To think that marriage is an outdated concept?

this. Do it if you want to, don't if you don't

All I’m going to say is that judging from the number of horror stories on here about step parents, step children and unsuccessful family blending, it would be in everyone’s interest, especially the children, if more people were more careful choosing their partners and took their commitments seriously, married or not.

But marriage protects the mother who often gives up work or works part time to raise the couple’s small children. And rightly so.

Well, apart from love and all that, it's a pretty important piece of paper for a woman like me who gave up her financial independence to raise the children and support her husband in furthering his career. Covers my arse if we should split, and also makes it less messy should he die before me unexpectedly. Not sure what's not to like really. It may not be necessary or suit everyone. Suits me though.

I couldn't disagree more. It confers legal rights which protect each party in the case of separation/divorce. It's absolutely imperative for women especially those who give up their careers to raise children.

The only ppl I ever heard say it is just a piece of paper were sahm woman whose bf refused to get married to them and they lived together and had dc, sorry but they had all stomped their feet over it to the bf and eventually gave up as they were stuck now and put on a front with the piece of paper line. Plus a few decades ago there was still illegitimacy stigma.

if you are a woman that does not want to marry as she has assets etc, she does not say piece of paper, she knows it isn’t and is more honest about not wanting to.

Oh FFS. 🙄

Yeah this. ^ A few threads like this on here today. 🙄

So don’t exchange rings then, it’s not a legal requirement

Talk to all the women on here who have been fucked over when a partner walks out and leaves them with no legal rights whatsoever.

Why? Protections go both ways. Or do you think men should not be protected?

Yes very outdated. I also think that putting rings on people to signify ownership of them is 😱

It is a contract and bestows rights.
If it was not serious then people would not be wary if it or not want to marry. You have to think carefully if it is for you.

Civil marriage has existed for almost 200 years: marriage hasn’t had to involve religion for a very long time. As a previous poster has said, civil partnerships aren’t recognised everywhere, and many people object to them as they only exist in the U.K. as a result of objections about same sex couples being able to marry.

If the woman earns far more than her partner, and has far more in assets then yes it is hard to see a benefit to marriage.
This is because in a divorce apart from the man gaining half of the woman's share, if there are children you can usually expect a mother to do the decent thing for her kids.

But men have form of going on Tinder and getting a replacement piece in pronto time, and squandering everything that his ex wife has worked for on his latest new grubby gold digging conquest, and not giving two hoots about his children's future. So OP in that regard yanbu!

Op can I please have all of your money because it’s just bits of paper.

A lot of the traditions surrounding a marriage and a wedding are certainly outdated but it’s the easiest and quickest way for a couple to put the legal practicalities of building a life together - inheritance, next of kin - in place.

Whether marriage is right for you and your individual circumstances will vary but on the whole, it provides a number of protections to both partners.

Well one reason could be that civil partnerships are not recognised outside the UK, AFAIK.

It's literally a legally binding contract that affects important parts of your life, so it isn't meaningless. That's just factual. And if it matters to a couple then it matters. You might find it outdated and so you don't need to get married. But it still matters to a massive amount of people.

My marriage is an equal partnership. I guess the only old fashioned thing about it was that I took my husband’s name but that was my choice. He could legally have taken mine, or we could have called ourselves something new. Some wedding traditions are old fashioned. But the legal contract of marriage is neutral isn’t it?

It does, because the divorce process, while imperfect, protects both partners.

Wouldn't a civil partnership do the same job? I don't really understand why non-religious people get married when civil partnerships are available,.but to each their own.

It's a business agreement. And yes, entirely necessary if like me and my husband, you are from two different places and intend to spend your lives together.

But if you don't want to marry then don't. No one is forcing you.

Just a bit of paper?! Well yes I can see why you think it’s outdated if you’re ignorant to the protections it offers. Are you ignorant to them?

Nope. If you are going to combine your financial assets, not to mention sharing children with another person for years or decades, the.n you need a legal contract which protects both parties and plans for a fair extrication if the time comes.

I wouldn't enter into a business agreement without a fairly negotiated contract, why would I risk it in a lifelong relationship?

Well you're a bit silly aren't you. Its a important and distinct legal status which affects all sort of things to finances, property ownership, inheritance and things like next of kin.
Yes you can replicate it with lots of separate legal contracts, but why bother when there's one easy legal process you can go through that does so much?!