| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/4/2009 12:36:59 PM | My SO and I were having a general conversation yesterday about people getting married versus maintaining a committed long term relationship. We've both been married before and we each have our own opinions about the advantages and disadvantages of each decision. I was just curious about what ya'll thought about this topic.
We always hear folks say things like "it's only a piece of paper." Aside from that, what do you think is the difference between being a committed couple living together and being a married couple? | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/4/2009 12:57:41 PM | The difference is that if it doesn't work out the lawyers usually make rather more money out of the people who got married than the ones who didn't.
Looking at relationships generally, there may really be no difference. Some unmarried couple can be more committed, faithful and more whole-heartedly in their relationship than many married couples. And the reverse is also true, of course.
To each individual, there is likely to be some difference for them, however. This difference depends on the meaning of marriage to them and their beliefs about it. Many see it as insurance and security, others see it as false security, others as a prison or potential prison. Some see it as meaningless. How it is seen depends upon so many things -- all the influences upon you and the way your nature interprets them.
I don't believe in promises, myself. Anything can change and if you don't change in response are you in relationship with reality or are you hiding from it in fantasy. I love my partner so dearly it hurts my heart thinking about it sometimes, he says it was clear to him I've been committed from very early on, I see us travelling together, for the moment I can't see anything else, but I can't promise that it always will be so. I might hope, but I'd be ridiculous to try to bind the future into my expectations. I don't know what might happen. Maybe we'll grow apart, maybe he'll meet someone much more amazing for him than I can be, or maybe we'll discover some deep unresolvable conflict between us. I am too ignorant to know this but not too foolish to pretend that I might know it and to say "forever" when whatever my feeling might be today, I honestly cannot know what might happen.
Perhaps marriage is for those who believe that a relationship of duty is better than none at all. I am not one of those people. If he is not with me because he honestly wants to be, each day, why would I want him to be with me? And how can I ask him to promise to want to be with me? Wants can't be promised. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/4/2009 11:51:17 PM | | Couldn't have said it better myself. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/4/2009 11:55:05 PM | I view marriage as a legal, social, religious and moral commitment and sacred covenant
I see "living together" as a matter of convenience. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 2:31:09 AM | I am someone who has/is working to change family law (in Nebraska USA) and has testified to the state legislature. I have studied this issue at length. I can say that it is very doubtful that I will enter into a marriage until there are significant changes in the law. Marriage is simply an unenforceable contract. An unenforceable contract which requires a lawsuit to get out of. The only real benefits to marriage is taxes, satisfying religious requirements, and fulfilling moral/social/family pressures and obligations. For me the question is simply this - Will I gain more in tax benefits than I would pay lawyers/lose in a settlement?
I am a Father and therefore it is generally assumed that I will lose custody of my children. Therefore I will lose control over a significant portion of my income (to child support), and often the marital residence is awarded to the custodial parent to provide consistency for the children which means a financial blow to the non-custodial parent i.e. the father in most cases. Because of these and other more complicated issues, I don't feel it is in my best financial or emotional interest to enter into marriage. The lawsuit needed to end a marriage is extremely expensive and emotionally draining, not to mention the long term effect of the final results of that lawsuit. I recognize that there is a lawsuit involved in custody disputes as well but they are simpler than a divorce lawsuit. I would love to have a committed long term relationship though! Although some of the same problems apply to LTRs, the legalities involved present a more equal and safer starting position for fathers in the event of a contested break-up. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 2:41:10 AM | | This is a complex topic, I think. On the one hand there is Joni Mitchell who sings "we don't need a bit of paper from the city hall / Keeping us bright and true" and on the other there is the idea that as Donne says "no man is an island entire of itself". From the individualistic point of view all that matters is what the couple think and feel about their relationship: others don't count or are not involved. But, if you think that relationships can only emerge and thrive within the context of a wider culture then a social ritual and insitution like marriage is the best thing. Personally I would prefer the latter (given the chance) because I would like to think that marriage is a sign not only of your connection to a husband or wife but to the wider social world. However, historically marriage has been a repressive institution at times (often for the women involved) and so the bohemian idea of "living in sin" has been genuinely progressive in some ways. As I say, it is a complex issue! | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 2:41:36 AM | It is not just about 2 people. It is about how 2 people affect everyone they know.
I CANNOT BELIEVE HOW TWO PEOPLE THINK THAT NO ONE ELSE WILL EVER KNOW... | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 4:03:21 AM | | To me it is only a piece of paper and I don’t need it anymore. I’ve done both and each relationship lasted around 12 years. Only difference was the first relationship (marriage) cost helluva lot more to ‘get out of’ than the second one did (living together). | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 4:09:55 AM | The little piece of paper makes you both try harder whenever there are bumps in the relationship. This is my opinion.
