Religion and Moving in with Girlfriend Forum

[paratactical]

Here's my argument: people should make decisions and then live with the outcome of those decisions. If one outcome is that your baby-momma parents hate you, deal with it.

I've never suggested that people do not have to deal with the reprecussions of their decisions. y u mad?

[Magnolia]

Here's my argument: people should make decisions and then live with the outcome of those decisions. If one outcome is that your baby-momma parents hate you, deal with it.

I don't think anyone ITT is arguing against this. I'm going to go out on a limb and say we all agree with you here.

But TBF, that isn't what you were arguing earlier.

[BackToTheOldHouse]

Here's my argument: people should make decisions and then live with the outcome of those decisions. If one outcome is that your baby-momma parents hate you, deal with it.

I've never suggested that people do not have to deal with the reprecussions of their decisions. y u mad?

i no mad. i happy.

[ArthurDigbySellers]

Here's my argument: people should make decisions and then live with the outcome of those decisions. If one outcome is that your baby-momma parents hate you, deal with it.

I don't think anyone was arguing that the OP should give a shit what his girlfriend's pushy parents think of him. Also, baby-momma? Really? Lol

[dakatz]

Great. Thanks for clarifying. Religion = racist laws. Got it.

Great. Thanks for arguing semantics rather than putting up any semblance of a valid argument. Got it.

Yea, you're right, I shouldn't be paying attention to the words used in an argument. My bad.

In all fairness, you really haven't responded to the substance of his argument. You know full well he isn't saying that religion = racist laws.

[BackToTheOldHouse]

Here's my argument: people should make decisions and then live with the outcome of those decisions. If one outcome is that your baby-momma parents hate you, deal with it.

I don't think anyone ITT is arguing against this. I'm going to go out on a limb and say we all agree with you here.

But TBF, that isn't what you were arguing earlier.

What I have been lulzing at is all the posters suggesting that one is stupid for arguing for marriage before cohabitation. Using words like "stupid" "antiquated" and the like.

[ArthurDigbySellers]

Here's my argument: people should make decisions and then live with the outcome of those decisions. If one outcome is that your baby-momma parents hate you, deal with it.

I don't think anyone ITT is arguing against this. I'm going to go out on a limb and say we all agree with you here.

But TBF, that isn't what you were arguing earlier.

What I have been lulzing at is all the posters suggesting that one is stupid for arguing for marriage before cohabitation. Using words like "stupid" "antiquated" and the like.

I don't think one is stupid for doing it, but yes I think one is stupid for arguing for it.

[Magnolia]

Here's my argument: people should make decisions and then live with the outcome of those decisions. If one outcome is that your baby-momma parents hate you, deal with it.

I don't think anyone ITT is arguing against this. I'm going to go out on a limb and say we all agree with you here.

But TBF, that isn't what you were arguing earlier.

What I have been lulzing at is all the posters suggesting that one is stupid for arguing for marriage before cohabitation. Using words like "stupid" "antiquated" and the like.

Yes, I got that. But, again, not the same argument as taking responsibility for your actions.

Your current argument makes sense. Your previous argument was a whole hot mess of emotion and strawmen.

[ArthurDigbySellers]

whole hot mess of emotion and strawmen.

Sounds kinky.

[lonestar]

What about the option of getting a decent place for the two of you to share, and then getting a room in a shared house to keep your stuff/stay when her parents are in town. Then you don't exactly live together, and you still save money all the while being comfortable.

[ArthurDigbySellers]

whole hot mess of emotion and strawmen.

Sounds kinky.

Yeah baby

[Stringer Bell]

You guys have a different definition of what I consider to be a "stupid" person. Saying someone is a smart person and a stupid person sounds to me like Tim McCarver saying "That pitch wasn't down and in. It was down and up." Obviously smart people can have views that I consider to be stupid, but in my mind that doesn't mean they are stupid people.

For me though, to qualify someone as stupid means that they have a overwhelming preponderance of views or repeatedly engage in actions that I consider to be "stupid". Quantifiable measures such as a really low iq, wonderlic score, etc. can work as well. I also would consider someone stupid if they had a belief that I considered completely indefensible under any circumstances (i.e someone saying that the holocaust was good). The religous beliefs discussed here don't meet that standard for me at all. If people wanted to legislate or completely disown their family members for going against those beliefs, then I can see moving them into the "stupid people" category.

[ArthurDigbySellers]

Straw men are watching you
--ImageRemoved--


Watch your argumentation.

[ArthurDigbySellers]

Obviously smart people can have views that I consider to be stupid, but in my mind that doesn't mean they are stupid people.

I think that's what basically everyone who said that was getting at. At least I was.

[czelede]

I opened up this thread this morning and them boom! 7 pages!

OP, as someone with very strict and traditional parents I can sort of understand where your GF is coming from to some extent - even if she is an independent adult and there are no tangible threats involved; even if her parents are bigots that would disown her over this or that, they are still her parents and if she loves them and respects them I can certainly see why she would be reluctant just to tell them to shove it. I think this situation depends a lot of on what the ramifications of disobeying her father's wishes would be - would he never talk to her again? Would he stew and be disappointed and then get over it? If it's the latter, you just have to talk her out of living her life by what other people might say.

I am personally of the "live together before you get married" school of thought. Not everyone needs to, of course, but I think it's beneficial for most couples these days.

I have no dog in this fight (personally would prefer to live with someone before marriage), but I find it interesting that there are studies which say that, on average, people who live together before marriage tend to have a higher rate of divorce.

