Ship of Fools: Why get married at all?

Thread: Why get married at all? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023825

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

I was married once. So I am not about to claim neutrality re this topic.

I was having a beer with my cousin and her partner the other day. They have been together for eight years, and are committed to each other. They are both vehemently opposed to getting married. They have none of the same emotional baggage I bring to the topic. They are quite prepared to continue living together, have children together, grow old together, the whole shebang. They just see no reason why they would bother getting married.

On being pressed further, they offered the following insights:

Both are strong supporters of same-sex marriage, which is still not legal in Australia. If marriage is not open to everyone, then it has little value to them.
Even if same-sex marriage was legal here in Oz, or most places (which I seem to recall is the standard Brangelina require before they tie the knot), they would still not do it. They simply see no logical reason why they should get married.

So why should people still get married? Don't get me wrong - if people want to get married I think they should be free to (and for that reason I also support same-sex marriage). I don't think it should be forbidden. But given that you can do everything that used to be attached to marriage - have sex, live together, raise a family etc. - without being married, my question to you remains - why get married at all?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I think it's the individual interpretation of what marriage means that's all important.

Some see it as simply a piece of paper which affirms a legal status.

Some see it as a public declaration of the intention to remain as partners for life.

Some see it as standing before God and asking for God's blessing on the loving union between two people, which is far more far-reaching than sex.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I'm not much of a romantic, but I still believe that God can be praised with a relationship through the sacrament of matrimony. Plus, *cough* the sex thing.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

not everything.

I had no intention of getting married a second time. I had every intention of staying in a committed relationship etc. just as your friends, and didn't have any interest in a piece of paper that proved it, or even for that matter of a church service that blessed it.

But I did it anyway. why? because it expedited immigration for my now husband. He was in the process of applying for asylum, had a work permit (aka green card), and was unlikely to be deported, but the possibility of his petition being denied was not zero, and we had a child. I decided that since I didn't really care one way or the other about that piece of paper (marriage), but I did care about another piece of paper (citizenship) for him, getting the one to ensure the other was not a difficult choice to make.

So yes, there are still things that marriage brings to the table (legally speaking) that can't be obtained easily a different way. Those fighting for same sex marriage can give you a whole long list of others... those things they are denied which married people have, such as assurance that their shared child will be granted to the surviving parent who may not be the biological parent, in the case when the biological parent dies, for one thing (probably not as much an issue with opposite sex partnerships where both are the biological parent, but still requires some legwork to prove that the father is really the father). Insurance is another. Inheritance is another. most can be worked around by different means, but they are much, much easier with a marriage certificate.

All these are legalistic issues, though. I am sure there are other reasons, I just personally can't think of any. But then, I carry a lot of baggage as well, which tends to predispose me to looking at marriage (legality) as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. I didn't think that way before my first marriage. I wanted the whole package, just like most. life taught me differently (and like the OP poster.. I don't necessarily object to marriage in others. I see it as optional, and neutral rather than a negative or positive)

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

I think the flip-side question is equally important: if you're definitely life-time committed to each other, why not get married?

Personally I don't set too much store by the legal or even official church side of it. I'd have genuinely been happy to make promises of commitment to Mrs Snags in a nice setting, in front of people who meant something to us, and 'in front of God' and that would have done me. I wouldn't have meant it any more or any less.

However, given that marriage does exist and at the time was (is?) the conventional way to mark such commitment, and given I had no deeply rooted principled objection to a church wedding, it seemed a little churlish to buck the system just for the sake of it.

I know a few couples who aren't married on a point of personal principle. I know a lot more who aren't married because (I suspect) when push comes to shove, they value the psychological 'out' that they get.

There are crap reasons to get married, and crap reasons not to [Smile]

Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on :

One point to consider about the marriage is that establishes a point in time that the commitment began. Anniversary celebrations are a way of honoring that commitment.

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

An interesting question.

I'm commenting as someone who has been married once, to the same person, for over thirty years.

I feel that there is something different about marriage as compared to even the most sincere and intentionally-long-term commitment.

I think the fact that you stand up in public, whether in a church or a registry office, and make those vows in front of the people most important to you, gives the whole thing an added weight and gravity. If you're married in church and believe the beliefs of that church, even more so.

I suspect that at rough times, it's only the fact of being married that has kept many a couple together! The promises, the commitment made in public--these make it harder to walk away when the going gets tough. And in later years, many such couples are glad they stayed together through the ups and downs.
(I hasten to add I am absolutely not advocating staying together in every circumstance).

These are the sorts of things I say when people, usually younger than me, ask what's the point of having "that piece of paper."

Then again, I come from the generation where marriage was still the norm--though norms were being very much shaken-- and I wanted that public acknowledgement--that feeling that my spouse had publicly chosen me and committed to me (and vice versa). A blessing upon and celebration of our coupledom. And I suppose some sense of security.

So I'd be the first to admit that my thoughts--or perhaps more accurately, feelings--on the matter are very much conditioned by
the era I grew up in--not so long ago, but very different. And of course in those times more marriages did last--though that was changing too, and in my own family I saw several that did not.

Cara

Posted by Woodworm (# 13798) on :

One reason for getting married is to make sure that you, and the rest of the world, are on the same page as regards your commitment to one another. It sounds as if your friends made are switched on and level-headed and have already expressed their commitment to one another and to the world. But we probably all know couples where one has thought it was for life only for the other one to piss off with the first passing barmaid. Of course that happens in marriages too, but then the person leaving has broken a public promise and should be horsewhipped.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
On being pressed further, they offered the following insights:

Both are strong supporters of same-sex marriage, which is still not legal in Australia. If marriage is not open to everyone, then it has little value to them.
Even if same-sex marriage was legal here in Oz, or most places (which I seem to recall is the standard Brangelina require before they tie the knot), they would still not do it. They simply see no logical reason why they should get married.

Is it only me who sees a logical problem with this? If marriage is such a vital institution that it must be extended to all, then there exists a powerful reason to get married. If, OTOH, it is an empty symbol, then there is no compelling reason to worry about extending it at all. Your friends need to make up their minds. It really sounds like they are throwing excuses for themselves against the wall and hoping that one sticks.

--Tom Clune

[ 29. August 2012, 12:24: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Very sensible Thread, Dark Knight, good question.

Leaving aside the same-sex aspect, which is another area, marriage in its meaning as a lifelong heterosexual union (which is what it is, as many gay people would agree) raises as many questions as answers.

Why indeed, when so much hurt and trouble could be avoided by people simply not getting married at all?! The truth is that the Church too often continues to operate with the Christendom model of marriage as the normative means of social control. In fact, this does not sit at all well with the Church's highly exalted theology of marriage, surely indicating an exceptional rather than a routine calling?

I play devil's advocate slightly, but it is true that the world's loudest voices on marriage and the conception/upbringing of children are those of single, childless men who often dine rather well in the evening while brother/sister Christian down the road lives in long-term squalor and poverty in faithfulness to Church teaching.

Having been married for a significant time, my own reflections are that marriage (as distinct from the loving relationship(s) within it) primarily exists for those other than the couple in question. Children, wider family, society, Church, eg. Perhaps this is where Christian marriage differs from secular unions.

So, I suppose to venture an answer to the Thread, get married if you and your chosen spouse feel you have a lot to give and to share. If you simply need each other, you probably shouldn't do it.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Knowing full well this will get me in trouble, why be a Christian at all? One can have a profound, satisfying relationship with God without baptism, so why bother? Unless one can't have that relationship without baptism. Then becoming baptized is the most important thing in the world.

What if marriage is the same? Two people can love each other, be committed to each other, even have children with each other. But until they seek God's blessing on that union in God's Church, it is not marriage and is not a Godly union.

In both cases, in baptism and marriage, one can save himself a whole lot of trouble by not bothering.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Perhaps same answer.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
But given that you can do everything that used to be attached to marriage - have sex, live together, raise a family etc. - without being married, my question to you remains - why get married at all?

Most young (and young-ish) people in our circles get married when children are on the cards. I think this is a good thing, it gives a sense of commitment and stability to the new family imo.

If either of my sons announce that they are marrying their partners I will think "wayhay-grandchildren".

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Is it only me who sees a logical problem with this? If marriage is such a vital institution that it must be extended to all, then there exists a powerful reason to get married.

Good point. Marriage remains a powerful institution worldwide, an important building block of a stable society.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Perhaps, but for people of faith, the proposed end is never sufficient to justify the certain means.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Perhaps same answer.

I suppose if people see no value in being a Christian, or see no particular importance in obeying and praising God in one's relationships, marriage can seem of little value. The only things left are economic, legal, and social issues.

Indeed, those seem to be the primary preoccupations of this thread.

[ 29. August 2012, 13:15: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
On being pressed further, they offered the following insights:

Both are strong supporters of same-sex marriage, which is still not legal in Australia. If marriage is not open to everyone, then it has little value to them.
Even if same-sex marriage was legal here in Oz, or most places (which I seem to recall is the standard Brangelina require before they tie the knot), they would still not do it. They simply see no logical reason why they should get married.
Is it only me who sees a logical problem with this? If marriage is such a vital institution that it must be extended to all, then there exists a powerful reason to get married. If, OTOH, it is an empty symbol, then there is no compelling reason to worry about extending it at all. Your friends need to make up their minds. It really sounds like they are throwing excuses for themselves against the wall and hoping that one sticks.

I had a similar thought, but I draw a different conclusion. It sounds to me like they can't even begin to understand why it would be meaningful. I expect they've found that the stand on same-sex marriage, with which I have a certain amount of sympathy (not that I'd ever consider getting divorced to show solidarity) is much easier for most people to accept and understand than a sort of shrugging "I just don't get it". It's probably also one of many things that they feel makes the concept of marriage rather hollow and easily-dismissed. Not everyone sets out their reasoning like a legal submission.

And I accept that you probably didn't mean it like this, but I don't think it's reasonable or helpful to talk about "excuses" as if they need to justify their decision to anyone. If the decision of two people on the other side of the world not to marry each other has any effect on me at all, that effect is of a similar order to the gravitational pull of a single far-distant star.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I feel that there is something different about marriage as compared to even the most sincere and intentionally-long-term commitment.

I think the fact that you stand up in public, whether in a church or a registry office, and make those vows in front of the people most important to you, gives the whole thing an added weight and gravity. If you're married in church and believe the beliefs of that church, even more so.

That's my belief also.

I think the real issue here is one of belief. Without faith in God there is no real reason for marriage, other than an economic one.

Of course, the economic argument is pretty powerful. It is easy to argue that if legal marriage didn't exist the chances of children growing up in unstable homes, with shifting parental relationships, would increase. The resulting legal issues, and the consequent unhappy childhoods, would have a negative effect on society.

Or so I believe. It is an idea that is being tested...

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
One point to consider about the marriage is that establishes a point in time that the commitment began. Anniversary celebrations are a way of honoring that commitment.

Oddly, some shipmates might be quite surprised to discover that this is not a universal. For a time, many years ago, I lived in a country where it was possible for a couple to be married, and universally recognised as such, without there having been a ceremony or a dateable event to mark when they became so.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

I think there is deep value and honour in both being a Christian in general and in marriage in particular.

However, neither will lead to a big fat self-satisfied lifestyle if you have any kind of integrity. Christian discipleship is more of a frantic rush through life to the glory beyond. It's following and giving.

Part of my gripe is that I see far more integrity, love and wisdom being lived in purely secular lives than I do among churchgoers. Christians telling people they must live their lives in a certain way for the good of "religion" and "society" is a load of old nonsense.

Churches teaching morality to an often far wiser world is absolutely incredible, because it's not the Gospel. Real discipleship, however, is both attractive and compelling. But that can't be taught - only seen.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

There are of course many ways of looking at this, some already touched on.

But at the phenomenological level (i.e. just looking at the effects) the benefits of marriage to those undertaking it are undoubted. People have been looking at this for years.

Here is a link to a paper co-authored by Andrew Oswald, professor of economics at Warwick University, which covers a lot of the ground. Save yourself a lot of bullshitting time by reading it.

Of course, even this doesn't cover other matters such as the impact on raising children, and similar concerns relating to broader society.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Part of my gripe is that I see far more integrity, love and wisdom being lived in purely secular lives than I do among churchgoers.

I agree with you up to this point. I praise God that I can be a Christian even though I find I cannot live up to the expectations laid out in the Bible. My integrity has nothing to do with it- only the integrity of Jesus Christ offering his mercy to a lost sinner like me. One does not become baptized because one is Godly. One becomes Godly through baptism.

Likewise, marriage is not a blessing on a Godly union. Marriage makes a union Godly.

[ 29. August 2012, 13:47: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Part of my gripe is that I see far more integrity, love and wisdom being lived in purely secular lives than I do among churchgoers.

