I don't get it--people *not* getting married

[catz]

The thing that bothers me most about this trend of living together and having dc is the attitude I've come across in my Due Date boards: "We're going to have a baby together to see if our relationship is meant to be/will work." :001_huh: Cohabitate if you want but for goodness' sake do NOT use an innocent child who has no choice in the matter as your experiment!!

 

I don't know. I know more than one woman who got pregnant to "save" a marriage too. That's really no better, and in some ways worse if I really think hard about it. There's so much dysfunction IN marriage too. I just don't think my worldview necessarily applies to anyone else. There are plenty of reasons someone might choose not to marry, that may be perfectly valid, at least to them.

 

I like marriage too and would recommend it. But hey, no one ever asks for my recommendations!

[Saille]

The current divorce rate makes me sad also. I would never want to live in a country that doesn't allow divorce. It is necessary sometimes. But the idea of throw-away marriages makes me at least as sad as those who have kids without ever marrying.

 

See, I feel that way about transitory celebrity marriages in particular. But then, those are legal, and many of my loving, committed friends can't get married. I end up feeling jaded about marriage as an institution, though I myself have been happily married for fourteen years. I *am* religious, but I believe, strongly, that the commitment is in the heart of the participants, sanctioned by their deity, who knows whether they mean it or not. Anyone can get up in a church and commit to a bad marriage, or one they're not sure about, and their neighbors will think of them as fine, upstanding folks. That doesn't make it mean anything. And we, as outsiders, are *not privy* to the inner workings of that relationship. So it means nothing to judge marriage based on legal or church sanction.

 

On the subject of why one wouldn't live on that street:

 

I don't have any ill feelings toward the Amish, for example, for choosing to live in such a specific and separate way from the rest of us. So I'm not likely to judge someone who wants to live on a different street so her kids don't grow up seeing things she believes are sins normalized. That said, I wince when I meet someone and they tell me they're conservative Christian, b/c it just seems sort of awful and pointless to put effort into being a good neighbor, letting our kids get to know each other, etc., if they're going to snatch up their babies and run when they figure out I support gay marriage, or what-have-you. I'm about ready to start doing what my neighbors here have, and just dump it all out in one big glurt when we first meet, only instead of saying:

 

"I didn't vote for Obama. Is your husband political? Mine is. We listen to conservative talk radio all. the. time. My kids love it. I'm against partial birth abortion and gay marriage. The neighbors across the street homeschooled, you know. They're Catholic, but whatever."

 

I'll say:

 

"My kids and I canvassed for Obama for months. We're going to do it again. We're religious, but non-creedal. Two of my last three ministers were gay. I like Darwin. We go on fossil hunts, wanna come? Do you think I should hang my pride flag here, or there?"

 

Sheesh. I find the info. dump totally rude, but I admit it would save time.

[AurieD]

It appears to me that what the OP is really concerned about is the seemingly throw away nature of relationships and families that she witnesses...not the lack of marriage per se.

 

Where I live my defacto relationship and family is accorded the same legal rights and protections as a marriage. We are not religious. That takes away two of the key reasons for marriage.

 

We intend to spend the rest of our lives together and our close friends and family are aware of that. We have no need or desire for the government, strangers, or even acquaintances to know it.

[Mrs Mungo]

It appears to me that what the OP is really concerned about is the seemingly throw away nature of relationships and families that she witnesses...not the lack of marriage per se.

 

I find throw-away marriages/commitments sad too. But, it has not been my experience that not being married makes a couple more likely to have a throw-away relationship. Plenty of couples who stand before God and a minister have throw away marriages. Her rant is about unmarried people.

[Saille]

Yes, BUT it's a holy sacrament. You can't make it sound like two kids off the street can say they are married and it's the same, you know?

 

It's a hefty vow, a lifetime one, and you can't equate these people with their multiple baby daddys shacking up as a marriage.

 

A sperm donor isn't a father, nor is he a husband, no matter what their living arrangement.

 

about

 

Justamouse, I agree with you, provided you agree that a priest can witness ten marriages a day in which that vow is externally but not internally made, and though the priest did his part, a sacrament did not take place. The bride and groom did not meet their obligation. The commitment is between the two people, period. Plenty of married people didn't really make it, or get it. Plenty of unmarrieds are the same way. But I believe there are un-legally-religiously-married people who are every bit as married as someone who took full part in the Catholic sacrament of marriage. I understand that the Catholic Church would not view them that way.

[JennyD]

I live in a little academic bubble and know hardly anyone who has had children out of wedlock. Well, I know two couples who have principled objections to state-sanctioned marriage, and one single-mom-by-choice, but other than that it's pretty much the 1950s in my world.

