Marriage: All you need is love.

[TheDeepestDepths]

I am ruthlessly practical when it comes to everything in life and that includes marriage. So maybe I'm biased but I think it's more than a little naive to marry only for love. Feelings fade. Is it a dreadful thing that I will only date and, more importantly, marry someone who has a lucrative job, a negative blood type and will preferably inherit land? I'm not at all trying to say that I'm a gold digger who'll only marry for money, I won't marry someone unless there's love and affection between the two of us. But there are certain things I want in my life and I want an easy life. I know I won't be happy in the future unless I have kids and the ability to give them their greatest chance: which means money. And I want them growing up in the countryside with fresh air and space: which means land.

So what do you think? Is love all you need to make a marriage work? Or would you evaluate more than just your feelings before committing?

[teen.jpg]

That's a bit materialistic, don't you think?

[Tarannosaurus]

I'm going to be soppy and say yes, all you need is love <3 :P I think if people truly, truly loved each other they would find a way to make it work.

[britishboy]

no money is important, but what your suggesting is rude and snobby

[Sugaree]

no money is important, but what your suggesting is rude and snobby

Ain't that the pot calling the kettle black :rolleyes:

[TheDeepestDepths]

That's a bit materialistic, don't you think?

I suppose it is from a certain point of view. I guess I didn't phrase it very well. I want marriage and love and happily ever after (who doesn't?) but there are other things I want in my life and I know I won't be happy without them, several children, for example.

I suppose what I wanted to debate was: is it wrong to choose your life partner based on more than just your feelings? Should I marry someone I love but who is not able to make me happy? Wanting an easy life is not a crime and it would be difficult to have more than one child with a man with a positive blood type as I'm negative. Not just difficult but potentially dangerous.

no money is important, but what your suggesting is rude and snobby

How's it rude? Snobby I can understand, if you want to get personally offensive. I made a point of saying that I wouldn't marry for money, but what's wrong with not marrying someone who will give you a more difficult life?

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Love and money can end it occasionally. But love is the main thing that keeps relationships together.

[Cygnus]

I'm not at all trying to say that I'm a gold digger who'll only marry for money

You are making yourself seem exactly like that, feelings not always fade, my parents married having virtually nothing and now they have more money than they imagined, you can marry someone and build from there on, love is the only thing there should be required in a marriage.

[TheBigUnit]

well in pyschology we heard that women generally prefer guys with money cuz they could take care of them, and guys went in after the young hot girls so its not really "love" but yeah

[Jess]

I agree. Love is all you need.

[conniption]

Woah, you seem to have pissed off a couple of people. But, yes, I know what you mean. Of course love is a key ingredient in marriage or any relationship, but it's not wrong to want to be with someone who has their shit together. Okay, let's say I fall in love with a guy who's unemployed and still lives at home. I'll try my best to get him a job and support him financially and emotionally, but if he's not willing to change his situation then that's where I'm gonna draw the line. I don't want to start a family and be the only one pulling the weight. People need to be realistic, because as much as it sucks, love isn't everything and it definitely does not conquer all.

[LouBerry]

Love isn't all you need. Marriage takes a lot more than just love. It does take money. And responsibility. And loyalty. Marriage takes trust, honesty, hard work.

Just love doesn't always work.

But, if you mean should you just marry someone for the material perks vs. love, then no, don't do that.

[James Bond]

I understand. I mean, if I were your husband, I would be a bit worried that you would leave me if I lost all my money.

But you just wanna make sure you have a good future of no financial worry. You wanna make sure that your family will be worry free (financially speaking) and that your kids will be able to attend college.

If you stick with your husband through thick and thin, then there's nothing wrong with you. But if you marry your husband who's wealthy or financially stable, but then suddenly loses his money, if you decide to leave him, then I disagree with you.

Does that make sense? It was sorta hard to explain.

My friends family lost all their fortune, they were worth an estimated $15 million, and suddenly lost it all, (now they're probably worth $1-2 million) but throughout that whole thing, the mother, the wife, stuck through it all. I respect her so much. Because she married him while he was on top and very wealthy, and she still stayed married to him when they lost it all. That's pretty rare now a days. She in a way came from wealth, I estimate her family is maybe worth $3-7 million. But that's an estimate. But still, they all struggled through it, and are slowly climbing to the top (in fact, they just told me that they're getting a new Ferrari at the beginning of the year, so I'm pretty excited for them. FYI I'm very close with them, so they trust me unusually, they're family friends of my family).

[Stronk Serb]

Marriage is about love, loyalty, sharing and responsibility, not about money.

