posted
I've got a question and this seems like a good place to get well thought out ideas.
I'm curious about the harm that comes to a relationship when two people live together before marriage? I've heard lots of people say it's a bad thing, but I haven't really heard any reasons about why (though I haven't really looked too hard yet).
The main reason I'm curious is because I happen to live with my girlfriend. I, personally, have found living together to be a wonderful experience that has really helped us grow together (though we argued almost everyday for the first week or so). Please don't feel as though I'll be insulted if you think living together before marriage is a negative, though.
Oh, and if this topic has been discussed before, I apologies.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that most negative feelings towards living together before marriage come from negative feelings towards sex before marriage.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
When two people are married, they have decided to stay together no matter what they face. Two people who are living together haven't made the same kind of commitment. Not to say that you don't love each other or want to be together long-term, but there is SOME reason that an unmarried couple is, well, unmarried. For whatever reason, the two have not chosen to make that personal and legal commitment yet.
That colors the way you resolve problems, it really does. There is a significant difference between the way that arguments are resolved between marrieds and unmarrieds. When an unmarried couple makes a decision, there are fifty different factors to consider. (For the purpose of this argument, I am using unmarried to mean not married OR engaged. I think engaged falls more into the married category.) But when a married couple makes a decision, there are about five thousand. There are things like in-laws, children, future children, and whatever it is that made you choose to get married rather than live together.
I don't want to minimize the problems that unmarrieds face. Truthfully, I think that unmarried people encounter a lot of problems that married people don't. But I think that ALSO affects the way the relationship turns out.
All of my comments I want to especially direct to people who have a religious reasons for not living together, but do it anyway. I think they have the most difficult situation of all.
Oh, and is chungwa your real name, or is it a melon reference?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should dig up some of my old threads on this topic. I've been with my bf for almost 5 years, lived with him almost 4.
From my research on the topic (and finding the links is a pain but they are there if you really want me to google the) the stats are such that once you have lived together for 5 years the dissolution rate between long term relationships and marriage is about the same.
One of the key staticstical factors that determines the sucess of either co-habitation or marriage is actually how long you knew each other before the onset of the cohabitation or marriage. Co-habitations often start after a shorter length of time than marriages.
Personally I do think pre-concieved expectations have everything to do with it. If the two parties have drastically different opinions on where they are going in life, it isn't going to work, either way.
posted
Thanks for the response. No, Chungwa is not my real name. I used to be part of an online community involved in a game (that probably will never be released). I used the handle Chungwa-wema and it stuck with me for a while.
My real name is actually Bryan.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I lived with my first husband for a little over a year before we got married. I specify "first" because he's also now "ex".
Second husband, we didn't live together, though we did have sex before we were married -- a decision both of us regret. We wish we'd waited.
I can't sit here and say that living together first will definitively lead to relationship problems...I can't say it because it's not true. There are tons of people who never do get married, yet have a very deep, very loving, very long lasting relationship. And there are tons of people who get married and stay married for life after living together. Statistically they are the exception, though.
I think, however, there are reasons why the statistics show that living together puts you at higher risk for eventual divorce. My thought is that living together first illustrates a casual attitude toward commitment. I don't think you can be casual about commitment and actually expect to hold fast to those commitments when times get tough. I think living together indicates that while you may love that other person, you don't love them enough to avoid putting limits on it. Of course everyone has their limits -- I would probably divorce my husband if he cheated on me, for example -- but by choosing not to take the full plunge of marriage, committing with the belief that it is for life, those limits may well be at a lower standard than that of those who choose to marry. I don't think I would feel right about divorcing my current husband unless there was infidelity or abuse involved. Considering the statistics for second marriages, I think it's all that much more important that we continually reinforce our commitment to each other, and I don't think we could do that as effectively without being married.
