This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Not marrying for love....

Girls: what do you think of the idea, of marrying someone not for love, but for security and friendship and that could possibly develop into love? Perhaps someone who was a family friend and your didn't know them well but they were deemed a suitable match.

Reply 1

SketchyCanvas~

10

If you feel that it would lead to love, then maybe. I remeber someone telling me that when you meet someone for marriage, there has to be a 'seed' planted that will grow into love.
But i would marry for love/knowing that its definately leading to love.

Reply 2

coloursonthetv

1

Anonymous

for security and friendship

Surely that is actually friendship and friendship full stop! :wink:

Marriage is about wanting to be with someone and loving that person in my eyes. Not jsut marrying someone for security and feeling better about yourself.

It's not just something you decide to do one day. It's an important decision.

Reply 3

bunthulhu

14

If I want security and friendship I'll get a friend.

If I want a husband I'll get someone who I've been in love with and in a committed relationship with for a long time beforehand.

:smile:

:dito:

I want to marry my best male friend, i know i could love him for the rest of my life and be happy

Reply 6

lukeitfc

I'm not a girl, but I'm gonna marry for love, albeit love of money.

Seriously, you've just gotta think about the other person, tell them that you don't love them, yet, otherwise, it really isn't fair.

Reply 7

allymcb2

8

Anonymous

Girls: what do you think of the idea, of marrying someone not for love, but for security and friendship and that could possibly develop into love? Perhaps someone who was a family friend and your didn't know them well but they were deemed a suitable match.

Utterly repulsive.

Security and friendship is necessary but not sufficient for marriage.

Reply 8

allymcb2

8

lukeitfc

I'm not a girl, but I'm gonna marry for love, albeit love of money.

Seriously, you've just gotta think about the other person, tell them that you don't love them, yet, otherwise, it really isn't fair.

seconded

Reply 9

Kezalou

^^ totally agree :smile:

Gotta be love for me!

Anonymous

Girls: what do you think of the idea, of marrying someone not for love, but for security and friendship and that could possibly develop into love? Perhaps someone who was a family friend and your didn't know them well but they were deemed a suitable match.

hold up, are we talking an arranged marriage here?

Apparently they can work but i'd be cautious if i were you

Reply 10

puppy

I see no problem with it. Love matches are no more likely to be successful and result in happiness than arranged matches.

Reply 11

generalebriety

16

Anonymous

Girls: what do you think of the idea, of marrying someone not for love, but for security and friendship and that could possibly develop into love? Perhaps someone who was a family friend and your didn't know them well but they were deemed a suitable match.

This is all a bit too, you know, subjunctive to pass for a "till death do us part" kind of thing for me. But whatever works for you. :rolleyes:

Reply 12

Anonymous #2

my very strange but good friend who i live with for a year [im female he's male] asked me this, not to marry him, but why wouldn't i?
he seemed not to register the need for love in the relationship, just general attraction, also like intelligence etc.

If like him, you don't need love, never contemplated it or wanted it, and he feels the same, then maybe it would work. But i couldn't, just dont box yourself into somthing where you want more from the beginning. never lie to yourself. This is the rest of YOUR life remember

and yeah, whoever said above, this sounds like a bit of an arranged marriage, which then would ential different factors to consider...

Reply 13

paintedblind

1

I couldn't do it.

I know that marriages for security and friendship, including arranged marriages, are often more successful than (and just as happy as) marrying for love. But I want to have the freedom to marry for love (if I ever do marry), even though that will entail making mistakes and learning from them. I don't want to assume that a marriage for friendship could lead to love; I'd prefer to fall in love with someone because they were right for me, rather than because I spent a lot of time with them.

Reply 14

Dez

20

They say the only thing a marriage needs is determination. From both sides, mind. If you think security and friendship will provide enough determination, then it'll work. Otherwise, well, you'd better find a decent divorce attourney.

Reply 15

allymcb2

8

puppy

I see no problem with it. Love matches are no more likely to be successful and result in happiness than arranged matches.

The point of marriage is not to 'succeed' or be happy it is a demonstration to a person you love completely and all your friends and family that you do love them completely. It is not your friegin career. You don't succeed or fail at it. Arranged marriages erode the meaning of the marriage and the lack of freedom to make your own choice is utterly disgusting. How can it mean anything to you that someone's mother considers you an 'acceptable match', probably for reasons that have more to do with the people you happen to be related to than you.

Reply 16

Tyler Durden

17

allymcb2

Utterly repulsive.

Security and friendship is necessary but not sufficient for marriage.

Repulsive? Do you not think that is a slightly strong word to use given the intangible nature of "love"? I think mutual respect and friendship are ultimately what makes marriages work. The reason 50% of marriages end in divorce probably has something to do with the fact that people confuse love with excitement; after 50 years of being with someone: watching them in illness, hearing them nag now and then and generally becoming totally accustomed to them, it is hard still to have the "spark". So what is left after the warm fuzzy feeling? Well, call it love or call it deep friendship but it's certainly not repulsive to look for security, friendship and companionship.

Having said all that, the only person I've ever felt I could live with and spend my life with was someone with whom I was very much in love (but did also care about deeply as a friend).

Reply 17

allymcb2

8

englishstudent

Repulsive? Do you not think that is a slightly strong word to use given the intangible nature of "love"? I think mutual respect and friendship are ultimately what makes marriages work. The reason 50% of marriages end in divorce probably has something to do with the fact that people confuse love with excitement; after 50 years of being with someone: watching them in illness, hearing them nag now and then and generally becoming totally accustomed to them, it is hard still to have the "spark". So what is left after the warm fuzzy feeling? Well, call it love or call it deep friendship but it's certainly not repulsive to look for security, friendship and companionship.

Having said all that, the only person I've ever felt I could live with and spend my life with was someone with whom I was very much in love (but did also care about deeply as a friend).

As I said friendship is a necessary but not sufficient part of a marriage, and of love itself. There is no need to go into the intangible nature of love. The OP clearly stated a marriage in the absence of love. So, no, I think repulsive is appropriate. Yes, some people do marry for lust, or the thrill of courtship but then that isnt a love marriage either its a lust marriage.

You can have security, friendship, and companionship from your friends. You don't have to and shouldn't marry them.

Reply 18

Fleece

15

Sure I want friendship and I want security in my husband, but I also want to be earthshatteringly in love with each other too.

Reply 19

Peter_The_Great

4

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife...

Not marrying for love....

Related discussions

Articles for you