|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Why get married at all?
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I agree, MT, but breaking the commitment is so easy, it seems silly to imagine it should deter someone from legal marriage. One can buy the papers to contract a divorce at Wal-mart.
[ 31. August 2012, 16:13: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I agree, MT, but breaking the commitment is so easy, it seems silly to imagine it should deter someone from legal marriage. One can buy the papers to contract a divorce at Wal-mart.
Okay, I see where you're coming from.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
it is likely that some of these may be because our societies privilege the married state over the cohabiting/other state.
Or because marriage is, in most countries, a legal designation, and "committed" is not.
--------------------
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 Dark Knight:
Probably best to read the whole thread, Svitlana. I addressed that here.
Thanks for addressing my first paragraph!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
it is likely that some of these may be because our societies privilege the married state over the cohabiting/other state.
Or because marriage is, in most countries, a legal designation, and "committed" is not.
Right. Which is another way of saying exactly what I said.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Probably best to read the whole thread, Svitlana. I addressed that here.
Thanks for addressing my first paragraph!
I didn't. I addressed your last three.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Probably best to read the whole thread, Svitlana. I addressed that here.
Thanks for addressing my first paragraph!
I didn't. I addressed your last three.
What you said was:
quote:
If people want to get married they should be free to. Or not to. The same choice available to my cousin and her partner should be open to everyone. The fact that they choose not to is neither here nor there.
Thanks again! I missed the bit where your friends said they were/weren't really putting themselves out by not getting married. And the bit where you explained Australia's social attitudes towards marriage versus cohabitation!
But reading between the lines, what I think you're getting at is that without the virtuous struggle for gay marriage, marriage is merely an expensive opportunity for a lady to wear a pretty frock. Gay marriage, then, serves to ennoble an institution that is otherwise pointless and superficial. Which is an interesting way of looking at it.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Probably best to read the whole thread, Svitlana. I addressed that here.
Thanks for addressing my first paragraph!
I didn't. I addressed your last three.
What you said was:
quote:
If people want to get married they should be free to. Or not to. The same choice available to my cousin and her partner should be open to everyone. The fact that they choose not to is neither here nor there.
Thanks again! I missed the bit where your friends said they were/weren't really putting themselves out by not getting married.
What I know of the couple in the OP is in the OP.
quote:
And the bit where you explained Australia's social attitudes towards marriage versus cohabitation!
I think you may be confusing me with Wikipedia. I don't have that info, and what is available out there is as easily accessible by you as by me. What I do know, or think I know, is scattered throughout my many posts on this thread.
quote:
But reading between the lines, what I think you're getting at is that without the virtuous struggle for gay marriage, marriage is merely an expensive opportunity for a lady to wear a pretty frock. Gay marriage, then, serves to ennoble an institution that is otherwise pointless and superficial. Which is an interesting way of looking at it.
It is also an interesting way of looking at what I said, because I didn't say or mean anything remotely like that.
The fact that the OP couple believe that anyone should be able to get married, and the fact that they choose not to themselves, are two unrelated things. That is what I was saying.
--------------------
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:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
it is likely that some of these may be because our societies privilege the married state over the cohabiting/other state.
Or because marriage is, in most countries, a legal designation, and "committed" is not.
Right. Which is another way of saying exactly what I said.
Just what are you asking for then? We already have a legal category that means "legally in a committed relationship." It's called 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
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
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.
Are we from different planets? Is it actually possible in your area of the world for two flatmates to always have separate bedrooms? (How can people afford that?) Do people in committed romantic relationships not equally share rent and utilities? Do people not in committed relationships not make big joint purchases?
I'm still not seeing how this would help the average person (much less the lawyers) distinguish between a committed relationship and a three-year flatshare.
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
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.
In what world does commitment preclude infidelity, married or not? People lie about whether or not they are in a committed relationship or married or married but in an open marriage all the time. It does still tend to be true that if you know someone is a Christian and that they are married you can probably make some assumptions about their attitudes towards fidelity, but otherwise that's not a safe assumption. One of the conversations I've had far too often the past few months has been with young married men whose wives keep cheating on them and expect them to simply forgive them and be OK with that because they don't necessarily think that adultery is bad...
