homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Live together, never marry? (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Live together, never marry?
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In Canada, the income tax people consider a couple equivalent to married after living together for a year, common-law is recognized to a degree otherwise province to province with various nuances and rules about property, medical care advice etc. I know in some jurisdictions common-law couples are not recognized, but they are here. Regardless, there is a new normal in living together/marriage optional.

The religious and traditional issues aside, one problem with living together is that while it may well meet needs of the two people within the relationship, but it doesn't involve anyone else. Do I as a parent of one of the partners have a definable relationship with the live-in partner? Why does it seem to be offensive to ask an unmarried couple about marriage? If you're ready to live together, why not marry?

--------------------
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
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631

 - Posted      Profile for St Deird   Author's homepage   Email St Deird   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am not someone who would live with a partner outside of marriage. But, putting myself in that position, if I was living with my partner and someone asked "So, are you guys planning to get married?", I think I'd feel like they thought my relationship didn't "count" yet, and I'd be rather hurt.

--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.

Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

 - Posted      Profile for Belle Ringer   Email Belle Ringer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have friends who lived together 20+ years (until his early death). The word "marriage" carried too many negative connotations learned from their patents - he is the boss, she has to do all the housework, etc - that were not at all what they wanted their relationship to be. They avoided that word because of its strong negative connotations.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Firenze

Ordinary decent pagan
# 619

 - Posted      Profile for Firenze     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've come to the view that no one should marry under the age of 50. Sure, you can do all the cohabiting and raising of weans you like beforehand. But if, after that, you're still prepared to love and cherish, then you have the real thing.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

The religious and traditional issues aside, one problem with living together is that while it may well meet needs of the two people within the relationship, but it doesn't involve anyone else. Do I as a parent of one of the partners have a definable relationship with the live-in partner? Why does it seem to be offensive to ask an unmarried couple about marriage? If you're ready to live together, why not marry?

I feel much as you do about living together. But I suspect there's little to be gained by pointing it out to your kids. In any event, I'm guessing they already know you don't approve-- no need to rub their faces in it.

In my experience, relationships with your grown kids are always complicated. You're a parent, but in a much different way than you were when they depending on you for every morsel of food. The relationships with in-laws is even more complicated, even with a marriage license. You may have your own dedicated section of Hallmark, but that doesn't help you define when to speak your mind and when not to.

We got off to a bad start with daughter and SIL by crossing that line and being far too expressive of our disapproval (on a different issue). Fortunately, our SIL is a very easy going, family-oriented guy who forgives quickly. The best advice I was given was to "demonstrate grace every opportunity you get. It's the only thing you have to offer them." I've tried to keep that in mind, and relationship seems much less complicated when I do.

--------------------
"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
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
I am not someone who would live with a partner outside of marriage. But, putting myself in that position, if I was living with my partner and someone asked "So, are you guys planning to get married?", I think I'd feel like they thought my relationship didn't "count" yet, and I'd be rather hurt.

If that's what you mean, and you are a parent, you are entitled to say it.

It is up to you to assess the risk this might pose to your relationship with your son or daughter.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I've come to the view that no one should marry under the age of 50. Sure, you can do all the cohabiting and raising of weans you like beforehand. But if, after that, you're still prepared to love and cherish, then you have the real thing.

That's delightfully condescending of you. I'm reasonably content that in the first 10 years of our marriage (and we've still almost another 20 years to go until hitting 50) my wife and I have more than demonstrated our ability to love and cherish each other despite mental illness, self harm, unemployment, financial difficulties, work related stress, moving multiple times, Asperger's syndrome, endometriosis, nerve problems, suspected infertility, suspected miscarriage and on and on and on.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Firenze

Ordinary decent pagan
# 619

 - Posted      Profile for Firenze     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But otoh the over-50 rule does cut down the inflated business of hen/stag nights/weekends, destination weddings, bridezillas, and the whole industry devoted to elevating one day over - and to the possible destruction of - the actual marriage.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Og, King of Bashan

Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562

 - Posted      Profile for Og, King of Bashan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why does it seem to be offensive to ask an unmarried couple about marriage?

If you really want to offend people, ask the question that immediately springs into my attorney brain: if one member of the couple dies, is the other expecting to get any money the deceased party happened to have saved up?

Common law marriage isn't about trapping people into a surprise marriage, it is about protecting the widow when the family shows up and says "they were never married, this is just some hussy who was leaching off him, get her out of here, we get the farm."

