Home Featured Why Love Isn’t the Ultimate Requirement for Marriage

Why Love Isn’t the Ultimate Requirement for Marriage

82

do you need to be in love to get married

By Miriam of 30 Thoughts

My friend and I were discussing what’s always on everyone’s mind these days: love and relationships. We were updating each other on our potential plus ones when I asked, “Why do I have to be in love with the person I marry? Why can’t I marry a man because I believe he’ll be a good father and/or a good provider?” My friend perished the thought and expressed that marrying for reasons, not including love, would be settling. I disagreed. Days later, I stumbled upon an article that eloquently echoed my sentiments in a beautifully written piece entitled, Three Reasons You Should Never Marry For Love:

1. Love is a changeable emotion. As quickly as you fall in love, you can fall out of love. Then what? Either the relationship ends or it becomes toxic. If love is your primary connection, the glue is gone. This is true for passionate, physical love as well as “soul-mate” love.

2. Love does not make for a strong enough foundation. Yes, love is strong but, due to the fact that it can evaporate, it is not something that can stand alone as the basis for a long-term relationship (especially when kids are involved). Anything built on a foundation of love is subject to crumbling.

3. Love is far from “all you need.” You need mutual respect, shared goals and compatibility way more than you need love to have a sustainable, lasting relationship. People “fall in love with love” just as Kim Kardashian showed us, because they think it will carry them the distance. We all want to be wanted and we love to love yet, if you had a recipe for a strong, healthy relationship, it might look like this: 3 Cups respect; 2 Cups shared goals; 2 Cups compatibility, 1 Tablespoon love, 1 teaspoon attraction (optional!). (Of course a relationship has many more ingredients than this but you get the idea). Read more here.

Like the article, I mentioned that in historical times, women especially, married for financial gain and status, and whether a woman loved her man was of no consequence, and at times the inverse was true as well.

So, what’s so terrible about not marrying for love? If there is mutual respect, admiration and financial stability, can’t a man or woman be content in a situation where the things that matter most to HIM/HER are present? What exactly does love have to do with it?
At times, I feel as though the modern “in love” requirement for matrimony puts too much pressure on relationships. Considering also that you can grow to love someone over time, why must a couple be in love at the outset for their marriage to be validated?

My parents had a tumultuous marriage, but it wasn’t because they didn’t love one another. I actually felt that they did. But, somewhere along the line, they changed and life happened. This may be why I value friendship and respect in a relationship more than the uncertainty and inconsistency of romance. Their relationship taught me an invaluable lesson:

Just because you love someone doesn’t mean that the two of you should be married.

‘Can we get along? Do we value each other’s opinion? Do we admire each other? Would I want my children to be like him? Does he offer stability? Do we share similar values?’ An affirmative answer to these questions is more important to me than whether my heart skips a beat when he enters the room or if we’ve exchanged ‘I love yous’ on the daily since we met.

What do you think? Is love a requirement for marriage? If so, why? Would marriages last longer if there weren’t so much emphasis on being in love?

Comment(82)

  1. This is an EXCELLENT post. The key word is PRACTICAL.

    And for average people who have no plans in the future of being exceptional (doesn't work if your self-awareness is as shaky as D Rose's knees), this advice is well needed.

    This is also about values. Some people REALLY value strong passionate romantic feelings when they are dating. So, they always run the risk of getting played, being a single parent, and frankly, your mortality is on the line when you date only for passion & romance. For a lot of people it is well worth the risk.

    Personally, I am exceptional, I need a wife that would go to war for me, ride or die. Either I get that, or I stay alone & just be a RAKE.

    It is sad that it takes most woman to lose their looks (30+) to come to this conclusion. To date & marry practically.

    Good Day. Great Post. Love when women come from a great perspective (aka agrees with my POV.)

    1. I'm glad you agree with my sentiments in the article, but this statement, "It is sad that it takes most woman to lose their looks (30+) to come to this conclusion. To date & marry practically" doesn't address the fact that men feel this way too. We have all been programmed to believe that you marry someone you're in love with above all else. If you asked, most couples, would say they were "in love" with their partner when they married, so don't act like it's just women who need to wake up and smell the coffee.

      I think people in general, after they've lived a little and experience life and love, come to this realization.

