To think that marriage is mostly about financial security and love is just the sales pitch?

[PearlMember]

I’m not saying love isn’t important but it feels like marriage is still very much about stability, money, and practical benefits - with “love” just being the nice marketing spin we all buy into.

Would people really marry someone they loved if they brought no stability, no support, and no shared security to the relationship? AIBU to think marriage is still mainly a financial institution, not a romantic one?

Seems a bit one sided. You could wonder why the majority of men whose wife are sahm or worked very part time married them!

Basically yes. It's got nothing to do with love. It's a legal contract.

My dad told me don't marry someone you wouldn't go into business with!
We’re doing okay - 30yrs this autumn!

in theory im guessing religious wise they never presumed people would devoice, but modern times human nature being as it is im not sure the purpose any more

It’s very much a legal contract. It doesn’t benefit either DP or I to get married so we haven’t. We still love each other very much though, and if we would benefit from the inheritance tax breaks you get when married, we would do it.

I think if more people understood the financial implications of marriage and divorce, they’d think a lot more carefully about it. It’s still sold to women as romance and commitment, and something they have to passively wait to be asked by a man.

Yep, agreed. At least, most of the successful marriages are like that.

Because they get to procreate, which men can't do on their own. They also used to get free childcare (wife), a tidy house (wife) and meals on the table (wife). Now, women are expected to do everything - work full time, pay bills, have children, do childcare, clean, cook and run the house. It's not a good deal anymore, so I'd absolutely encourage women not to marry for some sentimental rubbish like love and be more hard headed about it. After reading about some of the dreadful specimens some women end up with, I'd rather remain single if I was starting out now.

I can’t speak for everyone - but mine is very much a love situation. We were very young when we got together and both broke. My husband was £3000 into his student loan by the time he graduated. We had ups and downs and stable now but it wasn’t always the case.

Marriage isn't a sign of a good relationship or how committed people are in reality or how likely they are to stay together.

There aremassive legal and financial differences between cohabitation and marriage however.

A better way of putting it, I think, is that marriage (and CP) have a monopoly on certain aspects of financial security. You can't have those things without the institution, whereas you can have love and commitment without it.

However, some people are more financially secure without being married. The majority of women aren't, hence the focus on this women's board, but it's important to point out that it doesn't matter what's best for the median woman if you aren't the median woman.

And we'd all be better off if we thought critically about finances and practicalities not just when considering marriage, but also when considering cohabitation without marriage.

I married the person I love and wanted (and still do fortunately!) to spend the rest of my life with. The reason we married was the legal contract. And we married before having kids. I certainly wouldn’t want to be married to someone I didn’t love!!!

A friend of mine just got engaged after 10 years of being together and it prompted me to think about my own relationship. I don’t need financial security, I have plenty of savings, good pension, own my own home. I would love to be married, but it did make me think. I want the romance, I want my partner to be bowled over by me, want to marry me and get on with it.

If it takes him 10 years, then it is very much a formality and I don’t need formal. I want the love and romance and for him to be sure I am the one- I think for me 2 years to engagement tops. He has nothing to offer me financially, after 5 years for me it has lost the romance and I wouldn’t want it.

property rights are not as well protected without marriage.. You can be disinherited for example, or if one dies intestate...

Agreed, so people should look in to marriage if financially it protects all vulnerable parties. DP and I co-own our house legally as joint tenants, so if I die he legally inherits my half of the house. I can’t leave it to anyone else in a Will without legally severing the tenancy first so he is secure. We don’t own any other assets.

Wish I’d read this before getting married 4 years ago. The process of divorce really has been a rude awakening, leaving me worse off than when I was single.

I suspect more understanding of the implications attached to both marriage and unmarried cohabitation would lead to different decisions being taken on both sides of the spectrum.

I would marry someone I loved just purely based on the fact that I really loved them

You wouldn’t marry someone you’re not in love with.

You can have a loving relationship without having to get married.

They’re not expected to do everything. The ones that do just married shit men. None of my friends’ husbands are anything like the horrors you read about on MN.

I suspect if people understood the financial implications fewer people would get married. I’m still completely baffled as to why the higher earner / wealthier party would want to get married. The risk of financial ruin in a divorce is so high.

1 I would argue that as a rule, part of loving someone is knowing that together your life would be better and easier than without them - for financial, practical, emotional and other reasons. how can you really love someone if they don't? At best, that's just someone you have a good time with on friday nights at the pub or Sunday at rugby.

2 Marriage is usually portrayed as a partnership because that IS what it is - it's two people choosing to spend their lives together to make their own, and each other's lives better.

3 I think that the financial stability, money and practical benefits are often what keep people workign to stay in a marriage, even when it's hard. I consider that a good thing. That true love, "in love" feeling isn't consistent and stable all the time. But knowing that leaving a marriage is hard helps to motivate us all to work at it, and yes, to be reminded of the love and to reignite any love that might hvae been feeling a bit less obivious.

Because it's NOT just about money? Because, as the higher earner, my life is infinitely better WITH DH in it. Because him being a SAHD facilitated my career for a few years? Because he does more of the heavy lifting practical stuff and I don't have to? Plus his emotional support has been completely invaluable to me.

And yes, if we divorced, I'd lose a lot of the financial benefit of us being together and I'd have to split finances with him, but I'd also lose out on all that other stuff that has been so valuable and powerful and rewarding which I would not have had if I'd made a decision on a life partner and marriage purely on finances.

Which is lovely. But you are also legally and financially binding yourself to them, and if they (for example) develop a gambling addiction and rack up £50k of debt you are at risk of losing everything along with them.

I’m not saying people shouldn’t get married, I just think they need to go in to it with their eyes open.

Yes, it is a financial contract. As I learnt to my detriment when I got divorced.

I think if you are planning a lifetime together and children then it absolutely makes sense to get married. It’s obviously preferable if both have similar earnings and assets as it minimises risks. But I guess not realistic to expect that in all cases!

however personally I would never remarry if I divorce. I would want everything to go to my children when I die.