Why would anyone want to get married??

seenitall

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well if you're going to use reason and logic to avoid taking a risk, you could argue that right back to it being safer not to get out of bed in the morning. Why take the risk of doing anything at all when there's a chance it might not work out? That would be the logical, reasonable, and rational way of thinking.

It'd be silly for me to suggest that anyone's feelings for their boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband will never change. Of course they do, but that's not always for the worse either, and that's the risk you take- play it safe and never get hurt, or, take a risk and the payoff can be the best thing that's ever happened to you.

...or the worst thing.



Comparing getting out of bed with a legal contract, really?

That's alright for you and your wife, because, who knows, you just might live to be a hundred and perfectly happy together (I hope ye do), but a lot of people are not willing to put themselves in such a risky position. They don't feel that the ensuing hassle and stress, should the contract fail, would be worth it. That, I think, is a more reasonable attitude than yours, however happy you may be, or continue to be.

What is certainly not reasonable is to assume that a couple who haven't signed on the dotted line are less of a couple for it, less committed, or making no plans, or planning to be a failure at their relationship. That's rubbish, but I kinda think you know that. I'm sure we both know people who have stayed together for decades without rings or papers, while others around them were on their third marriages. At least I do.

Czarcasm

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

The risk is always there whether you marry or not. Feelings change irrespective of a wedding day.

There's a much bigger risk though in getting married in fairness than there is in a long term co-habiting relationship. Being married forces a person to think a lot harder before walking out on their relationship, because as well as the legal advantages to getting married, there are as many legal liabilities.

Feelings can change BECAUSE of a wedding day too, or we wouldn't be here discussing marriage now. We're here discussing it because marriage DOES make a difference to a relationship.

Legs.Eleven

Czarcasm wrote: »

There's a much bigger risk though in getting married in fairness than there is in a long term co-habiting relationship. Being married forces a person to think a lot harder before walking out on their relationship, because as well as the legal advantages to getting married, there are as many legal liabilities.

Feelings can change BECAUSE of a wedding day too, or we wouldn't be here discussing marriage now. We're here discussing it because marriage DOES make a difference to a relationship.

It can also lead to a person never making that move cos of a whole load of pressures (social, familial, internal etc.) .

For example, if one spouse doesn't fancy the other spouse anymore to the point where they're revulsed sleeping with them, you can't make that work.

I think a lot of marriages, unfortunately, end (but not all the time) after years of flogging a dead horse. Relationships are difficult and they require hard work. Anyone whose with someone long-term and doesn't get married doesn't leave a relationship unscathed. It's not a matter of getting up the next morning and leaving consequence-free. Marriage makes that a whole lot more painful because you have to go through a whole load of bureaucracy when all you're feeling is raw emotion.

Yes, it's more difficult to leave a marriage but that contract doesn't alter emotions long-term. You might be more inclined to make it work to avoid the pain in the hole that is divorce (along with a broken heart) but I will try and make my relationship work to avoid a broken heart and I won't have any bureaucracy to make the pain even more unbearable.

seenitall

Czarcasm wrote: »

There's a much bigger risk though in getting married in fairness than there is in a long term co-habiting relationship. Being married forces a person to think a lot harder before walking out on their relationship, because as well as the legal advantages to getting married, there are as many legal liabilities.

Which I think is a very bad thing, of course. Take two people who are wrong for each other and have made a mistake in entering into marriage, they will be very badly served by this state of affairs where the marriage is so revered that (to revert to the old morality issue) it is 'better' to stick together in resentment and 'trying to work it out', because of the kids/mortgage/"what will people say", than part ways as quickly and as painlessly as possible.

EDIT: @ Legs: great minds!

Czarcasm

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

No guarantee but definitely a promise and not a very realistic promise in my eyes (personally).

Words are just words...my point exactly.

But it's when you sign your name on the line that those words carry far more significance as a legally binding contract.

Ideally it should mean that people should think long and damn hard about whether they want to be married. You can't tell the future, but you can certainly as I said earlier work towards making the future you want for both of you. If a person doesn't want to consider the future and put plans in place and are happy to take each day as it comes so to speak, then if that's what works for them, well and good, but by that same token, I don't think it's fair to ignore the fact that marriage has all sorts of benefits legally speaking over long term co-habiting relationships.

That's not me personally looking down on co-habiting relationships, that's the legislation that considers marriage more permanent than long term co-habiting relationships, because you've made a legal commitment to another person, and that legal commitment is more than just a promise.

Legs.Eleven

Czarcasm wrote: »

But it's when you sign your name on the line that those words carry far more significance as a legally binding contract.

Ideally it should mean that people should think long and damn hard about whether they want to be married. You can't tell the future, but you can certainly as I said earlier work towards making the future you want for both of you. If a person doesn't want to consider the future and put plans in place and are happy to take each day as it comes so to speak, then if that's what works for them, well and good, but by that same token, I don't think it's fair to ignore the fact that marriage has all sorts of benefits legally speaking over long term co-habiting relationships.

That's not me personally looking down on co-habiting relationships, that's the legislation that considers marriage more permanent than long term co-habiting relationships, because you've made a legal commitment to another person, and that legal commitment is more than just a promise.

I've acknowledged the legal practicalities of marriage in Ireland before but that's not what I was discussing, so I'm not going there. If I was living in Ireland, I'd feel very disgruntled that I was forced into something like marriage because of legal practicalities.

We should be looking to change that.

LETHAL LADY

I got married 10 years ago to this month when the excesses of celtic tiger weddings were at an all time high. I married my hubby abroad with only close family and friends present. The whole thing cost as much as your average holiday so thankfully there was no pressure on our finances, and I was never into the whole fairytale thing anyway. We have been a couple for twenty years and we still have all types of fun together and rarely argue. I suppose you could say we are the epitome of compatibility.

Having said that, I have a close friend who is going through a legal separation after a similar amount of time together, so it true that marriage does not work for everyone. The reasons for their split was not down to the females weight gain or lack of sex or the mans infidelity, it was simply that they wanted different things in their lives as they both matured. It makes me sad because we are all great friends and have a lively past together, but it's the best thing for them. I also have two siblings who have no intentions of marrying, one is traumatised by bad experiences, the other is happy not to.

Can I advise anyone to get married, no I can't. Do I dismiss either choice, no I don't. It is really a case of live and let live for me.

Splendour

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

It is the psychological impact of that piece of paper I suppose. That it stands for a commitment and a life long compromise which is a complete antithesis to everything that we want out of our lives

I just don't see any reason why I would get married

So it's just something you have a hang up about whereas in reality it doesn't (or shouldn't!) make any difference.

seenitall

Splendour wrote: »

So it's just something you have a hang up about whereas in reality it doesn't (or shouldn't!) make any difference.

It does make a difference. You become legally liable to never ever change how you feel about a person. Legally liable. How does that not make a difference?

Czarcasm

seenitall wrote: »

...or the worst thing.



Comparing getting out of bed with a legal contract, really?

It's a risk isn't it? You could step on a plug and fall out a window, but that's being silly. I think you knew the point I was making that you're taking a risk, and you need to assess the risk so you can minimize any foreseeable adverse effects.

That's alright for you and your wife, because, who knows, you just might live to be a hundred and perfectly happy together (I hope ye do), but a lot of people are not willing to put themselves in such a risky position. They don't feel that the ensuing hassle and stress, should the contract fail, would be worth it. That, I think, is a more reasonable attitude than yours, however happy you may be, or continue to be.

Well the only reason you think it's reasonable is because of your attitude towards marriage, which seems to be an inherently negative point of view. I mean, it's a perfectly reasonable assertion, but is it what the basis of a marriage is actually about- an inherently negative concept doomed to failure? I'd respectfully beg to differ.

There's no such thing as a marriage of sunshine and rainbows, and if you've ever come across a marriage where they say they're 100% happy, THEN you'd have a point in saying they were deluded.