So I guess my answer is that I don't care if you live together without making it official, as long as there is some system out there to protect the rights that both parties to the relationship expect to have based on their unique relationship (right to receive property when the other dies, right to visit the other in the hospital and make important medical decisions, right to raise young children, etc.).

--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy

Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
In Canada, the income tax people consider a couple equivalent to married after living together for a year, common-law is recognized to a degree otherwise province to province with various nuances and rules about property, medical care advice etc.

For the sake of clarity this is what the Government of Canada has the say on the subject:

quote:
What does the Government of Canada consider to be a common-law relationship?

You may apply to sponsor a common-law partner, of the opposite sex or the same sex. If so, you have to prove you have been living with your partner for at least 12 consecutive months in a relationship like a marriage.

That means living together for one year without any long periods where you did not see each other. Either partner may have left the home for work or business travel, family obligations, and so on. However, that separation must have been temporary and short.

A common-law relationship ends when at least one partner does not intend to continue it.

Emphasis in the original.

And here's what the somewhat more detailed standard offered by the Canada Revenue Agency:

quote:
Common-law partner
This applies to a person who is not your spouse, with whom you are living in a conjugal relationship, and to whom at least one of the following situations applies. He or she:

a. has been living with you in a conjugal relationship, and this current relationship has lasted at least 12 continuous months;
Note
In this definition, 12 continuous months includes any period you were separated for less than 90 days because of a breakdown in the relationship.

b. is the parent of your child by birth or adoption; or

c. has custody and control of your child (or had custody and control immediately before the child turned 19 years of age) and your child is wholly dependent on that person for support.

It's debatable as to whether such a couple really counts as "unmarried" in the vernacular sense of the term. On the one hand there's the lack of legal formalism and documentation associated with the modern understanding of marriage. On the other hand the common-law relationship is based on the "conjugal" nature of the relationship and would be recognized as marriage by many less bureaucratic societies (e.g. early Christians and their Roman contemporaries). To me it seems that the "common-law relationship" in Canada is simply an adaptation of common-law marriage coupled with the availability of what is effectively common-law divorce.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The religious and traditional issues aside, one problem with living together is that while it may well meet needs of the two people within the relationship, but it doesn't involve anyone else. Do I as a parent of one of the partners have a definable relationship with the live-in partner?

Is your objection about legalism or semantics? Is it just that you're unsure if you can identify yourself as a parent-in-law? Exactly what legally-defined relationship do you think you're being denied here, and how, in practical terms, does it really affect how you relate to your child's partner?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
But otoh the over-50 rule does cut down the inflated business of hen/stag nights/weekends, destination weddings, bridezillas, and the whole industry devoted to elevating one day over - and to the possible destruction of - the actual marriage.

Assuming that by the time we reach 50 (I'm past that) we've wised up enough to see how foolish and shallow that all is, and how little it has to do with the actual business of marriage.

One of the most distressing things I hear as a pastor from co-habitating couples is "we want to get married, but can't afford it." I try in vain to convince them that less than $100 for a license is all they need-- I can take it from there for free. The ones that truly get what marriage is about realize that and will have a ceremony followed by a celebratory party that is appropriate to their income levels. I told my daughter if I thought the expense of the wedding had anything at all to do with the success of the marriage, I'd mortgage the house to finance it-- but my experience is that it's much closer to the reverse.

--------------------
"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
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is your objection about legalism or semantics? Is it just that you're unsure if you can identify yourself as a parent-in-law? Exactly what legally-defined relationship do you think you're being denied here, and how, in practical terms, does it really affect how you relate to your child's partner?

It's not the legal definition. It has nothing to do with the law. It is the social definition, and, even if someone doesn't think that the parents have any standing and individualism and choice and stay out of it etc have anything to do with it (not saying this is you), it matters to me.

--------------------
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
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Do I as a parent of one of the partners have a definable relationship with the live-in partner? Why does it seem to be offensive to ask an unmarried couple about marriage? If you're ready to live together, why not marry?

I have friends who refer to the parents of their long-term non-spouse as "outlaws" [Devil]

I don't think it's any more offensive to ask your children about marriage than about when they're going to have children, when they're going to quit messing around with the dead-end artistic aspirations they have and get a proper job, and so on. In all cases, the questioning carries the implication that their current arrangements are inferior. That's why people get offended by it.

But there's a real question here, I think, which is at what point are you (for any value of "you") supposed to consider the relationship "officially permanent".

In an environment where people get married, that's what marriage does - it declares to the world that you are a permanent couple, and should be treated as such.

If people don't marry, there's no marker for that. Some people shack up together for sexual and financial convenience early in a relationship, without necessarily intending that this should be a permanent thing, so I don't think "moving in together" fills the same niche.

Many people rent housing, so buying a home together doesn't work.

Merging finances? Can you see the announcement in the paper when John and Katie open a joint current account?

Do we need a public declaration of permanence? Does it matter whether John and Katie intend to share their lives indefinitely, or just share a bed for the next few months?

I think it does if you're John's family. The question you're asking is "is Katie now part of the family?" If she's a permanent fixture, then the answer would be "yes". If you're sharing a home and bed, but will split up in a year when one of you gets offered a job the other side of the country, it's a "no".

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is your objection about legalism or semantics? Is it just that you're unsure if you can identify yourself as a parent-in-law? Exactly what legally-defined relationship do you think you're being denied here, and how, in practical terms, does it really affect how you relate to your child's partner?

It's not the legal definition. It has nothing to do with the law. It is the social definition, and, even if someone doesn't think that the parents have any standing and individualism and choice and stay out of it etc have anything to do with it (not saying this is you), it matters to me.
Except that you claim your social definition is dependent upon the legal status of your children's conjugal partnerships. In at least that sense it has something to do with the law.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is your objection about legalism or semantics? Is it just that you're unsure if you can identify yourself as a parent-in-law? Exactly what legally-defined relationship do you think you're being denied here, and how, in practical terms, does it really affect how you relate to your child's partner?

It's not the legal definition. It has nothing to do with the law. It is the social definition, and, even if someone doesn't think that the parents have any standing and individualism and choice and stay out of it etc have anything to do with it (not saying this is you), it matters to me.
I get that. Even though the precise issue was different, I was (and still am) very very much in the same place you are-- where my adult daughter's choices caused me much sadness/ disappointment. I totally understand the feelings of helplessness and regret. I should have spent more time expressing that before rushing to give you advise (the advise being to not give advise-- yes, the irony/hypocrasy is not lost on me).

It sucks. It sucks big time. But it really is the only way. Your adult child is at the point when you have to dig really really deep and trust in things you can't see-- the things that you instilled long ago, the God you believe in, her own character and resources. Its very very hard. Parenting is definitely not for sissies, and that goes double when they leave the nest and make their own decisions.

Hang in there. It gets easier over time, if only because you come to terms with the helplessness and the biting of tongue.

[Votive]

--------------------
"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
LucyP
Shipmate
# 10476

 - Posted      Profile for LucyP     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It may not just be the couple's parents who have a close interest in whether the couple gets married.

A friend recently returned from her annual visit to her beloved grandchildren, aged 8 and 10 (they live a long way away but the visits are a highlight for both generations). At one time when she was alone with her grandchildren (without their parents), the older one asked her "Nanna, do you think mum and dad will ever get married?" The younger one added, "what sort of cake do you think they might have? I really want it to be chocolate!"

Posts: 235 | From: my sanctuary | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
But otoh the over-50 rule does cut down the inflated business of hen/stag nights/weekends, destination weddings, bridezillas, and the whole industry devoted to elevating one day over - and to the possible destruction of - the actual marriage.

So does not having any money when you get married and having a sense that the marriage is far more important than the wedding.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
mrs whibley
Shipmate
# 4798

 - Posted      Profile for mrs whibley     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Do we need a public declaration of permanence? Does it matter whether John and Katie intend to share their lives indefinitely, or just share a bed for the next few months?

I think it does if you're John's family. The question you're asking is "is Katie now part of the family?" If she's a permanent fixture, then the answer would be "yes". If you're sharing a home and bed, but will split up in a year when one of you gets offered a job the other side of the country, it's a "no".

As a step-in-law (my husband has two adult offspring who have never lived with us but who I've known since they were 6 and 8) I'd say we have always treated their various partners as if they were part of the family. I suppose it makes a difference that since they were teenagers we have lived hundreds of miles from their various homes so things had to be quite serious for us to meet significant others, but I'm not sure what difference the permanance of the relationship makes. We treat the loved ones of our loved ones with grace and generosity of spirit. Anything further is about the relationship with the specific individual, and in that respect it is possible to be very close to the best friend of a child, or very distant from their spouse of 20 years.

--------------------
I long for a faith that is gloriously treacherous - Mike Yaconelli

Posts: 942 | From: North Lincolnshire | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Those people who know who cohabit do so because the institution of marriage is rooted in patriarchy.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I really think that isn't true of the majority, although I don't "know". And isn't it a good reason for reforming marriage rather than abandoning it?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

 - Posted      Profile for Moo   Email Moo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Those people who know who cohabit do so because the institution of marriage is rooted in patriarchy.

It may be rooted in patriarchy, but many men do not want to act as patriarchs, and many women are reluctant to marry men who want to be patriarchs.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But they're still perpetuating patriarchy by supporting the institution.

[ 25. June 2016, 13:12: Message edited by: leo ]

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378

 - Posted      Profile for Gramps49   Email Gramps49   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Our son and his partner did not marry for over seven years. They had a young girl who was five when she saw them exchange vows.

During that time, son was involved in a major accident and was unable to speak for himself. The hospital called us because we were technically next of kin. We had to rush to the hospital and stay with him for ten days before he was sufficiently recovered to be able to make medical decisions.

He nearly died. If he had, his partner would have been out of the loop. Not sure how inheritance would have been passed down to daughter since she was less than two--not an attorney here.

We discussed what would have happened if son had died. We would have done everything we could have to protect the interests of his partner.

But the incident also kept him from marrying his partner post facto, as well. A law suit was involved but his lawyer told him to hold off on marriage unitil the suit was settled. Once settled son and partner got married shortly thereafter.

The point I am making is that there are certain protections granted to married couples that are not available for cohabiting couples. We got a taste of the complications

Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
One of the most distressing things I hear as a pastor from co-habitating couples is "we want to get married, but can't afford it." I try in vain to convince them that less than $100 for a license is all they need -- I can take it from there for free. The ones that truly get what marriage is about realize that and will have a ceremony followed by a celebratory party that is appropriate to their income levels.

I think you're confusing the money needed to stage a wedding with the money needed to maintain a marriage. While a couple may have the ability to support their cohabitation now, they may be uncertain enough about their future economic prospects to engage in any kind of long-term commitment, whether that be a mortgage on a house or a lifetime joint economic existence with another person. Given that marriage is often seen as a badge of independent adulthood it can also be coupled with a reduced willingness of parents to provide support for their offspring.

Yes, there are some who will feel that a wedding must have the proper ritual and rigamarole to be "real", but that is far from the only reason someone might regard economic barriers as an impediment to marriage.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061

 - Posted      Profile for Brenda Clough   Author's homepage   Email Brenda Clough   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A similar case is that of George R.R. Martin -- I know him because the field is small but we are not close friends. As you may imagine, his financial picture changed greatly when Game of Thrones hit it big on TV. Shortly thereafter he married his partner of 30 years. Clearly, estate and legal issues were driving that marriage; his lawyers surely told him that if he didn't marry her she might still be able to inherit, but the tax consequences would be nasty and why hand the IRS so much money? It may also have been that HBO was able to insist on it -- if he died they would not want to get sucked into a lawsuit between his partner and his estate.
This is not any particular secret; they celebrated the wedding at the World Science Fiction Convention some years ago.

--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page

Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But they're still perpetuating patriarchy by supporting the institution.

Why?

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
In Canada, the income tax people consider a couple equivalent to married after living together for a year, common-law is recognized to a degree otherwise province to province with various nuances and rules about property, medical care advice etc. I know in some jurisdictions common-law couples are not recognized, but they are here. Regardless, there is a new normal in living together/marriage optional.
*snip* Do I as a parent of one of the partners have a definable relationship with the live-in partner? Why does it seem to be offensive to ask an unmarried couple about marriage? If you're ready to live together, why not marry?

Most of my acquaintances whose offspring are partnered off refer to the person as their son-in-law or daughter-in-law. In effect, they follow the provinces' view that the couple is married by common law (Québec, bien sûr & quelle surprise, is different and there is no common law status there). However, if the offspring is still in or just out of university and co-habiting, the individual is generally called the partner (which to my mind brings forth visions of law firms or bridge games); so perhaps there is a fuzzy understanding of different stages of life.

My friends from more traditional backgrounds (generally Asian or Middle Eastern) were less cheerful but, after the initial shouting matches, came to assign places at family events to the partners, but it seems to take time before they get a description. There, the pressure is on to marry (with lots of mutatis mutandis).

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
One of the most distressing things I hear as a pastor from co-habitating couples is "we want to get married, but can't afford it." I try in vain to convince them that less than $100 for a license is all they need -- I can take it from there for free. The ones that truly get what marriage is about realize that and will have a ceremony followed by a celebratory party that is appropriate to their income levels.

I think you're confusing the money needed to stage a wedding with the money needed to maintain a marriage. While a couple may have the ability to support their cohabitation now, they may be uncertain enough about their future economic prospects to engage in any kind of long-term commitment, whether that be a mortgage on a house or a lifetime joint economic existence with another person. Given that marriage is often seen as a badge of independent adulthood it can also be coupled with a reduced willingness of parents to provide support for their offspring.

Yes, there are some who will feel that a wedding must have the proper ritual and rigamarole to be "real", but that is far from the only reason someone might regard economic barriers as an impediment to marriage.

This is happening in the context of a broader conversation with the couple when it's quite clear that the issue is, in fact, the expense the couple feels is essential to staging a wedding, and not the cost of maintaining a household.

The maintaining a household issue doesn't make a lot of sense to me (and, again, I haven't heard any couple cite that as a barrier to marriage). The costs of maintaining a dual household are the same regardless of whether the couple is married or not. Indeed, it's slightly less for a married couple due to tax advantages. Most couples do not expect to purchase a home immediately upon marriage-- in our part of the US (west coast) prices have inflated so much that most young people assume, perhaps correctly, they'll never own a home. But if they do, the logistics of qualifying for a mortgage would usually be much easier if they're married.

Now, it may be that the real issue is not the cost of the wedding but fear of making the commitment-- which seems more like what's at play when you cite "may be uncertain enough about their future economic prospects to engage in any kind of long-term commitment, whether that be a mortgage on a house or a lifetime joint economic existence with another person". If you're committed to the relationship, then economic uncertainty does not impact whether or not you marry. Sure, economic uncertainty (very real) sucks, but has no bearing on whether or not you commit to the relationship. Indeed, going into uncertain times as partners with the flexibility of two potential wage-earners is slightly less anxious. So it seems clear that what you're talking about here is not the economic cost of marriage but rather the risk involved in committing to the relationship, which is a whole 'nother matter. The couples I was referencing are not expressing that sort of anxiety (which isn't to say it isn't at play, but it's not on the table if it ist).

Of course, there are all sorts of other reasons why couples choose to cohabitate, some of which have been mentioned here. In older adults, pensions and social security may be at play, inheritance issues for children from prior marriages, alimony. When gay marriage was illegal, many straight couples saw not legalizing their unions as an act of solidarity with the GLBTQ community. I was describing one particular subset of couples who chose cohabitation, and taking them at their word in the reasons they express.

--------------------
"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
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But they're still perpetuating patriarchy by supporting the institution.

Why?
‘your big day’ as if women’s purpose is to marry or can’t be fulfilled otherwise, the whole ‘happy after’ myth of romantic love

white - symbolising the bride’s virginity – now ‘stolen goods’ – women as property

walked down the aisle while groom waits – she is giving herself to him – what about he to her?

the father “giving away” the bride – men own women so she is passed from one owner to the next

the vow to obey the husband;

(where this happens, though it isn’t in official liturgies) “you may now kiss the bride” – why should the officiant, rather than the bride herself give permission or initiate

the reception - all the speeches are given by men

the wife gives up her own name and takes her husband’s

groom carrying his bride over the threshold - a woman can only enter his property, not own her own property

tax and benefits – you get less as part of a couple than as individuals – so the state passes all its responsibility to the nuclear family

women tend to earn less and the man is expected to be ‘the breadwinner’ – loss of independence

man in charge of woman’s body – conjugal rights

loss of autonomy

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So, leo, according to you, it's a mistake for a woman ever to marry a man? If not, under what circumstances would it meet with your approval?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
‘your big day’ as if women’s purpose is to marry or can’t be fulfilled otherwise, the whole ‘happy after’ myth of romantic love

white - symbolising the bride’s virginity – now ‘stolen goods’ – women as property

walked down the aisle while groom waits – she is giving herself to him – what about he to her?

the father “giving away” the bride – men own women so she is passed from one owner to the next

the vow to obey the husband;

(where this happens, though it isn’t in official liturgies) “you may now kiss the bride” – why should the officiant, rather than the bride herself give permission or initiate

All very true and patriarchal, but again, is confusing the wedding with the marriage. One can get legally married without having any of those things happen.


quote:
Originally posted by leo:

the vow to obey the husband;

the reception - all the speeches are given by men

tax and benefits – you get less as part of a couple than as individuals – so the state passes all its responsibility to the nuclear family

This must be a cross-pond difference. In the US today, very few couples include "obey" in the vows, and haven't for decades. In the US, the custom is for both the maid of honor and the best man to give speeches/toasts. It would seem very odd here if only men spoke at the reception.

