In this blog post from last week we discussed whether it was a good idea to get engaged long-term even if you weren’t 100 percent sure about marriage. Although we think an engagement is questionable if both parties are still unsure about marriage, we want to know what you think. Is it OK to have a long-term engagement with no intentions of marriage?
I don’t see a problem with long term engagements. I mean not everyone can afford to get married right away but at least the ring means there has been some kind of commitment and promise made to each other. I think that’s better than just waiting until you have the money for the wedding!
I agree that money issues shouldn’t hold a couple back from making a commitment move. However, the situation proposed is when one of the partners isn’t sure about marriage.
Firstly, if you are truely in sync with your partner, you should know that they aren’t ready & shouldn’t ask for their hand in marriage just yet. Secondly, the point of engagement is to announce to the world that you ARE ready to get married. Thirdly, if you enter into an engagement while unsure of the situation, it will only be harder to say, “No,” later when family & friends are expecting a wedding.
I don’t think there should be an issue with a long-term engagement.
My fiance and I are probably going to have a long-term engagement (we’ll be engaged for a year in a few months), not because we aren’t sure about married, but we can’t afford a wedding anytime soon.
I don’t understand the point of agreeing to become engaged, if you have little or no intention of getting married int eh near future?
If couples are unsure they want to get married, I see no reason to rush it. Dating is a perfect normal part of life, & if you’re happy, or do not want to get married, why succumb to the pressures? When I get engaged, it is because we’re ready to being planning our wedding & planning on our marriage to each other.