We have to remember that in many states common law partners acquire rights as well, an apparent just LTR also implies financial rights and duties.
If I love a person, I most definitely would like to be married to him in front of God. so in this case, marriage for me gives me a spiritual meaning and the fact I'm making God part of our lives together.
I guess my conclusion is that marriage is backed by commitment and a contract. LTR just by commitment. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 4:17:07 AM | Being married does give you a nice tax break, extra income to show on credit applications, and provides legal status for end of life issues.
I think many more people would consider marriage if the financial stakes were not so high. Fear of alimony, spousal maintenance whatever you want to it call it....is frightening... not to mention in some cases a portion of your retirement can be "re allocated" as well. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 4:50:59 AM | | I have been married and been in a LTR the main difference in my opinion is that in a LTR you dont have that period where "the honeymoon is over" and people just get in a routine and the marriage is more of a convenience and the passion and romance go out the window and it is easier to end the relationship with no legal issues, on the other hand in a marriage you do end up spending alot of money on a divorce. That "little piece of paper" is a contract that makes you financially liable for the other person, which can become a nightmare, and in some cases people stay in unhappy marriages because of that "piece of paper". I think that marriage really is more about religeous beliefs, social and family pressures. If 2 poeple are really committed to each other, in love and want to spend the rest of their lives toghether there is nothing wrong with just living together. These days you see alot more older people in LTR because financially they are better off, and I am speaking of people who are collecting SS and other benefits. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 5:26:18 AM | I loved all the answers here and pretty much you are all saying the same thing. Marriage "the piece of paper" is a binding contract. I am especially impressed with dustinb69's thoughts.
I totally agree with you dustin that from all I hear, when it comes to child custody, child support cases, its the guys that are getting screwed over big time, and I agree with you that until some laws and/or judges are changed with the times, I'd be wary, very wary if I was a young man of getting involved with that situation unless I really KNEW the lady real good. Even then, I know of many men, (including me) who had this "sword of damocles" hanging over their head. Until its made 50/50 with the mother standing a 50% chance of losing in court, I would have second, third and fourth thoughts.
Many a good man has become so bitter in life because he feels he doesn't have a voice or people looking out for his best interests. It affects his outlook on life and his dealings in future relationships. Women want to meet nice guys but its hard for a guy to be nice when he's had his life taken away from him and his heart handed to him on a platter. I know its not what everyone may want to hear but unfortunately its reality and its the way things are in this turbulent world of ours.
Here's my suggestion justin, tell me what you think of this. A marriage is a union of two people and you need a license to get married. How about making a marriage licence like a driver's license? Make it so you have to renew it every 3, 4, 5 years or so. Have the renewals include questionaires and evaluations. Have them done in writing, under oath, so as both people will know for sure where they stand with each other and what they can expect from the future. Sounds pretty revolutionary I know, but the way things are today with all the divorces, live's ruined financially and otherwise, something needs to be done. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 5:27:47 AM | I was reading somewhere that it can become a huge hassle if you're living in a defacto relationship and suddenly one of you becomes seriously ill (hospital situation). It happened to this couple and because the woman wasn't his wife there were all sorts of complications.
Before I read that I had always maintained that I would not choose to marry ever again. Now I'm not so sure, especially if I really and truly cared for that person. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 5:51:24 AM | There is nothing that can be done. The world has changed. It's not the 1950's any more. In today's world the only way to make marriage appeal to the masses is to minimize the effects it has on your life once it's done.
As it stands now marriage has a horrible PR campaign. "There's a 50% chance you're going to lose 50% of your stuff." If the odds were that bad with driving.... I think we'd see ALOT more people walking and riding bicycles. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 5:53:48 AM | | ^^^ Yes, but not if you had the foresight to get legally valid medical power of attorney created. If properly done, they can even supersede the wishes of blood relatives. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 6:03:06 AM | Marriage means no more than what the 2 people in it believe it means. I would not get married again until I had a very real understanding about h0w the other person see marriage. Some do not think that marriage means you should be monogamous, some think that marriage is a taking of money not a sharing, you know the my money is mine and your money is ours. It seems that many see marriage as a way of getting what they want from another person. Many young men think that if they get married that they can get sex anytime they want, and just as many women see marriage as a way of not having to work anymore. Understand I am not saying, all, or most here I'm saying many, so don't get all bent like I'm accusing you of anything, but if the shoe fits.
Either will work if both parties want it to, neither will work if one person isn't willing to work at it. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 6:17:11 AM | | I side with landra2 and feel the same way. LTR doesn't have the level of commitment. It's also easier to walk away. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 6:24:14 AM | I'm Canadian, and here there is very little difference socially or legally between living together and marriage. In my province, Ontario, the only difference is property where a common law spouse (living together) is not automatically given equity in the matrimonial home or other property.