A very important observation. That is not at all my experience, but I know that it is the experience of many people.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

I like the previous poster who said that marriage marks a point of agreement to a commitment that is shared with the other, and with society at large. This is coupled with a change in legal status which isn't available in so called 'common law' relationships. People refer to each other as 'partners', but what is the basis of the pratnership? What happens when the partnership goes pear shaped, or one partner dies? What happens to the 'products' of that partnership? (House, car, furnishings, money, and perhaps children) I have seen enough damge caused by one member of a partnership dying and the survivor(s) discover they have no leagl status. Unless there is a will in force, the posessions go to the next of kin - and may not even be the offspring of the partnership.

I have also seen the fallout from couples who have a joint mortgage on the house and then break up...it's a legal mess.

All of this highlights the fact that unless there is a marriage or other equivalent state, the nature of a partnership is undefined in society, and possibly also within the relationship itself. At some point there may need to be a defined legal status of a non-married partnership. But again, that begs the question...at what point does a relationship need to establish that legal status. Whether it is by a wedding into a marriage, or another ceremny (civil partnership), I do think there needs to be a publicly and socially recognised transition from 'living together' to a 'committed partnership' or whatever you want to call it.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

Why get married at all?

To be blunt, it was cheaper to get married than to remake our complicated Wills. The Wills were complicated because we have two children, and we had a guardianship arrangement with my oldest friend and his wife in the event of our simultaneous deaths. Unfortunately my friend died, and his wife remarried and emigrated.

My wife was chaperoning on a US choir trip (son was a chorister) and was room-sharing with a lady who was Dean at the time, and she suggested we get married in the Cathedral. This was effected with minimum fuss by the good Canon Chris Smith ten years ago tomorrow. We don't bother to celebrate it and this will be only the second time it's been remembered, and that’s because I just checked to write this! We had been together just over thirty years at that point.

The reasons we got married were purely administrative. It has made not a jot of difference to our relationship, and the children were largely disinterested, as it made no difference to anything from their perspectives. They’ve often mentioned that the majority of their friends have only one current birth-parent, and they value that we are together, not that we are married.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Originally posted by passer:

quote:
it was cheaper to get married than to remake our complicated Wills

Didn't the marriage annul the wills?

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

Yes, I think it quite simpler was easier to get married than to not in former times.

That's no longer the case and the stock-in-trade answers about "Why marry?" just don't suffice any more. They are based on the premise that "You have to so it, so here's some sugar to make the medicine go down".

You don't have to do it all - and I say this despite (or perhaps because of) holding the indissoluble position on a marriage validly contracted. And I wonder how many trumpeting the respectable view that "wedding is always best" really believe it's indissoluble?!

When it's asked "Why is there so much divorce today?" my mind doesn't go for a falling in standards or lack of commitment. I think better of people than that. No, I think "Well, who is getting married and why?"!

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
On being pressed further, they offered the following insights:

Both are strong supporters of same-sex marriage, which is still not legal in Australia. If marriage is not open to everyone, then it has little value to them.
Even if same-sex marriage was legal here in Oz, or most places (which I seem to recall is the standard Brangelina require before they tie the knot), they would still not do it. They simply see no logical reason why they should get married.
Is it only me who sees a logical problem with this? If marriage is such a vital institution that it must be extended to all, then there exists a powerful reason to get married. If, OTOH, it is an empty symbol, then there is no compelling reason to worry about extending it at all. Your friends need to make up their minds. It really sounds like they are throwing excuses for themselves against the wall and hoping that one sticks.

--Tom Clune

No logical problem at all. 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.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Originally posted by passer:
quote:
it was cheaper to get married than to remake our complicated Wills
Didn't the marriage annul the wills?

Precisely. The wills were in any case un-implementable because of the change of circumstances, so it was easier and cheaper to get married, as the law makes the children beneficiaries by default. Our previous understanding was that as their birth father but unmarried to their mother, my matters financial were complicated.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

I should clarify my previous post - you don't have to get married, but you don't have to shag either. A tendency to do the latter is simply not justification to enter into the former.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I have several friends who are in relationships that have lasted 20 years or more already, who treat each other seemingly no differently than any decent husband and wife through good times and bad, but who utterly resist "getting married" -- or in the case of the two couples I know best, specifically the woman is determined not to "get married."

In both of those cases the word "marriage" or "married" carries a whale of a load of negative emotional baggage from how they were reared by their parents -- the role limitation enforced on many women in the 50s, the constant "when you are married you won't be able to do that anymore" about pursuing your own interests and growth.

Or what their childhood churches taught, like if "a wife must stay home and not be employed" was drilled into you and you want a career.

A long hard way to deal with this kind of childhood training is to work with a spiritual adviser or perhaps a shrink for how many years or decades at what expense? (Apparently from my local research, trained spiritual advisers through the Catholic and mainline churches who don't charge $75 an hour "suggest a donation" of similar amount.)

An easier solution is to not get married. One can not get married alone, or not get married in a deeply committed lifetime relationship.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
But given that you can do everything that used to be attached to marriage - have sex, live together, raise a family etc. - without being married, my question to you remains - why get married at all?
Most young (and young-ish) people in our circles get married when children are on the cards. I think this is a good thing, it gives a sense of commitment and stability to the new family imo.

With respect, if actually having children is not enough in and of itself to facilitate a sense of commitment, a marriage ceremony is unlikely to foster the same.
YMMV

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

The OP says this couple "see no logical reason" to get married, but also that they are "vehemently opposed" to getting married.

I'd say that the former does not at all explain the latter and there's something else going on that we're not being told. People who merely say "why bother?" are not vehemently opposed. One can be disinterested in doing something without being passionately against doing it. I don't see any point in visiting Gatlinburg, but I'm not vehemently opposed to it.

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :

It may seem old fashioned to say so.but living together without marriage is living in sin. I can understand why unbelievers do it,but can,t understand why so called Christians think that it is OK.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The OP says this couple "see no logical reason" to get married, but also that they are "vehemently opposed" to getting married.

I'd say that the former does not at all explain the latter and there's something else going on that we're not being told. People who merely say "why bother?" are not vehemently opposed. One can be disinterested in doing something without being passionately against doing it. I don't see any point in visiting Gatlinburg, but I'm not vehemently opposed to it.

I was picking up similar feelings about the whole thing, Mousethief, as I think tclune was. There are plenty of logical reasons if anyone bothers to enquire. Of course, there may be personal reasons to come to some other decision, but irrespective of that the logical reasons remain. They just haven't been followed.

Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on :

As a gay person whose father has been married 5 (!) times, I swore I would never get married, and indeed thought I would never have the opportunity.

However, when gay marriage was made legal in California in 2008, my partner (of 15 years) and I did get married, solely to celebrate this marker in the history of our gay brothers and sisters.

Personally I believe marriage should be abolished. I'm glad to see it languishing among young people.

(I do not wear a ring or refer to my partner as my "wife". We do not have children, or any of the other standard accoutrements of married life. We do take a lot of nice vacations together, though.)

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
Personally I believe marriage should be abolished.

Why?

Posted by Edith (# 16978) on :

My understanding was that the church's teaching was the sacrament is conferred on each other by making the commitment. That means that the 'piece of paper' is pretty irrelevant.

But perhaps I'm wrong. I expect Trisagion could put me right.

And, speaking at the mother of a daughter who has just announced her engagement (after being asked for our blessing by her fiancé) I'd be jolly cross if they deprived us all of the opportunity to meet together, share our love and blessings for the future and strengthen the community by a lovely celebration.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
They have been together for eight years, and are committed to each other. [...] They are quite prepared to continue living together, have children together, grow old together, the whole shebang.

Then I'd think they *are* married. The bit they've missed is the wedding.

Maybe not married in the eyes of the church, or the government of whatever country they live in, but still married. Marriage is older than either churches or governments, and doesn't require them to exist.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

Is it only me who sees a logical problem with this? If marriage is such a vital institution that it must be extended to all, then there exists a powerful reason to get married. If, OTOH, it is an empty symbol, then there is no compelling reason to worry about extending it at all. Your friends need to make up their minds. It really sounds like they are throwing excuses for themselves against the wall and hoping that one sticks.

--Tom Clune

Thank you for saying it better than I could.

Regardless of the fact that divorce is all too common these days, there's still respect for the idea that marriage ought to be a serious lifelong commitment with vows to support each other. It also helps that marriage, as opposed to a private pinky-swear agreement between a long-term couple, comes with some teeth to protect these commitments.

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?

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

Offhand I can't think of many "logical" reasons to get married for most people. There are some advantages (hospital visitation rights, for example), and in some cases the extension of insurance or other benefits to the partner that might not be covered otherwise. Many things can be handled with appropriate legal agreements.

And I've heard many reasons given for NOT getting married: tax rates (one couple figured they would pay $10K more per year before recent changes, and they would rather spend the money taking holidays); pension, alimony or other benefits from a previous spouse that discontinue on remarriage; the cost and bother of having a wedding; the even greater cost and bother of getting divorced, etc. (Though I know of one "almost, but not really marriage" that was more difficult to tidy up when they split than many divorces.)

My experience of deciding to get married had nothing to do with logic or reason, and I suspect that is the case for a number of people. We could have been perfectly happy cohabiting, and except for saying "spouse" rather than "partner", I can't see much that would have been different in our lives, or that of the children. We remember the day we met (29 years ago last month, thank you) as much as our wedding anniversary. I certainly can't think of any time I have made a choice "because I was married" that I wouldn't have done the same if we weren't.

As far as I can remember, our decision to get married (we still can't remember who first brought up the topic) was to make a public statement of our commitment and relationship to our friends: it felt like the right thing to do, not from any moral or sacramental basis, but as a reflection and celebration of our commitment to each other.

So, really, we aren't committed to each other because we got married: we got married because we are committed. And that commitment would be just as strong if we hadn't gotten married.

I certainly understand those who make other choices: there are often strong emotional and/or economic reasons one way or the other. I've seen a lot of relationships, married and otherwise, and being legally married or not doesn't appear to have much bearing on the quality, strength, or longevity of a relationship.

Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on :

My understanding of marriage is that it is a legal contract between two people that is all too often unexamined. If marriage as it exists were abolished, perhaps people would feel free to draw up legal contracts that actually fit their needs and expectations. As it is, people swallow the "marriage" contract of their government(s) without considering what they are contractually agreeing to.

For example: Robin Williams' quote about divorce:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/starsandstories/8915998/Robin-Williams-Divorce-is-like-ripping-a-mans-genitals-out-th rough-his-wallet.html

What did he expect when he got married?

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
It may seem old fashioned to say so.but living together without marriage is living in sin. I can understand why unbelievers do it,but can,t understand why so called Christians think that it is OK.

What is marriage? As much as Christian liturgies have formalized a ceremony, what they push as marriage is dictated by the state for record keeping. You don't read about any couple in the Bible exchanging rings or vows or any of the liturgical trappings we have now. Adam and Eve didn't have a ceremony.

We used to recognize this as "common law" marriage, which said that even if you didn't have a ceremony or sign a piece of paper in the town registry, if you live together monogamously and hold yourself out as a couple, you're "married."

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
What is marriage? As much as Christian liturgies have formalized a ceremony, what they push as marriage is dictated by the state for record keeping.

I rather think marriage is instituted by God. State recognition and the legal matters attached to it are all secondary.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

Isn't that kind of the point?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Isn't that kind of the point?

I would hope so, but the general consensus of this thread seems to be that marriage is about the legal issues, with God's approval of unions being taken for granted.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
What is marriage? As much as Christian liturgies have formalized a ceremony, what they push as marriage is dictated by the state for record keeping.
I rather think marriage is instituted by God. State recognition and the legal matters attached to it are all secondary.

That's what I'm saying. Traditionally you didn't need a marriage license or even a priest to be married. You were married when you settled down with a person with the intent to be in a marriage.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
...with God's approval of unions being taken for granted.

I'm not sure that's a fair assessment of the whole thread (though I can see that a few posts tend in that direction). I think there seems to be a recognition that God's approval and the Church's approval are not always the same thing.

My partner and I will celebrate our 11th anniversary on Monday. We consider ourselves married. The State of Georgia does not, and the larger denominations in our state would not. We obviously don't think God has any problem with our marriage.

The state and the larger Christian denominations I mentioned before can go hang--but if marriage does become available in Georgia during our lifetime, we will get married. At that point, it WILL be about the legal rights because that will be the only part that we lack.

I would expect the same to be true of any long-term couple who finally goes after the "piece of paper". By that point, they've long considered themselves married--just as the former slaves in Georgia did when they were finally allowed to marry in front of a judge after the Civil War. They did not consider that they were "unmarried" before, but they understood the value of the legal recognition of their relationships.

Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on :

Perhaps those of us referring to legal marriage, which is probably what most people think of when they hear the term "marriage", can use the term "legal marriage", and those referring to marriage blessed by God can use that term.

Just to be clear which we are referring to.

I believe that the OP mentioned the word "legal", so I assume he/she was referring to "legal marriage".