 

I have read rather a lot on the recent explosion of cohabitation and from what I can tell nobody seems to have quite figured out what's going on, other than that it's tightly bound up with socioeconomic class. Here's a recent article from the NYT:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-in-america-divided-by-i-do.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

[jar7709]

I have read all the pages and I am still confused...how do you know all these people on your street are unmarried? Not that there's anything that awful about that in my view, since you said yourself that these couples bought houses together, which sounds like a commited relationship to me...

[El...]

I think some people's idea of what marriage is has gotten so mushy that they can't function.

 

I once spent some time trying to help a lady whose boyfriend asked her to move out after a few years of living together in his house. She'd moved across state lines to be with him, and had nothing without him. She kept saying, "I just know we are married in our hearts. I keep telling him that. I know he's going to realize it." He was not interested (or married).

 

If her definition of marriage hadn't been only "in our hearts", she would have had some rights in the situation, but she had no recourse at all.

[Mrs Mungo]

I live in a little academic bubble and know hardly anyone who has had children out of wedlock. Well, I know two couples who have principled objections to state-sanctioned marriage, and one single-mom-by-choice, but other than that it's pretty much the 1950s in my world.

 

I have read rather a lot on the recent explosion of cohabitation and from what I can tell nobody seems to have quite figured out what's going on, other than that it's tightly bound up with socioeconomic class. Here's a recent article from the NYT:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-in-america-divided-by-i-do.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

 

Interesting. In our military bubble, most people are married. You can't live in housing or get medical care by just co-habitating. That said? At least half of the people our age (we have been married for 18 years) are divorced and/or remarried. It is getting to the point that I am meeting third wives for some guys when I am still friend's with the first two. Can you say awkward? Plus, I don't *want* to meet twenty year olds who are marrying guys my dh's age. Bleh. But, at least I acknowledge that these are *my* problems, not their problems.

[Joanne]

I never said it was just kids. The woman who made the remark to me last summer was in her 50s. She was talking about her ex-husband's SS benefits to her that would cease if she remarried.

 

What benefits is she getting in her 50's? There is something *odd* about this.

[Jennifer3141]

Interesting. In our military bubble, most people are married. You can't live in housing or get medical care by just co-habitating. That said? At least half of the people our age (we have been married for 18 years) are divorced and/or remarried. It is getting to the point that I am meeting third wives for some guys when I am still friend's with the first two. Can you say awkward? Plus, I don't *want* to meet twenty year olds who are marrying guys my dh's age. Bleh. But, at least I acknowledge that these are *my* problems, not their problems.

 

 

I wonder if ranks in the military have anything to do with it? Either because higher ranks are older and they have missed out on this trend or because the people who stay in the military and rise in rank are more stable, both professionally and personally.

[justamouse]

Justamouse, I agree with you, provided you agree that a priest can witness ten marriages a day in which that vow is externally but not internally made, and though the priest did his part, a sacrament did not take place. The bride and groom did not meet their obligation. The commitment is between the two people, period. Plenty of married people didn't really make it, or get it. Plenty of unmarrieds are the same way. But I believe there are un-legally-religiously-married people who are every bit as married as someone who took full part in the Catholic sacrament of marriage. I understand that the Catholic Church would not view them that way.

 

 

I totally agree with you.

 

I don't think the RCC would negate the seriousness of the vow wherever it were taken.

 

 

Interesting. In our military bubble, most people are married. You can't live in housing or get medical care by just co-habitating. That said? At least half of the people our age (we have been married for 18 years) are divorced and/or remarried. It is getting to the point that I am meeting third wives for some guys when I am still friend's with the first two. Can you say awkward? Plus, I don't *want* to meet twenty year olds who are marrying guys my dh's age. Bleh. But, at least I acknowledge that these are *my* problems, not their problems.

 

Here's the thing, though, this IS our problem. I think we've been saying (well, it's THEIR life) that so much that people now think that they can announce they're going to marry a horse and we should throw them a shower and gift them a saddle.

[TeenagerMom]

By that definition, my DH and I are not "married." By OUR definition, we are. We have been in a committed relationship for 8 years. MUCH longer than most marriages in our area. We have a very solid, happy relationship, more-so than plenty of our "legally married" friends who are constantly fighting, making each other sleep on the couch, threatening divorce, going to marriage counseling, etc. We ARE committed. Sure, could one of us walk away? Yes, we could. But guess what, we haven't and plan on growing old together whether we have a legal license or not. We've never even had a "fight" that would make us consider splitting up. I do have a moral objection to the legal license, so to speak. I have plenty of friends in committed relationships who cannot legally marry. When they can, I will too.