      Furthermore, I have ALWAYS felt this way about relationships because of the lesson I learned from my parent's marriage, which I mention in the article. I was engaged at 19 and 28, and both times, I was madly in love, but ultimately decided that I shouldn't marry them for other reasons, and I think I made the right decision.
      My recent post Warning To All Married People

      1. "We have all been programmed to believe that you marry someone you're in love with above all else…."

        Umm.. I would argue, that for men, that's not exactly what we are told, in fact I hear from most men the OPPOSITE. Since we are the ones who typically decide to pop the question, we are taught to think about a lot more things than 'love' in choosing a partner and marriage.

        I've said it before and I'll state it again. Women think more about getting married while men think more about being married.

        1. Right, but have you ever heard of a man marrying a woman he didn't consider himself "in love" with?

          Of course, we ALL look for other things and not JUST love when deciding who we will marry, but is anyone encouraged to focus on those other things, and make love, Like someone said below, moreso the icing on the cake versus the reason why you decided to marry that particular person? I doubt it. That goes for men and women.

        2. "Right, but have you ever heard of a man marrying a woman he didn't consider himself 'in love' with?"

          Yes, often. Many marrying men are practical as a priority, for the obvious reason that they typically bear the greater burdens of failure. Men–ones with male role models, at least–are "encouraged to focus on those other things." Being and expecting to remain "in love," for such men, is a secondary consideration.

          You seem determined to refuse to accept that men and women can be different on this front. Equalitarianism and solipsism strike again.

      2. This article hits the nail on the head. Wish I had read it 16 years ago. I came to this same realization after my divorce and months of therapy. Great job!

  2. So I think defining love as an emotion is really where things went wrong. I read this post on Good Men Project called “I Didn’t Love My Wife When We Got Married” and his view is completely in agreement with mine. Love is an act of commitment, respect, partnership, understanding, etc and as long as we keep confusing it with a heart flutter, we will end up disappointed. Love is being dedicated at all times regardless of how you feel. That’s how I was raised to understand it and if you’re not ready to do that for someone, don’t get married. I think the feeling you should pay attention to in the beginning is how you feel around the person (i. e. comfortable).

  3. Love is really the sum of its parts. It’s not the main thing, it’s what happens after commitment, respect , compatibility ,( and a few other factors ) come into play. I think this is why people say your partner should be someone you actually like as a person , not just someone you love .

    I think love is only a slice of the pie when it comes to marriage / relationships not the whole pie.

  4. That article got it wrong from the beginning. Love is not a changing emotion, rather LUST is. If you find yourself falling in and out of love with someone,check yourself it's probably lust.

    Love is strong, and doesn't evaporate. Love endures through every circumstance. As a christian, I have to reference the Bible. It says three things will last forever, :faith, hope, and love, but Love is the greatest of all.
    Not meaning to turn this to a religious conversation, but the test of love is in 1Cor . 13, if it doesn't hold up to that standard, it isn't love.

    That said, I agree that love is not all you need, but if you have everything (else that you need) and don't have love, then it's nothing. So it's a vital part of the equation.

    1. The "in love" feeling is not lust because it is not always simply based on the physical. It is often a combination of strong physical attraction, strong like, and maybe even some adoration (which is why when people are in love, they put their partner on a pedestal – almost holding them up as "perfect"). You are mistaken to simply write off the in love feeling and call it lust.

      Love that you speak of is different. And ultimately, I believe that loving someone and being in love with someone are 2 totally different things, which is why I don't feel you have to be in love to marry someone.

      True love is not this in love feeling that motivates most of us these days to put a ring on it or say I do.
      My recent post Warning To All Married People

    2. What if it does hold up to that standard? You’re telling us what love is, but that doesn’t mean that the Bible ever meant it to be a requirement for marriage.

      Humans are not capable of perfect love, only God is. So, it can be true love but that doesn’t mean it is sufficient to sustain a marriage or that just because you love someone, your marriage will last. The Bible also talks about the hardening of hearts because of infidelity, which is why He allows divorce.

