
    
    Re sons vs daughters:
    
    I have just daughters, and they're step-daughters, and they're early
    teens, so this is slightly academic, but I have several reactions:
    
      - Teenage boys are the lowest form of humanity, a lesson I learned
        when working at Planned Parenthood advising the boys about birth
        control. They were only there because they had to be, and they 
        were agressively, astoundingly irresponsible.
    
      - Girls get pregnant. When girls and boys get divorced, she tends to
        take the babies and the financial load. One of the very few results
        the social scientists have learned about the sources of poverty: a
        great techniques to get poor is to be a divorced woman with small
        children. When my girls make (obnoxious!) remarks about marrying a
        rich man, I suggest in strong terms that they better take care of 
        themselves, because he'll ditch you someday, and then you'll be in 
        big trouble otherwise.
    
      - Who made up this rule about parents paying for weddings? That's a
        serious anachronism, and if anybody asks me about it, I'll just 
        giggle for a while. Get real! Fortunately, my wife and I have never
        asked for or received any wedding subsidy from a parent, so we
        don't have a dumb precedent to perpetuate.
    
    I will encourage my girls to live with their prospective husbands. I
    will suggest that they put off marriage until they're going to have
    children. If she's a bit bulgy on her way up the aisle, I'll see that
    as a proof of her judgement. Hmmms: maybe I've gone to far here; it
    would be a drag to find out during month five that the big lunk has
    decided to back out. But my preferences are irrelevant anyway --
    they're do exactly what they want -- so why should I worry my head
    about it?
    
    - Hoyt

    
    re 40
    
    Mike,
    
    Interesting point you brought up about respect.  I do not understand
    why you perceive the guy would be showing a lack of respect in that
    situation?  Sure you would want the guy to respect you, but I do not
    see the connection between respect for the father/mother and living
    together.  
    
    Michele

    Hoyt's last comment is right on...they're gonna do what THEY want, so why
    get an ulcer over it.
    
    Having said that...I admit this topic stresses me a lot.  I have six kids,
    three boys (11 to 22) and three gals (14 to 25).  Obviously, I am middle
    aged myself, (turning 50 this October), and that sort of qualifies me as a
    graduate of the "old school".  Also, nearly all of my adult life I was very
    involved in a fundamental Christian religion, which I now see, somewhat
    slanted my view of these matters.  (notice, please, I didn't say it was
    right or wrong.)  In the last couple of years I have grown a lot, but still
    find many of those "old" values hard to compromize.  I'm working on some of
    them, and other's I am satisfied with.
    
    My (present) wife's views on "living together" are a lot more liberal than
    my own...in fact, she has two daughters who enjoy that liberality.  One is
    presently "living in" with her guy, and the other is presently "in between"
    boyfriends.  The youngest is 19.  One thing I REALLY find hard to deal with,
    and have HAD to deal with, is when they "live together" in the same house as 
    I am in.  Now *that's* hard for me!
    
    I've had a lot of problem with dealing with my feelings about this topic,
    since it goes strictly against my grain.  But, the arguements for "living
    together" seem credible, and, since I've tasted the sorrow/anger/agony of a
    bitter divorce recently, I think I'd endorse anything that might lessen the
    likely-hood of that trauma for my daughters (and my sons).  
    
    It'd be hard, 'cos no fella is *ever* going to be good enough for my
    daughters, or even my step-daughters... but, I don't have any say in that,
    anyway.
    
    
    tony

    Michelle,
    
          You seem to be saying that if a father doesn't agree with having
    his daughter shack up with someone, he is jealous.  A character flaw on
    the mans part, no doubt.  Knowing that "being in love" many times doesn't 
    lead to marriage and family has nothing to do with it.  Knowing that a
    potential boyfriend might have difficulties with the fact that his
    future bride has lived with a boyfriend (maybe several) has nothing to
    do with it.  Knowing that making love to one's spouse beats the hell
    out of all the others one has been with has nothing to do with it.  It's 
    all due to the selfishness of the father.  It is definitely not because he
    wants to see his daughter have a happy healthy life.  
    
