# Marriage vs. Living together first



## Babygirly (Dec 2, 2004)

Preference of engagement / marriage, or living together first?

State your preference, why, and your gender


----------



## scairy (Sep 18, 2005)

Babygirly said:


> Preference of engagement / marriage, or living together first?
> 
> State your preference, why, and your gender


I know I hold a minority view in present day america but 
engagement/ marriage. Male. My thought process is if I'm willing to move in with this person things are serious to the point of making it a permanent thing. Also I don't want to create a thought process in the relationship that if we have differences in how we live we can just cut and run. In my opinion you have to go into a relationship realizing that you aren't twins and therefore will have your differences. Once this is realized communication and flexibility will allow the relationship to hold strong through much adversity that will arise eventually even if you do move in together and have no problems with each other. 
I'm also against prenuptial agreements because you are setting yourself up to fail. You are saying that there is a chance that the marriage will fail. Why leave it up to chance? Your marriage is in your own hands. Divorce is out of the question for me and marriage is something I refuse to fail at.

But to discount my credibility I have no experience in a relationship and probably never will.

Great question.


----------



## Lonelyguy (Nov 8, 2003)

Given my lack of dating experience I would much rather live together first rather than jump right into marriage. If I were to get married I would obviously want it to last, so I would like to live with the person for awhile first to eliminate any doubts as to whether or not I would want to spend the rest of my life with her. I think being tossed into marriage without experiencing living together, sharing expenses, ect. first would be a recipie for disaster in my case.


----------



## Amande (Feb 5, 2005)

Female, Living together first. I don't want/need marriage.


----------



## Argo (May 1, 2005)

Male, living together first; I think it's foolish to commit your life to one another based only on half-knowledge. Dates only offer part of the picture, and not even the main one during marriage.


----------



## Drella (Dec 4, 2004)

Live together, because I never want to marry. I'm female.


----------



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

Live together first so you get to know them better, im male.


----------



## umbrellagirl1980 (Dec 28, 2005)

living together first. i also think being engaged first and then living together is fine, as long as some period of living together occurs before the actual marriage. it's really hard to know what life is going to be like with someone until you have lived with them and been together everyday. and that's what being married will be, togetherness every single day. i can't imagine not testing out that dynamic before making such a big committment. i'm a girl.


----------



## Bon (Dec 24, 2005)

Marriage, if I did not have to live with them! Not kidding "Bon, do you want to get married" without thinking I said "would I have to live with you"........I've been down that route, it's just not for me, I like my lifestyle too much to compromise. I like my private time, I don't have to account to anyone, if I was married, or living with someone, I would have too.

Having said that, I think you should know the person before you live with them, not as a way to get to know a person. I personally feel, that living together IS a committment, not a try on. 

I watched my brothers last relationship unfold, he was living with a women, they bought a house, he helped with her kids, they called him daddy, they were pretty solid, they just split up, I've been married, however, seeing my bros last relationship, summed it up for me, marriage is no guarantee that a relationship will work, today, relationships seem to be throw away at best.


----------



## Inturmal (Jan 15, 2006)

Live together. because engagement/marriage isn't even important to begin with. and I would be perfectly content with never getting married, just as long as I was in love with someone.

Male.


----------



## archaic (Jan 16, 2006)

Amozza said:


> Female, Living together first. I don't want/need marriage.


Right on!

I know people who live together before marriage have a higher tendency to divorce (I've heard it's because you start out "playing house" and then get stuck in roles that you didn't really want, but I could see that easily happening in marriage too), but I wouldn't want to marry someone without knowing how they live.


----------



## ColdFury (Nov 6, 2003)

Definitely live together first


----------



## Whimsy (Mar 16, 2006)

Engagement first then marriage. But I won't live with someone until i'm married...I'm old fashioned and my parents would kill me.


----------



## leppardess (Nov 8, 2003)

> I think you should know the person before you live with them, not as a way to get to know a person. I personally feel, that living together IS a committment, not a try on.


I totally agree.


----------



## Amelia (Nov 24, 2003)

Marriage. I would want a strong lifelong ally who would match the effort and commitment I would be prepared to put into the relationship. I could feel confident about this only if he was prepared to sign the treaty.

