Why do you want/not want to get married?

folan

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

The only thing I'll say about this is I wish people would disassociate the church and Catholicism from marriage. There's no legal need to get married in a Church if you don't want to, just go a registry office or somewhere else legal to host marriages.

Humanist ceremonies are very nice weddings, allowing for a lot of customisation. Personalises the wedding to the couple.

Tombo2001

folan wrote: »

@taxAHcruel: my answer is perfectly valid as an answer to the threads question, and the first post.

@Pawwed Rig: Marriage to you may mean a legal contract, but that is not "all it is". To me and my future wife, it is far more. it is protecting each other, solidifying our love and commitment through what may come in future. it is unifying.

call it emotional if you wish. emotion is as important as anything else.

Yes but you shouldnt mix up opinion and fact. Thats your opinion about the reason to be married.

Not everyone shares that opinion.

However.....the legal reasons to be married, if you have children together, are very much fact.

folan

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Yes but you shouldnt mix up opinion and fact. Thats your opinion about the reason to be married.

Not everyone shares that opinion.

However.....the legal reasons to be married, if you have children together, are very much fact.

I'm not. I've answered the OPs question. opinions, facts aside, thats all i have done.

Tombo2001

folan wrote: »

I'm not. I've answered the OPs question. opinions, facts aside, thats all i have done.

Fair enough, I take it back.

FutureGuy

I was at a wedding recently and it helped us to cement the belief of both myself and my fiancee that getting married outside the church is the best thing for us.

An hour sermon from the priest telling us he pities anyone that doesn't get married in front of God, that such people have no hope and how the registry part of the ceremony is to satisfy Kenny and his cronies.

Neither of us need to get married. We trust each other completely. Without question. However, as mentioned my many people here, marraige comes with alot of security. Registry office, immediate family, meal. No stress, no priest telling us what to do. Mum does the wedding cake. Sister in law takes the photos. No other presents. Perfect.

Dravokivich

pwurple wrote: »

That has backfired horribly for a few men. There was a case recently here where the mother died in childbirth, father unable to consent for the new baby to get emergency treatment, had to call the woman's mothere.

Well that's a completely separate discussion. It's a blatant lack of recognition towards who the father is between an unmarried couple, while there is an assumption between a married couple. You can't even do the gaurdianship until the kid's birth is registered, which I was surprised to find out doesn't seem to be done in maternity hospitals any more. But I would not get married, just to be confirmed as the father of my son or any future children I may have. Which is the only answer to incident you relayed here.


@Pawwed Rig, yeah, that second line you quoted was more geared towards the topic itself. I probably should of had it before I quoted you to avoid the confusion.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Its a bit like that old nugget about the parents who dont want to get their kids baptised......fair enough, stick to your moral principals about the church and all that, hats off for taking the high ground.......but you've just reduced by 80% the amount of schools your kid can get into.

Which should be challenged, not permitted to continue by rushing a kid through a baptism "just because." And it's not about taking the high ground either, it's about self determination of one's right to, or not to follow a religion.

folan

FutureGuy wrote: »

Neither of us need to get married. We trust each other completely. Without question. However, as mentioned my many people here, marraige comes with alot of security. Registry office, immediate family, meal. No stress, no priest telling us what to do. Mum does the wedding cake. Sister in law takes the photos. No other presents. Perfect.

sounds lovely. Congrats!

Pawwed Rig

FutureGuy wrote: »

Neither of us need to get married. We trust each other completely. Without question. However, as mentioned my many people here, marraige comes with alot of security. Registry office, immediate family, meal. No stress, no priest telling us what to do. Mum does the wedding cake. Sister in law takes the photos. No other presents. Perfect.

I did it in a church as it was the easiest option for us. To have a civil ceremony we would have needed to wait another 6 months or so (any my wife wanted the church anyway). The priest was an absolute gent. Didn't do any of the fire and brimstone stuff and was very accommodating for anything we wanted. He was a good laugh too.

littlevillage

..having trouble saving post .. will try again :-(

folan

folan wrote: »

@taxAHcruel: my answer is perfectly valid as an answer to the threads question, and the first post.

Not really given the Thread question and first post is an either or question and you answered it starting with a "because". So what your answer even is is not clear. It could be:

1) I WANT to get married - because i love someone and they love me

2) I do NOT want to get married - because i love someone and they love me

So you have not EVEN answered the question. At all. It would be like me saying "Do you like Black or White better" and you saying "Yes".

But that was not my point. The point was that whichever it is - 1 or 2 - the answer you give on the right of the "-" does not follow automatically from what is on the left of it. So in this regard you have _also_ not actually answered the question.

folan

Deleted User wrote: »

But that was not my point. The point was that whichever it is - 1 or 2 - the answer you give on the right of the "-" does not follow automatically from what is on the left of it. So in this regard you have _also_ not actually answered the question.

it does. it seems that you just dont accept it as an answer. thats a different issue.

folan

folan wrote: »

it does. it seems that you just dont accept it as an answer. thats a different issue.

