What are things that a couple should discuss before moving in together?

I got some advice. Don’t ever get a goddamn dog. Not only are they ugly, smelly, useless, loud and expensive, but you’ll be scooping up turds all the time when your lady says “ oh I want a dog..”

Hahaa. Fortunately my girl hates those heinous monsters like I do. Fuckking dogs!

theJeff wrote:

The book said wrote:

Abraham had quite the side chick thing going on. To name just one.

He almost killed his son, too.

Exactly. All the more reason to let go of schizophrenic ramblings and get with the real world. Nothing breaks up a marriage quite like killing your kids.

Being Catholic and Muslim it may be worth discussing ditching the Bronze age religions.

theJeff wrote:

Marriage.

The “Pretending to be Married” phenomenon is the second most destructive movements towards healthy marriage in society today. It sends the message that it is ok to back out of long term commitments, because while you enjoy many - not all - of the physical perks of marriage, there is really nothing at stake.

Moving in together is society’s version of a Finisher’s Medal.

Sh!t or get off the pot, dude.

While there is something to be said for committing, the sentiment above is garbage. There’s a counter argument that making active choices to stay together is more rewarding and empowering. Take one step and then decide to continue.

It’s like going to work. You don’t have to go to work....you choose to. It’s a huge mental shift. You’re deciding to stay together. You’re not forced to be married.

My wife and I probably got married too quickly. But we’re making it work. Love is a verb after all, not a feeling.

since you asked wrote:

You should get married first.

^Horrible advice above!

Wolf's Bane wrote:

If you're not living together you're only seeing your partner at his or her best. You need to know you can love them the rest of the time before you consider marriage.

This and +2

theJeff wrote:

The issue isn't marriage. The issue is the attitude that people would marry to "see how it goes"; that it is an arbitrary "obligation to a piece of paper". That is not the purpose of marriage. Marriage = Commitment, period. We shouldn't marry until we are 100% sure that both parties have chosen to love each other, no matter what. That choice must be stronger than the whims, struggles, and infatuations that all marriages face.

Living together without marriage teaches us that it is ok to break commitments - it feels enough like marriage to make it seem as though ending a marriage is acceptable - and is essentially the Gateway Drug of divorce.

Your first paragraph is good. Your second paragraph is pure BS - nothing more than you projecting your notion of what living together means onto others. Sorry, but that is simply not relevant at all.

Living together is pretty much by definition NOT MAKING a commitment in the first place (aside from paying your share of the rent, etc.). Therefore there is no commitment to break and your "teaches us that it is ok to break commitments" is spectacularly and indisputably wrong.

Well, you are batting .500. Not bad!

theJeff wrote:

I really try to avoid dairy.

And yes, lots of folks lead lives apart from my worldview, and although mine certainly isn’t perfect, I would take mine over the stat that 50% of marriages currently end in divorce.

Is your marriage actually happy though, or are you only still together because of fear of punishment from a space goblin?

No offence, but being around you for any length of time must be, shall we say, quite trying.

Before my wife and I got married, we maintained separate residences, but she basically lived at my place. It didn’t take long - just a month or two - to figure out whether we could live together. You get to know someone very well, very quickly when you live together. It didn’t make sense for us to completely merge our two residences and belongings before getting married, because it would have been a freaking hassle and mess if we did that and subsequently broke up a month or two after moving in together. Plus, we both lived so frugally, it wasn’t a big financial burden to maintain separate residences.

As to the OP’s original question, if you are going to merge your residences and belongings before you get engaged/married, the two big issues to discuss are: (1) whose stuff will be sold off if there are duplicative possessions (e.g., two dining room sets, two beds, etc.); and (2) how expenses will be shared. Those seem to be the two biggest potential flashpoints for conflict.

As to (1), consider putting stuff you would hate to sell in storage until you know if the relationship will survive the cohabitation. As to (2), I have no idea. Money is a deeply personal issue. Good luck!

theJeff wrote:

marriage is not a commitment wrote:

As long as no fault divorce exists, being married is no more of a commitment than living together unmarried.

I hope that one day your moral compass evolves beyond contemporary law.

