I do not think that money is that important in a relationship to a certain extent. And why is that so? If money is important in a relationship, does that mean that the richest people in the world have the best relationship with their partners? There am many scandals involving the rich. I believed that the most important in a relationship is true love. If the couple have true love for each other, the relationship will be very good as they will have genuine trust between them.For example in today's society, we can see teenagers having a relationship with each other. Both sides value love than money as both tend to be not very rich. Their togetherness tells us there they have genuine love for each other.
However, to make a relationship successful, money too have a role to play. If both couples are unable to feed themselves, even though they have true love for each other, there will face obstacles in their relationship. Also, money is important in a relationship as it is the source for luxuries. In the present society, few young couples tend to settle for a simple life. An example can be seen from younger people starting a relationship with people of a much older age who have lots of money. Are they doing it for money? Or are they doing it for love? Most would say that they are doing it for money as most people would like to marry someone of their same age.
In conclusion, I think that to make a good relationship, they must have true love( the most important) and enough money to get by in their life.
Yep, I certainly agree. In a first world country, money is seen as everything, and the people have a mindset filled with wealth and easygoing life. The fact that they have been born into this world with a silver spoon cause them to think that the world is worth as much as their money. Without money, you cannot really do a thing.
ReplyDeleteWhereas in a third world country, people can have happy marriages even though they do not have much money and lead a hard but happy life after that.
It mainly depends on what people view the world as. It is up to them to decide whether they need some good qualities from their partner, or some money so as to have a easy life.
Hey Hao ming, great work but it would be better if you could further elaborate on the details of both perspective. To add on to your point about money being a problem. If there is not enough money, they are not only unable to feed themselves(as you stated), but they are also implicating the children and their families as marriage is not only between two people, it is between two families.
ReplyDeleteYour answers are very general and compared to others, they are short. There are many more things you could have touched on. Having said that, I like that you answered a question back with a question. Class!
ReplyDeleteI believe that you are able to elaborate on the above points. Try considering adding in evidence to prove your points.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is true that money is a factor which constitutes a good relationship as it is money that allows one to afford basic necessities. On the other hand, I believe that as long as spouses understand each other and are willing to suffer together, that would be the ultimate marriage that would stand the test of time :)
Gregory Tan 2O3 (25)
I agree with your point that money is not the most important aspect in a relationship, but instead true love. I totally agree with this, as true love should be the pre-requisite of a relationship. You can also raise examples on this. You have also managed to weigh the balance between the importance of love and money in a relationship, which is also good point. However, you did not quite explain your points quite clearly and did not elaborate properly on your points with proper examples. On your point that people are marrying for the sake of wealth, you should also raise examples such as Stanley Ho. You have also contradicted when you said that people marry someone of an older age because but yet, in the later sentence, you said that people marry someone of the same age but yet rich. There is no proper logic and you seem to be contradicting.
ReplyDelete