Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask genuinely, why people don't get married?

617 replies

Lookandlearn · 05/04/2011 19:38

if they are in a committed, permanent relationship and have children? It's a genuine question and I am happy to be ignored if it's too mosey, but gives an airing to side issues from another thread on here.

OP posts:
summershereatlast · 07/04/2011 11:02

seeker - I think you are just looking for an argument. Brufin did not say "those of you who are not married" she said "if people can't be bothered". So why take it that she was talking about everyone who was not married. Are you just here to flame? Telling someone to FO isn't big or clever, but it says a lot about the sort of person you are. From what I've read of your comments here and on other threads you fit the profile of the classic internet bully. Are you insecure?

It's a lovely sunny day, I have better things to do than argue the toss with you. I'll leave you to your insults.

seeker · 07/04/2011 11:06

"if you can't even be bothered to make a commitment to get married and make a legal contract, i don't really see a baby as making a commitment together."

This is what Brufin actuallly said and you agreed with. Do you want to retract your agreement on second reading?

Not sure that being upset by someone posting this makes me insecure or an "internet bully"!

BrainSurgeon · 07/04/2011 11:10

Bruffin's post is a bit ignorant and a sweeping generalization. And takes the matter of having a baby really lightly which bothers me.
And I'm not easily bothered.
Angry

summershereatlast · 07/04/2011 11:12

"if you can't" not "for all of you on this thread who are don't agree with getting married".

No I'm not upset in the slightest but I do think you are full of hatred and anger and your telling her to FO was un-necessary. Perhaps it makes your day brighter to come on this forum, take your problems out on other people and argue with people all day?

Yes I agree completely with what she said as do a lot of people (as I said).

TandB · 07/04/2011 11:12

[Gets out Mumsnet Bingo card and ticks off 'internet bully']

Wamster · 07/04/2011 11:12

Marriage does have an inherent meaning.

It is a legally binding contract of sorts, now whether or not people wish this contract is up to them but to say it has no meaning is wrong.

Ask any divorcee and they'll tell you- with a wry smile- that marriage has meaning. It has meaning allright when you lose half your house to your ex-spouse!

The law is NOT recognising that other couples have commitment outside of marriage.
It won't because marriage is not about -never has been about- commitment in itself. Sure people who marry are usually committed- why tie themselves legally if not? It would be insane to do so.

The law does not give a fig if couples are committed if they have signed no legal agreements- because:
a, Who people are emotionally involved with is irrelevant when it comes to division of assets. Quite right. Why the hell should another adult be entitled to half a house because they've slept together under the same roof for a while for goodness sake?
I've no doubt that there are some that would say: why should married people get half a house? Well the answer is that they made an explicit agreement to share everything. Cohabitees do NOT do this.

b, If a cohabiting couple split, there is no real way of knowing if they were supposedly 'in it for life' (like they are in a marriage).

I don't want any cohabitee rights- they can bloody well get married if it is rights they seek. Why should I have the right to live with another adult on my own terms taken away because certain cohabitees can't be arsed to sort their legal stuff out?

seeker · 07/04/2011 11:22

Fascinated by the "internet bully". Resists temptation to ask for examples.

acumenin · 07/04/2011 11:24

Heh, after boggling The Coalition's mind with my notion that gay people experience societal oppression, I'm coming back to lay down the blinder that I my (v-happy decade-long) relationship is conditional. DP has asked me to marry him because he's quite romantic, but I am too literal, I think. I would never vow to stay with him til death do us part because I do have conditions; for example: if he beat me, or emotionally abused me, I would hope to leave him. It seems unlikely that he would do those things, but he might, for example, suffer a profound depression and sabotage a crucial career opportunity of mine to assuage resultant low self esteem. That could happen and would be understandable, but possibly fatal to a relationship. If he had a stroke and slipped into a persistent vegetative state, it seems probable that after some years I would find a new partner. So it would be wrong of me to vow something I don't mean.

My parents had the happiest marriage I've ever seen, and my dad is still emotionally committed to my mother after her death, but she was married once before she met him, so to me it seems obvious it wasn't the marriage vows that made their relationship so rewarding.

summershereatlast · 07/04/2011 11:24

I got married because I wanted to commit to my husband for life. We felt that God brought us together and a church ceremony meant a lot to us.

As an added bonus our relationship is legally recognised and there are benefits to that.

That is the difference.

Oddly enough, marriage still seems to be really popular. A number of my colleagues and friends are getting married this year. I'm happy for them. Marriage is a good thing.

BrainSurgeon · 07/04/2011 11:27

How many times does one have to remind people that being in a marriage does not always mean you're in it for life.............. and you can really MEAN your vows but things can change in time.... and dealing with a divorce can be as bad if not worse than splitting up with a partner

I wish people would stop generalizing and arguing. It's all very personal and people will get hurt and upset.

Where's Hully to spread some love......

BrainSurgeon · 07/04/2011 11:29

Good post acumenin, interesting way of looking at things

TandB · 07/04/2011 11:30

[starts a moment's silence for the lambs who have died so that this thread can live]

Wamster · 07/04/2011 11:38

ALL adult sexual relationships are conditional! Once again, commitment is NOT the point of marriage.
At least the married recognise that things CAN go wrong, unlike a lot of cohabitees who have no need for anything so vulgar as a 'piece of paper'. Hmm Well, fine, they don't need it. I can only assume that, should their partner, dump them they won't be crawling to the courts for money because

Koolmami · 07/04/2011 11:54

Most people don't get married because they don't believe in it.
Others prefer to spend the money on something else or they simply can't afford it.

I am divorced but met someone special and we are now engaged. We would like to get married but we have other plans first. Weddings are so expensive! There is nothing wrong with not getting married but it is a very special ceremony which you will remember for the rest of your life. ;)

shitmagnet · 07/04/2011 12:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

knittedbreast · 07/04/2011 12:07

because its embarassing. having to stand and proclaim your love for each other in front of family and friends! if it were just me and him i wouldnt think there would be much point but i couldnt do it in front of family.
its bad enough our two children running around as proof weve slept together!

MCDL · 07/04/2011 12:35

Because he is still married to somebody else .....

ShushBaby · 07/04/2011 12:37

wamster, I said marriage has no inherent meaning beyond the legal meaning. As you've agreed, that alone is the inherent meaning of marriage. It actually says nothing about your relationship in any other way, beyond that meaning with which you bestow it. Which is subjective and personal.

I don't think any of The Unmarrieds on this thread are asking for cohabitee rights- it's a bit of red herring in terms of this thread imo. That's certainly not what I understood this thread to be about- correct me if I'm wrong. Many of us (myself and my non-lesbian non-business partner included) indeed can be arsed to sort out the legal stuff, and have done so.

ShushBaby · 07/04/2011 12:41

"At least the married recognise things CAN go wrong".

Frankly the worst argument for marriage I ever heard!

acumenin · 07/04/2011 12:47

Aye, ShushBaby, I have seen no post on this thread asking for cohabitee's rights, though of course the DWP treats cohabitees as married for benefit purposes (and interestingly, polygamous and polyamorous arrangements), whether one likes it or not.

I did raise the idea of non-sexual domestic partnerships, but did not intend to suggest anything other than a contract consciously entered into after deliberation. Not a "habit and repute" scenario by any means.

Wamster · 07/04/2011 12:56

acumenin, I have no problem with some kind of cohabitee contract at all- as long as couple sign up to it explicitly of their own free will and it's not by, as you say, 'habit and repute'.
Perhaps the cohabitees signing the contract would like to make a bit of a day out for the signing of this contract, perhaps buy a few nice outfits for the occasion, invite a few friends and family, buy a nice piece of jewellery (perhaps a ring?) to mark the event.
Maybe go for a nice sitdown meal afterwards and a little holiday in the sun...

Wamster · 07/04/2011 13:01

ShushBaby I actually think it's the best argument for marriage there is: if a person agrees that a 'piece of paper' is not necessary for commitment, then the only real purpose of marriage is that it provides certain legal protections in the event of death/break up.
Sorry, but I think recognition that life can work out badly is the best reason for marriage.
And, I'd like to turn the old 'married people are smug' argument that people frequently insinuate on threads like these on its head because to my mind it is often cohabitees that are the smug ones as their relationships do not need a piece of paper because their relationships will never go wrong.
Nothing more smug than that.

acumenin · 07/04/2011 13:10

Demonstrably, Wamster, many would not.

Jogon · 07/04/2011 13:22

Personally, I would never buy a house or have children with someone without being married.

We both know exactly where we stand legally and where our responsibilities lie.

If you are not married you may not be recognised as next of kin which , to me, is pretty frightening.

Wamster · 07/04/2011 13:32

I think people can nominate who they like as next of kin when being admitted to hospital, and, at the end of the day, it is the medical team who will have the final say when it comes to what is right for the patient.
If a person is cohabiting and their partner dies intestate, then other than jointly agreed financial agreements e.g. the couple held a property in joint names in which case the surviving partner will inherit, who gets the deceased partner's money etc will follow the 'rules of intestacy' which make no mention of cohabitees.
I'm certain that a partner could claim as a dependent of the deceased but this would not be the default position (as with marriage) and they may have a bit of a battle on their hands from the remaining blood relatives for no guarantee of a portion of the estate at the end.
The solution is either to marry or make a valid will.

Swipe left for the next trending thread