Whats are the benefits of Marriage: Male perspective

Bren1609

Some married men might be able to help with this. As an unmarried man I cant see the benefits of marriage other than as an insurance policy for the wife when the marriage breaks down. The traditional Marriage where a woman would "look after" the husband and home while he earned the bacon is effectively dead. So whats the difference between being married and unmarried couple?

Zombrex

Bren1609 wrote: »

Some married men might be able to help with this. As an unmarried man I cant see the benefits of marriage other than as an insurance policy for the wife when the marriage breaks down. The traditional Marriage where a woman would "look after" the husband and home while he earned the bacon is effectively dead. So whats the difference between being married and unmarried couple?

Tax breaks :pac:

Do you believe in the wider idea of an monogamous companionship based around raising children? Is it just the idea of a formal marriage you are wondering about, or the more general idea behind it?

CathyMoran

Bren1609 wrote: »

Some married men might be able to help with this. As an unmarried man I cant see the benefits of marriage other than as an insurance policy for the wife when the marriage breaks down. The traditional Marriage where a woman would "look after" the husband and home while he earned the bacon is effectively dead. So whats the difference between being married and unmarried couple?

OK, so I am a woman but being married to someone who loves you and you love in return is priceless...it is a gamble.

Bren1609

Wicknight wrote: »

Tax breaks :pac:

Do you believe in the wider idea of an monogamous companionship based around raising children? Is it just the idea of a formal marriage you are wondering about, or the more general idea behind it?

Formal marriage. Whats the difference before and after?

ChocolateSauce

Other than the legal protection and recognition, the only benefit is what you make of it. If you, like me, don't see any other point which matters to you, then there isn't one.

deadhead13

Married men live longer, one study suggests by up to 10 years.

ger vallely

Myself and now husband have been together 14 years,married 1 and a half.We have 2 children and 1 house,so it really was for practical matters that it was best to marry. We did it low key,had a lovely time,are still much the same now only there is a deeper. unspoken understanding and respect.In our situation it seemed the wisest thing to do as who knows what the future brings and we needed certain issues to be legally recognised.

stovelid

In order of importance:

Clean, matching socks.

Rights re: your kids.

Tax breaks.

mikemac

Wicknight wrote: »

Tax breaks :pac:

My parents told me April was always the main month for weddings.
The tax year used to run from April to April so you got married then to take full advantage.


Any old timers confirm this?

PoleStar

Re tax breaks.

This is a common misconception. There is no tax advantage to getting married.

It does allow you to transfer tax credits however. So, if one of you is on a salary small enough not to use up their total tax credits then the surplus can be transferred to the partner, or obviously if one of the partners doesnt work.

However if both are earning regular salaries tax is the same.

trad

There was tax breaks up to 1983, I missed it by about 6 months.

The_Minister

There are moves underway to introduce automatic rights for co-habiting couples, so even not being married might not save you soon.

Wibbs

deadhead13 wrote: »

Married men live longer, one study suggests by up to 10 years.

Apparently that's an oft repeated fallacy from stuff I've read and if there is any diff between the two groups it's nowhere near 10 years. In any case how do you define single men? Married men are easy enough to define.

One the areas that skews the stats with single men is divorced men. Divorced men have a much higher risk of early death, than married or single men both from stress related illness and suicide(They have a much higher risk than divorced women actually, which is yet another reason I would contend divorce is harder on men).

When they looked at lifelong single straight men they actually found a slight increase in lifespan over married.

So if you want to live longer then serial monogamy without marriage is the way to go I reckon.

In my humble marriage is a bad plan for men now. It brings with it the risk of divorce and in the vast majority of cases the guy loses the family home, loses money and has reduced contact with his children, or even has to fight for it. I won't ever marry that's for sure. I will love someone, but marry them? Nope.

deadhead13

The research was carried out in 1995, so I could well imagine thinking on the subject has moved on since. And the person who complied the study did seem to have an agenda of her own .....

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/950928/waite.sidebar.shtml

Dudess

Wibbs wrote: »

In my humble marriage is a bad plan for men now. It brings with it the risk of divorce and in the vast majority of cases the guy loses the family home, loses money and has reduced contact with his children, or even has to fight for it.

