CLB tiếng Anh BE - Nơi hội tụ của những người Việt trẻ năng động, sáng tạo và chuyên nghiệp - "Tầng

Hơ hơ....E tưởng topic tuần nì cả nhà bít rùi chứ, nếu e nhớ ko nhầm thì là topic nì ạ:
Should couples live together before marriage?
To many, it seems quaint, and at worst incredible, to even question the morality and value of living together before marriage. It is more and more acceptable in our society nowadays for young men and women to "try it out" before committing themselves to a life-long relationship. What do you think about this issue?
Some questions for your preparation:
1, why couples live together before marriage? For curiousness? For ***? For their own financial matter? For common trend?
2, what are the advantages and disadvantages of living together before marriage?
3, Refer to situations of living together before marriage in Viet Nam. Has the trend of living together before marriage in Viet Nam been becoming popular in our modern society? Why? If you had chance to live with your partner before marriage, should you do it?
NOTE: Với chủ đề này, chúng ta tiếp tục thực hiện thử nghiệm mô hình debate. Tuy nhiên, sẽ có một sự khác biệt, đó là, CLB sẽ được chia ra làm 2. Một bên ủng hộ, một bên không ủng hộ. Sau phần thảo luận, chúng ta sẽ tiến hành debate luôn. Cũng xin lưu ý thành viên rằng với chủ đề này, chúng ta sẽ chỉ "đóng vai" để bảo vệ quan điểm của nhóm mình. Việc một bạn nữ ngồi trong nhóm ủng hộ quan điểm sống thử trước hôn nhân không có nghĩa là bạn ấy là người sống "thoáng" hay ABC gì cả. Nhấn mạnh như vậy để mọi người biết.
Hí hí... Đấy là e trích lại thui, chứ cụ thể tuần nì topic gì thì thuộc về ban nội dung, e chỉ lăng quăng tý thoai, tại ban ent sau noel rùi ko có gì làm, đi phá hoại tý.He he.......

