Sirius Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 This is not so much an assault on marriage but a realization that marriage is a choice and not a viable choice for everyone alive. We need to realize that there are some folks who would prefer just a committed relationship but believe that the traditional confines of marriage are too restrictive. What do you think, is it ok to skew the old set of values and work something less binding out, in our relative, modern times? Just how many people today have made it to their 30s and still have decided that marriage is not in the cards for them? BTW, the median age for marriage and first child born has gone up significantly in most Western countries, so I believe that this relative marriage belief is catching hold. Link to post Share on other sites
Sarah12385 Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 hey i'm only 20, but i say marriage all the way! but that's just me ~Sarah~ Link to post Share on other sites
LucreziaBorgia Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Originally posted by Sirius What do you think, is it ok to skew the old set of values and work something less binding out, in our relative, modern times? If its ok for the partners in that particular relationship, then I have no problem with that idea. What works for some does not work for all, and never should one force a certain set of ideals or values on the other. Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Originally posted by Sirius What do you think, is it ok to skew the old set of values and work something less binding out, in our relative, modern times? Yes Just how many people today have made it to their 30s and still have decided that marriage is not in the cards for them? Don't know, but i DO know that the percentage of couples living together w/o marriage has skyrocketed within the past 25 yrs. At least in the U.S. Link to post Share on other sites
Ladyjane14 Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Originally posted by Sirius We need to realize that there are some folks who would prefer just a committed relationship but believe that the traditional confines of marriage are too restrictive. Personally, I would NEVER have felt the same sense of fidelity or committment in a common law arrangement that I feel for marriage. I cheated on every boyfirend I ever had. Most of them cheated on me too. But, hey...it's not like we were MARRIED or anything! Link to post Share on other sites
michelangelo Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Committed non-marriage? To me, it seems a silly concept. Why? Because if you go to the trouble of making a committed relationship without tying the knot you lose out on a lot of things. Is the symbolism a drag? Or is it the enhanced financial commitment a drag? Or is it the automatic legal status in times of crisis a drag? Or is it the lifelong commitment that's daunting? Or , or, or....? Link to post Share on other sites
uberfrau Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 which gives each member of the union certain contractual and property rights. That's all marriage is, and was until the 19th century-the victorians started layering all those silly romantic notions on marriage, and the unfortunate trend still continuing. As a soon to be attorney, go ahead with your 'comitted non-marriage'-even better, buy a house! Then 'break up' and see how more it costs to defend your interests in that situation, as opposed to if you were married and getting a divorce. the presumption is that marital property gets split 50%. Period. For two people living together, the law treats them as strangers-no presumption and more litigation. My favorite cases are the 'housewench' ones. THe couple 'holds themselves' out as married, the woman takes the guys last name, gives their spawn his last name. They break up, and wifey, who has stayed at home, gets nothing! Except the kids....uh. Read the case of Marvin v. Marvin. Remeber, sexual consideration is NO consideration! IF more people would get over their dopey romatic notions and see what marriage is REALLY about, I believe we would have less divorce. If you want kids it really is best to get married. If you want property, and want to accumulate more to pass on to those kids, marriage is the best legal arrangement. Link to post Share on other sites
Cecelius Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by Ladyjane14 Personally, I would NEVER have felt the same sense of fidelity or committment in a common law arrangement that I feel for marriage. I cheated on every boyfirend I ever had. Most of them cheated on me too. But, hey...it's not like we were MARRIED or anything! The above sentiment is why I'm not sure I believe in getting married. You don't close a deal unless the due diligence is good. As to uberfrau, I tend to agree (as an admitted attorney) that this is its history, of course one cannot forget the sectarian origins too. But in the end, I think if you can get away with it, avoiding marriage is good (and the more I watch television, the more I wonder why any man would get married at this point). But I also think of it this way: if you have someone on precisely the same emotional footing as you, with exactly the same views about committment, etc., that you have and you create a compact with them that does effectively commit you two to each other (emotionally if nothing else), aren't you effectively married, at least on the interpersonal front? Link to post Share on other sites
Ladyjane14 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Originally posted by Cecelius You don't close a deal unless the due diligence is good. You're comparing apples to oranges here. There just aren't any guarantees in life. You don't get a real test drive, because it's not really marriage. I've been married 22 years now, and haven't cheated even once. Hell, I don't even NOTICE if a guy is cute unless somebody else points him out to me. That would be because I'm MARRIED. Marriage isn't for everyone to be sure. But when a person wants that particular level of committment, there aren't any substitutes. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts