Why is marriage considered different than other relationships?

[taylor]

Non married couples who have made life long vows to each other and find themselves in this predicament would have to deal with the same fallout.

 

I agree donnamaybe, but not all cohabitating couples make vows to commit for life.

 

And I agree with Carhill. All married couples deal with both the death of the relationship and also the death of the marriage.

 

There is just something very psychological about failing to keep a promise you made to someone you took very deliberate steps with to show your intent to commit for life. And steps that you took in a very formal way in front of everyone who had faith in you that you would keep that promise.

 

When a cohabitation relationship ends, the couple lets each other down.

 

When a marriage ends, the couple lets each other down, their family and friends down, and God down. A person not only feels like they failed at holding on to the relationship, but failed at marriage itself.

 

I have heard divorced people say, "I'll get into another relationship but I'll never get married again because I suck at it."

 

It's totally a psychological thing.

[complicatedlife]

Cohabitating couples end their relationships by "walking." They don't necessarily have to deal with the psychological fallout of breaking a vow or their failure to follow thru with a promise to commit for life. Of course they mourn the end of the relationship but it's not the same.

 

Married couples have to sever the tie with a formal divorce. They have to deal with the psychological fallout of breaking a vow they made and failing at something they tried to do, ie, make a commitment for life.

 

I was with you until I read this. Having been married for several years and then cohabitating for several years as well, I can say that this is not true.

 

My cohabitating partner and I had a legal domestic partnership for 7 years before I agreed to marry him. Then we were engaged for 1 year. During that time, we shared finances, bought 2 houses together, one of us had a will the other had a living trust that specifically named the other partner as the beneficiary, and our families became enmeshed with each other - his mom and my parents actually did a business venture together. I mourned that relationship deeper as well as longer than my marriage; my husband and I never shared accounts, never owned property together. In the state I live in, there are many couples who live this way - I run across it all the time with my patients. I never thought the day would come where I would feel at peace about ending that situation and relationship, but I do feel that way now. Funny thing is that I felt immediate peace when I ended my marriage!

[taylor]

This is PRECISELY what many of us are talking about here. Someone reading words from a book and signing a document don't make the relationship any more "real," particularly in the case of a wife beating husband as I mentioned before. How "real" is that? Well, real to the woman with the bruises and broken ribs, I suppose, in terms of physical pain, but a relationship like THAT I could do without. And it's so "real" to some on this thread JUST because of the marriage certificate.

 

Donnamaybe,

 

Domestic violence occurs in both married and non-married relationships. In fact, both kinds of relationship arrangements suffer the same issues and conflicts. The kind of problems they face does not hinge on what kind of arrangement they have.

 

But I will venture to say that married folks in the most troubled marriages may go that extra mile to fix the marriage once reminded of their vows. SOME cohabitation couples may do everything they can to fix the relationship before "walking," but there are many who probably don't because 1)it's easier to just walk or 2)they didn't sign on for that level of commitment.

 

A marriage certificate does not make a union more "real", but it does legally make the union more binding, ie, again suggesting the intent to commit for life and the intent to stay together "in good times and bad, for better or worse, in sickness and health, til death."

 

A marriage certificate does not guarantee the quality of a relationship..it only demonstrates the intent to commit for life.

[treyfan88]

This is PRECISELY what many of us are talking about here. Someone reading words from a book and signing a document don't make the relationship any more "real," particularly in the case of a wife beating husband as I mentioned before. How "real" is that? Well, real to the woman with the bruises and broken ribs, I suppose, in terms of physical pain, but a relationship like THAT I could do without. And it's so "real" to some on this thread JUST because of the marriage certificate.

 

I personally agree with you. I personally don't need a piece of paper to validate my relationship. My relationship is just as real as any married person's.

 

However, getting married/divorced has a formality to it. Living together isn't the same. I'm willing to acknowledge the "formality" and perhaps perceived "validity" a marriage has over a cohabiting relationship. I can recognize how someone can look at a marriage document and say, "Yep, it's official!" over my boyfriend and I's signed apartment lease. It's a formal document--it deserves credit. Doesn't mean I buy into that crap, but I can see how someone else can. Divorces work the same way--another official document declaring the end of your relationship. The law recognizes it as official, therefore it's official. *shrugs*

 

I don't get bent out of shape about these things. I'm still going to think/feel the way I do regardless of what the law says.

[complicatedlife]

I agree donnamaybe, but not all cohabitating couples make vows to commit for life.

 

And I agree with Carhill. All married couples deal with both the death of the relationship and also the death of the marriage.

 

There is just something very psychological about failing to keep a promise you made to someone you took very deliberate steps with to show your intent to commit for life. And steps that you took in a very formal way in front of everyone who had faith in you that you would keep that promise.

 

When a cohabitation relationship ends, the couple lets each other down.

 

When a marriage ends, the couple lets each other down, their family and friends down, and God down. A person not only feels like they failed at holding on to the relationship, but failed at marriage itself.

 

I have heard divorced people say, "I'll get into another relationship but I'll never get married again because I suck at it."

 

It's totally a psychological thing.

 

I agree and disagree with this because it depends on how deep the feelings and how serious the cohabitating couple are. For my situation, engaged or not, my ex "almost mother in law" still calls me every week and mentions how sad she is that I am not with her son anymore. And I definitely feel like I let not only myself down, but him. my parents, and his mother and father - they ALL expected us to be together forever because of how we lived.

 

Please note that I am not taking away from a marital dissolution which is devastating as well - I know, been there as well. The point I have been trying to make all along in this thread is that regardless of whether it's a legal union or not, the relationship can still have financial/division of property/emotional/psychological repercussions. And every person deals with trauma in a different way; a non-married person can be devastated at the break-up and a married person can coast through the pain- and vice versa.

[taylor]

Last I heard, unless we're talking about some families who do the polygamy thing, a relationship is about two people only.

 

When I got married, I made my promise to my husband, to God and to all of our family and friends that I would love this man til the day I died. I am Catholic and when you enter into the sacrament of marriage it is a union which involves you, your spouse and GOD...it's a threesome.

 

I almost lost my marriage this past year and believe me, God and family, as well as my husband, played a role in saving it. And for that I am very thankful. And I continue to ask my husband and God for forgiveness for my broken promises. And I have asked trusted family members and friends who know my story to not judge me for what I did.

 

 

The ONE person most vociferous about marriage being THE most important aspect of a relationship is saying that non-married couples, even if they've been together for 50 years, have a lesser relationship than a married couple who have been together for a year.

 

I don't really know who your are talking about here...

 

But I think the most important aspect of a relationship is the commitment you make and how well you honor that committment.

 

This past year my marriage stayed in tact, but I failed terribly at honoring my commitment to the relationship. I valued the marriage and my husband enough to recommit to both. And I am working very hard at honoring the commitment I made not only to my husband, but to God.

 

I don't know who has the lesser relationship...the couple who cohabitates for 50 years or the couple married one year. I really don't think it has much to do with QUANTITY.

 

My grandparents were married over 50 years. He was an alcoholic and beat her on a regular basis. She ignored him and raised 12 kids as best she could with no help from him.

 

And I know many couples who have been together for a year or two. Some are married and some are not. I will have to say (and this is just my own experience) I know more young cohabitating couples that have split up than young married couples. BUT, I have no knowledge of the quality of the marriages.

 

And I don't know of one cohabitating relationship that has lasted 50 years. Then again, just my experience...I live in a small world.

[taylor]

I agree and disagree with this because it depends on how deep the feelings and how serious the cohabitating couple are. For my situation, engaged or not, my ex "almost mother in law" still calls me every week and mentions how sad she is that I am not with her son anymore. And I definitely feel like I let not only myself down, but him. my parents, and his mother and father - they ALL expected us to be together forever because of how we lived.

 

YES, it definately depends on how serious the cohabitating couple is..how deeply involved their hearts are..as well as how deeply they are entangled in all other aspects of their lives...house, kids, inlaws, mutual friends, etc.

 

The thing is when couples marry they marry with a declaration that they ARE taking it serious..We presume they are taking it serious..We HOPE that they are taking it serious.

 

When cohabitating couples decide to live together, we don't know if they are serious or not. Some are. Some aren't. Many of these couples (not all) take the "let's wait and see" approach. And so we do, too. We "wait and see" if they are serious or not.

 

I guess we presume married people have their heart and soul in it. With cohabitating couples, we aren't always so sure.

 

So of course there will be cohabitating couples like you were who do have your heart and soul into it and when it doesn't work, it's devastating. But there are many other cohabitating couples who come together quickly and part quickly with not much time for heart and soul to get too involved.

 

This is how it was for my coworker who cohabitated with a man for 15 months. She never talked marriage. She never talked commitment. From the beginning it was always, "Well, if this works out..." and "Not sure I want to put all my eggs in one basket..." She cohabitated but there was a lack of heart and soul committment so when they broke up, it was not that devastating.

 

I remember her final words on the subject. She said, "It's not like we were married or something.."

 

 

And every person deals with trauma in a different way; a non-married person can be devastated at the break-up and a married person can coast through the pain- and vice versa.

 

I think it all depends on how the break-up is viewed. If a person really didn't want the union to end, I could see the inevitable traumatic feelings, regardless of whether it was a marriage or not. On the other hand, if the union got so unbearable, severing ties by "walking" or "divorcing" would feel more like a "relief" than anything traumatic.

[taylor]

I'm truly glad things worked out for you and your hubby.

 

Thank you for your kind words. Much appreciated.

 

 

 

And, to me, a quality non married relationship is MUCH more "real" than a married relationship such as that of your grandparents. Not to bust on them, but it was the example you used.

 

I agree 100 percent, donnamaybe. Marriage does not guarantee a quality relationship or happiness. Unfortunately young singles on the verge of taking that leap, or in pursuit of it , buy into this. And then when they do get married and realize it's not all sunshine and rainbows, they get disillusioned.

[clv0116]

And I don't know of one cohabitating relationship that has lasted 50 years. Then again, just my experience...I live in a small world.

 

It really depends on what you mean by cohabit. One poster here rightly referred to a couple in a foreign land who had been together almost that long as married, simply because customs in that part of the world are such that they are viewed as being married. Marriage doesn't always in all places require a contract, it's a social convention and varies in different times and places.

 

The key is how those involved, including family and neighbors, view the union. For instance, do the people down the street refer to the couple as husband and wife?

[taylor]

It really depends on what you mean by cohabit. One poster here rightly referred to a couple in a foreign land who had been together almost that long as married, simply because customs in that part of the world are such that they are viewed as being married. Marriage doesn't always in all places require a contract, it's a social convention and varies in different times and places.

 

The key is how those involved, including family and neighbors, view the union. For instance, do the people down the street refer to the couple as husband and wife?

 

There seems to be a very "wide" definition of cohabitation.

 

A couple, like my sister who has 5 children with her partner, who built a house together, who have been together for 15 years, and who wear rings and call each other "husband" and "wife" are cohabitating since they never married.

 

At the same time, however,

 

A young couple out of high school can move in together, throw their few meager possessions in the closet, set their toothbrushes on the bathroom sink, and agree to split the bills and wash the dishes together...and they, too, are cohabitating.

 

There are definately different degrees of cohabitation.

 

And this is what may be causing some of the controversy on this thread regarding what is "real" and what isn't.

[clv0116]

In the first case, they're probably common law married.

[taylor]

There are also different degrees of "marriage." Brittney Spears was married to a guy for what - one night?

 

And, Taylor, the couple who tosses their meger belongings together and cohabitates could just as easily go to the justice of the peace and get married after knowing each other for a matter of weeks. Would that make their cohabitation any more valid? I think not.

 

Good point.

 

So again, I guess what makes it real is the level of seriousness..the level of committment..the ability to honor the committment....not a piece of paper.

 

Obviously Brittney didn't take it seriously and one would wonder how seriously a couple was who decided to cohabitate 2 weeks after meeting or decided to get married in as much time.

[clv0116]

The question isn't whether any given marriage is 'better' than any given couple shacking up. That's idiotic to even think about, it's like saying that any given Mercedes is better than any given Yugo. On average the Mercedes is gonna be in a completely different and better class, however.

[Owl]

Here's the distinction that I think hasn't been defined yet...

 

Has that "cohabitating couple" made a formal commitment to remain faithful to each other?

 

Or has it been an "assumed" commitment?

 

Or was there no intent for monogamy and commitment at all?

 

A marriage comes built in with that formal commitment. Cohabitating may or may not include that formal commitment, or any intent for commitment at all.

 

The vast majority of marriages are FORMALLY INTENDED to be monogamous. It's part of the AGREEMANT that both parties make in the marriage.

 

A couple that lives together may or may not have that level of commitment to each other. It's not always assumed that they entered that relationship with that agreemant...whereas it is nearly always assumed that the marriage was established on that premise.

 

Given the "built in agreemant to monogamy and commitment" that is part of a marriage...that's why most people tend to place a higher value on a marriage over cohabitation.

[Owl]

And, Owl, do you consider a marriage wherein the man is beating the crap out of his wife daily more "valuable" than a non married couple where the relationship is built on love and trust?

 

Of course we're all assuming that we're talking about FUNCTIONAL relationships...which makes this question just silly.

 

Of course not. I wouldn't value ANY relationship where abuse is prevelant. Regardless of marriage vs cohabitation.

 

You're trying to compare apples and airplanes.

 

And of course given no INSIDE KNOWLEDGE of the parameters that a relationship is based on...people are going to make ASSUMPTIONS, and base their percieved value off of the "baseline" of the relationships.

 

One that has a BASELINE of formal commitment will inherently have a higher perceived value than one that does NOT have a baseline of formal commitment.

 

The cohabitation may BE better...but without inside information on both, no one on the outside can know, so they will base their perception of it on what they KNOW...the difference between formal agrremants or not.

 

See the difference here?

 

You can't expect people to believe that a cohabitation scenario is better without that inside knowledge...but it's easy to see why they would ASSSUME that a marriage would be.

[clv0116]

.... do you consider a marriage wherein the man is beating the crap out of his wife daily more "valuable" than a non married couple where the relationship is built on love and trust?

 

Do you consider a Lamborghini Gallardo that has been through the crusher and is being sold for scrap to be better than a new Hyundai Tiburon? Only an idiot would, but a Gallardo in good shape is much nicer than the Tiburon. More valuable too.

[Owl]

People "assume" because without all the information, that's all that they CAN do. It's how they predict what will come next in their lives.

 

Without knowing specifics on each relationship...I would "assume" and very likely place a higher preceived value on the marriage, based off of what I mentioned earlier. And that's what pretty much everyone else in the world does as well. Nothing wrong with that.

[pollywag]

Do you consider a Lamborghini Gallardo that has been through the crusher and is being sold for scrap to be better than a new Hyundai Tiburon? Only an idiot would, but a Gallardo in good shape is much nicer than the Tiburon. More valuable too.

 

 

Well that depends, how big is the penis of the person pondering this question? That always has to factor into consideration when trying to resolve hard questions such as those.

[complicatedlife]

Well that depends, how big is the penis of the person pondering this question? That always has to factor into consideration when trying to resolve hard questions such as those.

 

LMAO! This post right here made my day!

[clv0116]

THAT relationship, as well as mine, was called LESSER than ANY married relationship. Yes, even a married relationship involving spousal abuse.

 

By whom? I think you're just making crap up now. Er, I mean, again.

[pollywag]

Well yeah, you figure if there is nothing happening down there then even a crushed up Hyundai with a Ferrari pamphlet in the backseat is worth no snake in the bush. Who's gonna get picky?

 

It's a valid question, no?

[complicatedlife]

The vast majority of marriages are FORMALLY INTENDED to be monogamous. It's part of the AGREEMANT that both parties make in the marriage.

Hi, Owl!

 

This is debatable. I keep talking about the area I live in, but what about people who marry with the intent to "swing" together? I know a few married couples who participate in that lifestyle. I am not here to say nor bringing it up to discuss whether it's right or wrong/or to judge them - but it is THEIR relationship to decide whether it will be a monogamous marriage or not; how dare we, who are on the outside of their relationship, say whether that choice is right or wrong because they're married? We can think they shouldn't all they want as a society or here on LoveShack, but a couple defines what their relationship allows, what it will be, etc, whether it's a marital or non-marital relationship.

 

OWoman is married and she and her spouse don't care if they have sex with other people....curious as to what other posters here think of this scenario. I personally find nothing wrong with it if that is what they BOTH have decided they want.

[complicatedlife]

By whom? I think you're just making crap up now. Er, I mean, again.

Come on, accept responsibility! You have certainly made many insinuations that a marriage is better - you called marriage a Mercedes, etc.

[complicatedlife]

People "assume" because without all the information, that's all that they CAN do. It's how they predict what will come next in their lives.

 

Without knowing specifics on each relationship...I would "assume" and very likely place a higher preceived value on the marriage, based off of what I mentioned earlier. And that's what pretty much everyone else in the world does as well. Nothing wrong with that.

 

I used to assume the same until I experienced a different type of relationship myself. Also, times seem to be changing - there are many couples who are opting for non-marital situations these days.

[complicatedlife]

And I DARE anyone to tell her their relationship is invalid because it goes outside of the parameters of what people "assume" a marriage is supposed to be.

Well, see - that's the thing...there's a lot of assumptions going on. Noone would have known that I was married and have no problems with marriage if I never said that in this thread because initially, I was supporting cohabitation and non-marital relationships. The thing is, married or not, noone knows the intimate details or expectations of any couple's relationship but the couple themselves.