The Marriage pole

Blue_Wolf

Answer the pole yes or no.

Do you believe that once your married you should share everything with your new legally binding partner that you have gained while not with her

E.G You saved 60k when you didn't know her
E.G You have a house with half the mortgage paid off

Should he/she get half the rights to the house or money even though they weren't around?

No comments on this just answer the pole.

Thanks

The_Minister

Its "poll".

Comely maidens haven't danced around a marriage pole at Beltine for many a year.

Blue_Wolf

Excuse my ignorance

The_Minister wrote: »

Its "poll".

Comely maidens haven't danced around a marriage pole at Beltine for many a year.

seamus

Marraige is pretty much by definition an agreement to act as a single legal unit for the rest of your lives, so I see no reason why you wouldn't share everything.

In fact, I would argue that if someone goes into marraige unwilling/unhappy to share everything they have with their partner, then they probably shouldn't be getting married at all.

And why no comments? Surely the intention is to build discussion?

ronkmonster

because this thread was already opened before.

exact same topic.

Joey the lips

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

Answer the pole yes or no.

Do you believe that once your married you should share everything with your new legally binding partner that you have gained while not with her

E.G You saved 60k when you didn't know her
E.G You have a house with half the mortgage paid off

Should he/she get half the rights to the house or money even though they weren't around?

No comments on this just answer the pole.

Thanks

Pole answered but if you expect me to answer your question I am going to expect you to listen to why!

On the 60K Well done
You own half a house well done!

Should he or she get half the rights Hmmmmm Difficult question but I would have to say yes!

But here is a safer idea less contraversy and easier to get by. Set yourself up as a company Say John Smith properties Ltd and neither of you own the property as such but she cannot take it unless you make her a director and her is the beauty. She becomes responsable for the liabilities if she is a director and normally directors are expected to submit an amout of capital to buy shares say 20k

Zascar

Wow I can't beleive the Yes vote is ahead. I don't think I'd see myself handover over half of what you mentioned above just because we now have a ring on our finder. Ok if it is till death do us part then fair enough, but the changes fo a marriage ending in the first new years are quite high and there is no way I'd be shelling over 100k+ of my hard earned cash before we ever met etc.

Is she bringing anything to the table?

Joey the lips

Zascar wrote: »

Wow I can't beleive the Yes vote is ahead. I don't think I'd see myself handover over half of what you mentioned above just because we now have a ring on our finder. Ok if it is till death do us part then fair enough, but the changes fo a marriage ending in the first new years are quite high and there is no way I'd be shelling over 100k+ of my hard earned cash before we ever met etc.

Is she bringing anything to the table?

Well then I feel you mis understand the mean of marriage. Marriage is a contract between 2 people who now become one. Thats the legal side. Me personally I love my OH she is my world my life. If she turns out to be everything I did not expect I would be devestated. But like I said if your worried set yourself up as a company

Def on marriage:
Marriage is a social, spiritual, and/or legal union of individuals. This union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding and the married status created is sometimes called wedlock.
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state, by religious authority, or by both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.

Simple: if you dont like carrots you dont eat them. If you dont believe in god dont go to mass. If you dont believe in the union of marriage Dont get married!

Zascar

I heard that prenup's are pretty much pointless in Ireland so it doesn't really matter anyway, when you say "I Do" whats yours is now theirs too.

Joey the lips

Zascar wrote: »

I heard that prenup's are pretty much pointless in Ireland so it doesn't really matter anyway, when you say "I Do" whats yours is now theirs too.

I agree the constitution protects marriage and if there are kids it protects the kids. Propper order but there are abusers.

Create a company! Its safer!

Blue_Wolf

Joey the lips wrote: »

Pole answered but if you expect me to answer your question I am going to expect you to listen to why!

On the 60K Well done
You own half a house well done!

Should he or she get half the rights Hmmmmm Difficult question but I would have to say yes!

But here is a safer idea less contraversy and easier to get by. Set yourself up as a company Say John Smith properties Ltd and neither of you own the property as such but she cannot take it unless you make her a director and her is the beauty. She becomes responsable for the liabilities if she is a director and normally directors are expected to submit an amout of capital to buy shares say 20k

Hi Joey,

Can I explain why I feel this way?