Hik, em tưởng topik cả nhà biết cả roài nên ko nhảy nhót vào đây, bác Vĩnh đưa topik từ trước Xmas roài mờ . Em rất sozi là em đang thi, sáng mai em còn cả đống lý luận chung nên đang loạn hết cả lên, chủ nhật em vẫn fải đi thi
Topik of the week: Living together before marriage: should or should not? Advantages and disadvantages?
4 groups: People living together before marriage, Parents, Sociologists and High-ranking authorities
Cohabitation is an emotionally- and physically-intimate relationship which includes a common living place and which exists without legal or religious sanction.
Description
The common reasons that lead couples to decide to live together include these:wanting to test compatibility or establish financial security before marrying, a desire to live as married when same-***, interracial, or interreligious marriages are not legal or permitted, living with someone before marriage as a way to avoid divorce, a way for polygamists to avoid anti-polygamy laws, a way to avoid the higher income taxes paid by some two-income married couples (in the United States), and seeing little difference between the commitment to live together and the commitment to marriage.
Some couples prefer cohabitation because it does not legally commit them for an extended period of time, and because it is easier to establish and dissolve without the long and pricey legal costs often associated with a divorce. In some countries (such as Scotland) and some states in the United States, such cohabitations can be viewed legally as common-law marriages, either after the duration of a specified period or the birth of a child of the couple, or if the couple consider one another as husband and wife and behave accordingly. (This helps provide the surviving partner a legal basis for inheriting the deceased''s belongings in the event of the death of their cohabiting partner.)
Today, cohabitation is a common pattern among younger people in the Western world, especially those who desire marriage but whose financial situation temporarily precludes it, or who wish to prepare for what married life will be like before actually getting married. More and more couples choose to have long-term relationships without marriage, and cohabitate as a permanent arrangement.
[e***] Opposition
Tra***ionally in the Western world, a man and a woman who lived together without being married were socially shunned and persecuted and potentially prosecuted by law. In some jurisdictions, cohabitation was illegal until quite recently. Other jurisdictions have created a Common-law marriage status when two people of the opposite *** live together for a prescribed period of time.
Opposition to cohabitation comes mainly from conservative religious and family ethics groups. Religious arguments aside, opponents to cohabitation usually argue that living together (as opposed to marriage) is unstable and hence harmful for both partners, as well as for the children (if there are such). According to one argument, the total and uncon***ional commitment of marriage strengthens a couple''s bond and makes the partners feel more secure, more relaxed, and happier than those that have chosen to ''test the waters''.[1] Opponents of cohabitation commonly cite statistics that indicate that couples who have lived together before marriage are more likely to divorce, and that unhappiness, ill health, poverty, and domestic violence are more common in unmarried couples than in married ones.[2] Cohabitation advocates, in turn, cite research that either disproves these claims or indicates that the statistical differences are due to other factors than the fact of cohabitation itself.[3]
[e***] Cohabitation worldwide
This short section requires expansion.
[e***] United States
[e***] Statistics
In some parts of the United States, there is no legal registration or definition of cohabitation, so demographers have developed various methods of identifying cohabitation and measuring its prevalence. Most important of these is the Census Bureau, which currently describes an "unmarried partner" as "A person age 15 years and over, who is not related to the householder, who shares living quarters, and who has a close personal relationship with the householder."[4] Before 1995, the Bureau euphemistically identified any "unrelated" opposite-*** couple living with no other adults as POSSLQs, or Persons of Opposite *** Sharing Living Quarters.[5], and they still report these numbers to show historical trends. However, such measures should be taken loosely, as researchers report that cohabitation often does not have clear start and end dates, as people move in and out of each other''s homes and sometimes do not agree on the definition of their living arrangement at a particular moment in time.[6]
As of 2001, in the United States 8.2% of couples were cohabiting.[7]
In 2005, the U.S. Census Bureau reported 4.85 million cohabiting couples, up more than 1,000 percent from 1960, when there were 439,000 such couples. A 2000 study found that more than half of newlyweds lived together, at least briefly, before walking down the aisle.
The cohabiting population is inclusive of all ages, but the average cohabiting age group is between 25-34[8].
[e***] Legal status
Some places, including the state of California, have laws that recognize cohabiting couples as "domestic partners". In California, such couples are defined as people who "have chosen to share one another''s lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring," including having a "common residence."[9] This recognition led to the creation of a "Domestic Partners Registry", which is available to same-*** couples and opposite-*** couples in which at least one of the partners is age 62 or older, granting them limited legal recognition and some rights similar to those of married couples.
Decades ago, it was illegal in every state for adult lovers to live together without being married. Today, on the other hand, just seven (7) states (North Carolina, Mississippi, Virginia, West Virginia, Florida, North Dakota and Michigan) still criminalize cohabitation by opposite-*** couples, although anti-cohabitation laws are generally not enforced. [10] Many legal scholars believe that in light of in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) such laws making cohabitation illegal are unconstitutional (North Carolina Superior Court judge Benjamin Alford has struck down the North Carolina law on that basis).[11]
[e***] Europe
* In Denmark, Norway and Sweden, cohabitation is very common; roughly 50% of all children are born into families of unmarried couples, whereas the same figure for several other Western European countries is roughly 10%.
* In late 2005, 21% of families in Finland consisted of cohabitating couples (all age groups). Of couples with children, 18% were cohabitating[12]. Of ages 18 and above in 2003, 13.4% were cohabitating[13]. Generally, cohabitation amongst Finns is most common for people under 30. Legal obstacles for cohabitation were removed in 1926 in a reform of the Finnish penal code, while the phenomenon was socially accepted much later on among non-Christian Finns.
* In the UK, 25% of children are now born to cohabiting parents.
* In France, 17.5% of couples were cohabiting as of 1999.[7]
[e***] Middle East
* The cohabitation rate in Israel is less than 3% of all couples, compared to 8%, on average, in West European countries. [1]
* Cohabitation is illegal according to Islamic law (for the countries that follow it)[14][15]
According to Shia Islam marriage doesn''t need any witness or official statement or presence in a definite place [16] and its sufficient that man and woman intend to marry with each other and say specific words to each other which led to a religious contract between them[17][18] and a couple can live with each other as a family without official contract. Of course there are some criteria which woman should observe e.g. she should be single. [19][20]
[e***] Asia
* In India, cohabitation is generally taboo. Increasingly large numbers of young couples in big cities prefer it.[citation needed] As in other places, people with conservative religious views are opposed to it.[citation needed] Female live in partners have economic rights under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.
* In Japan, according to M. Iwasawa at the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, less than 3% of females between 25-29 are currently cohabiting, but more than 1 in 5 have had some experience of an unmarried partnership, including cohabitation.
* In the Philippines, around 2.4 million Filipinos (18% of population) were cohabitating as of 2004 . The vast majority of them are between the ages of 20-24. Poverty was often the main factor in decision to cohabitate.[21]
[e***] Pacific
* In Australia, 22% of couples were cohabiting as of 2005. See Australian Bureau of Statistics.
* In New Zealand, 18.3% of couples were cohabiting as of 2001.[7]
[e***] North America - other
* In Canada, 16.0% of couples were cohabiting as of 2001 (29.8.% in Quebec, and 11.7% in the other provinces).[7]
* In Mexico, 18.7% of couples were cohabiting as of 2000.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation

Why not take her for a test???
by Jennifer Roback Morse
The Census reports a 72% increase in the number of cohabiting couples since 1990. Unfortunately, research shows that cohabitation is correlated with greater likelihood of unhappiness, and domestic violence in the relationship. Cohabiting couple report lower levels of satisfaction in the relationship than married couples. Women are more likely to be abused by a cohabiting boyfriend than a husband. Children are more likely to abused by their mothers?T boyfriends than by her husband, even if the boyfriend is their biological father. If a cohabiting couple ultimately marries, they tend to report lower levels of marital satisfaction and a higher propensity to divorce.
Recent reports and commentaries on cohabitation tend to downplay these difficulties. I suspect this is because people do not know how to make sense of the research findings. Many people imagine that living together before marriage resembles taking a car for a test drive. The "trial period" gives people a chance to discover whether they are compatible. This analogy seems so compelling that people are unable to interpret the mountains of data to the contrary.
Herê?Ts the problem with the car analogy: the car doesn?Tt have hurt feelings if the driver dumps it back at the used car lot and decides not to buy it. The analogy works great if you picture yourself as the driver. It stinks if you picture yourself as the car.
The contract or consent approach doesn?Tt really help much either. Living together is fine as long as both people agree to it. The agreement amounts to this: "I am willing to let you use me as if I were a commo***y, as long as you allow me to treat you as if you were a commo***y." But this is a bogus agreement. We can say at the outset that we agree to be the "man of steel", but no one can credibly promise to have no feelings of remorse if the relationship fails.
All of this points to the essential difference between ***ual activity and other forms of activity. Giving oneself to a ***ual partner is, by its nature, a gift of oneself to another person. We all have a deep longing to be cherished by the person we have *** with. That longing is not fooled by our pretensions to sophistication.
Here is an analogy that works better than the taking the car for a test drive analogy. Suppose I ask you to give me a blank check, signed and ready to cash. All I have to do is fill in the amount. Most people would be unlikely to do this. You would be more likely to do it, if you snuck out and drained the money out of your account before you gave me the check. Or, you could give me the check and just be scared and worried about what I might do.
Think about it: What do you have in your checking account that is more valuable than what you give to a ***ual partner? When people live together, and sleep together, without marriage, they put themselves in a position that is similar to the person being asked to give a blank check. They either hold back on their partner by not giving the full self in the ***ual act and in their shared lives together. Or, they feel scared a lot of the time, wondering whether their partner will somehow take advantage of their vulnerability.
No one can simulate self-giving. Half a commitment is no commitment. Cohabiting couples are likely to have one foot out the door, throughout the relationship. The members of a cohabiting couple practice holding back on one another. They rehearse not trusting. The social scientists that gather the data do not have an easy way to measure this kind of dynamic inside the relationship.
In my view, this accounts for the disappointing results of cohabitation. I am sorry to say that I learned this from experience. My husband and I lived together before we were married. It took us a long time to unlearn the habits of the heart that we built up during those cohabiting years.
The ***ual revolution promised a humane and realistic approach to human ***uality. Ironically, the uncommitted-*** mentality has proven to underestimate both the value and the power of ***ual activity. Lifelong, committed marriages are difficult, no doubt about it. But self-giving loving relationships still have the best chance of making us happy.

