Can one love without without focusing on marriage,??just thinking loud

Yes.

Now you know.

yes

Actually, in a way, yes, in another way, no.

If you first remember that love predates marriage, and that marriage in turn predates FORMAL LEGAL MARRIAGE laws.

What I mean is, that love without the support of personal principles of caring and continuous dedication, isn't really the sort of "love" that most people think well of.

So if you exchange the word "marriage," for something longer and functionally descriptive, such as "serious dedication and devotion to each other's lives," then I think you've got it.

I know. You definitely should be in love to get married.

True romantic relationship love can only be tested within the relationship of marriage. Living together doesn't have the long term commitments that marriage brings.

Within a marriage you will find out if one has true love which contains boundless amounts of commitment.

GENERALLY, I'd say marriage is best. BUT Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell have been engaged to each other for 30 years, never got married and as far as tabloids know have been faithful to each other. SO... depends on the people.

I seen that about Goldie and Kurt. I think she had been married twice already if I am correct.

i totally agree with this. Marriage is a legal process and a relationship description. People enter into marriage for reasons having little to do with love, like financial security and incentives, and other people who are much more in 'love' never do because those things dont hold the same priority for them.


People enter into marriage to appease their family or 'prove' love to a partner, and others dont feel a need to use marriage for those goals.


Love will be something each partner shares and acknowledges from each other in how they share with and treat each other, and no papers prove or disprove whether such love is real or not, except to outsiders looking in. To people in the relationship, love being there is something they should probably know with or without a marriage, and definitely preferably BEFORE an actual marriage takes place.

Marriage is the limit for true love. This legal relationship limits you from other intimate relationships with other partners. Marriage is discipline for ourselves.

News Flash.......married people cheat!

Being in love does NOT require marriage

TOODY - you are right. she was married twice and Kurt was married once. all short-lived. Then they met and have been together for 30 years. I want to try that..... of course, I'd be 105 then, but had 2 aunt lived to be over 100. I still say it depends on the people.

@nature lady

You made. me laugh ! I have an aunt who is 95 attractive and still active.

I always liked Goldie.

Y'know, marriage is a sticky wicket.
There are many people that think marriage is all about love but even if you marry for love, love is not the controlling factor.
Marriage is all about dedication and commitment.
Marriage is an 'institution' of dedication and commitment.
For many, in many ways, marriage is the "legal" acknowledgement of dedication and commitment but there are many that are not married that have dedication and commitment towards their partner.
I think this is a major point when trying to understand same-sex marriage.
The relationship may be based on dedication and commitment but to be a "legal Marriage" it needs legal justification.

When "Love" is expressed with dedication and commitment for another, marriage is merely the 'legal' binding of that social agreement.

I think you might have meant legal ratification rather than legal justification ?

Perhaps?

The intent of my statement was that many people seek a legally binding endorsement in marriage. Kinda like an insurance policy.
Perhaps I did use the wrong nomenclature?

The marriage contract 'under law' is basically an insurance policy that someone needs to assure themselves of the dedication and commitment of the other is true.
However, if the dedication and commitment of the other is actually true and the same dedication and commitment is present within, no marriage 'contract' for security is needed.
So, marriage is not really necessary except for legal reasons.

You are either dedicated and committed to your partner or you're not.
Your partner is either dedicated and committed to you or they're not.
No legal declaration is going to change that.

When you look at that person thru the eyes that only you can see them and they look at you thru the eyes that they can only see you if there is not a binding force there, you'll know it.
You don't need a ring, a paper, a religion or a law to tell you.
Unless you're an idiot?

Let's compromise with endorsement ? The marriage certificate legalises the commitment only the couple can justify the arrangement.

Okay, I have no issue with that.
Actually, I have no "issue' with anything?
LOL, this is all entertainment.

I "Know" what marriage is and what Commitment and Dedication is.
I only comment because I have the perception that many people don't.
If I'm wrong, no big deal (preachin to the choir) but if what I said enlightens even ONE person, it was worth the typing, at least to me?

LOL, sometimes 'sense' needs to be highlighted.

Marriage status is not essential. I guess you could draw up a legal contract similar to a prenup, that gives all the legal protections and more tailored to the two people involved, than those that marriage gives, hence not requiring a legal marriage in order to have those same legal protections. I see marriage more as a commitment by both people towards each other, if I am prepared for that, I would find it very difficult to accept a partner not prepared to do so without a fair reason. I believe in the institution of marriage.

A couple can have a commitment to one another without marriage. That would be a monogamous relationship. If they are living together.

Otherwise you are just Roommates.