I see alot of people who are in love and they share everything etc but there is sooo much deceit and divorce (once the other partner becomes aware of the deceit) Divorce comes along and long and behold what you have spent a good portion of your life earning its 50:50 even though the other person had nothing to do with it.

Technically one is better off to spend all their money when they are young and enjoy their lives more and enter into a marriage a broke man. Why should I have to even consider opening a business name joe smith so that she can't touch it.

Simple: Times have changed, marriage is NOT for life anymore. I'm just being realistic here. Share everything that you guys have earned whilst married. Have a joint account and so on but what's wrong with having a seperate bank account with money in it that you have had in it well before she came into your life. Marriage is about love and setting up a family. Why do some people in this case according to the poll 50% people believe that they should have access to this account?

Joey the lips

I understand blue wolf I understand perfectly. I know your cautious I come frm a broken family. However I love my wife and if she suggested she keep all she has it starts to create a "You keep yours and I'll keep mine" Its not a union. Its a lie

I suggest starting a company cause a company has protection outside the marriage. Its judged as a seperate entity and provided you dont earn much it will not cost you much in accounts.

Here is a scene: Say your moth owns 5 houses before you met! Fine! Say she sells them and makes 1.5 million profit. Fine yes!

She now turns to you and says I am all right jack I am giving up work I have me own money. You continue on working.

Oh yeah by the way. Your not spongeing off me you can still pay half the mortage. Oh i forgot to say I love you

You see it just cant work.

Granted my way of explaining is the extreme!

Blue_Wolf

Exactly!

Joey, I'm not saying I don't believe in marriage and I doubt Zascar is saying that either. It's the change in society which he has just pointed out. You say it's a contract but any party can just cancel the contract and than your screwed. Hense why I believe that sharing everything we earned while together is what it should be.

Secondly you said if you don't believe in God than don't go to Mass. Mass for alot of people is not just about God, it's about seeking guidance. Learning whats right and wrong. I went to Mass when younger and learned morals, what is acceptable in society etc etc. No I don't believe in God but I can go to Mass to be inspired, to be put back on track. New religions are formed as our beliefs. Therefore seeing as you made the comparison shouldn't marriage be more flexible in it's definition seeing as the opportunities of getting out of this " contract" our at an arms reach. If marriage was for life than yes I would share everything but it's not for life if divorce is legal.
I believe in Divorce as I believe in having a seperate bank account in case.
Maybe when im 70 years old and im still with the wife and we will be together for life than that savings can be like a pension for us

Or I would just pass the money onto my children who would need it more.

I hope you look outside the box and see what I'm saying.

Zascar wrote: »

Wow I can't beleive the Yes vote is ahead. I don't think I'd see myself handover over half of what you mentioned above just because we now have a ring on our finder. Ok if it is till death do us part then fair enough, but the changes fo a marriage ending in the first new years are quite high and there is no way I'd be shelling over 100k+ of my hard earned cash before we ever met etc.

Is she bringing anything to the table?

Joey the lips

Actually I do agree with you but unfortunit the current constitution protects marriage so while I agree its wrong that some barstood might marry you when your wealthy and 2 years later fcuk off and take half its wrong. I see its polling even and the question does not ask this point.

I think a marriage should come with a working time. Bear with me

1 - 5 year entitled to nothing other than the marriage wealth(what was made)

5-10 25%

10+ Half of all

Kid involved: Different issue whole other game!

Blue_Wolf

Ya but that extreme shows that one partner is more than well off. Sure if I was a millionaire I would share it all with my wife and have some away in savings earning a nice interest so that I can live off that etc etc.
If we divorced than I would still have loads left that I can move on and live my life.

Try and stay on earth here and be realistic with your examples as am I.

My point is in a nutshell. If divorce is readily available as it is. Than I should have some protection on my side. Marriage does not legally make the other half share what they have earned before they got together. My mother has a seperate bank account and the child allowance goes in there. Her answer was sure even if i wasn't with your father I would still get it as i have you guys. Now she said it in a funny way, so she wasn't being evil so please no Comments about my mother :pac:

Joey the lips wrote: »

I understand blue wolf I understand perfectly. I know your cautious I come frm a broken family. However I love my wife and if she suggested she keep all she has it starts to create a "You keep yours and I'll keep mine" Its not a union. Its a lie

I suggest starting a company cause a company has protection outside the marriage. Its judged as a seperate entity and provided you dont earn much it will not cost you much in accounts.