--------------------
"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
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
it is likely that some of these may be because our societies privilege the married state over the cohabiting/other state.
Or because marriage is, in most countries, a legal designation, and "committed" is not.
Right. Which is another way of saying exactly what I said.
Just what are you asking for then? We already have a legal category that means "legally in a committed relationship." It's called marriage.
I think you may be under the impression that what you have posted follows from what is quoted. It doesn't.
My point, going back to when I made it, was that there are indeed legal and pragmatic reasons to get married. These are the convincing reasons I outlined in an earlier post. These legal and pragmatic reasons are what they are because our societies are set up to privilege the state of being formally married over other forms of union. If these societies were in a state where legal status mattered less, than perhaps things would be different. And perhaps things should be different.
I also wondered if others here found this a satisfying state of affairs, that the most convincing reasons to get married (at least to my mind, and I guess yours because you keep coming back to them) are pragmatic.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
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.
In what world does commitment preclude infidelity, married or not? People lie about whether or not they are in a committed relationship or married or married but in an open marriage all the time. It does still tend to be true that if you know someone is a Christian and that they are married you can probably make some assumptions about their attitudes towards fidelity, but otherwise that's not a safe assumption. One of the conversations I've had far too often the past few months has been with young married men whose wives keep cheating on them and expect them to simply forgive them and be OK with that because they don't necessarily think that adultery is bad...
I agree with you. I was responding to LC's point that being married offers some kind of safeguard against infidelity that cohabiting doesn't. My point is that once breached by infidelity, commitment ceases to be commitment.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilyswinburne
Shipmate
# 12934
|
Posted
Perhaps I missed this - are the original couple under discussion Christians? Followers of another religion/spiritual practice? Totally secular?
Is this discussion about whether they should get married? Or whether Christians should get married? Or whether should any two people in the general public for whom it is legal get married?
Posts: 126 | From: California | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I think you may be under the impression that what you have posted follows from what is quoted. It doesn't.
See, my confusion then actually comes from the misapprehension that you have an issue to talk about.
quote:
I also wondered if others here found this a satisfying state of affairs, that the most convincing reasons to get married (at least to my mind, and I guess yours because you keep coming back to them) are pragmatic.
I talked about religion plenty up thread, and your response was that "living in sin" wasn't a concern for you. We keep coming back to the legal stuff because it's all you want to talk about.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Are we from different planets? Is it actually possible in your area of the world for two flatmates to always have separate bedrooms? (How can people afford that?)
Well I have lived alone in a house with THREE bedrooms for that past 35 years. of course it is affordable.
And I think I earn a lot more than you do or did and I live in a very grotty little flat and realised twenty years ago that I will probably never have enough money to live in a house again. So of course it is not affordable. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
You live in a cheaper place and had the good luck to be born early enough to have a house and a job before Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister and pulled the plug out of the economy, and before the deliberately engineered boom-slump-boom-boom-slump in house prices that was designed to keep voters of your age and class happy with the government while impoverishing those younger or less lucky.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
I agree with you. I was responding to LC's point that being married offers some kind of safeguard against infidelity that cohabiting doesn't. My point is that once breached by infidelity, commitment ceases to be commitment.
But I think Lamb Chopped's point is a good one; obviously being married doesn't offer complete protection against infidelity, but I think it offers more than simply cohabiting does. Because if I know that you are married (either because you told me or you're wearing a wedding ring or you have a suspicious tan line on your finger from where your wedding ring used to be) then as a single person I'm not going to flirt with you or ask you out to do something in a romantic capacity no matter what you say about how you have an agreement with your wife (because, generally, the last thing I need in life is to get caught up in the middle of another couple's drama). However, if you are simply in a committed relationship and lie about it (because, for example, you're thinking about ending the relationship even though you haven't done so yet), I might do those things, which might contribute to the end of that committed relationship. If that makes sense.
--------------------
"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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Dark Knight
I simply thought you might have had more to add on the subject of marriage and cohabitation in Australia. (I assumed you were Australian, or had close connections to Australia. I apologise.) I didn't want to go to an online encyclopaedia because I was interested in attitudes and feelings, not facts. There have been lots of interesting facts on the thread.