My moral compass has nothing to do with it. If one can end their marriage any time they want for any reason (or no reason), it is not a commitment.

ummmmmm wrote:

My partner and I have been together about 1.5 years, and are planning to move in together in a few months. In those 1.5 years, we've lived within 10 minutes of each other and spend many nights together. We did discuss that this would be a stepping stone to marriage (something we see sometime in the future).

In general what are some things that should be discussed before moving in together? I assume things like future plans (marriage?), finances, etc. all go into this. Looking for some advice from the Letsrun folks.

Agree that you will worship your own choice . For my situation , I am a scientologist, yet my girlfriend is Jewish , so there are events we cannot go to together .

The most important thing to hash out is acceptability and frequency of rear door entry, if you know what I mean.

marriage is not a commitment wrote:

theJeff wrote:

I hope that one day your moral compass evolves beyond contemporary law.

My moral compass has nothing to do with it. If one can end their marriage any time they want for any reason (or no reason), it is not a commitment.

Sorry, but I'm gonna have to call BS here. The fact that one CAN end a marriage is completely irrelevant to the question as to whether one is committed in marriage. A commitment is what one commits to, NOT what one is forced to stay in by outside forces.

Gonna have to call BS wrote:

marriage is not a commitment wrote:

My moral compass has nothing to do with it. If one can end their marriage any time they want for any reason (or no reason), it is not a commitment.

Sorry, but I'm gonna have to call BS here. The fact that one CAN end a marriage is completely irrelevant to the question as to whether one is committed in marriage. A commitment is what one commits to, NOT what one is forced to stay in by outside forces.

Same applies to people who are living together unmarried. They are free to commit to whatever they want.

I generally agree that commitment is (or at least should be) intrinsic rather than extrinsic. I just don't see how it leads to the idea that marriage = commitment while living together unmarried != commitment, which is what I was refuting. In fact, the same logic leads me to the opposite conclusion. Commitment is not dependent upon going out and having the state certify your relationship.

"Soooo.... when do you think you'll be moving out?"

Although there is not a consensus, the jury is currently leaning towards a correlation between cohabitation and higher divorce rates, but the article goes into a bit more interesting detail than that (on both sides of the argument).

trollism wrote:

theJeff wrote:

I really try to avoid dairy.

And yes, lots of folks lead lives apart from my worldview, and although mine certainly isn’t perfect, I would take mine over the stat that 50% of marriages currently end in divorce.

Is your marriage actually happy though, or are you only still together because of fear of punishment from a space goblin?

No offence, but being around you for any length of time must be, shall we say, quite trying.

I have very little doubt that you are correct. What can I say? I way out-kicked my coverage.

As to the first question, although I certainly committed to loving my wife before man and God, I don't ever remember having to tell myself "I need to choose to love my wife today, or else it will piss off the* space goblin." I actually quite enjoy her company, and I believe that she - inexplicably - enjoys mine. I have been happier and more fulfilled than I knew was possible.

*I think "space goblin" deserves a definite article here, as it refers to the uncreated creator and savior of the universe and mankind, for the sake of this argument.

marriage is not a commitment wrote:

theJeff wrote:

I hope that one day your moral compass evolves beyond contemporary law.

My moral compass has nothing to do with it. If one can end their marriage any time they want for any reason (or no reason), it is not a commitment.

I don't think we are communicating. My point is that the legal aspect of marriage isn't what makes it a commitment.

marriage is not a commitment wrote:

Gonna have to call BS wrote:

Sorry, but I'm gonna have to call BS here. The fact that one CAN end a marriage is completely irrelevant to the question as to whether one is committed in marriage. A commitment is what one commits to, NOT what one is forced to stay in by outside forces.

Same applies to people who are living together unmarried. They are free to commit to whatever they want.

I generally agree that commitment is (or at least should be) intrinsic rather than extrinsic. I just don't see how it leads to the idea that marriage = commitment while living together unmarried != commitment, which is what I was refuting. In fact, the same logic leads me to the opposite conclusion. Commitment is not dependent upon going out and having the state certify your relationship.

I think I see your point more clearly. Yes, we agree that - by today's societal norms - marriage has become less of a commitment. My point was that marriage was - and still should be - MEANT to be the commitment, regardless of what Reagan's "no fault divorce" implies.