 

I also have the SAME protections as a legal spouse. Those things can be taken care of with a few legal documents. We are co-owners of our home, vehicles, and bank accounts. We are the beneficiaries of each other's life insurance. We have Power of Attorneys for legal decisions in the event that something happens to one of us. The only thing we don't do is file taxes jointly. That's it. That and a piece of paper (legal marriage license) is the ONLY difference between us and your proverbial "married" couple.

[Joanne]

OP, I don't believe that "married" has much meaning anymore in and of itself. In many circles, and by much rhetoric, it simply means "not divorced."

 

Quality relationships are what is important to me as a person, mom, wife, and therapist.

 

My first marriage lasted, on paper, 14+ years. Meaningless in terms of stability, atmosphere, etc. My second marriage became a different arrangement due to health issues.

 

I think the research supports 2 happily married parents offer the best setting for children, but that research has a heterosexual, Judeo-Christian, Western bias and complicated situations to compare it to. I'm not sure *divorce* is the problem as much as how it is handled.

[JadeOrchidSong]

I'll go ahead and be unpopular.

 

It does make me sad how lightly marriage is treated. I know it's not a new thing. It's not my business how other people lead their lives and I will never give unsolicited advice. But it does make me sad to see families with unwed parents. To me it's not just a piece of paper. It's an official declaration in front of witnesses that you are committed to each other for the rest of your lives. That's something good for kids to grow up with.

 

The current divorce rate makes me sad also. I would never want to live in a country that doesn't allow divorce. It is necessary sometimes. But the idea of throw-away marriages makes me at least as sad as those who have kids without ever marrying.

 

Again - I know I have no right to tell people what to do or what to believe. I don't want my freedom taken, and would never wish that of others. But marriage and family is a big deal to me, and I hate to see the society I live in disregard it so much.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

I can't agree more! Thanks for speaking what is also on my mind!

[stripe]

I never said it was just kids. The woman who made the remark to me last summer was in her 50s. She was talking about her ex-husband's SS benefits to her that would cease if she remarried.

 

Oh, I didn't mean you said that. I simply thought it was worth pointing out that seniors are doing it too.

 

I saw Pat Robertson talk about this once when I was flipping past. It wasn't the Alzheimer's debacle. He said it was ok because God wouldn't count the civil divorce, so the couple would still be married in the eyes of God.

Edited August 13, 2012 by stripe

[Mrs Mungo]

Here's the thing, though, this IS our problem. I think we've been saying (well, it's THEIR life) that so much that people now think that they can announce they're going to marry a horse and we should throw them a shower and gift them a saddle.

 

OP, I don't believe that "married" has much meaning anymore in and of itself. In many circles, and by much rhetoric, it simply means "not divorced."

 

Quality relationships are what is important to me as a person, mom, wife, and therapist.

 

My first marriage lasted, on paper, 14+ years. Meaningless in terms of stability, atmosphere, etc. My second marriage became a different arrangement due to health issues.

 

I think the research supports 2 happily married parents offer the best setting for children, but that research has a heterosexual, Judeo-Christian, Western bias and complicated situations to compare it to. I'm not sure *divorce* is the problem as much as how it is handled.

 

Sort of addressing both of these posts at once.

 

Here is the thing. Historically, marriage didn't have much to do with the simple desires of two people. It had to do with politics, economics, the joining of families. Duty, not love.

 

My NA tribe, for example? When a woman married, the husband went to live with her family. When the kids came along, they belonged to her tribe. *Her* brothers and father and uncles raised the boys because they were from the same tribe. The kids never went without caretakers. The women never went without what we would call economic support. Ruth and Naomi? They moved to where Naomi's family lived. They relied upon Naomi's extended family to do their duty.

 

The single moms and kids were cared for and supported (in every sense of the word) no matter what came of the husband.

 

THAT is what is lacking today, IMO, and it has been lacking for a long time.

[TranquilMind]

Saille;

"I didn't vote for Obama. Is your husband political? Mine is. We listen to conservative talk radio all. the. time. My kids love it. I'm against partial birth abortion and gay marriage. The neighbors across the street homeschooled, you know. They're Catholic, but whatever."

 

I'll say:

 

"My kids and I canvassed for Obama for months. We're going to do it again. We're religious, but non-creedal. Two of my last three ministers were gay. I like Darwin. We go on fossil hunts, wanna come? Do you think I should hang my pride flag here, or there?"

 

Sheesh. I find the info. dump totally rude, but I admit it would save time

 

Too bad we can't just have signs posted above our heads like on a billboard or something. You could save so much time!

 

I shouldn't say that. It will give people ideas. Pretty soon you will probably have to give up your facebook password to move into a neighborhood or something, so they can load it up with the "right kind" of liberals or conservatives.

