Marriage is outdated

[Lifepuzzle]

For discussion/viewpoints really. I think marriage is increasingly becoming an outdated concept. I think the value system that underpins it is, theoretically lovely - commitment to one partner for the rest of your life. But the reality of human nature is that people often outgrow each other, sometimes quickly and sometimes after 30 + years together.

I don’t think there is any shame in parting ways with someone who you’ve had a good run with, you’ve been good friends, you might have had children, but seasons move on and the whole idea of “for life” actually becomes too much pressure for people who have tried their best, had good times, but just………moved on. Yes there is something nice about knowing one person forever, but in reality I’m beginning to wonder if the unrealistic expectation of the forever part just forces people into long term unhappiness eventually.

I think marriage often does work - but for a certain lifespan. It’s a contract, in many ways, but contracts that don’t have a review and renewal date after a certain period of time are dangerous things. People should be given the option of continuing to choose their partner. In a utopian world we like to imagine we all stay together until death do us part, but in reality many people are living under conditions that they wouldn’t choose if the contract came up for renewal.Then, when divorces do happen they are often acrimonious, leaving one or both partners feeling like a failure for calling time.

Marriage isn’t just about romance anyway, it is about nailing down financial security and loyalty for the sake of children and asset-building. Yes romance comes into it at the beginning and no-one enters a marriage thinking it will fail. But it’s an outdated concept that allows no flexibility for re-assessment or understanding of the fluid nature of people as they move from one life stage to another.

It’s possible to have fluid natures moving into different life stages and still remain in the same marriage.

That is not controversial all the evidence agrees.

Marriage does not mean a committed relationship. And vice versa. And it LOOKS as if marriages last longer than other relationships because those other relationships include ones had no intention of staying in for the long haul. Marriage isn’t magic!

OP you seemed to have missed the memo. Things have been updated. Civil Partnerships. No fault divorce.

Marriage is a legal and financial contract to protect the rights of all parties, particularly children, but also whichever partner makes the necessary financial sacrifices to care for children, and in the case of women, to carry and birth those children.
It confers tax and inheritance advantages.
A civil partnership is of similar benefit.
The number of women who post on here, having had children while co-habiting (in the legal sense) and find themselves homeless and broke when the man leaves is very depressing.

Why??? This is true if the woman is cutting her hours or income, taking step back earning for childcare etc but these days that is often not even the case. So a blanket thing of "children without marriage is always bad for women" just doesn't make sense??

Speak for yourself. Many people still value it.

I valued marriage when I was married and would never have had kids out of wedlock. But that’s how I was raised and the stigma of divorce was what kept me there longer than I should have been. Now I’m divorced I don’t care about this and won’t marry again. It’s of no financial or legal benefit to me.

I do want a life partner though and someone who chooses to stay because they want to and not because they signed a contract to.

Until then a single life is great for me. But I’m fortunate to have a career and pay my own way which gives me options. Many women don’t have this and get stuck with a god awful man whether they’re married or not.

Marriage has moved with the times. It's absolutely in the interests of women who want children, in fact I'd say you were very foolish not to get married to the man you want to father your children.

By agreeing with a man to become one economic unit for the duration of the marriage (which either of you may choose to end at any time), you are insuring yourself as best as possible against the potential loss of earnings and career progression as a result of your motherhood. What's his is yours. And if the marriage ends before the children are grown up, the settlement will include that he continues to provide for his children.

You'd be very foolish to have children with a man unmarried, when this fabulous insurance policy is available to you! Plus you get to have a massive fucking party.

It's not 'for life.' 🙄 What do you think divorce is?! People can leave a marriage now (and get divorced,) if they simply don't want to be married to that person anymore. Still, around 6 out of 10 marriages (in the UK) don't end in divorce!

So some people are fine with marriage, even if YOU think it's 'outdated.'

I'd say the opposite was true - that living together was outdated. Where I am, the younger generation consider it "cool" to be married rather than just living with someone. Seems to be the 40 somethings and over who live together, possibly because they have more assets though.

I think marriage is a great measure of commitment, best to try marriage before you get it the the bigger commitment of having children

You don't have to have a religious marriage with those vows. You can have civil marriage vows that don't include that form of words.

Nail on the head. It doesn't need to be the religious/romantic church wedding. You can have a marriage without all the fuss and, yes, you can have it just for practical/legal benefits if that's what you both want.

I cannot imagine why someone wouldn’t get married to start their life and family together. Having said that I’d be very unlikely to get married a second time if I were to divorce.

I think people who say 'people dont stick together' any more are being massively, massively ignorant of the fact that this has o ly changed because women CAN leave. They can actually afford to put a roof over their kids head. There is no value in someone being in a relationship they are only consenting to because society thinks they should stay together, and I think people who think people give up marriage at the drop of the hat are ignoring that its because women are no longer trapped, and these attitudes are the ones that STILL KEEP SOME WOME. TRAPPED.

I also think men are less likely to fuck around if they know that they will lose half their assets doing this.

(note I say less likely, not unlikely)

It’s worth acknowledging that marriage still only provides security in marriage and protection in divorce for women with fairly affluent husbands, if we’re being accurate about it. If you’re a woman with a husband on a low to average wage and with little pension, and the marital home is rented, you aren’t worrying that much about what happens to your stuff when you die, and marriage doesn’t provide you with any real financial protections at the end point: you’ll walk away from it with a share of very little at all because there’s very little to be shared out. In an age where it’s perfectly socially acceptable to cohabit, if you’re just a fairly average couple who don’t have careers, or own valuable property, and aren’t building up assets or pensions, from a purely financial standpoint, it probably therefore does seem to be a bit of an irrelevance for many couples, particularly those just starting out in life.

I was going to say that too. You can compose your own vows. You don't have to say 'til death do us part' now.

In addition, no woman I know has said 'I promise to obey' in their vows, for several decades. I certainly never said it! (In the early 1990s!) Like hell would I 'obey' any man! Or anyone for that matter!😆

I feel like @Berlin2018 I think. Personally I like being married, and felt different after we did so (registry office, just us, 25 years ago). More settled, safe and set-up somehow.

I wouldn't push it on anyone but do feel it's important, not outdated.

Whereas I felt there was absolutely no difference after we’d married, to the point where, if a form asks if I’m married, it’s not an automatic yes tick. I don’t even know which month we got married in.

Only if you marry in a church ceremony where you both promise that. Registrar marriages are more flexible, (I don’t think you can refer to a deity but you can say anything else which is polite, as it is actually the signing which is the marriage). Some other religions allow divisor et or expulsion pretty much at will.

That's your personal view. For me marriage is what you make of it. It doesn't have to be outdated and depends on the attitudes of the people entering into it.

The trouble is the government see positives in it - someone does childcare, elderly relative care, household care and 2 incomes mean kids grow up not in poverty.
A lot of women in particular have noticed this is an unfair balance as usually it is them asked to sacrifice to keep the "care" of their own and partner's families at various points during the marriage. Sacrificing salary and career opportunities is seen as something mostly women in a marriage do as a result and women are having a think about if this is a fair trade. Often if the men are happy to cheat, lie or are lazy and not really a catch the answer is no. So yes, for a lot of people it is outdated. Men now seem to want multiple partners and don't value the security of a longer term relationship or having kids. Some women also don't want kids so the 2 income home isn't as important and why would they take on care roles without that as a net benefit? The main financial benefit of marriage is not having to pay as much IHT when you die so that the kids can get double inheritance passed down, if you have it. The gov seem to think kids of single parents should have that "benefit" taken away, which is another thing a lot of women find dated and keeps a lot of middle income single families from keeping homes and wealth to pass to kids.