What is certainly not reasonable is to assume that a couple who haven't signed on the dotted line are less of a couple for it, less committed, or making no plans, or planning to be a failure at their relationship. That's rubbish, but I kinda think you know that. I'm sure we both know people who have stayed together for decades without rings or papers, while others around them were on their third marriages. At least I do.

Absolutely, I completely agree with you on that point, BUT, the law says marriage is a more permanent relationship than a co-habiting one, and recognises it's legal status accordingly. That's not just my opinion, that's the law.

My own personal opinion is that in a long term co-habiting relationship, we could both quote anecdotes all day about people who have been together decades, etc, but without the legal commitment of marriage, the same motivation to make the relationship work just isn't there.

clairefontaine

I think NOT getting married, but cohabitation, having kids, etc, can sustain an illusion of a get out clause without consequences. But that's all it is an illusion, and one that could cause a subtle cavalierness within your cohabitation, and ironically could create worse consequences of a break up, especially if kids involved.

Sponge25

Because humans are social creatures. Humans like alot of other animals tend to have one mate for life. Ofcourse we first have to find that mate and may try several before we do.

I don't wanna be an old man with no kids and no wife. That's a horrible life. I want to have a female I can be a companion too and have little Sponge25's with.

Legs.Eleven

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think NOT getting married, but cohabitation, having kids, etc, can sustain an illusion of a get out clause without consequences. But that's all it is an illusion, and one that could cause a subtle cavalierness within your cohabitation, and ironically could create worse consequences of a break up, especially if kids involved.

This might happen but really, you're just speculating. Do you know of many examples of the above?

No one said there wasn't consequences btw. There's ALWAYS consequences to the end of any relationship. Imo, marriage compounds them.

Legs.Eleven

Sponge25 wrote: »

Because humans are social creatures. Humans like alot of other animals tend to have one mate for life. Ofcourse we first have to find that mate and may try several before we do.

I don't wanna be an old man with no kids and no wife. That's a horrible life. I want to have a female I can be a companion too and have little Sponge25's with.

You can be in a long-term relationship and have kids without marriage.

seenitall

Czarcasm wrote: »

Absolutely, I completely agree with you on that point, BUT, the law says marriage is a more permanent relationship than a co-habiting one, and recognises it's legal status accordingly. That's not just my opinion, that's the law.

My own personal opinion is that in a long term co-habiting relationship, we could both quote anecdotes all day about people who have been together decades, etc, but without the legal commitment of marriage, the same motivation to make the relationship work just isn't there.

Law says many things, not all of them reflect or facilitate the reality of people's lives. That's why laws change from time to time (although not so much in Ireland, admittedly :pac:).

As for that added motivation to work at a relationship that you seem to cherish so much, I see it as an absolutely reproachable societal pressure on two people who have grown out of love, to put up and shut up in the interest of maintaining an institution; feck all to do with the couple in question, if you ask me.

Surely the two adults involved in a relationship can be trusted to make the call about its fate without having to take the cue from a piece of paper they put their names on 5 or 10 or 20 years ago? That just seems cruel to me.

pharmaton

when I was young and growing up I never thought about getting married, it was never on my wish list of things to do but it seemed all my friends had charted it as an obligation, a rite of passage which everyone must go through and the vast majority of them have completed that task and are happily wed. It wasn't something I could even envision, it's a bit like thinking about how the inside of an engine works when you have no mechanical knowledge whatsoever. I think if I could envision it I would most probably end up getting wed. I'm going to see how that goes, will report back in a year or so.

Czarcasm

seenitall wrote: »

It does make a difference. You become legally liable to never ever change how you feel about a person. Legally liable. How does that not make a difference?

You don't become legally liable for your feelings, that's a ridiculous assertion now in all fairness. You become legally liable for your commitment to another person.

Should either of you choose to renege on that commitment for whatever reason, then there are legal consequences. Then it becomes a matter of assessing the risk of staying in the relationship, or leaving.