    
    Mike    

re: .40 MAMTS3::MWANNEMACHER

> Also, as was mentioned in -1 a father conditions his son for the hard 
> knocks, and it's his responsibility to protect the women in his family.  

This is a cute sentiment but it's a grave injustice to girls.  Sooner or
later, they too enter the world of "hard knocks", whether you like it or
not, only yours will be unprepared.

And on top of that they are underpaid.  And then they could get pregnant.  
Most women survive all this.  You wouldn't toss out a domestic animal to 
fend for itself after caring for it for years, would you?  We do the 
equivalent to daughters when we "protect" them and then toss them, literally,
to the wolves.  You're setting them up, man.

Here's some of the things your "protected" daughters will have to face
without you lurking in the shadows:

          from .42 DOOLIN::HNELSON

    
      - Teenage boys are the lowest form of humanity, a lesson I learned
        when working at Planned Parenthood advising the boys about birth
        control. They were only there because they had to be, and they 
        were agressively, astoundingly irresponsible.
    
      - Girls get pregnant. When girls and boys get divorced, she tends to
        take the babies and the financial load. One of the very few results
        the social scientists have learned about the sources of poverty: a
        great techniques to get poor is to be a divorced woman with small
        children. 

If you can't protect her her whole life, (and you can't), no sense making
her dependent and unable to protect herself.  ESPECIALLY when it's considered
"in the contract" to simultaneously make sure boys know the score.  I thank
my father profusely for showing me, probably a little tougher than he 
should have, the school of hard knocks.  I've had a serene and happy life
because of it, at the mercy of no man.

BTW, - Hoyt, I think you're a wise man.

re: .45 MAMTS5::MWANNEMACHER

>  You seem to be saying that if a father doesn't agree with having
>  his daughter shack up with someone, he is jealous.  

I don't think she means it as such a direct cause and effect as that.  

> Knowing that "being in love" many times doesn't lead to marriage and 
> family has nothing to do with it.  Knowing that a potential boyfriend 
> might have difficulties with the fact that his future bride has lived 
> with a boyfriend (maybe several) has nothing to do with it.  Knowing 
> that making love to one's spouse beats the hell out of all the others 
> one has been with has nothing to do with it.  It's all due to the 
> selfishness of the father.  It is definitely not because he wants to 
> see his daughter have a happy healthy life.  

Everyone wants to see their kids have a happy life.  But when they're old
enough to start taking sexual partners, they're old enough to start living
their own lives.  You can't "protect" anyone from the above.  You can only
hope that in the years you DID have the "prime influence", you did a good
job and that your swiftly maturing son or daughter will make the right
choices.  A desire to live someone else's life for them, (and to alter
the level of that desire according to the child's gender),  has its roots 
in something deeper than simply wanting to see them have a happy life.  
(Shouldn't we want sons to "have a happy life", too?)  You try living YOUR
life for someone else, according to someone else's desires for your 
happiness, and see how happy it makes you.
    

    Thanks Sandy, I couldn't have said it better.  My father tried to
    protect me and keep me safe for an MRS degree, and housewifehood, This
    left me at a later date with a 6 yearold, and no high paying job skills
    as well as a louse who will not pay child support because it would help
    me out.
    
    Fortunately, I rectified the lack of career skills, and am living with
    a wonderful man (5 years now) with a charming 4 year old as well as the
    sixteen year old daughter.  We have no plans to marry, as we are happy
    this way and needless to say, I already know that marriage doesn't
    guarantee a lifetime commitment, or full time parent for a child.  
    
    You had best belive that my daughters are being raised to be
    self-sufficient, make their own money, career planning, handle
    birth-control, parenting, plumbing, engine maintainence, Firearms, and
    whatever else one needs to make it in the world.  They are also
    learning the traditional survival skills of cooking, cleaning, laundry,
    etc that both sexes need to survive.
    
    Anything less would be irresponsible on my part.  If a child, any child
    is not raised with enough skills to make it on its own, the parents are
    doing both the child, and society a disservice.
    
    By the way, I would encourage my girls to live with a partner, before
    making a more serious legal commitment.  I would also suggest looking
    at anything and everything that irritates them about the other person,
    and vice versa, as I already know the consequences of thinking marriage
    will solve them, and that people who love each other will change to
    suit, rather than grow apart.

    Mike W

    Just a thought. If indeed one of��your children chooses to live
    with someone before marriage and you express your disapproval
    what will happen if they do marry? Will you then approve whole
    heartedly? Or will there always be a layer of anger and dislike
    between you and the person your child has chosen for a life partner?
    You could be poisoning a life time relationship with the parent
    of your grandchildren.

    Bonnie

    RE: .46 & .47  Definitely sounds like "me generation" responses.  I'm
    not foolish enough to think that I don't need anyone.  I need my wife,
    and she needs me.  This is not to say that we couldn't make it if one
    of us died because we could.  When one partner decides that they don't
    need the other you might as well hang it up.
    
    
    Hi Bonnie,
    
    I do not hold grudges.  If he is a good person there would be no
    problem.  I shhot from the hip.  I'd let him know of my disapproval
    from the beginning and if it led to marriage I would be very happy for
    them and would pay for the wedding because she's always going to be my
    little girl.
    
    Mike 

    
    Mike,
    
    I wouldn't necessarily think that the father is jealous of the guy.
    In fact that really didnt enter my mind.  I was thinking more from
    a daughter's point of view.  I tend to see it as a security issue
    with the fathers.  Face it, all parents (both dads and moms) are
    always going to want the best for thier kids.  However, in this
    case, your definition of best may differ from one of your daughter's
    definitions of best.  
    
    Even looking at it from the point of view of a daughter, I can easily
    see some fear on the daughters part concerning the father.  Afterall,
    you will no longer have the same type of relationship with your
    daughter.  Something special is being threatened (or at least can
    be interpreted as being threatened).  And theres always the standard
    "noone is good enough for my daughter"!!!  
    
    Sure is strange!!
    
    Michele

    Reading all these notes has prompted me to ask a question.  I was
    raised in a very traditional home with a strong moral training. 
    Part of this training was the teaching that sex outside of marriage was
    called fornication and thus immoral.
    
    I guess that is how I feel about co-habitation.  But the responses in
    this note paint such a glowing report on the positives for
    co-habitation, with no references to any question of morality.
    
    The question: Is my feeling just an old-fashioned one? Or does the
    decision to co-habit include some kind of moral decision?
    
    I would really like to hear some responses to these questions? I am not
    trying to foist my moral code on anyone, but would like to understand
    the decision making process to co habit
    
    As for me, I am married now 18 years, with children, and bless the day
    that my wife and I started our life as a married couple.
    
    
                                           

    RE.52-I feel the same way.  I have been married 5 years and have 2
    children and thank the Lord every day for how I've been blessed,
    
    
    
    Peace,
    
    Mike

re:                     <<< Note 463.52 by SLSTRN::RONDINA >>>

    
>> The question: Is my feeling just an old-fashioned one? Or does the
>> decision to co-habit include some kind of moral decision?
    
   	Yes, I think it's old-fashioned. I can't fault you for it tho',
	knowing how hard it is to overcome one's upbringing. I lived with
	my husband before I got married and it didn't involve any moral
	decision. I'm not easy to live with so there was no telling how
	it was all gonna work out. Besides all that I absolutely hate
	weddings so I was in no hurry. But nothing much changed after we got 
	married either (not even my name), the only thing I can think of is 
	that the auto insurance company allowed us to put both cars on the 
	same policy which lowered our rates. 

Jenna

    re: -1
    and undoubtedly raised your taxes.  8*(

Note 463.52 SLSTRN::RONDINA

You raise an interesting question that we all must look deep inside ourselves
to answer...  You were taught that "sex outside of marriage was called
fornication/adultery and thus immoral".  If immoral, then bad (some will argue
if immoral, then better).

Why do you suppose you were taught this?  Probably because your parents were
taught this.  Now you have been hit with "glowing reports on the positives for
co-habitation" and are now faced with a conflict but in your gut you know you
are correct.  In fact, you probably feel a bit sad for those who choose to live
together first.  You ask yourself "why do I feel this way?".

I am in the same boat as you.  We are old-fashioned.  So be it!

About 18 years ago we thought we were in love.  Back then when you were in love
you got married.  This meant you took a chance, made a commitment (for better or
worse), and stuck to it.  After all, you were in love!  After the honeymoon you
began living together and, surprise, life was not all a bed of roses.  Love now
means compromise and work, sometimes even war.  What you argued about was silly,
you both got a good laugh at yourselves.  You worked together at communication
and soon found rewards, i.e., the true meaning of love.  Has it been 18 years?
Better call my Wife and tell her that I love her!

Why do I feel sad for those other people?  Old-fashioned evolved into a time
for convenience.  When done, throw away!  Discard!  Hell, we were only playing
house.  She didn't really want the child so the convient thing to do was to 
abort!  He really didn't want that woman, so dump her.  To be safe, abuse her
and kill her off for good measure!  Better move to Rio so I can get away with
it!  

For 18 years we have held ourselves hostage to a commitment called marriage.
It was work but we eventually grew together while still remaining distinct.
We have lived and now we flourish...

    
    re -1
    
    
    I get a feeling from your note that you think that folks who
    live together are less committed to each other than married
    folks.  Seeing as you did not choose to live together before
    you were married, how do you know what level of committment
    you would have had towards your now wife if you had lived
    together?
    
    Most of the folks who hold the same view as you are in the
    same boat.  They did not live together.  I find it difficult
    to understand your position on committment because you were
    not in such a situation.
    
    Of all the folks I know who live together, only one couple
    has broken up.  To date there have been three weddings,
    six couples are engaged, and the rest are beginning to feel
    the pressure of marriage looming.  
    
    The decision to live together with my SO did not involve morals.
    In fact that was not an issue.  We both come from strict
    Irish Catholic families, yet each family gave us thier blessings.
    Consequently we are planning on getting married, but not as
    a direct result of us living together.  
    
    I think the problems with morals in this issue is that the
    younger generations were brougt up with thier parents religions,
    but many upon leaving the parent's homes have had the opportunity
    to question the religions they were brought up with.  Many have
    seen that the teachings they were brought up with just do not
    fit into the realities of today.  (example the RC church's view
    on birth control)  One of the things that my crowd frequently
    discusses is the disillusionment with the religions they were
    brought up into.  We see a need to find a religion we are 
    comfortable in and that we can feel a part of, but we are met
    with strong resistance from our parents and families. 
    
    
    Michele
    

    
    My wife and I lived together for a short time before we were
    married. I'm glad we did. I found out that she wasn't as neat
    as I'd hoped, didn't do dishes, things like that.
    Funny thing is, it didn't matter.
     
    After a few months however, she had to go home to her parents.
    Her spinal cord started to give out and she required yet another
    spinal fusion. Every weekend, for the next year and a half, I drove
    to Albany to visit her and when she was finally able to walk again,
    I proposed.
    
    So, looking back, I'm real glad we lived together. I think it helped
    us to get even closer and to be more sure of our love for each other.
    I think it helped our relationship survive the year and half
    separation and made her decision to say she'd marry me easier for
    her.
    
    								Hank

    RE: .56
    
    That was a wonderful statement, and I especially want to
    acknowledge your statement about the "working together."
    I can imagine that you did have to work very hard at times,
    and I can imagine how good it must feel to have that work
    "pay off."
    
    I spent 23 years in a marriage and did not know how to work
    together with my wife (nor did she).  At the end of 23 years,
    we had not had a serious argument, but we also did not have
    a marriage.  So it ended.
    
    I have learned a lot and changed a lot since then.  
    Love is work.  The benefits of love are wonderful and often
    what we choose to call "love."  But for me, the loving is
    the effort, the feeling of wholeness is what comes back
    from that effort.
    
    Bill

.57>        I get a feeling from your note that you think that folks who
.57>        live together are less committed to each other than married
.57>        folks.  Seeing as you did not choose to live together before
.57>        you were married, how do you know what level of committment
.57>        you would have had towards your now wife if you had lived
.57>        together?
    
You are correct.  By not being married, you conveniently leave the door open
to make a quick escape and this to me is not commitment.  My wife and I
chose to make a real commitment to each other by getting married because we
were in love and loved one another, or so we thought/felt...

.57>        Most of the folks who hold the same view as you are in the
.57>        same boat.  They did not live together.  I find it difficult
.57>        to understand your position on committment because you were
.57>        not in such a situation.

Yes, we do not share the same feelings/understanding...
    
.57>        I think the problems with morals in this issue is that the
.57>        younger generations were brougt up with thier parents religions,
.57>        but many upon leaving the parent's homes have had the opportunity
.57>        to question the religions they were brought up with.  Many have
.57>        seen that the teachings they were brought up with just do not
.57>        fit into the realities of today.  (example the RC church's view
.57>        on birth control)  One of the things that my crowd frequently
.57>        discusses is the disillusionment with the religions they were
.57>        brought up into.  We see a need to find a religion we are 
.57>        comfortable in and that we can feel a part of, but we are met
.57>        with strong resistance from our parents and families. 

I guess the answer is to find a "convenient" religion...

    
    re -1
    
    It isn't so much the issue of finding a "convenient" religion
    as it is finding one which is not hypocritical.

    If a "convenient" religion is one which allows you to make informed
    decisions for yourself, based on your wants, needs, desires, and
    expected growth as a human being, then I'm all for it.
    
    In addition, having lived with several people in "trial run"
    situations, it can be taken VERY seriously, and it can also fall apart
    like "the real thing", and you CAN argue over who gets the car, and who
    gets the furniture.  And it CAN feel like a divorce.....
    
    -Jody (a-seventh-generation-Unitarian-Universalist)
    

    I never lived with my "FIRST WIFE" proir to getting married (we dated
    2yrs,engaged 2 yrs) got married and divorced 5years later????? STATS??
     My now beautiful wife and I lived together for about 2years. If you
    are Mature enough you can do it....as others said you learn alot about
    each other....GO .......FOR .....IT..........
    
     Bob

    RE: Religion-Religion which is founded and guided by the word of God
    (the bible) is not easy nor convenient.  A life which is founded on
    this is fruitful and rewarding.  I suggest people stop speaking of
    things they obviously know little, or nothing about.
    
    
    Nuff said,
    
    Mike

    Religion-religion.  That's not my path.  I tried.  It's not.
    It may be yours.  Great.  Follow it and achieve bliss.  I'll 
    go my way and get to the same place.
    Quote from Don Juan: "A path is only a path.  The question is,
    does the path have a heart?"
    
    Personally, I see absolutely no correlation (except possibly
    a slightly negative one) between organized religion and morals.
    
    If living together violates some personal morality, DON'T DO IT!  
    Please do not hastily judge those who do, however.  Their path 
    is not the same as yours.  I've seen some rather immoral marriages
    and some very moral couples outside of marriage...and outside
    of religion.  

	One reason that some marriages fail after a live-in situation
	is that one and/or both of the parties involved feel that
	they must "change" after getting married.

	People put a lot of emphasis on the marriage vows and signing the
	document.  That somehow life is supposed to be "different now"
	after a wedding.  If you're living together, making commitments
	to each other daily (ie, buying a car, buying a house, etc), how is
	a piece of paper going to mean change?  (besides maybe a name-change)


	Yes, I think living together is great.   But marriage really
	doesn't mean a lot to me in the long run.  If I get married, it
	will be for convenience (ie, children, taxes, etc).  And it
	won't change the relationship in anyway, it will simply be a
	piece of paper to tuck into a bureau somewhere.

	However, I don't think living together is right for everyone.  Many
	people (for religious reasons as well as other reasons) put
	more of an emphasis on the ceremony and that life should be
	"different" when you're married.  They're not "wrong", just
	tackle the situation a little different than me.

	I think the decision is best made with all eyes open.


	kath


	

Re:65

(Steve: please don't take this as a personal attack: its a point that has arisen
	in several notes but yours is the one which popped up first after I
	decided to react)

    
 >>   Personally, I see absolutely no correlation (except possibly
 >>   a slightly negative one) between organized religion and morals.

I thought it was an established fact that morality without religion was a joke:
one's moral code is a reaction to those around one, whether it be community or
religious figurehead. Atheists have told me this so I assume its not just a
religious hype. Apart from inherited memories, if they exist, what you believe
depends on what you learn. 


>> Please do not hastily judge those who do, however.

I can see a case for reasoned arguments and examining cases, but the whole point
of morality is that you feel something is *right*, and therefore everyone, or
at least a whole bunch of other people, *should* do the same thing.

Philospher Bernard Williams says: If you believe that one should not interfere
with the beliefs of another, it is contradictory to persuade others that this
is right. 

I hope this note is taken in the constructive manner in which it was intended
to be taken, so no more notes peter out with "Well thats just your opinion".,
unless it is strictly a matter of aesthetics (esthetics to our American viewers)
or car seat covers!

Mark 


{Having said that: I don't think this topic is a moral issue but I'm prepared
to listen to others say different!}

    re: .67
    
    So I'll give up preaching.  ;-)
    
    

    Do people who live together without the marriage ceremony considers
    themselves "living in a relationship"? Or do they consider it a
    "marriage"?
    
    I have a marriage which means to me a conscious decision to build
    something lasting.  That something is the fruit of the marriage, 
    namely my children.  Thus, for me,  marriage is the vehicle for the
    building and binding of  individuals, husband and wife and children,
    into a unit.  This unit continues, seeks to care for itself and the
    members within it. When bad times come, all pull together for mutual
    benefit, survival, and compassion.  There is a sense of "home" both
    within the marriage and the family, by which I mean that my marriage
    and family is "my place" in this world.  It is my sphere, my world.
    
    Do those persons who "co-habit" have these same feelings about the
    permanence/long lasting nature of the relationship?
    

    re -1
    
    
    Well for me all of the benifits are the same as with a
    marriage.  Of course we are different because a child
    is already involved by a previous relationship.  But
    we do feel the same sense of family and the same sense
    of "our place" in the world.
    
    In fact, strangers are often mistaking us as husband and wife
    even though we are not married.  We have been told
    several times that we "look married".  Not sure what
    that means.  But if it means that we both feel natural
    and relaxed (at home if you will) with each other
    then I guess we do project an image of being married.
    
    
    Mi

SLSTRN::RONDINA
    
.69>    I have a marriage which means to me a conscious decision to build
        something lasting.  

"conscious decision to build something lasting" + love = commitment...

I hear where you are coming from and agree.  I present the above formula as more
grist for the mill.  There will be some that say you don't need marriage to make
the formula work and with these people I think I would disagree.

.69>    That something is the fruit of the marriage, namely my children.  

Here I need clarification.  My Wife and I didn't get married for the purpose of
having children and didn't have a child until 2.5 years ago.  Our commitment was
to each other...  Here is where I am learning (perhaps evolving?):  When I look
at my Wife through my son, he tends to act as a magnifying glass for the love
that I feel for Her.  Someday my son (and hopefully his fellow siblings) will go
his own way and it will be back to myself and my Mate.  

The commitment we made was for eternity...  When my Wife and I die, we plan to
be cremated and our ashes mixed together (I was discussing this with a lady
friend and she said she also wanted to be cremated and has instructed her
children to make sure the urn wasn't used as an ash-tray as she didn't want to
gain weight after she was dead).  

.69>    Thus, for me,  marriage is the vehicle for the building and binding of
        individuals, husband and wife and children, into a unit.  This unit 
        continues, seeks to care for itself and the members within it. When bad
        times come, all pull together for mutual benefit, survival, and 
        compassion.  There is a sense of "home" both within the marriage and 
        the family, by which I mean that my marriage and family is "my place" 
        in this world.  It is my sphere, my world.
    
Well, guess you've hit the nail on the head!  Don't like the use of the term
"unit", sounds so sterile, like this new term "SO".  In a previous reply I
alluded to the true meaning of love and this pretty much sums it up.  Once we
understand family, then we can understand community, ..., and then we may even
understand this thing called humanity.

    Regarding how marriage changes people:
    
    I waitress part time on occasion. A couple of regulars came in and ate
    dinner one night. After they left I said to my co-worker,"They aren't 
    married, are they? She aknowledged that they weren't. How did I know
    that when they are always seen together? Because they were laughing and
    joking and enjoying each other's company.
    
    Kate

    
    
    	re .72  - I pity you if this is what you think/know marriage
    		  is like....
    

    re .73
    
    I pity you that you haven't removed the rose colored glasses and
    taken a look at reality

    
    	re .74 - who's reality? yours? their? or mine, which is most
    		 important to me. 
    
    		 I guess what I meant to imply was sadness that this 
    		person has assumed married people aren't happy. my
    		husband and I laugh and talk when we get home from 
    		work (for example), so when we go out to eat, that is
    		what we do, eat. We've already chatted, as we see each
    		other more than people who are perhaps dating. When they
    		go out to eat, they have lots to talk about and catch up
    		on, therefore they appear more animated than we would...
    		doesn't mean we're not happy, we're content with each 
    		other's comapny and don't need to make light banter or
    		entertain each other the whole time we're in the
    		restaurant...
    

    Re .72:
    
    We've often wondered if the people at a small restaurant we frequent
    have suspicions about us.  Since we work in opposite directions from
    home, we often drive to the restaurant and meet in the parking lot,
    and we always look like we're having fun -- even though we're
    "old married folks."  8^)  The day we run out of things to talk and
    laugh about will be the day that there's no more books, music, news,
    pets, Supreme Court justices, notesfiles, houses, or people...
    
    We shared an apartment before marriage, we shared an apartment after
    marriage...  Marriage doesn't have to change people in a negative way.
    
    Ron   

    There is a systematic difference, though: you don't have to be
    constantly communicating to the other person that you find them
    fascinating. I think first-daters are always obvious, for this reason. 
    
    My wife and I enjoy laughs, but only to communicate "that's funny", not
    "I like you and want you to like me."
    
    I think marriages can suffer if they forget to deliver that "I like
    you" message, however. I try to keep myself motivated to administer
    those special attentions, by envisioning a "love model" where the love
    is constantly decaying at some geometric rate, like plutonium, and the
    only way to keep the heat up is to regularly bombard it with neutrons. 
    
    - Hoyt

    Oh, I like that model, Hoyt.  Love is work and requires energy,
    but you get back more than you put in.  Kind of like the
    plutonium fission.  But you don't get the energy out at
    a sufficient rate, if you don't put it in.
    
    And in this case, the byproducts aren't so toxic...
    
    

    I'm well for living with someone before your married. I was engaged for
    two years before I knew I didn't have Miss's right. I would never have
    known she was the wrong one for me if I hadn't lived with her first. I
    suppose it might take something away from your marrage if you live with
    someone first, but it's better to be safe than sorry.

    hee here...i totally agree....i am totally against Divorce and wouldn't
    like to see it happen to anyone, especially those who get married and
    don't even try and work at it , they make a mocary of the vows they
    took...I know sometimes though people do change and Divorce can not be
    avoided...then fair enough...but i would allways prefer to see people
    have a trial run first , such as I did ! I am now single !but NOT
    divorced !!
    
