"You don't need a piece of paper to show that you're married!"

[man_in_the_box]

The OP brings up an interesting point: I wonder how many of those people who say marriage is just a piece of paper would date someone who was separated with no plans to divorce in the near future but who told them divorce was just a piece of paper.

 

It would be equally weird if he/she kept proclaiming they're still bf/gf/fiance to their ex. I don't think not seeing the benefit of marriage means people have no grasp of exclusivity.

[Andy_K]

Very interesting. I have always found it astonishing that people would feel ready to have children together AND stay together but not feel ready to get married.

 

I view the idea of getting married much the same way as I view the idea of converting to Scientology or Islam. Sure, technically I guess I could do it for someone, and it would only be a 'bit of paper', but fundamentally I am just not a believer. It would be meaningless to me. Going through with it I'd feel like a fake, and afterwards I'd feel like I just sold off a bit of my soul. For this reason, I wouldn't want to get married even if there were no legal bindings whatsoever.

[Emilia]

I view the idea of getting married much the same way as I view the idea of converting to Scientology or Islam. Sure, technically I guess I could do it for someone, and it would only be a 'bit of paper', but fundamentally I am just not a believer. It would be meaningless to me. Going through with it I'd feel like a fake, and afterwards I'd feel like I just sold off a bit of my soul. For this reason, I wouldn't want to get married even if there were no legal bindings whatsoever.

 

You don't think that having children together ties you together anyway? I don't mean the old shotgun weddings but I know you have a child and probably want more. You don't view that commitment as greater than being married to someone for the rest of your life? After all, the two of you are tied together forever pretty much (as your kids are likely to die after you)

[man_in_the_box]

I think the issue does not lie with commitment but with marriage itself. Nothing more, nothing less. I think I am starting to understand that it is impossible to separate these two from each other if one does not do this naturally.

[Andy_K]

You don't think that having children together ties you together anyway? I don't mean the old shotgun weddings but I know you have a child and probably want more. You don't view that commitment as greater than being married to someone for the rest of your life? After all, the two of you are tied together forever pretty much (as your kids are likely to die after you)

 

I absolutely do view that as a greater commitment than marriage.

 

Maybe it's a little tricky to get my point across effectively, as marriage is integrated so heavily into our society. I have no problem with the commitment. Family, living together, mortgage, financial ties etc - all absolutely fine by me.

 

What I am against, is marriage as some sort of symbolic affirmation of that. The idea and implication that an unmarried couple must be less committed, less advanced in their relationship. That's an idea that society imposes on us, and not one that I share. I prefer to decide my own beliefs and follow my own path.

 

I don't see marriage as the next step in a successful relationship. There isn't a next step. There isn't a 'goal state'. You love each other, live together, and if you both choose, raise a family together. Those are all natural things.

 

Much of the animal kingdom forms life partnerships. They don't need marriage to do it. Nor do I

[man_in_the_box]

Taking the words right out of my mouth. We should get married... oh wait.

[Emilia]

Maybe it's a little tricky to get my point across effectively, as marriage is integrated so heavily into our society. I have no problem with the commitment. Family, living together, mortgage, financial ties etc - all absolutely fine by me.

 

Ah! But you would want a full family unit, I understand that. I thought you meant not committing to one partner.

[climbergirl]

My husband had never been legally married before me (he's 50). He felt and still feels that one should never have state involvement in private affairs.

 

However, we DID get married and it did change our commitment to each other. The first year of marriage was horrible---so bad that we both had plenty of reasons to split. Had we not stood before GOD, family and each other it would have been too easy to give up.

 

We both say that we made a commitment to each other and the (my) kids and we aren't going anywhere. That is now. We fought long and very hard to be where we are today.

 

We also had a lot of support from our families to do whatever we need to do to 'preserve our marriage'. I believe that without that 'piece of paper', they too, would have said to cut our loses. Outside influences also respond differently when doling out advice and support when you are married.

[iKING]

"You don't need a piece of paper to show that you're married!"

 

Well, technically, you do.

[xxoo]

Marriage and divorce are legal matters. Of course you need a paper to show that you are married or divorced.

 

People who choose not to marry, and instead live together unmarried long term, say that they don't need a paper to show their love and commitment. And that may be true for them.

 

But people choosing not to marry and married people dating when not divorced are incomparable. It's just apples and oranges. The former group eschewed the legal arrangements from the start. The latter group started playing by legal rules, and wants to change the rules mid-game. Nope, can't argue that the paper you initially sought now doesn't matter.

[Treasa]

This is a phrase often times spoken by people co-habitating without any plans of marriage.

 

I have to be perplexed, because in lieu of my recent post about dating separated people...apparently, it's HIGHLY important to a lot of people more so to have that "piece of paper" to show that you're divorced.

 

That being said, why does the latter seem to carry more weight than the other?