Here is a scene: Say your moth owns 5 houses before you met! Fine! Say she sells them and makes 1.5 million profit. Fine yes!

She now turns to you and says I am all right jack I am giving up work I have me own money. You continue on working.

Oh yeah by the way. Your not spongeing off me you can still pay half the mortage. Oh i forgot to say I love you

You see it just cant work.

Granted my way of explaining is the extreme!

Joey the lips

Sorry your mother. Your moth! i am guessing. its dublin for girlfriend

We will not agree I will leave you to it. I am still on earth you asking opinions and then attacking. we will not agree.

I am with my OH 13 years before I married her so she can have all I own as far as I am concerned cause I would not want to live without her!

Thanks I do think any marriage based on your proposal is doomed to fail. even though I get your point!

Blue_Wolf

Ya but regardless of whether its law that you have to share you still think it's lie. Which it's not. Going to the efforts of setting up a company so that the OH cant touch it is extreme and is a bigger "LIE" than just having it in a seperate bank account.

I'm happy that you are in a marriage with a woman that you love and I hope that you will spend the rest of your life with her a happy man.
Unfortunatly that is not the case for so many Men and Women out there.

Prenup agreement was set up to protect rich families being cleaned out by the OH. According to you that's not marriage so technically you are saying that if Married in Ireland has more meaning?? than one in say America??
I know it's a far fetched implication that I have taken from what you have said but it's legal in some countries and doesn't take away from the romance nor the meaning of marriage.
Yes me having a million euro and saying oh darling lets go travelling around the world together but you have to pay for your half but she cant afford it.
That's bad but that's not what I'm saying. I would only go on holidays if WE could afford it. Money that WE have save together in OUR joint account.

Joey the lips wrote: »

Actually I do agree with you but unfortunit the current constitution protects marriage so while I agree its wrong that some barstood might marry you when your wealthy and 2 years later fcuk off and take half its wrong. I see its polling even and the question does not ask this point.

I think a marriage should come with a working time. Bear with me

1 - 5 year entitled to nothing other than the marriage wealth(what was made)

5-10 25%

10+ Half of all

Kid involved: Different issue whole other game!

Blue_Wolf

We are entitled to our own opinions and I'm sorry if I came across that I was attacking you. Take care.

CathyMoran

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

That's bad but that's not what I'm saying. I would only go on holidays if WE could afford it. Money that WE have save together in OUR joint account.

OK, what happens if one of you is seriously ill, could be fatal? Their wages are limited. Would you not go on holiday with them because they can not afford it? These things can and do happen. What happens with the time together before marriage?

Blue_Wolf

Surprised to see over 300 hits but only 37 votes.

Blue_Wolf

its going to stay 50:50 isnt it? funny though!

Ericka

I have voted no. But I'm only just inside the fence on it. You shouldn't be made to feel obliged to share.

However, if the couple decide to spend the rest of their lives together and share the same goals, I think it would be a nice gesture to help out a little if your joint savings fall short.

Blue_Wolf

Ericka wrote: »

I have voted no. But I'm only just inside the fence on it. You shouldn't be made to feel obliged to share.

However, if the couple decide to spend the rest of their lives together and share the same goals, I think it would be a nice gesture to help out a little if your joint savings fall short.

So your saying in general NO but it really depends on the situation?

The Corinthian

CathyMoran wrote: »

OK, what happens if one of you is seriously ill, could be fatal? Their wages are limited. Would you not go on holiday with them because they can not afford it? These things can and do happen. What happens with the time together before marriage?

Personally I think the poll, or question, has not really been asked properly. The problem is not that people don't want to share everything in marriage, it's that marriage is by no means forever any more and they don't want to share after it has ended.

So, to respond to your question, I think almost all would stand by their spouse if they became ill, or subsidize them for the luxuries in life. After all you love them.

However, should you support them if they become ill, perhaps ten or twenty years after the marriage has ended, or pay for their holidays (presumably with a new partner)? I think you'll get a very different answer.

Personally, I think marriage (that has slowly evolved over millennia) has de facto changed drastically in only a few decades from what it used to be, but de jure remains the same, leading to such issues.

Blue_Wolf

The Corinthian wrote: »

However, should you support them if they become ill, perhaps ten or twenty years after the marriage has ended, or pay for their holidays (presumably with a new partner)? I think you'll get a very different answer.

