2007-02-27 01:21:52 · 29 answers · asked by Zhelyz 2 in Family & Relationships ➔ Weddings
Date for at least a year then be engaged as long as it takes to prepare for the wedding (but no less than 6 months).
2007-02-27 01:27:23 · answer #1 · answered by OOO! I know! I know! 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think long engagements allow you more time to focus more on the wedding. If you are planning a big wedding you will probably need a full year to plan, mainly so you have enough time out to book a hall and the church. The bad thing about long engagements, they allow you more time to focus on the wedding. I have seen in family and friends this huge obsession with planning every detail of the wedding, reception, honeymoon, the 14 bridal showers, 3 bachelorettte parties and you know one of those has to be a cruise or a trip to Vegas or something! In all that planning, it is easy to forget that when the parties are all over, you are going to be married. After flying on that high that is all that stuff, it is often hard to wake up after the honeymoon and go to work and make dinner and be...............married. It is often a hard transition. My husband and I planned and were married in 3 months. It was wonderful. I just had a friend who I would have expected a huge wedding out of, plan and be married in 3 weeks. She and her husband are both sheriff deputies and they had to burn up some vacation time before the end of the year, so why not get married then! They are planning a big reception for the summer but in the mean time, they are married. There is my 2 cents!! :)
2007-02-27 01:34:36 · answer #2 · answered by D Marie 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Long engagements generally mean less mistakes. That way you really have time to get to knwo the person especially if you are planning a wedding nothing brings out a persons true side like planning a wedding! Short engagements generally mean more mistakes because you dont usually know the person as well. Unless you are already in a relationship to start with
2007-03-03 12:08:48 · answer #3 · answered by galixcysmagic 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think it mostly depends on the couple, but I never saw the point in really long engagements, I mean whats the point if you aren't gonna get married for several years? it just cheapens the meaning of engagement for those of us who are actually plannin to take the next step and have a wedding. Just continue dating bc thats really what you are doin anyway right? anything over 1 1/2 years to 2 years is a useless engagement to me, I will be engaged a year when we get married next month, and that has been a suitable amount of time, and really about average. I have friends who pull it off in 6 months, so thats not bad, but they also dated a while too, much shorter than that and its just crazy! a couple really needs at least a year to get to know each other in my opinion, people tend to change with the seasons ad you need to make sure you like the summer, fall, winter and spring person!
2007-02-27 02:36:47 · answer #4 · answered by ASH 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it would totally depend on the couple. Are you positive you want to marry that person, what would be the reason for prolonging it. Weddings "normally" take a year to plan, so I guess that's how long I would want to be engaged (and in fact I will marry my fiance two-weeks before it'll be a year that we are together - some people would be freaked out about that, not us), so you see, it really just depends. Some people think they want to live together for at least a year first and then become engaged and be engaged for a year or so. I think that is a mistake - I think the only thing you are going to find out about a person you live with his that it's HARD to live with them! That's anyone - marriage takes work and there shouldn't be a "safety net". Marriage is for life, divorce should not be an option.
2007-02-27 01:41:58 · answer #5 · answered by Brandy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I dont believe in long engagements. you get engaged when your ready to start planning a wedding. if you arent ready to do that yet then I see no point in getting engaged. thats when people run into problems like bringing up the wedding, setting a date and starting to plan. like some friends of mine who have been engaged almost 2 years now and never even talk about the wedding anymore and still havent set a date. I was only engaged 5 months before I got married. at the longest an engagement should be about 1.5 years.
oh...and for those people who say it lets you get to know the person better if you have a long engagement...umm...shouldnt you know the person totally and completely before you agree to marry them? like common here people...use some common sense. its lack of that which will lead to divorce.
2007-02-27 04:34:49 · answer #6 · answered by Jenn ♥Cadence Jade's mum♥ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is a personal choice that only the folks involved can make properly. It would depend on a number of things, like how long they've been together for one.
There's also the wedding planning to consider. If you both want a medium-to large ceremony, you would do best with at least a six-month engagement. There's a lot to be arranged, and it takes time. A longer engagement gives you time and flexibility in your choices, and is far less stressful.
2007-02-27 02:19:55 · answer #7 · answered by Happy Wife 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What do you consider 'long'? or 'short'?
How do you define 'engagement'?
Engagement means different things to different people and in different cultures.
Traditionally in an open society like ours (where marriages are not arranged by the parents) engagement marks the beginning of a couples' commitment to each other in faithfulness for a lifetime.
The amount of time between the engagement/commitment and the public expression of their commitment (wedding) depends on your personal situation.
The length of time during which the relationship develops into a lifelong commitment is probably more important than the length of time between engagement and wedding.
Most couples consider engagement to be the beginning of the marriage. In fact, in many societies breaking an engagement is considered as tragic as divorce, at least from an emotional perspective.
2007-02-27 01:54:10 · answer #8 · answered by verderf 1 · 3⤊ 1⤋
My fiance and I got engaged on Dec. 1, 2006 and are planning our wedding for June of 2008. We want a summer wedding and this summer was too soon, because we both are starting our full time jobs and getting our lives sorted out. We also needed more time financially to afford the wedding we wanted. ALSO, we do not live together so we needed more time to look for our dream house. Short engagements are good for those who already live together and know exactly how they want their wedding.
2007-02-27 02:41:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is different for everyone. My fiance and I planned our wedding for a year later...but we were done and waiting with seven months to spare. I wish we had a shorter engagement!
Long engagements never made sense to me. I knew a girl who got engaged graduation night of high school and got married right after her college graduation. What was the point of that? If you aren't ready to be married yet, don't get engaged.
2007-02-27 01:30:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