After getting married, her mother-in-law took out a stack of IOUs for her daughter-in-law. When she got married, she was a family. Should she pay back the money together?

I think my mother-in-law took out a bunch of IOUs to her daughter-in-law after marriage, saying that when she got married, the whole family would pay back the money together. I think if my mother-in-law has a good attitude, and these IOUs are also caused by two people getting married. Then I think it is necessary to pay back the money together in this case, because after you two get married, you become a family. When you are a family, you really need to bear this debt together. Of course, this is just what your daughter-in-law needs to bear morally In terms of actual obligations, even if the daughter-in-law does not pay back, it is nothing, because it does not belong to the joint debt of husband and wife.

Due to the rapid development of society, the cost of getting married is getting higher and higher. Many male families often empty their savings for bride price and housing when they get married, which is not enough. They still need a lot of loans to meet women's demands. At this time, the woman got married, and I felt that I really should bear part of the debt. Of course, this is without affecting the normal life of the woman. Because of these debts, bird food is produced to marry the woman. Although these debts have nothing to do with the woman, I think from a moral point of view, they should really be borne by the woman. Otherwise, if the man pays his debts alone, the pressure will be very great, which will affect the normal life of two people and finally affect their feelings.

However, if these debts are not caused by the woman, but there are debts in the man's family, I think these debts have nothing to do with the woman at this time. If the woman has a strong working ability and a good family condition, she can also bear part of the debt appropriately, because after you get married, she will also be affected by the poor life of the man. So even if I don't bear the debt, I think it is understandable from the woman's point of view.

I think it is a free choice to assume debts after marriage, and moral kidnapping should not be forced. Because everyone's situation is different, the pursuit of life is different. If he has the ability, I think proper help will be a happy situation, but it has affected his normal life. I think it doesn't matter if he doesn't take on the debt. This depends entirely on the woman's own actual ability and economic situation. There is also the attitude of the husband's family towards the daughter-in-law. If the attitude is arrogant, I think it is totally unnecessary, even if I have the ability, I should not bear it, because it will encourage some bad experiences in the man's family and lead to my being disrespected in the man's family.

Therefore, to treat this problem rationally depends on the attitude of the man's family and the woman's own ability and economic strength. Therefore, even if it is not returned, moral kidnapping should not be carried out.