What? Why would you be paying towards there holidays? That makes no sense at all and if your seperated even 6months let alone 10years no way would you be supporting them when they are ill. Your not together, that really is not the point I was making.

You look in the Relationship issues section, there is a thread there called Marriage in Shambles. Read it, if that guy did what I believe in than he could claim custody over the kids as the wife is messed up and can't support them and he would have the money from HIS savings to bring them back home to Ireland. He's screwed now because he can't afford it as he shared EVERYTHING with his wife that is having an affair with someone else. This is a woman that he married, that he trusted, that he loved so much and wouldn't believe for a second that she could do this to him. They say Love is blind, that there is a pure good example of that!

Blue_Wolf

CathyMoran wrote: »

OK, what happens if one of you is seriously ill, could be fatal? Their wages are limited. Would you not go on holiday with them because they can not afford it? These things can and do happen. What happens with the time together before marriage?

Well if you are seriously ill than why would you be considering going on holidays? I don't see the point in throwing in these exacerbated examples. I'm talking about a normal day to day. Just for the record, if we had no money in our account and my wife ended up in hospital and needed surgeory to save her life and was going to cost 60K, I will pay it out of the savings. But like I said put it back and keep in the context that I'm referring to.

Blue_Wolf

Heres the link to that thread about the wife having an affair.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055529048

Read it and than tell me I'm being selfish, irrational and...unloving.

CathyMoran

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

Well if you are seriously ill than why would you be considering going on holidays? I don't see the point in throwing in these exacerbated examples. I'm talking about a normal day to day. Just for the record, if we had no money in our account and my wife ended up in hospital and needed surgeory to save her life and was going to cost 60K, I will pay it out of the savings. But like I said put it back and keep in the context that I'm referring to.

I was actually in that situation - I had cancer surgery and was trying my best to recover but it was not easy, I was living life day to day, I still do...my husband took me on a holiday which was a real help. I cant see my case being isolated, people do get ill...

I would likewise give up everything for my husband if he was seriously ill or in a situation like mine.

Joey the lips

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

Heres the link to that thread about the wife having an affair.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055529048

Read it and than tell me I'm being selfish, irrational and...unloving.

Read the link ( Yes I am still here) I dont think your selfish but I do think its sad your so untrusting. You orig question did not ask this. You should have worded your question something along the lines of

" With all the affairs and marriage break ups in the world are you going to share all you own with your o/h as soon as you marry"

Yes

No

Guaranteed you would get a different opinion. Your right your not been selfish but I am of the belief you have either been burnt very bad or know someone who has,

Me on the o/h, I have been very lucky. I am not getting into the loveie dovie thing but as far as I am concerned my o/h owned all I had from the day I married her as I would not have wanted it without her.

But granted if had 5 houses and a 300 million fortune would I feel the same?
I am still convinced I would have protected it all in a company just in case that way any work she had put in she would have gained equally. Its very cheap to set this up. It would not be seen as been selfish as it makes sense. There is benefits to it. Lastly any work your o/h put in can be measured and valued.

If you really want to go down the road your on.


But I do wonder---- If your being honest. At the back of your mind would you be ok with your o/h protecting herself from you like this??????

The Corinthian

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

What? Why would you be paying towards there holidays? That makes no sense at all and if your seperated even 6months let alone 10years no way would you be supporting them when they are ill. Your not together, that really is not the point I was making.

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. Even when a marriage ends, the spouses have a financial obligation to support each other - this covers not only assets, but spousal maintenance (child maintenance is extra, if applicable) and even things such as pension rights.

This comes from the time when women would have to leave work when they married and if they lost their husbands could find it difficult to find another.

There are naturally practical limitations; a court is not likely to entertain exorbitant claims from a childless marriage that lasted only a year or two and of course, you can't get blood from a stone and if the money is not there, it's not there (although depending upon the judge, a spouse could still be financially crippled).

Of course, it does work both ways. One case I knew of had the wife divorce the husband for various reasons, of which one was his alcoholism. She was in receipt of spousal maintenance from him until, ironically, he drove drunk one night, got into an accident and suffered severe brain damage that necessitated his being in care for the remainder of his life. She pays the bills.