This is not causal at all though. The major explanation is that people who live together tend to see two roads ahead of them - breaking up and getting married - and more tend to choose the getting married route who shouldn't have, because it seems easier at the time than breaking up and moving all your stuff out.

That's your little factoid for the day

The variable might be religion. Maybe people who have the gall to move in with each other are less likely to be slaves to a religion and stay in a miserable relationship because God says so.

Atheists/agnostics actually have the lowest rate of divorce among all faiths (or there lack of). Christians have among the highest.

[Wholigan]

What I have been lulzing at is all the posters suggesting that one is stupid for arguing for marriage before cohabitation. Using words like "stupid" "antiquated" and the like.

I will mention that I don't agree with the commentary here implying that anyone who believes in religion is stupid or that everyone should live together first, regardless of their personal beliefs.

But TBF this thread was derailed by people saying the OP should just marry the girl and her parents are right, when it was clear that marriage was not on his mind and he and his girlfriend are not interested in that as an option. I'm sure considering her parents' views, they are well aware of the arguments to be made on the practical merits of both choices. At that point you have to let them choose, and I think it's more than fair to agree that it's small-minded (and maybe even unchristian?) of her parents if they choose to change their attitudes or nature of affection toward their daughter based on her choice.

[lhlee]

Damn, don't kill the magic, bro.

But seriously, I'm in a similar situation, and I know that such a decision should not be made based solely on your SO's parents' religious beliefs. However, do realize that if you two move in together, her parents will see you as the thing that caused a rift in their relationship. This will be especially important in your decision if they have a good, strong relationship. It's not a place for YOU to make a decision, it's a decision between you and your girlfriend with at least some respect and consideration to your respective parents wishes.

The void of not having her parents' support might or might not damage your relationship with your girlfriend. People can tell you how you're old enough and financially capable enough to make your own decisions ITT, but is your gf emotionally matured enough to deal with the stress and burden of disappointing her parents? You have to know her and know how she will react (what she tells you might not be the truth). If she's strong enough to go through with it, fine. If not, you won't have a gf for long anyway.

Also, how will you be able to study with your gf around all the time? And. How long have you been together (sorry if this has been answered). I'll be pissed if it's anything less than a year.

[bk1]

You guys have a different definition of what I consider to be a "stupid" person. Saying someone is a smart person and a stupid person sounds to me like Tim McCarver saying "That pitch wasn't down and in. It was down and up." Obviously smart people can have views that I consider to be stupid, but in my mind that doesn't mean they are stupid people.

For me though, to qualify someone as stupid means that they have a overwhelming preponderance of views or repeatedly engage in actions that I consider to be "stupid". Quantifiable measures such as a really low iq, wonderlic score, etc. can work as well. I also would consider someone stupid if they had a belief that I considered completely indefensible under any circumstances (i.e someone saying that the holocaust was good). The religous beliefs discussed here don't meet that standard for me at all. If people wanted to legislate or completely disown their family members for going against those beliefs, then I can see moving them into the "stupid people" category.

Getting most of your social values from the texts of men who lived millennia ago seems like a preponderance to me! But that's just me being argumentative.

I see your point and we really just disagree semantically. You think a "stupid person" is someone with a large amount or an extremely stupid view. I think a "stupid person" is someone who has at least one view that is dumb (so pretty much every human on planet earth). Both are valid and I don't think either of us disagree on what that person actually thinks in regards to different things (engineering, marriage, etc) but we call the person different things.

[paratactical]

but is your gf emotionally matured enough to deal with the stress and burden of disappointing her parents? You have to know her and know how she will react (what she tells you might not be the truth). If she's strong enough to go through with it, fine. If not, you won't have a gf for long anyway.

This is part of the reason I balked at the suggestions that they just tie the knot. If the girl isn't mature, stable and prepared enough to make an independent decision (whether that be to stand up to her parents or find another solution), how could she possibly be mature, stable and prepared to get married?

[bk1]

What I have been lulzing at is all the posters suggesting that one is stupid for arguing for marriage before cohabitation. Using words like "stupid" "antiquated" and the like.

There is nothing wrong with the practice. However, it is stupid and antiquated to force the practice on other people even your own progeny.

[Jack Smirks]

I think a "stupid person" is someone who has at least one view that is dumb (so pretty much every human on planet earth).

Thank you for excluding me.

[bartleby]

More importantly, say you come home from a 6 hour study session and are completely beat. All you want to do is whack off to some pornstar without even taking your pants off, just straight through the zipper hole. Glass of milk in the other hand. How are you going to do that with a girlfriend around?

[bk1]

More importantly, say you come home from a 6 hour study session and are completely beat. All you want to do is whack off to some pornstar without even taking your pants off, just straight through the zipper hole. Glass of milk in the other hand. How are you going to do that with a girlfriend around?

You need to practice hiding your masturbation habits and pr0n collection for when you end up married. Better to start early so you're more adept at hiding it later on.

And the zipper hole? That seems awfully painful.

[paratactical]

More importantly, say you come home from a 6 hour study session and are completely beat. All you want to do is whack off to some pornstar without even taking your pants off, just straight through the zipper hole. Glass of milk in the other hand. How are you going to do that with a girlfriend around?

I dunno. Sounds pretty hot. What girl wouldn't want to watch that?

[bk1]

I think a "stupid person" is someone who has at least one view that is dumb (so pretty much every human on planet earth).

Thank you for excluding me.

That's what e-friends are for.