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Said Snags:

quote:
I know a lot more who aren't married because (I suspect) when push comes to shove, they value the psychological 'out' that they get.

IMO, this hits nearer the mark than many are willing to admit.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
That's what I'm saying. Traditionally you didn't need a marriage license or even a priest to be married. You were married when you settled down with a person with the intent to be in a marriage.

But without any of those things (including any kind of ceremony) how does anyone - including the other partner in the relationship - know that you have settled down 'with the intent to be in a marriage'?

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
My understanding of marriage is that it is a legal contract between two people that is all too often unexamined. If marriage as it exists were abolished, perhaps people would feel free to draw up legal contracts that actually fit their needs and expectations.

I agree that marriage between two people is all too often left unexamined; I've known any number of couples who have had a lot of trouble because their expectations of what marriage was/should be didn't match and they made a few too many assumptions about what the other meant before getting married...

But I'm curious, what kind of legal contracts 'that actually fit their needs and expectations' do you imagine most people would draw up?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

In what follows I'm talking not about some concept of sacramental marriage (Lutherans don't have that, we consider marriage to be God's institution but in the lefthand kingdom of the state, not the church) but rather about community-recognized marriage--for most of us on these boards that'll be legal marriage then. Although I'd be perfectly happy with just moving in together if it were in a community context where that was universally understood to be marriage, with all the commitments and responsibilities of, etc. etc.

The primary reason for marriage IMHO is to make explicit to both partners and to the community at large what kind of a relationship this is. It tells me what I can legitimately expect (and not expect) from my husband; for example, fidelity, mutual financial and social support, and joint time/effort/emotional investment in efforts such as child raising. (Yes, I know plenty of marriages fall short of this, and some do so by design. I'm talking about the general run of marriage expectations)

It tells the community what they can expect of both of us--which is pretty much the same stuff, namely fidelity, mutual support, and joint investment in children etc. if there are any. And if either of us decides to fink out on our responsibilities, the community will weigh in. Therefore we get everything from legal child support enforcement all the way down to gossip about unfaithful jackasses (and gossip is a form of social enforcement, a lot of the time).

It also tells individual members of the community what we expect of them--namely, not to hit on us (marriage says we're not in the market for other sexual partners), not to attempt to otherwise destroy our mutual commmitment (say, by casually expecting one of us to up and move to a far country without warning or any consideration for the spouse and children), and not to attack, harm or otherwise undermine one of us without expecting retribution from both of us.

To be sure, people transgress these boundaries every day, both from within and from without given marriages. And there are some creative types who try to rewrite these basic expectations and so you get oddities such as open marriages. But by and large, when a couple is "married" according to whatever local community ritual is required, people know the basic ground rules. And that is a helluva lot easier to deal with than when people take lovers but fail to marry.

The problem then is I (general I!) as a community member don't know how deep the commitment runs; is X available for a possible romantic relationship (particularly if we both fall violently in love at work or somewhere) or should I bugger off; is this closer to the roommate end of the spectrum, or is this a permanent commitment; who has legal, financial, etc. responsibility for the kids, the dog, the houseboat, etc. and who gets to make decisions about them.

If I'm IN the non-marriage I have all the same problems (unless I'm very, very, VERY organized in a legal sense and have incredibly clear communication with my nonspouse); plus I can't expect the community to treat us with the same expectations as a married couple, because they aren't clear on what we're doing; and (this is the personal I speaking now) I would always have in the back of my mind a niggling doubt that perhaps the reason my nonspouse WAS a nonspouse had nothing really to do with high minded ideology and everything to do with needing a psychological exit strategy "just in case" some day. Which maybe makes me a nasty minded, mean spirited and untrusting person. But I've seen enough breakups where that seems to be the excuse ("well, we weren't REALLY married after all") that I wouldn't be able to help worrying.

All that aside, we've seen many marriages break up, and we've seen many non-marriages break up. In our experience the level of nastiness and complexity is as bad or worse in the non-marriages, probably because the lines are so fuzzy.

[ 29. August 2012, 22:49: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
That's what I'm saying. Traditionally you didn't need a marriage license or even a priest to be married. You were married when you settled down with a person with the intent to be in a marriage.
But without any of those things (including any kind of ceremony) how does anyone - including the other partner in the relationship - know that you have settled down 'with the intent to be in a marriage'?

Under that sort of arrangement? Presumably you'd talk about it with the person you're marrying. As for other people? I imagine the formula "This is my husband/wife so-and-so" would suffice. You certainly don't need a priest for that.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

A lot of you are talking about marriage as if it is an ironclad commitment keeping couples together for life. It isn't, and you know it isn't. I'm not the only divorcee on the ship.
The example of the hospital bed is a silly one. If one member of a union is of the disposition that she or he would leave their partner in such circumstances, a gold band or a set of vows is probably not going to make that much difference. And if it does, it probably shouldn't.
MT's point is solid. I will investigate further. My guess is (and this is based on face to face conversation) that the couple's resolve has been hardened by constant pressure from family and friends as to why they haven't married.
My own thoughts are similar to ken's: they are, for all intents and purposes, married. They haven't been through the ceremony, and have no intention of doing so.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
I like the previous poster who said that marriage marks a point of agreement to a commitment that is shared with the other, and with society at large. This is coupled with a change in legal status which isn't available in so called 'common law' relationships. People refer to each other as 'partners', but what is the basis of the pratnership? What happens when the partnership goes pear shaped, or one partner dies? What happens to the 'products' of that partnership? (House, car, furnishings, money, and perhaps children) I have seen enough damge caused by one member of a partnership dying and the survivor(s) discover they have no leagl status. Unless there is a will in force, the posessions go to the next of kin - and may not even be the offspring of the partnership.

This is not an argument for marriage - it's an argument for amending your laws to take account of the fact that many people in society have committed relationships, children, and shared property without being married. It has already happened in my country. If you have been living with someone for three years or more, you are considered to be in a de-facto marriage and subject to the same asset-splitting or post-mortem distribtion of estate as someone who is married. I think this is good, because any party wanting to avoid these things has to explicitly contract out.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
A lot of you are talking about marriage as if it is an ironclad commitment keeping couples together for life. It isn't, and you know it isn't. I'm not the only divorcee on the ship.
The example of the hospital bed is a silly one. If one member of a union is of the disposition that she or he would leave their partner in such circumstances, a gold band or a set of vows is probably not going to make that much difference. And if it does, it probably shouldn't.

Though the legal recognition does ensure that you have the legal right to be by that hospital bed as next-of-kin. One of the horror stories for same sex couples is being barred from the partner when the partner is in hospital and possibly dying (this happens despite powers of attorney, etc).

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
If you have been living with someone for three years or more, you are considered to be in a de-facto marriage and subject to the same asset-splitting or post-mortem distribtion of estate as someone who is married. I think this is good, because any party wanting to avoid these things has to explicitly contract out.

I am really curious about how this works in practice. Suppose one partner is unconscious after a car wreck or something- how does the other partner get into the hospital to see them, without having to go and find their lease or whatever to prove how long they've been living together?

It's a common situation here in the US for one partner of a gay couple to be excluded from the hospital care of the other partner, either by intolerant blood relatives or by intolerant hospital staff.

[eta x-post]

[ 30. August 2012, 01:46: Message edited by: Antisocial Alto ]

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
A lot of you are talking about marriage as if it is an ironclad commitment keeping couples together for life. It isn't, and you know it isn't. I'm not the only divorcee on the ship.
The example of the hospital bed is a silly one. If one member of a union is of the disposition that she or he would leave their partner in such circumstances, a gold band or a set of vows is probably not going to make that much difference.

I don't think marriage is silly. If it were, why are your friends doing their best to be married without going through the formalities?

And the hospital bed rationale isn't silly, either. If you have a spouse that relies on you for support, you typically can't up and leave without being ordered by a court to make some sort of provision for their support. If all you have is a private agreement between parties, there are no such guarantees. Sure, you can leave either way (in that the court isn't going to force you to remain together indefinitely if one of you really wants out), but one arrangement has real protections for financial support and the other is useless in that regard.

Me, personally, I'm getting married next year because I happen to believe some of that traditional claptrap about matrimony. I think children ought to have married parents. I think there is something honorable about being a lifelong committed couple in a relationship sanctified by God. And, frankly, the couples I know that deliberately avoid marriage as some outdated construct seem rarely to last.

Maybe that makes me a romantic or a fool, but better either those than a cynic. I recognize divorce is a possibility, but marriage till death us do part is a worthy and attainable goal.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cara:
I suspect that at rough times, it's only the fact of being married that has kept many a couple together! The promises, the commitment made in public--these make it harder to walk away when the going gets tough. And in later years, many such couples are glad they stayed together through the ups and downs.

I suspect it's the life you build together that makes it harder to walk away when the going gets tough - and I don't mean that in an airy-fairy way. I mean the fact that you have children in common, friends in common, property in common, and bank accounts in common, means the whole shebang is monstrously complex and difficult to untangle, (and, in fact, once children are in the equation there is really no possiblity of actually EVER properly disengaging from your spouse), so I cannot imagine why anyone would put themselves through all that unless times were really, really tough and looking to stay so long-term. And this can apply equally to any established relationship, the only difference being that those who have been married will have to obtain a divorce in order to finalise things - but as far as I can tell from those couples I've known who went down that road, that wasn't really the complicated bit.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
If you have been living with someone for three years or more, you are considered to be in a de-facto marriage and subject to the same asset-splitting or post-mortem distribtion of estate as someone who is married. I think this is good, because any party wanting to avoid these things has to explicitly contract out.
I am really curious about how this works in practice. Suppose one partner is unconscious after a car wreck or something- how does the other partner get into the hospital to see them, without having to go and find their lease or whatever to prove how long they've been living together?

It's a common situation here in the US for one partner of a gay couple to be excluded from the hospital care of the other partner, either by intolerant blood relatives or by intolerant hospital staff.

[eta x-post]

I really don't know how it would work in a situation like that, to be honest. Maybe we are really naive down here. Maybe we are more tolerant, maybe both. But how would it work in a situation like this where you were married? You'd still have to go home to fetch your marriage certificate, wouldn't you - so why not, say, your mortgage certificate with both names printed on it? I simply hadn't thought about it. I'm married, so it isn't likely to come up for me. However, when my Dad was in intensive care (HDU) dying, I arrived from out of town to see him and simply rocked up to their reception and told him I was his daughter. No-one asked to see my ID or anything - and if they had, it would have been problematic, seeing as I changed my surname when I got married...

I will ask my brother, who is in a de-facto partnership, what gives with this sort of situation - not that his partner has ever been in the sort of situation you posit...

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

A lot depends on whether someone is actively trying to keep you out, for whatever reason. I had trouble getting to see my Dad in ICU because one of his bimbo girlfriends got access by claiming to be me. (and yes, she WAS a bimbo, and there were multiple of them. They were not living together, nor did they have any kind of ongoing relationship AFAIK. If she had asked, we would have worked something out. Jerk.)

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
A lot of you are talking about marriage as if it is an ironclad commitment keeping couples together for life. It isn't, and you know it isn't. I'm not the only divorcee on the ship.
The example of the hospital bed is a silly one. If one member of a union is of the disposition that she or he would leave their partner in such circumstances, a gold band or a set of vows is probably not going to make that much difference.
I don't think marriage is silly. If it were, why are your friends doing their best to be married without going through the formalities?

I dislike being misquoted, and you have what I said in front of you. Please don't do it again. I did not say marriage is silly.

quote:
And the hospital bed rationale isn't silly, either. If you have a spouse that relies on you for support, you typically can't up and leave without being ordered by a court to make some sort of provision for their support. If all you have is a private agreement between parties, there are no such guarantees. Sure, you can leave either way (in that the court isn't going to force you to remain together indefinitely if one of you really wants out), but one arrangement has real protections for financial support and the other is useless in that regard.

Courts do not get involved without applications from one party. Are you seriously suggesting that when one person decides to leave another, married or not, they have to go through court first? It certainly doesn't work that way around here. We also don't have alimony here, so if you are assuming that is a universal result of legal marriage you are wrong. As anoesis points out, there are a number of legal protections for cohabiting and de facto couples in this part of the world. So cohabiting is not the 'useless' arrangement you are suggesting.

quote:
Me, personally, I'm getting married next year because I happen to believe some of that traditional claptrap about matrimony. I think children ought to have married parents. I think there is something honorable about being a lifelong committed couple in a relationship sanctified by God. And, frankly, the couples I know that deliberately avoid marriage as some outdated construct seem rarely to last.

And I know couples who cohabited happily for years, decided to get married and split within months.
The couple in the OP are no less committed to each other than you are to your partner, they just don't want to get married. Why should they?

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Is it only me who sees a logical problem with this? If marriage is such a vital institution that it must be extended to all, then there exists a powerful reason to get married. If, OTOH, it is an empty symbol, then there is no compelling reason to worry about extending it at all. Your friends need to make up their minds. It really sounds like they are throwing excuses for themselves against the wall and hoping that one sticks.