 

I have never heard, "You need a piece of paper to prove you're married." I HAVE heard, "You don't need a piece of paper to prove you're committed to someone."

 

One is referring to the legal sense, and the other isn't.

[dasein]

Yep. Studies show marriage benefits men, divorce benefits women.

 

Actually, studies show that women also don't gain from divorce, many falling below the poverty line.

 

Have read some of those "studies," and the benefit for men is usually living longer or being happier. That has more to do with the general preexisting genetic fitness and happiness of those men who end up marrying than any benefit due to the marriage itself. Domestic and other law in the U.S. is heavily biased in women's favor, doesn't take a study to know that, it's a legal fact. Marriage and children for men today is one of the riskiest life choices they can make. Men should be "commitmentphobic" in such an environment, and I don't recommend marriage for any man at any time who doesn't have strong desire for children.

[clia]

Marriage is far more than a piece of paper -- which is why I want nothing to do with it. I think a lot of people don't understand the full ramifications of that "piece of paper."

[tbf]

My coworker Eric got cheated on, divorced, and awarded $2200 a month in child support, alimony, and back support to his ex-wife. She continues to get drunk, do drugs, and be a total drain on her family and friends. She refuses to get any sort of job as that would decrease her alimony benefits. She gets off on just making his life miserable and he is very very depressed now and burned out -- the only thing keeping him going is his kids and being there for them.

 

He is now living in a 1 bedroom apartment while paying every dollar he earns to support his two girls that he loves so much. Oh and he's advancing his credit card this week to fight for custody in a second court battle being waged by his EX.

There's a maximum percentage and amount that the courts will award so the bolded is questionable. You hear these stories all the time but if you review actual family law, they're not possible unless he voluntarily and outside the courts, increases payments to an unsustainable level. Or he's outright inflating support monies to garner sympathy.

[Emilia]

There's a maximum percentage and amount that the courts will award so the bolded is questionable. You hear these stories all the time but if you review actual family law, they're not possible unless he voluntarily and outside the courts, increases payments to an unsustainable level. Or he's outright inflating support monies to garner sympathy.

 

A colleague of mine gave me the story how the courts unfairly support the women and how his friend can't do anything because his wife wants to move to Ireland with the kids and what is he going to do, he is unemployed and it's all so unfair. I said how about getting legal advice as there is such a thing as Citizens Advice Bureau. I also asked my colleague why his friend and the ex wife didn't have joined custody, he told me his friend lives in Dubai. So I asked how frequently the friend chose to see his kids. During his holidays in the Uk apparently....

 

Everyone has a story, eh?

[tbf]

A colleague of mine gave me the story how the courts unfairly support the women and how his friend can't do anything because his wife wants to move to Ireland with the kids and what is he going to do, he is unemployed and it's all so unfair. I said how about getting legal advice as there is such a thing as Citizens Advice Bureau. I also asked my colleague why his friend and the ex wife didn't have joined custody, he told me his friend lives in Dubai. So I asked how frequently the friend chose to see his kids. During his holidays in the Uk apparently....

 

Everyone has a story, eh?

Yeah, every time you dig deeper into these sob stories, you find them to be an inaccurate representation of reality. What's unfortunate is that men with trust issues believe them and either get scared off from marriage or roll over when it comes to custody battles.

 

What people fail to realize is that the courts are more interested in ensuring the well-being of any children of divorce which includes awarding the lions share of the custody, to the existing and past primary care-giver. This reduces emotional stress on the children, if they have the continuity of the person who's always taken care of them.

 

So if men are concerned about custody and support, find an equal partner and ensure you're also there for the children, rather than being the absent father throughout the duration of the marriage.

 

And lastly or firstly, don't dip your wick in crazy and compound the problem by having children.

[dasein]

There's a maximum percentage and amount that the courts will award so the bolded is questionable. You hear these stories all the time but if you review actual family law, they're not possible unless he voluntarily and outside the courts, increases payments to an unsustainable level. Or he's outright inflating support monies to garner sympathy.

 

No idea where you live, but in the U.S., there are 50 domestic law jurisdictions with significant differences, invalidating the above unless you happen to have a license to practice law where the person in question resides and know differently, or it that person happens to live in the jurisdication within your country where you have a license to practice law.

 

As far as everyone having "a story" about men and the occasional woman getting reamed in domestic courts, ten+ years in the courts will give you dozens of them, how many would you all like to hear? or shall I spare the thread? We can do the "false sexual or physical abuse accusations to get custody," the "reaching and attaching pre "marital estate" assets via fraud and perjury," the "false alcohol or drug addiction accusations," the "income and asset inflation for higher support payments," the "fractiously contesting support reduction after economic hardship or job loss" varieties. There are indeed lots of stories out there. Most of them are true.

 

To repeat, in the U.S. today, marriage is one of the riskiest life choices a man can make, and should be avoided entirely unless he has a strong, well-reasoned desire for children.

[dasein]

Nope. They controlled for that.

