sandylee1 Posted May 14, 2016 Posted May 14, 2016 For those men who are cohabiting and have children .... or those that want to have children in the future but NOT get married .... WHY? I hear men (and a few women) say they aren't ready for the commitment of marriage, but are perfectly happy to bring a new life into the world (into a relationship that they aren't fully sure about) ... which ties them together more or less forever and is a much bigger commitment than marriage. It's certainly a financial commitment for a minimum of 18 years, although we all know parenthood doesn't stop at 18. I've never understood it. Is it really all about splitting assets in the event of divorce? Does it just boil down money? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. If any women also don't feel ready to commit to marriage .... but are ready for kids , please share your views too.
mikeylo Posted May 14, 2016 Posted May 14, 2016 Marriage is the final commitment ( even though they too end in divorce). Commitment phobes feel better , by doing everything that a marriage would provide but get married. A marriage is more than money. It really depends on the couple involved. While many think it's an outdated concept , but it isn't. It's there for a reason. Not getting married but living like married , is an easy cop out, at any stage. Bringing kids into this mix, is not a wise thing to do. There are couples who don't want kids but they marry. It's an individual thing. I'm one of those guys who like to be called a married man. It gives me pride, an unspoken respect , a responsible man who is capable of providing and protecting. Over the ages, these qualities have been identified with being a good married man and I like being one of them. These are just my views. I'm not representing the entire male population! 2
SolG Posted May 15, 2016 Posted May 15, 2016 I think it depends on your view of marriage. I see marriage as A form of commitment, not THE only or pre-eminent form. Where I live, there is also no legal advantage or protection afforded by legally registered marriage; it is legally equal in standing to a common-law marriage. So I know many people who don't see not getting married as avoidance of, but rather as unnecessary to commitment. Whereas others find it an important expression. It's just differing perspectives. To come at it from a different angle, my xH and I have been separated for many years but are still technically married. We went through all the necessary legal processes to disentangle ourselves, our assets and affairs after separation and when we had satisfied the necessary time to divorce... found that the extra money and time would have no effect other than to change our legal status from separated to divorced. So we didn't proceed and agreed if either of us ever decided to remarry we would jointly file. So we are technically married, but consider ourselves single (as do our family and friends), and live as such. Just as some are technically single, but consider themselves wholly committed life partners, and live as such. Commitment and how it is expressed is the province of the people involved; guided by their beliefs. The presence or absence of marriage in the traditional sense is not necessarily the litmus test. 2
Wave Rider Posted May 15, 2016 Posted May 15, 2016 (edited) It's certainly a financial commitment for a minimum of 18 years, although we all know parenthood doesn't stop at 18. Not getting married won't do men much good on this one, because if the couple spits up and the woman keeps the kids, my understanding is that she can still sue him for child support, depending on the local laws, even if they were never married. Cohabitation may not offer financial protection for men on this. Edited May 15, 2016 by Wave Rider 1
basil67 Posted May 15, 2016 Posted May 15, 2016 My partner and I met in '92. Moved in together in '93. Combined assets in '94. First child was born in '97 and second child in '99. Still happy together. So I guess I'm a good person to answer this. There are those of us who don't see any commitment in marriage. If there was no such thing as divorce, I'd agree with you, but anyone can bail out of a marriage at anytime due to the ease of divorce. I am divorced, so I know that getting out of a marriage just involves breaking the promise and another bit of paper. Legally, our union is recognised by the state - so if we were to separate, our assets would be split as if we were married. There is no financial incentive to not marry. You're dead right about kids being a much bigger commitment than marriage. Which is another reason we didn't need marriage. There's no way on earth we would have had kids if we weren't absolutely committed and having children made us even more committed. I tell you, it was far easier to leave my actual marriage (with no kids) than it would be to leave my defacto husband. I asked my partner for his view on this. He said that marriage is meaningless to him. He also said that he preferred to spend the cost of a wedding on our house renovations. When I asked about a cheap courthouse wedding, he said that if there's no party, then there's no point in having a wedding. And for the record, I had my name legally changed to be the same as my partner. 3
basil67 Posted May 15, 2016 Posted May 15, 2016 I'm one of those guys who like to be called a married man. It gives me pride, an unspoken respect , a responsible man who is capable of providing and protecting. I understand your pride in being married. However, I'm wondering why you believe that being married brings a degree of respect from others. Marital status is not something I'd consider when deciding if someone was worthy of respect.....but perhaps others view it differently? As far as providing goes, my defacto partner is a very good provider (I'm a stay at home carer for our disabled son). He's a good protector too - he saves me from cockroaches and dead mice every time I need it. Though I get the spiders and dead birds. I'm not knocking your views - I just don't understand how being married or not changes whether or not one is a good provider, respect from others etc.
NTV Posted May 15, 2016 Posted May 15, 2016 Alimony. Do you have any idea how bad a guy has it if his wife cheats and then he has to pay her for that privilege? 3
Author sandylee1 Posted May 15, 2016 Author Posted May 15, 2016 My partner and I met in '92. Moved in together in '93. Combined assets in '94. First child was born in '97 and second child in '99. Still happy together. So I guess I'm a good person to answer this. There are those of us who don't see any commitment in marriage. If there was no such thing as divorce, I'd agree with you, but anyone can bail out of a marriage at anytime due to the ease of divorce. I am divorced, so I know that getting out of a marriage just involves breaking the promise and another bit of paper. Legally, our union is recognised by the state - so if we were to separate, our assets would be split as if we were married. There is no financial incentive to not marry. You're dead right about kids being a much bigger commitment than marriage. Which is another reason we didn't need marriage. There's no way on earth we would have had kids if we weren't absolutely committed and having children made us even more committed. I tell you, it was far easier to leave my actual marriage (with no kids) than it would be to leave my defacto husband. I asked my partner for his view on this. He said that marriage is meaningless to him. He also said that he preferred to spend the cost of a wedding on our house renovations. When I asked about a cheap courthouse wedding, he said that if there's no party, then there's no point in having a wedding. And for the record, I had my name legally changed to be the same as my partner. Where I live without marriage there is no similar recognition if you as a couple were to split up Your partner's views are interesting .... because his view is that marriage is about a big party.... a wedding is about a party... but I believe marriage is about the two people only. The point you mentioned about changing your name to his also caught my eye. On another forum a woman was saying her BF doesn't want to get married and they live together. She said she's the only one in the house with a different surname and she'd like a ring to show that she's 'taken'. Some advised her to change her name and buy a ring to wear. I personally felt that's just pretending and trying to fool people that you're married - but I do know of people that do it. Now if the two people are both on the same page and share views on it that's fine. But can I ask why you changed your name to his? If marriage doesn't matter to either of you, then why do this... as it seems you want the outside world to believe you're married by changing your name. Some couples have told their own kids they're married...but they aren't. If it's something the couple are happy with I don't understand why the need to lie and pretty much have others believe you're married even if you don't actually say you are. Reminds me of a couple who won the lottery in the UK, well the woman did actually. She had previously changed her surname to his by deed poll ....but on winning the lottery he decided to propose. She said YES. I know what my response would have been.