[TranquilMind]

I think some people's idea of what marriage is has gotten so mushy that they can't function.

 

I once spent some time trying to help a lady whose boyfriend asked her to move out after a few years of living together in his house. She'd moved across state lines to be with him, and had nothing without him. She kept saying, "I just know we are married in our hearts. I keep telling him that. I know he's going to realize it." He was not interested (or married).

 

If her definition of marriage hadn't been only "in our hearts", she would have had some rights in the situation, but she had no recourse at all.

 

Yeah. When the rubber meets the road, you see the value of "married in our hearts".

[cougarmom4]

I'll go ahead and be unpopular.

 

It does make me sad how lightly marriage is treated. I know it's not a new thing. It's not my business how other people lead their lives and I will never give unsolicited advice. But it does make me sad to see families with unwed parents. To me it's not just a piece of paper. It's an official declaration in front of witnesses that you are committed to each other for the rest of your lives. That's something good for kids to grow up with...But marriage and family is a big deal to me, and I hate to see the society I live in disregard it so much.

 

:iagree:

[FairyMom]

See, I feel that way about transitory celebrity marriages in particular. But then, those are legal, and many of my loving, committed friends can't get married. I end up feeling jaded about marriage as an institution, though I myself have been happily married for fourteen years. I *am* religious, but I believe, strongly, that the commitment is in the heart of the participants, sanctioned by their deity, who knows whether they mean it or not. Anyone can get up in a church and commit to a bad marriage, or one they're not sure about, and their neighbors will think of them as fine, upstanding folks. That doesn't make it mean anything. And we, as outsiders, are *not privy* to the inner workings of that relationship. So it means nothing to judge marriage based on legal or church sanction.

 

On the subject of why one wouldn't live on that street:

 

I don't have any ill feelings toward the Amish, for example, for choosing to live in such a specific and separate way from the rest of us. So I'm not likely to judge someone who wants to live on a different street so her kids don't grow up seeing things she believes are sins normalized. That said, I wince when I meet someone and they tell me they're conservative Christian, b/c it just seems sort of awful and pointless to put effort into being a good neighbor, letting our kids get to know each other, etc., if they're going to snatch up their babies and run when they figure out I support gay marriage, or what-have-you. I'm about ready to start doing what my neighbors here have, and just dump it all out in one big glurt when we first meet, only instead of saying:

 

"I didn't vote for Obama. Is your husband political? Mine is. We listen to conservative talk radio all. the. time. My kids love it. I'm against partial birth abortion and gay marriage. The neighbors across the street homeschooled, you know. They're Catholic, but whatever."

 

I'll say:

 

"My kids and I canvassed for Obama for months. We're going to do it again. We're religious, but non-creedal. Two of my last three ministers were gay. I like Darwin. We go on fossil hunts, wanna come? Do you think I should hang my pride flag here, or there?"

 

Sheesh. I find the info. dump totally rude, but I admit it would save time.

 

Love this!

[Karen in CO]

Yeah. When the rubber meets the road, you see the value of "married in our hearts".

I don't know that "married in our hearts" generally turns out much worse than "'till death do us part." Western countries have some pretty high divorce rates. A stamp of approval from the county courthouse doesn't guarantee a happy couple that will raise happy children. If you're going to judge the value of families, let's start with... wait, let's just skip it and get back to a bowl of ice cream.

[nd293]

I honestly think that DH and I might be the only married couple on our street. I don't get it. Most of these people aren't even engaged, just boyfriend/girlfriend couples. They don't have some philosophical opposition to marriage. They own a house and have kids together so it isn't like anyone can easily walk away.

 

I am married-to-stay-married, not always happy, but as far as I am concerned, once you have kids you have to grow up and make the best of it. That said, my view is clearly very far from the norm nowadays. If marriage has no intrinsic value to it - no absolute association of til-death-do-us-part - then, why bother? Personally, I think churches have to bear a lot of responsibility - that they would allow people to stand up and pledge eternal commitment and then allow a 'repeat performance'/'do over' a few later completely amazes me. Sure, they find some sort of theological logic to it, but bottom line is the church itself does not expect people to honor the vow.

 

Personally, I'd rather my children live 'out of wedlock' than that they make a promise that they renege on...

[Mergath]

Honestly, if someone feels like they need the backing of the legal system to be really and truly committed, I think that says something about the quality of that commitment in the first place. My dh and I are together, we take care of our daughter, and he would care for me and dd no matter what, married or not. Marriage wouldn't change that either way.