 

OK, I rarely do this, but in light of some of your other posts here lately, -cite- those "studies," and we will see about their sources, bias, and flaws in their methodologies. Or else stop referring to "studies" and then reeling off what is obviously just your opinion.

[sabre80]

My problem with marriage (government paper type) is that it is a Legally binding contract. . . that is not legally binding. It needs to be more business like. A woman (or man for that matter) can cheat, breaking the conditions of the contract, and still get half the assets. There needs to be more teeth to the Legally Binding part. You abuse, you violate the terms of contact and get nothing. You neglect, you violate the terms of contact and get nothing. You cheat, you violate the terms of contact and get nothing.

[Woggle]

I don't know you Woggle, but from reading your posts, I wouldn't have thought you were married. No offense intended.

 

Are YOU happy with your marriage?

 

I was married for 12+ years to a beautiful, elegant woman until illness took her. I married her because I loved her and that piece of paper that so many people dismiss as a simple technicality means TONS to others. It is a LEGAL declaration of your commitment and love. It should be! If you are not committed or love is not the primary motivator, you shouldn't get married. As I see it, the reason so many people poo-poo the institution of marriage, or the piece of paper, is b/c so many people today (and in the past) married for the wrong reasons.

 

Like others have said, if you are so cynical, make legal arrangements to protect yourself. Men complain, but they shouldn't have to. Get a prenup and with that seed of doubt, mistrust, go ahead and get married. Or/and find a woman with a good paying job or who makes more than you...cynical, indeed.

 

I'm still looking for that lady that makes much more than I do....sigh, how wonderful that would be...

 

I am very happy but I know what I have is not easy to find. I am pro-marriage but I do get sick of men being demonized for having very legitimate fears about marriage. Just look at the divorce forum on here. Can you blame somebody for trying to avoid that. If we want more men to commit we need to do more to help them feel like they aren't playing russian roulette with their lives.

[boaaaar]

Nope. They controlled for that. You think scientific researchers dont think of this stuff? Have you ever taken a research class?

 

Studies shown women tend to be unhappier because alot of men become emotionally neglectful over time, usually after the first few years of marriage.

 

Studies also have these results because in over 80% of married couples where both partners work full time, the women does 70% or more of the childcare and housework. The modern woman today is expected to not only work like a man and pay her way for bills but still do the majority of the designated "female" chores when she comes home. This is what I mean when I say you take an "a la carte" approach to life. You pick out a gender stereotype that goes aginst your needs (women need to pay their way! blah blah blah I dont want to pay!) but then accept other gender stereotypes that support your needs (women should do most of the cooking and child care! blah blah blah Im too lazy)

 

Its a very real phenomenon. Its called "double burden" or "second shift hypothesis" and is a major contributor to divorce. What do you think happens, when a woman marries, works full time and then works a second shift when she comes home? No time for her figure, building resentment, too fatigued for sex....resentment being the most important.

 

Men still have some catching up to do. Sad part is I read another study that found since men today do more than their fathers did (the study I read said that men who do 20% of the childcare/housework believe they are contributing equally because their fathers did virtually none) only by slightly, they think they are pulling their weight.

In short, it's time for lesbian marriage to take over. Good luck and have fun with that, let's hope it will solve all women's grief

[tbf]

I am very happy but I know what I have is not easy to find. I am pro-marriage but I do get sick of men being demonized for having very legitimate fears about marriage. Just look at the divorce forum on here. Can you blame somebody for trying to avoid that. If we want more men to commit we need to do more to help them feel like they aren't playing russian roulette with their lives.

I'm not interested in getting more men to commit to marriage. The ones who fear prior, will fear it during their marriage and very likely will ruin their marriages in a self-prophesizing manner.

[Woggle]

If you think being a lesbian is easy you should talk to a friend of mine. She has been through tons of drama and is sick of women who decided that they hate men so they will become a lesbian. She is only dating women who have been out of the closet for a couples years at the least from now on.

[Woggle]

I'm not interested in getting more men to commit to marriage. The ones who fear prior, will fear it during their marriage and very likely will ruin their marriages in a self-prophesizing manner.

 

You aren't but it does seem an issue for some women on this board. Men sometimes go through it as well with women. The fact of the matter is that the way people these days treat marriage has made it very unattractive to many singles.

[tbf]

You aren't but it does seem an issue for some women on this board. Men sometimes go through it as well with women. The fact of the matter is that the way people these days treat marriage has made it very unattractive to many singles.

From a social engineering perspective, the fewer marriages, the fewer children to support the aging population whether directly or through social security. This means that the children remaining will have to bear the larger tax burden and seniors who haven't saved sufficient for their retirement, will have to do without since there's no money in the coffers. Or the immigration doors will open wider to supplement. Unfortunately with many first generation immigrants, they're not substantial tax payers. So life will become very uncomfortable for the same generation that refused to marry and have children. Sow and reap.