A mother was visiting her son who was doing a job in a different city. The son was living in with a female colleague in the same apartment. the son expected some trouble with his mother and also with his colleague so he asked his live in partner to look after his mother during her stay and not create trouble. When his mother raised her eyebrows at his roommate he explained to her " we are sharing accomadation only due to expenses and nothing else. Dont think anything else. we are just colleagues and thats all." His mother left after a few days. His live in partner complained the next day that her Silver Plate was missing and insisted that his mother must have taken it. The son rang up his mother and asked her about the silver plate and she replied " I know that you both are colleagues and nothing else and are sharing expenses and nothing else,but if she had slept in her own bed she would have discovered the plate under the matress." This story reflects the Live in relationship
RE:Live in Relationships
by asdf on Jul 17, 2007 07:47 PM Permalink
This is an old wine in new bottle by ravi nettem to endorse his views...i think its a democracy....any body is free to exercise his rights without hurting anybody....if live in relation ship is hurting some one, then it should be avoided...but i dont find any reason that live in relation is hurting anybody....All i can see is, those opposed to it, are either moral policing like Mullah's of Lal masjid and taliban or jealous, as they did not get a chance for a live in relationship...
RE:Live in Relationships
by Gopalkrishnan on Jul 17, 2007 05:10 PM Permalink
Good example. One can understand the purported sense of this story. This is against the principles and practices of what actually we are supposed to follow, as every relationship has its divine meaning. We are not mere animals but rational animal. We have a society and everyone is a part of it and has a role to play. Just say, father, mother, brother, sister - repeating will echo the worth of relationship. Everyone has a right to choose his/her mate, but it should be for the fullfilment of our individuality, personality which should be read with our parents name and identified with our integrity. None of us is supposed to waste our vitality and potential for mere transient pleasures to fulfill our biological need, instead it should be transformed into a meaningfull method of activity of life. If society is a 'pillar' families are the 'bricks' which it is made of and we are materials to concrete it. Espousing a live in arrangement as liberty it means you compromise your social responsibility with your own interest. Let wisdoem prevail and let us not encourage such folly instincts.
RE:Live in Relationships
by sampath mohapatra on Jul 17, 2007 06:04 PM Permalink
Mr. Krishnan, good cut, copy , paste. Where as it from. By the way what are the principles that we are supposed to follow and who made them?? I suppose you would be a strong believer in the caste system too. You would want to marry a girl from your own caste and gotra too. And you would consult a astrologer to match your horoscopes too. People like you are the bane of society. A society that allows freedom of thought is a forward moving society. Unfortunately people like you would not understand it. You are too closetted to let in anything inside your screwed up brains.
RE:Live in Relationships
by Suresh Kumar on Jul 17, 2007 05:55 PM Permalink
1. In what way do think the people living in are not socially responsible than the people married and living in? 2. Who says what we are supposed to follow? 3. Live in does not mean, they are not going to marry? What is exactly wrong with it?
your entire paragraph misses the point of why you don;t support other than saying we are not supposed to follow.
4. What makes you think that people living in together do that only for physical pleasure? Who said that to you?
5. If marrying and living together is allowed, then can we marry more than 1 person and live in?
6. Why Hindu gods have more than one wife? I'm indian and Hindu. So don;t blame other people.
Based on your witting, it appears that you are well educated and well thought. With all due respect in that direction, I challenge you to prove your point and i can prove you wrong in every aspect and every reason you give.
RE:Live in Relationships
by wilfred godfrey on Jul 28, 2007 10:15 AM Permalink
1.A family is secure and peaceful if all in t family feel secure and are at peace. Secrity i mean the security in relationship.The man shud feel secure abt his woman and vice versa.
In a society all men and women are not the same.Every one has their own moral values and maturity depending on how they are brought up and t environment in which they survive. Marriage is a standard which tries to provide security interms of relationship.It can be either flourish or flop depending on the commitment to marriage by a man or woman.For a responsible person, it facilites his commitment.and for an irresponsible person it demands commitment. Either way it tries to provide more security to both involved though t person under t yoke thinks otherwise.
Live in relationships also depend on t commitment of the man and woman involved but the bond here is more of ethical nature and both are not really careful abt their character , the relnship is too vulnerable to flop.the responsibility is too much on individual shoulders to take utter care that they r trustworthy of the other.
