To think that marriage is an outdated concept?

If you live together instead of marrying at some point you will discover that marriage is not just a piece of paper - it is a very important piece of paper.

Thank you, although I am unlikely to use that for future, it is interesting to know. Might have been a good idea for my late mother as her will was never clear on what she wanted, and there were family disagreements, and which had unfortunate consequences.

It doesn't have to be like that at all though. My son and DIL married a couple of years ago and whilst having 100 guests in a beautiful venue is I suppose traditional, they didn't do it in the ways you've mentioned. They are professionals and regard each other as complete equals.
The bride wore cream; my son did propose however, can't see the problem with that; he did tell her parents beforehand as he had told us, common courtesy, not asking permission; bride walked down the aisle side by side with her mother and father; bride and groom both did speeches; she did take his surname but added hers and calls herself Ms.

As for being outmoded, it doesn't seem to have lost popularity amongst my son and his friends, all professionals aged early thirties, they've been to dozens of weddings over the past couple of years. Incidentally not one of them has had children before marriage.

I think that marriage provides the bare minimum of protection for women. Without marriage men treat women their children as disposable trash.

So sorry about the loss of your DH.

As it happens people can declare that a partner is ‘Next of Kin’ , it has no real legal status, stipulate funeral wishes in their will.

Everyone should have a Will, and LPA.

Not if you’re planning to have children and take time off work it isn’t.

Not if you have shared finances or assets and one of you becomes sick or dies.

Dh and I were unmarried for many years and we were happy with that arrangement. We only got married when we started a business and decided to have DC, for us it was more about ensuring our finances and children would be protected, not a big declaration of love. We had a church wedding to keep family happy but in our ideal world we would have eloped.

Thank goodness we did, DH died when DD was 14, and if we were not married everything would have been far more difficult and complicated if MIL was next of kin. The last thing you need in the depths of grief is legal battles and family dramas over wills, funeral arrangements etc.

You haven’t made a single constructive contribution to this thread yet.

Yes. Which is why I didn’t do any of them. It is perfectly possible to get married without any of that reactionary crap.

We exchanged rings when we married 50 years ago not to signify ownership but as symbols of our relationship. We also exchanged matching rings to symbolise and celebrate our 50th anniversary, a token of our continuing bond. Both rings are very precious to both of us.

It is outdated OP and misogynist.

Yet so many people say it protects both parties...

marriage just seems like a piece of paper that doesn’t mean anything anymore.

The piece of paper is a legal document that really does mean something, surely you must know that?

Well I bloody love looking at all the diamonds on my finger to distract me from wrapping a frying pan round my husband’s head. Sparkly!

What constitutes the ‘concept’ of marriage?

Almost every single aspect of a traditional Uk heterosexual wedding is sexist.
From wearing white to the etiquette of speeches, ‘proposing’, asking her fathers permission out of ‘respect’, FFS, woman being walked down the aisle , delivered to waiting man by her father, name changing, giving the kids his name, no Miss / Mrs equivalent for men.

I don’t know how any woman puts herself through all that crap.

OP has referred to marriage as a concept. Yes it carries hefty legal weight today because society/the powers that be historically wanted it, but the question from OP is: is it now outdated, as a concept. Why are posters going on about the legal side? It doesn't really weigh on the argument.

I don't think marriage is outdated or just a piece of paper but each couple can make their own decisions thankfully.

I was and still am very happy to be Mrs husbands surname.

It is very odd to me that marriage is not entered into like any other financial and legal contract. You don’t get an actual contract setting out what your rights, responsibilities and conditions are, and what is the contractual basis of your partnership.

Marriage vows can be religious… or any old made up stuff.

I think there needs to be education about the legal aspect and the contract should be produced by solicitors. It affects almost every financial and legal force of your life!

On a moral / social level it sticks to the old religious framework. But why is that still necessary? What if 2 women and a bio Dad want to form a 3 adult family?

The tax benefits are minor.

It's a contract that protects the lower earner.

It only hinders the higher earner.

To the op.

You may wish so.
But no.

A Legal marriage or Civil Partnership can have tremendous financial implications - usually to the advantage of SAHP's (mostly women).

It can be a disadvantage to a person who owns property before marriage And their partner doesn't.

Everyone should research and decide for themselves judging by their own circumstances and expectations.

Its not just an emotional decision.

Parts of the traditions are archaic and sexist- taking the man's name, man proposing, father giving bride away etc but at its core it's just a legal contract.

Are you a bit confused? Those are only the vows of a particular religious institution’s take on marriage. I had a ten-minute civil ceremony, and all I stated was that I was free to marry and that I was marrying DH. Nothing about duration.

And women taking men’s names is a ridiculous anachronism.