Marriage

Blue_Wolf

Ok I'm not 100% sure that this topic is for this section.

This is a big debate that has been going on for the last week and have had 2 opposite opinions on this amongst 30 people. Im looking for both male and female responses as I found that the opinions were not opposite based on sex.

Should your partner share/give up what he/she has before the marriage.

Let me refine this down a bit more.

John/Mary has been working hard for the last 8years and they have been saving their money for a rainy day or perhaps a mortgage. They have saved 60,000euro over the 8years. He/She meets a partner who over the last 8 years spent their 60,000 of potential money that they could have saved on beer, going out and travelling to australia etc etc. Should John/Mary share their 60,000euro with the other half once married?


Now I will give my personal opinion.

I don't think that John/Mary should share the 60,000euro as they decided not to blow it away. They share everything from day one of being married ie wages go into the one account etc etc but the 60,000 would stay in a seperate account.
In the event of mortgage, I would personally put my 60,000 towards the mortgage as long as I had majority of the house
In the event of having children I would of course spend that money if i still have it on my childrens college if needed.

I think the only exception to the above opinion is if I married say a doctor who has been training for the last 8 years and hasn't been able to save that money. Than ill throw the 60,000 on the table as they didn't blow their money and they are going to bring more to the table in the future.

Some of my friends say that John/Mary should share the money regardless, however, if John/Mary bought a beamer for 60K the beamer is not shared. IE They are saying John/Mary doesn't have to share their assets with their husband/wife but have to share their money. Why?That makes no sense!

Go on and give me your opinions on this

Tim Robbins

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

Go on and give me your opinions on this

You'd have to share everything or else don't get married. Imagine you have a baby with someone and they tell you as a woman they went through more than you so they owned 75% of the baby? Marriage is about the future not the past.

Blue_Wolf

Tim does the woman not have more rights to have custody of the child if they split up? They do so technically by law the woman owns 75% of the baby??

The Corinthian

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Marriage is about the future not the past.

True, I agree with you, unfortunately that future has a 40% chance of being divorce.

Marriage is ultimately a contract. Two people agree to pool their resources for their common betterment. Problem is that it is also the only contract in existence, since the introduction of no-fault divorce, that allows either party to break it without consiquence.

Indeed, as the only thing that is legally taken into consideration is financial, at the time of marital breakup, the person who has to gain financially will actually profit from it. For example, in the classic breadwinner-homemaker marriage, one will go out and earn a living for them both, while the other takes care of the home (this is the division of labour). With divorce, the breadwinner is still obliged to go out and earn a living for them both, but loses all homemaking services.

So, frankly, it makes no sense to marry any more. Unless you need someone to bankroll your future and call it love.

The Corinthian

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

They do so technically by law the woman owns 75% of the baby??

The only difference between being married or not, where it comes to fathers is that married you automatically get guardianship, while if not you will need to apply for it (and I believe that the vast majority of such applications are granted even if opposed by the mother). Even then guardianship is of questionable benefit, as many of the rights associated cannot be enforced in any practical way.

The marital status of the parents makes absolutely no other difference.

On the other side, child maintenance is capped in the circuit court at €150 p.w., and you have to pay that; married or not. But if married, you can also add spousal maintenance, which is capped, in the same circuit court at €500 p.w.

Do the math.

Tim Robbins

The Corinthian wrote: »

True, I agree with you, unfortunately that future has a 40% chance of being divorce.

Marriage is ultimately a contract. Two people agree to pool their resources for their common betterment. Problem is that it is also the only contract in existence, since the introduction of no-fault divorce, that allows either party to break it without consiquence.

Indeed, as the only thing that is legally taken into consideration is financial, at the time of marital breakup, the person who has to gain financially will actually profit from it. For example, in the classic breadwinner-homemaker marriage, one will go out and earn a living for them both, while the other takes care of the home (this is the division of labour). With divorce, the breadwinner is still obliged to go out and earn a living for them both, but loses all homemaking services.

So, frankly, it makes no sense to marry any more. Unless you need someone to bankroll your future and call it love.

Marriage does make sense, unless you want to cater for the case where if you split up you can shaft someone who gave up the chance of their career (and they don't even have to do that) so that you participate in a family unit.

As for most marriages splitting up. That's incorrect. Some cultures Italy, Spain, Northern Ireland are much lower than other cultures.

There are reasons for this.
1. People get a married a bit older.
2. You have to wait at least 3 months before you can marry here, so there is no quicky marriages here.

The only thing marriage prevents you from doing is marrying someone else, which is moot if you are against the notion of marriage in the first place.

The Corinthian

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Marriage does make sense, unless you want to cater for the case where if you split up you can shaft someone who gave up the chance of their career (and they don't even have to do that) so that you participate in a family unit.

Actually, you've simply agreed with my point.

As for shafting "someone who gave up the chance of their career", this is a gross oversimplification. Where the careers are financially comparable between spouses, you tend to find that neither gives up their career. Careers tend to be abandoned generally when one spouse earns significantly more than the other, and in this case the one "giving up their career" is ultimately getting a much better deal than if they had remained single.

As for most marriages splitting up. That's incorrect. Some cultures Italy, Spain, Northern Ireland are much lower than other cultures.

Actually I said 40%, which is not most.

And indeed some cultures do have much lower marital break up rates, although there are numerous reasons for this, not least of all patriarchal family values ingrained in the culture and less favourable divorce laws for women.

As the old Apu gag in the Simpsons goes "up to one in 27 arranged marriages end in divorce".

The only thing marriage prevents you from doing is marrying someone else, which is moot if you are against the notion of marriage in the first place.

Which really is not a good argument for marriage. Indeed, there are actually very few arguments for it, that are not outweighed by the downside of it failing.

peasant

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

John/Mary has been working hard for the last 8years and they have been saving their money for a rainy day or perhaps a mortgage. They have saved 60,000euro over the 8years. He/She meets a partner who over the last 8 years spent their 60,000 of potential money that they could have saved on beer, going out and travelling to australia etc etc. Should John/Mary share their 60,000euro with the other half once married?

On a more personal level ....I'd say that John and Mary are such different personalities with such differing outlooks on life that they shouldn't really get married in the first place :D

Tim Robbins

The Corinthian wrote: »

Where the careers are financially comparable between spouses, you tend to find that neither gives up their career. Careers tend to be abandoned
generally when one spouse earns significantly more than the other, and in this case the one "giving up their career" is ultimately getting a much better deal than if they had remained single.