    Tracie.

    The new law they're trying to pass in British parliment. Should lessen 
    the amount of divorces over this side anyway....It'll stop people
    rushing into anything they might regret.

    
    by all means lets force the poor couples who have grown to 
    cordially hate each other to be miserable unto death or
    until they commit violent breaches of the peace...
    
    puritans always did get vicarious satisfaction from others'
    misery...

    Just one more, for....living together before marriage.
    
    I agree that Marriage is a deeper commitment then living together.
    And that is EXACTLY why you should try out your commitment to 
    someone before getting married by living together. If something
    is wrong then its much better that you find it out while just living 
    together, before children, before legal hasles.
    
    Much better that such failures occur when they can be easily fixed.
    So that when you finaly marry the chances of failure are much less.
    
    *** Its very possible that the person you finally marry is not the 
    first person you lived together with. Thus your first living together 
    experience is transformed from a catastrophic failed marriage, to a 
    usefull learning experience.
    
    Living together can be a real marriage, simply because the people
    involved make it so. But more often it is simply a marriage field test.
    
    Gil

    
    unless of course your religious beliefs make it impossible...
    
    /. Ian .\

    	Another one for. [Make that three if I can throw in both my
    	parent's votes]. 

    	I wouldn't do it any other way... and certainly wouldn't risk one 
    	of the biggest happinesses of my life for a religious conviction 
    	which tells me that my duty in life is suffer and be unhappy
    	(married to an unfit partner??). "Trust your deity to make your
    	relationship work, if it's pure hell, it's your duty, live with 
    	it forever." Oh please.

    	-Erik

>    	(married to an unfit partner??). "Trust your deity to make your
 >   	relationship work, if it's pure hell, it's your duty, live with 
  >  	it forever." Oh please.

Wouldn't any serious problems show up without living together first? I can't
see how anything other than minor domestic annoyances could cause additional
probs, and although I can't speak from any experience (meep), these don't 
sound like hell to me.

Mark

    re .87 
    
    
    I tend to agree. Maybe the real answer is to know each other longer
    before marriage. 
    
    To one of the replies a ways back that suggested that living together
    would avoid legal hassles and children..... dream on!!
    
    ed

	I heard a story on this once. A young man went to his priest and asked
	him "what is wrong with sleeping with a woman you are not married to?"
	The priest replied, "Nothing at all! But most of you young people don't
	just sleep."

	So I guess a case could be made that there is no religious reason (for
	most religions) why people couldn't "live" together first. Having sex
	is a harder sell from a religious perspective.

			Alfred

   re: 463.89 <CVG::THOMPSON>

   >So I guess a case could be made that there is no religious reason (for
   >most religions) why people couldn't "live" together first. Having sex is a
   >harder sell from a religious perspective.

       Well, the Bible does command us to avoid even the appearance of evil.

   Tony

    It actually depends on which religious perspective you are talking
    about.  From the perspective of my own religious views, sex before
    marriage is not inherently wrong.
    
    -- Mike

    
    >   Well, the Bible does command us to avoid even the appearance of evil.
    
    So who, or what, decided that sex is "evil" then?
    
    I suspect that it was the Christian Church (not even J.C. - just the
    Church as in "the Establishment") - seems to me that they made this
    "rule" and have proceeded to beat people up about it for centuries...
    
    Why?
    
    'gail
    (whose feeling a little hung over and contentious this morning....)
    

    >>>Well, the Bible does command us to avoid even the appearance of evil.
    
    Of course, the Bible is only legend, written by mortal men, passing
    along "their" point of view.  Some take it as complete fact, and
    written by a supernatural through some earthly men, as though they were
    in a trance or something.  But then, Charles Manson thought Helter
    Skelter was a special message for him...