You look in the Relationship issues section, there is a thread there called Marriage in Shambles. Read it, if that guy did what I believe in than he could claim custody over the kids as the wife is messed up and can't support them and he would have the money from HIS savings to bring them back home to Ireland. He's screwed now because he can't afford it as he shared EVERYTHING with his wife that is having an affair with someone else. This is a woman that he married, that he trusted, that he loved so much and wouldn't believe for a second that she could do this to him. They say Love is blind, that there is a pure good example of that!

Well, much of that has to do with a combination of the bias against men in parenting rights and the legal nature of 'no fault divorce'.

Anyhow, I don't want to drag this thread off topic - only to comment that I think the poll just doesn't ask the right questions.

Blue_Wolf

Joey the lips wrote: »

But I do wonder---- If your being honest. At the back of your mind would you be ok with your o/h protecting herself from you like this??????

Honestly...No I wouldn't mind. However, if the O/H had the equivelant to what I had than I would consider pooling it all together. Well I'm 23 so I haven't had a bad experience. No I don't know anyone personally that has been screwed over but I do know of people that it happens to.
Having an affair for some people is like having breakfast, means nothing.
IMO in this day an age, people are to busy to take care of each other, some men are to tired to have sex. Stress of the work life is brought back home. This is the reason why people have affairs, to break the boring everyday routine and do something exciting. I could go on.

My simple point is imo there's nothing wrong with having that money in my account.

Joey the lips

i promise blue in time you will feel differently. I still am of the opinion the poll was worded wrong.

Blue_Wolf

Yup when society changes I will than change my opinion

Your other version of the pole question is fine but the one I asked also makes sense and the votes are showing that half somewhat and to some extent agree with my point of view, saying that half also to some extent agree with yours

Believe me I wish it was a perfect world and could feel the same way as you do without a worry. Having that money in my account is like a safety net for me and I'm 100% sure that when someones marriage goes awol that they wish they had done what I believe.

I do respect your and others opinions on this

The Corinthian

Joey the lips wrote: »

Read the link ( Yes I am still here) I dont think your selfish but I do think its sad your so untrusting.

To begin with he's being un-trusting of someone he hasn't even met yet (or may never meet), so it really is a completely hypothetical question.

So really all he or anyone else in that situation has to go on is statistics, the experience of others and the law. Asking him to put his faith in a hypothetical 'true love' is pretty daft, TBH.

But he may change his mind in time. Or not.

" With all the affairs and marriage break ups in the world are you going to share all you own with your o/h as soon as you marry"

I don't think that is a fair question either. Personally I have absolutely no problem in sharing everything I own with the person I am married to or even in a indefinite term partnership with. I do have a problem with being with someone for perhaps five or ten years, breaking up for what may be no fault of my own and then subsidizing or even bankrolling them for the following forty years.

So in reality it's two questions; one about sharing within the marriage and the second about what happens after, in the event the marriage ending.

But I do wonder---- If your being honest. At the back of your mind would you be ok with your o/h protecting herself from you like this??????

Personally I'm ok with it; I'm not so insecure as to see something like this as form of rejection.

joe freethinker

seamus wrote: »

Marraige is pretty much by definition an agreement to act as a single legal unit for the rest of your lives, so I see no reason why you wouldn't share everything.

In fact, I would argue that if someone goes into marraige unwilling/unhappy to share everything they have with their partner, then they probably shouldn't be getting married at all.

And why no comments? Surely the intention is to build discussion?

I know someone who married for life. A few years into the marrage she went to build a build a business without help from her husband financalily or other.
she got money from her brother.
the husband did help out when the business was up and running.Fair play?
no! the marrage callaped when he was caught buried to the b**ls in one of his wifes employees.he got every thing she built.I'm an avocate for a fullproof pre-nup with two seperate estates even after marrage

CathyMoran

I believe in sharing everything in a marriage, while still alllowing for personal identity - in practice all my money goes into my relationship though we both have a nominal amount that we can spend as we wish (we nearly always end up spending it on one another). He has looked after me when I was ill and I have done the same for him - we are a family.

I cant comment on divorce as I have never considered it, I am 100% certain about my marriage.

Ickle Magoo

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

Your other version of the pole question is fine but the one I asked also makes sense and the votes are showing that half somewhat and to some extent agree with my point of view, saying that half also to some extent agree with yours

What's the chances that the Boards demographics are roughly half of people who are married & half not, with a few bitter folks in between? I'd be more interested in the results of your poll if they asked how many married people do not share finances/equity...otherwise it's just hypothetical ponderings for a portion of those polled.

The Corinthian

CathyMoran wrote: »

I cant comment on divorce as I have never considered it, I am 100% certain about my marriage.

I think this is the point. Often when married people run to the defence of marriage, marital break-up for them is something that happens to other people. This may be because they genuinely have a happy and stable marriage (as I believe you do) or because they are in denial about the possibility that it could happen to them (as I suspect one of the posters in the other, recent, thread was).

If we ignore marital break-up and divorce, then absolutely I would have no problem sharing everything with my other half for life. But it does happen, and that's why you have to consider it.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What's the chances that the Boards demographics are roughly half of people who are married & half not

I believe the average age of someone on Boards is in their early twenties, although this would vary as to the forums frequented. Either way, I'd imagine those who are married make up a minority.

with a few bitter folks in between?

That's a bit of a loaded assessment, don't you think? The impression I got from the other thread on the subject is that there are some who are 'happily' married out there, but not so 'happily' married that they will tolerate any criticism of the institution - one in particular seemed more interested in convincing herself than anyone else how 'happy' her marriage was.

I've seen friends and family in both good and happy marriages and I've also seen a few disasters. Reality is that any relationship, regardless of the legal status, can succeed or fail, and the 'noble gesture' of fiscal commitment that marriage implies really makes little sense to me - unless you are the one looking for long term financial stability.

I'd be more interested in the results of your poll if they asked how many married people do not share finances/equity...otherwise it's just hypothetical ponderings for a portion of those polled.

Probably exactly the same percentage as those who are in long term partnerships.

Ickle Magoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think this is the point. Often when married people run to the defence of marriage, marital break-up for them is something that happens to other people. This may be because they genuinely have a happy and stable marriage (as I believe you do) or because they are in denial about the possibility that it could happen to them (as I suspect one of the posters in the other, recent, thread was).

If we ignore marital break-up and divorce, then absolutely I would have no problem sharing everything with my other half for life. But it does happen, and that's why you have to consider it.

I'm not so delusional, I promise you. I recently talked my husband out of getting a vasectomy as I thought he may want other children if we were to split up or anything was to happen to me. I'm a pragmatist but there is a distinct difference between that & cynicism.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I believe the average age of someone on Boards is in their early twenties, although this would vary as to the forums frequented. Either way, I'd imagine those who are married make up a minority.

I don't really post in AH so my assumptions are skewed!

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's a bit of a loaded assessment, don't you think? The impression I got from the other thread on the subject is that there are some who are 'happily' married out there, but not so 'happily' married that they will tolerate any criticism of the institution - one in particular seemed more interested in convincing herself than anyone else how 'happy' her marriage was.

Not really loaded. I've read more than enough derogatory comments about both sexes, ex's & marriage in general to get the feeling there are definitely more than a few quite shockingly bitter people on boards.

Lol, yeah, I know what you mean about people who sound more like they are trying to convince themselves than anybody else.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've seen friends and family in both good and happy marriages and I've also seen a few disasters. Reality is that any relationship, regardless of the legal status, can succeed or fail, and the 'noble gesture' of fiscal commitment that marriage implies really makes little sense to me - unless you are the one looking for long term financial stability.

I know that's your view, I've read the thread! I also know of so many people who claim this & that and then when they actually meet someone they love & trust enough to want to marry, their singleton proclamations evaporate. I'm as cynical of the results as you are of the subject & it's difficult to get that across without sounding like a smug married! :eek::o

The Corinthian wrote: »

Probably exactly the same percentage as those who are in long term partnerships.

I'd disagree with that too, personally, anyway. I've lived with three men. One for 3yrs, one for 2 & the other for 4yrs before we married. I still felt what was mine was mine & I could walk if I wanted when I lived with those guys. Marriage is definitely a different level of commitment to a lot of people, me included. My views on love & marriage have altered so much as to be unrecognisable from when I was single. If I'd answered the poll then, I'd have probably ticked the other option, that's all - not that others would necessarily change their thinking, of course.

The Corinthian

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not so delusional, I promise you. I recently talked my husband out of getting a vasectomy as I thought he may want other children if we were to split up or anything was to happen to me. I'm a pragmatist but there is a distinct difference between that & cynicism.

Yes, you may be a pragmatist, but is your husband? After all, if you were to break up with him tomorrow, who would be paying spousal maintenance to whom? If the answer is him, then it makes no odds that you're the pragmatic one.

Not really loaded. I've read more than enough derogatory comments about both sexes, ex's & marriage in general to get the feeling there are definitely more than a few quite shockingly bitter people on boards.

That's true, but I've read more than enough derogatory comments from those who react very badly to having their rose-tinted views challenged.

So if you're going to mention one side, you really need to mention the other - else you are giving a loaded or biased viewpoint.

Lol, yeah, I know what you mean about people who sound more like they are trying to convince themselves than anybody else.

God bless Internet sponsored validation threads.

I know that's your view, I've read the thread! I also know of so many people who claim this & that and then when they actually meet someone they love & trust enough to want to marry, their singleton proclamations evaporate.

I totally accept that. I think the problem is that those of us who are cynical about marriage perhaps view it from the perspective of someone who has not met that "someone they love & trust enough to want to marry".

As such the discussion is theoretical and all we have to go on are the cold-blooded facts and statistics of marriage.

Of course, if one does meet that "someone they love & trust enough to want to marry" then no doubt it does make sense, and I accepted in the other thread that perhaps there are factors that I simply cannot rationally measure.

Having said that, every broken marriage was originally with "someone they love & trust enough to want to marry" too.

I still felt what was mine was mine & I could walk if I wanted when I lived with those guys.

But did it stop you sharing during the relationships?

Arcee

The poll is kind of irrelevent tbh.... you ask the question as if it's a choice but if you get married (or even just live with someone long enough) the lines between what's yours or theirs become very blurred. You can have as many seperate bank accounts as you want blue_wolf, but don't be under the illusion that you're protected by making that decision. There are no guarantees.....

The Corinthian

Arcee wrote: »

The poll is kind of irrelevent tbh.... you ask the question as if it's a choice but if you get married (or even just live with someone long enough) the lines between what's yours or theirs become very blurred. You can have as many seperate bank accounts as you want blue_wolf, but don't be under the illusion that you're protected by making that decision. There are no guarantees.....

That's true - even if you are cohabitation outside of marriage, and both contribute to the mortgage of a house, directly or indirectly, with only one party on the deeds, the other party does potentially have a case.

Note though I only said potentially. While there are no guarantees, the other party must prove that they have contributed towards an asset and don't automatically share ownership as they do in marriage.

Additionally, financial exposure is at worst limited to existing assets. There is no maintenance (unless there are children) and the other party cannot 'come back to the well' with a motion of variance in the future.

Blue_Wolf

That's a fair point.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What's the chances that the Boards demographics are roughly half of people who are married & half not, with a few bitter folks in between? I'd be more interested in the results of your poll if they asked how many married people do not share finances/equity...otherwise it's just hypothetical ponderings for a portion of those polled.

Blue_Wolf

CathyMoran wrote: »

I believe in sharing everything in a marriage, while still alllowing for personal identity - in practice all my money goes into my relationship though we both have a nominal amount that we can spend as we wish .

That is exactly what I believe, still having a personal identity, something that I have to myself and can spend on whatever I like, it can be on the other half or whatever

Blue_Wolf

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's true - even if you are cohabitation outside of marriage, and both contribute to the mortgage of a house, directly or indirectly, with only one party on the deeds, the other party does potentially have a case.
.

I'm under the impression that what's on paper goes, unless appealed.

If i knew right that i will have a wife for the rest of my life and we will always be together (what a dream) I would share everything. That is in a perfect world of fairy tales. It just isnt like that and that's why I look on it in that light.

Why is divorce so readily available if it's for life? Is there a contradiction along the lines there?

Arcee

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

I'm under the impression that what's on paper goes, unless appealed.

I don't know..... I know of one case where a couple were seeing each other for a short while, she bought a house (her own money, in her own name) after a while he moved in. They lived together for 3/4 years, she paid the mortgage, he paid the bills. When they broke up, even though they were never maried, he was entitled to half the house (according to the judge), and duly collected on that entitlement. No denying he contributed to the upkeep of the house but only for a short period of time and he didn't pay anything towards the deposit, purchase price or furnishings.

Just seemed a bit wrong to me and highlighted how your assets are never safe in this country once you are in a relationship. You don't know what way the law will fall if the relationship breaks up.

The Corinthian

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

I'm under the impression that what's on paper goes, unless appealed.

As per Arcee's example (although on the basis of the description I suspect there would have to be more to the story if the guy got half the house), even without marriage it does happen, although it is not automatic and can actually be very hard to prove. Additionally, Ireland is actually a very litigious country, which is another reason this happens.

Why is divorce so readily available if it's for life? Is there a contradiction along the lines there?

Because the concept marriage was only partially 'reformed' in the last century.

On one side, there was the realization that marriages do fail and are in reality not for life and on the other side remained the traditional wish that marriage still be recognised as a lifelong commitment, including the traditional role models - most bizarrely the constitution defends a woman's (but not a man's) right to be a homemaker if she is a mother:

Article 41 (2.2) wrote:

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

Welcome to the Mammy Republic.

Blue_Wolf

The Corinthian wrote: »

On one side, there was the realization that marriages do fail and are in reality not for life and on the other side remained the traditional wish that marriage still be recognised as a lifelong commitment

So society has changed so maybe legislation should adapt to the change??!

The Corinthian

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

So society has changed so maybe legislation should adapt to the change??!

It will take a while, if some of the attitudes expressed in the other thread are to be taken seriously.

Additionally, such reform would not be in the financial interests of some.

Quality

Cohabitated for 7 years had separate accounts and clause on house as I had contributed much more towards it.

Married now.. Joint account, house in both names equally.

Ickle Magoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes, you may be a pragmatist, but is your husband? After all, if you were to break up with him tomorrow, who would be paying spousal maintenance to whom? If the answer is him, then it makes no odds that you're the pragmatic one.

We're both pragmatists, luckily and we have the same earning potential. In fact at some point in the not too distant future I may be supporting him as he wants to study something else. I'm a SAHM at the mo at his suggestion so he'd be paying me maintenance if we broke up tomorrow - something he has already stated he would want to do anyway. If we broke up next year he may be the one at home & myself working...so it depends what year we divorce, really.

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's true, but I've read more than enough derogatory comments from those who react very badly to having their rose-tinted views challenged.

I'm not sure if it's so much rose-tinted views, telling married people that their vows are little more than fiscally imprudent does tend to rub some people up the wrong way!

The Corinthian wrote: »

So if you're going to mention one side, you really need to mention the other - else you are giving a loaded or biased viewpoint.

Like keep knocking people who are happily married kind of one-sided? Or only considering the practicalities of marriage kind of one-sided? Surely the very fact people have a particular opinion on this makes them a bit biased towards one viewpoint?!

The Corinthian wrote: »

God bless Internet sponsored validation threads.

Oh no, not whole threads...maybe just the odd post or thanks would do it.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I totally accept that. I think the problem is that those of us who are cynical about marriage perhaps view it from the perspective of someone who has not met that "someone they love & trust enough to want to marry".

As such the discussion is theoretical and all we have to go on are the cold-blooded facts and statistics of marriage.

Of course, if one does meet that "someone they love & trust enough to want to marry" then no doubt it does make sense, and I accepted in the other thread that perhaps there are factors that I simply cannot rationally measure.

Are you trying to sound sarcastic by putting my comment in inverted commas? Regardless, my point stands - or at least I stand by my point. People don't get married because it's practical or prudent, they marry because they love each other & want to spend the rest of their lives together. I don't see how that would ever make sense to someone who has never been or wanted to marry?!

The Corinthian wrote: »

Having said that, every broken marriage was originally with "someone they love & trust enough to want to marry" too.

Granted, for some, it doesn't work out but I don't think it essentially changes why people get married. Not every broken marriage gets really messy either & nor do all spouses resent supporting their ex & their kids.

The Corinthian wrote: »

But did it stop you sharing during the relationships?

Of course it stopped us sharing! We were flatmates with perks! We didn't so much share as split the bills & keep what was left over for ourselves, there were times when one or other would pay if they were flush or the other was skint but on the whole we paid our own way rather than throwing most in a pot & deciding who needs or wants what. Not sharing limited any long term plans we had, made life less certain & made it much easier to walk away. It's not all good regardless of the ease of splitting assets or not paying maintenance.

I lived with my husband for four years before we married & there was definitely a subtle shift in how we viewed our relationship & each other from living together to being a married couple. I'm not explaining this very well. Sorry.