*Is long term cohabitation just commitment phobia?*

[Wonderpet]

How many women kid themselves that they are ok with 'living together' when secretly, they view marriage a sign of commitment, but they don't feel they can ask their man to marry them? Or am I the only one that thinks this way?

i think people often fabricate reasons for not getting married

it's expensive - it costs about £50 FFS!
it's patriarchal - not unless you make it so
it's too much of a committment - as alredy indicated, having children is more of a committment
i'm not religious - marriage serves a function even if you don't have any religious belief

and then there is the crew that ask for recogniion in law of cohabitation...well, if you want that recognition, why not..i dunno..draw up a contract, get it signed & witnessed....oh wait! That's a marriage!!

otherwise you could end up 'married' to someone just by accidentally living with them too long.

A lot of people are now living with (as opposed to marrying) their partners. Fair enough. However, by failing to tie the knot and (sometimes) failing to ensure that financial arrangements are made for themselves in the event of relationship breakdown (which can happen to ALL couples-married or not)they find that they themselves (not their children -children are RIGHTLY provided for regardless of their parents marital status)are not entitled to any financial support from their former partner. Thus these women (and sometimes men) are calling for cohabitation to be recognised legally so that they receive some provision in the event of a break-up.
Giving in to such calls would mean that a couple who have no desire to tie themselves legally to another person and just cohabit with them (so that they would be free to move on with relative ease once things like say, a joint mortgage were sorted out) would now now risk their relationship hauled through the courts in the event of a breakdown.

The effect of this would be that everyone living with a partner would be considered effectively married- whether they like it or not.

Well, the bottom line is that people don't get married because they plain don't want to.

Being married doesn't actually make you a better person or confer moral superiority (revolting term) but I get the impression some people think it does.

I see what you are saying now marantha - you are concerned there would be no difference between being married and living together legally - is that right?

I cant afford to get married, simple as that. I have a dd already and dp has 2 ds, we have a baby on the way and are totally committed and in love with each other. I want to spend the rest of my life with him, we just struggle with money thats all!!!! If someone gave us the money.... offers gratefully accepted..... we would get on with it!!!

I am saying that the right to live with another adult and have the ability to leave that relationship without fear of it being called to account in the event of a breakdown would effectively disappear.

I only wish that people who cohabit make arrangements for themselves in the event of a breakdown so that those who do NOT wish to have the legal tie of marriage forced upon them can live together without having to account to anyone else.

My initial post here was tongue-in-cheek and I apologise for any offence given.
But I cannot help but feel that treating "partners" and "spouses" as one and the same is a dangerous road to go down as it will erode the essential liberty for a person to decide when they are/ are not tied to another adult.

and i do not want a £50 wedding.... i am not a lavish type but when we do get married I would like a little more than that!!!

OK marantha I think I get it now & I do see your point, although I have to say not all of us have been clamouring for the recognition you mention -- but I know it has been a prominent issue in the press.

EdgarAllenPoo, maybe some people do, but not all of us. And I'd wager that a similar number of people fabricate reasons to get married or talk themselves into the idea, even though they aren't suited.

of course, idon't give a toss what other people do. FWIW DD was born before our marriage...

but still, people often have false perceptions of what getting married involves. to my mind it was giving my solemn promise to stick with DH and not cast him out into the wastes of space (until such time as it is deemed necessary )
a friend said 'oh, good on you, you didn't promise to obey'...
i pointed out that isn't part of the civil ceremony.

and people asking for lawful recognition of cohabitation without marriage generally fall into this camp - they think getting married involves lots of stuff it doesn't have to involve. If you want to merely sign something to get the full rights of a married couple - that's exactly what a marriage cert is.....

otherwise if some for of marriage by stealth is allowed - imagine! lf your daughter lives with someone for three years at university, that boy could be her husband...

i also think some of the pro-marriage camp has its stats backwards 'great benefits rom marriage' my bum. There are great benefits to being part of a finanically and emotionally secure unit - pEople in that situation are likely to get married. lack of that situation is likely to cause you not to marry your DP..and have knock on negative effects on DCs. the mere act of marriage itself does not confer these benefits. Which is not to say marriage does nothing, as it does cause you to think twice before splitting...and engages the support of your families. And recognition of the law...

I think I know what Marantha is referring to, but I think she has the wrong end of the stick in that some people wanted some sort of legal recognition/declaration of relationships that were not like marriage eg siblings or friends sharing a house and becoming each other's legal next of kin (because they either had no other kin or the rest of the family were so awful they wanted to make sure they could keep these people at a distance).
Just out of interest, Marantha, how do you feel about civil partnerships? SHould they simply be called marriage as well (I personally think they should given that the people who enter into them generally view them as marriages).

I have no strong feelings about civil partnerships.
Marriage is at its heart a legal contract where two people declare to an official and witnesses that they wish to be considered a unit (usually because they love one another and want the world to know this).
People may marry for religious reasons, too. But the religious aspect is often superfluous to others- if marriage were solely about marrying in the eyes of God, why do the couple have to sign a register and have two witnesses present in a church? Surely God doesn't need a signature to know two people are devoted to one another?
Like I said, marriage is about making it absolutely clear-in black-and-white that, at a set date in time, two people swore that they wished to be as one (this is why any wills made prior to a marriage are made void).
Cohabitees DO NOT do this; and this is why even if the principle of cohabitation given legal recognition is accepted, the practice of actually questioning the couple about what went on between them behind closed doors is:
a, Illiberal- I don't want to live in a country where two former cohabitees can have their personal lives dissected in public in the event of their break-up (divorcing is not the same- the married couple made a vow in public. The public have a right to know what went wrong).
b, Futile- people will lie about how serious their relationship was in order to prevent losses.
As I view marriage as essentially a legal construct, I see no reason why gay people shouldn't have a civil partnership.
Call it what you like, seems to me that it is in essence the same as heterosexual marriage. Could be wrong, I admit.