I see cohabitation like this: for women it involves exactly the same risks and commitments as a marriage (e.g. pregnancy, potential loss of earnings), but without any financial safety net (if things break down); for men it involves exactly the same benefits as a marriage (e.g. a wife in all but name), but without the financial commitments (e.g. towards ex-wife or kids).



realspark said:


> I think you should know the person before you live with them, not as a way to get to know a person. I personally feel, that living together IS a committment, not a try on.


 Sure. But, with cohabitation, you can only really be sure of your _own_ level of commitment, can't you? You've just to take your partner's word for it that he is equally committed to you and it's not a try on for him. How much effort can he be expected to invest in the relationship, if he goes into it thinking it's a test drive?



realspark said:


> Marriage, if I did not have to live with them!


 :lol I've heard that Jackie Stallone's husband, who is a brain surgeon, lives 10 miles away from her and only visits her on the weekend ...


----------



## Qolselanu (Feb 15, 2006)

Male: No idea

My senior high school religion class and teacher taught that cohabitation was a poor precedent before marriage. (Oh, this is a Christian school, teacher, and class that I'm talking about here.) Of course, I went through all my religion classes in high school with a grain of salt.

I really don't know what to think. I've never really thought about it.


----------



## skigirl81 (Nov 12, 2004)

Female. Definitely for living together first. 

It is a way to truly get to know a person before you commit your entire life to them. I had a b/f right out of highschool who I really thought I adored...

WELL.. we ended up living together and it was a complete nightmare!! I discovered that he was a pathalogical liar with money problems. I would give him my half of the rent.. and he wouldn't give it to the landlord. He would lie about where he was/what he was doing and he ended up cheating on me. Thank God!! (funny how I think that now.. he he) We actually ended up getting evicted. This probably influenced my opinion on the living together thing, but I couldn't imagine if I ignorantly married that fool!!!

Not only would I have bad credit, be completly miserable and hate myself for marrying that idiot... I would be tied to him legally and by God! Puke puke puke.... He is disgusting and it took living together to realize it. 

Do yourself a favor... live with 'em first. Its much easier than getting married and then figuring out you are stuck in a life of hell. 

Just my personal opnion.


----------



## Laura (Nov 12, 2003)

...


----------



## scairy (Sep 18, 2005)

Amelia said:


> Marriage. I would want a strong lifelong ally who would match the effort and commitment I would be prepared to put into the relationship. I could feel confident about this only if he was prepared to sign the treaty.
> 
> I see cohabitation like this: for women it involves exactly the same risks and commitments as a marriage (e.g. pregnancy, potential loss of earnings), but without any financial safety net (if things break down); for men it involves exactly the same benefits as a marriage (e.g. a wife in all but name), but without the financial commitments (e.g. towards ex-wife or kids).
> 
> ...


Someone that agrees with me. I agree with the commitment thing you said above. If someone is going to cheat they can still do it behind your back even if you are living together; afterall this happens with married couples. Someone can also go from being honest to deceitful overtime.


----------



## scairy (Sep 18, 2005)

For all those that said live together give detailed info on why it is important to live together besides the vague term getting to know each other. 

Realize that a relationship isn't a static thing. Life changes overtime that's part of the reason why commitment is a challenge. If you cut and run when things get tough or change then really there was no commitment to begin with. 

All that being said I do respect the fact that you realize you aren't 100% ready to fully commit and therefore want to wait on marriage.


----------



## Zephyr (Nov 8, 2003)

I wouldn't want to do either of those. I'm male apparently, for what it's worth.


----------



## free thinker (Nov 11, 2003)

I wouldn't have to live with someone first to get to know them well. If you spend a lot of time over at the person's residence you can get a very good idea of who that person is, including discovering their bad habits. In the past, I've lived with someone for a few months but I've also been in relationships where I was spending a lot of time over at the woman's place. I actually preferred the latter, probably because I enjoyed having the freedom and time apart, but that may have been because none of these women were compatible enough to become a life partner for me.


----------



## Catarina (May 3, 2006)

Amozza said:


> Female, Living together first. I don't want/need marriage.


Yes, that's how I feel.


----------



## clenched_fist (Jan 4, 2004)

_Live together first, then marriage....I'm female._


----------



## jerseylemon (May 24, 2006)

Female ~ Live together first. I need to know what I'm getting into before purchasing the whole package.


