To think that marriage is an outdated concept?

[YourAgileUmberPoet]

In today’s world, marriage just seems like a piece of paper that doesn’t mean anything anymore. AIBU to think that marriage is outdated and unnecessary?

Goady bollocks.

Marriage is a legal contract.

Whatevs.

It’s a legal institution which was developed in the context of very different socioeconomic circumstances. Yes, many aspects of it are by nature outdated - but indeed, many aspects of it have changed in reflection of that (same sex marriage; legal divorce; pre nups and post nups; civil ceremonies etc.) That doesn’t mean it’s unnecessary: it’s a legal institution which still serves many valid purposes, and which just needs to continue changing as society does.

You’d have to be pretty under-informed to be unaware of why marriage, outdated or not, remains legally important.

I noticed your comment came through within seconds after I posted this. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I’d appreciate if you avoid jumping to conclusions just because our views may differ. Be respectful.

It's outdated if the woman earns more than the man does 🙂

Strongly disagree. It has very protective benefits that are still very relevant and necessary today. It's also has emotional significance which shouldn't be downplayed.

Opinions are like arse holes. Everybody has one.

Mine is that, apart from all the legal stuff, it still means something to me. And it enables me to signify to my wife that she is the most important person in the world to me. I know there are many ways to do that, and that marriage is just one of them, but I quite like the whole "forsaking all others etc".

Nope, I like being married.

Each to their own.

Why do you think this, OP? What would be your suggestion to protect the lower earner/ SAHP in a partnership, which is still nearly always women?

I agree with you OP. I'd like to see it completely overhauled and to separate the legal from the emotional. I think too many women sleepwalk into marriage without understanding the legal implications of what they're signing up for.

Marriage was a social construct created when most women were SAHM and men were the breadwinners - also for a time when we all didn't live for so long. Thankfully that is changing in most societies and I think this hasn't changed with it.

It offers a formal framework which protects the interests of the couple and their children. It means that a parent staying at home (usually a woman) is financially protected in the event of a split.

It is not for everyone, but for many it serves a useful purpose.

Not in the slightest.

It's a legal contract that protects both parties as well as carrying quite a lot of tax benefits.

Nothing quite like seeing a grieving person banned from the bedside of their dying long term partner by their legal next of kin either. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon.

Every so often one of these threads pop up, and everyone patiently explains to the utterly clueless op that marriage is a legal contract with very many implications, including, but not limited to, inheritance tax and spouses pensions. They also point out that there is a huge pile of paperwork required to replicate some, but by no means all, of the rights gained by just the one “piece of paper” required for marriage. At this point I think anyone coming out with this tired old “can’t see the point of marriage” trope is either thick, a troll, or have a partner who refuses to marry them and are trying to convince themselves it’s fine.

So easy to get a divorce. Marriage doesn't mean much.

Well lucky for you OP it’s not compulsory so if you don’t want to get married then don't

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?!

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?

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?

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.

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

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'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.