Your OP suggests that for the couple concerned, the absence of same-sex marriage and and their own decision not to marry were closely related, not separate decisions. However, putting that couple aside, I think the problem is that I don't think society can go back to how it was when simply starting to live together and sharing a bed made you husband and wife in the eyes of the surrounding community, with the responsibilities and rights of marriage automatically coming into play. Having the approval of the state wasn't important, because your own community policed itself on these matters; what you needed in order to survive was the approval of your neighbours and your family (and they were probably one and the same).
Now we're surrounded by strangers, our families are expected to keep their distance, and there are far more opportunities for couples to get distracted from their common cause. In this current situation, marriage and cohabitation have less in common, but are both fragile entities. But marriage is still less fragile, because it's more closely defined and policed. I think this gives it special psychological significance. I would suggest, then, that for society at large, marriage is especially important from a psychological point of view. Even our attitudes to divorce indicate this: a divorce is seen as more significant than the break-up of a cohabiting couple. A marriage that lasts 10 years is seen as a fairly short marriage; a cohabiting couple who've been together for 10 years are admired for their longevity.
With western society as atomised as it is now cohabitation can't be seen as the automatic if informal equivalent of marriage. Mind you, some people on these forums say that (straight) marriage itself has been destroyed, so maybe it's truer to say that 'marriage isn't the automatic equivalent of marriage' any more! (And that's before anything is said about what a 'Christian' marriage should involve.)
Anyway, I apologise if you don't feel I've truly understood the spirit of this thread!
[ 31. August 2012, 18:03: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And I think I earn a lot more than you do or did and I live in a very grotty little flat and realised twenty years ago that I will probably never have enough money to live in a house again.
Ken, since you've brought this up, I've gathered (possibly incorrectly) from previous posts of yours on other threads that your finances were adversely affected by a marriage breakup. In the context of this discussion, may I ask whether you think your financial situation would have been better, worse or the same if you and your wife had not married but cohabited instead?
Apologies if this is too personal a question. Obviously you don't have to respond, but it would be interesting to hear your views if you cared to give them.
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
...I've gathered (possibly incorrectly) from previous posts of yours on other threads that your finances were adversely affected by a marriage breakup. In the context of this discussion, may I ask whether you think your financial situation would have been better, worse or the same if you and your wife had not married but cohabited instead?
I can't see how it would have made any difference. You go from paying one mortgage or rent out of two incomes to paying two in either case. And both of us would have paid money to support our child anyway.
Though the time I realised I'd probably never live in a house again was before the breakup, not after it!
[ 31. August 2012, 18:23: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
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.
Er, I 95% was agreeing with you! Apart from the bit about social pressures.
quote:
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,
Yes but we don;t actually know whether or not its being married that makes the difference or living together and being the kind of people who get married. No date to make the distinction.
quote:
... 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.
Over singleness, yes, but not over cohabiting. Not any more I think. Its completely normal now. You often don't know whether a couple you know are legally married or not. For example three of the men who work in the same office as me are new fathers. But I have no idea which of them are legally married to the mother of their chidlren. And it wouldn't occur to me to ask. None of my business.
And even when people do get married effectively all couoples live togehter for a while before the ceremony. That's been the case since at least the 1970s. (I don't remember before then!)
Most parents of adult children that I know very much want grandchildren and very much woudl like their kids to be happily settled with a partner - but legal marriage is nowhere near as high on the agenda as those.
As for the last bit all I was saying was that if it was true that there was more social pressure on women to marry than on men, then that would be evidence agains the health advantages of marriage being mainly due to those social expectations, because they are greater for men.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chamois
Shipmate
# 16204
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I can't see how it would have made any difference.
Thanks for that. So, as far as your financial experience goes, it tends to support the OP,
--------------------
The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases
Posts: 978 | From: Hill of roses | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
Perhaps I missed this - are the original couple under discussion Christians? Followers of another religion/spiritual practice? Totally secular?
Is this discussion about whether they should get married? Or whether Christians should get married? Or whether should any two people in the general public for whom it is legal get married?
That's a good question. They are both atheists.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I think you may be under the impression that what you have posted follows from what is quoted. It doesn't.
