Couples who breakup over marriage are not truly in love?

[ohso]

I hear a lot of music but you're still not explaining what, functionally, a legal contract adds to your love.

 

I guess it's hard to explain to a person who hears music but doesn't believe in it. It adds openness and possibilities. Functionally, here's mine and here's yours, now lets build our future together while the rest of the world sees us as a true couple, a husband and a wife. It's like saying to your partner, I can sign or do anything with you because I have nothing to hold back from you.

[candie13]

Maybe, I would think it's those who have been stolen from, and those who have witnessed thievery who are most concerned but you might be onto a third group there.

 

never been married. I earn more than enough and def don't need a man to buy the shoes I want for myself or the bags.

 

If I didn't want to have children, I don't think marriage would have been that important. Raising a child is an expensive and serious business, this is why I believe children should be had while being married. From survival costs to education to the time and efforts invested... this goes beyond just $$$.

[123321]

I guess it's hard to explain to a person who hears music but doesn't believe in it. It adds openness and possibilities.

 

Would it be possible for you to be any MORE vague? If it's hard to explain it's probably because there is no reason worth sharing.

 

 

Functionally, here's mine and here's yours, now lets build our future together while the rest of the world sees us as a true couple, a husband and a wife.

 

And standing in front of everyone you know and declaring that publicly isn't as good (or better) than a legal contract? Seriously?

 

 

If I didn't want to have children, I don't think marriage would have been that important.

 

I tend to believe that raising a family is the best argument for marriage, and IMO it's more than good enough to convince me. The OP doesn't seem to have that on the table though.

 

All the rest fall way short.

[autumnnight]

For some people, marriage is important to THEM. And that is really all the reason they need. They do not have to convince strangers they are "right," because there is no right or wrong answer.

[123321]

For some people, marriage is important to THEM. And that is really all the reason they need. They do not have to convince strangers they are "right," because there is no right or wrong answer.

 

Of course. Would that be some sort of secret for 10 years though?

[123321]

.... deep down they know it's much more than a piece of paper ....

 

To answer the OP, it *IS* much more than a piece of paper, and if it *IS* "just a piece of paper" why is it important?

[OldRover]

As for the original question, there's no reason that people can't be truly in love and not be married. If one is so stuck on marriage (perhaps to have kids, or whatever reason), they may still love the other dearly and leave them because of no marriage. However, poor planning if it lasts 10 years.

 

There's a strong augment to discuss each one's views on marriage early on.... not 10 years into it.

 

However, the piece of paper doesn't make one love another any more or less, but does pose some significant financial obligations on both, and reason to avoid for some. (Not that you can't have financial obligations with a long term relationship.

[TaraMaiden2]

I hear you, but if you truly love and trust your partner, you want to share everything and become one person, or more likely at least not divide and separate anything, if I may say so. It's wrong to want to get married for money, but also wrong not to want to get married because of it.

That's why I'm not discussing legal and financial aspects of it since it seems trivial and I feel there's something deeper underneath the shallow bling bling stuff.

 

There isn't one example you've given above, that can't be achieved within a non-married relationship.

 

In fact, I know two or three long-term relationships - complete with kids - that have lasted the test of time, far longer than most legal married relationships.

 

It seems to me that those bound together by a bond of commitment, respect, love and companionship, tend to make greater efforts to sustain the relationship than those who are obligated by a legal document.

 

The former keeps trying.

The latter starts taking things for granted, and becomes lazy in the commitment 'put the other person first' department...

[123321]

There isn't one example you've given above, that can't be achieved within a non-married relationship.

 

In fact, I know two or three long-term relationships - complete with kids - that have lasted the test of time, far longer than most legal married relationships.

 

It seems to me that those bound together by a bond of commitment, respect, love and companionship, tend to make greater efforts to sustain the relationship than those who are obligated by a legal document.

 

The former keeps trying.

The latter starts taking things for granted, and becomes lazy in the commitment 'put the other person first' department...

 

A legal marriage does protect the kids a bit in case of certain catastrophes, and does bring along with it certain tax benefits and other subsidies that, while I think are wrong, are probably beneficial from a pragmatic viewpoint.

[OldRover]

A legal marriage does protect the kids a bit in case of certain catastrophes, and does bring along with it certain tax benefits and other subsidies that, while I think are wrong, are probably beneficial from a pragmatic viewpoint.

