for thinking marriage is special?

[WashwithCare]

I'm not saying that there aren't good reasons, or that it shouldn't be permissble to end a marriage - sometimes marriages fail...

But to my mind, marriage confers a special status on a relationship with a loved one whom you have chosen to consciously make a public commitment. It doesn't matter how long you cohabit, you didn't do that - you're not married.

I have had a number of long term bfs, some of whom I lived with. I didn't marry them for good reasons. I would hate the thought that I would be legally bound to them in ways I did not agree to simply by living with them.

I don't believe cohabitees should gain automatic rights, however long they live together. After all, there is a simple process and legal framework already in place if you wish to confer this on another person - you can marry them! Do others agree?

oh i see , thanks LeninGrad .

• when will the adoption be finalised then? you have to celebrate!

( its a awful lot of paperwork youve had to sort out )

For me marriage was a sign of our committment to each other. Reg office as atheist. No vow of "til death us do part" as we both felt that if we no longer wished to be together then divorce is more sensible than ending your days in misery.
I'm in business and to me partner means business partner and I am too old to witter on about boyfriends so having a husband solved the naming thing as well and made relationship seem more legitimate as well as sorting legal stuff out a bit.

Well, the original legal reasoning behind marriage (superstitons aside) was all to do with ownership and inheritance: the man owned both wife and any children (legally, children of a marriage are the husband's child even if everyone knew that the sperm had come from the butler/milkman/bloke next door). And a legal marriage is still mostly about safeguarding property rights etc - all the romantic fluff is up to the individuals but not legally necessary.
I am not entirely sure about this business of having 'cohabitee rights' legally enshrined either, given that it's not that difficult to make the necessary legal arrangements for properties and children without getting married, if you have valid objections to marriage (and don't forget that some people will want to leave either their house or the custody of their DC to a relative or good friend rather than a couple-partner).

Personally i think having children with someone is more of a commitment than marriage.

If you marry someone, things dont work out, divorce, see ya.

Once you have children (in or out of marriage) you are tied to that person for life.

Slightly OT, but I'm wetting myself at "Reptilian Love" becoming the new MN buzzword for twue love.

I agree with OP.

I realise fully that there are cohabitees who ARE 100% devoted to one another but to give cohabitees rights is wrong not for any moral reasons but as a matter of FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

Not every cohabitee wishes to be legally tied to their partner and to impose rights and responsibilities upon such people is a breach of their right to live with another person in a no-strings-attached relationship.

This is the bottom line for me.

I repeat: morality doesn't enter into it.

Also from a purely practical level, it would be very difficult to assess which cohabitees were devoted and which were not.

OP- marriage was invented for one reason only:
for there to be zero confusion about which couples wish to tie themselves together and which ones don't. Those who do not wish to avail themselves of it should not complain that they are not seen as tied in any way.
I am totally opposed to the notion of cohabitee rights.

If I want to live with someone for a few years no-strings-attached I should have the right to do so without being deemed "married".

How can a child be 'no strings' and a partner who nursed me through 2 transplants cancer and a near fatal heart problem?My mates dh left her because her arse got too big

I dont see how living together would = no strings.

Surely you would not live together if you didnt want any strings attached?

noddyholder Look I am not out to diss cohabitees, but if you and your partner are devoted- which you seem to be to me- then it is up to the pair of you to make this devotion "official" in some way.

Why should ALL cohabitees who DO NOT WISH TO BE TIED TO ONE ANOTHER- be tied automatically because you do not do this?
Can you not see my point of my view here?

claw3 I, like a lot of people, have lived with people in a relationship where there has been little thought of the future. This is what a lot of young people do/have done, to impose legalities on these people is not really acceptable, is it?

I think marriage is only special if it's not easy to divorce. Otherwise it's just another lifestyle choice about which contract you prefer. (Which IMO is what it's been turned into.)

I actually agree that people who co-habit should not have rights that they haven't opted into UNLESS they have children together. Once you make a decision to have a child with someone, then I think the same rights should kick in. But otherwise, in general, legal rights about property, inheritance etc. ought to be opted into, not automatically imposed by the state.

Why should I adhere to a set of rules set up by someone else which I don't neccesarily agree with?

It surely comes down to the individual relationship and the individual moral compass? The very fact that so many people have offered different points of view and described different circumstances suggests that.

Not really for anyone else to comment on the status or importance of another persons union, in my opinion.

However, I do think that longevity of a relationship might have some bearing.

I agree children are the diceider

decider even

My marriage is special tome

But escaping her amrriage was a life saving thing for my best friend,who understandably will never marry again (if the bastard ever signs the appers to finalise everything anyway)

Having been a cohabitee in a failedrelationship (we were enganed though) I think there should be a logevity or children clause on rights but I don't honestly see any qualitative differences in the commitment betweeen me andlong term cohabiting friends who for varyiong reasons dont want to get married (usually very definite reasons such as awfulexperiences in a amrriage or of their parents marriage)

claw3 No, having children with someone is not necessarily more of a commitment than marriage.
Children can come about through a drunken one-night-stand. I know of a man and woman to whom this happened who are now living in the same village (not in the same house but near to one another) because the father wishes to play an active part in the child's upbringing.
They are on good terms but their commitment is to their child not each other.

When two people marry, they are explicitly saying they are committed to one another.

Marantha, well perhaps if legalities were imposed, it would make people think twice before living together?

Im all for people having freedom and dating etc, but in my opinion living together is quite a serious step to take.

Many people don't decide to have children together though, it just happens especially to teenagers and having kids with someone is sadly not an indication of the strength of the relationship. The CSA is there to try and get the father paying for the child but if both parents want any more rights then they should get married. If they choose to reject marriage I see no reason for the law to get involved as the law does protect the child as much as it can and adults should look out for themselves.

noddyholder And why should I as a cohabitee who wishes to live no-strings-attached have "cohabitee rights" enforced upon me which I do not agree with?

claw3 It undoubtedly would make them think twice- in fact, it would probably REDUCE the number of people living together.
What man (or woman) would live with a partner any more if they were to be automatically married when all they wanted to do was:
a, experiment with life.
b, have a bit of fun.
c, having a trial run to see if they wanted to marry?

No i agree having children is always a sign of a committed relationship, but we're talking about legal property rights here. once a child enters the equation, their interests have to be put first adn that's why legal rights should kick in once there are children. It's not about giving rights to adults, it's about giving them to children.