|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why get married at all?
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
It is an oppressive system. But it is only when things get nasty that the system need intrude. And if things do go south, it doesn't matter whether you are married or not, you will feel the force of that oppression.
Well yes, there's no way to break up any relationship without pain. But take the medical example that was used upthread, which is not about breakups. If you are married you become someone's next of kin. That's not the type of legal commitment I think should be read into anyone's relationship de facto.
If you are talking about Gramps49's story, I have already conceded that is a pragmatic reason to get married. Were you to ask me in that case if the partner should have had next of kin status, even though the couple were not married, I would say yes without hesitation. Just because things are as they are, doesn't mean they should be.
[ 30. August 2012, 16:00: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Or, give equal legal status to de-facto relationships of a certain length - as per my earlier post.
So if I've been living with someone for (say) three years, they suddenly your system basically forces marriage after X years living together.
This is what happened in God's Own Country many years ago and I was furious; having particularly thoughtfully decided not to marry for reasons only a late 1970's - early 1980's feminist could understand. And suffered the social and ecclesiastical consequences for doing it. Only to find every Thomasina, Dickette and Harriet now doing the same thing and getting prizes for it (if you call a mortgage a prize)
Now, in God's (other) Own Country I am forbidden to marry as we are of different religions and there is no civil marriage. I feel so lucky! The Established Order played right into my hands! For once!
27 wonderful years, 3 grown children and counting.
Choose your path and stick to it, I say.
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Or, give equal legal status to de-facto relationships of a certain length - as per my earlier post.
So if I've been living with someone for (say) three years, they suddenly become my next of kin, get the right to my money and power over my treatment in hospital? No thanks!
So you would prefer that someone who you haven't been living with for three years to have that status?
quote:
Even assuming that we're talking about a genuine girlfriend rather than a flatmate turned gold-digger,
Probably the only appropriate response to this is ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) quote:
your system basically forces marriage after X years living together.
No, it acknowledges that a significant and lasting relationship exists, and that the partners in it have obligations and responsibilities. quote:
What if I don't feel ready, or just don't want to get married? I'll have the choice between being locked in by default or breaking up with my hypothetical girlfriend, who is hypothetically lovely even if I don't want her to become my hypothetical wife just yet.
I feel for these hypothetical commitment-phobes whoever they are. They bear little resemblance to the couple in the OP. And if you're suggesting that the legal ceremony of marriage would keep this hypothetical couple you are describing together, I call bullshit.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Why get married? To protect your rights as a lifelong partner.
Or, give equal legal status to de-facto relationships of a certain length - as per my earlier post.
And short of some kind of documentation, how is it to be known who has a relationship of that length?
Also, what Leprechaun said.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Right. And as I said all the way back in the OP, the couple are already committed to each other. The proof of commitment are in the fruits, surely. Staying together means you are committed. A $30k party, a big white dress and a gold ring do not.
I have found the pragmatic suggestions convincing, and the ones that suggest that marriage signal commitment far less so.
This is surely a big, fat red herring. It's not the $30k party, big white dress, or gold ring that make you married. My son just got married and they had none of the above.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Or, give equal legal status to de-facto relationships of a certain length - as per my earlier post.
So if I've been living with someone for (say) three years, they suddenly become my next of kin, get the right to my money and power over my treatment in hospital? No thanks!
So you would prefer that someone who you haven't been living with for three years to have that status?
Whoa, non sequitur on the half-shell! What s/he wants from a non-cohabitant is completely irrelevant to what s/he doesn't want from a cohabitant. This logical fallacy is far beneath you.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
And if you're suggesting that the legal ceremony of marriage would keep this hypothetical couple you are describing together, I call bullshit.
Another non sequitur. Nobody but NOBODY here is suggesting a marriage certificate is glue for a crumbling relationship. Nobody. Not anybody. Why even bring it up? Just for the emotional charge you get by defeating this particular straw man? Again, you're better than this.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
quote:
The choice is entirely yours.
Well, in one respect the choice ISN'T entirely ours for some of us thanks to our respective governments and/or church bodies. But in our household we are making the choice to "live boldly," as the saying goes, into the kind of society we want to be part of, as an officially committed couple...even if some of the folks back home don't understand/don't approve.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Right. And as I said all the way back in the OP, the couple are already committed to each other. The proof of commitment are in the fruits, surely. Staying together means you are committed. A $30k party, a big white dress and a gold ring do not.
I have found the pragmatic suggestions convincing, and the ones that suggest that marriage signal commitment far less so.
This is surely a big, fat red herring. It's not the $30k party, big white dress, or gold ring that make you married. My son just got married and they had none of the above.
Congrats! I mean that sincerely, though given the context I would understand if you didn't believe me.
The party sentence is hyperbole, I grant you. But it is not my main point, which is not a red herring. The fruits of commitment are in the committing, not in the signaling.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief: quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Or, give equal legal status to de-facto relationships of a certain length - as per my earlier post.
So if I've been living with someone for (say) three years, they suddenly become my next of kin, get the right to my money and power over my treatment in hospital? No thanks!
So you would prefer that someone who you haven't been living with for three years to have that status?