[TheDeepestDepths]

Woah, you seem to have pissed off a couple of people. But, yes, I know what you mean. Of course love is a key ingredient in marriage or any relationship, but it's not wrong to want to be with someone who has their shit together. Okay, let's say I fall in love with a guy who's unemployed and still lives at home. I'll try my best to get him a job and support him financially and emotionally, but if he's not willing to change his situation then that's where I'm gonna draw the line. I don't want to start a family and be the only one pulling the weight. People need to be realistic, because as much as it sucks, love isn't everything and it definitely does not conquer all.

Love isn't all you need. Marriage takes a lot more than just love. It does take money. And responsibility. And loyalty. Marriage takes trust, honesty, hard work.

Just love doesn't always work.

But, if you mean should you just marry someone for the material perks vs. love, then no, don't do that.

I understand. I mean, if I were your husband, I would be a bit worried that you would leave me if I lost all my money.

But you just wanna make sure you have a good future of no financial worry. You wanna make sure that your family will be worry free (financially speaking) and that your kids will be able to attend college.

If you stick with your husband through thick and thin, then there's nothing wrong with you. But if you marry your husband who's wealthy or financially stable, but then suddenly loses his money, if you decide to leave him, then I disagree with you.

Does that make sense? It was sorta hard to explain.

My friends family lost all their fortune, they were worth an estimated $15 million, and suddenly lost it all, (now they're probably worth $1-2 million) but throughout that whole thing, the mother, the wife, stuck through it all. I respect her so much. Because she married him while he was on top and very wealthy, and she still stayed married to him when they lost it all. That's pretty rare now a days. She in a way came from wealth, I estimate her family is maybe worth $3-7 million. But that's an estimate. But still, they all struggled through it, and are slowly climbing to the top (in fact, they just told me that they're getting a new Ferrari at the beginning of the year, so I'm pretty excited for them. FYI I'm very close with them, so they trust me unusually, they're family friends of my family).

Yes, this is what I'm talking about. I don't believe that all you need is love. Love isn't all I need, even if it's enough for other people. But at the same time I wouldn't marry into a loveless marriage and if I got married it would be for life 'through sickness and in health' and all that. I suppose what I want to debate is: is it such a bad thing to marry for both? I want to be able to look after myself and my children. I want to be a stay at home mother and to do that to the best of my ability money is necessary. My husband is going to have to have a lucrative job if my children are to have the best life possible. It wasn't my intention to offend anyone.

[EddietheZombie]

Am i no the only one that read the title and thought of Beatles lyrics?

As far as your post, i dont really know how to answer it. Its sort of a loaded question. You say only love is important, but you cant live off love. You say only the things are important, but you have no happiness with the person your with. I think a little of both is good. Personally i like someone that will love me and has some skills and stuff so if im hurt and cant work, or get laid off, then they can help with the bills.

[Jean Poutine]

The way I see it, both parties in a contract such as marriage have to be of a perfectly equal nature, with no "gimme gimme" underlining it. I think of it as barter, like in any contract. Why would I sign on something that is not advantageous to me in the end?

You want to marry a guy who has money and will preferably inherit land? Sure, as long as you bring the exact same thing to the table. If I had money and land, you better have money and land of your own, and you better be sure that there'll be a pre-nuptial contract stipulating that if we divorce, we each get what we brought in, with goods obtained during the marriage sold and split according to each other's contribution (if I buy the house, I get all the money from it - if you buy the furniture, you get all the money for it). None of that gold digging crap where the woman divorces at the first hardship to get half my shit.

A lot of people here have that requirement when it comes to companionship. They write it as "equivalent T4 (your income tax file in Canada)". That way, nobody feels used and the marriage contract stays fair.

That being said, obviously the first requirement is to love the other person. However, marriage is pretty much a business relationship where the co-owners fuck each other, and its not wrong per se to look at it from this angle as long as it's not the reason. That's why there are such things as pre-nuptial contracts. Marriage has historically been linked with money and business (dowries, groom price, etc).

[conniption]

Yes, this is what I'm talking about. I don't believe that all you need is love. Love isn't all I need, even if it's enough for other people. But at the same time I wouldn't marry into a loveless marriage and if I got married it would be for life 'through sickness and in health' and all that. I suppose what I want to debate is: is it such a bad thing to marry for both? I want to be able to look after myself and my children. I want to be a stay at home mother and to do that to the best of my ability money is necessary. My husband is going to have to have a lucrative job if my children are to have the best life possible. It wasn't my intention to offend anyone.

I don't know why it'd be wrong to want to marry someone who you not only love, but is also financially stable.

