<p>How do sociologists operationalize “romance,” specifically the seriousness or casualness of the romantic relationships of the participants they study? How do research participants themselves understand and define romantic connections in everyday life? Using the case of 80 South Asian Muslim Canadian interviewees and how they used relationship labels like “casual” and “serious” when describing their romantic experiences, this article problematizes the concept of a romantic partnership and bridges sociological conversations about emotions, dating, marriage, and larger discussions about religion, race, gender, and immigration in high-demand religious cultures. Contrary to popular definitions of casual and serious relationships, rather than on sexual intimacy, my participants defined the casualness or seriousness of their relationship based on the marriageability of their partner. Their assessment of a partner’s marriageability rested on the partner’s social compatibility and/or their emotional attachment with the partner. Factors indicating marriageability included race/ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic status that many participants perceived to be in tension with emotions. On the one hand, emotional connections brought people from different races and faiths together, motivating participants to overcome external hurdles from family and internal biases. On the other hand, people ended relationships with out-group partners despite being in loving relationships for years because they deemed them to be socially incompatible for marriage. However, emotions are hard to control. Sometimes, the relationship deemed to be the most socially compatible was unsuccessful because of a lack of emotional connection. Instead, the relationship with an out-group partner initially deemed incompatible ended up being emotionally significant and meaningful.</p>