See, my confusion then actually comes from the misapprehension that you have an issue to talk about.
quote:
I also wondered if others here found this a satisfying state of affairs, that the most convincing reasons to get married (at least to my mind, and I guess yours because you keep coming back to them) are pragmatic.
I talked about religion plenty up thread, and your response was that "living in sin" wasn't a concern for you. We keep coming back to the legal stuff because it's all you want to talk about.
That is demonstrably nonsense, and doesn't deserve any further response.
--------------------
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
Svitlana, please don't apologise. On the contrary, I apologise for being snippy.
I am Australian, living in Australia (Perth), but I simply don't have any reliable demographic data re perceptions of marriage here. I have my own experience and anecdotes, which suggest to me that this quite a conservative city, and most people I meet either expect or are expected to get married at some point. Usually before having kids.
That was my first reaction re ken's post: maybe the expectations are different in his part of the world. I could be wrong.
I have appreciated the websites and papers you posted substantiating your points.
--------------------
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
Forgive me for being a quad-posting buffoon, but a friend just showed me
this. Quite good I think.
--------------------
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
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
But Christians do tend to believe they can speak for everyone, believers or not, based on natural law arguments. Was it an evo in the US who said, referring to the Church's support of the Romney campaign, "We're all Catholics now"?
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vaticanchic
Shipmate
# 13869
|
Posted
I asked a friend about this, saying that other faith groups tend not to pronounce outside of their own faith context/culture on moral issues. Mainly, I suppose, because they reckon there's not a lot of point in discussing the finer points of passing life without first having grappled with the eternal issues of faith. My friend said the Church has a calling to speak out for the vulnerable and those who can't speak for themselves ...
--------------------
"Sink, Burn or Take Her a Prize"
Posts: 697 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Are we from different planets? Is it actually possible in your area of the world for two flatmates to always have separate bedrooms? (How can people afford that?)
Well I have lived alone in a house with THREE bedrooms for that past 35 years. of course it is affordable.
And I think I earn a lot more than you do or did and I live in a very grotty little flat and realised twenty years ago that I will probably never have enough money to live in a house again. So of course it is not affordable.
You live in a cheaper place and had the good luck to be born early enough to have a house and a job before Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister and pulled the plug out of the economy, and before the deliberately engineered boom-slump-boom-boom-slump in house prices that was designed to keep voters of your age and class happy with the government while impoverishing those younger or less lucky.
I bought my place in the 2nd year of the reign of Thatcher and the house prices in my part of the city are close to London prices.
My salary was that of a new head of dept.
My main reason for posting was that somebody from the US envisaged people sharing a flat but also shared a bedroom.
I think that is quite rare in the UK.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
That is demonstrably nonsense, and doesn't deserve any further response.
Yeah, you're still dodging my question: if a couples wants the legal rights of marriage, why not just get married? The only thing depriving them of their rights it themselves. Why should the state give a crap about the baggage they have about the concept 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
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
[As much as I'm sure the OP's friends love and care for each other, if one of them came down with a horrible illness or got in an accident and were stuck in a wheelchair or in a coma, what real obligation does the other partner have to stick around? If one partner decides to give up a lucrative job to move cross-country with the other partner and the relationship goes sour, what recourse does the partner who gave up have for the share of what otherwise would be marital assets?
And if they wanted to make decisions for a (not legally related) partner, they must have at least power of attorney over health decisions. Lots of unmarried straight people think that they are covered by being long-term partners, but in NZ it isn't so.
However, in terms of property, if you can prove you have been in a de facto relationship for a certain amount of time (can't remember but its either 2 or 3 years) then the courts will treat you essentially as though you're married in regard to property and custody.
Marriage (and in NZ, civil union) is a legal contract, and without it, partners can be up the creek without a paddle in stressful life situations. Us queers have already been aware of these things for a long time, but it comes as a surprise to the straight de facto survivor when a bio relative is required to identify or retrieve a partner's body from the coroner (to take the most challenging of situations covered by being married/civilly united).
The question of marriage as sacrament is, at a guess, not an issue for the vast majority of longterm unmarried couples. The church does not own the term "marriage," much as it would like to think it does.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
[As much as I'm sure the OP's friends love and care for each other, if one of them came down with a horrible illness or got in an accident and were stuck in a wheelchair or in a coma, what real obligation does the other partner have to stick around? If one partner decides to give up a lucrative job to move cross-country with the other partner and the relationship goes sour, what recourse does the partner who gave up have for the share of what otherwise would be marital assets?
And if they wanted to make decisions for a (not legally related) partner, they must have at least power of attorney over health decisions. Lots of unmarried straight people think that they are covered by being long-term partners, but in NZ it isn't so.
However, in terms of property, if you can prove you have been in a de facto relationship for a certain amount of time (can't remember but its either 2 or 3 years) then the courts will treat you essentially as though you're married in regard to property and custody.
Marriage (and in NZ, civil union) is a legal contract, and without it, partners can be up the creek without a paddle in stressful life situations. Us queers have already been aware of these things for a long time, but it comes as a surprise to the straight de facto survivor when a bio relative is required to identify or retrieve a partner's body from the coroner (to take the most challenging of situations covered by being married/civilly united).
The question of marriage as sacrament is, at a guess, not an issue for the vast majority of longterm unmarried couples. The church does not own the term "marriage," much as it would like to think it does.
Thanks Arabella. Someone else from NZ has posted about some of this stuff. So in terms of property a de facto couple are the same as married after a certain number of years, but not in the case of some other legal stuff, like power of attorney?
I take saysay and LC's point, and you may be right - perhaps the band for gold on a finger does provide an extra barrier to infidelity. Personally, I don't see it. If you are in a committed relationship (unless it's one of those open ones, which I don't understand), surely it is just a matter of telling whoever is cracking on to you that it's not going to happen. If that doesn't deter them, I guess being married isn't going to make much difference. YMMV.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Personally I don't mind one way or the other (about being married) as the NZ civil union is the same legally. However, you have to get together a lot of separate contracts to get anything like what marriage/civil union provides, and even then, you're not exactly covered if bio family wants to challenge in court.
I have a particular reason for being civilly united - my partner had a life-threatening heart condition which required open-heart surgery. I doubt her parents or siblings would have challenged my right to make decisions in the event of her incapacity, but we didn't want to risk it. We have powers of attorney for each other as well, but in life and death situations you don't want to be mucking around.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
However, in terms of property, if you can prove you have been in a de facto relationship for a certain amount of time (can't remember but its either 2 or 3 years) then the courts will treat you essentially as though you're married in regard to property and custody.
[/QB]
Three years. I have a friend whose x flatmate is claiming that they were a de facto couple, which he disputes, so their case may go before the courts for the decision to be made legally unless they can come to some private agreement.
I must admit if I were thinking about getting a flatmate I would get legal advice on the tenancy agreement to make the relationship clear as I'm a bit fuzzy on the legal definitions.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
I take saysay and LC's point, and you may be right - perhaps the band for gold on a finger does provide an extra barrier to infidelity. Personally, I don't see it. If you are in a committed relationship (unless it's one of those open ones, which I don't understand), surely it is just a matter of telling whoever is cracking on to you that it's not going to happen. If that doesn't deter them, I guess being married isn't going to make much difference. YMMV.
I was speaking in terms of the member-of-the-community (as it might be a co-worker, classmate, etc.) who thinks she is seeing "come hither" type glances in the eyes of one member of the couple. In the days when I was single (assuming the guy was presentable!), the first thing I would do is glance at his ring finger. If I saw gold there, the second thing I'd do is give him a "you bastard" look.
If it were empty, I'd still ask around. Not every married man wears a ring, of course...
But the known fact of a marriage is enough to deter decent single people from hitting on one member of a couple, be s/he never so good looking. And that is a great help, above all to decent single people who want to STAY decent and not get suckered in to some asshole's relationship issues. If s/he's going to cheat, let him/her do it as a known cheater. Not by saying "I'm just renting a room from X" and six months later you find out they've been together for six years and she's pregnant too.
[ 02. September 2012, 20:35: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But the known fact of a marriage is enough to deter decent single people from hitting on one member of a couple, be s/he never so good looking.