[Human]

The way I see it, both parties in a contract such as marriage have to be of a perfectly equal nature, with no "gimme gimme" underlining it. I think of it as barter, like in any contract. Why would I sign on something that is not advantageous to me in the end?

You want to marry a guy who has money and will preferably inherit land? Sure, as long as you bring the exact same thing to the table. If I had money and land, you better have money and land of your own, and you better be sure that there'll be a pre-nuptial contract stipulating that if we divorce, we each get what we brought in, with goods obtained during the marriage sold and split according to each other's contribution (if I buy the house, I get all the money from it - if you buy the furniture, you get all the money for it). None of that gold digging crap where the woman divorces at the first hardship to get half my shit.

A lot of people here have that requirement when it comes to companionship. They write it as "equivalent T4 (your income tax file in Canada)". That way, nobody feels used and the marriage contract stays fair.

That being said, obviously the first requirement is to love the other person. However, marriage is pretty much a business relationship where the co-owners fuck each other, and its not wrong per se to look at it from this angle as long as it's not the reason. That's why there are such things as pre-nuptial contracts. Marriage has historically been linked with money and business (dowries, groom price, etc).


I agree with you completely. I think it's important that both parties are stable financially and in all ways because if you want to raise a family and live a nice life together, you're going to want to have a bit of money.

Love is definitely the main part, but money and material possessions always come in to play

[1_21Guns]

There's nothing wrong with wanting a stable life, and I do somewhat agree that sometimes love just isn't enough, but it most cases it is, for a long time I didn't believe in marriage because I didn't need a piece of paper and a massive day to prove I loved someone, while I'm becoming more open to the idea of marriage, I remain sceptical about it.
A marriage, or even relationship without financial stability will struggle, the material things are nice, but not entirely necessary.

[Luminous]

I think as long as you really love someone, you can make it work. My parents got married because they really loved each other- even with each other's negative sides. My mom can be very defensive and controlling, my dad is the laziest man on earth and extremely defensive about his religion. They hate each other for these things but because they love each other they have been happily married for 15(?) years.

[Brice]

You have to have the emotional bond to make it work. Sure, money is a factor in the relationship of couples, but you have to have an emotional bond. If you truly love someone, those feelings won't fade. If you're not emotionally involved as to call it love, than there's no reason to get married. Marriage is about love, money is just something that can affect it. And you can't control you're emotions, so what if you fall for some poor person with little money or inheritance? Are you going to dump them? Because not only will you be hurting yourself but you'll be breaking their heart and when you finally figure it out, they'll have begun to hate or dislike you because of your decision. So I think that if that's your way of thinking, than you better know they have money before you fall for them. Although, to be totally honest, no offense, bit I do think it sounds a little shallow. Sorry. But there are people like you with your opinions on marriage, so you're not alone. Everyone's got faults. Again, no offense. I really am sorry, but I'm nothing, if not honest.

[conniption]

You have to have the emotional bond to make it work. Sure, money is a factor in the relationship of couples, but you have to have an emotional bond. If you truly love someone, those feelings won't fade. If you're not emotionally involved as to call it love, than there's no reason to get married. Marriage is about love, money is just something that can affect it. And you can't control you're emotions, so what if you fall for some poor person with little money or inheritance? Are you going to dump them? Because not only will you be hurting yourself but you'll be breaking their heart and when you finally figure it out, they'll have begun to hate or dislike you because of your decision. So I think that if that's your way of thinking, than you better know they have money before you fall for them. Although, to be totally honest, no offense, bit I do think it sounds a little shallow. Sorry. But there are people like you with your opinions on marriage, so you're not alone. Everyone's got faults. Again, no offense. I really am sorry, but I'm nothing, if not honest.

How is wanting to marry someone who has a stable life shallow? It's not about having money, it's about wanting someone who has their crap together. I'm sure the OP doesn't want someone who shits bricks of gold and has lunch with the president, just someone who has a steady job and decent income. You can certainly fall in love with someone who doesn't have much money and try to help them, but what if they're poor for a reason? What if they're lazy? What if they're dealing drugs? What if their financial burden starts to negatively affect you?
When the other person's financial situation starts to affect you to the point where you can't even live your life properly, then you do have to let to of them. You can preach that love is all you need, but I won't believe it until love starts paying the mortgage.

[Rina]

I think it's naive thinking to believe that all you need for a marriage to work is love. If love makes a marriage so set in stone, how come their are divorces? And in a lot of the divorces, they still love each other, but that wasn't enough.

You need stability (that includes financial), responsibility, and commitment. You need to think about your potential future with kids, your finances (who will pay what? how would you save?) Plus, if you're thinking about a ceremony instead of eloping, that's another financial problem, can you afford the wedding? An as the person above me said, someones financial situation can affect you negatively. You both need to have your life even somewhat together to go into marriage.

