cdrumm4448 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 well, it's THEIR life[/i]) 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. :iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 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. :iagree: Don't you want to tell them that you're not exactly impressed with their deceit, because it's partly your money as a taxpayer that they're stealing? And why don't they seem to realize that they are, in fact, stealing? :glare: These are often the same people who would be livid if someone accused them of shoplifting, yet they have no problem whatsoever with ripping off the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 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. Well, I'm a couple of years behind you, but disenfranchised males don't live is long, have higher alcoholism rates, and, while they may seem to gain in the benefits so often admired in our culture (money) they lack in family ties and longevity. Married men live longer. Professionally, I've seen some unhappy and tearful single mothers, overwhelmed at the moment with stress, but they have hope, they have goals, they have the sympathy of many -- often their ILs, too. I've also seen the depressed and lost middle aged man who hasn't committed to anything and can't understand why his boyhood has deserted him. Not a pretty sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrumm4448 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 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." I disagree. Many people have not downgraded their opinion of marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrumm4448 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 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. Pat Robertson is not someone I use as a moral compass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I don't see any difference between divorce and not getting married and having the relationship end that way. Either one is a failed relationship. Either one means the kids get just as messed up by it. I've never understood the idea of not getting married bc they just want to walk away if they want instead of getting divorced. If anything, I think that attitude is setting the stage to guarantee one or the other is going to walk away. I think it is sad and incomprehensible to me. I also think its a pathetic statement in general of our society that so many view marriage so impermanent as to be not worth entering in to begin with. If my parents had been divorced, or divorced multiple times, I'd sure be hesitant to go down that road too. So mostly it just makes me sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrumm4448 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Not judging other people's family status and eating ice cream...now there's an idea or two I can get behind! :) Promoting marriage as a worthy goal for society is not judging other people's family status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 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 don't want a marriage based on loyalty and committment to a piece of paper. I want one (well, I don't, really, but if I did), I'd want one based on mutuality, care, kindness, nurture, affection and, if possible, good tea. But, honestly? I'm not interested in cohabitation anymore, especially when the kids are out of the house. I'm *living* committment, in large part for integrity and for the sake of my kids. "You" don't know what "in sickness and in health" really looks like until it changes everything; from tea, affection, communication. provision, being able to have conversation, when you lose friends because of symtoms of illness........... My posts are not because I am anti-commitment. I've gone nearly to the ends of the earth to honor with integrity my vows I took a mere 6 years ago. Heck, I nearly lost myself trying to honor the vows I said 20+ years ago. I lost the specifics of my lifelong faith in large part because of issues relating to and part of marriage. No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrumm4448 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 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. Sorry, but you can't change the definition of marriage. You're married or you're not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I don't see any difference between divorce and not getting married and having the relationship end that way. Either one is a failed relationship. Either one means the kids get just as messed up by it. :iagree: The idea of not getting married because you don't want it to end in divorce doesn't hold a lot of water when you turn around and live with someone... and the relationship fails. OK, maybe there was no piece of paper that said you were married, but if it was a committed relationship and it failed, you've done the emotional equivalent of getting divorced. I'm not saying that everyone should get married; I just think it's a little hypocritical when people worry about the ravages of divorce without realizing that the breakup of any long-term relationship will have the same emotional effect on everyone involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy in NH Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I'm not at all religious but marriage was important to me for its legal protections and insurance in addition to showing our commitment and familial status in a way that is easily understood in our community. My marriage is altogether secular and not part of a sacred covenant, but it is an important part of my family. We lived together for four years before getting married but waited to get married before having kids for all those legal and insurance reasons - our society is just set up in a way that makes marriage an easier place to have kids, which is a good thing for most kids IMO. I can't believe someone would question your kids' dad! How RUDE! :iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdventureMoms Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Promoting marriage as a worthy goal for society is not judging other people's family status. True statement. However, the original post is absolutely judging other people's family status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Florida. Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 However, I am confused by the above. If you are not married (as you put it), how do you have a MIL and FIL? The first is a prerequisite for the second. Yes, you need to be married to have a husband.:confused: Otherwise, it is some other relationship. Many people who have been together a long time consider their partner to be a husband or wife. While common law marriage isn't recognized in many states anymore, at one time it was. And according to common law marriage you were husband and wife. 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. :iagree: 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. I'm just a year behind you. When my parents divorced in 1963, my mother became a pariah. Other women in the neighborhood assumed that because she was divorced, she was after their husbands. We were Catholic, which made it even worse. My brother and I were looked down on at school. I for one, am glad we no longer treat divorced people (especially women) as if they are second class citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrumm4448 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 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 :iagree::iagree::iagree: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrumm4448 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 :iagree: Don't you want to tell them that you're not exactly impressed with their deceit, because it's partly your money as a taxpayer that they're stealing? And why don't they seem to realize that they are, in fact, stealing? :glare: These are often the same people who would be livid if someone accused them of shoplifting, yet they have no problem whatsoever with ripping off the system. I was dumbfounded that someone, who I just met at a wedding, would tell anyone about how she's rigging the system for her benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I'm a single parent, but I'm still trying to get my head around this. I can't see cohabitating while raising children. To me it is basically telling kids that sex is more important than just about anything. Or if the motive is to keep getting benefits, then that's teaching children that it's OK to game "the system" to get something that isn't available to other families. I do think it's a lot to ask kids to accept that a cohabitation arrangement is a commitment from their perspective. And I think it hurts kids for "parent" figures to be "in and out of their lives" as the song goes. I hear people saying that it's possible for the couple to stay together, but I think kids would benefit from something more solid than that. Even given the fact that marriage is no guarantee of stability. It's not as if getting married is going to harm an otherwise healthy, committed, long-term relationship. That said, I would not want people to get married just to satisfy public opinion against single parents. I'd rather see single moms stop shacking up with men, at least until they have a wedding date on the calendar. As my SIL said (my brother is her 2nd husband), "if I'm good enough to live with, I'm good enough to marry." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texascamps Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 We have many people in our family who have chosen not to get married because it is cheaper not too, especially if they are going to have children. Each one of the women in our family said that they would loose their "services" if they married their boyfriends who had decent jobs. Medicaid paid for their births the doctor appointments, and then the series of money they get as unwed mothers in the form of financial assistance. So although they were in solid relationships, it was financially better to stay unmarried. On the birth certificates they can still give the baby the father's name. We have one family member with 4 children and over ten years unmarried. Very practical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Sorry, but you can't change the definition of marriage. You're married or you're not. The definition of marriage has changed *many* times over the course of history and is not the same in every culture. Many states still have common law marriage, so do some of the Indian tribes who govern themselves. My dad had a friend who accidentally got married twice and had to legally divorce the women. http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage-fact-sheet.html I for one, am glad we no longer treat divorced people (especially women) as if they are second class citizens. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I'm trying to fathom what those financial advantages are though. From a tax standpoint, my family would pay a lot less in taxes if DH and I were only co-habiting. The total tax bill for married-filing-joint is often quite a bit more than when the higher income spouse files as single and the lower-earning spouse files as "head of household". There are also a bunch of programs that youngest DD would qualify for if I were "head of household". I have no problem with a couple having a "spiritual" marriage rather than a legally binding one. Most faiths allow this kind of wedding because the vows before God are the important part rather than whether or not the government issues a civil license. What I do have a problem with is couples who live in sin without the benefit of either a civil or spiritual marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I don't see any difference between divorce and not getting married and having the relationship end that way. I don't think people are saying there is a difference. In fact, I think people are saying it is not different. Bemoaning the state of unmarried couples is silly when the divorce rate is so high. That's the point being made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I was dumbfounded that someone, who I just met at a wedding, would tell anyone about how she's rigging the system for her benefit. It kind of makes you wonder what she's not telling you, doesn't it? :eek: If you see her again at another function, don't be entirely surprised if she starts telling you that the bodies are buried in her back yard, behind the shed. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I do the taxes and sometimes for the heck of it see if there is a difference and I have not yet seen that we'd pay less in taxes doing it another way than married filing jointly. Maybe this affects certain income levels? Probably. I think where it makes the biggest difference is not getting whacked with the AMT. The AMT kicks in at $150k for married but at $112.5k each for single and head-of-household. So an upper-middle-class married couple gets whacked with the AMT at $75k lower a total income than an upper-middle-class co-habiting couple. :glare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I was dumbfounded that someone, who I just met at a wedding, would tell anyone about how she's rigging the system for her benefit. :001_huh: But it isn't rigging the system to want to get married for benefits? I've never heard anyone lament how people who get married get more breaks. (tho obviously many of them don't) I do the taxes and sometimes for the heck of it see if there is a difference and I have not yet seen that we'd pay less in taxes doing it another way than married filing jointly. Maybe this affects certain income levels? It depends on income and state. Lower incomes usually have no marriage incentive and many discouragements to marriage. When they are single, it's not a big deal, but the kids get more benefits if mom and dad aren't married. Now, in my state, which recognizes common law marriage btw, it doesn't much matter if they are living together. EVERYONE in the household with income must report that income to receive state benefits such as food stamps, daycare, medical for kids (still none for parents)... It doesn't matter if they are parents, grown children, teens with jobs, grandparents.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatCyndiGirl Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 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!! But, there is no way for them to win here! If they get married then divorced then they weren't taking it seriously. If they had an abortion they are murderers. If they live together they are "using an innocent child as an experiment". They can't win for losin'! And, btw, those of you who think that unmarried people can't use the word husband? WRONG! At some point they become common-law spouses, anyway. Saying 'husband' or 'wife' is actually accurate. Maybe we can have new terms, those of us who are married can be called "RealWife" and "RealHusband". :glare: I'm married, but only b/c he is military. I couldn't go with him overseas without it. We aren't better than couples who do not have that piece of paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrumm4448 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 It kind of makes you wonder what she's not telling you, doesn't it? :eek: If you see her again at another function, don't be entirely surprised if she starts telling you that the bodies are buried in her back yard, behind the shed. ;) Really, people shock me quite often. I assume the people I'm around are morally upstanding types, and when I find out they aren't I'm usually surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrumm4448 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 :001_huh: But it isn't rigging the system to want to get married for benefits? I've never heard anyone lament how people who get married get more breaks. (tho obviously many of them don't) Marital benefits were put into place to promote marriage. Taking money from the system when you don't need it but still want it is rigging the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angela in ohio Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 It depends on income and state. Lower incomes usually have no marriage incentive and many discouragements to marriage. When they are single, it's not a big deal, but the kids get more benefits if mom and dad aren't married. Now, in my state, which recognizes common law marriage btw, it doesn't much matter if they are living together. EVERYONE in the household with income must report that income to receive state benefits such as food stamps, daycare, medical for kids (still none for parents)... It doesn't matter if they are parents, grown children, teens with jobs, grandparents.... Most things go by household, but if you aren't married, you can say dad lives elsewhere (even if he doesn't,) and you are all set. That's how the game works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 And, btw, those of you who think that unmarried people can't use the word husband? WRONG! At some point they become common-law spouses, anyway. Saying 'husband' or 'wife' is actually accurate. Actually, that is not the case. As far as I know, only 15 states and the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Actually, that is not the case. As far as I know, only 15 states and the District of Columbia recognize common-law marriages. It looks like the list is getting shorter than it used to be. Several states that recognize long-standing common-law unions no longer grant recognition to ones formed after a certain date. Only 9 states plus D.C. recognize new common-law unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Marital benefits were put into place to promote marriage. Taking money from the system when you don't need it but still want it is rigging the system. Most all of the people I know (in a professional capacity) that are unmarried for benefits reasons would be literally JUST above the income limit for what they need- usually health insurance or childcare. I am not saying that it is right or wrong but if marriage renders your kids (perhaps with chronic health issues) without insurance and nowhere near being able to pay for health costs out of pocket it becomes a pretty big gray area. Most states look at the income of all hh members, married or not, for cash and food stamp benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezrabean2005 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 DH and I married 3 years ago. We have been together for 11 years before that, living in "sin" to use your terms. Both he and I had childhoods deeply entrenched in broken homes. His parents divorced in a very traumatic way and my mother married and divorced four more times by the time I was 17. The last divorce she had, I filled out the papers myself. Marriage can be good (so I've heard). It can also be terrible and wicked. Most times, in my experience, religion and wicked marriages go hand in hand. They are a way to control, subdue, and isolate. Did it take over a decade of living with my dear friend to get to the point I/we could swallow the idea? Absolutely, and I still have a hard time. DH and I were life partners / domestic partners / etc. through our entire relationship. We have four children who are wonderful. There has never been a question of our family from them. Our reason for getting married was health insurance. That's it. Had my employer allowed my partner to be covered or if he did not need surgery, we never would have. It twists my heart to hear about how small you (universal you) believe these couples to be. They may have reasons, very good, very valid reasons beyond your life experience. I did. I still do. I hope my children see that more than anything. DH has always been my best friend and a stupid paper that ceases to have any meaning to my life experience doesn't change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catz Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 DH and I married 3 years ago. We have been together for 11 years before that, living in "sin" to use your terms. Both he and I had childhoods deeply entrenched in broken homes. His parents divorced in a very traumatic way and my mother married and divorced four more times by the time I was 17. The last divorce she had, I filled out the papers myself. Marriage can be good (so I've heard). It can also be terrible and wicked. Most times, in my experience, religion and wicked marriages go hand in hand. They are a way to control, subdue, and isolate. Did it take over a decade of living with my dear friend to get to the point I/we could swallow the idea? Absolutely, and I still have a hard time. DH and I were life partners / domestic partners / etc. through our entire relationship. We have four children who are wonderful. There has never been a question of our family from them. Our reason for getting married was health insurance. That's it. Had my employer allowed my partner to be covered or if he did not need surgery, we never would have. It twists my heart to hear about how small you (universal you) believe these couples to be. They may have reasons, very good, very valid reasons beyond your life experience. I did. I still do. I hope my children see that more than anything. DH has always been my best friend and a stupid paper that ceases to have any meaning to my life experience doesn't change that. Thank you for sharing your story! I have a couple friends with similar stories and I hate to think of them being so harshly judged too. :grouphug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 It bothers me because I don't think these people are thinking about their kids (I'm not saying all non-married couples don't put their kids first). I think they are doing what feels okay TODAY and not giving much, if any, thought to the future. I am bothered by the casual attitude toward a very serious issue. Creating a family is grown-up business and I don't get the impression that these people are taking that seriously. I haven't read the whole thread, but I think I know what you mean here. THis isn't quite the same as those who are in what is essentially a marriage, but who don't choose to go through the legal channels for that. THose people may IMO be somewhat unwise as there are some legal protections for families involved, but that is something they can weigh themselves. But there does seem to me to be something of a trend to view all romantic relationships as essentially impermanent, and an assumption that this isn't really negative for any kids involved, and that multiple subsequent live-in relationships aren't a negative for the kids either. There seems to be kind of an income related aspect to this, at least where I am. I see kids from wealthier families involved in the same kind of impermanent relationships while they are, say, in university, even living together with no real intention of staying a couple. Usually no kids are involved though and it is only when they decide to have a child that they move into a permanent situation, either married or not. But lower income young people seem to have the same impermanent relationships but are much more likely to have children from them. I'm not sure if this is related to a cultural tendency to have children younger or something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 It looks like the list is getting shorter than it used to be. Several states that recognize long-standing common-law unions no longer grant recognition to ones formed after a certain date. Only 9 states plus D.C. recognize new