Do you agree with Zeenat's advice? - Page 3

But I believe Zeenat means well

Originally posted by: prerna4rishav

All these laws are already in place in countries where Live-in is in practise since long, common-law-partners or live-in partners are legal so is children born out of it, even children born out of such legal bindings are also well protected by the states.

India needs to and will bring up the same once it’s an usual practise there too. Pushing a good idea which can save even some people out of troubles, due to imaginary or uncertainty might not be a good idea to move forward. There will only be solutions to problems once problems are encountered. 

It can be called good idea only if it helps selecting the correct partner. With the frequency the westerners (where live in is more common) change their live-in as well as marriage partners, the problem seems to lie somewhere else. I.e. not being ready to adjust or compromise even a bit in relationships.

Humari toh bina live in ke kya.....bina dating ke bhi chal gayi....

Originally posted by: TotalBetty

But I believe Zeenat means well

Yes, I do too.

But I think some people always get attracted to the wrong people... Neither live ins nor marriage would end up well for them, if they choose their partners on their own 

Originally posted by: NathuPaapi

What about children being born without wedlocks? What about their rights and responsibilities?

Yeah, I think two people should only procreate when they're wholly serious for each other. Otherwise, children will only suffer from the consequences of their parents decision. Also I believe children tie two people together forever so marriage is the way if you want babies. 

Just read the first page...

My opinion: It's always the mutual emotional bond (and honest communication) that makes a marriage work, not the legal one.

Emotions are natural, marriages are man-made.

So, whatever matters can change at any moment in a relationship - with or without a live-in before marriage.

I agree. It is tough to judge a person and compatility within few hours of dates. 

Originally posted by: NathuPaapi

I agree with what u have written. 

Marriages do require mutual respect, trust and some amount of compromises from both side. All these can be gauged without live in too. On the contrary, one can be fooled for years living in with their partners too.

Live-in is not a concept I endorse to either, but I do respect the choice of those who think it is ok to cohabit, for marital purpose or otherwise. There are others who are averse to the idea of live-in or even marriage for whatever reasons, hence, end up with a series of flings. Who is anyone to judge anybody else's thought process whatever it might be. Also, there are people who have successfully lived-in without the need to live-out not thinking about marriage ever.

 As for physical intimacy; in or outside marriage, in or outside of cohabitation, as long as it is a consensual "thing" between two consenting adults, it is not anybody else's business except that of two consenting adults..

With regards to being fooled despite being in years of cohabitation, yes there are horrific stories about a partner going rogue for whatever reasons, but there are atrocities in marriages too. Many marriages have ended in the most tragic ways as well. Besides, in today's day and time, compromise in marriage might often mean turning a blind eye to spousal misconducts (read adultery) as the concept of open-marriage is fast catching up with today's generation.  {In)famous spouse swapping incidents are in an increasing trend as well. The attributes that we have discussed work in conventional marriages, but even then the degree and magnitude of attibutes that makes a marriage work have changes across genders..

Hence, IMO, no marriages, no live-ins are similar because the spouses/partners in different marriages/live-ins are different people with different mind-sets and different look-outs with regards to marriages/live-in arrangements. 

What difference will it make? People with long years of marriage also divorce.... Finally what matters is if love, respect or dependency is stronger or not....

Apart from love and dependency, if two have common goal, hobbies and common pass time, marriage is cherished. 

Nothing against live-in. If two people want to cohabit without any legal implication its upto them. But hope they dont procreate if they arent in it for life.

Imagine the future generation of India saying…she is my sister from my biological mother’s third husband’s fifth live-in partner.  And trust me this is the least complicated..reality is much more complex where live-in n divorce r common.

Marriage is a vyavastha..a system. And family is a unit for a reason. There will be people who don’t subscribe to it and thats fine..apne Sallu bhaiya hai na...but if such outliers become the norm it will bring about a collapse