Before getting married, you also need to know about yourself. Are you easy to get along with? Can you make a combined living arrangement work?

All these thing have nothing to do with love.

[Left Now]

At first,a person needs to be independent;If he is a man,he has to know if he is able to earn money on his own and without asking help from others.Love is important,but it is not enough alone.

Also,when two people have more similarities with each others,then their marriage has more chances to be successful.

[Brice]

I said nothing about a wanting someone with a stable life being shallow. I implied nothing like that. Please do not put words in my mouth. Wanting to marry someone because they have money or land is shallow. You should know about their situation before you even choose to marry them or even date them. So no, that whole drug thing or being lazy has nothing to do with it. You're supposed to know someone before you date them. Be their friend. And I believe that people get divorced because they never really loved each other. Getting a divorce because of anything other than love is giving up and its weak. I totally get what you're saying. Its very logical. But my beliefs are what they are and love is love no matter how much money you have or what your beliefs are and if they really loved you, they'd get their act cleaned up. And if you really loved them, then nothing else matters. That's just my belief though, so that's about all I have to say. Its not bad to want money, but love and passion should come before anything else in a marriage because without it, it won't last no matter what you do.

[TheDeepestDepths]

I said nothing about a wanting someone with a stable life being shallow. I implied nothing like that. Please do not put words in my mouth. Wanting to marry someone because they have money or land is shallow. You should know about their situation before you even choose to marry them or even date them. So no, that whole drug thing or being lazy has nothing to do with it. You're supposed to know someone before you date them. Be their friend. And I believe that people get divorced because they never really loved each other. Getting a divorce because of anything other than love is giving up and its weak. I totally get what you're saying. Its very logical. But my beliefs are what they are and love is love no matter how much money you have or what your beliefs are and if they really loved you, they'd get their act cleaned up. And if you really loved them, then nothing else matters. That's just my belief though, so that's about all I have to say. Its not bad to want money, but love and passion should come before anything else in a marriage because without it, it won't last no matter what you do.

How is wanting to marry someone who has a stable life shallow? It's not about having money, it's about wanting someone who has their crap together. I'm sure the OP doesn't want someone who shits bricks of gold and has lunch with the president, just someone who has a steady job and decent income. You can certainly fall in love with someone who doesn't have much money and try to help them, but what if they're poor for a reason? What if they're lazy? What if they're dealing drugs? What if their financial burden starts to negatively affect you?
When the other person's financial situation starts to affect you to the point where you can't even live your life properly, then you do have to let to of them. You can preach that love is all you need, but I won't believe it until love starts paying the mortgage.

You phrased this so much better than I did. I phrased the original post terribly, it seems. It's just that, personally, I view marriage as a business transaction as well as something you do to express your love. I tried to make it obvious that I wouldn't marry someone unless I loved them. At the same time though, I wanted to debate whether it's such a terrible thing to refuse to marry into a difficult life. Or to marry someone who is unable to provide things for me that I will not be happy without.

You can love someone but at the same time want different things to them. Is it terrible to breakup with someone if they don't want children? We may love each other to the end of the world but I can't be expected to not have them, and I can't expect him to have them if he doesn't want to. Also, I believe it's not right to have a child unless you, yourself, want it. You can't have children because your wife will leave you otherwise, it's not fair on the child.

[britishboy]

its rude to talk about money and its unlikely the person marrying for money will have some themself

[TheDeepestDepths]

its rude to talk about money and its unlikely the person marrying for money will have some themself

Do you mean it's rude to talk money on the site or when your discussing your future with someone? Because I disagree with you on both. It's not like people are being asked how much they have in their bank accounts, we're discussing how important a factor money is in your decision to marry someone or not. Completely different. As to if you were saying it's rude to talk with your partner about money if you're thinking of marrying them, then that's ridiculous.

So? As long as both people understand the others position and they know the reason they are both getting married, what does it matter if one is richer than the other?

[britishboy]

Do you mean it's rude to talk money on the site or when your discussing your future with someone? Because I disagree with you on both. It's not like people are being asked how much they have in their bank accounts, we're discussing how important a factor money is in your decision to marry someone or not. Completely different. As to if you were saying it's rude to talk with your partner about money if you're thinking of marrying them, then that's ridiculous.

So? As long as both people understand the others position and they know the reason they are both getting married, what does it matter if one is richer than the other?

your coming across a bit despite, its girls like you that really annoy me, hunting down rich men just for their wealth no offence anyway, you should marry for love