I had an intellectual argument with a good friend yesterday, and I was pretty sure I was right, even after 3 rounds of debate, so I thought I would write a journal entry about it.
I was arguing that is was simply impossible to know if you found "the one" after dating for three weeks. My premise is that if you only know someone three weeks, you really haven't gotten to know them, and the emotional force of immediate love (Love at first site) hasn't worn off. After 6 months for example, you would be able to know alot more about the character of the person you are dating, though I personally wouldn't do with less than a full year.
I also supposed that those that get married after dating 3 weeks would be a great deal more likely to break up sooner than those who dated for longer (like 6 months). If the odds of success are so much poorer in the first group than the second, and there is no way to know if you are a case of the rule or the exception, it just seems to be a lot smarter to wait longer than 3 weeks, in order to increase the odds your relationship will last.
This all assumes of course that your goal in marriage is for a life long commitment. If you want to know if you can be happy living with someone for 50 years, it would seem a lot more logically sound to date for a period of time to gain a representative sample of what that person is like in different moods and how they deal with conflict and things like that. 3 weeks isn't a big enough sample. 6 months is a better sample. With a year long sample, you have seen a person at all seasons of the year, and know how they deal with life.