How Healthy are Cohabiting Relationships?
03/20/2003
by Glenn T. Stanton
Do cohabiting relationships provide the same benefits as marriage? Research indicates there are some important and substantial differences you should know about.
There is a convincing body of research indicating cohabiting relationships are far less healthy than marital relationships in some very important measures. Researchers Michael Newcomb and P.M. Bentler report:
Cohabiters experienced significantly more difficulty in their marriages with adultery, alcohol, drugs, and independence than couples who had not cohabited. Apparently this makes marriage preceded by cohabitation more prone to problems often associated with other deviant lifestyles ?" for example, use of drugs and alcohol, more permissive ***ual relationships, and an abhorrence of dependence ?" than marriages not preceded by cohabitation.1
Jan Stets, one of the world?Ts foremost scholars on the nature of cohabiting relationships, indicates ?ocohabiting couples, compared to married couples have less healthy relationships. They have lower relationship quality, lower stability and a higher level of disagreements.?2 Let us look at the some of the specific ways cohabiting relationships prove unhealthy for those who choose to live together outside the protective harbor of marriage.
Domestic Violence
The Family Violence Research Program at the University of New Hampshire, the nation?Ts leading institution studying domestic violence, finds that, ?ocohabiters are much more violent than marrieds.? Specifically, the overall rate of violence for cohabiting couples is twice as high as for married couples and the overall rate for ?oseverê? violence is nearly five times as high.3
Given the findings of the scientific literature, sociologists conclude, ?oIt is difficult to argue that cohabiters resemble married people.?
The Journal of Family Violence explains the following regarding the most common relationship between batterer and victim: ?oThe most frequently cited relationship was cohabitation with close to one half (48 percent) of the couples living together.? The lowest rate was found among married couples (19 percent). The divorced and separated held the middle ranking (27.3 percent).4
Jan Stets, in her research into cohabitation and violence, found that ?oaggression is at least twice as common among cohabitors as it is among married partners.? Nearly 14 percent of cohabitors admit to hitting, shoving or throwing things at their partner in the past year, compared to only 5 percent of married people. This held true, even when controlling for factors as education, age, occupation and income.5
Some falsely contend that research shows higher rates of domestic violence in cohabiting relationships because women in married relationships are less likely to report violent acts committed against them. First, these studies control for such factors and still show significantly higher levels of violence among cohabitors. Second, Canadian and U.S. studies both found that women in cohabiting relationships are about nine times more likely to be killed by their live in partner than are women who are married to their partners.6 You can?Tt hide a homicide.
As one scholar concludes, ?oregardless of methodology?cohabitors engage in more violence than spouses.?7
Contentment and Depression
Jan Stets found that ?ocohabitors are also more likely to exhibit depression and drunkenness than married couples.?8 One of the most respected studies in the field of psychiatry, conducted by the National Institutes of Mental Health, found that women in cohabiting relationships had rates of depression nearly 5 times higher than married women, second only to women who were twice divorced.9 Ad***ionally, cohabiting individuals were more than twice as likely *****ffer from any mental illness than married people.10
Much of this depression could be linked to greater feelings of insecurity in cohabiting relationships. Research shows that ?ocompared withh married respondents and adjusted for duration and age differences, cohabitors are almost twice as likely to report that they have thought their relationship was in trouble in the past year?and in three of every four cohabiting relationships, at least one partner reports having thought the relationship was in trouble.?11 Women are most likely to have such feelings.
Infidelity
Numerous studies have consistently shown that cohabitors have much higher levels of infidelity than married couples.12 Specifically, research done at the University of California ?" Irvine indicates ?othe odds of a recent infidelity were more than twice as high for cohabitors than for married persons.? This held true even when researchers controlled for issues such as permissive values about extramarital ***uality.13 They conclude that the commitment of the marital relationship served as a protection against infidelity.
The National *** Survey reports that cohabiting men are nearly four times more likely than husbands to cheat on their partner in the past year and while women are generally more faithful than men, cohabiting women are eight times more likely than wives to cheat.14
A study published in the Journal of Marriage and the Family looking at the ***ual faithfulness of cohabitors finds ?othat cohabiting women are more similar to dating women than they are to married women? and ?ocohabitation before marriage is still associated with reduced ***ual exclusivity after marriage.?15
Financial
Research strongly and consistently indicates that marriage is a wealth building institution. Married people typically earn and save more than their unmarried counterparts.16 And it is not just the joining of resources and energies that creates this financial benefit, but the permanence of marriage itself. Research conducted at Purdue University finds that wealth accumulation in cohabiting situations is far below what it typically is in marriage, with cohabitors more closely resembling the earnings and savings of singles.17 The National Marriage Project reports that while the poverty rate for children living in married households is about 6 percent, it is 31 percent for children in cohabiting homes, much close to the 45 percent for children living in single parent families.18
Misc.
Linda Waite and Maggie Gallagher report, ?oduring their twenties, young men and women who lived together showed very high and increasing rates of health-destroying and dangerous behaviors.?19 These include heavy smoking, drinking, carousing and illegal drug use.
Given the findings of the scientific literature, sociologists conclude, ?oIt is difficult to argue that cohabiters resemble married people.?20
It is interesting that the very thing that couples believe could help strengthen their relationship is the thing that could serve to undermine the health of the relationship and their own well being. The commitment of marriage and the clarity and strength it brings to a relationship makes a significant difference in the lives of people.
http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/marriage/cohabitation/A000000888.cfm

