I would like everyone to be very open minded about this before voting. For centuries, most cultures around the world have arranged marriages for their children and people have gotten married for practical reasons aside from love. Marriage for love is a relatively new invention, but does that mean it is the most advanced?

Suppose you were in a situation that you were in desperately in love with someone who has not shown themselves to be very good for you in many ways, and may not work out well in the long run. But at the same time, you could be with someone that you are not in love with, but who treats you well and loves you very much. The future with this person is also more promising because the relationship has less ups and downs and you are never fighting with the person.

An obvious pro to staying with the one that you are not in love with, is that life is stable because you never argue and are better friends than anything else. That person would definitely be a better parent for your children and would make a suitable life partner. The downside being that the sex life is at a zero, and you are always dreaming about the other person and feel unfulfilled in your current situation. Additionally, you would break the person's heart if you left them to be with the one you truly loved. They say that passion fades, and I happen to believe that being "in love" mainly deals with passion.

What is most important, stability or love? I don't mean financial stability, because the person you are in love with actually is better off financially that the other one... Feel free to ask questions before voting.

It might change once I age more, but for now, I want love.

__________________
In the pursuit of knowledge, every day something is added. In the practice of the Way, every day something is dropped. Less and less do you need to force things, until finally you arrive at non-action. When nothing is done, nothing is left undone.

"We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand."
—Randy Pausch

That might very well happen because when I was younger, I would have answered just the same: Love.

Nowadays I come more and more to the conclusion that stability is more important. As KimSan wrote, passion fades.
In the past I preferred love and where did that take me? It took me to being divorced and single at the age of 45.

So my answer to the question is that I'd choose stability.

__________________
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, as apparently my cats have learned how to type.

I just can't see myself being desperately in love with someone who "has not shown themselves to be very good for you in many ways, and may not work out well in the long run". If I really was in that situation then I figure it (me being in love) would not last, so I would not choose that person to be with. Therefore by default I'd choose the other person that I was not in love with. The sex life may be at zero, but at least there will be an emotional connection.

Between the two situations? I would pick stability. I can't be with someone I know is not good for me. It would drive me batty. If I can't trust someone, it's pretty much not going to happen with me anyway.

__________________
ProAzn.com on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/ProAznCommunity

Wiki-ABOUT US
http://www.aboutus.org/Proazn.com

stability, better chance at developing mature love.

__________________

I think many people mistake "lust" from "love". I had lust with a girl before and we had very passionate relationship, but it wasn't love.

__________________
In the pursuit of knowledge, every day something is added. In the practice of the Way, every day something is dropped. Less and less do you need to force things, until finally you arrive at non-action. When nothing is done, nothing is left undone.

"We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand."
—Randy Pausch