Did you live with your husband/wife before marriage?

penguingirl

I've been with my partner for 8 years (today!), living with him for almost 7 and we are on our second jointly-owned home. I think our families have given up expecting wedding anytime soon and I don't want to be engaged (might get married one day, but don't see the point of the inbetween bit).

If my parents (or anyone) had made any comments to me about 'not even having a ring' I would have been mightily unimpressed. I don't want a ring, I can pay my share of the household bills and I'm quite happy that we have slowly increased our financial commitments towards each other i.e. we originally rented together (not much different to having a flat-share with a friend), having a 50/50 share house and now having slightly unequal shares but thinking towards the future and options if we have a family.

Torry_Quine

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

No, it is not true, it is merely your opinion. Just because that is what you believe does not make it correct. An unmarried couple can be just as committed as a married couple. No one has a right to say that their feelings and love for one another aren't as valid.

I have never said that anyone's feelings and love aren't as valid as any other person.

BarryBlue wrote: »

No, we weren't engaged at all. To us it is a meaningless term so we just skipped that bit. It was entirely up to us, nobody else. And, of course, we didn't tell anybody else.

Yes, "often" living together isn't the same as being married, but just as "often" it is. Again, entirely what the individuals want. No idea why it would make you :mad: though, as it's not your business.;)

You may not be able to imagine being in a casual living-together arrangement, but that's you, possibly some religious angle tied in there. It didn't bother me whatsoever, but nobody has the right to judge me or claim to be better than me because of it. Now I am married, I feel no different from when we lived together for over 20 years.

What makes me :mad: is when someone says marriage and living together aren't equivalent they are told that of course they are but you yourself has said that it isn't always the same.

Of course you were engaged as soon as you decided to marry, even if you never used those words. What else does being engaged mean?

I have never judged you or said I'm better than you.

Gloomendoom wrote: »

This post would seem to confirm that living together doesn't always demonstrate the same commitment as being married.

Which is the point TQ is trying to make. I think.

That's exactly what I've been saying all along.

Torry_Quine

BarryBlue wrote: »

Difficult to know what her point is. There has been a shift in position since #89 & #91 where the implication was that living together was never the same as marriage. Not the first time when trying to backtrack.;)




I have seen this on a few occasions with people I know. They were known as "starter marriages" where a couple would have the big wedding almost on a whim, realise it wasn't for them, then divorce before any kids arrived. It's amazing how many people seem to have been married before their current relationship.

My position hasn't changed and I went back to read those posts to check.

onlyroz

Torry_Quine wrote: »

What makes me :mad: is when someone says marriage and living together aren't equivalent they are told that of course they are but you yourself has said that it isn't always the same.

It is simply that a couple living together can be just as committed as a married couple. I don't think anybody has said that the two are always equivalent.

My own opinion is that marriage provides the simplest and best legal framework for a committed couple to be in - but I appreciate that it is not something that every couple wishes to do.

Happier_Me

We got engaged 7 months after we met at the ages of 21 and 20 so young I suppose by today's standards. Bought our first house together when we were both 24 and got married at 26. I wanted marriage before children and so did DH.

I wouldn't change anything. It's worked for us and we are still very much together (19 years). Being engaged/married had no bearing on whether we lived together beforehand and parents did not influence our decisions.

Brighton_belle

penguingirl wrote: »

I don't want to be engaged (might get married one day, but don't see the point of the inbetween bit).

Being engaged is the technical term for the bit between deciding to get married and getting married - in our case, 10 weeks. It isn't really intended (IMO) to be some strung out length of time with some unspecified end and a status in its own right.


Something I can never understand is when a couple plan to 'get engaged' on 'x' date, not realising if they have therefore definitely decide to marry each other, they already are.

Gloomendoom

Brighton_belle wrote: »

Something I can never understand is when a couple plan to 'get engaged' on 'x' date, not realising if they have therefore definitely decide to marry each other, they already are.

They may not have decided to get married, just engaged. Like you just said, to some, being "engaged" has a status all of its own and has little or nothing to do with a promise to marry each other in the short or long term.

Brighton_belle

Gloomendoom wrote: »

They may not have decided to get married, just engaged. Like you just said, to some, being "engaged" has a status all of its own and has little or nothing to do with a promise to marry each other in the short or long term.

But that is nonsense isn't it? (And I agree that some couples do this) - the term 'engaged' means 'engaged to be married.

Gloomendoom

Brighton_belle wrote: »

But that is nonsense isn't it? (And I agree that some couples do this) - the term 'engaged' means 'engaged to be married.

I agree, but it's nothing new. I remember somebody my sister knew announcing that she and her boyfriend had decided to get engaged. When my sister asked about wedding plans, the response was along the lines of "Oh no, we're only getting engaged."

It became something of a standing joke whenever anybody announced an engagement.

Gloomendoom

Brighton_belle wrote: »

But that is nonsense isn't it? (And I agree that some couples do this) - the term 'engaged' means 'engaged to be married.

I suppose it could also be used do demonstrate that somebody is "taken". Like an occupied toilet cubical.