Myths about Living Together
by Scott M. Stanley & Galena Kline
(E***or''s note: This article was adapted from Scott Stanley''s book, The Power of Commitment: A Guide to Active, Lifelong Love. For the complete text and more advice on forming matches that will go the distance, please consult his book.)
In the last 50 years, more and more people have started living together outside of commitment to marriage. In fact, 60 percent or more of couples now live together before they get married and many others live together instead of getting married. The rates of living together are even higher for remarriages. Many believe that living together is a good way to ?otest? the relationship, or give it a trial run. Perhaps because they are either wary of commitment or have particular reasons to be concerned about their relationships, many think they will learn things about their relationship that will help them decide whether to commit to marriage with a particular partner.
The majority of young adults do believe that living together helps people make decisions about marriage as well as provides a way for couples to work through issues before making a lifelong commitment. In fact, over half of younger people believe that living together prior to marriage will lower their odds of marital problems and divorce.1 Research, however, suggests something quite different.
* People who lived together before marriage have a higher rate of divorce than those who did not live together.
* People who lived together before marriage report that it is more likely they will divorce than people who did not live together.
* People who lived together before marriage have more negative communication in their marriages than those who did not live together.
* People who lived together before marriage have lower levels of marital satisfaction than those who did not live together.
* Infidelity during marriage is more common among people who lived together prior to marriage than those who did not.
* Physical aggression is more common among married individuals who lived together before marriage than those who did not.
There are always exceptions to any research findings, but there are many studies documenting these important differences. 2
Why Does Living Together First Often Result in Negative Outcomes?
Some people believe there is something important about the experience of cohabitation that relates to a higher risk of divorce (the experience theory). What might that ?osomething? be? Well, some have found that peoplê?Ts attitudes about marriage and childbearing changê?" become more negativê?"after living together.3 So, it could be that living together makes people less interested in marriage and less interested in having children. However, others have speculated that when people live together they develop a mindset in which they think, ?oWell, if this doesn?Tt work, I can easily get out.? The problem is that this mindset might not change when the couple gets married, making it easier for them to divorce.
Other experts believe that it?Ts not actually the experience of living together that relates to poorer outcomes over time, but rather that people who live together before marriage already have characteristics that put them at risk for divorce and unsatisfying marriages (the selectivity theory). A host of research indicates that there are important differences between the backgrounds of people who live together before marriage and the backgrounds of those who don?Tt.
Our main theory, which we call the inertia theory, is simple. It suggests that external pressure to remain together starts to build when a couple moves in together. You move in together, buy a place, get a dog, spend less time with friends and more time alone together, and maybe declare the other as your beneficiary for financial matters?"and these things make it more likely that you will stay together. In other words, there is an increasing weight of forces that favor your staying together when you live together. In the words of Scott?Ts commitment theory, living together increases the constraints of leaving the relationship.
Something that too few people recognize is that it?Ts hard to end a relationship with someone when you share things like a home, possessions, and friends. We chose inertia to describe our theory because it implies that partners who are living together may stay in their relationship, on a path toward marriage, unless a major force derails them.
Herê?Ts an example. Todd and Lorraine were in their mid-twenties when they met. They dated for a few months and when Lorrainê?Ts lease ran out, she moved into Todd?Ts place. I?Tm spending most of my time with Todd anyway, Lorraine thought, and she already kept many of her clothes and other things at his place.
When she moved in, she and Todd signed a new one-year lease together and she paid for half the deposit. Then they decided to get a puppy. And when Todd?Ts car broke down, it seemed to make sense for him and Lorraine to buy a car together. She provided the down payment and then they split the monthly payments.
All of these seemingly minor steps would make it harder for Todd and Lorraine to end their relationship if either decided that was what he or she would prefer to do. If they each kept their own place and dated exclusively and regularly, it might be painful to end the relationship but far easier than it would be once they started living together.