The difference would be people's attitudes: Some think of living together as a sort of "lets see how it goes" and perhaps do not ever put both feet inside the circle. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 6:48:33 AM | | Seperation in a LTR requires considerably less paperwork. The tax breaks of marriage is considerably outweighed by the costs incurred in a divorce, and on that note, I intend to take 1 or 2 years of living in sin before tying the knot for a 3rd time. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 7:00:22 AM | | "living together" is much easier to walk away from, and I see it as a way for people who don't want to make a real commitment to get what they want. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 7:11:56 AM |
There is nothing that can be done. The world has changed. It's not the 1950's any more. In today's world the only way to make marriage appeal to the masses is to minimize the effects it has on your life once it's done.
Maybe the only way to change it is to lose the "current" attitude that it's "going" to be "done." It appealed to the masses in those days because the attitude was that when you got married, both of you made it work, even when times got tough. Nowdays, people bail at the drop of a hat, which is what causes the complications. We are living in an age where people are "disposable," just like everything else. If that weren't the case, if people had been taught that you don't just toss your family aside just because it's not "funnnnnnnnnnnnn" anymore, and you are not HAPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE every minute of your life, marriage might be taken as the serious, sacred institution that it was meant to be.
I do think it's best however, for people with that kind of attitude (I will lose all my STUFF!!!!!!!1!!!!) not to marry at all. Just let your STUFF keep you warm at night and take care of you in your old age. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 8:44:43 AM | I think what makes the difference between "the piece of paper" and the couple living together is the word "committed".
Some folks simply don't place much moral value on committing to someone in a realtionship - whether it's church sanctioned, witnessed by family, or over seen by a member of the legal justice system or a church.
Laws and rules of morality only apply to those who are moral and willing to follow them and to be committed.
Those who aren't?
Shouldn't attempt to pretend to be so.
The heart and soul of the individual and their genuine levels of ethnics would determine the casualness of either relationship choice. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 9:12:50 AM | Tax benefits??? Last time I checked, there was still something called 'the marriage tax', not a real tax, yet referred to as such because two people pay more in federal taxes if they are married than they would if they filed as singles. Married filing separately you pay more. Married filing jointly you pay more, unless one spouse makes a great deal less than the other spouse (usually when you have kids, and one spouse is a stay at home person or works a little part time). Otherwise, you still pay more. Even with kids, as long as one person claims the kids, if you both make about the same, you pay more as married than you would as single when you total it all up. If you're still not sure, try filing both ways and see.
Marriage only makes sense if you want to have kids, and have them legally belong to both of you. Otherwise, financially you are better off as two singles. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 9:24:58 AM | | It is an important step in a relationship not to be taken lightly and to me represents a real commitment to one another. It seems to me as if anything less is guided by fear or desire to get out easy. | |
|
| Marriage vs LTR
Posted: 7/5/2009 9:48:49 AM | I am someone who has/is working to change family law (in Nebraska USA) and has testified to the state legislature. I have studied this issue at length. I can say that it is very doubtful that I will enter into a marriage until there are significant changes in the law. Marriage is simply an unenforceable contract. An unenforceable contract which requires a lawsuit to get out of. The only real benefits to marriage is taxes, satisfying religious requirements, and fulfilling moral/social/family pressures and obligations. For me the question is simply this - Will I gain more in tax benefits than I would pay lawyers/lose in a settlement?
I am a Father and therefore it is generally assumed that I will lose custody of my children. Therefore I will lose control over a significant portion of my income (to child support), and often the marital residence is awarded to the custodial parent to provide consistency for the children which means a financial blow to the non-custodial parent i.e. the father in most cases. Because of these and other more complicated issues, I don't feel it is in my best financial or emotional interest to enter into marriage. The lawsuit needed to end a marriage is extremely expensive and emotionally draining, not to mention the long term effect of the final results of that lawsuit. I recognize that there is a lawsuit involved in custody disputes as well but they are simpler than a divorce lawsuit. I would love to have a committed long term relationship though! Although some of the same problems apply to LTRs, the legalities involved present a more equal and safer starting position for fathers in the event of a contested break-up.
Dustin brings up some good points here. What really hit home for me was the "unenforceable contract" aspect. Soooo true! If a spouse commits any act which clearly violates the marriage contract, there is NO recourse that frees the offended spouse except divorce!
For this reason , I see no benefit to the marriage contract. I do however believe there is a benefit to signing a legal and binding contract regarding custody and finances before embarking in a cohabitation situation or a long term committed relationship of any kind, not because of cynicism so much as to protect each party in the event that one of them suddenly decides to lose their f-ing mind! LOL
But yeah, the concept of marriage today for the purpose it stands for today are kind of a joke to me. | |
|
Home
login 
