Commitment Or Compatibility?
Commitment Or Compatibility?
I love a thought-provoking argument on a subject where my mind already was made up. It's good to question your premises and convictions every once in a while, just to make sure you believe what you believe — or to see where you might be changing your mind.
The thing that got me thinking about that whole idea was a piece I read about pre-marital cohabitation. Now, before I go any further, I think it's worth pointing out that the column was written by a Father Raymond something-or-other, so right away it's coming from a religious point of view, which is something I don't particularly care for.
But it made a fairly common-sense argument, backed up by some statistics: Couples who live together before they get married are more likely to divorce than couples who don't. Therefore, the writer argues, it's a good idea to really question whether you should live with someone first.
The idea he puts forth is that successful marriages are built on a couple's commitment to one another and to a life together. Living together without being married, he says, fundamentally removes that sense of commitment from the equation. So even if you do go on and get married, the whole relationship is still marked by an underlying lack of commitment.
I understand the argument and I see its logic, but I think it's a stretch. It makes sense in a vacuum, when you're talking in terms of theory. But in real-world practical application, how can anyone say living together doesn't help prepare you for marriage? Yes, the success of a marriage depends on commitment, but I think it's far easier to commit to someone once you know you can live with them. It's a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg argument: Which comes first, the commitment or the compatibility? My vote is for compatibility. Anyone else have any thoughts on that?
Comments
Post new comment