And in the US taxes for a married couple are (in most cases) less than they would be for two individuals. Social security in particular is more advantageous to married couples than to two unmarried couples (with some exceptions noted above for 2nd marriages). The one exception would be welfare where being married is often disadvantageous (one reason why cohabitating is more common among lower incomes).


quote:
Originally posted by leo:

women tend to earn less and the man is expected to be ‘the breadwinner’ – loss of independence

For most of us, the recession beat that little vestige of sexism out of us. While women still make less then men for the same work, throughout most of the recession (not sure if this is the case) women were the higher wage earners in a slight majority of households in the US (in part due to higher unemployment among men). But I'm not sure how income inequality equals loss of independence-- for whom? Income inequality is a b****, but it's not created by marriage, and lack of marriage doesn't resolve it. Once you account for "mommy track" career disruptions, unmarried and married women make pretty much the same amount. So how does the wage gap equal "less independence"?


quote:
Originally posted by leo:

loss of independence

loss of autonomy

Absolutely. That, by definition, is the deal you are making when you enter into a marriage. Which might be a reason why some couples choose not to marry. But I'm not really sure what that has to do with patriarchy-- both partners are making the same deal, and have the same cost/benefit analysis in doing so.

[ 25. June 2016, 15:40: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

--------------------
"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
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cliffdweller's thoughts echo mine. At least in the States a lot of leo's list is anachronistic and nobody but the most patriarchal Evangelicals would hove to it.

As for women earning less, I can't see how that has anything to do with being married or shacking up. If a man is threatened by a smarter or better-earning woman, being married or not isn't going to change that.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But they're still perpetuating patriarchy by supporting the institution.

Why?
‘your big day’ as if women’s purpose is to marry or can’t be fulfilled otherwise, the whole ‘happy after’ myth of romantic love

white - symbolising the bride’s virginity – now ‘stolen goods’ – women as property

walked down the aisle while groom waits – she is giving herself to him – what about he to her?

the father “giving away” the bride – men own women so she is passed from one owner to the next

the vow to obey the husband;

(where this happens, though it isn’t in official liturgies) “you may now kiss the bride” – why should the officiant, rather than the bride herself give permission or initiate

the reception - all the speeches are given by men

the wife gives up her own name and takes her husband’s

groom carrying his bride over the threshold - a woman can only enter his property, not own her own property

tax and benefits – you get less as part of a couple than as individuals – so the state passes all its responsibility to the nuclear family

women tend to earn less and the man is expected to be ‘the breadwinner’ – loss of independence

man in charge of woman’s body – conjugal rights

loss of autonomy

Sorry to break it to you Leo, but in this century and in the western world none -- that's NONE -- of these things are required, and in many places are no longer usual parts of a marriage ceremony.

John

ETA -- tax benefits of being married (which neither benefit nor penalize either partner in a marriage disproportionately) and possible long-term wage rates really have nothing to do with any individuals in any marriage.

[ 25. June 2016, 17:21: Message edited by: John Holding ]

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But the ceremony and the institution are still based on the myth of romantic love.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, leo, according to you, it's a mistake for a woman ever to marry a man? If not, under what circumstances would it meet with your approval?

women live longer if not married

men live shorter if not married

so marriage was made by man - and he he got God to approve it

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
One of the most distressing things I hear as a pastor from co-habitating couples is "we want to get married, but can't afford it." I try in vain to convince them that less than $100 for a license is all they need -- I can take it from there for free. The ones that truly get what marriage is about realize that and will have a ceremony followed by a celebratory party that is appropriate to their income levels.

I think you're confusing the money needed to stage a wedding with the money needed to maintain a marriage. While a couple may have the ability to support their cohabitation now, they may be uncertain enough about their future economic prospects to engage in any kind of long-term commitment, whether that be a mortgage on a house or a lifetime joint economic existence with another person. Given that marriage is often seen as a badge of independent adulthood it can also be coupled with a reduced willingness of parents to provide support for their offspring.

Yes, there are some who will feel that a wedding must have the proper ritual and rigamarole to be "real", but that is far from the only reason someone might regard economic barriers as an impediment to marriage.