But that's just my idea. Living together first has worked for a lot of people -- which to me means that the above theories either didn't apply to them, or (the less likely thought) my ideas are a bunch of hooey. I just know that living together first didn't work out so well for me, and waiting until we were married has so far.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chungwa, I think it is perfectly fine to live together before marriage. I even think it is perfectly fine to live together without ever marrying if a couple is so inclined.
Note though that overall, Hatrack is more biased in the opposite direction (I think), which may not be representative of the general public opinion if such a thing exists.
What matters most (to me) is what you do, not what you say. Marriage is a borderline case, but (to me) it seems to involve a whole lot of "saying", expressing intentions and such. With a divorce rate of 50-60%, an unmarried couple that lives together happily and, perhaps, creates a healthy home for their kids, represents a much, much better situation than half of all marriages ending in failure.
Posts: 1045 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd agree that moving in with someone you've known for a month is probably not a good idea.
Personally, I'm not inclined to get into a relationship seriously without knowing both parties will be very happy with how things are heading (and that we both want things to head in the same direction).
One of my friends married someone who she knew (at the time) for only three months. I asked her why so early, but she ended up getting very defensive and agitated. I really didn't find any pleasure when she told me, after only another 4 months of being married, they were getting divorced. I think living together may be similar to this (or I could just be trying to tell myself that my current relationship is sure to last forever - which I actually do believe... I'm beginning to ramble).
Another question I have is, what problems might come from families within the relationship? I don't come from a very religous family (I was raised Anglican, but I don't really consider myself that). My girlfriend, while not very religous herslef came from a very religous family, and her father was not happy at all when we moved in together. I'm not especially concerned with her father liking me, but I really do want him to accept me. Hm, I'm not really sure if I'm asking a question or not...
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are a couple engaged or intending to be married in a short while and are living together, I think this is okay and perhaps even good. I agree that unmarried couples living together haven't quite finalized the commitment, but I think this is a great learning opportunity where you can see what living with your intended spouse is really like and can work through some of the kinks.
However, statistics don't back me up on this, and I think the reason is that a lot of unmarried couples who are living together become satisfied with their unmarried and less committed status. They don't quite share the same future planning and family ramifications that married couples do and they aren't as supported by the community and family because they have not made that formal commitment and are not seen in the same light.
Tom and I lived together before we were married. We also wondered before the wedding why we were getting married and what really was going to change. To be honest, I don't think our personal relationship did change much with our marriage. What did change was the way we interacted with our family and how our family viewed and supported us. Marriage was an affirmation of the commitment we had already expressed to each other and agreed to maintain and further.
Edit: Chungwa, this is a hard one. My parents disowned me for a year when Tom and I moved in together. Time and patience were the only things that healed that wound. You have to respectfully stick to your guns and hope they will accept you as their daughter has.
posted
I'm going to be a turd and fire at BannaOJ (and I know this is the second time I've done this this week, it's not personal, I hope) the same question that gets fired at conservatives. How can you be sure your way is equal or better if you have never tried my way? Well, at least I'll fire that at you immediately before you fire it back at me.
Though I am curious (sincerely). If there were a marriage proposal, would you folks who cohabitate hesitate to accept it? Would you worry at all that being married might damage your relationship? P.S. I guess what I'm asking is, how important is being unmarried to you? Is it just a matter of how your partner wants things to be, or a profound expression of your belief that love standing alone is more powerful than a contract?
posted
My wife and I lived together a year before we were married. Honestly, though, we'd have been married first except for some family expectations of a big wedding (which had to be scheduled wayyy in advance). Also, darnit, my wife sure did deserve the big wedding and she was a princess like none other on that night.
But we'd already gotten married in our hearts before we moved in together. We didn't live together to "try it out", we were already completely commited to each other.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:living together first illustrates a casual attitude toward commitment
I've heard this a fair amount, but I just don't understand it. To me, if I had a casual attitude toward commitment, I certainly wouldn't want to live with that person. If I was only casual, and not serious, I wouldn't want them there everytime I turned around. Does that make sense to anyone, or am I just fooling myself?
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This has been said before, but I don't agree that living together better helps a couple know if they are compatible. I think you can tell that just by your everyday communication.
A problem that exists might come out more strongly if two people live together (like a tendency for the man to put the woman down might develop into a mistrustful obsession) but I think that those things are visible beforehand, if only a bit harder to see.
Actually, saying that you are living together to see how things work out is a great example of why I think resolving issues is different for married people than unmarrieds. You are trying to figure out if things will work out, but the married couple has already decided that it WILL work out, it HAS to work out, so they might try more extreme measures to bring about peace in the family. I'm just sayin'.
As far as your "in-laws" are concerned, all you can really do is the best you can do. Either they will like you or they won't. I wouldn't alter my actions for family members unless it was really important.
Truthfully, if you're afraid (for example) that your girl's father won't respect you because you are living with her before marriage, NOT living with her won't fix that. Living together is representative of an entire worldview, and pretending not to feel that way won't change the fact that you really do. What her dad would actually be against would be the fact that his daughter has a guy that doesn't find religion as important as HE does. You wouldn't be able to pretend not to be that way, so the best thing to do would be to do what you think is right in each situation, and let him form his own opinions, whether or not you think they are fair.
If he's so religious, he will be kind to you regardless of how he disapproves of your actions. (Keep in mind that "kind" has different meanings for the boyfriend than for the father. You might think that "kind" should include letting you do what you want and still being your best chum. He might think it's extremely kind of him not to strangle you at Thanksgiving. He might also think that giving you advice EVERYDAY that includes the order to get married or perish in hell is very kind as well.)
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chungwa, not to be a complete pain in the butt, but my first question back to you is -- if you're so committed, why didn't you marry your girlfriend?
See, I think people say and probably even mean that "they are committed, so why go through the hassle of marriage", but there is a difference. At the very least, it's the difference between everyone else knowing you're committed (including the government) and just you and your partner knowing you're committed.
edited to add that the more people who support you in your commitment, the easier it is to find the motivation to work things out when there is conflict. At my second wedding, we put out a frame matte to be signed by the guests. It hangs on our walls. I figure that to get out of my marriage, I have an obligation to go to every one of those people and tell them why I'm breaking the solemn vow they witnessed. When my own strength of motivation fails, that thought should give me some oomph. (I haven't gotten to that point, thank goodness!)
quote:When two people are married, they have decided to stay together no matter what they face.
Not necessarily true.
quote:Two people who are living together haven't made the same kind of commitment.
Also not necessarily true.
quote:if you're so committed, why didn't you marry your girlfriend?
An equally valid question is: if you're so committed, why bother getting married?
quote:At the very least, it's the difference between everyone else knowing you're committed (including the government) and just you and your partner knowing you're committed.
Why is it important if everyone else knows?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: if you're so committed, why didn't you marry your girlfriend?
I think he already answered this. It seems that people have different levels of commitment. Like, I'm committed enough to have to smell your nasty morning breath every morning, but not committed enough to file jointly with you. I'm committed enough to take your name, but not to share your toothbrush.
I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm trying to be serious. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the big reasons why Steve and I moved in with each other to begin with, was because financially we trusted the other person not to screw us over. In the past I'd actually been involved in the eviction of a previous roommate because of financial flakiness and his previous roommate was a shmuck like no other when it came to late rent. He'd spend the money on anime conventions...
At that point, while open to the possibility, we had no clue whether our relationship would be one we wanted to pursue, post-college or not. We figured it would be abundantly clear by the time we got to that point, and it was.
I don't *know* that my way is equal or better, pooka. The stats say that after 5 years they are pretty much the same statistically. Prior to that five year mark though, there is a higher dissolution rate among cohabitants. You can look at it two ways. People deciding that they don't want to be married before they get married, are actually valuing marriage more highly in a way, because they view marriage as a more permanent commitment. But if you believe that sex before marriage is abhorrent, then you are looking at it from a perspective where it is basically perpetuating of adultery and devaluing morality, I can't change your mind.
At this point what would the acutal peice of paper mean to me? I don't know. Tom and Christy say it did change things slightly so I believe it does. Would it actually change the level of trust between Steve and I? I doubt it. Commitment, maybe. Trust and commitment are two different things that can be separated from each other.
One area that Christy mentioned is familial sanction. I personally am so fed up with my family that half the time I think that if we *did* get married, I wouldn't tell my family. I would tell them years later, and then they'd have to realize they were treating people (lots of people not just me their daughter) based on their own personal biases, that have little basis in reality. To them, me getting married would be an admittance that I "toe the line" idealogically with them, when I don't and getting married wouldn't change that one iota.
posted
There are a couple of reasons I haven't married her yet. First off, neither of us have very much money (we're both college students getting paid minimum wage) and we both agreed that we wont get married until after college. Second off, her family has a lot of... situations going on (I don't want to get into too much detail). The brunt of it is that her mother and father are divorced, and her mother wants nothing to do with her father, even being at a wedding with him. There's more to it than that, but I do think somethings should be kept private.
In regards to my girlfriend's father, I think he's accepting it. I would agree with everything you said though, changing my actions would be a farce and wouldn't solve anything. He lives pretty far away, so I only see him once a year or so.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My wife and I didn't live together before we got married. To me, marriage is far more than a contract between. Marriage meant we were joining our lives together and if we had lived together before marriage, it would have detracted from that. Getting married then would have just been "making it official" and would not have meant much.
To continue what jeniwren said, I think couples that live together before marriage aren't generally as committed to solving problems as those who are married. It's easier to just end things and hope it works better the next time than to work things out. K and I had several problems when we first got married and I'm pretty sure we would have simply ended things if we hadn't already been married. As it was, we worked things out and I couldn't imagine not being married to her now.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, our level of commitment is such, that Steve is still with me, even though in the last week he's recieved a dislocated toe and a black eye from me even if both were accidental.
All of the injuries I've inflicted on him over the years have been accidental and I do inflict about as much damage on myself, but if you actually documented all his bruises I'd probably be facing abuse charges.
posted
Oh and PSI as far as Steve and I go, until the tax changed last year from a financial perspective we would have lost thousands had we been married.
I'm the one who does our finances and both of our taxes because I like that sort of thing, this year he didn't even sign his name since it was autofiled, so I really don't think he'd have a trust problem filing jointly with me.
Chungwa: What does money have to do with marriage? (Unless one or the both of you have debts you need to pay off first, which IMO is an honorable thing to take care off before you marry.)
The thing about her family.... what about that is going to change so that you will feel that it's time to get married? Do you expect something to change? (No details necessary...I have had two sets of inlaws, and in both sets my MiL was/is "interesting". So I know how it can be with family. ) Just wondering what you expect will change so that you *can* get married someday. If that's what you're hoping to do.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think couples that live together before marriage aren't generally as committed to solving problems as those who are married
There is probably a high degree of correlation here, but not causation. To my mind, the reason that people who are married are committed to solving problems is because they are committed to the relationship. But they are not really committed to the relationship because they are married. They are married because they are committed to the relationship. I completely disagree that the same level of commitment cannot be achieved outside of marriage as can be achieved in marriage. (Not sure if anyone's actually said that, but I disagree with the principle.) I also don't think that marriage causes commitment, and I think the high divorce rate tends to support my position.
Take all that together and to me that means that a couple who are committed to the relationship will work things out and a couple who are not committed to the relationship will not, independent of marital status.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Oh and PSI as far as Steve and I go, until the tax changed last year from a financial perspective we would have lost thousands had we been married.
Well, you don't HAVE to file jointly. I was just trying to think of things related to marriage at the spur of the moment. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, I think whether you file jointly or seperately, the so-called marriage penalty tax still applied.
saxon, I'm curious what you think about the importance of having others support you in your relationship commitment. Helps? Doesn't help? Makes no difference?
posted
Okay, I have a question. Let's say you have a situation where two people are living together and have decided to stay together until they die.
