To be unfulfilled and never get married and have no kids or is it better to be complete with a partner or child for a while and then have to be torn apart from them due to loss of their life? Is it better to love or not to have loved at all?
2006-07-19 09:33:14 · 11 answers · asked by Song 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The question includes the assumption that fulfillment comes from being married and having kids. Are you so sure of that?
2006-07-19 09:37:04 · answer #1 · answered by lenny 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The latter is better. You can live without romantic love, because there are other types of love. Mother Theresa was an example of this. She had so much love she had a huge positive impact on the lives of thousands.
No, it is better to be without if that's the only option.
However, it doesn't have to be your only choice. Romantic relationships were invented by God, and they come with a manual. Read your bible; specifically the book "Song of Solomon," also known as "Song of Songs." It's a practical example of how to have a successful romantic relationship.
2006-07-19 09:42:13 · answer #2 · answered by Privratnik 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm Pretty Young, But I Know What Love Is, I Mean I Love This Guy To Death And Truthfully I'd Say Its Better To Love, Cuz Without Him, I Wouldn't Be Here.
2006-07-19 09:37:34 · answer #3 · answered by shayla_johnson2003 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For starters: never getting married doesn't preclude not having kids. And not having kids doesn't mean one is unfulfilled.
But as far as the love-and-get-hurt, or never love thing, If you truely love someone, you have their memories. The hurt will get better over time. I would not want to trade away all the good times just to avoid pain.
2006-07-19 09:38:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
emotionally, physically, and financially it is better to remain unmarried and have no children. you can live a fulfilling life this way too, it just takes some imagination (foster parenting, mentor programs, etc)
or are you talking about marrying and having children with someone you know is going to die in a few years? that's a tough one.
last question is easy... better to have loved :)
2006-07-19 09:41:34 · answer #5 · answered by ppunk71 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For some it is better to not love and for others its better to love. I prefer better to love than to not have loved at all. Stuff happens, theres nothing you can do but to make yourself and the people around you stronger.
2006-07-19 09:38:43 · answer #6 · answered by hippy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Better to love. If you've never loved, you will more than likely stay miserable, if you know what it is like to love, you can love again.
2006-07-19 09:37:11 · answer #7 · answered by happymommy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is better to have loved and lost than not to have loved at all. Temporary happiness is better than permanent sadness.
2006-07-19 09:37:32 · answer #8 · answered by motyl4u 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if you loved at least you can hope that in the after-life, is it exists, maybe you can find the loved one again....so in my opinion it's better to love even if you could lose your loved one, at least you still have the hope that maybe, somewhere, sometime you could meet that person again...
2006-07-19 09:45:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Definately to have loved.
2006-07-19 09:37:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