To think that marriage is an outdated concept?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 AIBU to think that marriage is outdated and unnecessary?

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legal weight today because society/the powers that be historically wanted it, but the question from OP is: is it now outdated, as a concept.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.

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.

What constitutes the ‘concept’ of marriage?

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!

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?

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

It is outdated OP and misogynist.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Weddings are outdated. Marriage is not.

Fo you know what SHOULD be outdated? Misogyny. But it’s not. And because it’s not, marriage is also not outdated.

Totally agree!

What a peculiar POV!

How is Marriage misogynistic? How is it outdated?

To make such a statement you should explain your reasoning.

To be clear - we're talking about the legal advantages of Marriage or CP, not a "wedding".

Given that women as childbearers and normally primary child carers are totally disadvantaged by the process, how can you not see that Marriage or CP gives a mother legal rights and advantages financially as opposed to "living together"?

It's not the dress, rings, confetti, cake or "first dance" that's important. Those are all irrelevant and all optional. The legal contract is entirely the point.

Because the OP has farted out drivel like “just a piece of paper that doesn’t mean anything”.

All the legal consequences of getting married mean that it is a serious contract, and the idea that it doesn’t mean anything is completely wrong.

There are posts every so often by people who believed that living together gave them common law wife status and they were entitled to financial settlement if the relationship broke down, even if they had never actually got married. Those people are wrong, in England, anyway.

There is plenty wrong with marriage and weddings as a concept, but rubbish like “just a piece of paper” leads to more people wrongly believing the above.

I'm old school.

Assuming the marriage is a strong one and you love each other...

Men get a lifetime of reasons to work hard and build things, to devote their efforts to a cause that fulfills them. Men like that. Plus let's be honest they also get a lifetime of sexual satisfaction. They also like that - a lot.

Women get a partner who will look after them during the child rearing years, someone they can rely on and who won't leave them when the going gets tough. Women need that. Plus the sexual satisfaction thing, that's not too bad either.

However one thing I will shout from the rooftops all day long, repeat after me ladies:
Every woman needs her own income and means to support herself. There are bad men out there, and also ones who seem good but turn out bad. Never rely on a man

That's a wedding. Not marriage. You don't have to have any of that. I didn't. Who on earth still takes their husbands name if they don't want to?

Marriage is a contract which protects the weaker party. Usually STILL women. Personally I don't know how any woman has children or gives up her job without the protection of this piece of paper.

OP , of course, has not elaborated her thinking process at all.

In my opinion, if you're going to have kids (general you) I wanted to do it in a married relationship.. So did.
Same with buying a house together.
I don't get buying a house and having kids together easily like many do but not the marriage bit?!
It keeps you more protected surely.
So why the big bits like kids but not others like marriage? To me they come together.

Well apart from being a legally binding contract so it gives uou and your children protection in law. I think it's good for children to know there parents are committed to each other .and feel it makes us all feel safe husband as well and he is a good man so no regrets forsaking all others as it went .