Author sandylee1 Posted May 15, 2016 Author Posted May 15, 2016 There are couples who don't want kids but they marry. It's an individual thing. I'm one of those guys who like to be called a married man. It gives me pride, an unspoken respect , a responsible man who is capable of providing and protecting. Over the ages, these qualities have been identified with being a good married man and I like being one of them. These are just my views. I'm not representing the entire male population! I agree with your views regarding the status of being married. I also feel society has a view about someone who has never gotten married (not if you have a partner) and are totally single. It's like "what's the story with John ... He's never been married" I think for men moreso than women .... marriage shows a degree of responsibility as they traditionally have the provider role. Having seen a number of irresponsible men get married that perception isn't necessarily true. Linked to that is why MM in affairs won't get divorced. Because of the status of being married and the loss of respect that comes with it sometimes ..... although the loss of respect is about the affair and not the divorce perse. It kind of reminds me of politicians who always come out with their wives on campaigns. It's why in the UK, Ed Milliband quickly married his long term GF who had 2 kids with him when he was elected the Labour Party Leader. A cohabiting party leader or potential prime minister would not be respected. I wouldn't be happy to call someone my boyfriend in my forties or say that I'm cohabiting, but perhaps if it was post divorce I wouldn't be so fussed... knowing I'm not having any more kids. 1
SolG Posted May 15, 2016 Posted May 15, 2016 Where I live without marriage there is no similar recognition if you as a couple were to split up... ...It kind of reminds me of politicians who always come out with their wives on campaigns. It's why in the UK, Ed Milliband quickly married his long term GF who had 2 kids with him when he was elected the Labour Party Leader. A cohabiting party leader or potential prime minister would not be respected. There's an interesting cultural dimension here. I live in the same country as basil, and we generally just don't seem to hold marriage in the same peerless esteem as some other countries do. I do think the fact that defacto marriages are legally equal here plays a part. Recognition and acceptance begets recognition and acceptance. I imagine it would be difficult in a country where marriage has no legal peer to see any other type of relationship as on par. Our PM three PMs ago (I think... bit of a revolving door of late!) was an unmarried woman with a long-term defacto partner. Our current deputy-PM is a single childless woman, and our Minister for Defence is unmarried with a long-term defacto partner who is himself a politician at state level. And they are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head; I'm sure there are many more of all types of relationship persuasions. Whilst politicians are of course often and much maligned, I'm struggling to think of an incident of this being on the grounds of their relationship status. I'm not sure we by and large really care :-/ 1
dichotomy Posted May 15, 2016 Posted May 15, 2016 Why no marriage ? The usual I suppose: The sex dies The money, home, stuff, gets cut in half if things go south What benefit does formal marriage license bring ?
Author sandylee1 Posted May 15, 2016 Author Posted May 15, 2016 That's very interesting SolG. I can see why your viewpoints differ on this. We are very much dictated by culture. In the UK it would not be acceptable to have that situation with politicians. Ed Milliband was practically forced to marry as the point kept on getting raised in the media time and time again. It was along the lines of - 'how can you trust him to commit to look after the country's best interest when he can't even commit to marriage/marrying the mother of his 2 children. It all came out that the birth of his second child hadn't even been registered .... because as an unmarried mother.. you must take the father with you to register the birth and in the 6 weeks in law required to do so he had been 'too busy' .... Again, the view was if he can't even be bothered to to make time for his flesh and blood... what chance did the country have. I kind of wonder how his partner felt knowing he was only getting married because he needed to be taken seriously here. Speaking culturally again ... in my own original culture ... it's deemed insulting and disrespectful (to the girl's parents and especially to her father) for a man to just live with a woman and have kids with her..... Although it now happens more often with times changing .... and with some women being desperate to hold on to the man ... when they really want to get married. Sometimes certain rituals are required or afforded to a son in law within the family ... in such cases the cohabiting man would not be recognised. 1
mikeylo Posted May 15, 2016 Posted May 15, 2016 I'm your everyday married man, not a typical out of an Internet website alpha / macho man, lol ! I'm a traditionalist man , brought up in a house of 3 sisters , 1 brother and 2 parents where I learned the value of being a good husband and a father. My brother , is an out of Internet website commitment phobe and I detest him, like many others. I was also one of those guys who didn't take up life seriously till responsibility was thrown at me. But once it was, I did it. So marriage made that out of me. My son will be leaving house this year and my wife and I will be left to ourselves. Does it mean we should divorce as there is no binding now ? We both are now going to relive and live some more.
Author sandylee1 Posted May 15, 2016 Author Posted May 15, 2016 Why no marriage ? The usual I suppose: The sex dies The money, home, stuff, gets cut in half if things go south What benefit does formal marriage license bring ? So are you saying that with no marriage... if you lived together and had kids the sex wouldn't die? I know money and split in half are a big reason ... but if you bought the home jointly you'd still have to split it in half wouldn't you. As for the benefits........ well for some it's more about beliefs, values and culture. I personally didn't get married thinking what I'm benefitting from it. I had found the person I wanted to spend my life with that was my aim ... The rest was my inner feelings. Benefits would also be where one partner puts their career on hold to raise children or to support the other person's career... that if things did end in divorce.. they wouldn't be left high and dry.
Recommended Posts