[Joanne]

I am married-to-stay-married, not always happy, but as far as I am concerned, once you have kids you have to grow up and make the best of it. That said, my view is clearly very far from the norm nowadays. If marriage has no intrinsic value to it - no absolute association of til-death-do-us-part - then, why bother? Personally, I think churches have to bear a lot of responsibility - that they would allow people to stand up and pledge eternal commitment and then allow a 'repeat performance'/'do over' a few later completely amazes me. Sure, they find some sort of theological logic to it, but bottom line is the church itself does not expect people to honor the vow.

 

Personally, I'd rather my children live 'out of wedlock' than that they make a promise that they renege on...

 

This is why I would never, ever, ever remarry. But I arrive there from a different perspective.

 

I no longer believe the promise of *marriage* (read: not divorced) is the issue. I believe the problem is that the promises of love, care, nurture, and support are more important than the status of the paper defining relationship.

 

"Divorce is not an option" is a potentially abusive perspective. It can serve to protect and perpetuate a living experience that no wise Higher Power designed.

[TeenagerMom]

 

"Divorce is not an option" is a potentially abusive perspective. It can serve to protect and perpetuate a living experience that no wise Higher Power designed.

 

Well said, Joanne. I was married to an abusive man. I left him when I was 4 months pregnant with DS because I was afraid that my pregnancy wouldn't survive. He used that marriage license to essentially continue to control me for another year until our divorce was final.

 

I realized with DH, that I don't need a paper to prove our love and commitment to each other. We LIVE our commitment each and every single day. My family was staunchly against our nontraditional household in the beginning. Now, you will not find a person that KNOWS us that does not speak of us as a married couple. He IS the father of my children though not biologically, and we ARE a normal, loving family with strong values in every aspect of our lives.

[Cammie]

I think some people's idea of what marriage is has gotten so mushy that they can't function.

 

I once spent some time trying to help a lady whose boyfriend asked her to move out after a few years of living together in his house. She'd moved across state lines to be with him, and had nothing without him. She kept saying, "I just know we are married in our hearts. I keep telling him that. I know he's going to realize it." He was not interested (or married).

 

If her definition of marriage hadn't been only "in our hearts", she would have had some rights in the situation, but she had no recourse at all.

 

 

I keep seeing this refrain about having "no rights" if you are not legally married and that is simply NOT the case in many, many situations. There are contract rights that would apply in many situations to deal with the issues of property/house/etc. Rights regarding child custody and child support have NOTHING to do with whether or not the parents were married. In many states you can get a "Dissolution of Domestic Partnership" to sort of divorce someone you were living with. The main right I can think of that would not apply would be spousal support.

 

If two adults are living together and things go south you do have rights. I would hate for people to think they have to get married legally in order to protect themselves in case things don't work out.

[Free]

Yes, you need to be married to have a husband.:confused: Otherwise, it is some other relationship.

 

That would depend on your definition of marriage. The PP may not be married legally and may not have a piece of paper to prove her relationship, but a committed and loving relationship of 30 years sounds like marriage to me. If I was in a relationship like that I would call my significant other my husband. No other label fits.

[Laura Corin]

My brother didn't get married until his daughters were about 4 and 6. He just didn't see the need. He was in a committed relationship and there was no doubt about the strength of the family unit. I think they finally got married because they liked the idea of a family party to celebrate their union. They might also have been thinking long term about legal advantages to having the piece of paper, I don't know. They are happily married sixteen years later, so that's around a twenty-five year union.

 

Laura

[kalanamak]

I could care less about people and their relationship status. But I would really scratch my head if someone asked me that about my kids.

 

:iagree:

 

Most of the people I know who aren't marrying (children of my peers) are because of insurance. The dad works a job with no insurance, and at least mom and new baby can get some state coverage.

 

I do know a few people (at work) who are married to one person, long term, and have a second family. Second mother knows the man won't leave his kids, but gets pregnant (and these are nurses, so they know how it happens) anyway. I'm guessing because "she loves him", but I'm not sure.

[Laura Corin]

 

If two adults are living together and things go south you do have rights. I would hate for people to think they have to get married legally in order to protect themselves in case things don't work out.

 

You have to be very careful to be clear about the local laws. Many people in England believe that there is such a thing as 'common law marriage' recognised after a couple has been together for X number of years. This is not so, and it leads many people into trouble when dealing with the financial consequences of a break up, for example, if one partner paid the mortgage while the other looked after the children, the at-home partner does not have an automatic right to a share of the house.

 

Laura

[kalanamak]

I think some people's idea of what marriage is has gotten so mushy that they can't function.

