to think what's the point of being married??

[scottishmum007]

I'm married myself but really living in sin would have been a lot cheaper (no wedding fees to pay for). The only people that profit from a couple saying I Do are the Government really.Anyone else thought of this before?
Besides the obvious reasons for getting married ('we love each other') is there really any incentives to tying the knot?? financially the government are raking it in, with all us saps paying the fees to marry. What don't we get an allowance for being married couples anymore?? we used to...

my MIL's wedding cost a lot less than £3 k

we really need some men on this discussion to give their views on why they chose to get married. it's all too one-sided.

no, i wasn't thinking of the money!

we were completely open about getting married because we wanted to start a family, yeah.

we could have done the wedding cheaper but DH wanted an evening reception so ofcourse that bumped up the price.

scottishmummy - there have been MANY debates on marriage, fidelity etc on MN

there was a fairly long running thread a couple of months ago

it is something that is debated and at length

so not one sided at all

the archives are probably quite full of threads like this

Some people marry for love.

Some people marry to please family

Some people marry for legal rights and protection

People marry for different reasons - what's so hard to understand here?

DH and I had a cheap as chips wedding, spent just over £3,500. We spent a year being as creative as possible and in the end had the most fab wedding in a cavern with our reception on a farm with straw bales and a bbq. We stayed on the farm for our honeymoon and it was bliss. Its not a waste, as we will never spent this kind of money on us again. Not like this. I cant possibly think what we could have spent this money on that would give us the same wonderful feelings we had when we said our vows, the joining together of people who wont be together again, a holiday, memories, and we made new friends, those on the farm who helped us organise, they became part of our celebrations and we have become great friends.

We remind each other of our vows from time to time, in fun, and it has brought us even closer than we were.

The financial incentives above, in case of death, and the problems not being married could cause with our Dd if we were not all apply too.

Oh, and we have sex much much more since we got married (we have been married 8 months)

we need some men to even up the discussion really.

well you're not going to find many men on mumsnet

It's not financial gain, it's financial protection.

You're twisting what people are saying, you haven't responded to these points (which, to me, are more important than anything else:

if your child needs hospital treatment, only the mother can sign the consent form, regardless of whether her partner is named on the birth certificate. If you are married, either of you can do it.

If your partner is ill, then you can not sign the consent forms, his/her parents have to do it,

You're clearly just trying to start a row so I'm leaving this thread now.

i think this is aimed at parents and grandparents, so there may be some others able to shedsome light here.

it's financial gain and financial protection.

olihan, i haven't disagreed with you, you are right it makes sense to be married when kids are involved and that was one of the many reasons we got married ourselves.

Where's the financial gain?

You said yourself in your OP, we pay to get married but don't get marriage allowance any more.

I genuinely don't understand the point you are trying to make.

I got married because I fell in love and it seemed the right thing to do. We decided to marry after only being together for 3 months (crazy I know) and were married about 18 months after we first met. It was lovely as we were still in the first flush of romantic love and were just starting out on our life together.

My friends who have been living together for years, and who have children, all intend to get married, but never seem to get round to it.

I think there is a difference between marrying at the start of a relationship, and marrying once the house/kids etc has all been done.

Not that the second way is any less lovely, just that I think those weddings are usually for financial security, to meet society expectations, because of the legal stuff etc. Not usually because the people are still at the gazing into each other's eyes for hours on end stage.

So yes, I suppose I agree that people marry for different reasons. I still think weddings are lovely though whatever the reason for them (barring maybe shotgun ones and visa ones!!!).

Do people really get married because it's society's expectation?

I'm not sure society expects people to get married these days. I was reading in the paper the other day that single and cohabiting people now outnumber those of us who are married.

We got married because we wanted to, we wanted to make that public commitment and celebrate it with our family and friends.

But you don't have to do it that way, you could go to the registry office with 2 witnesses you found outside and no one else would need to know.

However, you would be so much more protected in the event of something happening.

I'm doing a really rubbish job of leaving this thread.

scottishmummy, you don't have to spend anything on a wedding beyond the registration fees. I can't remember how much the fee cost but are you equating marriage with the cost of a few hundred quid and then questioning what 'incentives' you can get for that fee?

Amply answered on this thread already, I thought.

I think some people feel that getting married when they have had children is somehow "the right thing to do". So not pressure from society, but that it comes from how they feel themselves.

Not commenting in any way on what is right/wrong/old fashioned/newfangled or anything.

But I know with some of my freinds the idea of marriage is definitely because they have kids. Like I said earlier though, they never actually get round it. They are all permanently engaged. Maybe that's a nod to tradition?

I see what you mean, Chukkypig. I suppose most of us on here (I'm guessing at an average age of 30-40) were brought up by the 'you get married, then you have kids' ideology of our parents' generation. And being 'engaged' (are you really engaged if you don't really intend to get married?) shows a nod towards that idea.

I wonder how many people really know the legal/financial implications of not being married though? Especially where their children are concerned.

Lots of people seem to think that as they are co-habiting then they are classed as common-law huband/wife when actually this has no legal meaning at all.

Having the father's name on the birth certificate means nothing either, it gives him no rights unless he is married to the mother.

It appears to be one of those issues that people drift into, rather than making an informed choice about.

Hey, don't be sexist. It is not protection for women when they have to pay £870k to their husband on divorce as I did. Marriabe was a very very bad deal for me financially and there are plenty of women in that position like me. Lots of women earn more than men and pay out to men on divorce. It's 2008 not 1880.

Part of my reason to marry was religious reasons.

Another issue is inheritance tax. If I were married when I died none would be paid. As I am not the children will be homeless if I die because they will have to sell the house to pay the inheritance tax bill.

Scottishmum - airy fairy romantic notions???

"For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part"

The (church of England) goes out of its way to say that this is anything but airy fairy romanticism. It says, this is real life and whatever life throws at us, we'll deal with it together. That's not romanticism, that's realism. Romaticism would simply say "YOu're the hunkiest boy in the upper sixth (or whatever) and I will love you forever (or until you get old and fat and flatuelent (or whatever)). For me, marriage is about sticking together through thick and thin, defending and befriending each eaother through life, and absing your life on something a bit more solid than feelings or convenience.

And yes I'm sure that many co-habiting couples feel that way about each other too. In which case, as stated above, why not get married?

But Xenia, your situation is very, very different from probably 95% of women on this board, and in RL. Very, very few women would be in the situation of having to pay their ex-h off, never mind for that sum of money.

If you are a SAHM/ part time WOHM, the chances are you will be reliant on your husband's income. In the event of a split most women would be better protected if they were married, rather than co-habiting, because there are laws to protect them. Unfortunately for you, the laws are equal and you lost out but that would not be the case for most women.

The case for geting married is not just about women though and I hope I didn't make it appear as if I thought it was (I'm not sure if your sexist comment was aimed at me, or another post further down the thread). Fathers have much more protection if they are married, widowed parents allowance is applicable to both sexes, signing consent forms affects both of you.

I think if you want to get married then you do it because you love your partner, want to make a public committment and celebrate it with your family and friends.

If you're a bit ambivalent then the legal reasons, especially if you have kids, could sway you into doing it (I know of several MNetters who did just that).

But getting married because someone made it 'worth your while' is frankly ridiculous. If the government were offering £500 grants to get married, would you do it?