Most weddings our team of churches do the couple are living together and have joint finances and mortgage already worked out and are in that lo ng term committment. And truly when they say they can't afford to get married they mean they can't afford the wedding that they want.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614

 - Posted      Profile for HughWillRidmee   Email HughWillRidmee   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Why does it seem to be offensive to ask an unmarried couple about marriage?

If you really want to offend people, ask the question that immediately springs into my attorney brain: if one member of the couple dies, is the other expecting to get any money the deceased party happened to have saved up?

Common law marriage isn't about trapping people into a surprise marriage, it is about protecting the widow when the family shows up and says "they were never married, this is just some hussy who was leaching off him, get her out of here, we get the farm."

So I guess my answer is that I don't care if you live together without making it official, as long as there is some system out there to protect the rights that both parties to the relationship expect to have based on their unique relationship (right to receive property when the other dies, right to visit the other in the hospital and make important medical decisions, right to raise young children, etc.).

Why does it seem offensive? - Bluntly it's none of anyone's business but theirs. It's interfering, controlling and as nasty as keeping providing baby things "for your bottom drawer" can be (my partner's agony many years ago) - particularly if they choose not to tell you that they don't want/can't have kids.

My partner of 20+ years and I jointly bought our house some umpteen years ago. Our wills are carefully structured to ensure that the capitals invested are available to the other after our demise.

We are both previously married wrinklies - other than for reasons which can be overcome why would we want to get married?

We did casually wonder whether a civil partnership might assist with hospital visitation/funeral rights etc. but some numpty decided to restrict CPs to same-sex couples! Those non-will related matters will be taken care of via our soon-to-be-completed granting of mutual Powers of Attorney.

It was though, I admit, fun watching my (vicar's wife) mother trying to explain our relationship to fellow nursing home inmates (mainly clergy and/or their wives). My partner ran the fiery coals of "friend", "fiancé", "partner", and even, a couple of times, "wife" with considerable aplomb!

--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)

Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
North East Quine

Curious beastie
# 13049

 - Posted      Profile for North East Quine   Email North East Quine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In common with cliffdweller's experience, the vow to obey was dropped in the Church of Scotland decades ago too. My parents have been married for 54 years, and "obey" was dropped before then.

It also isn't unusual to have women making a speech at a wedding reception. I attended a wedding twenty five years ago at which a woman made a speech and it was regarded as quite a novelty, but it is has become increasingly common.

Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The display and need of ceremony is quite a powerful thing. Don't know how much of this is cultural or an individual's need for attention and approval.

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:

It also isn't unusual to have women making a speech at a wedding reception. I attended a wedding twenty five years ago at which a woman made a speech and it was regarded as quite a novelty, but it is has become increasingly common.

I'm almost 60 and can't remember a time when wedding toasts (we don't tend to make speeches) weren't evenly divided between men and women, even in the most conservative of settings. Must be a cross-pond thing.

--------------------
"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
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313

 - Posted      Profile for HCH   Email HCH   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I have been told (and perhaps someone can confirm or deny it) that in some Italian families, there is a custom that all daughters must be married (or die, or become nuns) before any sons may marry, and that as a result, there are families in which most couples are not actually married. At some point, someone dies and there is a flurry of weddings (in order).
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There are generational differences as to what is the societal norm, and what marriage means. For some, it only means an expensive ceremony. I know someone who only wanted the 'big day'. After that, she went back to live with her previous boyfriend.

I think it wise to forge the best relationships you can, speak about marriage only if it comes up naturally in conversation, and then in terms of what yours means to you.

I believe that the kind of marriage that is a vow, a commitment before the world, that the couple intend to go through it together for life, for better or for worse, is of great value. But I would say that.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
But the ceremony and the institution are still based on the myth of romantic love.

The myth of romantic love dates to the late middle ages. Marriage has been around a hell of a lot longer than that.

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
women live longer if not married

men live shorter if not married

so marriage was made by man - and he he got God to approve it

If this is meant to be a syllogism it's ridiculous. The conclusion does not in any way follow from the premises. It may have something to say about the advisability of marriage, although that is questionable without more data. But about the origins it says absolutely nothing.

Further, how far back does this disparity go? Did medieval women live longer if unmarried? Ancient Greek women? Japanese women during the Samurai period? You are universalizing a very western very modern statistical finding. Most chauvinist, really.

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The display and need of ceremony is quite a powerful thing. Don't know how much of this is cultural or an individual's need for attention and approval.

Or rites of passage. Which seems to be a universal human need.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Distaste for marriage as a historically patriarchal institution is unlikely to be the no. 1 reason why many British couples don't get married, although that's probably a big factor for a certain kind of middle class, metropolitan, left-leaning person.

For many other cohabitees it's more the case that marriage has just lost its social currency. This is particularly true in poorer indigenous communities. (Ethnic minority groups have a number of other issues concerning marriage.)

For people on low wages and/or with a significant reliance on state benefits, there's little financial advantage to marriage. Poorer couples are also less likely to stay together, so the reluctance may be greater, even if there are children involved. (I'd have thought that fear of divorce might put off lots of young Americans as well.)

Furthermore, in Britain the decline in marriage has followed on from the decline in religious practice and belief. It's no longer shameful to live with someone, and just over half of all babies are born out of wedlock now. Many live-in couples and unmarried parents do get married eventually, but this can't be assumed or expected.

Since a wedding is more or less optional, then, it's not surprising that for many couples, there's no point in doing it unless you can really splash out and feel like film stars for the day. If you're aspirational and live in the South East you might just spend that money on saving for a mortgage instead, or having a baby. You can always have your 'celebration' at a later date.

FWIW I'm more 'traditional' about it, but even in the church there's a tendency to turn a blind eye to cohabitation. You could say that the balance of power has changed.

[ 25. June 2016, 20:44: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am sure my eldest son will live his partner and never marry.

I am 100% fine with that.

[Smile]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, Methodists are often laid back about such things.

I think the basic impulse in moderate Nonconformist settings is to be obliging in the face of changing social norms. For example, large numbers of wedding ceremonies in British Methodist and URC buildings have involved divorcees; there's also been a considerable drop in the numbers of weddings hosted by such churches overall.

The leadership tends towards the moderately liberal end, and combined with longstanding membership decline its unsurprising that firm boundaries regarding who should and shouldn't marry haven't been sustained.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I recently had a conversation with a young lady who will shortly be going to Las Vegas to marry her (female) partner. She was quite clear that this was not to "cement together" their relationship, nor for moral reasons, nor to legitimise it in the eyes of the respective parents (although this did have a slight bearing on the decision). It was almost purely for legal reasons, to ensure that, if one partner be injured or ill, the other would be regarded by the hospital or lawyers as next of kin; or, in the event of death, that there would be no problem with housing or inheritance arrangements.

It all seemed very sensible. (By the way, the lady concerned would not call herself a practicing Christian).

[ 26. June 2016, 08:06: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Las Vegas is a long way to go to satisfy a British legal requirement, so I suspect that there was also an element of 'celebration' involved there.

Moreover, SSM seems to benefit from a different dynamic. If heterosexual marriage is patriarchal, old-fashioned, or conservative, SSM is about breaking down barriers, subverting norms, defying conventions.

Some cynics have said that SSM activists have basically saddled themselves with a dying, anachronistic institution.

Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Twilight

Puddleglum's sister
# 2832

 - Posted      Profile for Twilight     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
People always talk about the Eveel Patriarchy as though it represents thousands of years of men conspiring to boss women around and make them do all the dusting. I think it, as well as marriage, was primarily about protecting children. Before any sort of welfare and when having food and shelter required the physical strength to farm and hunt, a husbandless woman and her children were likely to starve. My husband's grandmother had twelve children on a farm in Minnesota. Given the choice of staying inside cooking and cleaning or going out in freezing blizzards to feed animals, farm and hunt, I expect she was grateful to have the inside work. Whether agricultural work or coal mining, marriage protected the women and children.

Even now, if people put a fear of patriarchy above the interests of their children it seems rather selfish thinking to me. No woman today is suddenly forced to quit her job and do more housework just because the couple decided to get married.

Not marrying means a much greater statistic chance of the couple splitting up and that's if the father was ever in the picture in the first place. Even with social programs in place a pregnant or nursing woman is still in an economically vulnerable position where a legal husband is usually a nice thing to have.

Another thing I hear young people say that I don't understand is, "My parents divorced and it was awful so I'll never marry." Do they think the split up of the parents is easier on the children if the parents weren't married? I imagine it's about the same amount of misery and it's more likely to happen.

Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Las Vegas is a long way to go to satisfy a British legal requirement, so I suspect that there was also an element of 'celebration' involved there.

Yes and no - it was also to avoid awkward family issues (some members disapproving of SSM) and to avoid needing to decide who to ask and who to omit from the guest list. (I've known this in hetero marriage too),
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools