At the end of the day, marriage is just a legal contract...

[marantha]

I post this because I believe that that is what marriage is at the end of the day- a legal construct that two people make in front of witnesses to assert that that they wish to be considered a "unit" so that there is no confusion if one of them were to die over who was to inherit and so on.

It IS true that 99% of couples who marry are in love- why else would they wish to join themselves in such a way otherwise?- BUT this does not mean to say that long-term cohabitees are incapable of having devoted, loving relationships.

To me, marriage ITSELF is not about love- it is about making clear a person's position to another individual and this is why I believe the act of giving cohabitees similar "marital" rights is wrong- they simply have not asked to be classed as married.

I agree with OP. Actually I am not sure why I am married. I just wanted to, I think. Not sure why.
But no, I don't want co-habitees to be given the same rights as me. I don't mind if they co-habit. Thats their choice and fine. But there has to be a point and a purpose of being married. You have to differentiate or else it nulifies the signifacne of getting married.

My wording would be: all marriages have two sides to them, the legal contract (which is non-negotiable) and the rest of the relationship, which is entirely open to the interpretation of the couple concerned.

onagar I agree that if two people just live together their promises are valid and serious, however, unless there is some kind of written agreement between them that is subject to scrutiny by and outside party in the event of them breaking up, there is no real way an outside party can pass judgement (if need be).

Oblomov It also nullifies the significance for some cohabitees of cohabiting i.e. to live in a loving union free of legal ties to one another.

marantha, i don't understand. if you want to co-habit, free of legal ties, you can, right ?
how does marriage nullify that ?

I guess YANBU but can I phrase it differently?
My actual wedding ceremony itself was the legal part but my marriage is something completely different.
My marriage is the relationship between DH and I and what is means to each other.

I partly feel like this because I nearly married my ex but never because I realised the actual wedding part was one thing but the marriage itself was something completely different, the marriage is your life together after the legally binding ceremony.

YANBU

The marriage contract is a particular type of business contract; between a male and a female in our society (assuming most mumsnetters are British/Irish/Commonwealth etc)

The Civil Partnership contract fairly much mirrors this business contract, but obviously for male/male female/female.

Religious Laws i.e. cannon law again has it's own "rules" regarding marriage.

Thus you may have a secular marriage contract and no religious marriage contract.

YABU

I married my husband because I loved him, I wanted to be with him forever and I wanted children. I didn't marry him for his potential life insurance or any other benefit.

Lived for many years in Sweden where cohabiting is extremely common even among couples with children, cohabitees do have legal rights - and no, the whole fabric of society hasn't collapsed, they still come across as a very family-orientated nation and I have not met any married couples who feel anything has been taken from them by according legal rights to cohabitees.

*canon law