 

Or they have been burned so much they don't want want to say "this is the one" ever again. I lost the marriage that meant something to me through no fault of my own. Now I just say "so far, so good". My ex was a great guy who was a joy to work with and has plenty of loyal friends and co-workers. As I said to someone close to both of us, "If he could do this to me, any man could do this to me". And he was truly miserable to "do that to me."

 

Not only will I never love again, I will never depend on anyone ever again, either. I find doing my duty by my son fulfilling enough. If that sounds terrible or pitiful, I am neither unhappy nor broken, just too chary to make promises that might not come through. I don't doubt my loyalty, but I am loathe to give a promise that might make me so vulnerable again. I reserve the right to bail if he becomes a jerk who is abusive, a wastrel, or a lost cause. Life is too short, especially at my age, and I don't have another decade to waste trying to make a marriage stable enough to feel I wasn't going to be dumped in the near future.

[Catwoman]

My family was a big deterrent in me wanting to have a wedding. They wanted it Catholic, but we had started attending a non denominational Christian church, and have continued together for the past two years. We're new Christians, new to homeschooling, and still growing in our faith. My family wanted a big wedding. I don't have time to plan something like that nor the desire to spend money on something like that when we don't even own our own home yet. Different priorities.

 

Now, from a moral stand point, yes, I've wondered if what we are doing is wrong, and if we should get married, even if at a courthouse with just us and the kids, but this would probably create some backlash from my family. But, ultimately, we're a family and we're commited to each other for life. So, I don't see it as being a bad thing.

 

The only thing I see as being a bad thing is that you're allowing your family too much influence over what you do or don't do. If you want to get married, just get married and let the chips fall where they may.

 

This is your life, not your parents' life or your sister's life, or anyone else's. Do what feels right to you, and let everyone else deal with it.

 

My suggestion would be to go on a nice little family vacation and get married while you're there. When you get home, you can surprise everyone with the news. You can even lie and say it was just a romantic, spur-of-the-moment thing. (Hey, I know lying is considered to be sort of a bad thing, but in this case, if it helps smooth things over with the family, I'm all for it.)

 

Ultimately, your family will accept whatever you do, and if they don't, it's their problem to deal with.

[Catwoman]

It is hard to find the right name for my significant other. Should it be baby daddy, or lover, or......Dear Loved One, or simply Dear Husband. Do I need to be married to say that?

 

 

Please, please do not use baby daddy. I think that is the tackiest, most low-rent-sounding way I have ever heard to describe a loved one. It makes the poor guy sound like a sperm donor. :ack2: :ack2: :ack2:

 

I would suggest that you call him whatever you like best (but again, think twice about the whole baby daddy thing :tongue_smilie:) When you're here, you might as well just use DH, because it's quick to type and if he's your husband/spouse/mate in your eyes, it's pretty much the same thing as if he was "officially" your husband. :001_smile:

[Catwoman]

The thing that bothers me most about this trend of living together and having dc is the attitude I've come across in my Due Date boards: "We're going to have a baby together to see if our relationship is meant to be/will work." :001_huh: Cohabitate if you want but for goodness' sake do NOT use an innocent child who has no choice in the matter as your experiment!!

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

OTOH, I also find it incredibly annoying that so many people who decide to get married are placing all of their emphasis on The Wedding, but not planning for a single minute after they get home from their honeymoon.

 

Hello, people, The Wedding is one day of your life. The Marriage is supposed to last a lifetime. Probably you should be focusing on the bigger picture (and stop watching Bridezillas and that stupid show about shopping for bridal gowns, and get a grip on reality.)

 

And am I the only one who sees the promos for Bridezillas and can't understand why those prospective grooms don't RUN AWAY? Those women are evil, and don't those men realize that if she's that mean before the wedding, things aren't going to get any better after they're married? Hasn't anyone ever told them that people are on their best behavior before they get married, and show their true colors later? I'm telling you, some of those Bridezilla Babes have serious serial killer potential. They don't even seem particularly fond of the men they're marrying -- it's like they decided they wanted a gown, a big party, and a trip to Europe, so they grabbed the first gullible male and weaseled him into marrying them.

Edited August 13, 2012 by Catwoman

[KidsHappen]

Sort of addressing both of these posts at once.

 

Here is the thing. Historically, marriage didn't have much to do with the simple desires of two people. It had to do with politics, economics, the joining of families. Duty, not love.

 

My NA tribe, for example? When a woman married, the husband went to live with her family. When the kids came along, they belonged to her tribe. *Her* brothers and father and uncles raised the boys because they were from the same tribe. The kids never went without caretakers. The women never went without what we would call economic support. Ruth and Naomi? They moved to where Naomi's family lived. They relied upon Naomi's extended family to do their duty.

 

The single moms and kids were cared for and supported (in every sense of the word) no matter what came of the husband.

