Spinoff - Marrying for convenience . . .

[Glib Gurl]

What are your thoughts on this issue as a general matter?

I really do not like the idea of marrying for convenience, but as I get older I realize that I may have to chuck the starry-eyed notion of love in exchange for security, companionship, and family. (Not that I would marry someone I'm incompatible with, but just saying that it wouldn't have to be my idealized "Mr. Right.")

I remember a scene from the movie 28 Days with Sandra Bullock. She was drunk at her sister's wedding and at the reception grabbed the mic and was like, "Well, [my sister] knew she wasn't getting any younger so she figured she might as well marry this guy." Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.

 

[Miss AJ]

No one gets married just for love and if they do then they are stupid. If anything Mr. Right SHOULD be the one who gives you companionship and security and I'd hope you want to have a family with him.

 

[tiara76]

i think its cool to marry for whatever reason one feels

to each his own

people tend to only have issues when they guise their true intentions of why they marry vs being real about why they marry...

keep it real...if thats what you married for thats what you married for

lots of people marry to "get" something vs for "love"....and everybody innately knows their motivations

 

[Miss AJ]

^^Exactly. If I feel like you have nothing to offer me then why should I marry you? Obviously love is a factor in why people get married but it's not the sole reason.

 

[Optimus_Prime]

I read a lot of Betty Neels novels, so marriages of convenience don't disturb me. I wouldn't marry a man who inconveniences me in any way. *kanyeshrug*

 

[BrownieBrie]

My daddy always said "Different people, marry different people, for different reasons."

I think that pretty much sums it up, whatever works for you.

 

[MrsAriannaAmbers]

What are your thoughts on this issue as a general matter?

I really do not like the idea of marrying for convenience, but as I get older I realize that I may have to chuck the starry-eyed notion of love in exchange for security, companionship, and family. (Not that I would marry someone I'm incompatible with, but just saying that it wouldn't have to be my idealized "Mr. Right.")

I remember a scene from the movie 28 Days with Sandra Bullock. She was drunk at her sister's wedding and at the reception grabbed the mic and was like, "Well, [my sister] knew she wasn't getting any younger so she figured she might as well marry this guy." Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.

If me and my BFF weren't going to eat you know I would be on this...
Anywho, I'll Be Back... and I got Mr. Man watching this thread for me

 

[dlewis]

I agree with the other ladies.

If something happens and mr lewis and I dont make it I'm marrying a very nice man with lots of money. He can even be gay, I've have enough sex to last me a lifetime. j/k I'm serious about the first two sentences.

 

[Chrissy811]

I agree with the other ladies.

If something happens and mr lewis and I dont make it I'm marrying a very nice man with lots of money. He can even be gay, I've have enough sex to last me a lifetime. j/k I'm serious about the first two sentences.

Girl you are crazy!!

 

[TayMac]

Indeed people have many motives for why the marry their partner. It's not an issue to me.

 

[babyb900]

I think love should play a part but who gets married for that sole reason?

You dont want to make sure your career, family and life goals match or nothing??

C'mon son, that's just stupid.

 

[Chrissy811]

I think love should play a part but who gets married for that sole reason?

You dont want to make sure your career, family and life goals match or nothing??

C'mon son, that's just stupid.

I think it could be because a lot of people are still into the "love conquers all" attitude. I can love you all I want but if we don't want the same things it will never work.

 

[Bunny77]

Glib, you know I love ya... ... but you gotta stop thinking in extremes!

There's a whoooooooooooooooooooooole lot of room between marrying some Mr. Perfect-typle (who's non-existent) because you're madly and passionately in love with him and "settling" for Mr. Nice and Stable who you have no feelings for whatsoever.

I agree with everyone else who said that if you get married "just" for love, that's a bad idea. I don't know where this idea came from that marriage is only sincere and real if the partners are "in love" (and love means something different to each person). If this worked, you'd think the divorce rate would be non-existent because people all married for so-called true love... but no.

I will be in love with the man that I marry, no question about it. But I will be marrying that particular man also because he makes my life better than it would be by myself and because I think he'll be a good husband/provider/father/protector. If those factors weren't there, there would be zero point in getting married. Like someone else said, I betta not be marrying anyone who inconveniences me, so yes, I guess that would be married for convenience.

And it's mighty convenient to feel happy, protected, secure and yes... loved.

 

[SelahOco]

When I married, I loved DH - but I told him that i would not marry him unless I knew that he'd stay in a position (to the best of his ability) to care for me and our children. He knew I needed love and security.

I think it's fine if people marry for other reasons, as long as both parties are honest and agree. A marriage is a contract that can be fulfilling and grow into a love that is deeper than the romantic love that many people seem to crave.

A marriage of mutual respect and benefit can be enjoyable for two people who agree to that arrangement. There's nothing wrong with getting what you want in an unconventional way.

 

[tiara76]

you can love somebody and they not be a good match to "marry" for whatever reason one deems....but if love/attraction/connection is important to you ....then thats not a automatic one will bypass other things that are important to you, but one just might...ideally one may want it all, however some will bypass love or connection, chemistry, sexual compatiabilty etc for all the other things and if they are cool with that...thats all that matters...but if you want it all and you choose to settle because you fear you won't get it and will take what you can get or something like that...you may not be that happy with your choice, but hey at least you won't be 'alone' , so you think thats better than nothing

 

[Sassy29]

Glib, you know I love ya... ... but you gotta stop thinking in extremes!

There's a whoooooooooooooooooooooole lot of room between marrying some Mr. Perfect-typle (who's non-existent) because you're madly and passionately in love with him and "settling" for Mr. Nice and Stable who you have no feelings for whatsoever.

I agree with everyone else who said that if you get married "just" for love, that's a bad idea. I don't know where this idea came from that marriage is only sincere and real if the partners are "in love" (and love means something different to each person). If this worked, you'd think the divorce rate would be non-existent because people all married for so-called true love... but no.

I will be in love with the man that I marry, no question about it. But I will be marrying that particular man also because he makes my life better than it would be by myself and because I think he'll be a good husband/provider/father/protector. If those factors weren't there, there would be zero point in getting married. Like someone else said, I betta not be marrying anyone who inconveniences me, so yes, I guess that would be married for convenience.

And it's mighty convenient to feel happy, protected, secure and yes... loved.

You said everything I didnt have to say.....THANK YOU!!!!!!!

 

[YankeeCandle]

So, I'm going to assume you mean "marriage of convenience" in an omission sense-- i.e. the union is predicated on some OTHER convenience than romantic love.

Personally, my thoughts about marriages of convenience in the general sense is as non-committal/unconcerned as some of the above posters. People can and do get married for all sorts of reasons: to have a live-in nursemaid; for tax benefits; to spite someone else; because they are on the rebound; to please their parents or other members of their society; etc. And good for them so long as everyone involved is in the know and agrees that this is what they want out of the union; I can't cotton to one-sided deception.

But if you are asking for yourself personally and if you are someone who craves a romantically-premised union, then, no, I would not advise marrying without that romantic connection. Going against the grain of something this deeply held is often a recipe for disaster, and it can spell trouble for the other person in that you might grow to resent them for not being able to give you or inspire in you the type of love you crave.

True, you could also grow to love them, but that's pretty chancey and it's not recommended that you pin your hopes on the oft-cited folk wisdom that "arranged marriages often blossom into love over the years." (Although this is certainly true in some marriages, I also think it's a popular strategy employed by the older generation to try to bring into line the new generation of young people and make them perpetuate the socially acceptable courtship model).


This is a debate we often have in societies where arranged or family-matchmade marriages are the norm. I speak from years of informed engagement with the subject.

Basically, don't fool the person you're marrying....but don't fool yourself, either. Go in with both eyes open and no secret unfulfilled yearnings, and I see no problem. Otherwise, it's a recipe for a regret perhaps much deeper and more gnawing than your original dream of love.

 

[FlowerHair]

I think it could be because a lot of people are still into the "love conquers all" attitude. I can love you all I want but if we don't want the same things it will never work.

ITA
A relationship needs a lot more than just love or passion to survive and last a lifetime.
Whatever your personal requirements are, make sure they're met.