Is it wrong to be married for security rather than love?

Question

First of all this was a general question, not for my situation, and I work full time so don't get excited..

This question is based on observations and I wouldn't do it, in fact I'm already married I just wanted people's point of view on this subject, I don't need people calling ME a goldigger!! the word I and ME are nowhere in the question!!

Answer 1

As long as you and your spouse know the reasons behind the marriage there is nothing wrong with it. I've seen great marriages based on love, money, security or whatever. And I've seen not so great ones. As long as you work together and plan to continue that if children are brought into it then go for it.

Food for thought: Arranged marriages have a 1% divorce rate while love marriages have a 50%.

Answer 2

Many women (and men) stay married for a lot of different reasons whether it be financial or emotional without really being that much in love. If you're dating or considering marrying a man; security should definately be part of the package, but obviously not the only factor. Love should be in there somewhere.

Answer 3

I don't think it's so much a question of "right" or "wrong." It's more a question of what you are willing to accept. No one else should judge you on your reasons for getting married. But, is security enough for you? Years from now, will you be able to look yourself in the mirror and say "I did the right thing?" How many soul-mates will you pass up who may also be able to offer you the type of security you seek?

The other side of the question is fairness to your spouse. If you're telling them you love them and you really don't, you're lying to them. Honesty, Trust and Communication are the real foundations for a happy marriage. Love often comes much, much later. In many countries, marriages are often "arranged" by the parents. There is no "love" between such couples--only a commitment to try.

Incidentally, many of those marriages last much longer than those here in the U.S. where the divorce rate is about 50%. (Food for thought).

Answer 4

First of all, a lot of marriages in older generations and for centuries are for security. The notion was a girl should be married to a family and a man that could (hopefully) provide stability. That was because women couldn't work except in the family's properties such as the fields. Back to modern days, women with no resources and skills and with kids have little choices.

The pecking order of importance for animals and humans
1. Food
2. Shelter (for humans); reproduction of the species (for animals)

For humans, love and sex come after foods and shelter.

Answer 5

depends on the individual circumstance as all people are different but yes i think it wrong to do so and no matter whether people believe or not there is a law that says you will get as you give, so those that marry for this reason may have all the outward material things but not peace of mind and if they do find someone that they do care for then they must cheat on the security and take the risk of losing the security so best to marry someone you enjoy waking up to every morning

Answer 6

Love and security go hand in hand. You can be in love with someone, even passionately so, but if that person cannot provide security and stability for the long term, you shouldn't marry.

So many times we're tricked by the warm feelings of lust and passion that we think it's love. You can feel passion and love for someone who is totally wrong for you. It's often easy to have those feelings for someone who would make a terrible spouse or an awful parent to your children. Marrying for the passionate and lustful kind of love is wrong.

Love is more than a feeling, it's more than passion and happiness when you're together. REAL love is a deep commitment to another person that you'll always be there, for better or for worse. The passion can and will fade from a marriage, but if it's based on REAL love, the marriage can continue. Our feelings ebb and flow, but REAL love based on commitment and honor is always there, underlying the passion and the pain.

REAL love takes time to develop and takes effort to maintain. It's not just there. REAL love can disagree with you, can even dislike you, but will always love you. Take a look at a parent's love for his or her child. The child may scream, "I hate you!" but the parent never stops loving. That's REAL love. That's the kind of love you need to have for your spouse. That's security based on love.

If you have REAL love for a person, then you have security. You both know that the marriage will last, no matter what the world throws at you.

If you marry just for love, the fleeting, hot, lustful and passionate kind of love, then you're likely to end up in divorce as soon as the passion fades. There's no security in that kind of love, no stability, no future.

So no, it's not wrong to be married for security. As long as its security based on a commitment to REAL love.

Answer 7

Lots of people get married for the wrong reasons and chose 'security' over love, and I'm not talking about just financial secuirty. I think this happens when people 1) are living their lives in fear or 2) they don't know themselves very well.

Answer 8

I married my first marriage for security. He was a good man and I loved him, but I was not in love with him. The marriage only lasted for a year. If you are going to get married, do it for the right reasons...

Answer 9

when you marry for love, security comes naturally. but when you marry for security, love does not come in between and the goal is selfishness, which may not last long. love is an expression from yr heart but security ha s nothing to do with emotions which are important between the couple.

Answer 10

I think if it's known up-front, beforehand and both parties find it a mutually agreeable arrangement, that it's not wrong. It's not something I would do as a younger person, but my best guy friend and I always thought we would marry for this reason one day when we were older, in the event neither of us ever met "the One", which we both did.