Divorce as Legs put it may be a pain in the hole, and may be emotionally scarring, but you have to weigh that up against the pain in the hole that would mean staying in the relationship and the emotional scarring that would involve.

clairefontaine

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

This might happen but really, you're just speculating. Do you know of many examples of the above?

No one said there wasn't consequences btw.

Yeah a few.

Think about it this way for a sec.

You know when you learn to drive, you are very very careful, you drive in a very conscious way. Caution, awareness, cross all your Ts and dot all your Is?

And the more you drive, the more used to your routes, the more comfortable you get, the more relaxed you become. The more you drive subconsciously, sometimes even on auto pilot. You might daydream a little, you might fiddle with the radio, you may even use your phone. You may even pick your nose. You become less aware of the consequences of a mistake or several mistakes because you ate comfortable. Hopefully an accident won't wake you up from your subconscious driving.

Relationships are not dissimilar over a length of time. Co habitation provides the illusion of lesser consequences, this enabling more subconscious driving, and perhaps even participating in helping a break up. But the consequences are not far off. You have to go through the break up pain, break a bond, always painful whether the relationship was good, bad or stale, decide who moves out, divvy up the goods, perhaps have a property dispute, and deal with the kids. And of course financial consequences.

But if you are married, you have a material reminder, a legal reminder of the consequences of your subconscious driving.

seenitall

Czarcasm wrote: »

You don't become legally liable for your feelings, that's a ridiculous assertion now in all fairness. You become legally liable for your commitment to another person.

Should either of you choose to renege on that commitment for whatever reason, then there are legal consequences. Then it becomes a matter of assessing the risk of staying in the relationship, or leaving.

Divorce as Legs put it may be a pain in the hole, and may be emotionally scarring, but you have to weigh that up against the pain in the hole that would mean staying in the relationship and the emotional scarring that would involve.

Yeah, I put that badly. You become legally liable to never ever change the nature of your connection/bond/commitment to a person, no matter how much your feelings for them may change. Better?

Even looking at the above, I can't see how anyone can in this day and age claim it is a reasonable type of expectation or contract.

Czarcasm

seenitall wrote: »

Law says many things, not all of them reflect or facilitate the reality of people's lives. That's why laws change from time to time (although not so much in Ireland, admittedly :pac:).

As for that added motivation to work at a relationship that you seem to cherish so much, I see it as an absolutely reproachable societal pressure on two people who have grown out of love, to put up and shut up in the interest of maintaining an institution; feck all to do with the couple in question, if you ask me.

Surely the two adults involved in a relationship can be trusted to make the call about its fate without having to take the cue from a piece of paper they put their names on 5 or 10 or 20 years ago? That just seems cruel to me.

Did anyone force them to sign their names to that piece of paper? They are adults aren't they? I haven't heard of a shotgun wedding in Ireland in a while, so the cruelty argument goes out the window when two adults are expected to be personally responsible for their actions.

You can make arguments about pressure they feel from others all you want, but that pressure doesn't still translate into forcing two grown adults up the aisle and into a legal commitment they are ill prepared for.

Nobody forces them to stay in that relationship either and it's made even easier now to get out of that commitment because of those laws changing that you mentioned that we now have divorce in Ireland.

Legs.Eleven

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yeah a few.

Think about it this way for a sec.

You know when you learn to drive, you are very very careful, you drive in a very conscious way. Caution, awareness, cross all your Ts and dot all your Is?

And the more you drive, the more used to your routes, the more comfortable you get, the more relaxed you become. The more you drive subconsciously, sometimes even on auto pilot. You might daydream a little, you might fiddle with the radio, you may even use your phone. You may even pick your nose. You become less aware of the consequences of a mistake or several mistakes because you ate comfortable. Hopefully an accident won't wake you up from your subconscious driving.