My question is, why? Is it because they love each other? If they had to sit down and think of the exact reason that they are together, what would it be?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:the more people who support you in your commitment, the easier it is to find the motivation to work things out when there is conflict.
What does it mean for people to support you in your commitment? That they say, "Right on, you're in a relationship!" or "I think you two are a good match" or some such? Because you can get that without being married. Is it someone saying, "You're married, so you need to work it out." How is that better than "I know you really love her, so you need to work it out."? Do people really say things like "Heck, you're not married, you might as well move on."? My friends don't. Does that make me anomolous for having such good friends?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
jeni, to make it a bit more personal, I can honestly say that if one of my friends had told me that I needed to work things out with my girlfriend (back before we got married), I would have said something along the lines of, "Duh." Maybe a bit more tactfully. Maybe not. And if one of my friends had said something along the lines of "Just break up with her," I would have said, "I sure hope you're kidding because if you're not then I want you to get out of here right now."
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay, I have a question. Let's say you have a situation where two people are living together and have decided to stay together until they die.
My question is, why? Is it because they love each other? If they had to sit down and think of the exact reason that they are together, what would it be?
I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I think the most general answer is that they are together because they want to be. This could be made more specific by saying that they would rather stay together than go through a divorce, or they love each other, or they find it financially expedient to be together, but it all boils down to the fact that they want to be together.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't really going anywhere. I think I'm trying to determine what motivates the married people to stay together versus the unmarried people who stay together.
I know that for married people, wanting to be together isn't enough. Sometimes they really DON'T want to be together, but they stay married anyway. I can understand what motivates married people, because I AM married. I can't understand what motivates the unmarried people because I've never done that.
posted
I meant more of the second kind, saxon. I have friends who would lovingly kick my butt if I started tanking my marriage.
My best (at the time) friend, when I was in the midst of breaking up with my first husband, said, "Well, I only figured you'd make it a year, so you should consider yourself successful that you made it 7." Not coincidentally, he and his wife lived together for almost 9 years before getting married. Last I heard they were getting divorced.
I do believe that friends and family make a difference in how hard you keep working when your own energy for working at the relationship is depleted.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, taxes only go down when one person is making significantly more than the other and the latter can be viewed as a dependent and the former as "head of household". If you are both making nearly the same amount and that amount is significantly above the poverty level, if married you were screwed prior to last year, whether filing jointly or separately because your combined income was *too* high. This year they have removed the marriage "penalty" and the married filing separately rates are the same as filing singly.
quote: There is probably a high degree of correlation here, but not causation. To my mind, the reason that people who are married are committed to solving problems is because they are committed to the relationship. But they are not really committed to the relationship because they are married. They are married because they are committed to the relationship. I completely disagree that the same level of commitment cannot be achieved outside of marriage as can be achieved in marriage. (Not sure if anyone's actually said that, but I disagree with the principle.) I also don't think that marriage causes commitment, and I think the high divorce rate tends to support my position.
I don't disagree that you can't have the same level of commitment outside of marriage as you do inside. The fact that people who are married don't have that level of commitment means they shouldn't have gotten married in the first place, IMHO.
I think part of it depends on how you view marriage. To me, it's sacred. When we had problems, divorce was an option that was so far away we didn't even consider it. The only thing that could make me consider it would be infidelity I think.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a conservative Christian, I believe it is wrong to live together prior to marriage, because it involves sex outside of marriage.
...now that I've gotten that statement out of the way, let me get realistic....
I have (in the past) been married to someone who I think (probably) I would NOT have married if I had lived with him first. Really. The mis-fit of the relationship was so bad, a week or so with him in the same house (with sex) I'm sure I would have run screaming in the other direction.
But that just shows that we weren't ready to get married in the first place. It was a rash decision on my part.
And I have, in the long-ago past, lived with a guy that I SHOULD have married. He was great.
posted
Paula, what I meant by "wanting to be together" was that the reasons they have, if any, for being together are greater than the reasons they have, if any, for being apart. Any couple still together must have that, even if their reasons for being together are simply inertia or laziness.
------------------------
jeni, there are several questions here. For one, are relationships intrisically valuable--that is, is a relationship valuable simply because it exists--or does their value come from what a person gets out of them? How often does it happen that someone's friends know what he wants and what is best for him better than he knows himself? Is a relationship that really depends on outsiders telling the participants to motivate them to work out their problems a successful one? I think the answers to questions like these are going to be highly personal.
And despite all that, I really think that it's possible to get the sort of support you're talking about from your peers even if you're not married. If your friends really do know what you want and what's best for you better than you do in such instances, then if they are good friends they won't be giving you different advice based on your marital status.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, the bottom line is that if marriage will not add anything positive to your relationship, there's no real reason to get married. I should point out, though, that this does not at all ignore religious considerations. If you believe that sex or cohabitation before marriage is wrong, then you will obviously be getting something out of marriage.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Paula, what I meant by "wanting to be together" was that the reasons they have, if any, for being together are greater than the reasons they have, if any, for being apart. Any couple still together must have that, even if their reasons for being together are simply inertia or laziness.
Well, I think this is obvious. I'm just wondering what those reasons are.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess the only benefit I can see of not being married is ease of exit in case you break up. That is why it may seem that I always expect that to happen.
quote: But if you believe that sex before marriage is abhorrent, then you are looking at it from a perspective where it is basically perpetuating of adultery and devaluing morality, I can't change your mind.
And the straw man rears his head. But I guess you're basically right. Still, I wouldn't not rent to you, or not hire you for a job, same as with a gay person. I merely reserve the right to have my own opinion.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sax, I'm not going to disagree with you. I'll point out that in my first post, in one of the first paragraphs, I wrote that living together is not a guarantee for eventual dissolution. It can work out. Can. But statistics say that you're playing better odds by getting married. For the reasons I laid out.
I'm not one for playing the odds, but since I know what the stats are for second marriages, I wanted to make sure we were one of the exceptions. So we're doing everything we can think of to make sure we are. So far, so good.
Measures for upping the odds: Making sure we have the same ideas about commitment and marriage. Making sure my family likes him (they hated my first husband). Making sure my *son* likes him. Surrounding ourselves with people who believe that marriage is for life except in cases of abuse and infidelity. Having a regular date night. Making sure that our roles as husband and wife are more important than our roles as parents. Etc.
Can I say that the same "raising the odds" methodology wouldn't work for just living together? Of course not. But I think that actual marriage gives that extra edge that *I* wouldn't want to be without.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't forget that there is a great deal of selection bias. The population of people who live with their significant other before marriage, and the population of people who don't, are very different populations. There are definitely similar people on both sides, but the demographics are not identical.
Do what you think will suit you. If you don't think living together would do any good, then it likely won't do any good.
Marriage means different things to different people. God means something different to each person, why can't marriage? For one person, it's death-til-part-no-matter-what. For another, it's not. As far as I know, there is no national definition of marriage that includes things like, "what do I do if I'm unhappy," and "what if I haven't lived with the person yet?" Until there's a governmental FAQ on marriage, it's a completely personal decision within the confines of legality.
The fact that someone's idea of marriage is different than your own does not mean it deserves any less respect.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I know what a strawman is...I just thought that Pooka agreed that what was said agrees with how she feels.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't have used those words, PSI. But I guess now I have. Though I assume most cohabitors are not married to someone else, so it is fornication and not adultery. At first I thought she was saying that people who get married just so they can have sex promote adultery somehow. That really puzzled me. But she's not going to be around so it's not really fair to keep ruminating on the meta-argument.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, adultery is sex by a married person with someone other than his/her spouse. Sex when neither is married is not adultery.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