--Tom Clune

There's no problem. Having the right to do something is not the same as being required to do it. The right for gays to serve in the military doesn't justify a universal draft of homosexuals.

The fight for same-sex marriage has produced the long list of rights that are established by marriage. For example, being able to see your partner in the hospital or carrying out their funeral wishes. So there are practical reasons why it's good to do it. Many of these adminstrative issues center around raising children together.

In the U.S. there's a considerable difference by region. In Massachusetts many people cohabit with out marrying or only marrying when children are coming. Many areas of the South have the opposite approach, many marry young. This shows up in the divorce rate. It is near 50% in a number of southern states. Massachusetts has a "low" rate of 25% even with the advent of same sex marriage. Is marriage worth the trouble if more often than not it's followed by a divorce?

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

You're right, Dark Knight, you didn't say marriage is silly. A wire got crossed in my skull.

I guess they are the only people who can answer for themselves whether they should get married. Any answer that I would give is one that works for me and likely would not be convincing to them. To enumerate succintly in decreasing order of importance:

- personal religious faith and tradition
- perceived relative family stability (whether true in practice or not)
- certain legal streamlining
- social acceptance/the desire not to get into how we're not married but we're committed life partners outside of the rigid confines of the marital construct
- a very nice ceremony

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
I guess they are the only people who can answer for themselves whether they should get married. Any answer that I would give is one that works for me and likely would not be convincing to them. To enumerate succintly in decreasing order of importance:

- personal religious faith and tradition
- perceived relative family stability (whether true in practice or not)
- certain legal streamlining
- social acceptance/the desire not to get into how we're not married but we're committed life partners outside of the rigid confines of the marital construct
- a very nice ceremony

For regular church goers it may be a very nice ceremony. In the U.S. there's a large industry dedicated to making weddings very expensive and appeal to vanity and prey on the inexperienced. The Bridezilla syndrome and large weddings for people with small families make the ceremony less than nice. I've helped friends avoid some of this, but it takes a lot of work to stay clear of the overproduced wedding.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The primary reason for marriage IMHO is to make explicit to both partners and to the community at large what kind of a relationship this is.

Yes.

I am in the early stages of a relationship, and we are definitely having the conversations about terminology precisely because we're trying to establish 'what kind of relationship this is'.

Even if gay marriage were legal, we'd be nowhere near it. Last time it came up, we established that we were 'seeing' each other. At some point in the future, all going well, we will move to different kinds of terminology that convey a different level of commitment.

Marriage represents an idea that is still readily recognisable. It may eventually lose that recognition, but at the moment it still sends messages about the nature of a relationship. This is the person I publicly committed myself to. I had the chance to formally consider what I wanted, and this is what I wanted.

[ 30. August 2012, 04:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on :

Marriage is a particular Christian calling, like ordination. It is a heavy responsibility, like ordination. The couple offer their relationship up to God with thanksgiving and pray that they may be a special beacon, or focus-point, showing God's love to the world.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Also, while people might get away with characterising marriage as a specifically Christian/religious concept here on the Ship, out there in the rest of the world you would get short shrift.

Certainly, I've seen numerous comment threads on news sites where someone explains why marriage has to be heterosexual by referring to it as a Christian/religious thing. Whereupon VERY large numbers of heterosexuals who got married in civil ceremonies with no religious component get very upset with the previous poster for basically saying that their civil marriages have no value at all.

The most recent figures here in Australia say that religious ceremonies now account for less than a third of marriages. The unchurched are not abandoning marriage. The married are abandoning church.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I have studied this issue for many years, but just recently came up to what it really means.

Here in the United States, marriage gives a couple over 1,400 rights over against a couple just living together. For sample of that list you can go here.

We became acutely aware of this when our son had a terrible fall this summer. While he and his partner had been living together for over five years and have a three year old daughter, my wife and I were listed as immediate next of kin. It feel on us to determine the health care our son should receive--he is over thirty. While the hospital tried to be accommodating to his partner, ultimately my wife and I had final say since there was not other health directive in place.

We certainly did not shut our son's partner out either, but we could have if we were those type of people.

While it appeared very dire for a few days, eventually our son was able to become more cognizant and was able to make his own decisions regarding future care. We had been very afraid he would have had some permanent brain damage.

Basically, marriage gives the partner authority over matters of health if the other cannot speak for himself/herself. It gives both partners a say in the rearing of any children. It also allows for the proper transfer of property should one of the partners die.

Why get married? To protect your rights as a lifelong partner.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

The most recent figures here in Australia say that religious ceremonies now account for less than a third of marriages. The unchurched are not abandoning marriage. The married are abandoning church.

Is that quite correct? I thought that the figure was for marriages in a church, and there seem to be quite a few conducted by ministers but not in a church. Either way, ++Peter seems intent on driving people away. It reminds me of that recent thread on baptisms, where the poster declined to baptise the children of those who did meet his standards.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I have studied this issue for many years, but just recently came up to what it really means.

Here in the United States, marriage gives a couple over 1,400 rights over against a couple just living together. For sample of that list you can go here.

We became acutely aware of this when our son had a terrible fall this summer. While he and his partner had been living together for over five years and have a three year old daughter, my wife and I were listed as immediate next of kin. It feel on us to determine the health care our son should receive--he is over thirty. While the hospital tried to be accommodating to his partner, ultimately my wife and I had final say since there was not other health directive in place.

We certainly did not shut our son's partner out either, but we could have if we were those type of people.

While it appeared very dire for a few days, eventually our son was able to become more cognizant and was able to make his own decisions regarding future care. We had been very afraid he would have had some permanent brain damage.

Basically, marriage gives the partner authority over matters of health if the other cannot speak for himself/herself. It gives both partners a say in the rearing of any children. It also allows for the proper transfer of property should one of the partners die.

Why get married? To protect your rights as a lifelong partner.

Or, give equal legal status to de-facto relationships of a certain length - as per my earlier post.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

The following is from page 9 of the paper Honest Ron linked to, and is convincing:

quote:
Looking across the literature, is cohabitation as good as having the band of gold itself? It seems not.

The paper documents the myriad health benefits of being married, over being single, cohabiting or divorced/separated. What is clear, however, is that causality is not demonstrated, only correlation. The authors admit as much, on page 21:

quote:
If we accept from all this statistical evidence that human beings gain some kind of protective effect from marriage, how are those benefits actually transmitted? The answer is not yet known.

And again on page 23:

quote:
Married people live longer and are healthier. What is less clear is whether this pattern in the data tells us something reliable about what marriage does to health.

That being said, as correlation goes it is pretty damn impressive. That, together with Gramps49's disturbing story, has demonstrated to me that there may in fact be several logical reasons to marry. So, any of you single female shipmates who are not batshit crazy, please form an orderly line ...

But, before we close this thread and go on our way rejoicing, I wonder if this, basically pragmatic rationale, for getting married is satisfying to all of you. It seems likely to me that many of the health affects (particularly the psychological ones) in the study are a result of the shape of Western society, which still privileges the married state over the unmarried.

Perhaps it would be a bit nicer to live in a world where being unmarried was not detrimental to your health. Call me an idealist, if you want.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Or, give equal legal status to de-facto relationships of a certain length - as per my earlier post.

Yes ... well said.

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :

One really galling fact I seem to have observed is that when friends, male or female, marry or get a partner one often gets completely dropped.

I don't know what the answer to this is. A friend (single) deletes them from his address book as if they were dead. Then after about five years (it is usually about that time) when they are thoroughly bored, he gets their desperate Christmas card and permits himself a wry smile.

It can be even worse if they have children. No longer free to go out and have a good time because of understandable baby-sitter problems, they seem to become more and more boring, and their conversation revolves around their offspring. There is that glorious summer when one gets one's friends back again when their children grow up - but then Autumn descends when they get grandchildren and the whole tredious cycle begins again.

Is it just best to have single friends or make friends with people who are already married as they tend not to do the 'dropping' process.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

Dark Knight wrote:

quote:

A lot of you are talking about marriage as if it is an ironclad commitment keeping couples together for life. It isn't, and you know it isn't. I'm not the only divorcee on the ship.

I think you're mis-reading slightly. I haven't seen anyone suggest that getting married guarantees staying married. However, it most certainly signals that serious intent (or ought to). You can signal that intent in other ways, and people do. You can also get married on the basis that if it all goes titsup.com divorce is just a moment away.

As others have said, your friends from the OP would seem to be de facto married, just not legally.

You asked "why get married" and a lot of the answers centred around signalling commitment; to each other, and to the world at large. It's not that surprising, is it?

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

Right. And as I said all the way back in the OP, the couple are already committed to each other. The proof of commitment are in the fruits, surely. Staying together means you are committed. A $30k party, a big white dress and a gold ring do not.
I have found the pragmatic suggestions convincing, and the ones that suggest that marriage signal commitment far less so.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

"Signals" commitment is the key word. One can signal something falsely, either on purpose or by inadvertance. Still, that fact doesn't take away the usefulness of having the signal at all, at least until the false signals reach such a high percentage of the whole that it's no longer worth paying any attention to the signal (marriage) at all. But we're not there yet.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It also tells individual members of the community what we expect of them--namely, not to hit on us (marriage says we're not in the market for other sexual partners), not to attempt to otherwise destroy our mutual commmitment (say, by casually expecting one of us to up and move to a far country without warning or any consideration for the spouse and children), and not to attack, harm or otherwise undermine one of us without expecting retribution from both of us.

This is a very useful comment. Employers and other organisations want to be just in the way they treat couples who choose not marry. However they cannot reasonably be expected to accord the same rights to uncommitted relationships. How do they distinguish between the two? I assume that most have the option, like mine, to name a person who is "person co-habiting as spouse" and therefore to get the same treatment as a married person (e.g. compassionate leave, needs of partner taken into account when relocation considered etc).

But I don't see how an unmarried couple who have not, or will not, make the external sign of identifying the partner as the equivalent of a spouse can expect the same treatment as those who do. For example, I do not think an employer could reasonably be expected to help relocate an employee to the other end of the country because their non-cohabiting, not-equivalent-of-spouse lover is relocating.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

The trouble is that without the formalized community-accepted signal of commitment (marriage), the employer is forced into a position where it has to play judge--is this couple sufficiently committed that we should spend x thousand dollars on relocation costs, but this other couple is not? How can we tell? What about where one partner is sufficiently committed (however you measure that, good luck) and the other is not--and possibly has not told the first partner so? And what do you do when couple A gets the money/special allowances and privileges, and couple B is turned down for it--and sues?

No wonder employers don't want to cope with all of this.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

Agreed.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Right. And as I said all the way back in the OP, the couple are already committed to each other. The proof of commitment are in the fruits, surely. Staying together means you are committed. A $30k party, a big white dress and a gold ring do not.
I have found the pragmatic suggestions convincing, and the ones that suggest that marriage signal commitment far less so.

Obviously, marriages do come to an end, and not everyone enters or leaves a marriage for the same reasons. However, the research I've heard about suggests that cohabiting couples are more likely to split up than married couples. Of course, cohabitation covers all kinds of different arrangements, some of which were never intended to be lifelong. But if we're talking about commitment, surely there's no greater sign of commitment than having a child with someone; yet parents who cohabit are far more likely to split up in the early years of their child's life than parents who are married to each other.

In a society like ours there are no cast iron guarantees whatever you do, but looking at the odds, those who seriously want to face the same person over the kitchen table for the next 50 years would be better off getting married.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

Because of my alter ego it would have to be an Aston Martin Vantage, for me one of the most beautiful car designs ever.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

Apologies for previous post - gremlins keep uploading an old post each time I log in!

What I wanted to write is in response to Aeosis:

quote:
This is not an argument for marriage - it's an argument for amending your laws to take account of the fact that many people in society have committed relationships, children, and shared property without being married. It has already happened in my country. If you have been living with someone for three years or more, you are considered to be in a de-facto marriage and subject to the same asset-splitting or post-mortem distribtion of estate as someone who is married. I think this is good, because any party wanting to avoid these things has to explicitly contract out

I'm almost in agreement with you on this, except that I suggest there is still some stage at which a "de-facto relationship" becomes a partnership of a different status - in your example this is automatic after three years unless one (or both?) opts out.

What is wrong with a having some form of societal recognition that this is actually a relationship that is intended to be stable and long term, where the two become a recognised unit in society.

You don't need to call it marriage, but I think you need to differentiate and define what sort of partnership it is...indeed, can you call it a partnership at all unless.....?

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Or, give equal legal status to de-facto relationships of a certain length - as per my earlier post.

It would be good, wouldn't it, if societies provided a way for people to formalise their relationships to gain these rights by their own choice? [Razz]

I am extremely uncomfortable with the de facto thing because it's impossible to police: when does the clock start counting? And how does one end one of these de facto relationships? My guess is you will have the state acting unexpectedly towards people who are committed in a way they never intended to be, or to people who thought they had accrued legal rights, but haven't really. The state shouldn't be in the business of reading commitments into people's relationships that they haven't chosen to make.

[ 30. August 2012, 12:13: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

But if we're talking about commitment, surely there's no greater sign of commitment than having a child with someone; yet parents who cohabit are far more likely to split up in the early years of their child's life than parents who are married to each other.

Agree with the first phrase.
Would like to see substantiation of the second.

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

But if we're talking about commitment, surely there's no greater sign of commitment than having a child with someone

Sorry, but I disagree - tell that to the mother of 3 children each with a different father, or the father of 3, each with a different mother, or tell it to the kids.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

I am extremely uncomfortable with the de facto thing because it's impossible to police:

And I'm extremely uncomfortable with that language. This is part of the problem, to my mind - the surveillance of personal relationships. Isaac had it right when he just took Rebekah into his tent. But moving on ...

quote:
when does the clock start counting?

The date when cohabitation commenced?

quote:
And how does one end one of these de facto relationships?

Same way you end any other relationship. You leave. Here are some tips.

quote:
My guess is you will have the state acting unexpectedly towards people who are committed in a way they never intended to be, or to people who thought they had accrued legal rights, but haven't really. The state shouldn't be in the business of reading commitments into people's relationships that they haven't chosen to make.

Couldn't agree more. The state should, ideally, stay right the fuck out of it. There are few more odious institutions than the 'Family' court.
It may be different in other parts of the world, but the couple in the OP would experience as much trauma and strife were they to split up as any married couple sans children. They cohabit, so assets such as property and pets would have to be fairly divided. Ideally, a married or unmarried couple in such a situation would do this fairly with minimal involvement from the state, and most do. (The legal term around here for these is a 'Form 11' separation - far and away the majority). It is only when one or both parties decide to act like children that things get nasty. And I'm afraid that I can tell you from bitter experience that being married does not guarantee you a whole lotta rights.

But, leaving my own considerable baggage aside, I think the health benefits I conceded upthread are compelling. But I am still left with this thought.

quote:
It seems likely to me that many of the health affects (particularly the psychological ones) in the study are a result of the shape of Western society, which still privileges the married state over the unmarried.

Is this how it should be?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

But if we're talking about commitment, surely there's no greater sign of commitment than having a child with someone
Sorry, but I disagree - tell that to the mother of 3 children each with a different father, or the father of 3, each with a different mother, or tell it to the kids.

You're making my point for me! I imagine that most women in this situation initially hoped that having a baby for their boyfriend would make him stick around. But quite often, it doesn't work. So they try again with someone else. That doesn't work either. Eventually, circumstances or common sense will bring them to the realisation that it's not very wise behaviour, but by that stage, they have kids to raise, alone.

Maybe men sometimes father children in similar circumstances, with a similar outcome.

[ 30. August 2012, 12:42: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Cara (# 16966) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Felafool:
Because of my alter ego it would have to be an Aston Martin Vantage, for me one of the most beautiful car designs ever.

For a moment, before I read your explanation of gremlins uploading old posts, I thought you were saying you wanted to face an Aston Martin Vantage over the breakfast table for 50 years!!!

A marriage made in heaven.....

cara

Posted by Felafool (# 270) on :

quote:
Cara wrote:
For a moment, before I read your explanation of gremlins uploading old posts, I thought you were saying you wanted to face an Aston Martin Vantage over the breakfast table for 50 years!!!

A marriage made in heaven.....

Almost true but not quite...I prefer the person who I am lucky enough to have married. (but I'd still like the car in the garage!)

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:

quote:
when does the clock start counting?
The date when cohabitation commenced?

And when does cohabitation begin? The first time you stay over? When you first have a toothbrush there? When you give up your own residence? When you start paying bills or towards the rent?

Does everyone who "cohabits" (whataver that means) with their boyfriend or girlfriend want to set a clock counting down to the time that they will be responsible for decisions about the other's medical care? I doubt it.

quote:
And how does one end one of these de facto relationships?

quote:
Same way you end any other relationship. You leave. Here are some tips.

I see. And when has one "left"? For example, I know a number of couples who are divorced but share a house for financial reasons. Without the divorce, when is the court to regard that relationship and its rights and liabilities to have ended? Is it to get into the last time they actually slept in the same bed? When they went away to stay with family for a few nights?

If you want the rights of marriage, get married. People have the right to make legal agreements between themselves, it is an oppressive system that reads into their behaviour legal commitments they have not made.

[ 30. August 2012, 12:58: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...yet parents who cohabit are far more likely to split up in the early years of their child's life than parents who are married to each other.
Would like to see substantiation

I was struck by "The Downside of Cohabiting Before Marriage", a New York Times article by Meg Jay published in April. From the article:

quote:
Researchers originally attributed the cohabitation effect to selection, or the idea that cohabitors were less conventional about marriage and thus more open to divorce. As cohabitation has become a norm, however, studies have shown that the effect is not entirely explained by individual characteristics like religion, education or politics. Research suggests that at least some of the risks may lie in cohabitation itself.

This may not be a response to Dark Knight's exact comment. In fact it may be more relevant to Leprechaun's post above. But it is an interesting read and to me very explanatory.

[ 30. August 2012, 13:11: Message edited by: Freddy ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

But if we're talking about commitment, surely there's no greater sign of commitment than having a child with someone; yet parents who cohabit are far more likely to split up in the early years of their child's life than parents who are married to each other.
Agree with the first phrase.
Would like to see substantiation of the second.

Information about the stability of cohabitation after having children is widely available online.

The main concern you might have is whether the organisation doing research on this subject has a right wing agenda, but this isn't inevitably the case. The social sciences tend to lean to the left, but whether the researchers are on the left or the right doesn't really impinge on the statistics here. One's personal stance will influence how one interprets the results, I imagine: some will say that unmarried parents splitting up when a child is six isn't really a very big deal.

Anyway, here are some comments from UK websites that don't immediately give off a socially conservative vibe, for what it's worth:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/834281-factors-key-to-good-relationships

http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/cohabitation-separation-and-fatherhood

http://www.familyandparenting.org/our_work/Policy-and-Public-Affairs/Family-Policy-Digest-Sub/2010-editions/family-policy-dig est-july-2010

The IFS study agrees that cohabiting parents are more likely to split up, but explains this by saying that cohabitees are usually younger and poorer, and may come from broken families themselves, etc. Some studies suggest that people from disadvantage backgrounds are more likely to divorce if they are married. So the IFS and others suggest that marriage is irrelevant when compared to socio-demographic factors. And of course, well-educated middle class couples are better able to achieve good outcomes for their children if they do split up.

But few disagree with the basic finding that cohabitation tends not to go hand in hand with family stability.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
Marriage is a particular Christian calling, like ordination. It is a heavy responsibility, like ordination. The couple offer their relationship up to God with thanksgiving and pray that they may be a special beacon, or focus-point, showing God's love to the world.

So no non-Christian couple is married? If you want to phrase it as "Christian marriage is a particular Christian calling" that is fine.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
And when does cohabitation begin? The first time you stay over? When you first have a toothbrush there? When you give up your own residence? When you start paying bills or towards the rent?

That is actually a good point. But I return to my point - if a couple decide to split, either they sort this out by consent between them, or you can be damn sure that the court will decide.

quote:
Does everyone who "cohabits" (whataver that means) with their boyfriend or girlfriend want to set a clock counting down to the time that they will be responsible for decisions about the other's medical care? I doubt it.

Um ... What? Does anyone? What does this prove?

quote:
And when has one "left"? For example, I know a number of couples who are divorced but share a house for financial reasons. Without the divorce, when is the court to regard that relationship and its rights and liabilities to have ended? Is it to get into the last time they actually slept in the same bed? When they went away to stay with family for a few nights?

As I said, either you come to a mutual decision or the courts rule. Same as with people who are officially married.
I don't know how divorce works where you are, but here you have to be separated for one year before you can get officially divorced. Which means a married couple face exactly the same list of questions you have above re when the separation 'officially' started.

quote:
If you want the rights of marriage, get married. People have the right to make legal agreements between themselves, it is an oppressive system that reads into their behaviour legal commitments they have not made.

It is an oppressive system. But it is only when things get nasty that the system need intrude. And if things do go south, it doesn't matter whether you are married or not, you will feel the force of that oppression.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The social sciences tend to lean to the left, but whether the researchers are on the left or the right doesn't really impinge on the statistics here.

Nice articles and good comments. I agree that the relative consistency of these findings is striking, despite people's personal views and despite the growing popularity of cohabitation. It's just information, and the willingness of people to report the information is commendable - if it is in fact accurate.

In the long run I think people will do whatever the long term research shows is the best way to go. On the other hand, that is not always the case...

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
It is an oppressive system. But it is only when things get nasty that the system need intrude. And if things do go south, it doesn't matter whether you are married or not, you will feel the force of that oppression.

Well yes, there's no way to break up any relationship without pain. But take the medical example that was used upthread, which is not about breakups. If you are married you become someone's next of kin. That's not the type of legal commitment I think should be read into anyone's relationship de facto.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

My partner and I have been together for six years now. We consider ourselves married, and our friends/pastor consider us married even though our nation and state do not.

But we are heading across the border fairly soon to be married legally in Canada -- even though, at least for the foreseeable future, that act has no validity on this side of the border -- conveys us no rights or responsibilities. (We have piecemealed an assortment of legal documents like powers of attorney and wills to protect one another in some ways...but of course we have no rights to one another's pensions or insurances or anything else.)

So why bother?

I think, as others have noted, it involves a public expression of our pre-existing commitment to one another. And we also wanted the significance of getting married where our relationship is acknowledged by the entire nation, not just a particular state; we appreciate the dignity and respect given to us.

And as a practical matter -- since the US military is slowly beginning to recognize same-sex partnerships (or at least not punish them), we are looking forward to a day when I can share spouse's benefits with DP; and having an official marriage license, even from another country, I think is prudent as a means of providing proof of our relationship. The other day we were wondering about things like burial in a veterans' cemetery, and if under current rules I could be buried next to DP.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Or, give equal legal status to de-facto relationships of a certain length - as per my earlier post.

So if I've been living with someone for (say) three years, they suddenly become my next of kin, get the right to my money and power over my treatment in hospital? No thanks! Even assuming that we're talking about a genuine girlfriend rather than a flatmate turned gold-digger, your system basically forces marriage after X years living together. What if I don't feel ready, or just don't want to get married? I'll have the choice between being locked in by default or breaking up with my hypothetical girlfriend, who is hypothetically lovely even if I don't want her to become my hypothetical wife just yet.

It's very simple: if you want the level of commitment and protection of marriage, get married. If you don't, then don't. The choice is entirely yours.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
It is an oppressive system. But it is only when things get nasty that the system need intrude. And if things do go south, it doesn't matter whether you are married or not, you will feel the force of that oppression.
Well yes, there's no way to break up any relationship without pain. But take the medical example that was used upthread, which is not about breakups. If you are married you become someone's next of kin. That's not the type of legal commitment I think should be read into anyone's relationship de facto.

If you are talking about Gramps49's story, I have already conceded that is a pragmatic reason to get married. Were you to ask me in that case if the partner should have had next of kin status, even though the couple were not married, I would say yes without hesitation. Just because things are as they are, doesn't mean they should be.

[ 30. August 2012, 16:00: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Or, give equal legal status to de-facto relationships of a certain length - as per my earlier post.
So if I've been living with someone for (say) three years, they suddenly your system basically forces marriage after X years living together.

This is what happened in God's Own Country many years ago and I was furious; having particularly thoughtfully decided not to marry for reasons only a late 1970's - early 1980's feminist could understand. And suffered the social and ecclesiastical consequences for doing it. Only to find every Thomasina, Dickette and Harriet now doing the same thing and getting prizes for it (if you call a mortgage a prize)
Now, in God's (other) Own Country I am forbidden to marry as we are of different religions and there is no civil marriage. I feel so lucky! The Established Order played right into my hands! For once!

27 wonderful years, 3 grown children and counting.

Choose your path and stick to it, I say.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Or, give equal legal status to de-facto relationships of a certain length - as per my earlier post.
So if I've been living with someone for (say) three years, they suddenly become my next of kin, get the right to my money and power over my treatment in hospital? No thanks!

So you would prefer that someone who you haven't been living with for three years to have that status?

quote:
Even assuming that we're talking about a genuine girlfriend rather than a flatmate turned gold-digger,

Probably the only appropriate response to this is [Roll Eyes]

quote:
your system basically forces marriage after X years living together.

No, it acknowledges that a significant and lasting relationship exists, and that the partners in it have obligations and responsibilities.

quote:
What if I don't feel ready, or just don't want to get married? I'll have the choice between being locked in by default or breaking up with my hypothetical girlfriend, who is hypothetically lovely even if I don't want her to become my hypothetical wife just yet.

I feel for these hypothetical commitment-phobes whoever they are. They bear little resemblance to the couple in the OP. And if you're suggesting that the legal ceremony of marriage would keep this hypothetical couple you are describing together, I call bullshit.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Why get married? To protect your rights as a lifelong partner.
Or, give equal legal status to de-facto relationships of a certain length - as per my earlier post.

And short of some kind of documentation, how is it to be known who has a relationship of that length?

Also, what Leprechaun said.

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Right. And as I said all the way back in the OP, the couple are already committed to each other. The proof of commitment are in the fruits, surely. Staying together means you are committed. A $30k party, a big white dress and a gold ring do not.
I have found the pragmatic suggestions convincing, and the ones that suggest that marriage signal commitment far less so.

This is surely a big, fat red herring. It's not the $30k party, big white dress, or gold ring that make you married. My son just got married and they had none of the above.

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Or, give equal legal status to de-facto relationships of a certain length - as per my earlier post.
So if I've been living with someone for (say) three years, they suddenly become my next of kin, get the right to my money and power over my treatment in hospital? No thanks!
So you would prefer that someone who you haven't been living with for three years to have that status?

Whoa, non sequitur on the half-shell! What s/he wants from a non-cohabitant is completely irrelevant to what s/he doesn't want from a cohabitant. This logical fallacy is far beneath you.

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
And if you're suggesting that the legal ceremony of marriage would keep this hypothetical couple you are describing together, I call bullshit.

Another non sequitur. Nobody but NOBODY here is suggesting a marriage certificate is glue for a crumbling relationship. Nobody. Not anybody. Why even bring it up? Just for the emotional charge you get by defeating this particular straw man? Again, you're better than this.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

quote:
The choice is entirely yours.

Well, in one respect the choice ISN'T entirely ours for some of us thanks to our respective governments and/or church bodies. But in our household we are making the choice to "live boldly," as the saying goes, into the kind of society we want to be part of, as an officially committed couple...even if some of the folks back home don't understand/don't approve.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Right. And as I said all the way back in the OP, the couple are already committed to each other. The proof of commitment are in the fruits, surely. Staying together means you are committed. A $30k party, a big white dress and a gold ring do not.
I have found the pragmatic suggestions convincing, and the ones that suggest that marriage signal commitment far less so.
This is surely a big, fat red herring. It's not the $30k party, big white dress, or gold ring that make you married. My son just got married and they had none of the above.

Congrats! I mean that sincerely, though given the context I would understand if you didn't believe me.

The party sentence is hyperbole, I grant you. But it is not my main point, which is not a red herring. The fruits of commitment are in the committing, not in the signaling.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Or, give equal legal status to de-facto relationships of a certain length - as per my earlier post.
So if I've been living with someone for (say) three years, they suddenly become my next of kin, get the right to my money and power over my treatment in hospital? No thanks!
So you would prefer that someone who you haven't been living with for three years to have that status?
Whoa, non sequitur on the half-shell! What s/he wants from a non-cohabitant is completely irrelevant to what s/he doesn't want from a cohabitant. This logical fallacy is far beneath you.

Of course. More like a silly joke really. But DS's expression did strike me as odd. If I had been in a committed relationship with someone for three years, I would certainly want them to have next of kin status. Gramps' post indicates that they would not, however.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
And if you're suggesting that the legal ceremony of marriage would keep this hypothetical couple you are describing together, I call bullshit.
Another non sequitur. Nobody but NOBODY here is suggesting a marriage certificate is glue for a crumbling relationship. Nobody. Not anybody. Why even bring it up? Just for the emotional charge you get by defeating this particular straw man? Again, you're better than this.

Yeah, fair call.

Etf: code

[ 30. August 2012, 16:57: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
If I had been in a committed relationship with someone for three years, I would certainly want them to have next of kin status.

Then why not sign the papers? There's your good reason.

ETA: I should think that next-of-kin status is something for a couple to decide, not the faceless mechanisms of a governmental sunset clause. What is the right number of years? 3? 4? 2? If, sociologically, there is a large number of people who bail at 5 1/2 years, should the bar bet set at 6? Should the bar be moved if the bail zone moves?

How much easier to just leave it up to the people involved. If you want next-of-kin status, sign the ****ing papers. If you don't, don't.

[ 30. August 2012, 16:55: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:

quote:
The choice is entirely yours.
Well, in one respect the choice ISN'T entirely ours for some of us thanks to our respective governments and/or church bodies. But in our household we are making the choice to "live boldly," as the saying goes, into the kind of society we want to be part of, as an officially committed couple...even if some of the folks back home don't understand/don't approve.

The choice is indeed yours - it's just that "living boldly" (love that phrase btw )requires a whole load of courage, creativity and stamina that being "normative' doesn't. Not to mention foregoing all sorts of social approval and material support.
I don't want to say aloud "If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen" but sometimes in the dark of night (actual or metaphorical night) I admit that I think it...

[ 30. August 2012, 16:56: Message edited by: Galilit ]

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

I should think that next-of-kin status is something for a couple to decide, not the faceless mechanisms of a governmental sunset clause.

Yes. I can see how we may be coming at from opposite directions. From my point of view, commitment without marriage means (among other things) that the state has as little involvement with what is a private matter as possible. When contact with the state becomes unavoidable, then you find ways to deal with that. To my mind, a form in which you nominate your next of kin is simpler than getting married, even without the big party.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
I can see how we may be coming at from opposite directions. From my point of view, commitment without marriage means (among other things) that the state has as little involvement with what is a private matter as possible.

Good point. It seems to depend on what problem we are trying to solve. I doubt most people worry much about who will be named next of kin at the hospital.

To me the better indicators are the statistical ones about trends involving millions of people. They give me an idea of what the chances are in any particular case - allowing for the fact that every case is different and may or may not follow the trend.

I expect that the shared goal of everyone is happy and stable relationships, both for our own welfare and that of our communities, friends, and families.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Good point. It seems to depend on what problem we are trying to solve. I doubt most people worry much about who will be named next of kin at the hospital.

But that's part of what worries me about most of the couples I know who refuse marriage for various reasons: they aren't worrying about who will be named next of kin at the hospital, or what might happen if one of them dies in an accident, etc. I know that it's possible to create a lot of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage in other ways (and that for gay couples it's frequently a necessity), but they aren't doing that either...

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

What mousethief said.

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Even assuming that we're talking about a genuine girlfriend rather than a flatmate turned gold-digger,
Probably the only appropriate response to this is

So how do you distinguish between a committed romantic relationship and a three year flatshare? You've got to do it in a way that will satisfy the lawyers, remember. It could be a recipe for a whole load of heartache. Much simpler, don't you think, to have a form that people can decide to sign if they want to say that they want to share their lives?

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
So how do you distinguish between a committed romantic relationship and a three year flatshare? You've got to do it in a way that will satisfy the lawyers, remember.

Separate sleeping quarters (ie. the flat needs to have 2 bedrooms), evidence of equal sharing of rent and utilities, and no major household purchases made in common (don't buy a tv or a car together).

For a committed romantic relationship - the opposite of the above, plus joint bank accounts and utilities. Listing each other as emergency contacts and next of kin. If you can wrangle couple photos that will help, plus statements from mutual friends to the veracity of the relationship, and maybe in this day and age, logs of internet chat, phone call records.

(My dad worked in immigration compliance. For them, simply getting married was NOT sufficient proof of a committed romantic relationship!!)

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I didn't post on this topic earlier, feeling that my view would be so obvious because of my life choices. I was married fairly young and have been with my wife for 30 some years, depending on whether we take the period of together-but-no-married into account. It was in a time where living together was not so common, the law specified that she change her last name unless a fee was paid, and clear discrimination on common-law, not officially married couples was the rule, e.g., renting an apartment (flat). We went with the times.

But it did mean something. To be in a church with family and friends. To publicly declare that we would be together. There's something about it that I clearly recall, beyond the words, of feeling, and meaning. I have always felt a little inwardly offended and 'they don't get it' (kept myself always) when people have said 'I(we) don't need a piece of paper to prove something to others', 'it's not necessary to do marriage in modern society', etc.

Maybe it's a bit of a take on the psychology of people. We are capable of many things as humans, and exclusiveness to one partner in a relationship is one of them. But we are only capable. There is no guarantee, any more than there is a guarantee that we won't choose to violence over peace, kindness over exploitation, tolerance over racism. Civilization is a thin veneer and we have to take the time to assert control over ourselves and to make declarations of principle. In times of troubles between us, we have definitely drawn on the fact that we are married.

Yes, the business side of life, the acquisition of material good, and the division of property in divorce is made clearer by marriage than living together. As is the status of children, roles in medical emergencies, other things. These are all perhaps important, but not so important as the commitment to a human bond to another person.

I've developed a take on the marital promises over the years also. First, that promising something actually does mean something to people who take others seriously. The promises are meant to signify that the couple will work through problems with honesty. Second, the promises are also threats. For example: "until death us do part". If you have children together, it really doesn't matter if you separate, divorce or remarry. You have kids with this person, you are a couple insofar as the children are concerned (and grandchildren), and family, even if a "two place family" for them. For all time.

I'm not saying in any of this that it is necessarily wrong not to be married and to be what we call a common-law couple, but there are serious things about marriage, different than c-l. And there is also the spiritual dimension, but others have posted about that.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Immigration pisses me off. What the hell business is it of theirs if I choose to marry someone in a parental arrangement, say, possibly 40 years older, and with the true intention of staying together but not with a bloody "romantic" relationship? It should be enough for them that I'm not committing marriage fraud (by selling my marital citizenship access).

These idiots are so paranoid, they don't even always accept a ceremony plus the birth of a child together.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
These idiots are so paranoid, they don't even always accept a ceremony plus the birth of a child together.

Ahem. There's quite a lot of immigration fraud out there though.

And in my opinion if they are going to privilege couples/partners/spouses then they do have a responsibility to ensure that the marriages/relationships are genuine and not people taking the piss.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Ahem. I work with immigrants every day, I do know that. We sort out the consequences all the time, muttering under our breath.

But if someone produces legal paperwork/proof of traditionally accepted rite AND a child together, immigration needs to fuck off. And if anyone is so daft or mad as to sell their body and at least two years of their life for the sake of a green card, I'd say they done earned it. But snooping through people's love letters etc is just not on.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
From my point of view, commitment without marriage means (among other things) that the state has as little involvement with what is a private matter as possible. When contact with the state becomes unavoidable, then you find ways to deal with that. To my mind, a form in which you nominate your next of kin is simpler than getting married, even without the big party.

In France, they have an official alternative to marriage, called the PACs. Comments on the internet indicate that it provides some of the benefits of marriage, but it's easier to get out of - which suggests that a 'pacsed' relationship is psychologically different from a marriage.

In China, a wedding 'ceremony' apparently isn't required - registering a marriage is a bureaucratic issue. A celebration may be arranged privately by the couple if they want one later.

The current legal attempts in England to obtain formal state protection for cohabiting couples and their children are likely to be fraught with difficulties. Some individuals would like such protection, but others absolutely would not; they prefer cohabitation to marriage precisely because it places no (or very few) formal responsibilities upon them. But the next of kin, in the UK that doesn't seem to be a serious issue. I've never heard of an unmarried couple being kept apart if one of them has to go to hospital. It might be a problem if one of them dies, but again, it's not something that seems to make the news here, though making a will is probably wise. I think the authorities are so used to people presenting 'partners' rather than spouses that it's not something they make a fuss about. And the extended family isn't a strong unit here, so family members are unlikely to barge in and lay down the law with a cohabiting partner. It must happen occasionally, though.

[ 30. August 2012, 23:18: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But the next of kin, in the UK that doesn't seem to be a serious issue. I've never heard of an unmarried couple being kept apart if one of them has to go to hospital. It might be a problem if one of them dies, but again, it's not something that seems to make the news here, though making a will is probably wise. I think the authorities are so used to people presenting 'partners' rather than spouses that it's not something they make a fuss about. And the extended family isn't a strong unit here, so family members are unlikely to barge in and lay down the law with a cohabiting partner. It must happen occasionally, though.

But are unmarried partners in the UK allowed to make end-of-life decisions, absence a living will, over the objections of formally recognized next-of-kin such as parents? That's generally when it gets dicey.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I don't get it. Why not just get married if one wants the legal rights of marriage?

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't get it. Why not just get married if one wants the legal rights of marriage?

Wow. That is romantic. Tone it down, champ, or I will be putty in your hands.

Have waded through the papers Svetlana posted links to. As you noted, they do indicate that cohabitating couples are more likely to split, but they don't rest there (and good sociology should not). This is from the first linked paper:

quote:
According to the IFS's findings, parents who were cohabiting when their child was born were three times more likely to split up by the time their child was five than married parents (27% compared to 9%).
However they were also typically younger, less well off, less likely to own their own homes, have fewer educational qualifications and were less likely to plan their pregnancies than married people. Once the differences between the two groups were accounted for, the difference in the likelihood of separation reduced to two percentage points.

The couple in the OP are mid-thirties, have no children as of yet, a mortgage, pets, and are reasonably financially secure. And uni educated to post-graduate level.

[ 30. August 2012, 23:45: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

Sorry I messed up your name, SvitlanaV2.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Wow. That is romantic. Tone it down, champ, or I will be putty in your hands.

Don't lookit me. I still take the religious line about living in sin and letting no man put asunder and all that.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But are unmarried partners in the UK allowed to make end-of-life decisions, absence a living will, over the objections of formally recognized next-of-kin such as parents? That's generally when it gets dicey.

To be honest, I don't know. But it seems not to be such a big issue here. As I say, I think it's because British families have a 'let's not interfere' kind of approach. Cohabitation and divorce have been significant in British life for at least two generations now; many older
couples will have been divorced, or living with someone, so they can't necessarily take the moral high ground line when it comes to how their children are living.

Parents/siblings may want to participate in a funeral, but will ultimately defer to the partner, I think. Funerals aren't a huge thing here. People like the option of turning up and saying a few words, but unless the deceased was one of those larger-than-life people who want their funeral/memorial service to be a big party, most families won't really have much idea about hymns and Bible readings, and will be quite happy for someone else to think about those things.

I suspect that lawyers do all they can to ensure that there's provision for the long-term partner left behind in the event of a death. Apparently, the Inheritance Act of 1975 offers some provision for partners who were financially dependent on the deceased person, so long as they put in a claim quickly. If family members disapprove, it's probably for the simple reason that they'd like to get their hands on the money for themselves. But that kind of conflict can happen even if there's a will, and even if cohabitation isn't in the equation.

There's a high rate of cohabitation in the UK, and all over Europe, so it's likely that governments have made some adjustments to deal with these kinds of situations.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Hey, LC, wait until the election in November then come out to Washington State. Marriage Equality looks as if it is going to win. Besides, I have long wanted to meet you and your spouse.

Of course, Washington weather in November is very similar to Michigan's.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't get it. Why not just get married if one wants the legal rights of marriage?
Wow. That is romantic. Tone it down, champ, or I will be putty in your hands.

He wasn't talking about romance. He was talking about legal rights. Once again you follow through with a non sequitur.

[ 31. August 2012, 03:10: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Thanks, Gramps! Although we're going in the opposite direction on the map this fall.;-)

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

Right. And once again, you ignore the substantive point I make in a post to focus on one throwaway line.

[x-post - that was for MT]

[ 31. August 2012, 03:14: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I didn't see any substantive point in that piece of snark. Maybe you could rephrase?

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

Yeah ... Nah. Maybe if I repost you will spot it. It's right after what you focused on.

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't get it. Why not just get married if one wants the legal rights of marriage?
Wow. That is romantic. Tone it down, champ, or I will be putty in your hands.

Have waded through the papers Svetlana posted links to. As you noted, they do indicate that cohabitating couples are more likely to split, but they don't rest there (and good sociology should not). This is from the first linked paper:

quote:
According to the IFS's findings, parents who were cohabiting when their child was born were three times more likely to split up by the time their child was five than married parents (27% compared to 9%).
However they were also typically younger, less well off, less likely to own their own homes, have fewer educational qualifications and were less likely to plan their pregnancies than married people. Once the differences between the two groups were accounted for, the difference in the likelihood of separation reduced to two percentage points.
The couple in the OP are mid-thirties, have no children as of yet, a mortgage, pets, and are reasonably financially secure. And uni educated to post-graduate level.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
It's very simple: if you want the level of commitment and protection of marriage, get married. If you don't, then don't. The choice is entirely yours.

Without wanting to spend too much time in Dead Horse territory, there have been several posts along these lines.

And sorry, but for some of us the choice most definitely is NOT entirely ours. I am one of those people. I have vague hopes that if my recently started, so far brilliant relationship continues and develops and deepens, the laws of my country might have caught up by the time I want to make that choice.

As it stands, though, if he said "will you marry me", my response would be "you know perfectly well that I'm not allowed".

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

I should think that next-of-kin status is something for a couple to decide, not the faceless mechanisms of a governmental sunset clause.
Yes. I can see how we may be coming at from opposite directions. From my point of view, commitment without marriage means (among other things) that the state has as little involvement with what is a private matter as possible. When contact with the state becomes unavoidable, then you find ways to deal with that. To my mind, a form in which you nominate your next of kin is simpler than getting married, even without the big party.

Fundamentally that comes down to the basic question: do you want other people to recognise your relationship?

If the answer is generally no, then it makes sense to not be bothered with marriage. But people shouldn't be surprised, in that case, that on the occasions when they DO want their relationship to be recognised, it takes more effort to establish that the relationship does in fact exist, because it hasn't already been 'vetted'.

Really it's no different to a myriad of other situations. We have forms of ID that are readily accepted by people who didn't issue them. We accept credit cards as an indication of a person's ability to pay for goods and services. If someone has a licence/registration to do something, our starting assumption is that their basic competence has been assessed.

[ 31. August 2012, 04:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

I agree that this is a logical reason to get married. I conceded as much some time ago.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

If I may make so bold as to summarise as I see it the action so far:

Convincing arguments (to me, anyway) in favour of getting married:

The health benefits of being formally married, as outlined in the paper HRB linked to. Comparable to the benefit of giving up smoking. No causation was demonstrated, but the correlation is so compelling as to be convincing. At least to me.
The requirement, in an emergency or critical situation, to be formally acknowledged as next-of-kin. Gramps49's disturbing story, along with the logic presented by a number of shipmates on this point, tipped me in that direction. Though I still think signing a form stating such and such is your next of kin should (even if it isn't) be a simple solution to this.

I conceded at this point that there clearly are logical reasons to get married. However, I mused that this is not an ideal situation, and wondered if others were satisfied with this basically pragmatic rationale for getting married.

Less convincing/unconvincing arguments (again to me):

Non-critical formal status, so that if a marriage/union ends everyone knows where they stand in relation to property, the courts etc. As I pointed out at the time, while I see the utility of this, in the vast majority of splits couples sort this stuff out like adults, with minimal involvement from state machines like the Family courts. For the exceptions (and my own divorce was one), things are going to get messy, everything will be disputed and rights and obligations that one or both parties thought existed will be challenged and/or discarded, regardless of whether or not one is married.
Signalling of commitment. This is one where I keep getting into strife, as some of you have pointed out (correctly) that I am conflating posts about commencing commitment with a guarantee that people will stay together. My bad. However, I still find this unconvincing as a reason to marry. The legal/religious ceremony involved in formal marriage logically takes place as a signal of commitment at the start of that commitment, or at least as some of you have theorised at a new level of that commitment. A perhaps more teleological view of commitment, which I suspect I share with the couple in the OP, is that commitment is more adequately signaled by remaining together. Hence their statement 'We have been together for eight years - we are committed to each other.' I can see the point being made is that a wedding is signalling at the outset that one intends to be committed, but to my mind actually staying together is a much stronger signal of commitment.
To avoid 'living in sin.' Maybe I just don't get it. I haven't been able to find that phrase anywhere in the Scriptures.

You would not believe how many times I misspelled 'commitment' prior to preview posting. I clearly have a problem.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
If I may make so bold as to summarise as I see it the action so far:

Seems to me like you've done a reasonable job. I want to pick up on a couple of particular ones...

quote:

Signalling of commitment. This is one where I keep getting into strife, as some of you have pointed out (correctly) that I am conflating posts about commencing commitment with a guarantee that people will stay together. My bad. However, I still find this unconvincing as a reason to marry. The legal/religious ceremony involved in formal marriage logically takes place as a signal of commitment at the start of that commitment, or at least as some of you have theorised at a new level of that commitment. A perhaps more teleological view of commitment, which I suspect I share with the couple in the OP, is that commitment is more adequately signaled by remaining together. Hence their statement 'We have been together for eight years - we are committed to each other.' I can see the point being made is that a wedding is signalling at the outset that one intends to be committed, but to my mind actually staying together is a much stronger signal of commitment.

Hmm. Really it depends on what you mean by 'signal'. Marriage is basically a declaration of intent. It's not a 'sign' in the sense of EVIDENCE of commitment.

Whether it's seen in legal terms as a contract, or you are simply thinking about marriage vows, the point is that promises are being made. It's not so much a sign of commitment as a promise to be committed.

(any potential for a joke there is intentional)

quote:

To avoid 'living in sin.' Maybe I just don't get it. I haven't been able to find that phrase anywhere in the Scriptures.

Correct. There was a news story some years ago when the Uniting Church expressly got rid of the phrase 'living in sin'. The rationale being that sexual sin wasn't inherently any more sinful than all the other kinds of sin that people were 'living' in.

"To avoid sinning" would be a more accurate expression of the idea.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Not so much a signal of commitment as a declaration of commitment. It's a "we hereby." A speech act.

For a cohabitating couple that never buys a house or reproduces, when have they declared commitment? When they first move in? after a year? two? five? Are they committed? Is one committed and the other not?

Marriage is a declaration of commitment, a declaration made to one another, and to the world.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

On the PACS in France - it was originally brought in for homosexual couples, although the majority of people getting these days are heterosexuals. It offers some, but not all, the protections of marriage (less rights in relation to children, IIRC).

In the case of at least one (straight) couple I know, the reason they decided to get one was that, despite being ideologically opposed to marriage, they had the good sense to realise that if one of them died, they didn't want the other one to end up homeless.

I think the reason a lot of younger people, especially, don't get any formalisation of their relationship is that they don't like to think about grisly things like what would happen if one of them died.

Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
[QB] On the PACS in France - it was originally brought in for homosexual couples, although the majority of people getting these days are heterosexuals. It offers some, but not all, the protections of marriage (less rights in relation to children, IIRC).
/QB]

That sounds interesting. Do you think many people who get a PACS later "upgrade" to a marriage?

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:

[*]The requirement, in an emergency or critical situation, to be formally acknowledged as next-of-kin. Gramps49's disturbing story, along with the logic presented by a number of shipmates on this point, tipped me in that direction. Though I still think signing a form stating such and such is your next of kin should (even if it isn't) be a simple solution to this.

I think this issue is more complex than than that if the alternative is de facto relationships. In that situation I think there are lots of people I know who could have said to have been living together for several years who would be horrified (as would their families) for the law to be implying next of kin responsibilities, shared financial arrangements and debt liabilities, etc. So it's more to do with what the alternatives are to marriage, rather than simply a problem that can be solved with signing a next of kin form.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
So how do you distinguish between a committed romantic relationship and a three year flatshare? You've got to do it in a way that will satisfy the lawyers, remember.
Separate sleeping quarters (ie. the flat needs to have 2 bedrooms), evidence of equal sharing of rent and utilities, and no major household purchases made in common (don't buy a tv or a car together).

For a committed romantic relationship - the opposite of the above, plus joint bank accounts and utilities. Listing each other as emergency contacts and next of kin. If you can wrangle couple photos that will help, plus statements from mutual friends to the veracity of the relationship, and maybe in this day and age, logs of internet chat, phone call records.

That all sounds like more grist to the lawyers' mill. Much easier than that: how about you just sign the papers? This comes with the added advantage that if you don't want all the commitments that go with marriage, you can avoid them very easily by simply not signing.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Yeah ... Nah. Maybe if I repost you will spot it. It's right after what you focused on.

You didn't answer my question. You seem to be proposing that certain couples in a committed relationship want and deserve the legal rights of marriage without actually getting married.

I am taking their romantic feelings for granted here. It just seems to me that if they want the legal rights, all they have to do is sign the documents that obtain the legal rights they desire. It's not the system (except in the case of gay couples) that is depriving them of these rights. It's their own refusal to sign a few documents.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
A perhaps more teleological view of commitment, which I suspect I share with the couple in the OP, is that commitment is more adequately signaled by remaining together. Hence their statement 'We have been together for eight years - we are committed to each other.' I can see the point being made is that a wedding is signalling at the outset that one intends to be committed, but to my mind actually staying together is a much stronger signal of commitment.

It's stronger, sure--but it's far less useful, because it isn't there at the time when you need it, for example, when you are attempting to decide whether to issue this couple a home loan, or who to send Johnny home with after school when his ride fails to materialize, or whether to pick up on that "maybe" invitation you saw in X's eyes across your desk this morning. Take it to an extreme and the truest proof of commitment is actually staying together till death do you part, but that's also the least useful, as most decisions-based-on-commitment-level require making while both partners are still alive.

There's also the fact that marriage is binary. Either you are or you aren't. But "commitment" in a non-marriage situation is a spectrum, mostly invisible at that, and even the two participants must take on trust the other person's statement of where he/she falls on that spectrum. And the minute person X ceases to be committed, X is also highly highly motivated to lie about that fact. So Y is living in a dreamworld for quite some time, until truth forces its way into the situation (usually through a painful emotional shock), and during all that time Y is making decisions based on a wrong reading of commitment level.

Now this betrayal can of course happen in a legal marriage as well. But there are at least certain mechanisms of enforcement, legal and otherwise, for the betrayed Y. But in the average nonmarried situation X has only to say "You misread me, baby, I was never that in to you," and even if it's a total lie, what can you do about it? Screw whatever promises X made previously, such as "if you agree to the move, I'll take care of the house payment out of my salary, and you won't have to worry about leaving your current job behind." They're not enforceable, unless you got them on a legal instrument. And most people don't--because any number of people have self-righteous hissy fits about being asked to sign legal agreements to the benefit of people they currently claim to love.

Which is maybe all to say that the commitment without legal marriage thing is fine provided you can both guarantee that you will in fact both remain committed at that level until the day you die . And that you can both commit your heirs and successors to behave decently as well, AFTER you are dead--and my experience is not too happy in this area.

I suspect one reason marriage endures as well as it does in Western lands is that somehow it has pulled off the neat trick of being a major, major legal arrangement while still being shrouded in a haze of romance. Which means people get protected against each other right at the time when they'd swear most strongly they needed no such protection. A series of trips to a lawyer to draw up a cohabitation agreement has no such softening haze about it.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
This comes with the added advantage that if you don't want all the commitments that go with marriage, you can avoid them very easily by simply not signing

Because marriage is such a commitment these days.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
On the PACS in France - it was originally brought in for homosexual couples, although the majority of people getting these days are heterosexuals. It offers some, but not all, the protections of marriage (less rights in relation to children, IIRC).
That sounds interesting. Do you think many people who get a PACS later "upgrade" to a marriage?

Not that I know of. It's usually seen as an alternative to marriage. My experience is that it is usually entered into for pragmatic reasons (keeping the house if someone dies, tax breaks...)

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
The following is from page 9 of the paper Honest Ron linked to, and is convincing:

quote:
Looking across the literature, is cohabitation as good as having the band of gold itself? It seems not.
The paper documents the myriad health benefits of being married, over being single, cohabiting or divorced/separated. What is clear, however, is that causality is not demonstrated, only correlation. The authors admit as much, on page 21:

quote:
If we accept from all this statistical evidence that human beings gain some kind of protective effect from marriage, how are those benefits actually transmitted? The answer is not yet known.
And again on page 23:

quote:
Married people live longer and are healthier. What is less clear is whether this pattern in the data tells us something reliable about what marriage does to health.
That being said, as correlation goes it is pretty damn impressive. That, together with Gramps49's disturbing story, has demonstrated to me that there may in fact be several logical reasons to marry.

We still don't know if it is strictly marriage that provides the health benefits though. The better health of married people seems to be partly from obvious practical advantages - there is someone else around to help if you get sick or have an accident or whatever. That would work for any cohabiting couple. Or even flatsharerers who spent a lot of time together. But its partly from the huge psychological benefits of being in a family, feeling loved, having a sexual partner, and so on. And its impossible, I think, to be sure if legal marriage as such helps even more. Because it might be that those people who are more likely to commit to each other for a long haul, who are less likely to walk out when times get hard, are also more likely to want legal marriage.

From a selfish point of view what you want is a partner who will love you and never leave you. Perhaps it is the case that if you are lucky enough to find such a person (and the statistical evidence seems to be that about half the popularion are, because even with the simple quick divorces we have now over half of marriages stay together), if you can find such a person, then you have already got whyat you are looking for and in practical health terms the lkegal marriage adds nothing to it. But that person is maybe also more likely tobe the sort of person whoi wants to get married, IYSWIM. So marriage is a clue that the relationship might be a permanent one, but is not the cause of that permanence. The kind of people who woudl be able to marry and li ve togehter for life might also have been ale to live together for life if they had not married.

But its hard to see how we could prove that either way. What questions would you ask? Would people even be aware of the answers? How many 18 or 25 year olds know whether they will in the end turn out to be the kind of people who are capable of sustaining a long-term relationship? Does anyone at all of any age know whether their intended partner will be that kid of person? You'd have to be a time-traveller as well as a mind-reader and both of those are rare on the ground.

quote:

So, any of you single female shipmates who are not batshit crazy, please form an orderly line ...

It is unfortunately true that the health benefits of marriage are greater for men than women. Much greater. As are the financial benefits. We've got huge statistical evidence for that. So in these pragmatic terms, you'd be doing her a favour but she'd be doing you a much bigger one.

quote:

But, before we close this thread and go on our way rejoicing, I wonder if this, basically pragmatic rationale, for getting married is satisfying to all of you. It seems likely to me that many of the health affects (particularly the psychological ones) in the study are a result of the shape of Western society, which still privileges the married state over the unmarried.

I think that is probably nonsense. It lseems pretty clear that living with someone who loves you and cares for you and helps you would be good for your health. It would be weird if that wasn't the case.

Also - though this is a bit dodgier - the usual stereotype of our society is that the social pressure on women to get married and have children is greater than that on men. Personally I'm not at all sure its true, but it is commonly believed. But we know that men benefit more from marriage than women. (On average, on the whole, with many individual exceptions of course) And we know that men suffer worse psychologically (if not financially) from divorce and bereavement than women do. We really do have good figures for that because we keep statistics on deaths. And a disporoportionate number of men die soon after divorce or bereavment than women do. Of all sorts of causes. inclusing diseases and accidents and suicide. If it was true tht the social pressure to be married is greater for women, then that is a big clue that the psychological benefits of marriage are not primarily due to that pressure.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's stronger, sure--but it's far less useful, because it isn't there at the time when you need it, for example, when you are attempting to decide whether to issue this couple a home loan, or who to send Johnny home with after school when his ride fails to materialize, or whether to pick up on that "maybe" invitation you saw in X's eyes across your desk this morning. Take it to an extreme and the truest proof of commitment is actually staying together till death do you part, but that's also the least useful, as most decisions-based-on-commitment-level require making while both partners are still alive.

I am very confused by this line of reasoning. The examples are not very good. Banks deal with the home loan issue several hundred times a day; ask Johnny who his Mum or Dad is if you're unsure; commitment would preclude infidelity, married or not. I agree that something similar to the old Calvinist idea of preservation is the only way of finally measuring commitment - did they actually endure to the end. I don't see that getting married or not solves that conundrum.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped: There's also the fact that marriage is binary. Either you are or you aren't. But "commitment" in a non-marriage situation is a spectrum, mostly invisible at that, and even the two participants must take on trust the other person's statement of where he/she falls on that spectrum. And the minute person X ceases to be committed, X is also highly highly motivated to lie about that fact. So Y is living in a dreamworld for quite some time, until truth forces its way into the situation (usually through a painful emotional shock), and during all that time Y is making decisions based on a wrong reading of commitment level.

You seem to be working with some ideal types here. Again, I find this baffling. I would expect that any couple, married or not, would have to work out between them where boundaries are - what constitutes betrayal to one may not to the other, and communication is the only way to circumnavigate that. I don't agree at all that marriage is a binary - all relationships are on your 'spectrum.'

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped: Now this betrayal can of course happen in a legal marriage as well. But there are at least certain mechanisms of enforcement, legal and otherwise, for the betrayed Y. But in the average nonmarried situation X has only to say "You misread me, baby, I was never that in to you," and even if it's a total lie, what can you do about it? Screw whatever promises X made previously, such as "if you agree to the move, I'll take care of the house payment out of my salary, and you won't have to worry about leaving your current job behind." They're not enforceable, unless you got them on a legal instrument. And most people don't--because any number of people have self-righteous hissy fits about being asked to sign legal agreements to the benefit of people they currently claim to love.

Now we are back to the pragmatics of legal enforcement. As I have said several times, most couples do handle the break up like adults, so courts etc. are not usually involved. Get involved in a nasty split - marriage or no - and some of these legal boundaries are going to be disputed. It is simply not as cut and dried as saying you have legal protections when you are married - lawyers are paid to get around these after all. On a more positive note, the court system is well able to assess the claims made by de facto couples, at least in this country.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped: Which is maybe all to say that the commitment without legal marriage thing is fine provided you can both guarantee that you will in fact both remain committed at that level until the day you die . And that you can both commit your heirs and successors to behave decently as well, AFTER you are dead--and my experience is not too happy in this area.

I'm not going to comment on the last part, mainly because I don't see it's relevance. But as to the first, no one can guarantee that. AFAIAC that is a problem facing both married and unmarried couples.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped: I suspect one reason marriage endures as well as it does in Western lands is that somehow it has pulled off the neat trick of being a major, major legal arrangement while still being shrouded in a haze of romance. Which means people get protected against each other right at the time when they'd swear most strongly they needed no such protection. A series of trips to a lawyer to draw up a cohabitation agreement has no such softening haze about it.

A real protection is actually a pre-nuptial agreement. If marriage was the protection you are indicating, these would be redundant. But I concede there are some protections, particularly in regard to next of kin status.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I'm horrified at the thought of some officious official snooping around people's apartments to make sure they only have one rumpled bed. Talk about your government intrusion. That way madness lies.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
This comes with the added advantage that if you don't want all the commitments that go with marriage, you can avoid them very easily by simply not signing
Because marriage is such a commitment these days.

It is, in fact, a commitment. Just because 50% of couples don't KEEP it, doesn't mean it's not a commitment. A promise is still a promise, even if it's later broken.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
The couple in the OP are mid-thirties, have no children as of yet, a mortgage, pets, and are reasonably financially secure. And uni educated to post-graduate level.

Re the OP: if a couple are fiercely opposed to marriage, then they shouldn't marry! Noone's saying they should be forced to do so. People who have a clear, honest ideological reason for being anti-marriage are probably likely to make more of a success of cohabitation than people who just drift into it, without thinking about the future. But many people do drift into it, which is unfortunate. People drift into marriage too, but neither state should be entered into without serious thought.

Yet, ironically, this couple clearly do see marriage as highly significant, because they desperately want gay people to be able to marry. If marriage is so irrelevant, why is gay marriage so important to them? My own answer to this question is that for people like this, marriage is simply a key battle-ground in the fight for equality; it's not particularly valuable in its own right. If legal and/or socially significant marriages didn't exist, then everyone would be equal, and marriage would be irrelevant - but since marriage does exist, then it has to be extended to gay couples for the sake of equality.

Of course, there's the contrary argument that (depending on the country concerned) marriage confers benefits that everyone should be able to enjoy; but ironically, this couple's choice to remain unmarried on behalf of gay rights undermines the notion that marriage is beneficial. If they can get on just fine without it, then why can't gay people, some might ask?? But I'm ignorant about how things work in Australia. In what sense are they actually depriving themselves by not getting married? Is the next of kin issue the main thing? Have they had to go through the tedious business of making a will? Are they tormented by the disapproval of their grandparents?

I'm not looking for a debate on gay marriage, which isn't allowed here anyway, but your friends' idea that marriage is only valuable if gay people can marry is problematic, it seems to me. What it means is that, if everyone is allowed to marry but noone actually wants to marry, then that's okay, because equality is all that matters. I don't think many Christians will be able to share this point of view, although they may totally agree with the desire for equality.

[ 31. August 2012, 16:09: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

I agree with everything in ken's post, except this:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:

But, before we close this thread and go on our way rejoicing, I wonder if this, basically pragmatic rationale, for getting married is satisfying to all of you. It seems likely to me that many of the health affects (particularly the psychological ones) in the study are a result of the shape of Western society, which still privileges the married state over the unmarried.
I think that is probably nonsense. It lseems pretty clear that living with someone who loves you and cares for you and helps you would be good for your health. It would be weird if that wasn't the case.

You have completely missed my point. Living with someone who loves you and cares for you etc. can happen with or without marriage. And does. I am saying that if there is such a strong correlation between being married and health (and I already identified that they were not causal), as opposed to simply cohabiting and health, as well as other pragmatic/legal advantages, it is likely that some of these may be because our societies privilege the married state over the cohabiting/other state.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

Probably best to read the whole thread, Svitlana. I addressed that here.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

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 ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

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.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Probably best to read the whole thread, Svitlana. I addressed that here.

Thanks for addressing my first paragraph!

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

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.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

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.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

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.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

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...

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Living with someone who loves you and cares for you etc. can happen with or without marriage.

And it is possible, indeed very healthy for some, to be in a committed relationship but not share flat or a house but live apart.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

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.

Posted by lilyswinburne (# 12934) on :

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?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

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.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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]

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.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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 ]

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

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.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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 ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

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.

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

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,

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

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.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

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.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

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.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

Forgive me for being a quad-posting buffoon, but a friend just showed me
this. Quite good I think.

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

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"?

Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on :

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 ...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

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.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

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?

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

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.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

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.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

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.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

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

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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 ]

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

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.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

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.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

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.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0