Where's the data to support that?

Actually I said 40%, which is not most.

Again where's the data for 40%? And marriage means different things in different states. You can't compare marriage here to drive-by marriage in the states. Otherwise it's a false singularity fallacy there.

Which really is not a good argument for marriage. Indeed, there are actually very few arguments for it, that are not outweighed by the downside of it failing.

It never was an argument for marriage, so put away that straw man.
There are many arguments for marriage.

But you're prose is superb. Are you a legal eagle by any chance?

Blue_Wolf

My mother told me 2 days ago that a survey was done and that 85% of men have affairs within marriage.
I don't see the problem in having seperate bank accounts with money you saved over the years. You have pointed out that marriage is so you cant shaft the other person and marry someone else soooo if you don't do that than what is the problem with having a seperate bank account? Doesnt state anywhere in your vowes that you should share everything. Especially when divorce each person tries to take as much as they can and theres rarely anything fair about it so having your savings seperatly is merely protecting yourself just in case you fall into the....40% bracket.

The Corinthian

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Where's the data to support that?

Anecdotal, so don't accepted if you prefer.

Again where's the data for 40%?

I was working from memory on UK divorce rates, which would naturally differ from Irish rates, although I can't say by how much. Either way, I never claimed that it was most.

Ultimately, what divorce rates are now matters little. It is what they will be in five, ten or twenty years that matters to anyone considering the institution.

And marriage means different things in different states. You can't compare marriage here to drive-by marriage in the states. Otherwise it's a false singularity fallacy there.

Marriage is a legal concept in any state. The details and conditions differ from state to state, culture to culture, as I alluded to in my previous post, and even it's termination varies - hence my citing no-fault divorce, which is not available everywhere.

But ultimately, it is a legal bond that enforces the union between two people, regardless of whether they joined after a twelve year engagement or an Elvis impersonator carried out the ceremony twelve hours after first meeting.

It never was an argument for marriage, so put away that straw man.
There are many arguments for marriage.

There are, I don't deny that. They simply don't compensate for the arguments against. At least not if you are financially better off than your potential spouse.

But you're prose is superb. Are you a legal eagle by any chance?

How is this relevant?

The Corinthian

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

My mother told me 2 days ago that a survey was done and that 85% of men have affairs within marriage.

I'd take that with a pinch of salt, if I were you.

Doesnt state anywhere in your vowes that you should share everything.

Don't confuse religious and legal marriage. When you marry you actually do both, and the 'vows' differ.

Especially when divorce each person tries to take as much as they can and theres rarely anything fair about it so having your savings seperatly is merely protecting yourself just in case you fall into the....40% bracket.

Unless your extra account is in Lichtenstein, it is subject to be treated as a marital asset.

Blue_Wolf

Ya I hope to hear more peoples opinions about this. Ya well I thought the 85% figure was quite high. My poor father getting the spanish inquisition from herself

Is there anyway of setting a pole up now that the thread is already up? Looking to get a vote as I thinks its Black and White really

Tim Robbins

The Corinthian wrote: »

Anecdotal, so don't accepted if you prefer.

I'm a logic person, so I dismiss anecdotal evidence. It's just sophistry usually.

I was working from memory on UK divorce rates, which would naturally differ from Irish rates, although I can't say by how much. Either way, I never claimed that it was most.

Correct, you never used the word "most". That was a mistake on my part.

Ultimately, what divorce rates are now matters little. It is what they will be in five, ten or twenty years that matters to anyone considering the institution.

Incorrect. Divorce rates are not actually the pertinent issue. You can actually have high divorce rates and you still might be better off with marriage and high divorce rates than no marriage and no divorce rates.

There are, I don't deny that. They simply don't compensate for the arguments against. At least not if you are financially better off than your potential spouse.

There are no logical arguments against, unless you are worried you won't be able to shaft someone you had a kid with.

Which is a ridiculous argument. If you want to plan your life so you always have the option to shaft people, 'just in case', I can't see you have any real meaningful friendships.

How is this relevant?

I detect a skill sophist.

Earthhorse

If you're talking (OP) about how much people should share within the marriage once it's started as opposed to how much the state will make them share if they divorce then I think the answer to that depends on the couple.

If I were marrying someone who had been financially irresponsible up to this point in their life then I would expect to have more of a say in the finances, particularly if a mortgage, car loan or other debt was involved. Having said that, the example you quote is quite extreme.

peasant may well have been joking but he makes a good point too. Were I to marry someone less (or more) fiscally responsible than I am, I wouldn't expect the variance to be that great and would possibly welcome their more gung ho attitude to spending - if it meant an extra holiday say that I had to take a small loan out for.

Marriage is about the blending of skills and preferences, it should be about sharing your life with someone; sometimes that means listening to "common sense", sometimes it means throwing caution to the wind.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But you're prose is superb. Are you a legal eagle by any chance?

The Corinthian wrote: »

How is this relevant?

Objection, your Honour! Relevance?

The Corinthian

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Incorrect. Divorce rates are not actually the pertinent issue. You can actually have high divorce rates and you still might be better off with marriage and high divorce rates than no marriage and no divorce rates.

Only if you never divorce, irrespective of the rates, or are favoured by local divorce laws.

There are no logical arguments against, unless you are worried you won't be able to shaft someone you had a kid with.

I suggest you look at the law with regard to this. Child and spousal maintenance are actually completely separate. A non-custodial parent will still have a burden to pay towards the upkeep of their child, regardless of their relationship with the custodial parent. All that differs is that with spousal maintenance, you are also expected to support the former spouse.

So really, your argument is a bit of a straw man.

Which is a ridiculous argument. If you want to plan your life so you always have the option to shaft people, 'just in case', I can't see you have any real meaningful friendships.

Of course, or you can go through life foolishly jumping into commitments like marriage without thought of the consequences. Neither is a good idea.

My observation really has more to do with the on balance pros and cons of marriage. The cons I've certainly put forward, but the pros are really few and far between. Without enough good reasons to get married, it really does not require too many good reasons not to - and as much as I think of it there are really very few reasons for the institution any more, unless you want financial security at someone else's expense.

And that really is the problem. Marriage is no longer necessary for either gender as it once was. Cohabitation fulfils pretty much 99% of what marriage used to be. All that is left is a romantic institution with very real legal implications that can be a disadvantage to one spouse and in return they get, well, nothing.

I detect a skill sophist.

And I detect an ad hominem attack.

Tim Robbins

Of course, or you can go through life foolishly jumping into commitments like marriage without thought of the consequences. Neither is a good idea.

But whose suggesting that?

My observation really has more to do with the on balance pros and cons of marriage. The cons I've certainly put forward, but the pros are really few and far between.

You've put forward a risk which in itself makes marriage what it is. It's the very fact that people are prepared to take that risk becasue they love each other that, in part, makes marriage what it is. If marriage was totally risk free, what would be the big deal about it?

Without enough good reasons to get married, it really does not require too many good reasons not to - and as much as I think of it there are really very few reasons for the institution any more, unless you want financial security at someone else's expense.

What a cynical attitude? Have you been dumped recently or something?
If you look at the very worst economic case for you, yeah it's bad idea.

But:
1. You are only considering the very worst economic case what about the best economic case? Even if the marriage doesn't work, you can divorce amicably.
2. Surely relationships are much more than just economics and money?
I mean if it's all about profit and loss, why not just sit at home with a balance sheet and calculator.

And that really is the problem. Marriage is no longer necessary for either gender as it once was. Cohabitation fulfils pretty much 99% of what marriage used to be.

Where are you getting 99% from? Making a legal commitment is the strongest commitment you can give someone. That in itself has many romantic connotations.

I'd like my kids to know as I was 100% committed to their Mother and I didn't just sit on the fence because I never trusted her to not shaft me if it all went pair shaped. I'd also like my wife to know as I was 100% committed to her as per marriage vows and I was prepared to enshrine that in law.

All that is left is a romantic institution with very real legal implications that can be a disadvantage to one spouse and in return they get, well, nothing.

Even if you take a purely economic view of things, if one party looses the other party gains. So you're point cancels itself out.

There is no Prisoner's dilema here.

BTW How do you feel about kids? They'll certainly cost you more money than they'll pay you. So is that a no-no also?

And I detect an ad hominem attack.

Well I detect sophistry.

Blue_Wolf

No I'm not asking how much should one share. I know myself that if I get married that I will share everything with that woman although I do not count what I own before I got married.

EG Savings over last 10years
EG A house that you inherited or have half the mortgage paid off

and so on.

Like I said there were alot of mixed opinions about this and was hoping for a broader view not the other 2 argueing over legality issues etc.

Think I will set up a pole

The Corinthian

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But whose suggesting that?

Not saying you are.

You've put forward a risk which in itself makes marriage what it is. It's the very fact that people are prepared to take that risk becasue they love each other that, in part, makes marriage what it is. If marriage was totally risk free, what would be the big deal about it?

Of course it's a risk, I'm just suggesting it is a bad risk.

What a cynical attitude? Have you been dumped recently or something?

Again with the ad hominem attacks - you mustn't have much faith in what you're saying if you feel you have to resort to such tactics.

If you look at the very worst economic case for you, yeah it's bad idea.

Not necessarily. As I pointed out in my previous post, you need to weigh up the pros and cons. Even with the very worst economic case it can be worthwhile, if those pros outweigh the cons, however as an institution, there really are not that many pros to it.

Problem is, outside of some fuzzy romantic ideal (that has not really been terribly well explained here) the pros are presently pretty thin here.

Where are you getting 99% from? Making a legal commitment is the strongest commitment you can give someone. That in itself has many romantic connotations.

Except if the other person earns or is worth far less than you, he or she is not making any similar commitment in return.

Remember my earlier post that cited the classic breadwinner-homemaker marriage; divorce means that the former still has to support the latter, but the latter no longer has to carry out their side of the original deal.

I'd like my kids to know as I was 100% committed to their Mother and I didn't just sit on the fence because I never trusted her to not shaft me if it all went pair shaped. I'd also like my wife to know as I was 100% committed to her as per marriage vows and I was prepared to enshrine that in law.

That's super, but I'm not speaking of any individual cases, just about the institution of marriage in general.

BTW How do you feel about kids? They'll certainly cost you more money than they'll pay you. So is that a no-no also?

Do you want to discuss personal choice on reproduction too? Feel free to start a new thread on it.

Blue_Wolf

Pole thrown up there guys so answer them please

The Corinthian

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

Like I said there were alot of mixed opinions about this and was hoping for a broader view not the other 2 argueing over legality issues etc.

Well, then I suspect you asked the wrong question. Asking what one would voluntarily share, what resources they would pool, is a moot point in marriage as this is regulated by law.

Maybe you could phrase it differently.

Tim Robbins

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again with the ad hominem attacks - you mustn't have much faith in what you're saying if you feel you have to resort to such tactics.

It was just a light joke. Relax.

Not necessarily. As I pointed out in my previous post, you need to weigh up the pros and cons. Even with the very worst economic case it can be worthwhile, if those pros outweigh the cons, however as an institution, there really are not that many pros to it.

No. I disagree. It's arguably better for society that there is a family unit enshrined somehow in law.

Problem is, outside of some fuzzy romantic ideal (that has not really been terribly well explained here) the pros are presently pretty thin here.

"Fuzzy" is a perjorative term. You are loading the dice. Romance is a fantastic thing for some people, so much so that it's beyond words sometimes.

Remember my earlier post that cited the classic breadwinner-homemaker marriage;

It's not classic anymore. It never was a "classic" that one lost and one won.
Divorce and breakdown was always the exception rather than the rule (we both agreed on that).

Do you want to discuss personal choice on reproduction too? Feel free to start a new thread on it.

Do you not see the point, you can't just reduce something to monetary value?

Earthhorse

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

No I'm not asking how much should one share. I know myself that if I get married that I will share everything with that woman although I do not count what I own before I got married.

EG Savings over last 10years
EG A house that you inherited or have half the mortgage paid off

Well, I don't see how you can separate the two really. I mean obviously, mathematically you can, but what does that mean in practical terms? I have half the mortgage paid off already so you're only allowed downstairs?

If you have savings built up are you really going to keep them to yourself when you're looking for a deposit on a house? Or making holiday plans? I do get where you're coming from but I think entering a marriage like that would introduce an element of mistrust from the start which is only more like to spoil things.

The Corinthian

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No. I disagree. It's arguably better for society that there is a family unit enshrined somehow in law.

I agree, I'm just saying that how it is presently enshrined in law is no longer very attractive for a lot of people. This is why the the phenomenon of the marriage strike has become increasing more common.

Marriage, and the society around it, is something that has evolved over millennia, however in the last fifty years or so, it has received a major overhaul, specifically to deal with injustices against women.

Marriage is no longer needed to live together, have children or even sex. Those social barriers are gone. Legally, outside of a number of rights that you can manually put in place anyway, it only gives you a tax break and speeds up your citizenship application.

And there's of course the romance of it - but, dumb romantic gestures aside, does that make sense to someone who has everything to lose if it doesn't work out?

Dumb romantic gestures aside, no. Sorry.

"Fuzzy" is a perjorative term. You are loading the dice. Romance is a fantastic thing for some people, so much so that it's beyond words sometimes.

Sure, but you still have to live with the consequences of romance. Be that an unplanned pregnancy, an STI or alimony. I'm not suggesting we should treat relationships like accountants, only that we should not make dumb decisions.

It's not classic anymore. It never was a "classic" that one lost and one won.

Classic in the sense of a traditional cliché that makes an easy example of two partners each contributing different things to a marriage.

Divorce and breakdown was always the exception rather than the rule (we both agreed on that).

You'll have to admit it's not that uncommon an 'exception'. A bit too common for the comfort of many.

Do you not see the point, you can't just reduce something to monetary value?

Absolutely, but even if you didn't reduce it to monetary value, you'd still have to weigh up the pros and cons. So we have now a situation where:

1. Marital breakup may still occur in a minority of cases, but it is a significant minority of cases.
2. When a marital break-up occurs, regardless of who is at fault, if anyone, the financially more capable partner is forced to support the other.
3. Any non-tangible contribution by the financially less successful partner is lost.

Seriously, if I'm missing something, let me know.

The Corinthian

Earthhorse wrote: »

Well, I don't see how you can separate the two really. I mean obviously, mathematically you can, but what does that mean in practical terms? I have half the mortgage paid off already so you're only allowed downstairs?

Moot point. If it's the family home (i.e. you live in it) it's owned 50-50, regardless of who's name is on the deed, who paid the mortgage whether it was inherited, and so on. It's a major issue with farmers, as they can end up losing, not only their home, but their business too, all in one go.

Tim Robbins

The Corinthian wrote: »

I agree, I'm just saying that how it is presently enshrined in law is no longer very attractive for a lot of people. This is why the the phenomenon of the marriage strike has become increasing more common.

Disagree. People are cynical now for other reasons.

Legally, outside of a number of rights that you can manually put in place anyway, it only gives you a tax break and speeds up your citizenship application.

It also means if you want to head off, there's a few legal obstacle in your way. So it means that you have made more of a commitment to someone.

And there's of course the romance of it - but, dumb romantic gestures aside, does that make sense to someone who has everything to lose if it doesn't work out?

Dumb romantic gestures aside, no. Sorry.

"Dumb" - again you are loading the dice. You are simply asserting this things are dumb. There's no reasoning to it.

Absolutely, but even if you didn't reduce it to monetary value, you'd still have to weigh up the pros and cons. So we have now a situation where:

1. Marital breakup may still occur in a minority of cases, but it is a significant minority of cases.
2. When a marital break-up occurs, regardless of who is at fault, if anyone, the financially more capable partner is forced to support the other.
3. Any non-tangible contribution by the financially less successful partner is lost.

Seriously, if I'm missing something, let me know.

You are missing the point that people don't live their lives purely by monetary assesement. And if they did, it really would be quite sad.

You also have a situation where:

1. People feel they have more meaningful and deeper relationships if they can make a lifetime commitment to each other and it is enshrined in law.
2. A material break up may never occur
3. Even if it does it may be settled amicably
4. If it isn't, the courts / state / law will make a decision.

It sounds like a reasonable process.

The Corinthian

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Disagree. People are cynical now for other reasons.

Like?

It also means if you want to head off, there's a few legal obstacle in your way. So it means that you have made more of a commitment to someone.

Fair point, still not a good enough one unless you and your boy/girlfriend wanted to move to, say, Australia and only one of you could get a visa.

"Dumb" - again you are loading the dice. You are simply asserting this things are dumb. There's no reasoning to it.

Actually "no reasoning to it" is exactly what I meant by dumb.

You are missing the point that people don't live their lives purely by monetary assesement. And if they did, it really would be quite sad.

I'm not suggesting people should. I have given the cons and asked for the pros - they need not be financial either, but they do need to be enough to outweigh those cons.

You also have a situation where:

Of course, it could all work out wonderfully. But that's not what I asked.

There are pros and cons to marriage. The cons are largely financial and only apply to the spouse who is significantly better off, if such a spouse exists in a relationship. The pros are, so far, very limited or easily replicated through other means.

So what are the pros? Seriously - they don't have to be financial, but a romantic notion of 'commitment' just does not wash for many people anymore, especially if half of what they have worked for all their lives, or a home that may have been in their family for generations, is on the line.

It sounds like a reasonable process.

Because marital break up is famous for being reasonable...

Ickle Magoo

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

No I'm not asking how much should one share. I know myself that if I get married that I will share everything with that woman although I do not count what I own before I got married.

EG Savings over last 10years
EG A house that you inherited or have half the mortgage paid off

and so on.

Like I said there were alot of mixed opinions about this and was hoping for a broader view not the other 2 argueing over legality issues etc.

Think I will set up a pole

Tbh I think a marriage entered into so cynically with a view to protecting what's yours when you split up, is probably doomed to begin with...or maybe a pre-nup would cover it?

Seriously tho, it would depend on the marriage in question & size of fortune earned or inherited prior to marriage but most long term-relationships I know of work out pretty even in the end regardless of what either party came to the relationship with. One may have worked & saved money, the other was in university & studying which will go on to better the partnership & it's overall earning potential & so on...

Tim Robbins

The Corinthian wrote: »

Like?

Personally I think people have just got more and more selfish.

Fair point, still not a good enough one unless you and your boy/girlfriend wanted to move to, say, Australia and only one of you could get a visa.

Oh holy god. What's the problem?
Look how do measure commitment? Some people measure commitment by how difficult something is to leave. Right. Very simple.
If you are married and want to split up. It's harder too. Ok. Very simple. So ERGO people have increased their commitment. Some people want to do that with each other, because they feel it gives the relationshop a much more depth.

Actually "no reasoning to it" is exactly what I meant by dumb.

But you had no reason as to what it was "dumb". Just because you can't see a reason to something, doesn't mean its dumb. It only means you can't see a reason to it.

I'm not suggesting people should. I have given the cons and asked for the pros - they need not be financial either, but they do need to be enough to outweigh those cons.

Your reasoning can't think beyond money.

There are pros and cons to marriage. The cons are largely financial and only apply to the spouse who is significantly better off, if such a spouse exists in a relationship. The pros are, so far, very limited or easily replicated through other means.

You make it sound like people get fleeced when they get hitched. This is nonsense. There are a few cases of gold diggers but they are in the minority.

So what are the pros? Seriously - they don't have to be financial, but a romantic notion of 'commitment' just does not wash for many people anymore, especially if half of what they have worked for all their lives, or a home that may have been in their family for generations, is on the line.

If all one thinks about is money, balance sheets and potential rish, well then stay away from marrying a person poorer than you.

However, I cannot find words to describe how shallow I think that is.

The Corinthian

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Personally I think people have just got more and more selfish.

Just as you dismissed my own anecdotal view earlier, you'll forgive me if I dismiss your opinion.

Look how do measure commitment? Some people measure commitment by how difficult something is to leave. Right. Very simple.

I'd agree except it is not equally difficult for both to leave.

But you had no reason as to what it was "dumb". Just because you can't see a reason to something, doesn't mean its dumb. It only means you can't see a reason to it.

Then give us the reason - a cogent, convincing reason. That's what I've been asking. If you can't then, sorry, it is 'dumb'.

Your reasoning can't think beyond money.

Not at all. In my first post I gave the example of the breadwinner-homemaker marriage. Both of them contribute to the union - only one of them financially, the other contributes in another, non-financial, way.

But only while it lasts, because if it ends the financial obligation remains, but the other party's obligation ends.

You make it sound like people get fleeced when they get hitched. This is nonsense. There are a few cases of gold diggers but they are in the minority.

No one gets fleeced when they get hitched. And many do not get fleeced when they break up.

However, as things stand, the law allows people to get fleeced if they are better off than their spouse. This makes marriage a risk, and all risk needs to be weighed against what you get in return, and as so far we've seen precious little of that in this discussion, it makes it a really bad choice to make for many.

If all one thinks about is money, balance sheets and potential rish, well then stay away from marrying a person poorer than you.

Which is exactly what a lot of people do.

Of course, even that is no protection, as there is nothing stopping the other party quitting their career the moment there's a ring on their finger.

However, I cannot find words to describe how shallow I think that is.

Perhaps, but I would counter by saying that you have completely failed to refute what I've put forward. I've given you ample opportunity, asking repeatedly for you to put propose the pros of marriage to counter my cons and I'm still waiting.

As such, your indignation really amounts to little more than putting your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

CathyMoran

If the other half was putting all their money into the relationship before they got married then they should share it equally, also if they have differing wages or the doctor example mentioned previously...I have seen too many women golddiggers. Once you get married it should be a partnership though, in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer...

I do actually believe in marriage and all through our relationship my husband and I have supported one another at different times...

Earthhorse

The Corinthian wrote: »

Moot point. If it's the family home (i.e. you live in it) it's owned 50-50, regardless of who's name is on the deed, who paid the mortgage whether it was inherited, and so on. It's a major issue with farmers, as they can end up losing, not only their home, but their business too, all in one go.

It was just an example. The point is, aside from cash, how do you divide up what you own in a marriage? Use of a car, for example, might be something that needs to be agreed upon. It may make more sense for a couple to sell both cars they had before marrying and have just the one. What to do in the OP's case then? How do you divide up the new car? Evenly, because you are now married, or based on contribution, because the money to pay from it came from pre-marriage assets.

I just don't really get how this could work.

Ickle Magoo

I agree - the assumption you can just walk away from a marriage with all you had prior to marriage doesn't really allow for a lot of the things that go on in many marriages that you just can't put a price on. If you go by the rule of not sharing anything earned prior to marriage, at what point do a couple become co-owners of all they have? 20yrs? 50yrs? What happens to the assets when that person dies? Is it non-transferable to the spouse? Does it pass straight to the kids?

What about the woman who gives up work to nurse her sick husband or a husband who gives up his earning potential to look after their children? Being in a marriage changes who you are & what you do - you don't live the same life as you would have done had you never married & that needs to be recognised.

I think in most cases it would be very hard to prove that the house you had inherited or paid the majority of the deposit, or the untouched €60,000 savings has not been retained in part thanks to the efforts of your other half, it would be a complete minefield...which it already is.

Well, maybe I'm being particularly naive but if you look at entering a marriage before its begun with failure in your mind, then failure you'll get. I don't mind you being responsible with your funds and your partner being responsible with her funds, but marriage is about love & trust. How are you displaying trust when you're preparing for the day your marriage fails?

When I was in my early twenties, I felt more along the lines of a pre-nup for assets prior to the marriage being kept separate. But now that I'm in my thirties, I see it being as unreasonable. You marry to share your life and assets with your partner. You pick the right partner, and if it fails, then it is your own responsibility.

I'll probably marry an asian girl. Having lived there, I can't see myself doing anything else. And I'm well aware of the statistics regarding failed marriages with different ethnic backgrounds. But I believe its more important to look at the positives than the negatives. The only reason I might fall into those statistics is if I let it happen. And I'm fully prepared to face the consequences of a failed marriage either financially or emotionally, if it happens.

Marriage is something special. A binding agreement between two people based on mutual respect and love. I'm cynical about most things in life, but not about this.

Tim Robbins

The Corinthian wrote:

Just as you dismissed my own anecdotal view earlier, you'll forgive me if I dismiss your opinion.

Well then why did you ask for it?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Perhaps, but I would counter by saying that you have completely failed to refute what I've put forward. I've given you ample opportunity, asking repeatedly for you to put propose the pros of marriage to counter my cons and I'm still waiting.

I have put forward the pros to marriage but you just ignored and dismissed it rather than refute it.

As for your con argument, that's purely a monetary, worst case, stella McCarthy argument. It's statisically improbable and irrelevant unless you can argue otherwise. If you are really worried about it, get a pre nup and then your point is entirely moot.

As such, your indignation really amounts to little more than putting your fingers in your ears and humming loudly.

That's just rhetoric.

johnnyskeleton

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

Tim does the woman not have more rights to have custody of the child if they split up? They do so technically by law the woman owns 75% of the baby??

"welcome to boards.ie,

to be a member you must meet the following criteria:

1) have a username

2) have a password

3) have a ****ed up view of family law.

welcome aboard".

Prove that women have more rights to custody of their children or shut up. Granted, where an unmarried father has not asserted any claim of paternity then there may be inequality, but other than that, tell me how you think the law should be.

johnnyskeleton

The Corinthian wrote: »

Marriage is ultimately a contract. Two people agree to pool their resources for their common betterment. Problem is that it is also the only contract in existence, since the introduction of no-fault divorce, that allows either party to break it without consiquence.

The politics forum has a sticky of imigration law in Ireland, why can't humanities/after hours/the ladies lounge have a sticky of family law?

If you think that people can get a divorce and just walk away you are very much mistaken.

994

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

My mother told me 2 days ago that a survey was done and that 85% of men have affairs within marriage.

That seems a little high. I've heard it as 60% of men and 40% of women. And, of course, having an affair doesn't necessarily make you the bad guy (or girl).

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Where are you getting 99% from? Making a legal commitment is the strongest commitment you can give someone. That in itself has many romantic connotations.

I'd like my kids to know as I was 100% committed to their Mother and I didn't just sit on the fence because I never trusted her to not shaft me if it all went pair shaped. I'd also like my wife to know as I was 100% committed to her as per marriage vows and I was prepared to enshrine that in law.

But a woman doesn't have to trust her man to support her if the marriage fails; he is legally obliged to do so. You could say the opposite: by NOT marrying you, your partner has shown that she TRUSTS you to stay with her forever or, if things don't work out, still choose not to abandon her to poverty.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Tbh I think a marriage entered into so cynically with a view to protecting what's yours when you split up, is probably doomed to begin with...or maybe a pre-nup would cover it?

Actually I think a marriage entered into with the realisation that everything won't be perfect forever and there is a possibility of a breakup is more likely to succeed. And prenups don't work under Irish law.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Personally I think people have just got more and more selfish.

No, 'twas ever thus.

Look how do measure commitment? Some people measure commitment by how difficult something is to leave. Right. Very simple.
If you are married and want to split up. It's harder too. Ok. Very simple. So ERGO people have increased their commitment.

One could argue the converse - if it's easy to leave, and you choose not to, that shows greater loyalty. e.g. volunteers make better soldiers than draftees.

If all one thinks about is money, balance sheets and potential rish, well then stay away from marrying a person poorer than you.

However, I cannot find words to describe how shallow I think that is.

But marriage is by and large about money nowadays - you don't need it for sex or children or living together, and you never needed it for love.

Blue_Wolf

Earthhorse wrote: »

Well, I don't see how you can separate the two really. I mean obviously, mathematically you can, but what does that mean in practical terms? I have half the mortgage paid off already so you're only allowed downstairs?

If you have savings built up are you really going to keep them to yourself when you're looking for a deposit on a house? Or making holiday plans? I do get where you're coming from but I think entering a marriage like that would introduce an element of mistrust from the start which is only more like to spoil things.

Mistrust is to say that I dont have the savings which is not what I'm debating.
No I'm not saying the other half is not aloud downstairs, I know your being sarcastic but I'm referring to the ownership. Which to be honest only really matters when they seperate. What does it matter if I own 80% of the house if I stay with the other half for the rest of my life. Doesn't effect her, it only effects her if we divorce but she hasn't lost out though.

The Corinthian

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well then why did you ask for it?

And if you dismiss the opinions of others as unverifiable why do you give us yours?

I have put forward the pros to marriage but you just ignored and dismissed it rather than refute it.

You didn't. You gave some fuzzy notion about it being about commitment, and that's about it.

As for your con argument, that's purely a monetary, worst case, stella McCarthy argument. It's statisically improbable and irrelevant unless you can argue otherwise.

Semantics: 49.9% is technically statisically improbable but I wouldn't bet my life on such odds. That a marriage will fail is improbable, in that it is below a certain percentage chance of occurring, but that does not make it so improbable that we should not consider it occurring.

If you are really worried about it, get a pre nup and then your point is entirely moot.

Pre nuptial agreements are not recognised at present under Irish law, otherwise, I'd agree with you.

That's just rhetoric.

As opposed to your whinging how you cannot find words to describe how shallow you thought what I was saying is? Pot. Kettle. Black.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Prove that women have more rights to custody of their children or shut up.

Where the parents are not married, the mother has automatic custody of the child. The father does not even get automatic guardianship rights, let alone custody. Where did you get the silly notion that women do not have more rights to custody of their children?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you think that people can get a divorce and just walk away you are very much mistaken.

I don't think you understood what I wrote. When you sign a contract, breaking or terminating it will, unless under certain predefined conditions, result in penalties for the party in breach of that contract.

This actually used to be the case with divorce, you needed to mutually agree to a divorce or show some form of contractual breach (infidelity, physical abuse, etc).

With the introduction of no-fault divorce, this is no longer necessary and either party can unilaterally cite "irreconcilable differences" as just cause. Breach of contract is not even considered, and a spouse can unilaterally leave the other for another person and suffer no consequences.

994 wrote: »

That seems a little high. I've heard it as 60% of men and 40% of women. And, of course, having an affair doesn't necessarily make you the bad guy (or girl).

Depends on the culture. Apparently in Italy, more married women have affairs than men.

Blue_Wolf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

"welcome to boards.ie,

to be a member you must meet the following criteria:

1) have a username

2) have a password

3) have a ****ed up view of family law.

welcome aboard".

Prove that women have more rights to custody of their children or shut up. Granted, where an unmarried father has not asserted any claim of paternity then there may be inequality, but other than that, tell me how you think the law should be.

Some people are so emotional, very sad.

Tim Robbins

The Corinthian wrote: »

And if you dismiss the opinions of others as unverifiable why do you give us yours?

I asked for evidence. By all means have your opinions, but there's a massive difference between objective fact and anecdotes.

You didn't. You gave some fuzzy notion about it being about commitment, and that's about it.

Again you are using rhetoric: "fuzzy". There's nothing fuzzy, it's a very concrete meaningful thing.

How do differentiate between fuzzy and non - fuzzy?

Semantics: 49.9% is technically statisically improbable but I wouldn't bet my life on such odds. That a marriage will fail is improbable, in that it is below a certain percentage chance of occurring, but that does not make it so improbable that we should not consider it occurring.

It's statistically improbably that a meteor will hit the earth and kill us in the next hour. Should we also dismiss that as semantics?

You earlier gave a figure of 40% divorce, I suspect in this state it's a lot lower, but let's just say for the purpose of argument it is 40%. Then in the very worst case, the Stella McCarthy argument is 40% probable. Much less than 49.9%

What percent of Marriages would you imagine end up in a break up and a revealed Gold Digger? Anything close to 49.9%? Doubt it.

johnnyskeleton

The Corinthian wrote: »

Where the parents are not married, the mother has automatic custody of the child. The father does not even get automatic guardianship rights, let alone custody. Where did you get the silly notion that women do not have more rights to custody of their children?

If you re-read my post, you will see that I mentioned this. However, the fact that the father doesn't get automatic guardianship rights is cured quite easily because they can apply for guardianship. If you think about it logically, and from the point of view of unmarried couples who might, shall be say, not be the firmest believers in monogamy, this makes sense, and in practical terms it is not too difficult for the unmarried father to become guardian if they should so wish and it is in the best interests of the child.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think you understood what I wrote. When you sign a contract, breaking or terminating it will, unless under certain predefined conditions, result in penalties for the party in breach of that contract.

I don't agree. Contract law is based on compensating a person who has suffered a loss as a result of another's breach of contract. It is not there to penalise someone if they breach the contract. Indeed, default provisions in a contract which are punitive rather than compensatory could well be illegal terms.

The Corinthian wrote: »

This actually used to be the case with divorce, you needed to mutually agree to a divorce or show some form of contractual breach (infidelity, physical abuse, etc).

That used to be the case in the UK and US (still is in some states I believe) but in Ireland it has always been based on the constitutional preconditions.

The Corinthian wrote: »

With the introduction of no-fault divorce, this is no longer necessary and either party can unilaterally cite "irreconcilable differences" as just cause. Breach of contract is not even considered, and a spouse can unilaterally leave the other for another person and suffer no consequences.

For a court to grant a divorce they must be statisfied that the spouses:
1) have lived separate and apart for a period of 4 out of the 5 years preceeding the institution of proceedings
2) there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation
3) there is proper provision for the other spouse; and
4) other legislative conditions (such as jurisdiction, welfare of the children etc).

Irreconcilable differences sounds more like the ground for judicial separation where the marriage has broken down to such an extent that no normal marital relationship exists.

In any event, they can't just leave the other, as divorce in Ireland is not final.

lynsalot

The whole vibe coming off this thread is that marriage is a no no which is ridiculous. The original few posts stated that 40% of all marriages end in divorce - although it's not supported by actuall fact we'll pretend thais statistic is real. Therefore 4/10 marriages fail. So for every 10 ppl 4 should seriously re-consider their decision. While it's a high stat - there's 6 other ppl from that group of 10 who live happily ever after - therefore the pro's outweight the cons - everyone has a right to choose what life they lead. but it's pathetic to have such a negative attitude towards marriage before you've even gotten married.

Does it not seem logical that some ppl don't want to go down that path and some do - possible the 4/10- and 6/10 ratio of ppl. and as u might have guessed i'm married and happily married and take full responsibility for making my marrigage work. it might be a bit easier for us as we don't have a huge amount of savings but our marriage is based on love trust and respect. we have separate bank accounts. we pay the same amount towards our mortgage and our spending money is our own. if either is running short we help each other out. we split the bills and we share our life together along with everything in it. we still live independent lives and have hobbies like "single" ppl - just because you're married doesn't mean your entire entity is wiped away. but hey i'm porbably one of the 6 ppl from that ten - my only point is if marriage isn't for you then don't get married - if it is, then do so with an open heart because you're setting yourself up for failure otherwise.

The Corinthian

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I asked for evidence. By all means have your opinions, but there's a massive difference between objective fact and anecdotes.

So you reserve the right to seek evidence while not supplying it? Nice.

How do differentiate between fuzzy and non - fuzzy?

A 'gesture of commitment' is a fuzzy reason for marriage. It's all very romantic, but in the long term means very little. Even if I accepted this as a pro, it doesn't really come close to overcoming the risks involved.

It's statistically improbably that a meteor will hit the earth and kill us in the next hour. Should we also dismiss that as semantics?

Straw man argument, or you simply did not read what I wrote. I said that while an average marriage failing may me improbable, it "does not make it so improbable that we should not consider it occurring", and there is a World of difference between the improbability of a marriage failing and a meteor will hit the earth and kill us in the next hour - unless you want to suggest that the chances of a marriage failing are below 0.000000001%.

You earlier gave a figure of 40% divorce, I suspect in this state it's a lot lower, but let's just say for the purpose of argument it is 40%. Then in the very worst case, the Stella McCarthy argument is 40% probable. Much less than 49.9%

I never suggested that it was 49.9%, only that improbable is a loaded term and one can easily argue that 49.9% is improbable. However, even if it was half that, it's still high enough not to be ignored.

What percent of Marriages would you imagine end up in a break up and a revealed Gold Digger? Anything close to 49.9%? Doubt it.

What happens when a marriage ends is anyone's guess. It may not be 'gold digging' that motivates one party, but revenge, or peer pressure (as they will receive plenty of advice on what they are entitled to) or it may all be fair and amicable.

However, there does remain a risk - that a marriage will fail and things will turn out nasty - and not one that should be dismissed in as cavalier a fashion.

The Corinthian

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't agree. Contract law is based on compensating a person who has suffered a loss as a result of another's breach of contract. It is not there to penalise someone if they breach the contract. Indeed, default provisions in a contract which are punitive rather than compensatory could well be illegal terms.

Semantics, TBH, as penalties are typically used as a means of imposting compensation. Either way, my point is the marriage contract does not compensate both parties when breached.

For a court to grant a divorce they must be statisfied that the spouses:
1) have lived separate and apart for a period of 4 out of the 5 years preceeding the institution of proceedings
2) there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation
3) there is proper provision for the other spouse; and
4) other legislative conditions (such as jurisdiction, welfare of the children etc).

Irreconcilable differences sounds more like the ground for judicial separation where the marriage has broken down to such an extent that no normal marital relationship exists.

Even if irreconcilable differences are simply the grounds for judicial separation, they thus facilitate your first point. However, your second point raises irreconcilable differences again as a condition of divorce (except you carefully gave it a different name).

What is also telling is that your third point cites "proper provision for the other spouse" and, unless this is a typo, this is one of the problems with divorce the (financially) weaker spouse is compensated for their loss, the (financially) stronger one is not.

In any event, they can't just leave the other, as divorce in Ireland is not final.

Indeed, legally they can continue suing each other for decades. A woman could marry a man, break up after five years, divorce after another 4 and get on with her life. However, ten years after that, and her career has progressed, her ex can still bring her back to court - in theory, I'll accept in practice he may not get very far.

The Corinthian

lynsalot wrote: »

The whole vibe coming off this thread is that marriage is a no no which is ridiculous. The original few posts stated that 40% of all marriages end in divorce - although it's not supported by actuall fact we'll pretend thais statistic is real. Therefore 4/10 marriages fail. So for every 10 ppl 4 should seriously re-consider their decision. While it's a high stat - there's 6 other ppl from that group of 10 who live happily ever after - therefore the pro's outweight the cons - everyone has a right to choose what life they lead. but it's pathetic to have such a negative attitude towards marriage before you've even gotten married.

Would you agree to elective surgery that has a 30% chance of leaving you disfigured?

CathyMoran

The Corinthian wrote: »

Would you agree to elective surgery that has a 30% chance of leaving you disfigured?

Well I agreed to elective surgery that had between a 10 % and 40 % chance of killing me (though not having it may have killed me too)...you have to take chances in this life if you want to win big, you can maximise the chances of success by really knowing your partner, basing it on your head as much as your heart and really giving everything if and when you do commit...OK, am only a relative newbie married but it is working so far.

The Corinthian

CathyMoran wrote: »

Well I agreed to elective surgery that had between a 10 % and 40 % chance of killing me (though not having it may have killed me too)...you have to take chances in this life if you want to win big, you can maximise the chances of success by really knowing your partner, basing it on your head as much as your heart and really giving everything if and when you do commit...OK, am only a relative newbie married but it is working so far.

Cathy, I do agree with you - you do have to take chances in this life if you want to win big. The only problem is that I'm not convinced on the big win here, all that's been put forward is an abstract principle of making a commitment, and that's it.

I think people have misunderstood where I'm coming from. I'm not against marriage, per say, I just don't see what you get from it justifies the very possible downside. If the rewards are there, then I would certainly say that it is worth the gamble. But, from what I can see, they're not - or more correctly, not to a level that comes close to justify that gamble.

Tim Robbins

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think people have misunderstood where I'm coming from. I'm not against marriage, per say, I just don't see what you get from it justifies the very possible downside. If the rewards are there, then I would certainly say that it is worth the gamble. But, from what I can see, they're not - or more correctly, not to a level that comes close to justify that gamble.

Can I just try to summarize:

Your point is that there is potential problem with marriage, that if in the case of break up, one side can fleece the other. I'll call this the Heather McCarthy argument.

I see three problems with this:
1.
If that's all your point is, it just cancels itself out. For every potential finacial loser there's a potential finacial winner. So if you only think in terms of money, then for someone like Paul McCarthy marriage was a bad idea. But, for Heather McCarthy marriage to Paul was a brilliant idea.

2.
Getting stats on getting fleeced is very difficult. Firstly objectively defining getting fleeced is very difficult. If you're a miser you could very easily think you're getting fleeced whereas if you're a generous person you'd probably want to ensure your x got looked after.

I think if you looked at all divorce cases in this state and asked people if one party fleeced the other, I would suspect it would be quite small. If the probability of one party getting fleeced was very high in marriage, people just wouldn't get married and the instituition would cease to exist.

3.
I think there are some things in life you can't just assess their merits / value by pure monetary measurement.

If people just made their decision on having a child purely for monetary reasons, they'd never have children as the cost would always outweight their benefit.

By a couple getting married, they are strengthening their commitment to each other as a commitment enshrined in law it means it's not as easy to walk away. In a relationship with no marriage, you can get out by simply sending someone a text. No-one can ever bring you to court. Bit of a difference.

It's also a public statement that you are fully committed to each other. This is just a traditional thing and something that has no legal or scientific meaning. If you're married you are indicating to single people you're completly out of the game. It's also means that single people don't waste their own time trying to fish wheir the water is frozen so in some respects it has societal benefits.

I think there is some merit in what you've raised. The law could be updated to make it harder for Gold Diggers, such as Stella McCarthy to do what they do. I accept that. But what I don't accept is that marriage is a useless / dumb tradition.

BTW for a philsophical discourse on marriage, I'd recommend Marriage and Morals by Bertrand Russell. Great book.

CathyMoran

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think people have misunderstood where I'm coming from. I'm not against marriage, per say, I just don't see what you get from it justifies the very possible downside. If the rewards are there, then I would certainly say that it is worth the gamble. But, from what I can see, they're not - or more correctly, not to a level that comes close to justify that gamble.

Have been thinking about the benefits of marriage all day, in truth I married because I love my husband and wanted the world to know that we are family. It had practical aspects also, my husband was next of kin for medical issues, he stayed with me when I was ill, with the best will in the world I am not sure that you could expect that if you were just going out. Having said that, have seen a lot of women leaving their husband when they get ill, men tend to stay (personal experience), something that is shameful.

It is deffinitly not something that you enter into lightly, the financial and emotional effects of a divorce are great but waking up in the morning and hugging someone and feeling safe and knowing that they are yours and you are theirs is worth the risk, at least for me.

I should also state that I was the worlds biggest commitment phobe - then life got in the way.