 

THAT is what is lacking today, IMO, and it has been lacking for a long time.

 

To a certain extent, this is the way our family functions. We are more matriliner than most. If anything happened to my hubby I would probably live with one of my brothers or children.

[Mom in High Heels]

Since James Bond is military and we live on post, everyone around us is married because you can't live on post or get benefits otherwise. Most of our friends have been married for many years (15+), but a ton of the younger soldiers have been divorced 1 or 2 times. This was true when JB was a young soldier too, so it's nothing new. We didn't get married because of the military rules though since we were married a year before he decided to join. We got married because, well, it's what we wanted to do. I don't care what other people want to do, but for us it was what we wanted.

If something were to happen to JB (heaven forbid!), I would probably never get married again. That's not to say I wouldn't love someone else, but I wouldn't get married. To be honest, it has to do with money, plain and simple. If something happens to JB, I get his retirement and SS as long as I'm not remarried. I have 2 kids to take care of and that would give me security for them and myself. That's not to say another marriage wouldn't work out, but there are no guarantees and I want to make sure that the boys are taken care of. If I were to marry again and then divorce, I would not get JB's retirement and SS back. Taking care of my kids would be a higher priority than a piece of paper. You can be in a committed relationship without actually being married. JB and I chose to get married, but other people don't and have long, happy, healthy relationships. Who am I to tell them how to live?

[nono]

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

OTOH, I also find it incredibly annoying that so many people who decide to get married are placing all of their emphasis on The Wedding, but not planning for a single minute after they get home from their honeymoon.

 

Hello, people, The Wedding is one day of your life. The Marriage is supposed to last a lifetime. Probably you should be focusing on the bigger picture (and stop watching Bridezillas and that stupid show about shopping for bridal gowns, and get a grip on reality.)

 

And am I the only one who sees the promos for Bridezillas and can't understand why those prospective grooms don't RUN AWAY? Those women are evil, and don't those men realize that if she's that mean before the wedding, things aren't going to get any better after they're married? Hasn't anyone ever told them that people are on their best behavior before they get married, and show their true colors later? I'm telling you, some of those Bridezilla Babes have serious serial killer potential. They don't even seem particularly fond of the men they're marrying -- it's like they decided they wanted a gown, a big party, and a trip to Europe, so they grabbed the first gullible male and weaseled him into marrying them.

 

Get out of my head!!! You nailed it all the way around for how I think, including agreeing with LuvnMySvn.

[lynn]

I don't get it either. My niece is 20 calls her live in boyfriend her "hubby" and expecting her first child. Makes me sad that she thinks she has it good. "hubby" does not even have a steady job. Is this a new thing? My nephew who is 30 same thing. Live in girlfriend and they had a baby last year and my family is so thrilled. I guess in both their cases their parents were in bad situations so the kids grow up not valueing marriage?:confused:

[DawnM]

I can't tell you how many times MIL criticized our wedding. She went on and on about how it wasn't "as good" as the other kids' weddings.

 

I told her then that I was far more concerned with my marriage than my wedding.

 

Guess what? We are the ONLY ones of his siblings still married. :tongue_smilie:

 

Dawn

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

OTOH, I also find it incredibly annoying that so many people who decide to get married are placing all of their emphasis on The Wedding, but not planning for a single minute after they get home from their honeymoon.

 

Hello, people, The Wedding is one day of your life. The Marriage is supposed to last a lifetime. Probably you should be focusing on the bigger picture (and stop watching Bridezillas and that stupid show about shopping for bridal gowns, and get a grip on reality.)

 

And am I the only one who sees the promos for Bridezillas and can't understand why those prospective grooms don't RUN AWAY? Those women are evil, and don't those men realize that if she's that mean before the wedding, things aren't going to get any better after they're married? Hasn't anyone ever told them that people are on their best behavior before they get married, and show their true colors later? I'm telling you, some of those Bridezilla Babes have serious serial killer potential. They don't even seem particularly fond of the men they're marrying -- it's like they decided they wanted a gown, a big party, and a trip to Europe, so they grabbed the first gullible male and weaseled him into marrying them.

[stripe]

Personally, I'd rather my children live 'out of wedlock' than that they make a promise that they renege on...

 

Not every wedding ceremony -- or religion -- includes a vow to stay together until death. I had a religious ceremony and we never promised to stay together until death. I would have no crisis if my daughter was married for a while and then divorced. Would it make me happy? No, but it doesn't strike me as a catastrophe. At least she tried. You have to assume things will work out sometimes, even if they don't.