      1. I never said just because you love someone your marriage will last. I only said what true "love" is. It is an essential ingredient in marriage, but definitely not ALL you need. A lot of the problem with marriages can be traced to not holding up that standard: keeping no record of wrong doing, not constantly trying to one up your partner, not being rude, enduring every circumstance etc.
        love is a choice and your choosing to do all this for your partner gives you a high likelihood at succeeding in marriage

    3. There are many faithful folks that get divorce and fall out of love or fall a part. knowing this makes for a pause. I think love can change. I am not married an it is scary to think about committing forever to one person and making it work. I just know many times it does not work.

    4. "Not meaning to turn this to a religious conversation, but the test of love is in 1Cor . 13, if it doesn't hold up to that standard, it isn't love. "

      just wanted to state that 1 Corinthians 13, while a great passage, isn't talking about a love between a man or woman, but rather the love between Christians and non-Christians. in the original (Greek) version, agape was used in this passage, which is a different form of love (unconditional love towards mankind) as opposed to eros (romance) love.

  5. Love is definitely not a feeling, but rather a choice. You have to wake up every day and choose to love that person. You have to chose to respect, support, provide for, and be loyal to him/her. So no you may not need to always love the person to marry them. However, you should never have to hesitate about your choice.

    I'm a firm believer in like > love. IMO it's impossible to love (be it the choice to love or the butterflies) someone that you don't even like. Often times, you overlook a lot because you have this unreliable perspective of love. Things go stale and get stagnant because yall really aren't friends. Love is fleeting and subject to change. But when you genuinely like the person you're with, choosing to love them is simple.
    My recent post 5 Reasons Fitness Should Be A Priority In Your Relationship

    1. I'm a firm believer in like > love. IMO it's impossible to love (be it the choice to love or the butterflies) someone that you don't even like. Often times, you overlook a lot because you have this unreliable perspective of love. Things go stale and get stagnant because yall really aren't friends. Love is fleeting and subject to change. But when you genuinely like the person you're with, choosing to love them is simple.

      ^^^^^^^^ This All Day!!! I said as such when we were having the "Men should love more than the woman" conversation. You just said what I said, only smarter.

    2. I am firmly planted in this line. GREAT comment!!!!!!

      I am divorced. I can wholeheartedly say that I "fell out of love" once I decided I no longer liked or respected him. In my experience, Like fuels/feeds the choice to love…which comes with all sorts of warm fuzzy emotional perks.

  6. "Love is a changeable emotion."

    No, it isn't. That's infatuation. Love is a decision, not an emotion. You still love someone even when you don't like them at the moment.

    "You need mutual respect, shared goals and compatibility way more than you need love…"

    Mutual respect and compatibility are a part of love. Shared goals won't keep you together.

    To directly answer the question, I suppose if you are trying to merely build wealth and live well, you can marry someone simply to raise children and financial gain. But the kids will soon realize daddy has a bunch of mistresses and their parents argue all the time because they don't care much for each other; then their sense of what love is will be warped. They will grow up in a nice house though.

    You need to be pragmatic when choosing a spouse, but you shouldn't marry for pragmatism.

    1. As many people as there are getting divorces and "falling out of love" with their SO, how is love not a changeable emotion/feeling?

      1. Because they likely either weren't in love to begin with, or don't know what love is.

        Love isn't that warm, fuzzy, feel-good-on-the-inside feeling someone gives you. When those happy feelings wear off (and they will), then what? Love is when you make the decision to stay, to care for that other person when you don't feel like it, when that person p!sses you off, when you find someone better looking or younger, when that person gets sick, or old, or fat, or changes their ways. You don't get bored with love and just decide to end a marriage. If so, your "love" was probably questionable to begin with.

        I suppose you can fall out of love, but my original definition still applies. When you "fall out of love", you just decided you don't want to fight to stay with that person anymore. But love is still the decision to stay, through thick and thin.

        Ironically, given that money is the number one reason for divorce, you probably shouldn't make it the key determinant in finding a spouse. Because when the money goes, what's keeping you together?

        1. "But love is still the decision to stay, through thick and thin."
          I disagree. You can love someone from a distance. What if someone is being physically abused, cheated on, lied to? If they leave, does that mean they don't/never did love the person they married? Hardly.
          My recent post Warning To All Married People

        2. "What if someone is being physically abused, cheated on, lied to?"

          It means their love is unrequited.

          "If they leave, does that mean they don't/never did love the person they married? Hardly."

          Before they left, they had love. After they left, they made the decision to not love anymore.

          Now they want to stay, but they can't because of the abuse. That is called unrequited love. Adjectives modify nouns. You're not disagreeing with me.

        3. I don't think I'm agreeing with you either because I don't think love is the decision to stay through thick and thin. I think you can NOT stay through thick and thin and still love someone.
          But, I would venture to say most people don't know what love is, what it means or how to love. Not saying that I completely do, but the difference of opinion as to what love means and what it is, to me, is all the more reason why it should not be given so much weight when deciding who to marry.

        4. "I don't think I'm agreeing with you either because I don't think love is the decision to stay through thick and thin. I think you can NOT stay through thick and thin and still love someone."

          We are agreeing (somewhat) because what you are calling leaving and loving, I'm calling unrequited love. It's semantics. The adjective modifies the noun, so unrequited love is wanting to stay, but for your own safety or well-being, you can't.

          However, you are raising, or at least implying, an interesting point. What is the definition of "thick and thin"? My godbrother cheated on his wife, she found out, and she stayed. I think infidelity is a justifiable reason for divorce, but some people say that is throwing the marriage away and not fighting for it.

        5. "but the difference of opinion as to what love means and what it is, to me, is all the more reason why it should not be given so much weight when deciding who to marry."

          The "difference of opinion as to what love means" is the key part. Where we part ways is I still believe love, whatever your definition of it is, still needs to be central.

          Money is only one thing, while love encompasses many things. If you marry for money, the marriage ends when the money does. But if you marry for love and richer changes to poorer, you stay when the money is gone. Marry for love and health changes to sickness, you stay when health fades. Marry for love and when better changes to worse, you stay during the worse times.

        6. Yes, somewhat I guess.

          I do think infidelity constitutes thick and thin, but it is also a justifiable reason for divorce. We agree there. I look at it this way…I knew a woman whose husband left her. Like literally just got his stuff one day and moved out. He never divorced her and she never divorced him, believing strongly in the vows she took "til death do us part." She saw his abandonment as a test of her faith. In this situation as with abuse or anything else, thick and thin means "better or worse," but most people don't mean it when they say "for better or worse" because as soon as the "worst" (at least in their minds) happens, they're OUT! I commend your godbrother's wife for sticking it out. Everyone isn't able.

          I would venture to say it is her commitment to him rather than her love for him that has made her want to work through, but I would be interested to know. Would you stay in the event of infidelity? If you decided to divorce, would you take that to mean that you didn't really love her?

        7. Personally, I would never marry for money. It's just not that important to me in the grand scheme of things, aside from being able to live comfortably (meaning having all that I need and some of what I want).

          "But if you marry for love and richer changes to poorer, you stay when the money is gone. Marry for love and health changes to sickness, you stay when health fades. Marry for love and when better changes to worse, you stay during the worse times."
          The sad part is MOST people do marry for love (or what they think is love), but money and a host of other things cause them to divorce, despite the fact that love was present when they said I do. I think that's my point. Most people marry for love, but it hasn't stopped them from divorcing when "the worst" happens.

      2. The funny thing is for brevity, I deleted this sentence from my original comment before I pressed Submit Comment: "If love today is defined as merely an emotion, I think we found out why the divorce rate is so high."

    2. First, let's distinguish between love and being in love. They are 2 totally different things.

      To directly answer the question, I suppose if you are trying to merely build wealth and live well, you can marry someone simply to raise children and financial gain."

      This ^^^ is what marriage is and always has been for! The problem is the expectation that you will remain in love with your spouse for a lifetime. When that feeling goes, people start looking for that feeling again or they feel that something is wrong. Yesterday, there was an article published where Babyface said he was never really in love with Tracey Edmonds nor she with him. However, they pretended to be to keep up appearances.

      You can care for someone and not be in love with them. You can even love someone and not be in love with them.
      My recent post Warning To All Married People

  7. Though I don’t believe that love is a mere emotion, I can see her point. It’s plausible that if love does come and go and could be SEEN as an emotion. The ”love utopian-ists” would have you ONLY believe “love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast,.. It does not dishonor others…it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs”. I disagree and offer, (even though it’s twisted), a lot of murder/suicides are because of love as well….ugly but true

    Love is the epitome of yin/yang. Love causes an equal amount of evil and good. We choose to only look at the good (as we probably should).

    Love ain’t needed for marriage. We need only look at our great-greats who married because of land and farm proximity. (at 14 y/o) They raised 8plus children and we’re the products of them…while you sneer your nose at a love-less marriage….calm down

    Love in any capacity is awesome but its acid or icing on the cake….but it ain’t the cake.

    1. "I disagree and offer, (even though it’s twisted), a lot of murder/suicides are because of love as well….ugly but true"

      I'm 98% sure I completely disagree with this statement, lol.

  8. I've seen both sides of this, i know some couples where the marriage is more business than pleasure, for his position, he needs that woman to bring to functions, kids photos to show off, she loves the stability and comfortable living. I know others where they were madly in love, married within a year and now realize they had completely different views on lifestyle.

    The easy answer is balance, "love conquers all" sounds good but when it comes to marriage…you have to realize you are intending to spend the rest of your life with this person, do they want to move? how is their parenting approach? can they be trusted? these things bring resentment and resentment is what ultimately kills marriages
    My recent post Today’s Word is… BLACK

  9. Good points all around and it just goes to show you, marriage is different things to different people, as far as people's expectations and needs are concerned….i.e., whatever works for YOU…might not work for others, thats why I caution folks to be careful trying to make what someone else's situation looks like fit in to what YOUR situation is…and then wondering why it DOESN'T fit.

    You can't tell me how my shoes fit 😉

  10. I have found that as folks get older, most are so jaded, their ability to fall in love again is crippled. To expect that you will continue to love or fall in love like you did the first, second or even third time, is foolishly optimistic.

    The requirements for a partner are different for different people, but I think first and foremost should be qualities like character, loyalty, trustworthiness, kindness, honesty, etc, not love.

    Like many said above, love is a choice. You have to allow yourself to "go there" and let go…to fall. If you are unable to do so because of unresolved past hurts or whatever, why should that keep you from being with (marrying) someone you genuinely LIKE and care about?

    I think the "in love" requirement most have is causing them to make poor choices about who they will marry and who they won't.

    My recent post Warning To All Married People

    1. Again my arguments will be from a biblical standpoint. Love is essential for marriage, but there are still other ingredients. The Bible enjoins women to submit to their husbands (respect) and husbands love their wives.
      I believe these things are essential to a marriage.
      Also all your requirements to a partner are again found in love (loyalty, kindness, etc) so we're still dancing about the same circle. I think everyone can quote "love is patient, kind. Etc" but you don't stop to understand what it really means,

      1. So, basically the Bible says "husbands love your wives, but wives respect your husbands." This is not mutual love, nor do I believe it describes the "in love" feeling that people require modernly to promise themselves to another. I will continue to reiterate the difference between loving someone and being in love with someone. They are not the same.

        Also, I think loyalty and kindness can also be found outside of being in love. But, we can agree to disagree.

  11. Love gets you to the alter but the friendship, goals, expectations, and respect carries the marriage.
    The truth is life happens and it can whoop a marriage's ass. Kids, mortgage, job, and family takes it toll on a marriage the author is right unless you have those other attributes into play, love won't win against life. Took today off to spend time with my wife. Score Life-1 Marriage-0. I'm sitting here alone.

  12. I originally was not going to comment, since this exemplifies why things are in their current state in regards to love, relationships, and marriage. I will say this, if we did things in its proper order, we wouldn't have the view that LOVE ISN'T NECESSARY. We are supposed to get to know a prospective mate, find out how compatible we are, be great friends, know each others values, know if family is a priority, observe and discuss financial values, etc. before matrimony even enters the discussion. Love is the force that causes one to do all of those concrete actions already discussed. Are we to go back to the days of 'arranged marriages' and such? Why would you bind yourself to someone legally (with all that it entails) if you didn't love them? Love is selfless and it inspires selfless action, without it, we are all being with someone for selfish reasons.

    1. Personally, I see nothing wrong with arranged marriages. They seem to work out better than the Western idea of marriage. Also, you are missing the point. No one said love isn't necessary. It's just that it isn't necessary for marriage, which ultimately is a partnership and stable institution in which to raise a family and build a legacy.

      Also, you can grow to love someone once they have proven to be worthy of such.
      My recent post Warning To All Married People

      1. "No one said love isn't necessary. It's just that it isn't necessary for marriage, which ultimately is a partnership and stable institution in which to raise a family and build a legacy."

        sigh…that's what I keep saying as I read these comments

        1. Exactly! But we continue to have these discussions on why such and such/ so and so is single. Love not being necessary to a marriage is like eggs not being necessary for an omelet.

  13. I see a lot of folks are givng their opinions in either Cosigning, Disagreeing or Stating their own Thoughts on this. I Like it.

    I believe ALL OF THE ABOVE and EVERYTHING exists between Falling IN Love, HAVING Love for Someone, and the CHOICE for Marriage or No Marriage. For Too Long people harp on either/or explanations when it is Almost Always an And/Also/As Well As to Life in Every Aspect, regardless of One's Religion or Lackthere Of.

    Money, Passion, Friendship, Sex, Companionship, Humor, Loyalty/Trust, Faith (in Self, God and Us) and Many More are what I Believe and Expect in a Relationship and the Choice to WANT Marriage ( Honestly, Folks with Discipline and Common Sense can be Oprah and Stedman w/o the Wealth and be Great with eachother without Getting/Being Married). I Want what I can Handle of Myself and my S/O, and I Feel Others do IF/WHEN they Think Deeply, Look Inside and Sum up Everything at the end of the day…….

  14. "Lust is the benefit of self at the expense of others and love is the benefit of others at the expense of self" Why can't you have love plus all these other things?

    I for one could never go to bed every night with a man I did not "love" or even like. I am certainly not going to get married if all other things are not in line no matter how much I love you. Been there and done that…not a good look.

    I can love you and know I would not marry you, because you aren't X, Y, Z yet. I don't need to marry you because you provide financially or otherwise. I would rather obtain that myself and then have a partner who enhances me in other ways, and I don't have to rely on him for a roof over my head or food on the table. The combined "stuff" is just a bonus that makes life a little easier.

    Call me a hopeless romantic, but for me there is no other reason to marry than love as the foundation. Women don't need to be "taken care of" any more. Well not this woman anyway. It's all the other stuff that falls under "committment" where people got the game messed up. JMO

    1. I agree. I couldn't let myself marry someone who doesn't love me, simple as that. Why would I spend money, time, intimacy, space, my LIFE with someone who married me out of convenience? And I know marrying someone that I didn't love would have me looking outside of my marriage. What have we become? I've been in relationships where love didn't exist. It was empty. There's no way I'd have kids by someone I didn't love and who doesn't love me. There's no way I'm gonna share a home and finances with someone I don't love. This is kinda sad that this is even a question. Seems like the only people taking marriage seriously nowadays is the LGBT community.

  15. Love shouldn't be the ONLY reason why you get married, but a major part of why you want to spend the rest of your life with someone. So it's important to not get the two confused. Why do you love them? Because they can provide for you, you want to provide for them, you are committed to each other, you see yourselves with no other partner, etc. How would the kids feel realizing their parents don't love each other?

    To me you should be both in love but practical for a marriage to work. I don't understand why just those two things are evidently so hard to come by that people want to kick love to the curb.

    1. My post isn't about "kicking love to the curb." I hope it doesn't even remotely come off like that. It's more so about allowing those other things that make someone a good "partner" to guide my decision to marry rather than whether I'm in love with him.

      This is also not to say that love will never exist because love can grow. It just may not have gotten to that point yet when we decide to marry.

      Since I believe love can grow out of true friendship and respect, it is not as necessary at the outset. That's why i believe arranged marriages can work.

  16. I feel as though love should be a main component of any relationship/marriage. I also feel that all of the other things people mentioned in this post applies also. Respect, like, realistic expectations are all a part of a successful marriage. I wouldn't advise anyone to get married if they didn't have love for their mate. If it's their thing to marry for superficial reasons then go right ahead. Just don't be surprised that one day you may wake up with a change or heart or you meet that one person that you are supposed to be with.

  17. I totally agree with you on this post. Despite the love you may have for each other, it doesn't mean you two should proceed to get married. Marriage is a life time thing and proper care should be taken when making decisions of the heart such as marriage. Thanks so much for sharing this wonderful post.
    My recent post Infatuation Vs Love

    1. That doesn't mean those are healthy or even happy marriages. Remaining in a marriage with a person you don't love merely because of kids, arrangement or business is something I will liken to living in prison. You are there because you HAVE to be not because you WANT to be. Thats not happiness

  18. “Why do I have to be in love with the person I marry? Why can’t I marry a man because I believe he’ll be a good father and/or a good provider?"

    Hilarious. If you thinking being a good parent, or financial matching or any other reason besides LOVE being #1 is a good enough reason to get married than you are deluding yourself. I laugh at the notion of anyone who isn't or hasn't been married talking about what is necessary or important.

    LOVE is the most important part of marriage….period. #2 is Commitment. #3 is Communication. Its these 3 things that are the foundation in a happy marriage. EVERYTHING else comes after.
    How you feel about one another WILL change. It will go back and forth like the tide. Some times you will feel deeply in love with your spouse. Sometimes you wont even like the site of them. But the love yall have/had, your commitment to your marriage and your willingness/ability to communicate are what keep you marriage strong and going. When the hurdles, hills and mountains come to trip yall up…and they will….its those 3 things that will determine if yall rise above or crumble.

    Being a good parent to your kid will NOT make for a good marriage and will not keep you happy. Neither will all the money in the world. I truly believe articles about what is necessary in marriage should only be written by people who ARE married. You can't tell me whats needed in my house when you've never stepped in it.

    1. “I laugh at the notion of anyone who isn't or hasn't been married talking about what is necessary or important.”

      The article isn’t TELLING anyone anything. It is a representation of conversations that single people have with themselves ABOUT marriage. I mean damn…can we have our process? I’m sure you had yours.

      “You can't tell me what’s needed in my house when you've never stepped in it.’……wait …what?

      Take it down a notch. When someone writes, “Current Married Couples Shouldn’t Be in Love”, I wholly expect you to be the first commenter.

      “I truly believe articles about what is necessary in marriage should only be written by people who ARE married.”

      So, I’m supposed to read on how to consider MY future marriage by an already married MF?

      1. "The article isn’t TELLING anyone anything. It is a representation of conversations that single people have with themselves ABOUT marriage. I mean damn…can we have our process? I’m sure you had yours."

        The title of this post is "Why Love Isn’t the Ultimate Requirement for Marriage". The quoted article is titled, "Three Reasons You Should Never Marry For Love". So it is in fact TELLING everyone that love isn't the most important aspect in marriage.

        "Take it down a notch. When someone writes, “Current Married Couples Shouldn’t Be in Love”, I wholly expect you to be the first commenter."

        When that pops up let me know. I'll be on it!

        "So, I’m supposed to read on how to consider MY future marriage by an already married MF?"

        Ummm…yeah. Would you take legal advice from someone who doesn't know the law? Would you take driving lessons from someone that doesn't know how to drive? Would you hire an English teacher that doesn't speak English? If the answer is know to all these things then why would you take advice about whats necessary in marriage from anyone who has never been married? How can they tell me whats needed when they have never been in the position to need it?

    2. "LOVE is the most important part of marriage….period. #2 is Commitment. #3 is Communication."

      Commitment, I believe is far more important than love in a marriage because if you're not committed, love will not and does not make you stay, as we see exhibited in the terribly high divorce rate.

      And like @High_Five_Ghost said, "can we have our process?!" So, only married people can write or discuss what's important in a marriage?? I guess you believe that only couples should give single people advice about relationships too because what on earth would another single person know about relationships?! Single people have a voice too lol.

      I have parents who were married, I have family members who are married and friends who are married, as well. I actually had this conversation WITH a married friend of mine who actually agreed with me in not having to be in love to marry. If anything, she did say that it was important to marry your best friend. This I have heard quite frequently.

      1. Question wasn't "do you have to be in love to get married". Your article states that love isn't the most important aspect of marriage. Those are two separate things. You CAN get married for any endless number of reasons. Doesn't make any of those reasons smart but they are reasons. But to marry someone you don't love is foolishness.
        Contact your friend and ask her is she would have still married her husband if she didn't love him

        As for, "So, only married people can write or discuss what's important in a marriage??"

        Yes! That's is exactly what I am telling you. Dating and Marriage are in no way the same thing. But like many you are not going to hear what I'm telling you. Most single friends I have don't want to believe it….until they are married. Hell, I didn't believe it until I was married. Live on this side of the fence and then you can tell me that love isn't necessary

      2. I have to disagree. See no one commits to just to commit. There's some sort of passion driving that decision to stay despite other options. In relationships that's love. You can even apply it elsewhere.For instance, I'm commited to my job. Not because I love my job (I hate it) but because I have no other options right now but as soon as something better comes along I'm bouncing. Now if I loved my job it wouldn't matter, I'd stay regardless. Commitment without love or passion is an obligation and no one wants an obligation, hence high divorce rates.

  19. All I can say is the divorce rate is high, as well as the number of "voluntary singles" so apparently we are missing the mark.

  20. I have to say this entire article is backwards to me. Marrying without a strong foundation of love is reason so many are getting divorced. People have nothing to hold them together. A man being a good father isn't going to make him good to you or make you happy. The kids will be happy but not you the partner. Money will buy you plenty of things but you'll sink into debt trying to fill the void where love should be. Repeating what's been said above, what happens when the moneys runs out? Trying to be a power couple? What happens when one of you fall off? There's nothing to keep it together because all that stuff is terms to an agreement; when the agreement is breached the relationship is broken.

    Like someone said above I think people are getting love mixed up with lust and infatuation. People are running with those emotions which are temperamental and trying to build something that's supposed to last. Real love weathers the storm I know this because I have seen it. Couples that lost everything to work at getting it all back, waiting it out in intensive care units, going through chemo together. It exists but it's not easy to find. And regardless of how may feel at any given time love is going to be the foundation beneath it all to drive to make those tough choices: staying when you're both broke, nursing through sickness, raising your demon spawn.

    At least for me. if there is no love at some point, I'm not going to stay. You'd be a nice placefiller until I find what I really want. I supposed I'm a hopeless romantic too. Passion is life, Love is the penultimate. No point in living life on terms and conditions to me. I wanna live it to it's fullest and a loveless marriage is not on my bucket list. I'd rather have true love with the world against US than a compatible partner, comfortable income and two kids (that even sounds boring).

  21. if not about love then why get married? sound like somebody who wants to use someone for what they can bring to the table without any type of emotional attachment to them. like an emotional pre-nup. also sounds like somebody who getting older and want to settle. can't have the person they want and love for real so they settle for some guy (i assume a woman wrote this) that they dont even like for real let alone love! as a man, i have to ask myself … what is the purpose of being married? if the person is in it for financial reasons … then i have to look at each serious relationship in terms of what it will cost me. high maintenance young beautiful black women will get pushed to the back. voluptuous white gal from the trailer park will get pushed to the front. not only will she cost much less than the beautiful ebony queen… she will help me press forward in life and society at the same time. if we going to do a cost benefit analysis, lets do it for real on both sides. and thats real talk.
    My recent post [VIDEO] THOMAS SOWELL – BASIC ECONOMICS

  22. According to your article, once the love is gone, the “glue” is gone. I believe you need that glue at least at some point for there to be a reason to remain in a relationship. Love is an excellent foundation and of course the other things you mentioned should be there too. Love will make you fight for a bad relationship, but no love could make you throw away a good one. Love is what makes it all worth it in end….if you are lucky enough to make it there!

  23. I can understand and appreciate where this article is heading with the idea of LOVE not being the ultimate requirement……but doesnt this depend on the individual and what suits them?

    Personally I believe "being compatible", "sharing similar goals" or someone showcasing potential of being a good mother or father are things that can also CHANGE. Just because you share similar goals this year doesnt mean those goals will be the same in the next 5 years. Just because you seem to be compatible with someone now doesnt mean you will in the following year.

    The only constant thing in life is CHANGE. Marriage is a risk to be honest, no matter how compatible you are, if you share similar goes, if your highly in love…… it is still a risk as all thise factors can fluctuate with time and due to circumstances.

    I believe none of the above are solely ultimate requirements, they are all equally required and significant to make a marriage work or last.

LEAVE YOUR COMMENT

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares
Share This
Get SBM Delivered

Get SBM Delivered

Single Black Male provides dating and relationship
advice for today's single looking for love

You have Successfully Subscribed!