Relationships are not dissimilar over a length of time. Co habitation provides the illusion of lesser consequences, this enabling more subconscious driving, and perhaps even participating in helping a break up. But the consequences are not far off. You have to go through the break up pain, break a bond, always painful whether the relationship was good, bad or stale, decide who moves out, divvy up the goods, perhaps have a property dispute, and deal with the kids. And of course financial consequences.

But if you are married, you have a material reminder, a legal reminder of the consequences of your subconscious driving.

So a whole other burden on your back. No thanks. You haven't convinced me and really, what you're saying is not based on any solid evidence but merely your own speculation whereas I can reel off evidence and provide tangible proof of the detrimental effects of divorce on kids. I know of a grand total of zero cases of what you've outlined above. I suppose we have to wait to see the consequences of couples opting out of marriage in the long run as it's only a very recent phenomenon here in Europe.

Btw, here in Spain and you're entitled to almost the same rights as married couples and as I said before, that's what we should be striving for.

Czarcasm

seenitall wrote: »

Yeah, I put that badly. You become legally liable to never ever change the nature of your connection/bond/commitment to a person, no matter how much your feelings for them may change. Better?

Even looking at the above, I can't see how anyone can in this day and age claim it is a reasonable type of expectation or contract.

If it wasn't a legally sound contract, it would be reviewed and changed, but because both parties are over 18 and not forced under duress to enter the contract, there's not a whole lot legally wrong with it.

clairefontaine

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

So a whole other burden on your back. No thanks. You haven't convinced me and really, what you're saying is not based on any solid evidence but merely your own speculation whereas I can reel off evidence and provide tangible proof of the detrimental effects of divorce on kids. I know of a grand total of zero cases of what you've outlined above. I suppose we have to wait to see the consequences of couples opting out of marriage in the long run as it's only a very recent phenomenon here in Europe.

Btw, here in Spain and you're entitled to almost the same rights as married couples and as I said before, that's what we should be striving for.

Split homes have detrimental affects on kids whether their parents were married or not married. Custody and maintenance battles are not exclusive to to divorced parents.

seenitall

Czarcasm wrote: »

Did anyone force them to sign their names to that piece of paper? They are adults aren't they? I haven't heard of a shotgun wedding in Ireland in a while, so the cruelty argument goes out the window when two adults are expected to be personally responsible for their actions.

You can make arguments about pressure they feel from others all you want, but that pressure doesn't still translate into forcing two grown adults up the aisle and into a legal commitment they are ill prepared for.

Nobody forces them to stay in that relationship either and it's made even easier now to get out of that commitment because of those laws changing that you mentioned that we now have divorce in Ireland.

Ok, divorce. So think about it, what do those words "for better, worse" etc actually mean these days? They don't mean a thing, as we now have a divorce, marriage as an institution that would guarantee longevity of the relationship and longtime commitment is not worth the paper it's written on (or as our boardsie TC likes to say, it "is a temporary contract masquerading as a permanent one"). Nowadays its main function seems to be to tick the box on 'get a mortgage, have some kids' list, have a big knees-up, and, last but not least, greatly aggravate and hinder the proceedings if/when the end of the road approaches.

I just don't think it a great idea (to put it mildly) that anyone, child or adult be made liable in law for the way they felt about committing to someone at some point in their history. They haven't committed a crime, they fell in love with a wrong person. That's why it's cruel; but I do get your point about "They're adults, they're responsible for their decisions", too. Which is why I think a lot of people make the wrong decision about getting married; I just don't think that the punishment fits the crime, as it were.

Grandpa Hassan

Splendour wrote: »

So it's just something you have a hang up about whereas in reality it doesn't (or shouldn't!) make any difference.

But why would I? You say yourself it shouldn't make a difference. I can't think of any reason I would want to....cant think what it would benefit us by being married.

I am in a strong, committed relationship. How we treat each other every day is more important than a piece of paper that doesnt change anything in reality other than complicating things should we not wish to be together in 10 or 20 years.

You only live once....and I've seen some terrible divorces that I do not want to risk wasting months of my life going through. And couples who stay together, unhappily, for longer than they should, just because they are married.

Some people will want that copper fastened commitment. And I support them 100%, and enjoy their weddings. But it's not for me. I'll show my commitment in my own way

seenitall

Czarcasm wrote: »

If it wasn't a legally sound contract, it would be reviewed and changed, but because both parties are over 18 and not forced under duress to enter the contract, there's not a whole lot legally wrong with it.

Eh, I meant generally reasonable, in "human condition" kind of terms, rather than legally sound. But I think you know that very well, so I'm baffled by what you meant to convey there.

Aineoil

Please don't shoot me for posting this.

But here are my musings about this thread.

I am female and have been happily married for 24 years....just stating my position, I'm not making a point.

Down through the years I have seen friends who married, in the latter years I have seen younger relatives who chose to co-habit. Ireland of the 1980's was very conservative. For the majority of people to co-habit was a difficult option because it was very frowned upon.

I'm probably changing what the OP posted about. But for some people marriage equals - the wedding.

Generally I hate weddings and try and avoid them because the day is so long. But this summer I had to attend one. I'm very close to the girl that was getting married and I was little shocked at the whole wedding hysteria thing.

The Dress, flowers, music, band and DJ. The list is endless. I wanted to run a mile from all of it. But she's my friend so I endured all of it. I sincerely hope everything works out for them.

Back on topic
I have children. If there is no marriage contract what rights do my children have re property or anything else?

Can I make Will that will bequeath that to them?

Every one knows their own situation. Marriage is for some, for others it's not. Live and let live.

Tom M

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's a risk isn't it? You could step on a plug and fall out a window, but that's being silly. I think you knew the point I was making that you're taking a risk, and you need to assess the risk so you can minimize any foreseeable adverse effects.





Well the only reason you think it's reasonable is because of your attitude towards marriage, which seems to be an inherently negative point of view. I mean, it's a perfectly reasonable assertion, but is it what the basis of a marriage is actually about- an inherently negative concept doomed to failure? I'd respectfully beg to differ.

There's no such thing as a marriage of sunshine and rainbows, and if you've ever come across a marriage where they say they're 100% happy, THEN you'd have a point in saying they were deluded.





Absolutely, I completely agree with you on that point, BUT, the law says marriage is a more permanent relationship than a co-habiting one, and recognises it's legal status accordingly. That's not just my opinion, that's the law.

My own personal opinion is that in a long term co-habiting relationship, we could both quote anecdotes all day about people who have been together decades, etc, but without the legal commitment of marriage, the same motivation to make the relationship work just isn't there.

Why should you "make a relationship work" . Why not find someone where it naturally "works"? If a relationship is hard work then you are probably with the wrong person IMO.

There's no gold star at the end of your life for making it harder than it needed to be. Life is to be enjoyed.

Aineoil

pharmaton wrote: »

when I was young and growing up I never thought about getting married, it was never on my wish list of things to do but it seemed all my friends had charted it as an obligation, a rite of passage which everyone must go through and the vast majority of them have completed that task and are happily wed. It wasn't something I could even envision, it's a bit like thinking about how the inside of an engine works when you have no mechanical knowledge whatsoever. I think if I could envision it I would most probably end up getting wed. I'm going to see how that goes, will report back in a year or so.

Friends ticking off all the boxes. Know the feeling.

Tom M

Tom M wrote: »

Why should you "make a relationship work" . Why not find someone where it naturally "works"? If a relationship is hard work then you are probably with the wrong person IMO.

There's no gold star at the end of your life for making it harder than it needed to be. Life is to be enjoyed.

Nothing lands in your lap and keeps sparkling and fizzing of it's own accord, you have to put petrol in the tank, fuel on the fire, etc. etc. So says my granny, and she knows quite a bit about life.

I'm guessing you're pretty young or haven't yet had a long termer. Most people who've been in long relationships will tell you they loved the other person enough to put in some effort. When you love someone, it's not a big deal anyway and it couldn't be called making your life harder.