The key thing to think about here, though, is what is happening with commitment. If Lorraine and Todd already know they are dedicated to each other and to marriage in the future, especially if they are engaged, then the pressures to stay together that come with living together will not really affect their path. It won?Tt be why they end up marrying. Living together may increase some of their other risks, such as eroding their belief that marriage illustrates the highest form of commitment, and that?Ts not good. But living together would not make it more likely than it already was that they would marry.
But let?Ts change the possibilities. Suppose Todd and Lorraine are very emotionally attached but not at all clear about their future. In fact, suppose that, while attracted and interested, they each have some concerns about their relationship (say, they argue a lot and sometimes these fights nearly get physical) or about one another (perhaps Todd drinks a little too much or Lorraine has serious problems holding onto a job). Now it?Ts a very different story. Sure, they are living together because they want to spend more time together, but it?Ts also because they want to test the relationship.
[The inertia theory suggests that couples who are at the greatest risk are those who are in love but aren?Tt sure they want a future together?"people don?Tt realize that it?Ts much harder to break off the relationship once they move in together. Further, more couples than ever before have children (planned or not) when they live together, so that makes it even more gut wrenching to contemplate ending the relationship.]
Let?Ts look at another scenario involving a couple in their mid-twenties. After a few months of dating, Gretâ?Ts lease ran out and Dan casually asked her to move in to save money. She agreed. As is very often the case, this couple didn?Tt talk seriously about the decision to move in together; it ?ojust sort of happened.?4 They started living together without a clear plan to marry.
But now that they are living together, Greta isn?Tt so sure she wants to be with Dan for the long haul. He drinks more than she does and he likes to go out with friends and party. They argue a lot about money. Still, Greta tells herself, it?Ts fine for now.
Nine months later, Greta is getting fed up. She has realized she wants to get married and start a family, but Dan has said hê?Ts not ready. They start arguing even more. Greta wants to break up, but decides to wait until the lease is up. She doesn?Tt want to make things difficult for Dan and it?Ts going to be hard for her to afford a place on her own. But just before the lease is up, things get a little better between them and Greta unexpectedly gets pregnant. Once she is pregnant, she really wants to get married, and Dan eventually agrees.
Unlike in the previous scenario, the risks of living together here are important. That?Ts because this couple probably would not have gotten married if they hadn?Tt lived together. Constraints have propelled them forward, not dedication.
[Greta and Dan are a perfect example of something I think happens way too often: people marrying because they were living together and even though the man never fully committed to the woman before he lost his options. I call these ?omaybe I dô? marriages because the couples do not express a clear ?oI dô? on their wedding day, rather a ?omaybe I do.? My advice here, to both women and men, is that if you have to drag your partner to the altar, it is probably an indication of many draggings to come. A mate who commits reluctantly does not make for a great marriage.
When you live together prior to marriage or engagement, you are giving up options before you?Tve clearly made your choice. Life almost never turns out as well when you give up options before choosing.]
Mate Selection 101
Surprisingly, marriage scholars and researchers have not devoted a great deal of attention over the past decades to good mate selection. Sociologist Norval Glenn at the University of Texas has noted that this is a serious gap in the field, and I think he is right. There are surely useful studies in this area, but people have not been given enough guidance about how to make a good choice.5
Here''s a very simple list based on many years of research, many years of counseling couples, and reading and thinking about this issue. The more of these things you are able to do when you are searching for a mate and thinking about marriage, the better your odds will be of making a wise choice.
* Get to know the person very well before deciding to marry. One thing you can do is take the time to work together through a detailed list of core expectations to see just how compatible you are. (For guidelines on how to do this, you might check out one of the books I?Tve co-authored.6)
* Do not make this crucial decision in a period of emotional infatuation.
* Date the person for a long time.
* Observe how the person treats not only you but his or her friends. Learn as much as you can about the person?Ts priorities and values.
* Give more weight than your heart may want to how closely the person shares your most essential beliefs (including religious) and values in life.
* Wait until you are 22 or older to make such an important decision. What you think you are looking for can change a lot.
* Get the opinion of friends and family who are not likely to tell you only what you want to hear.
* Wait until you are married to live together. It may not increase your risk to do otherwise, but there is no evidence that it will increase your risk to wait.
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001126.cfm

http://www.vifamily.ca/library/cft/cohabitation.html
Cái này hay fết này, cohabitation and marriage: how are they related?
Dùng cho các bác làm sociologists nhưng dài quá em ko paste hết lên

Vừa đọc lại bài của bác Vĩnh, chia 2 nhóm cũng ok ạ, em đưa role thế để dễ tưởng tượng ai đồng ý ai ko.
Tạm thế, em đi học tiếp, sáng mai em thi
Chào các bác,
Em lượn đây cho nước nó trong
Các bác ở nhà cầu nguyện cho em, em sắp chết đây

@: Content Department: Good job!!!
@: Luu_Vinh82 & Entertainment Dep: Em nghe "giang hồ" đồn thổi rằng thì là: cuối tháng 01/2008 BE sẽ tổ chức một buổi picnic dã ngoại, ko biết ban ăn chơi đã chuẩn bị đến đâu rùi ạ... "Thiên hạ" nói chung và em nói riêng rất mún được nghía qua cái layout của vụ "thác loạn" này như: Địa điểm, thời gian, nội dung... Các bác phác thảo đến đâu thì post lên rồi mọi người cùng đóng góp ý kín... ok?

======================================
BE CLUB QUICK INFORMATIONS​

Kế hoạch, cơ cấu hoạt động chung của các "phòng ban" trong BE club
Topic cho CN 06/01/2008 => Should couples live together before marriage?

======================================​

Được boyhn81 sửa chữa / chuyển vào 12:19 ngày 03/01/2008

Y, khong duoc. Doi em ve da chu. Hix hix

khiếp, anh Vịt này sao mà học hành thì chẳng học, đến BE club là để improve ENglish mà suốt ngày chỉ thích party với chả picnic
anh này thật là .............. giống em
Được springlovely sửa chữa / chuyển vào 15:00 ngày 03/01/2008