Whoa, non sequitur on the half-shell! What s/he wants from a non-cohabitant is completely irrelevant to what s/he doesn't want from a cohabitant. This logical fallacy is far beneath you.
Of course. More like a silly joke really. But DS's expression did strike me as odd. If I had been in a committed relationship with someone for three years, I would certainly want them to have next of kin status. Gramps' post indicates that they would not, however.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief: quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
And if you're suggesting that the legal ceremony of marriage would keep this hypothetical couple you are describing together, I call bullshit.
Another non sequitur. Nobody but NOBODY here is suggesting a marriage certificate is glue for a crumbling relationship. Nobody. Not anybody. Why even bring it up? Just for the emotional charge you get by defeating this particular straw man? Again, you're better than this.
Yeah, fair call.
Etf: code
[ 30. August 2012, 16:57: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
If I had been in a committed relationship with someone for three years, I would certainly want them to have next of kin status.
Then why not sign the papers? There's your good reason.
ETA: I should think that next-of-kin status is something for a couple to decide, not the faceless mechanisms of a governmental sunset clause. What is the right number of years? 3? 4? 2? If, sociologically, there is a large number of people who bail at 5 1/2 years, should the bar bet set at 6? Should the bar be moved if the bail zone moves?
How much easier to just leave it up to the people involved. If you want next-of-kin status, sign the ****ing papers. If you don't, don't.
[ 30. August 2012, 16:55: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
quote:
The choice is entirely yours.
Well, in one respect the choice ISN'T entirely ours for some of us thanks to our respective governments and/or church bodies. But in our household we are making the choice to "live boldly," as the saying goes, into the kind of society we want to be part of, as an officially committed couple...even if some of the folks back home don't understand/don't approve.
The choice is indeed yours - it's just that "living boldly" (love that phrase btw )requires a whole load of courage, creativity and stamina that being "normative' doesn't. Not to mention foregoing all sorts of social approval and material support.
I don't want to say aloud "If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen" but sometimes in the dark of night (actual or metaphorical night) I admit that I think it...
[ 30. August 2012, 16:56: Message edited by: Galilit ]
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I should think that next-of-kin status is something for a couple to decide, not the faceless mechanisms of a governmental sunset clause.
Yes. I can see how we may be coming at from opposite directions. From my point of view, commitment without marriage means (among other things) that the state has as little involvement with what is a private matter as possible. When contact with the state becomes unavoidable, then you find ways to deal with that. To my mind, a form in which you nominate your next of kin is simpler than getting married, even without the big party.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
I can see how we may be coming at from opposite directions. From my point of view, commitment without marriage means (among other things) that the state has as little involvement with what is a private matter as possible.
Good point. It seems to depend on what problem we are trying to solve. I doubt most people worry much about who will be named next of kin at the hospital.
To me the better indicators are the statistical ones about trends involving millions of people. They give me an idea of what the chances are in any particular case - allowing for the fact that every case is different and may or may not follow the trend.
I expect that the shared goal of everyone is happy and stable relationships, both for our own welfare and that of our communities, friends, and families.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Good point. It seems to depend on what problem we are trying to solve. I doubt most people worry much about who will be named next of kin at the hospital.
But that's part of what worries me about most of the couples I know who refuse marriage for various reasons: they aren't worrying about who will be named next of kin at the hospital, or what might happen if one of them dies in an accident, etc. I know that it's possible to create a lot of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage in other ways (and that for gay couples it's frequently a necessity), but they aren't doing that either...
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
What mousethief said.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Even assuming that we're talking about a genuine girlfriend rather than a flatmate turned gold-digger,
Probably the only appropriate response to this is
So how do you distinguish between a committed romantic relationship and a three year flatshare? You've got to do it in a way that will satisfy the lawyers, remember. It could be a recipe for a whole load of heartache. Much simpler, don't you think, to have a form that people can decide to sign if they want to say that they want to share their lives?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ecumaniac
Ship's whipping girl
# 376
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
So how do you distinguish between a committed romantic relationship and a three year flatshare? You've got to do it in a way that will satisfy the lawyers, remember.
Separate sleeping quarters (ie. the flat needs to have 2 bedrooms), evidence of equal sharing of rent and utilities, and no major household purchases made in common (don't buy a tv or a car together).
For a committed romantic relationship - the opposite of the above, plus joint bank accounts and utilities. Listing each other as emergency contacts and next of kin. If you can wrangle couple photos that will help, plus statements from mutual friends to the veracity of the relationship, and maybe in this day and age, logs of internet chat, phone call records.
(My dad worked in immigration compliance. For them, simply getting married was NOT sufficient proof of a committed romantic relationship!!)
--------------------
it's a secret club for people with a knitting addiction, hiding under the cloak of BDSM - Catrine
Posts: 2901 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I didn't post on this topic earlier, feeling that my view would be so obvious because of my life choices. I was married fairly young and have been with my wife for 30 some years, depending on whether we take the period of together-but-no-married into account. It was in a time where living together was not so common, the law specified that she change her last name unless a fee was paid, and clear discrimination on common-law, not officially married couples was the rule, e.g., renting an apartment (flat). We went with the times.
But it did mean something. To be in a church with family and friends. To publicly declare that we would be together. There's something about it that I clearly recall, beyond the words, of feeling, and meaning. I have always felt a little inwardly offended and 'they don't get it' (kept myself always) when people have said 'I(we) don't need a piece of paper to prove something to others', 'it's not necessary to do marriage in modern society', etc.
Maybe it's a bit of a take on the psychology of people. We are capable of many things as humans, and exclusiveness to one partner in a relationship is one of them. But we are only capable. There is no guarantee, any more than there is a guarantee that we won't choose to violence over peace, kindness over exploitation, tolerance over racism. Civilization is a thin veneer and we have to take the time to assert control over ourselves and to make declarations of principle. In times of troubles between us, we have definitely drawn on the fact that we are married.
Yes, the business side of life, the acquisition of material good, and the division of property in divorce is made clearer by marriage than living together. As is the status of children, roles in medical emergencies, other things. These are all perhaps important, but not so important as the commitment to a human bond to another person.
I've developed a take on the marital promises over the years also. First, that promising something actually does mean something to people who take others seriously. The promises are meant to signify that the couple will work through problems with honesty. Second, the promises are also threats. For example: "until death us do part". If you have children together, it really doesn't matter if you separate, divorce or remarry. You have kids with this person, you are a couple insofar as the children are concerned (and grandchildren), and family, even if a "two place family" for them. For all time.
I'm not saying in any of this that it is necessarily wrong not to be married and to be what we call a common-law couple, but there are serious things about marriage, different than c-l. And there is also the spiritual dimension, but others have posted about that.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Immigration pisses me off. What the hell business is it of theirs if I choose to marry someone in a parental arrangement, say, possibly 40 years older, and with the true intention of staying together but not with a bloody "romantic" relationship? It should be enough for them that I'm not committing marriage fraud (by selling my marital citizenship access).
These idiots are so paranoid, they don't even always accept a ceremony plus the birth of a child together.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ecumaniac
Ship's whipping girl
# 376
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
These idiots are so paranoid, they don't even always accept a ceremony plus the birth of a child together.
Ahem. There's quite a lot of immigration fraud out there though.
And in my opinion if they are going to privilege couples/partners/spouses then they do have a responsibility to ensure that the marriages/relationships are genuine and not people taking the piss.
--------------------
it's a secret club for people with a knitting addiction, hiding under the cloak of BDSM - Catrine
Posts: 2901 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Ahem. I work with immigrants every day, I do know that. We sort out the consequences all the time, muttering under our breath.
But if someone produces legal paperwork/proof of traditionally accepted rite AND a child together, immigration needs to fuck off. And if anyone is so daft or mad as to sell their body and at least two years of their life for the sake of a green card, I'd say they done earned it. But snooping through people's love letters etc is just not on.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
From my point of view, commitment without marriage means (among other things) that the state has as little involvement with what is a private matter as possible. When contact with the state becomes unavoidable, then you find ways to deal with that. To my mind, a form in which you nominate your next of kin is simpler than getting married, even without the big party.
In France, they have an official alternative to marriage, called the PACs. Comments on the internet indicate that it provides some of the benefits of marriage, but it's easier to get out of - which suggests that a 'pacsed' relationship is psychologically different from a marriage.
In China, a wedding 'ceremony' apparently isn't required - registering a marriage is a bureaucratic issue. A celebration may be arranged privately by the couple if they want one later.
The current legal attempts in England to obtain formal state protection for cohabiting couples and their children are likely to be fraught with difficulties. Some individuals would like such protection, but others absolutely would not; they prefer cohabitation to marriage precisely because it places no (or very few) formal responsibilities upon them. But the next of kin, in the UK that doesn't seem to be a serious issue. I've never heard of an unmarried couple being kept apart if one of them has to go to hospital. It might be a problem if one of them dies, but again, it's not something that seems to make the news here, though making a will is probably wise. I think the authorities are so used to people presenting 'partners' rather than spouses that it's not something they make a fuss about. And the extended family isn't a strong unit here, so family members are unlikely to barge in and lay down the law with a cohabiting partner. It must happen occasionally, though.
[ 30. August 2012, 23:18: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But the next of kin, in the UK that doesn't seem to be a serious issue. I've never heard of an unmarried couple being kept apart if one of them has to go to hospital. It might be a problem if one of them dies, but again, it's not something that seems to make the news here, though making a will is probably wise. I think the authorities are so used to people presenting 'partners' rather than spouses that it's not something they make a fuss about. And the extended family isn't a strong unit here, so family members are unlikely to barge in and lay down the law with a cohabiting partner. It must happen occasionally, though.
But are unmarried partners in the UK allowed to make end-of-life decisions, absence a living will, over the objections of formally recognized next-of-kin such as parents? That's generally when it gets dicey.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I don't get it. Why not just get married if one wants the legal rights of marriage?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't get it. Why not just get married if one wants the legal rights of marriage?
Wow. That is romantic. Tone it down, champ, or I will be putty in your hands.
Have waded through the papers Svetlana posted links to. As you noted, they do indicate that cohabitating couples are more likely to split, but they don't rest there (and good sociology should not). This is from the first linked paper:
quote:
According to the IFS's findings, parents who were cohabiting when their child was born were three times more likely to split up by the time their child was five than married parents (27% compared to 9%).
However they were also typically younger, less well off, less likely to own their own homes, have fewer educational qualifications and were less likely to plan their pregnancies than married people. Once the differences between the two groups were accounted for, the difference in the likelihood of separation reduced to two percentage points.
The couple in the OP are mid-thirties, have no children as of yet, a mortgage, pets, and are reasonably financially secure. And uni educated to post-graduate level.
[ 30. August 2012, 23:45: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Sorry I messed up your name, SvitlanaV2.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Wow. That is romantic. Tone it down, champ, or I will be putty in your hands.
Don't lookit me. I still take the religious line about living in sin and letting no man put asunder and all that.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But are unmarried partners in the UK allowed to make end-of-life decisions, absence a living will, over the objections of formally recognized next-of-kin such as parents? That's generally when it gets dicey.
To be honest, I don't know. But it seems not to be such a big issue here. As I say, I think it's because British families have a 'let's not interfere' kind of approach. Cohabitation and divorce have been significant in British life for at least two generations now; many older
couples will have been divorced, or living with someone, so they can't necessarily take the moral high ground line when it comes to how their children are living.
Parents/siblings may want to participate in a funeral, but will ultimately defer to the partner, I think. Funerals aren't a huge thing here. People like the option of turning up and saying a few words, but unless the deceased was one of those larger-than-life people who want their funeral/memorial service to be a big party, most families won't really have much idea about hymns and Bible readings, and will be quite happy for someone else to think about those things.
I suspect that lawyers do all they can to ensure that there's provision for the long-term partner left behind in the event of a death. Apparently, the Inheritance Act of 1975 offers some provision for partners who were financially dependent on the deceased person, so long as they put in a claim quickly. If family members disapprove, it's probably for the simple reason that they'd like to get their hands on the money for themselves. But that kind of conflict can happen even if there's a will, and even if cohabitation isn't in the equation.
There's a high rate of cohabitation in the UK, and all over Europe, so it's likely that governments have made some adjustments to deal with these kinds of situations.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Hey, LC, wait until the election in November then come out to Washington State. Marriage Equality looks as if it is going to win. Besides, I have long wanted to meet you and your spouse.
Of course, Washington weather in November is very similar to Michigan's.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't get it. Why not just get married if one wants the legal rights of marriage?
Wow. That is romantic. Tone it down, champ, or I will be putty in your hands.
He wasn't talking about romance. He was talking about legal rights. Once again you follow through with a non sequitur.
[ 31. August 2012, 03:10: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Right. And once again, you ignore the substantive point I make in a post to focus on one throwaway line.
[x-post - that was for MT]
[ 31. August 2012, 03:14: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I didn't see any substantive point in that piece of snark. Maybe you could rephrase?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Yeah ... Nah. Maybe if I repost you will spot it. It's right after what you focused on.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't get it. Why not just get married if one wants the legal rights of marriage?
Wow. That is romantic. Tone it down, champ, or I will be putty in your hands.
Have waded through the papers Svetlana posted links to. As you noted, they do indicate that cohabitating couples are more likely to split, but they don't rest there (and good sociology should not). This is from the first linked paper:
quote:
According to the IFS's findings, parents who were cohabiting when their child was born were three times more likely to split up by the time their child was five than married parents (27% compared to 9%).
However they were also typically younger, less well off, less likely to own their own homes, have fewer educational qualifications and were less likely to plan their pregnancies than married people. Once the differences between the two groups were accounted for, the difference in the likelihood of separation reduced to two percentage points.
The couple in the OP are mid-thirties, have no children as of yet, a mortgage, pets, and are reasonably financially secure. And uni educated to post-graduate level.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
It's very simple: if you want the level of commitment and protection of marriage, get married. If you don't, then don't. The choice is entirely yours.
Without wanting to spend too much time in Dead Horse territory, there have been several posts along these lines.
And sorry, but for some of us the choice most definitely is NOT entirely ours. I am one of those people. I have vague hopes that if my recently started, so far brilliant relationship continues and develops and deepens, the laws of my country might have caught up by the time I want to make that choice.
As it stands, though, if he said "will you marry me", my response would be "you know perfectly well that I'm not allowed".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I should think that next-of-kin status is something for a couple to decide, not the faceless mechanisms of a governmental sunset clause.
Yes. I can see how we may be coming at from opposite directions. From my point of view, commitment without marriage means (among other things) that the state has as little involvement with what is a private matter as possible. When contact with the state becomes unavoidable, then you find ways to deal with that. To my mind, a form in which you nominate your next of kin is simpler than getting married, even without the big party.
Fundamentally that comes down to the basic question: do you want other people to recognise your relationship?
If the answer is generally no, then it makes sense to not be bothered with marriage. But people shouldn't be surprised, in that case, that on the occasions when they DO want their relationship to be recognised, it takes more effort to establish that the relationship does in fact exist, because it hasn't already been 'vetted'.
Really it's no different to a myriad of other situations. We have forms of ID that are readily accepted by people who didn't issue them. We accept credit cards as an indication of a person's ability to pay for goods and services. If someone has a licence/registration to do something, our starting assumption is that their basic competence has been assessed.
[ 31. August 2012, 04:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
I agree that this is a logical reason to get married. I conceded as much some time ago.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
If I may make so bold as to summarise as I see it the action so far:
Convincing arguments (to me, anyway) in favour of getting married:
- The health benefits of being formally married, as outlined in the paper HRB linked to. Comparable to the benefit of giving up smoking. No causation was demonstrated, but the correlation is so compelling as to be convincing. At least to me.
- The requirement, in an emergency or critical situation, to be formally acknowledged as next-of-kin. Gramps49's disturbing story, along with the logic presented by a number of shipmates on this point, tipped me in that direction. Though I still think signing a form stating such and such is your next of kin should (even if it isn't) be a simple solution to this.
I conceded at this point that there clearly are logical reasons to get married. However, I mused that this is not an ideal situation, and wondered if others were satisfied with this basically pragmatic rationale for getting married.
Less convincing/unconvincing arguments (again to me):
- Non-critical formal status, so that if a marriage/union ends everyone knows where they stand in relation to property, the courts etc. As I pointed out at the time, while I see the utility of this, in the vast majority of splits couples sort this stuff out like adults, with minimal involvement from state machines like the Family courts. For the exceptions (and my own divorce was one), things are going to get messy, everything will be disputed and rights and obligations that one or both parties thought existed will be challenged and/or discarded, regardless of whether or not one is married.
- Signalling of commitment. This is one where I keep getting into strife, as some of you have pointed out (correctly) that I am conflating posts about commencing commitment with a guarantee that people will stay together. My bad. However, I still find this unconvincing as a reason to marry. The legal/religious ceremony involved in formal marriage logically takes place as a signal of commitment at the start of that commitment, or at least as some of you have theorised at a new level of that commitment. A perhaps more teleological view of commitment, which I suspect I share with the couple in the OP, is that commitment is more adequately signaled by remaining together. Hence their statement 'We have been together for eight years - we are committed to each other.' I can see the point being made is that a wedding is signalling at the outset that one intends to be committed, but to my mind actually staying together is a much stronger signal of commitment.
- To avoid 'living in sin.' Maybe I just don't get it. I haven't been able to find that phrase anywhere in the Scriptures.
You would not believe how many times I misspelled 'commitment' prior to preview posting. I clearly have a problem.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
If I may make so bold as to summarise as I see it the action so far:
Seems to me like you've done a reasonable job. I want to pick up on a couple of particular ones...
quote:
Signalling of commitment. This is one where I keep getting into strife, as some of you have pointed out (correctly) that I am conflating posts about commencing commitment with a guarantee that people will stay together. My bad. However, I still find this unconvincing as a reason to marry. The legal/religious ceremony involved in formal marriage logically takes place as a signal of commitment at the start of that commitment, or at least as some of you have theorised at a new level of that commitment. A perhaps more teleological view of commitment, which I suspect I share with the couple in the OP, is that commitment is more adequately signaled by remaining together. Hence their statement 'We have been together for eight years - we are committed to each other.' I can see the point being made is that a wedding is signalling at the outset that one intends to be committed, but to my mind actually staying together is a much stronger signal of commitment.
Hmm. Really it depends on what you mean by 'signal'. Marriage is basically a declaration of intent. It's not a 'sign' in the sense of EVIDENCE of commitment.
Whether it's seen in legal terms as a contract, or you are simply thinking about marriage vows, the point is that promises are being made. It's not so much a sign of commitment as a promise to be committed.
(any potential for a joke there is intentional)
quote:
To avoid 'living in sin.' Maybe I just don't get it. I haven't been able to find that phrase anywhere in the Scriptures.
Correct. There was a news story some years ago when the Uniting Church expressly got rid of the phrase 'living in sin'. The rationale being that sexual sin wasn't inherently any more sinful than all the other kinds of sin that people were 'living' in.
"To avoid sinning" would be a more accurate expression of the idea.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Not so much a signal of commitment as a declaration of commitment. It's a "we hereby." A speech act.
For a cohabitating couple that never buys a house or reproduces, when have they declared commitment? When they first move in? after a year? two? five? Are they committed? Is one committed and the other not?
Marriage is a declaration of commitment, a declaration made to one another, and to the world.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
On the PACS in France - it was originally brought in for homosexual couples, although the majority of people getting these days are heterosexuals. It offers some, but not all, the protections of marriage (less rights in relation to children, IIRC).
In the case of at least one (straight) couple I know, the reason they decided to get one was that, despite being ideologically opposed to marriage, they had the good sense to realise that if one of them died, they didn't want the other one to end up homeless.
I think the reason a lot of younger people, especially, don't get any formalisation of their relationship is that they don't like to think about grisly things like what would happen if one of them died.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ecumaniac
Ship's whipping girl
# 376
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
[QB] On the PACS in France - it was originally brought in for homosexual couples, although the majority of people getting these days are heterosexuals. It offers some, but not all, the protections of marriage (less rights in relation to children, IIRC).
/QB]
That sounds interesting. Do you think many people who get a PACS later "upgrade" to a marriage?
--------------------
it's a secret club for people with a knitting addiction, hiding under the cloak of BDSM - Catrine
Posts: 2901 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
[*]The requirement, in an emergency or critical situation, to be formally acknowledged as next-of-kin. Gramps49's disturbing story, along with the logic presented by a number of shipmates on this point, tipped me in that direction. Though I still think signing a form stating such and such is your next of kin should (even if it isn't) be a simple solution to this.
I think this issue is more complex than than that if the alternative is de facto relationships. In that situation I think there are lots of people I know who could have said to have been living together for several years who would be horrified (as would their families) for the law to be implying next of kin responsibilities, shared financial arrangements and debt liabilities, etc. So it's more to do with what the alternatives are to marriage, rather than simply a problem that can be solved with signing a next of kin form.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
So how do you distinguish between a committed romantic relationship and a three year flatshare? You've got to do it in a way that will satisfy the lawyers, remember.
Separate sleeping quarters (ie. the flat needs to have 2 bedrooms), evidence of equal sharing of rent and utilities, and no major household purchases made in common (don't buy a tv or a car together).
For a committed romantic relationship - the opposite of the above, plus joint bank accounts and utilities. Listing each other as emergency contacts and next of kin. If you can wrangle couple photos that will help, plus statements from mutual friends to the veracity of the relationship, and maybe in this day and age, logs of internet chat, phone call records.
That all sounds like more grist to the lawyers' mill. Much easier than that: how about you just sign the papers? This comes with the added advantage that if you don't want all the commitments that go with marriage, you can avoid them very easily by simply not signing.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Yeah ... Nah. Maybe if I repost you will spot it. It's right after what you focused on.
You didn't answer my question. You seem to be proposing that certain couples in a committed relationship want and deserve the legal rights of marriage without actually getting married.
I am taking their romantic feelings for granted here. It just seems to me that if they want the legal rights, all they have to do is sign the documents that obtain the legal rights they desire. It's not the system (except in the case of gay couples) that is depriving them of these rights. It's their own refusal to sign a few documents.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
A perhaps more teleological view of commitment, which I suspect I share with the couple in the OP, is that commitment is more adequately signaled by remaining together. Hence their statement 'We have been together for eight years - we are committed to each other.' I can see the point being made is that a wedding is signalling at the outset that one intends to be committed, but to my mind actually staying together is a much stronger signal of commitment.
It's stronger, sure--but it's far less useful, because it isn't there at the time when you need it, for example, when you are attempting to decide whether to issue this couple a home loan, or who to send Johnny home with after school when his ride fails to materialize, or whether to pick up on that "maybe" invitation you saw in X's eyes across your desk this morning. Take it to an extreme and the truest proof of commitment is actually staying together till death do you part, but that's also the least useful, as most decisions-based-on-commitment-level require making while both partners are still alive.
There's also the fact that marriage is binary. Either you are or you aren't. But "commitment" in a non-marriage situation is a spectrum, mostly invisible at that, and even the two participants must take on trust the other person's statement of where he/she falls on that spectrum. And the minute person X ceases to be committed, X is also highly highly motivated to lie about that fact. So Y is living in a dreamworld for quite some time, until truth forces its way into the situation (usually through a painful emotional shock), and during all that time Y is making decisions based on a wrong reading of commitment level.
Now this betrayal can of course happen in a legal marriage as well. But there are at least certain mechanisms of enforcement, legal and otherwise, for the betrayed Y. But in the average nonmarried situation X has only to say "You misread me, baby, I was never that in to you," and even if it's a total lie, what can you do about it? Screw whatever promises X made previously, such as "if you agree to the move, I'll take care of the house payment out of my salary, and you won't have to worry about leaving your current job behind." They're not enforceable, unless you got them on a legal instrument. And most people don't--because any number of people have self-righteous hissy fits about being asked to sign legal agreements to the benefit of people they currently claim to love.
Which is maybe all to say that the commitment without legal marriage thing is fine provided you can both guarantee that you will in fact both remain committed at that level until the day you die . And that you can both commit your heirs and successors to behave decently as well, AFTER you are dead--and my experience is not too happy in this area.
I suspect one reason marriage endures as well as it does in Western lands is that somehow it has pulled off the neat trick of being a major, major legal arrangement while still being shrouded in a haze of romance. Which means people get protected against each other right at the time when they'd swear most strongly they needed no such protection. A series of trips to a lawyer to draw up a cohabitation agreement has no such softening haze about it.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
This comes with the added advantage that if you don't want all the commitments that go with marriage, you can avoid them very easily by simply not signing
Because marriage is such a commitment these days.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
On the PACS in France - it was originally brought in for homosexual couples, although the majority of people getting these days are heterosexuals. It offers some, but not all, the protections of marriage (less rights in relation to children, IIRC).
That sounds interesting. Do you think many people who get a PACS later "upgrade" to a marriage?
Not that I know of. It's usually seen as an alternative to marriage. My experience is that it is usually entered into for pragmatic reasons (keeping the house if someone dies, tax breaks...)
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
The following is from page 9 of the paper Honest Ron linked to, and is convincing:
quote:
Looking across the literature, is cohabitation as good as having the band of gold itself? It seems not.
The paper documents the myriad health benefits of being married, over being single, cohabiting or divorced/separated. What is clear, however, is that causality is not demonstrated, only correlation. The authors admit as much, on page 21:
quote:
If we accept from all this statistical evidence that human beings gain some kind of protective effect from marriage, how are those benefits actually transmitted? The answer is not yet known.
And again on page 23:
quote:
Married people live longer and are healthier. What is less clear is whether this pattern in the data tells us something reliable about what marriage does to health.
That being said, as correlation goes it is pretty damn impressive. That, together with Gramps49's disturbing story, has demonstrated to me that there may in fact be several logical reasons to marry.
We still don't know if it is strictly marriage that provides the health benefits though. The better health of married people seems to be partly from obvious practical advantages - there is someone else around to help if you get sick or have an accident or whatever. That would work for any cohabiting couple. Or even flatsharerers who spent a lot of time together. But its partly from the huge psychological benefits of being in a family, feeling loved, having a sexual partner, and so on. And its impossible, I think, to be sure if legal marriage as such helps even more. Because it might be that those people who are more likely to commit to each other for a long haul, who are less likely to walk out when times get hard, are also more likely to want legal marriage.
From a selfish point of view what you want is a partner who will love you and never leave you. Perhaps it is the case that if you are lucky enough to find such a person (and the statistical evidence seems to be that about half the popularion are, because even with the simple quick divorces we have now over half of marriages stay together), if you can find such a person, then you have already got whyat you are looking for and in practical health terms the lkegal marriage adds nothing to it. But that person is maybe also more likely tobe the sort of person whoi wants to get married, IYSWIM. So marriage is a clue that the relationship might be a permanent one, but is not the cause of that permanence. The kind of people who woudl be able to marry and li ve togehter for life might also have been ale to live together for life if they had not married.
But its hard to see how we could prove that either way. What questions would you ask? Would people even be aware of the answers? How many 18 or 25 year olds know whether they will in the end turn out to be the kind of people who are capable of sustaining a long-term relationship? Does anyone at all of any age know whether their intended partner will be that kid of person? You'd have to be a time-traveller as well as a mind-reader and both of those are rare on the ground.
quote:
So, any of you single female shipmates who are not batshit crazy, please form an orderly line ...
It is unfortunately true that the health benefits of marriage are greater for men than women. Much greater. As are the financial benefits. We've got huge statistical evidence for that. So in these pragmatic terms, you'd be doing her a favour but she'd be doing you a much bigger one.
quote:
But, before we close this thread and go on our way rejoicing, I wonder if this, basically pragmatic rationale, for getting married is satisfying to all of you. It seems likely to me that many of the health affects (particularly the psychological ones) in the study are a result of the shape of Western society, which still privileges the married state over the unmarried.
I think that is probably nonsense. It lseems pretty clear that living with someone who loves you and cares for you and helps you would be good for your health. It would be weird if that wasn't the case.
Also - though this is a bit dodgier - the usual stereotype of our society is that the social pressure on women to get married and have children is greater than that on men. Personally I'm not at all sure its true, but it is commonly believed. But we know that men benefit more from marriage than women. (On average, on the whole, with many individual exceptions of course) And we know that men suffer worse psychologically (if not financially) from divorce and bereavement than women do. We really do have good figures for that because we keep statistics on deaths. And a disporoportionate number of men die soon after divorce or bereavment than women do. Of all sorts of causes. inclusing diseases and accidents and suicide. If it was true tht the social pressure to be married is greater for women, then that is a big clue that the psychological benefits of marriage are not primarily due to that pressure.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's stronger, sure--but it's far less useful, because it isn't there at the time when you need it, for example, when you are attempting to decide whether to issue this couple a home loan, or who to send Johnny home with after school when his ride fails to materialize, or whether to pick up on that "maybe" invitation you saw in X's eyes across your desk this morning. Take it to an extreme and the truest proof of commitment is actually staying together till death do you part, but that's also the least useful, as most decisions-based-on-commitment-level require making while both partners are still alive.
I am very confused by this line of reasoning. The examples are not very good. Banks deal with the home loan issue several hundred times a day; ask Johnny who his Mum or Dad is if you're unsure; commitment would preclude infidelity, married or not. I agree that something similar to the old Calvinist idea of preservation is the only way of finally measuring commitment - did they actually endure to the end. I don't see that getting married or not solves that conundrum.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped: There's also the fact that marriage is binary. Either you are or you aren't. But "commitment" in a non-marriage situation is a spectrum, mostly invisible at that, and even the two participants must take on trust the other person's statement of where he/she falls on that spectrum. And the minute person X ceases to be committed, X is also highly highly motivated to lie about that fact. So Y is living in a dreamworld for quite some time, until truth forces its way into the situation (usually through a painful emotional shock), and during all that time Y is making decisions based on a wrong reading of commitment level.
You seem to be working with some ideal types here. Again, I find this baffling. I would expect that any couple, married or not, would have to work out between them where boundaries are - what constitutes betrayal to one may not to the other, and communication is the only way to circumnavigate that. I don't agree at all that marriage is a binary - all relationships are on your 'spectrum.'
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped: Now this betrayal can of course happen in a legal marriage as well. But there are at least certain mechanisms of enforcement, legal and otherwise, for the betrayed Y. But in the average nonmarried situation X has only to say "You misread me, baby, I was never that in to you," and even if it's a total lie, what can you do about it? Screw whatever promises X made previously, such as "if you agree to the move, I'll take care of the house payment out of my salary, and you won't have to worry about leaving your current job behind." They're not enforceable, unless you got them on a legal instrument. And most people don't--because any number of people have self-righteous hissy fits about being asked to sign legal agreements to the benefit of people they currently claim to love.
Now we are back to the pragmatics of legal enforcement. As I have said several times, most couples do handle the break up like adults, so courts etc. are not usually involved. Get involved in a nasty split - marriage or no - and some of these legal boundaries are going to be disputed. It is simply not as cut and dried as saying you have legal protections when you are married - lawyers are paid to get around these after all. On a more positive note, the court system is well able to assess the claims made by de facto couples, at least in this country.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped: Which is maybe all to say that the commitment without legal marriage thing is fine provided you can both guarantee that you will in fact both remain committed at that level until the day you die . And that you can both commit your heirs and successors to behave decently as well, AFTER you are dead--and my experience is not too happy in this area.
I'm not going to comment on the last part, mainly because I don't see it's relevance. But as to the first, no one can guarantee that. AFAIAC that is a problem facing both married and unmarried couples.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped: I suspect one reason marriage endures as well as it does in Western lands is that somehow it has pulled off the neat trick of being a major, major legal arrangement while still being shrouded in a haze of romance. Which means people get protected against each other right at the time when they'd swear most strongly they needed no such protection. A series of trips to a lawyer to draw up a cohabitation agreement has no such softening haze about it.
A real protection is actually a pre-nuptial agreement. If marriage was the protection you are indicating, these would be redundant. But I concede there are some protections, particularly in regard to next of kin status.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I'm horrified at the thought of some officious official snooping around people's apartments to make sure they only have one rumpled bed. Talk about your government intrusion. That way madness lies.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
This comes with the added advantage that if you don't want all the commitments that go with marriage, you can avoid them very easily by simply not signing
Because marriage is such a commitment these days.
It is, in fact, a commitment. Just because 50% of couples don't KEEP it, doesn't mean it's not a commitment. A promise is still a promise, even if it's later broken.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
The couple in the OP are mid-thirties, have no children as of yet, a mortgage, pets, and are reasonably financially secure. And uni educated to post-graduate level.
Re the OP: if a couple are fiercely opposed to marriage, then they shouldn't marry! Noone's saying they should be forced to do so. People who have a clear, honest ideological reason for being anti-marriage are probably likely to make more of a success of cohabitation than people who just drift into it, without thinking about the future. But many people do drift into it, which is unfortunate. People drift into marriage too, but neither state should be entered into without serious thought.
Yet, ironically, this couple clearly do see marriage as highly significant, because they desperately want gay people to be able to marry. If marriage is so irrelevant, why is gay marriage so important to them? My own answer to this question is that for people like this, marriage is simply a key battle-ground in the fight for equality; it's not particularly valuable in its own right. If legal and/or socially significant marriages didn't exist, then everyone would be equal, and marriage would be irrelevant - but since marriage does exist, then it has to be extended to gay couples for the sake of equality.
Of course, there's the contrary argument that (depending on the country concerned) marriage confers benefits that everyone should be able to enjoy; but ironically, this couple's choice to remain unmarried on behalf of gay rights undermines the notion that marriage is beneficial. If they can get on just fine without it, then why can't gay people, some might ask?? But I'm ignorant about how things work in Australia. In what sense are they actually depriving themselves by not getting married? Is the next of kin issue the main thing? Have they had to go through the tedious business of making a will? Are they tormented by the disapproval of their grandparents?
I'm not looking for a debate on gay marriage, which isn't allowed here anyway, but your friends' idea that marriage is only valuable if gay people can marry is problematic, it seems to me. What it means is that, if everyone is allowed to marry but noone actually wants to marry, then that's okay, because equality is all that matters. I don't think many Christians will be able to share this point of view, although they may totally agree with the desire for equality.
[ 31. August 2012, 16:09: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
I agree with everything in ken's post, except this:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
But, before we close this thread and go on our way rejoicing, I wonder if this, basically pragmatic rationale, for getting married is satisfying to all of you. It seems likely to me that many of the health affects (particularly the psychological ones) in the study are a result of the shape of Western society, which still privileges the married state over the unmarried.
I think that is probably nonsense. It lseems pretty clear that living with someone who loves you and cares for you and helps you would be good for your health. It would be weird if that wasn't the case.
You have completely missed my point. Living with someone who loves you and cares for you etc. can happen with or without marriage. And does. I am saying that if there is such a strong correlation between being married and health (and I already identified that they were not causal), as opposed to simply cohabiting and health, as well as other pragmatic/legal advantages, it is likely that some of these may be because our societies privilege the married state over the cohabiting/other state.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Probably best to read the whole thread, Svitlana. I addressed that here.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