 

And I agree with Cammie, I do know an immigrant who had a religious marriage only, performed in a country she was no longer living in. (She was married to an American.) I thought it was a huge mistake that she didn't have a legal marriage, personally. At certain points, nonetheless, she had the man arrested. Threatening your girlfriend or live in partner is as illegal as threatening your wife, and ditto for abuse. She also received assistance when he stole her property. So at least it didn't make a difference with regard to her ability to get police intervention. However, other things, such as the right to apply for residencey in the US, are given to legal spouses. Live in partners or gf/bfs are not, although fiancees have a special program.

 

I read an article on the BBC website about couples who'd been together for a while, getting married. I think there had been some high profile couples that suggested some sort of "trend."

Edited August 13, 2012 by stripe

[angela in ohio]

It is often a financial advantage NOT to get married. Dh and I often joked, when we had a different SES, about getting divorced so that we could have more money. :lol:

 

We live in a rural, small town Midwest area. Most people in our circle get married. Some of them get divorced, but they seem to get remarried then. It is the "norm" for people to be married here.

Edited August 13, 2012 by angela in ohio

[Parrothead]

It is often a financial advantage NOT to get married. Dh and I joke about getting divorced so that we can have more money. :lol:

I think this has a lot to do with it. The "protections" of marriage for some just aren't worth it. The financial advantage is in not getting married. Completely opposite from traditional marriage.

[Catwoman]

I could care less what people choose to do in this realm.

 

But I definitely find it offensive when people say only religious people should get married.

 

:iagree:

[SailorMom]

I won't judge others by my own ideas and values - but I can tell you I can't imagine it for me personally.

When DH and I got engaged - the months before the wedding were torturous (I had a year of high school left when we got engaged). So many time we wanted to run off and marry each other because we couldn't wait to be husband and wife. It really meant something to us then, and still does now.

When I see two people together who aren't clamoring to be together forever, to be married, etc., I personally just don't get it.

But again - that's me. Everyone has their own ideas about life and love.

[Catwoman]

This is actually not that straight forward and barely true.

 

http://marriage.about.com/cs/commonlaw/ht/commonlaw.htm

 

:iagree:

 

I don't think anyone should count on having any particular rights without doing some serious research beforehand, or they may end up very disappointed when things don't go their way on the legal front.

[HSMom2One]

If you think things have changed in the past ten years, some of us older moms have seen a very drastic change in the past 20-30-40 years. Wow! I can't even begin to express how sad it is to see how our culture has changed when it comes to morals. In the 60's we did go through what is now called a sexual revolution, but in everyday America living together outside of marriage was still referred to as "living in sin". It was actually shocking to most of us that anyone would even consider it. Even if you weren't particularly religious, the average American viewpoint was that marriage brought security to families with children.

 

It makes me want to cry sometimes when people are so casual and matter of fact about the devaluing of marriage. And as a woman who's seen and lived a lot in my 58 years, I have come to recognize the sad fact that men particularly gain a great deal from living together without being married. They get all the benefits of marriage without taking the full responsibility. Why so many young women of today cannot see this is a mystery to me. (I suppose I'll get a lot of tomatoes thrown at me for saying that, but I'm holding to that statement never the less.)

 

And why is it that people bring up high divorce rates as proof that marriage is no longer necessary? Divorce is the failure of people, not marriage itself. What we see now is a whole generation of people that don't even understand the meaning of the word commitment. Marriages that are based on loyalty and commitment provide a secure environment and the most healthy foundation for both children and adults. I personally believe that marriage is sacred and that when biblical standards are applied it reaps the richest rewards in life, but even if I weren't a Christian believer I'd still see the value in marriage and how terribly important it is to society.

 

I could go on and on and on....but I don't have the time.

 

Blessings,

Lucinda

[kalanamak]

... they may end up very disappointed when things don't go their way on the legal front.

 

Marriage is iffy, too. If you don't have the money to hire a lawyer, or if you are unwilling to make it as painful and wasteful a circus as your bitter spouse is, you may not be happy with the legal protection marriage gives you.

[Catwoman]

Marriage is iffy, too. If you don't have the money to hire a lawyer, or if you are unwilling to make it as painful and wasteful a circus as your bitter spouse is, you may not be happy with the legal protection marriage gives you.

 

:iagree:

 

But an unmarried woman who can't afford a decent lawyer will probably end up in even worse shape when all is said and done.

[cdrumm4448]

What benefits is she getting in her 50's? There is something *odd* about this.

 

I had just met her so I didn't delve into exactly what she was receiving. She volunteered the information 2 seconds after the introductions. There's something odd about it, all right. Vulgar bragging about getting as much as you can out of the system is becoming more and more acceptable today. The attitude that, "You better get yours!" is disgusting.