 

Not sure kids are protected much more in a marriage than a LTR, both have the force of law regarding kids.

 

Also, there's some tax benefits both ways, just depends on your circumstances.

[123321]

Not sure kids are protected much more in a marriage than a LTR, both have the force of law regarding kids.

 

Also, there's some tax benefits both ways, just depends on your circumstances.

 

There is some additional protection as far as next of kin and also division of assets if the lower earner ends up with custody. But it's by no means a big deal.

[sandylee1]

What are your thoughts about couples who date very long for 5, 10 or more years and they end it because one wants marriage, usually woman, and man don't?

 

I understand there's no compromise here, but I don't get it how can a man who says it's just a piece of paper, leave the woman if he truly loves her? Because, if I were a man and marriage means nothing to me, but a lot to my woman, I would marry her much rather than lose her over piece of paper. Am I missing something?

 

I'm not talking about couples who have a lot of underlying issues. Only about those truly happy and functioning couples, but for whom marriage is a deal breaker. Despite the fact how could they dragged a relationship for so long when they have different views.

 

What is truly men's motive to leave? To prove themselves their principles against marriage? Or deep down they know it's much more than a piece of paper and are afraid, or don't love women enough?

 

Personally I wouldn't date for 5 years without knowing it was heading to marriage, unless I was about 18 when we started seeing each other.

 

I think if one person doesn't want marriage, they should speak up. It's unfair to just keep someone in the relationship, although the other person can end it.

 

I agree that if you really loved the person, you would marry them and not just say it's a piece of paper. It's a legal piece of paper that entitles you to half if you split up, that's usually the real reason for them saying 'I don't need piece of paper to know I love you '

 

Men are more commitment phobic. Girls/ young women see themselves getting married, walking down the aisle, lovely dress etc. They have visions of their wedding day.

 

It's not the same for boys and young men. Many know they want to get married one day, but I think because more is expected of them in turns of supporting their wife and family, it can place pressure on them.

 

A dad hands his daughter over to be taken care of, some guys can't handle it. I know this is quire traditional, but it is still the case worldwide. You question a woman marrying or seeing a jobless lazy man, but a lazy woman isn't looked at in the same light.

 

That's society and no matter how much equal rights we get, men are still expected to support the family. Some are not ready for that responsibility.

[OldRover]

Personally I wouldn't date for 5 years without knowing it was heading to marriage, unless I was about 18 when we started seeing each other.

 

I think if one person doesn't want marriage, they should speak up. It's unfair to just keep someone in the relationship, although the other person can end it.

 

I agree that if you really loved the person, you would marry them and not just say it's a piece of paper. It's a legal piece of paper that entitles you to half if you split up, that's usually the real reason for them saying 'I don't need piece of paper to know I love you '

 

Men are more commitment phobic. Girls/ young women see themselves getting married, walking down the aisle, lovely dress etc. They have visions of their wedding day.

 

It's not the same for boys and young men. Many know they want to get married one day, but I think because more is expected of them in turns of supporting their wife and family, it can place pressure on them.

 

A dad hands his daughter over to be taken care of, some guys can't handle it. I know this is quire traditional, but it is still the case worldwide. You question a woman marrying or seeing a jobless lazy man, but a lazy woman isn't looked at in the same light.

 

That's society and no matter how much equal rights we get, men are still expected to support the family. Some are not ready for that responsibility.

 

It's not about "should marry" if you love someone. You can love someone just as much without it, but there are some that insist on it at some point, and should be told to the partner at some time. One of the big problems is that with such a large number of divorces, it becomes practical to have some sense about the risks. And you don't necessarily split the assets, and that's where it can get horribly expensive and ugly. People change their minds.

 

Id say, have a reason to get married and understand the risks.

[123321]

Men are more commitment phobic. Girls/ young women see themselves getting married, walking down the aisle, lovely dress etc. They have visions of their wedding day.

 

The thing is that really men 'see' marriage clearly quite often. Women, particularly young ones, typically want the wedding; the marriage is some blurry thing that is a consequence.

[OldRover]

The thing is that really men 'see' marriage clearly quite often. Women, particularly young ones, typically want the wedding; the marriage is some blurry thing that is a consequence.

 

And there's nothing wrong with that, however, when we age a bit and become wiser (and no need for kids), the allure of marriage becomes way less. However, there's probably more women that want the marriage than the guys. I find a lot more women with divorces (especially multiple) than men.