----------



## ott (Aug 2, 2005)

Live together. I don't have to be married to be committed.


----------



## ShyViolet (Nov 11, 2003)

Marriage. I'm female. If I'm serious enough about a guy to want to live with him, I want to be married. 

I think if someone feels it's important to take a "test drive", they could always stay at their SO's place for a few consecutive days here and there, and see how that works out.


----------



## Bon (Dec 24, 2005)

Amelia said:


> Sure. But, with cohabitation, you can only really be sure of your _own_ level of commitment, can't you? You've just to take your partner's word for it that he is equally committed to you and it's not a try on for him. How much effort can he be expected to invest in the relationship, if he goes into it thinking it's a test drive?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, you only know your own level of committment, this is true, but I also believe actions speak louder than words. 
I'm colored on what living together means, for me, it would be an extremely committed relationship, Love, trust, you name it. I've heard men say 'But I wasn't married to her then, I was just living with her" (seeing other people, flirting, what have you) hello "Just living with her", makes no sense to me, if you Love someone, you don't want to hurt them. (I'm sure women have said this as well) It just doesn't set right with me, I mean, I guess I don't understand what living together means for a lot of the world.

Three cheers for Jackie Stallone;-) I'm serious, I don't know if it's because I'm now older, I don't know if it's because I'm cynical, more than likely it's because I haven't found anyone worth investing any time in, time, equals my compromise, nope, the remote is in my hands, my money is my money, I report to no one, no arguments, I haven't dusted in three days and no one has commented on it;-)))


----------



## free thinker (Nov 11, 2003)

realspark said:


> I haven't dusted in three days and no one has commented on it;-)))


Did you run out of Pledge or what? :b jk

Actually three days isn't bad at all. I can't dust more than once every three weeks. Of course, I'm male, and how many males dust.


----------



## ate16am (Dec 23, 2005)

Female. Live together first.

My husband and I were long distance for 2 years, lived together for 2 years, engaged for 16 months and have now been married for 14 months. I don't think there's any disadvantage to living together first, but the "right thing to do" can be different for everyone.


----------



## GraceLikeRain (Nov 9, 2003)

ShyViolet said:


> Marriage. I'm female. If I'm serious enough about a guy to want to live with him, I want to be married.


 :ditto


----------



## LoveThySelf (May 19, 2006)

Ive done both, and I recommend marriage first over living together first. You are under way more pressure to anally split bills and other things that arent so much of an issue after marriage (joint money). Also there is much more likelyhood of just walking away from large conflict if you are not married.


----------



## whiteclouds (Mar 18, 2004)

Female. Marriage first. I'm old fashioned. 

When you live together without marriage, you are basically telling the man, "Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?"


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

Marriage. Plain and simple.
I ain't livin' with her until she's got my ring on her finger!


----------



## Amelia (Nov 24, 2003)

realspark said:


> I'm colored on what living together means, for me, it would be an extremely committed relationship, Love, trust, you name it.


Same here. My attitude would be the same as I'd take towards marriage, which probably would make me a sucker if I agreed to just live with someone.


> I guess I don't understand what living together means for a lot of the world.


Neither do I. As you say, actions speak louder than words. My question would be: if they want to live with me and be a true ally, why don't they want to sign the treaty and get married?

Although I fully realize that many cohabiting couples are at least as committed to each other as many married couples, it seems to me that one of the main reasons for living together and not marrying is that you can choose to do so because you're _not_ fully committing yourself to the other person. I'm not talking about fidelity here, which I would consider to be a given, whether the couple is married or not. What I mean is: you're not thinking of the other person as a partner for life and are therefore not really sharing yourself fully with the other person indefinitely, putting the other person first, 'till death us do part, getting through the hard times, etc., but holding back, retaining your independence and separateness (emotionally/financially, etc.) just for as long as you feel like it or until someone better comes along.

If you go into the relationship with a "testing the water" attitude, I don't see how you're suddenly going to wake up one morning completely committed to the other person and wanting to live with them forever. Why bother even living together... it would surely be less painful all round just to live separately and continue dating. :stu


----------



## Bon (Dec 24, 2005)

Very well said Amelia.