As I pointed out - given your answer could be an answer to either side of the OPs "or" question you have answered nothing. But you convieniently edited that bit out of your quote of my post.

But again - just because marriage follows from love (or not) _for you_ in no way says that marriage follows from love (or not). You have simply restated the question rather than answering it.

Many - many many - people are every bit "in love" as you are - and many of them choose marriage - and many do not. So the answer simply does not follow from the question. Nothing to do with whether I personally accept the answer or not.

folan

Deleted User wrote: »

As I pointed out - given your answer could be an answer to either side of the OPs "or" question you have answered nothing.

Is my answer invalid because it can be used as either a positive of negative assertion?

But again - just because marriage follows from love (or not) _for you_ in no way says that marriage follows from love (or not). You have simply restated the question rather than answering it.

so my it my personification of the answer is invalid?
Why do you want/not want to get married? I want/do not want to get married for X reason?

Many - many many - people are every bit "in love" as you are - and many of them choose marriage - and many do not.

good on them. I don't care what their reasons are though, I care about mine.

But you conveniently edited that bit out of your quote of my post.

yes, boards.ie post editing system makes it very easy to edit replies when you want to. Very convenient.

folan

ill leave you to it, as you seem to be unhappy that im in love.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note - keep it civil lads

littlevillage

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd say I did it for the usual reasons guys I know get married: she wanted to, guardianship rights, tax credits (being a single-income co-habiting family was costing us about €3,500pa as only married couples can get joint assessment), inheritance issues will be easier in the (hopefully distant) future and, while I don't see any material difference between the two states, married or not, I'm committed to her.

I think Sleepy nailed it.

Only reasons for any man to get married are guaranteed guardianship of any potential kids, tax benefits and simplified inheritance.

Not to go too far off topic here .. but the elephant in the room is the unfair sexist decisions that come out of Irish Family law (and occasionally normal law) courts.

Any man with a 'few bob', would be wise to have a long detailed chat with his accountant/solicitor before embarking on a co-habiting scenario (Marriage or casual, kids or no kids) with a woman .... cause if it falls apart the law takes a very one-eyed view of things. Man = bad, Woman = good.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Wibbs

Standman wrote: »

It seems to me now that most people get married because it's the next box to tick on their life-checklist.

'Degree --> Career --> Marriage --> Kids', seems to be the standard issue blueprint.

Oh yep. Hell I've seen it so often with so many I can write the script at this stage. One woman I knew a few years ago fitted the profile well. Early 30's, went from long termer to long termer, mostly with success until the honeymoon period passed. Didn't want kids, or marriage etc. She had ticked off the degree box, but career was shaky as was setting down roots. At this stage relationships were as per her 20's, but I could see what was coming and sure enough... She finally got stable in her career, settled in one place and I predicted the next thing would be "the One(tm)" and sure enough it was and all happened within months. Followed by other changes including the easing off of friendships(an all too common one) that didn't fit the new template as she prepared for suburbia and marriage and kids.

littlevillage

Wibbs wrote: »

....A game of relationship musical chairs and when the music stops whoever's hand you're holding is the wife/husband...

Good observation.

save_me_some

would love to get married but not only is the law completely biased against men in the event of a break up , women have been conditioned into believing that they have every right to clean their husband of his hard earned assets

im not prepared to risk losing what i have accumulated

_Redzer_

Yeah I'd like to get married at some point down the line, 30+.

It's just something I want to do with someone.

I find it quite condescending that some people question you as to why you'd want to get married and how you shouldn't need to, it's a sham, etc.

That's fine for you, each to their own.

_Redzer_

save_me_some wrote: »

would love to get married but not only is the law completely biased against men in the event of a break up , women have been conditioned into believing that they have every right to clean their husband of his hard earned assets

im not prepared to risk losing what i have accumulated

I'm wondering how the eventual legalisation of same-sex marriage will affect the bias in the laws. Surely marriage as a whole will have to be addressed and equalised too. I'm sure two men, or two women who want to divorce would force complete neutrality on the settlement which would (should) apply to heterosexual marriages too, when it is more biased against men currently, I'd agree.

save_me_some

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I'm wondering how the eventual legalisation of same-sex marriage will affect the bias in the laws. Surely marriage as a whole will have to be addressed and equalised too. I'm sure two men, or two women who want to divorce would force complete neutrality on the settlement which would (should) apply to heterosexual marriages too, when it is more biased against men currently, I'd agree.

marriage equality might do a lot of good for men in traditional marriages , gay men will not be allowed to be shown the same bias as they are liberal sacred cows , this in turn will help shed light on the plight of seperated straight men who are of course seen as fair game for fleecing

_Redzer_

save_me_some wrote: »

marriage equality might do a lot of good for men in traditional marriages , gay men will not be allowed to be shown the same bias as they are liberal sacred cows , this in turn will help shed light on the plight of seperated straight men who are of course seen as fair game for fleecing

You're welcome

Seriously?

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I'm wondering how the eventual legalisation of same-sex marriage will affect the bias in the laws.

I believe if you look across the water to the states for example you can see examples of how the non-biological parent in for example lesbian marriages are at times marginalised.

Seems to be a somewhat universal rule that (biological)mother trumps all.

Bafucin

Yes ...because I want to be in love with the love of my life.

And I know then I will want to marry that person.

I want to experience that level of commitment from that perspective.

I am in the beginnings of a relationship right now.

I respect people who don't want to. I don't look at those who are partnered as being in less of a relationship or anything or single guys as being less fulfilled or more lonely.

I just have a very definite idea of what I want in life I always have done.

I am certain I want to. I have an acute sense of the emotional bonds I want in the future and marriage is a part of that.

I want to marry my woman. I want to experience being a husband.

folan

folan wrote: »

Is my answer invalid because it can be used as either a positive of negative assertion?

I think one of the reasons it was made invalid is that it was not clear which direction you were answering in. Your answer could equally be applied in both directions, as to why you want to - or do not want to - get married.

But the main point I was making is that it was made invalid by the inherent assumption built in it that whatever answer you were giving automatically follows from the question. It does not - except to you.

Where this might cause irritation or confusion in others is that it implies that anyone giving the opposite answer to you - and as I said which answer you are giving was not even clear - is somehow NOT in love - or is less so than you.

Perhaps you have no intention to make such an implication. The fact is it is hanging there over the post all the same - awaiting some clarification from you - and my goal was merely to point this out. If clarification is not something you wish to offer on this point - then I am not intending to attempt to compel you to do so.

folan wrote: »

ill leave you to it, as you seem to be unhappy that im in love.

I have to admit I have seen no one on this thread express any such position. Much less myself. Perhaps you can highlight the post in question to me so I can correct my oversight?

Knex.

Knex. wrote: »

TaxAH, without wanting to drag thread off topic, your situation fascinates me. I say that as someone who as no strong opinion either for nor against, just scenarios such as yours, open relationships (very different, I know), and monogamy are often things I dwell on.

Sorry i did not actually see this post until just now - completely by accident. I was not ignoring you - or it!

cluelez

Bafucin wrote: »

Yes ...because I want to be in love with the love of my life.

And I know then I will want to marry that person.

I want to experience that level of commitment from that perspective.

I am in the beginnings of a relationship right now.

I respect people who don't want to. I don't look at those who are partnered as being in less of a relationship or anything or single guys as being less fulfilled or more lonely.

I just have a very definite idea of what I want in life I always have done.

I am certain I want to. I have an acute sense of the emotional bonds I want in the future and marriage is a part of that.

I want to marry my woman. I want to experience being a husband.

all what I can read from your post is:

''I''

''me''

?

Lou.m

cluelez wrote: »

all what I can read from your post is:

''I''

''me''

?

But those are his needs.

I have needs you have them.

I don't justify my needs.

There is a lot of I.

But there are other words too.

Pawwed Rig

Deleted User wrote: »

I think one of the reasons it was made invalid is that it was not clear which direction you were answering in. Your answer could equally be applied in both directions, as to why you want to - or do not want to - get married.

Mod note - It was perfectly obvious which way he was answering now stop arguing for the sake of it.

cluelez - your post adds nothing to the discussion

kunst nugget

save_me_some wrote: »

marriage equality might do a lot of good for men in traditional marriages , gay men will not be allowed to be shown the same bias as they are liberal sacred cows , this in turn will help shed light on the plight of seperated straight men who are of course seen as fair game for fleecing

The courts are showing equality already when it comes to divorce proceedings.

Stay at home father's child maintenance doubled

The fact is that traditionally the wife was usually the stay at home parent but this is changing and the courts are becoming cognisant of this.

Pawwed Rig

kunst nugget wrote: »

The courts are showing equality already when it comes to divorce proceedings.

Stay at home father's child maintenance doubled

The fact is that traditionally the wife was usually the stay at home parent but this is changing and the courts are becoming cognisant of this.

There is no link in your post. Is this the one you are talking about?
http://www.amen.ie/Papers/30012014_irishtimes.htm

kunst nugget

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

There is no link in your post. Is this the one you are talking about?
http://www.amen.ie/Papers/30012014_irishtimes.htm

Apologies, I messed up the link. That's the story.

Pawwed Rig

There is alot of info here but it is interesting reading for those who want to educate themselves on family law rulings
http://www.courts.ie/Courts.ie/library3.nsf/%28WebFiles%29/7F123DB171E31618802576AA003876FA/$FILE/Family%20Law%20Matters%20-%20Vol%203%20No%202.pdf