My musings this rainy night are -- What is this concept of live-in relationship that has our society in a tizzy? Is living in a cop-out?Is it a haven for the commitment-phobic?
But to discuss live-in relationship,we must first talk about marriage,the great institution of social sanctity where two people come together till death does them apart. Now in the modern world,this lasts for a couple of years.And then the divorce lawyers begin to make the mega-bucks.
I'm not against marriage but my question is "Is marriage unbreakable?" But to discuss live-in relationship,we must first talk about marriage,the great institution of social sanctity where two people come together till death does them apart. Now in the modern world,this lasts for a couple of years.And then the divorce lawyers begin to make the mega-bucks.
In the recent years ,the need to find happiness without each other has become more important than the foolishness of being unhappy together.We cannot deny that.More marriages end in divorce now than before. So we accept the fact that no relationship comes with a guarantee - not even marriage.So if nothing is permanent,then why is there such a hue and cry over people who accept the temporary nature of relationship and decide to just live-in.
No two people who are together can predict the future.So there's nothing like - in sick and sin and through thick and thin. Harsh but true.
What's the point of commitment when 'no commitment' is good enough?It's useless,baseless and meaningless.Anyone who finds security in holy matrimony is a fool. Binding people together legally is not a solution but a problem.
This may sound ironical but the only way you can be together is, if you have the freedom to leave. Then, being together has a true meaning because you are not bound to be together, but are together because you want to be. I would consider a live-in relationship as a stronger one because here there's only a strong emotional attachment. No legal binding, no social pressure, no unwanted rules but just two people in love .. and that's all.
Love is about freedom not about bondage.
No two people who are together can predict the future.So there's nothing like - in sick and sin and through thick and thin. Harsh but true.
What's the point of commitment when 'no commitment' is good enough?It's useless,baseless and meaningless.Anyone who finds security in holy matrimony is a fool. Binding people together legally is not a solution but a problem.
This may sound ironical but the only way you can be together is, if you have the freedom to leave. Then, being together has a true meaning because you are not bound to be together, but are together because you want to be. I would consider a live-in relationship as a stronger one because here there's only a strong emotional attachment. No legal binding, no social pressure, no unwanted rules but just two people in love .. and that's all.
Love is about freedom not about bondage.
marriage does not change anything between 2 people....its just a declaration of their love.....it does not tie ppl together....love does....it doesn't do nething....just gives them freedom to show their love.....but sometimes love doesn't last....or it gets clouded by other things like misunderstanding or trust...in a way its good that marriage is not a guarantee....cause it shouldn't be....love and love alone should decide the fate of a relationship....not a legal document
ReplyDeleteagreed!
ReplyDeleteeven i said the same right .. :).. thanks for the comment ..
ReplyDelete