----------



## SAgirl (Nov 15, 2003)

Live together first 

You can learn alot about a person by living with them. If they stand up to your standard of cleanliness (do dishes, clean the tub, clean the toilet, if they do laundry) If they play video games, watch tv, or are on the Internet all day. You probably want someone with a balance.

Most prefer a balance between someone who works, goes outside to play as a couple and watches movies, but is not online all the time.


----------



## Futures (Aug 27, 2005)

SAgirl said:


> Most prefer a balance between someone who works, goes outside to play as a couple and watches movies, *but is not online all the time.*


Im screwed then :fall

As of right now, I'm not a big fan of the idea of getting married. But if I did, I think I'd want to live with them first.

But I love my privacy and alone time. I don't know if I could handle having someong "in my hair" all the time.

I guess I need a serious GF to really know my true feeling on all of this


----------



## ColdFury (Nov 6, 2003)

> but is not online all the time.


Ooops, too bad.


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

whiteclouds said:


> Female. Marriage first. I'm old fashioned.
> 
> When you live together without marriage, you are basically telling the man, "Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?"


Err....That would be true of friends with benefits, but a lot of time and effort goes into relationship especially if their living together. Unless you're assuming it's a ***** house or something then your milk metaphor would work.

My opinion is that with the high divorce rate it is wise to live together first. People get married too quickly. I'd rather test drive first when it's easier to leave rather than being stuck in an intolerable marriage while trying to get a divorce. I think this insecure attitude of thinking that a piece of paper will make the SO more faithful is ludicrous. If they won't stick around without the paper, what makes you think that person will be a good marriage partner? Pure fantasy.

Personally, I don't like the institution of marriage, but the tax benefits I keep hearing about might be worth it.


----------



## Paul (Sep 26, 2005)

whiteclouds said:


> When you live together without marriage, you are basically telling the man, "Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?"


You seem to be presuming that the woman is entering the relationship in a dependant, subservient position that sounds rather unhealthy. Why are you putting yourself up for sale in the first place? Why are you the cow?

What is it that you gain from marriage that he doesn't, that creates this need to encourage him? Perhaps the idea is that you gain his income which you need due to not having your own, which may have been reasonable 50 years ago but not so wise today. Of course when you're bought via marriage you're in an even more vulnerable position if you're relying on his money -- he can do whatever he wants to you and you can't get away because you can't survive on your own. I suspect that relationships where one person has the other at their mercy don't work out as happily on average.

Anyhow I'd probably prefer living togeather because I fear rapid commitments and would want to take every possible step to be sure I wasn't making a mistake before becoming legally bound.


----------



## cakesniffer (Nov 11, 2003)

Both options seem pretty far-fetched considering my situation, but I would choose living together first. I've been on the same schedule in the same place for all my life, I can't imagine getting married _and_ moving in together all at the same time. Talk about major stress and anxiety. If it's meant as a long term arrangement, then moving in first gets you into a routine and used to the idea of sharing your life with someone, just on the domestic level: bills, upkeep, etc. Then again, I'm just hypothesizing, what do I really know. :lol


----------



## Amelia (Nov 24, 2003)

Paul said:


> whiteclouds said:
> 
> 
> > When you live together without marriage, you are basically telling the man, "Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?"
> ...


I agree with whiteclouds. I don't think she's suggesting that, as a woman who would prefer marriage, she would be subservient or up for sale.

To prefer marriage rather than cohabitation is not about _encouraging_ the man to marry you but letting him know that you expect the level of commitment from him that only marriage would entail: i.e. a level of commitment that would match your own emotional, practical and financial commitment, irrespective of whether you're married to him or not. If the idea of marriage scares him, then what exactly does he want you for and for how long? :stu

Many women who move in with men are going to be doing _exactly_the _same _things and taking the _same _ longterm risks* and making the same sacrifices that they would do in a marriage but _without _the safety net of a man who is legally committed to them in the long term, both emotionally and therefore financially too, of course.

* e.g. turning their lives upside down for another person, investing time, effort and money in the relationship, possibly losing the roof over their head by moving in with someone else, possibly losing their job as a result of having to move away to be with the man, and, above all, running the risk of pregnancy (mistakes can and do happen). Or maybe the couple will _decide _that they want a child. But even if the woman does all these things, the man can at any time just wash his hands of her (and any kids) and walk away.

The man may run similar risks too, of course, but only for as long as the cohabiting relationship lasts, and he doesn't run the woman's risk of pregnancy or the longterm consequences of that, as he has no legal obligation towards her. So, yes, I can see why certain men would prefer cohabitation: they have to invest far less in it to get what is likely to amount to the full marriage deal.


----------



## umbrellagirl1980 (Dec 28, 2005)

Amelia said:


> I agree with whiteclouds. I don't think she's suggesting that, as a woman who would prefer marriage, she would be subservient or up for sale.
> 
> To prefer marriage rather than cohabitation is not about _encouraging_ the man to marry you but letting him know that you expect the level of commitment from him that only marriage would entail: i.e. a level of commitment that would match your own emotional, practical and financial commitment, irrespective of whether you're married to him or not. If the idea of marriage scares him, then what exactly does he want you for and for how long? :stu
> 
> ...


amelia and whiteclouds, i disagree. you are still assuming that the man has more to gain from living together than the woman does. and i disagree with that. aside from the risk of pregnancy, the risks they are both taking seem equal to me. especially these days when women quite often are making as much money, and sometimes more, than their partners. you say that a man gets more from cohabitation than a woman. that he can try it out without committment. that the woman has no safety net. but doesn't the man also lack a saftey net should something go wrong? as a woman myself, if i were to live with someone, i would be the one wanting to try things out without committment. i wouldn't want to commit myself to him until i were certain that it was right for me. so i think it can just as easily work the other way around. that a woman can also want to try out the milk before buying the cow (or whatever equivalent analogy). i certainly wouldn't want to buy/commit to something i hadn't fully experienced. espeically something so important. just a perspective from a woman who sees things the other way around. i think women have just as much to gain from cohabitation as men. i certainly feel i do. if you say a man is taking advantage of a woman by cohabiting, would i then be taking advantage of a man, if we were to live together? i think it all really depends on each partner's expectations and that they are both upfront with each other about what they want to get out of living together.


----------



## Amelia (Nov 24, 2003)

umbrellagirl1980 said:


> aside from the risk of pregnancy, the risks they are both taking seem equal to me. especially these days when women quite often are making as much money, and sometimes more, than their partners. .


Yes, I understand what you're saying. But, for me, pregnancy would be an enormous risk, even if I were earning a lot of money. My earning potential would plummet if I fell pregnant. Pregnancy would have lifelong implications that wouldn't be matched by the man: because he would have zero financial responsibility towards me or the kid(s) if we split up, or even if we didn't. We would be dependent simply on his good will. That wouldn't be enough for me.



> if i were to live with someone, i would be the one wanting to try things out without committment. i wouldn't want to commit myself to him until i were certain that it was right for me.


Commitment seems to be the key word in this discussion. Everyone has their own interpretation of what that means.



> i certainly wouldn't want to buy/commit to something i hadn't fully experienced.


I can't see how you can experience a fully committed relationship until you _have_ committed yourself fully. :stu



> if you say a man is taking advantage of a woman by cohabiting, would i then be taking advantage of a man, if we were to live together?


Possibly. It would presumably depend on what kind of relationship he thought he was getting into.



> i think it all really depends on each partner's expectations and that they are both upfront with each other about what they want to get out of living together


I totally agree. But why be honest with someone if you're not legally bound to them? I know that a marriage license isn't necessarily a guarantee of honesty either, but you have to think through your motives pretty carefully before signing up for marriage and know what the other person's attitudes to you are. If you jumped into a relationship with someone without being certain, you could possibly hurt that person for a much longer than the relationship would last. Perhaps even hurt yourself. :stu Of course, this is all very personal. It probably depends to some extent on how emotionally resilient people are and on whether they actually _want_ a lifelong relationship or just a temporary one.


----------



## whiteclouds (Mar 18, 2004)

> Many women who move in with men are going to be doing exactlythe same things and taking the same longterm risks* and making the same sacrifices that they would do in a marriage but without the safety net of a man who is legally committed to them in the long term, both emotionally and therefore financially too, of course.


Yup, that's what I was trying to say with the milk and cow statement. :lol If a man is willing to sign the papers, that says a lot for me. I don't like being thought of as the "test drive". Says to me that he is leary that things won't work out, or maybe that he wants to save the escape option in case there's a problem. Of course, a man can also do that even after we get married, just look at all the people with multiple divorces. I hope to find someone who actually takes marriage seriously. Could be a daunting task. :lol Even my mom told me that her first marriage "didn't count" when she explained why she got divorced after just one year. And she lived with her husbands before getting married. So I don't think living together necessarily equals better odds at staying together.


----------



## Keira (Dec 22, 2003)

Some people who are in favor of cohabitation say that the divorce rate is so high (50%) which makes it right or even necessary to live together first. I don't see how that is even related, and I find it ironic. 

Living together first does not increase your odds of staying together after marriage. It is actually the opposite. People who cohabitate before marriage are more likely to divorce. (there are stats to back this up). It is not the actual living arrangements itself that is the precursor (because that is all trivial). It's the attitude and mindset of those who cohabitate that make them more likely to divorce. They want the option to bail out when they get bored or life gets rough, and that kind of thought process does not change once people get married. It's a selfish way of thinking. Living together without marriage means a part of you is still looking out for your own interests. 

By expecting no less than a marital covenant (the only real commitment, IMO), you are refusing to exploit or be exploited. Living together is a huge risk, emotionally, psychologically, and financially. I only want to be with someone who respects me enough not to lay such a burden on me, who will commit himself 100%, and you cannot do that by just living together. 

And on a side note, the divorce rate of 50% is misleading as it is a combined rate which includes first and multiple marriages. The divorce rate of second marriages is a lot higher than that of first marriages.


----------



## umbrellagirl1980 (Dec 28, 2005)

Keira said:


> Living together without marriage means a part of you is still looking out for your own interests.


maybe i'm cynical or selfish, but i don't see anything wrong with this.


----------



## FreeSoul (Jan 1, 2006)

Honestly, I'm not too sure... I've thought about the subject a bit and I'm leaning towards living together first. I see some reasonable arguements for it and tend to agree. It would be better to know how the living situation would be beforehand so any wrinkles can be ironed out. More information can only lead to a better sound decision.
And I'm a guy BTW.


----------



## Paul (Sep 26, 2005)

Amelia, since women are quite capable of holding jobs and not becoming dependant it seems the only risk you've mentioned that's greater for women than for men is sex. Since it seems everyone has presumed so, is cohabitation without sex truly impossible? Am I hopelessly naive to think that two people could discuss and agree to such an arrangement? Has no one ever had a roommate they didn't have sex with?


----------



## free thinker (Nov 11, 2003)

Paul said:


> Since it seems everyone has presumed so, is cohabitation without sex truly impossible? Am I hopelessly naive to think that two people could discuss and agree to such an arrangement? Has no one ever had a roommate they didn't have sex with?


Unless both individuals are capable of not expressing ANY physical affection, it would be very difficult to avoid having sex, since one thing leads to another. Ironically, the only way for people who live together to avoid having sex is to be married for a few years :b .


----------



## americanguy (Nov 14, 2003)

engagement/marriage male
There have been plenty of studies showing that the divorce rate is much higher when you live with a signifigant other opposed to not living together. I come from a religous family who opposes living with someone before marriage. Out of respect for my parents I wouldnt move in with somone. What I would do is spend plenty of time with that person and definetly have a few nights where you spent the night with that person and could see what they look like in the morning and how happy/ cranky they are


----------



## Inturmal (Jan 15, 2006)

americanguy said:


> There have been plenty of studies showing that the divorce rate is much higher when you live with a signifigant other opposed to not living together.


People always say that, but they never give the source of these "studies". Do they even exist, or does everyone like repeating the same thing?

It sounds like something a religious organization would make up, to discourage people from living together (sex!) before marriage.

If the studies are real, then they probably date back to the 50's or something, and don't quite apply to today.

Either way, statistics about other people do not matter to me.


----------



## Amande (Feb 5, 2005)

^ I've read about them before. It could be argued that those who live together before marriage tend to have more liberal views on relationships and therefore divorces as well. I certainly do.


----------



## Inturmal (Jan 15, 2006)

Amozza said:


> ^ I've read about them before.


 You're read _about_ them, or you've actually read them?

Now that I think about it, I'd never even heard of it, until I started dating a catholic girl, and she mentioned it to me.

and good point about them having a more liberal view. Most hard-core religous people would never get divorced, no matter what.


----------