Hmmm ... surely the known fact of a relationship is enough to deter decent single people. As in,
A: 'Hey you want to go out some time/ will you have dinner with me/ want to come check out my etchings?'
B: 'Sorry ... I have a boyfriend/ girlfriend/ partner/ protocol droid ...'
A: 'No worries ...' awkward pause etc. 'So, this weather, am I right?
B: 'Forget about it!'
That's how New Jersey people talk. I've heard.
Anyway, you get the point. I hope.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I suppose that in social environments where a committed relationship is widely considered to be the equivalent to marriage, this might work. Of course, if you'd rather not get into such a discussion in the first place, then wearing a wedding ring might help.
I've read of unmarried people who wear wedding rings for the purpose of discouraging unwanted attention. And we've all heard of people who remove their wedding rings if they're looking for an extra-marital fling.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But the known fact of a marriage is enough to deter decent single people from hitting on one member of a couple, be s/he never so good looking.
Hmmm ... surely the known fact of a relationship is enough to deter decent single people. As in,
A: 'Hey you want to go out some time/ will you have dinner with me/ want to come check out my etchings?'
B: 'Sorry ... I have a boyfriend/ girlfriend/ partner/ protocol droid ...'
A: 'No worries ...' awkward pause etc. 'So, this weather, am I right?
B: 'Forget about it!'
That's how New Jersey people talk. I've heard.
Anyway, you get the point. I hope.
Ugh! That's precisely MY point--that I, as an attempting-to-be-decent single person, may very well meet up with a less-than-decent-but-in-a-committed-relationship-though-neither-married-nor-actually-heart-committed-anymore-asshole, who then attempts to hit on me. When I ask around I learn that he is not married, but is apparently living with someone. When I ask HIM, he tells me X is his flatmate and there is not now and never has been anything going on (e.g. "She thinks of me as her brother, and she's dating someone too").
Assume for the sake of argument that he is very attractive and that I would be very much interested in starting a relationship with him, [i]could I only be surethat he was not bloody lying to me about the alleged flatmate/lover/even possibly mother of his child. But I can't be, can I?
Not of my own knowledge--after all, this is just the beginning of a possible relationship, so I have no sure sense of whether he's a lying asshole derived from my own experience.
I can't google the question, the same way I could easily google "Is this person legally married?" and get a clear answer from the records folks.
I could ask around, which is a) embarrassing and b) three people, six opinions.
In fact, my only reliable option here is to call up the flatmate X and say baldly, "are the two of you committed to each other? Because he told me you weren't when he asked me out last night," which is very likely to provoke storms of tears and flying frypans if he's lied to me. I'm not in to high drama, I just want to know if I can honorably say yes to coffee and a movie. And the lack of registered marriage leaves me in Mist-land.
Really, my hypothetical problem could be just as easily solved by having a register of Officially Uncommitted™ people. If he were on it, well, there you go.
--------------------
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
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
In fact, my only reliable option here is to call up the flatmate X and say baldly, "are the two of you committed to each other? Because he told me you weren't when he asked me out last night," which is very likely to provoke storms of tears and flying frypans if he's lied to me. I'm not in to high drama, I just want to know if I can honorably say yes to coffee and a movie. And the lack of registered marriage leaves me in Mist-land.
I have called up the 'flatmate' and started Tropical Storm Frypan before. I'm of the opinion that if you lie to me, you deserve every bit of trouble you bring down on your head.
Of course, the last person I dated waited until an hour into the date to tell me not only was she married, but she was living with a partner who was not her wife, and both of them were okay with her seeing other people.
We're friends now 'cause she is really an awesome person. But not *friends* friends because I'm monogamous. It's a thing.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
In fact, my only reliable option here is to call up the flatmate X and say baldly, "are the two of you committed to each other? Because he told me you weren't when he asked me out last night," which is very likely to provoke storms of tears and flying frypans if he's lied to me.
The other problem with that option is that if he lied to you, he is likely to cover it by denying to flatmate X that he ever asked you. She then has to decide who to believe. In many relationships the partner will be believed before the outsider. So the outcome may be that they then both hate you. And even if she does believe you, she still might hate you for being the "occasion of sin" as it were.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