common-law unions. One wonders why it is hasn't gone the other way. For the protection of children, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I've often noted that the differences within the sexes is greater than between them, i.e. a female jerk and a male jerk have more in common than a female jerk and a female peach. Same with couples: Honest, decent and true couples who are not married have more in common with honest, decent and true married couples than immature, selfish and dysfunctional unmarried couples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 However, I also believe that if you aren't religious or you don't have a religious conviction for marriage; why get married?! Just because it is popular just doesn't seem like a good enough reason. Insurance, taxes (although I did claim him as a dependent before marriage), and also "a friendship recognized by the police". ;) It also made my old mum happier. I'm slightly amused by the divorced-for-a-second time now people who clucked their teeth -- I mean "expressed their concern", when hubby and I became parents without the marriage first. One said, "I'm so sorry you are having a child without a commitment." Well, bub, we're still together and you are not! I also remember the really unpleasant remark from the hospital staff who came in to get us set up for a birth certificate. AND the clerk at the county agency when we finally did apply for a M.L. (something about finally doing the right thing). Here we were in our 40s and 50s, financially stable, and papa was busy signing paperwork acknowledging paternity, etc. etc. Why work in such a field if you can't keep your scowls and mean comments to yourself? Sheesh. One nurse had the gall to ask me if I was "sure this man was the father of my child"! I replied that I was a fat, middle-aged woman who was lucky to get ONE, not a 19 year old cutie with several men hanging about. That shut her up.:lol: So, perhaps some people get married to avoid this. If people would say this to their ELDERS, what would they say to a pair of 22 year olds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepoteetteam Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I soooo can feel your frustration. We are a VERY conservative family who truly believes in God's will for man and woman. My Dad is on his 3rd marriage and my mom has lived with her boyfriend for 19 years! It's heartbreaking to me......:confused: And having to explain it all to 7 kids..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I do have to say that it's kind of big with my family to conceive (or at least give birth to) children within wedlock. That said, if someone got pregnant out of wedlock, I'm sure they would not be expelled from the family. What's not to love about babies? But still - the relatives who are not in traditional marriages are a mess, and so are their kids, I'm sorry to say. (Well, except for my kids, of course! :D) I guess what I mean is, the ones in my extended family who "put the cart before the horse" live their lives in an overly impulsive manner that is not healthy for their kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrumm4448 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 DH and I married 3 years ago. We have been together for 11 years before that, living in "sin" to use your terms. Both he and I had childhoods deeply entrenched in broken homes. His parents divorced in a very traumatic way and my mother married and divorced four more times by the time I was 17. The last divorce she had, I filled out the papers myself. Marriage can be good (so I've heard). It can also be terrible and wicked. Most times, in my experience, religion and wicked marriages go hand in hand. They are a way to control, subdue, and isolate. Did it take over a decade of living with my dear friend to get to the point I/we could swallow the idea? Absolutely, and I still have a hard time. DH and I were life partners / domestic partners / etc. through our entire relationship. We have four children who are wonderful. There has never been a question of our family from them. Our reason for getting married was health insurance. That's it. Had my employer allowed my partner to be covered or if he did not need surgery, we never would have. It twists my heart to hear about how small you (universal you) believe these couples to be. They may have reasons, very good, very valid reasons beyond your life experience. I did. I still do. I hope my children see that more than anything. DH has always been my best friend and a stupid paper that ceases to have any meaning to my life experience doesn't change that. I'm sorry for your bad experiences, but you must realize not all people view marriage as negatively as you do. Some revere it and work their hardest to be happy and successful in it. A happy marriage is still a worthy and respected goal for some, not for material benefits but for its spiritual (not religious) rewards . My marriage is not boiled down to a "stupid paper". It is the most challenging, soul-searching, giving, forgiving relationship I've had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezrabean2005 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I'm sorry for your bad experiences, but you must realize not all people view marriage as negatively as you do. Some revere it and work their hardest to be happy and successful in it. A happy marriage is still a worthy and respected goal for some, not for material benefits but for its spiritual (not religious) rewards . My marriage is not boiled down to a "stupid paper". It is the most challenging, soul-searching, giving, forgiving relationship I've had. I know that, otherwise no one would ever marry. I am simply presenting the other side of things, which is just as valid. The same descriptions I would use on my relationship with DH. The only difference is that I'm not putting down your choice of choosing to marry, even if I don't understand it. This is not what the OP and PP are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 IMO the trend of people not getting married is sad. I think it goes along with a sense that relationships are disposable in a sense. It goes along with the lack of commitment and fidelity IMO. I guess if I believe that if someone wants to have kids with me or a long term relationship than the commitment of marriage is important to me. I also think there are many legal perks and protections that go along with marriage. This does not mean that I think that people who co-habitat without marriage are bad; it just means that I think it is sad that so many couples seem to not want to make commitments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrumm4448 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I know that, otherwise no one would ever marry. I am simply presenting the other side of things, which is just as valid. The same descriptions I would use on my relationship with DH. The only difference is that I'm not putting down your choice of choosing to marry, even if I don't understand it. This is not what the OP and PP are doing. I understand what you are saying. But, referring to marriage as just a "stupid piece of paper" is putting it down. I don't refer to things I like and respect as stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I soooo can feel your frustration. We are a VERY conservative family who truly believes in God's will for man and woman. My Dad is on his 3rd marriage and my mom has lived with her boyfriend for 19 years! It's heartbreaking to me......:confused: And having to explain it all to 7 kids..... That's all well and good, but you can't judge all of society by your religious standards, because not everyone is Christian. I don't judge Christians by my Pagan/Buddhist religious standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrub Jay Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I just find it interesting that probably several people on this thread who believe marriage is the only option for families would deny the right to marry, in a voting booth, to a loving, committed gay couple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I just find it interesting that probably several people on this thread who believe marriage is the only option for families would deny the right to marry, in a voting booth, to a loving, committed gay couple. OK, now you're just trying to start trouble. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrub Jay Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Sorry, it just sticks out to be like a sore thumb. I swear I'm not trying to muck anything up, it's just something that boggles my mind. But, I'm not conservative, I don't belong to a conservative religion, and "lived in sin" with my husband, so there are just some things I do not understand from certain view points. And I know many posters would say the same about my view points and choices. Variety makes the world go around and all that jazz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Wife Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Marriage can be good (so I've heard). It can also be terrible and wicked. Most times, in my experience, religion and wicked marriages go hand in hand. They are a way to control, subdue, and isolate. Are there certain individuals who twist the words of the Bible to justify abusive behavior? Absolutely. But I very much disagree with the claim that religious individuals have the majority of bad marriages. It has been my observation that most bad marriages are the result of people who ignore religion except perhaps to pay nominal lip service to it on Sunday morning. Putting selfish desires ahead of the good of the family (whether that be something serious like adultery/substance abuse or simply getting bored and wanting greener pastures) seems to drive most divorces. I would say of the people I know, there is an INVERSE correlation between religion and divorce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennyD Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 (edited) One wonders why it is hasn't gone the other way. For the protection of children, etc. My understanding is that common-law marriage in the US was originally a product of frontier conditions -- there were a lot of informal marriages and not a lot of officials and ministers to go around. Some historians have also suggested that beyond that, common law marriage in the 18th and 19th centuries was also a way for judges to basically prevent men from dumping economically dependent women and children onto public resources -- if a judge could declare a woman to be a man's common-law wife (or widow), she could then claim his support or estate. But common-law marriage started being phased out in the late 1800s and is pretty much vestigial at this point. Here's a 2003 case in which a PA lower court detailed the reasons for abolishing common law marriage, including: child support and inheritance are no longer dependent on marital status, ceremonial marriage is inexpensive and easy to get, and common law marriage is too indeterminate and hard for third parties to assess. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-commonwealth-court/1128427.html Edited August 13, 2012 by JennyD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrub Jay Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Actually, I think it's consistent in the sense that most of us don't think it's ideal for gay people to produce children out of wedlock either. Then I would think there would be even more people supporting their right to marry, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Then I would think there would be even more people supporting their right to marry, right? Well, you see, they just don't think gay people should reproduce. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts