Jump to content

I may never marry...cant wait till that question comes up

kaylan

By kaylan
in General Relationship Discussion

 Share
While the thread author can add an update and reopen discussion, this thread was last posted in over a month ago. Want to continue the conversation? Feel free to start a new thread instead!

Recommended Posts

MrCastle Established Member

MrCastle

Posted
Posted
And not all marriages are dissolved that way.

 

If my H and I split, he wouldn't be paying me alimony. No matter how hard I tried to take him to the cleaners. And, actually, I would be taking on some of his educational debt, since he acquired some of it after marriage.

 

Seriously, it's not as if I can waltz into a courtroom, say, "Your Honor, I have a vagina!", and get them to force my husband into 50 years of slave labor to pay for a multimillion dollar house in the Hamptons.

 

I don't know why you have to take it to the extremes. Let's focus on the main point--how is a divorce beneficial to either party? Isn't it better to just end things with a partner like you did before you got married? A simple talk, and a parting of ways? Not a bitter drag through the mud?

 

Don't half of marriages fail? Divorce is a real problem. It's not exactly a rare occurance. Half of those who think their love will last forever are wrong.

 

So for that, we need the courts to step in?

MissBee Established Member

MissBee

Posted
Posted
I said in a thread about a week ago that marriage is an antiquated establishment.

 

People are living much longer now. Maybe back in the day when the life expectancy was 60, marrying at 20 wasn't such a bold idea. But some people are STILL getting married young (I know people younger than me with spouses and kids) -- what is their expectation? To completely be faithful to that person for life? Which can now mean 60+ years? It's unrealistic.

 

They say 30 is the new 20 now, because expectations these days are different. Again, back in the day, you were expected to move out of your house at 18 and live with your husband/wife and start popping kids out.

 

Life is different. What are the sheer odds you're going to feel the same way about someone at 25 that you will at 45? (which is still young!)

 

The days of people being married 15, 20 years is over.

 

Add in the fact that marriage was set up in part so that women could be supported by the man--and now women have equal rights and hold jobs of their own, what is the incentive?

 

I can understand wanting to live with someone. I can understand wanting to be with them and having kids with them--what I can't understand is why are we involving the courts? Why do we need a legally binding document that says this is my wife, this is my husband? Why make it that rigid?

 

Seems to me it's much easier to just live with someone and when your love has run it's course, you go your separate ways. Not lose half your stuff in a messy court battle.

 

Question: say you've been living together with kids for 20 years...no legal papers saying anything. If the love runs it course, how do you realistically see that split being worked out with the 20 years of life and "stuff" you will have accumulated?

 

Do you think it will be any different/easier than with the legal papers?

 

Marriage realistically is both the relationship and the legal document and the legal document makes sense to me in the world in which we live. Most societies have legal documents, simply because when people are left to do what they want, it doesn't always work out well...so the legal aspects at least try to provide guidelines outside of just how we feel.

 

You can certainly have love and a relationship without the legal aspect....but when it goes south....I think that's when the legal aspect matters and will come in handy. I think it is unrealistic to believe that just because you didn't marry, after a decade of living together, owning stuff together, having kids, a dog, property whatever else, you can just say "No longer in love...see ya" and amicably split and not lose your stuff lmaoo. Nope. You will still essentially go through the same messy process married people do...it's not because of marriage and the paper why divorce is messy...it's because splitting a shared life is messy. If you've been married for a year, your divorce will most likely be less messy than if you've been married for 15 years, as you have less time, less stuff. Likewise, I think people who've been together but not married, for 20 years and split, will have a harder time of sorting through all that stuff, than someone married for 5. It's the time and investment in a relationship and the literal stuff which comes along with sharing a life which makes it hard and not the paper....the paper may in fact help to have a guideline of how to go about splitting your life in an easier way.

MrCastle Established Member

MrCastle

Posted
Posted
The legal document makes us legally family. Just like my children's birth certificates make them legally our children.

 

Marriage grants our relation the respect of the state.

 

But why do you need "the respect of the state?"

 

Isn't marriage about love? Between you and your partner? Shouldn't that be enough? Why make it legal? What are the benefits? Besides dental and medical :p

sweetjasmine Established Member

sweetjasmine

Posted
Posted
All I'm saying -- regardless of how much it is -- that you should not be penalized financially by the courts because your relationship couldn't work.

 

It's not a penalty. It's part of an equitable division of assets in some very specific situations where one spouse took a hit to their earning power in order to support the other.

 

You guys act as if every single human being with a vagina gets an automatic monthly payment just because she filed for divorce. That is not how it works, and you know it. Terrified of the prospect of paying alimony? Marry someone with equal earning power and agree to a living situation where they fully exercise it.

 

I don't understand this situation of "our relationship didn't work--time to get a lawyer!"

 

No, it's, "Our relationship didn't work, and we have all of this sh-t to untangle! Time to get a lawyer because neither of us has any idea how to split it up properly!"

 

I don't understand why love then turne into money and material things.

 

Because you co-mingle money and material things when you join your lives together. You do this even if you're not married.

 

Leave the court out of it. Losing your spouse should be damaging enough. I don't know why you also have to lose material things you own.

 

Because if you're no longer with your spouse, one of you has to leave the house. One of you has to no longer sleep in the same bed. One of you has to no longer sit on the same couch.

 

My advice? If you're worried about losing your stuff, don't ever move in with anyone else. And if you do, keep track of everything you bought with your own money and make sure you have evidence that it's yours and yours alone.

MrCastle Established Member

MrCastle

Posted
Posted

So ok now -- for those saying it can get just as messy if you've been unmarried but have lived together a long time (which I agree with)

 

Then the question goes back to -- "why get married?"

 

The OP was about the poster not really believing in this institution.

 

If you're a marriage sales rep, what are your selling points? What are you listing as attractive reasons to get married?

sweetjasmine Established Member

sweetjasmine

Posted
Posted
I don't know why you have to take it to the extremes. Let's focus on the main point--how is a divorce beneficial to either party? Isn't it better to just end things with a partner like you did before you got married? A simple talk, and a parting of ways? Not a bitter drag through the mud?

 

A simple talk won't resolve the issues that would arise if we were to split.

 

That would've been true even before we were officially married.

 

But why do you need "the respect of the state?"

 

Isn't marriage about love? Between you and your partner? Shouldn't that be enough? Why make it legal? What are the benefits? Besides dental and medical :p

 

Again, ask the people who were standing on the steps of the Supreme Court yesterday. The legal benefits are very important to some people.

xxoo Established Member

xxoo

Posted
Posted
But why do you need "the respect of the state?"

 

Isn't marriage about love? Between you and your partner? Shouldn't that be enough? Why make it legal? What are the benefits? Besides dental and medical :p

 

This is an enormous and timely question. Are you familiar with the SCOTUS decision this week regarding DOMA? (regarding gay marriage rights). The right to marry, and the respect of the state as the closest family member, has very real implications for people, as does the right to be covered by a spouse's health insurance, social security, inherit their pension, etc.

  • Like 1
fortyninethousand322 Established Member

fortyninethousand322

Posted
Posted
And not all marriages are dissolved that way.

 

If my H and I split, he wouldn't be paying me alimony. No matter how hard I tried to take him to the cleaners. And, actually, I would be taking on some of his educational debt, since he acquired some of it after marriage.

 

Seriously, it's not as if I can waltz into a courtroom, say, "Your Honor, I have a vagina!", and get them to force my husband into 50 years of slave labor to pay for a multimillion dollar house in the Hamptons.

 

Right, but the specific instances Castle mentioned were exactly that.

 

I honestly think that nobody should get married without a prenup and every prenup should be binding. Not privy to good divorce lawyers to poke holes in it like Swiss cheese.

  • Like 1
fortyninethousand322 Established Member

fortyninethousand322

Posted
Posted
But why do you need "the respect of the state?"

 

Isn't marriage about love? Between you and your partner? Shouldn't that be enough? Why make it legal? What are the benefits? Besides dental and medical :p

 

Exactly.

 

This is the reason I don't want legal marriage myself. It's not the state's business who I'm sleeping with or not sleeping with.

 

If they want to know, they can come back with a warrant or a subpoena. Otherwise, they can f off...

  • Like 1
KungFuJoe Established Member

KungFuJoe

Posted
Posted

I do think the system needs work, but you can't just remove the legality of marriage completely.

 

What if you have kids? Who keeps the kids? Who pays child support?

 

What if one of you quit your job at the request of the other? Or to stay home and raise your kids? Now you're out of the job market and finding a job is even less likely.

 

It's for these reasons that we need the legal system regarding marriage around.

 

I do want to add that I the whole part about "women raping men" in court...it's not true. There are just as many men getting away with not paying child support or alimony as there are women taking everything from their spouses.

 

The term "dead beat father" wouldn't be around if this wasn't the case.

  • Author
kaylan Established Member

kaylan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
A question isn't always necessary to spark discussion. But I'm curious about your agenda for wanting to spark yet another anti-marriage discussion.

 

From my perspective, post divorce, I wasn't certain marriage was for me although I wasn't anti-the-establishment itself. Once I met H, my personal reluctance evaporated in a major hurry.

 

That said, I strongly encourage people who are anti-marriage, not to get married. What I question are the ones who believe themselves to be sufficiently committed for life but won't marry, where I turn their own question of "why get married if you can have it all without" back on them by asking them "if you believe yourself committed for life, legalizing the union shouldn't scare you...right?".

Im not anti marriage. Im anti "people who dont get marriage are immature and commitment phobes". Thats why I referenced that other thread in my OP, because people always push marriage as the holy grail of commitment and look down upon those who may not ever do it.

 

In reality, as I said in my OP, marriage doesnt say much about some peoples commitment to a person. I can be very committed to someone without being married, the same way someone else can become married but divorce a year later(not really that committed).

 

Since when is love something that needed to be legal?

  • Like 1
MrCastle Established Member

MrCastle

Posted
Posted
A simple talk won't resolve the issues that would arise if we were to split.

 

That would've been true even before we were officially married.

 

 

 

Again, ask the people who were standing on the steps of the Supreme Court yesterday. The legal benefits are very important to some people.

 

And hence my problem. Maybe I'm old fashioned (or stupid) but I've always felt marriage was supposed to be a celebration of love, and love only. A joining of two people into one. At least that's how I feel about matrimony.

 

The fact that there are legal and financial reasons why people get married is what bothers me. It takes the love out of what is supposed to be all about love. It puts love into paper work and into a filing cabinet.

 

I don't particularly care for the bureaucratizing of marriage.

  • Like 1
  • Author
kaylan Established Member

kaylan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Also,

 

Do I personally need to be married to be committed, loving, and faithful to a girl? No. But is it possible I may one day do it for all the perks the state provides? Yup.

  • Like 2
KungFuJoe Established Member

KungFuJoe

Posted
Posted
The term dead beat father wouldn't be around if women ceased having children with deadbeats.

 

I don't know a single deadbeat, not one, who was previously a responsible citizen paying his taxes and going to work every day.

 

With one exception but then again she did take the children far, far away specifically to spite him.

 

Hold up a sec...so it's the WOMAN'S fault for getting knocked up by a dead beat? If I recall, it takes two to get someone pregnant.

  • Author
kaylan Established Member

kaylan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Expecting to feel the same way is a mistake. In a healthy marriage, people grow...together.

 

There are couples out there who prove otherwise.

 

If you're really curious about all that, ask the people who were standing on the steps of the Supreme Court yesterday.

Thats my point though, that there is no garuntee people will grow together. Its not realistic to expect that. Its realistic to know it can happen or not happen. Is a partnership a failure if it ends...not necessarily, because theres a lot of love to be had in a relationship, even if it ends.

 

Sometimes you move on to more love with a different person. Thats the reality of life.

KungFuJoe Established Member

KungFuJoe

Posted
Posted
And hence my problem. Maybe I'm old fashioned (or stupid) but I've always felt marriage was supposed to be a celebration of love, and love only. A joining of two people into one. At least that's how I feel about matrimony.

 

The fact that there are legal and financial reasons why people get married is what bothers me. It takes the love out of what is supposed to be all about love. It puts love into paper work and into a filing cabinet.

 

I don't particularly care for the bureaucratizing of marriage.

 

There are no financial reasons to GET married. I mean, I've heard of stuff regarding tax breaks and all that, but to be honest, I can't tell if my marriage is saving me any on my taxes.

 

As for as bureaucracy...getting married is simple. I got married in Vegas. Spent a couple hours to go to Clark County court house to get the paperwork, then a simple one hour ceremony at Mandalay Bay chapel. Done.

xxoo Established Member

xxoo

Posted
Posted

I think the point is that people who don't want to get married are poor choices as partners for people who DO very much want to get married. And sometimes one person isn't completely honest (either with the partner or with him or herself), that that causes a lot of the bad feelings toward "commitment phobes".

  • Like 1
KungFuJoe Established Member

KungFuJoe

Posted
Posted
Very true, but you can't whine and moan about a guy being a deadbeat when he was a deadbeat when you met and subsequently chose to let him take you bareback.

 

The problem is that you aren't seeing the BIG picture.

 

It's not about deadbeat this or that. It's about a NEW life that has been brought into this world and needs care...emotional and monetary. Kids are freaking expensive (I know, I have three of them).

 

That's why we NEED the courts. So they can come in and stomp on the heads of dead beat fathers (and mothers, too).

fortyninethousand322 Established Member

fortyninethousand322

Posted
Posted
There are no financial reasons to GET married. I mean, I've heard of stuff regarding tax breaks and all that, but to be honest, I can't tell if my marriage is saving me any on my taxes.

 

As for as bureaucracy...getting married is simple. I got married in Vegas. Spent a couple hours to go to Clark County court house to get the paperwork, then a simple one hour ceremony at Mandalay Bay chapel. Done.

 

The point is, would you be any less married without the paperwork from Clark County?

 

I should hope not...

KungFuJoe Established Member

KungFuJoe

Posted
Posted

I got NOTHING against someone who doesn't want to get married. *I* used to be one of them. I was even against relationships of any kind at the age of 25 and just wanted to date and have fun.

 

Of course, all that changes when you meet the right person.

 

But, I know that, being who I am, that had I not met my wife, I most likely would be single today...or at least not in anything serious.

  • Like 1
fortyninethousand322 Established Member

fortyninethousand322

Posted
Posted
The problem is that you aren't seeing the BIG picture.

 

It's not about deadbeat this or that. It's about a NEW life that has been brought into this world and needs care...emotional and monetary. Kids are freaking expensive (I know, I have three of them).

 

That's why we NEED the courts. So they can come in and stomp on the heads of dead beat fathers (and mothers, too).

 

Unfortunately, they sometimes stomp on the wrong fathers. As is the case with government...

  • Like 1
KungFuJoe Established Member

KungFuJoe

Posted
Posted
The point is, would you be any less married without the paperwork from Clark County?

 

I should hope not...

 

There are "symbolic" reasons for getting married that can't really be explained until you fall in love and get married.

 

I guess the only way for me to describe it is that, no...I would not be any less "dedicated" to my partner if we weren't married.

 

But I abso****inglutely LOVE that I can say I'm married to her. Make any sense?

  • Like 2
KungFuJoe Established Member

KungFuJoe

Posted
Posted
Right.

 

Which is why I said we wouldn't have this problem if women chose to have children with accountants who want children rather than forgetting to take the pill with the guy in the motorcycle jacket and the obscure source of income.

 

I got a better idea. Let's sterilize all the men who are not accountants who want children.

ltjg45 Established Member

ltjg45

Posted
Posted
Because you co-mingle money and material things when you join your lives together. You do this even if you're not married.

 

Material things? Maybe.

 

Money? Definitely not. Unless you are so deep into your relationship that you are basically married and completely relying on each other (like getting married without going to the altar to actually do the deed), there isn't any benefit to combining your income unless you just want to do it just for the sake of it.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...