But for a man who isn't married and is co-habiting and a father: if that relationship breaks down, he faces similar fallout, only he has even less rights - and none where children are concerned.
I have a friend in that very situation now - paying the mortgage but back living with the folks, looking for a place to rent with a friend, NEVER gets to see his son but has to pay maintenance (not that there's anything wrong with that - non payment of maintenance would only be punishing the child; still quite a double standard though).
He is in a very vulnerable position - whereas being married would at least cover him to some degree, even if it's not much. Better than nothing though.

Joey the lips

Quite honestly if you have to ask this question you should not be getting married. Why?

1. I never needed advice from anybody to tell me I wanted to get married

2. I was more worried about her not accepting my proposal than i was about me

3. I am secure in the knowledge that my wife loves me and i love her. Then again i know nothing can last forever but may. I think i craved the commitment from her as much as she did from me.

4. Its much better having sex with a married women! :pac:

Wibbs

I dunno I suppose I've become too cynical for it. I reckon I've moved out of the marrying stage. It may happen but at the moment it holds no interest for me TBH. Plus, I don't want kids so am seriously considering the snip, as I don't want to father a child and possibly end up the rest of my days fighting to see him or her, while being bled emotionally and financially for the privilege. Of the men I know who've separated from the mother of the child the majority of them are in that position to one degree or other(with one really heartwarming example against that trend). No thanks.

That said I do admire the courage of those who feel deeply enough for each other that they consider this step. I really admire those who make it work and make it work well for both to grow together.

philologos

Bren1609 wrote: »

Some married men might be able to help with this. As an unmarried man I cant see the benefits of marriage other than as an insurance policy for the wife when the marriage breaks down. The traditional Marriage where a woman would "look after" the husband and home while he earned the bacon is effectively dead. So whats the difference between being married and unmarried couple?

Both should be looking after each other I would have thought?

Sesame

I don't normally post about these sort of issues but this made me mad.
An insurance policy for the wife???
Really?
I'm sure my circumstances are not much different to a lot of people.
I am a wife. I earn enough to put me in a higer tax bracket. My husband is in the lower tax bracket. I pay a higher proportion of the mortgage. We share buying groceries, but he eats far more than me. I would say about double. I believe if I wasn't married/living with him, I would have saved more money as I would be only looking after myself and wouldn't be spending so much on him.
The only way I am benefitting financially from being married is some tax credits so it was most certainly not worth it financially to be married for me.
I'd imagine these days there are more and more wives supporting their husbands.
If we separated, I assume he'd get half of everything, regardless of who's money was spent. How on earth is that an insurance policy for me?

Tim Robbins

Bren1609 wrote: »

Some married men might be able to help with this. As an unmarried man I cant see the benefits of marriage other than as an insurance policy for the wife when the marriage breaks down. The traditional Marriage where a woman would "look after" the husband and home while he earned the bacon is effectively dead. So whats the difference between being married and unmarried couple?

Assuming there's no finacial or legal difference between getting married and not getting married, you are statisically less likely to change your mind on something you publically declare (see Stuart Sutherland, Irrationality).

So if you would like to stay with someone long term, you are better off getting married.

It also changes how others view your relationship and how others view you.
By putting a ring on your finger you are telling others you're off the game and you are very very serious about the one you are with.

But forgetting about other people, it means that since you have made a lifelong commitment to each other, your relationship changes.

Say you have a barney with someone you are going out with, you know you can just end it. You could even take a break for a few weeks and then get back with each other. No big deal.

If you have a barney when you get married it ain't so simple. Because you both have put a barrier to exit, it brings you closer together in your relationship.

Tim Robbins

Sorry the other thing I meant to say is I think it's better if you are planning to have a kid to be married, because your relationship is at a mature and maximum commitment stage.

Obviously there are tonnes of great parents who aren't married and tonnes of great parents who are divorced. I just think it's better to make the biggest family commitments you can if you plan on having a child.

username123

Security for the future. If your husband or wife dies you have automatic inheritance rights. Unmarried - you dont.
Rights to your children - equal under marriage law. The married family unit is protected under Irish law.
The ability to stand up and publically confirm among your family and friends that you are committed to this person.
The tax breaks business is gone except for transferring tax credits.

But the best reason of all is - love.

Oh - on the insurance policy for the wife comment, I think the OP needs to take a look at the real world. Im the higher earner in my marriage, by a long shot, and Im a woman.

CDfm

Good thread here on the Legal aspects of Marriage in Ireland in the Gentlemens Club here (if you are a guy contemplating marriage turn away now) given by a women solicitor no less.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055694680

The Corinthian

Bren1609 wrote: »

Some married men might be able to help with this. As an unmarried man I cant see the benefits of marriage other than as an insurance policy for the wife when the marriage breaks down. The traditional Marriage where a woman would "look after" the husband and home while he earned the bacon is effectively dead. So whats the difference between being married and unmarried couple?

While the relationship lasts both parties "look after" each other, regardless of marital status. Once it ends, if unmarried, neither needs to continue to "look after" the other, while if married the financially better off partner must continue to "look after" the less well off, who in turn no longer needs to "look after" their former spouse. That's about it.

The_Minister wrote: »

There are moves underway to introduce automatic rights for co-habiting couples, so even not being married might not save you soon.

Depends on what these rights actually mean and how they are acquired. It is unlikely that these rights would be equal to a married spouse (so as not to dilute the value of marriage), to begin with. Also you won't automatically get any rights the day you move in together - a period of several years would be likely and in some cases may also require that any such relationship be registered by both parties.

username123 wrote: »

Security for the future.

Only if you are the one with less money.

If your husband or wife dies you have automatic inheritance rights. Unmarried - you dont.

Or you can make a will. Much cheaper than spousal maintenance.

Rights to your children - equal under marriage law. The married family unit is protected under Irish law.

That's a myth. The only difference between married and unmarried fathers is that married fathers are automatic guardians of their children. If an unmarried couple breaks up, the father may go to court to get guardianship and, given that he was in the relationship and acting as a father on a day to day basis, just like a married father, would almost certainly get it.

Additionally, rights to children is not equal under marriage law. Fathers can have their guardianship removed. Mothers cannot (unless the child is put up for adoption). As for custody, anyone suggesting that custody rights are equal in Ireland, in or out of marriage, is probably taking a lot of drugs.

The ability to stand up and publically confirm among your family and friends that you are committed to this person.

Nice to have, but not at the price.

But the best reason of all is - love.

Which is great as long as the love remains. Again, nice to have, but not at the price.

Tim Robbins

The Corinthian wrote: »

Nice to have, but not at the price.

What about the "price" of being in a long term relationship with someone but people thinking you are not really committed to it?

When I was single, I never went near women with a ring on their finger.
In fact, I appreciated the way they wore it and didn't waste my time.

Similarly, if I am out without my wife, my ring tells people I am definetly not out on the pull thus minimizing the chances of being in a situation I don't want to be in.

I think marriage makes socialising easier. For example, if I am on a stag or with a gang of lads, where a bunch of the lads are single and wish the flirt, the married lads have their rings are providing polite social signals they are just out for the craic. We can still chat to people but all parties know that's all it is, there's no messing with heads everything is up front.

Tim Robbins

Also, is there not something in the human pysche to want to achive things? Say you play Soccer at one level and master, than you move onto the next, than the next after that. You go as far you can.

Similarly with relationships. The highest achievement you can make with your relationship is surely to make a life long commitment and make it work?

By removing the potential to achieve does it not devalue your relationship?

The Corinthian

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What about the "price" of being in a long term relationship with someone but people thinking you are not really committed to it?

Regrettable but a lot lower than spousal maintenance.

Similarly, if I am out without my wife, my ring tells people I am definetly not out on the pull thus minimizing the chances of being in a situation I don't want to be in.

A Claddagh ring does the same thing and doesn't run the risk of putting you in indentured servitude for the rest of your life.

I think marriage makes socialising easier. For example, if I am on a stag or with a gang of lads, where a bunch of the lads are single and wish the flirt, the married lads have their rings are providing polite social signals they are just out for the craic. We can still chat to people but all parties know that's all it is, there's no messing with heads everything is up front.

Well if you need marriage to define you or as a compass for your social skills then you're welcome to it.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Similarly with relationships. The highest achievement you can make with your relationship is surely to make a life long commitment and make it work?

Marriage does not mean a a life long commitment though - that's the problem; it is a temporary institution masquerading as a permanent one. You can have a life long commitment, make it work and never be married. All that marriage requires for you to end it is red tape and, in Ireland, five years of separation.

Beyond that you have financial penalties in marriage, but generally only for one of the parties. The other party does not suffer them. I know guys who are desperately unhappy in their marriages, but will not leave their wives simply because they cannot afford to.

Dudess

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What about the "price" of being in a long term relationship with someone but people thinking you are not really committed to it?

Firstly, why would you give a crap what people think? Secondly, marriage does not necessarily indicate being "really committed" if, for instance, the relationship breaks down, in the same way unmarried relationships can be extremely committed.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The highest achievement you can make with your relationship is surely to make a life long commitment and make it work?

I don't see how marriage does that - I'm female but I've got to say I'd share the view of those who consider the benefits of marriage from a legal/practical perspective, rather than a relationship one. If you're in love, you're in love. You don't need to be married to set this in stone (sure, there's nothing wrong with wanting to do this, but the relationship, the romantic side, doesn't actually require it).

By removing the potential to achieve does it not devalue your relationship?

No. Why would it?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Say you have a barney with someone you are going out with, you know you can just end it. You could even take a break for a few weeks and then get back with each other. No big deal.

If you have a barney when you get married it ain't so simple. Because you both have put a barrier to exit, it brings you closer together in your relationship.

Very idealistic IMO. It surely varies from couple to couple.

Tim Robbins

The Corinthian wrote: »

A Claddagh ring does the same thing and doesn't run the risk of putting you in indentured servitude for the rest of your life.

You must be joking. What age are you if you don't mind me asking?

Well if you need marriage to define you or as a compass for your social skills then you're welcome to it.

That doesn't deal with my point. Who needs marriage to define them?

Marriage does not mean a a life long commitment though - that's the problem; it is a temporary institution masquerading as a permanent one.

You're full of argument by assertions. You asserts things with no logic deduction or evidence. You have just asserted something there with no evidence or deduction.

Beyond that you have financial penalties in marriage, but generally only for one of the parties. The other party does not suffer them. I know guys who are desperately unhappy in their marriages, but will not leave their wives simply because they cannot afford to.

Well let's say for argument sake there was no finiacial loss possible as in a thought experiment. Can you see any merit in marriage?

I have listed a number in summary:
1. A public declaration for anything means someone more likely to keep it.
(Stuart Sutherland, Irrationality).
2. Provide polite social signals you are off the game.
3. Relationship development. You take the ultimate challenge a relationship gives and see if you can make it to the top of mountain.

That's a personal level.
On a societal level, surely you agree it makes more sense if we try to encourage a cohesive family unit? (Note: my own parents were divorced, so I appreciate it doesn't always work out)

I agree with you there are money grabbers and Heather McCarthy's out there but I think this can only happen if there is huge differences between both parties and if the marriage fails and if the poorer party really tries to fleece the richer party.

For that reason, I think your argument only applies to a very small minority who co-incidentally a lot of your mates find themselves in. So I think your sample set is skewed.

Your thoughts...

The Corinthian

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You must be joking. What age are you if you don't mind me asking?

I do and likely older than you. Your rebuttal, rather than dismissal?

That doesn't deal with my point. Who needs marriage to define them?

You do from what I read.

You're full of argument by assertions. You asserts things with no logic deduction or evidence. You have just asserted something there with no evidence or deduction.

Rubbish. Marriage is temporary. Whether we choose to take the option of ending it is another matter, but the institution may be dissolved. That is not an assertion, but a fact.

Well let's say for argument sake there was no finiacial loss possible as in a thought experiment. Can you see any merit in marriage?

I discussed this with my partner this evening. All we could come up with was to keep other people happy.

1. A public declaration for anything means someone more likely to keep it.
(Stuart Sutherland, Irrationality).
2. Provide polite social signals you are off the game.

All fall under the heading of nice to have but the risk/price is too high, especially as you don't actually need to leave a marriage - the other party can do so.

3. Relationship development. You take the ultimate challenge a relationship gives and see if you can make it to the top of mountain.

Don't see this - outside of this being a development in the relationship from a purely cultural level.

On a societal level, surely you agree it makes more sense if we try to encourage a cohesive family unit? (Note: my own parents were divorced, so I appreciate it doesn't always work out)

I totally agree. However, it's one thing to ask me to recycle for the betterment of Society, it's another thing to ask me to risk indentured servitude for life for the betterment of Society.

I agree with you there are money grabbers and Stella McCarthy's out there but I think this can only happen if there is huge differences between both parties and if the marriage fails and if the poorer party really tries to fleece the richer party.

Nope. Happens every day with normal people. Often all it takes is for one of them to stop working and stay at home (with or without children), for example.

Dudess

Corinthian, I'd disagree the only purpose ultimately of marriage is to keep other people happy - there are the legal/financial merits. I agree these are stacked in favour of the women when there are children involved, but at least the man gets some protection as opposed to none.

Tim Robbins, maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying marriage will ensure longevity in a relationship. People fall out of love, married or not. I agree being married would mean more of a likelihood of working on things though.

Tim Robbins

Dudess wrote: »

Firstly, why would you give a crap what people think?

Because I am not a sociopath :-)

Ok, look when I was single I would never come on to a married lady, are you saying I should haven't given a cr*p and given it a go?

I don't see how marriage does that - I'm female but I've got to say I'd share the view of those who consider the benefits of marriage from a legal/practical perspective, rather than a relationship one. If you're in love, you're in love. You don't need to be married to set this in stone (sure, there's nothing wrong with wanting to do this, but the relationship, the romantic side, doesn't actually require it).

Obviously you don't need to be married to be in love.
However, when two people who are mature enough to know the world is full of uncertainties are prepared to make the ultimate pledge to each it's an exchange of loyalty, trust and romance.

It just gives things another umph.

No. Why would it?

Because you are putting limits on how far your relationship can go.

I see it like this:
Spend time with each other << Spend a lot of time with each other << be 100% committed to each other << Moving in with each other << Getting Married

Very idealistic IMO. It surely varies from couple to couple.

Not idealistic at all. There are barriers to exit. Legal ones. Massive emotional ones. Married couples who break up are usually done. Whereas sometimes couples in long term relationships take breaks and get back together.

Again I refer to the research by Stuart Sutherland. Make a declaration in public, statistically more unlikely to change your mind. This is because its pyschologically harder to. Human condition.

Make a declaration you'll stay with someone for the rest of your life. Harder to change your mind. Even if you want to.

I have one for the marriage atheists (if you don't mind me using that term). What are you views of affairs? Would you be against them and if so why?
Does the human need any sort of commitment? I say commitment is good for humans it makes humans feel secure in an uncertain world. I see Marriage as as part of parcel of this ideal.

But if you think marriage is a bad idea, where do you think the line is drawn for commitment and why?

Come on now answer that one...

Dudess

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Because I am not a sociopath

There are some things other people think which are worth worrying about; the level of commitment in your relationship - your private, personal business - is not one of them.

Ok, look when I was single I would never come on to a married lady, are you saying I should haven't given a cr*p and given it a go?

Where did I say or even imply that?
Obviously you don't need to be married to be in love.
However, when two people who are mature enough to know the world is full of uncertainties are prepared to make the ultimate pledge to each it's an exchange of loyalty, trust and romance.

It just gives things another umph.

That's absolutely fair enough, but it doesn't make the relationship "better", more valuable or more committed than an unmarried one.

Not idealistic at all. There are barriers to exit. Legal ones. Massive emotional ones. Married couples who break up are usually done. Whereas sometimes couples in long term relationships take breaks and get back together.

Why can't married couples have a break for a while and get back together?

I have one for the marriage atheists (if you don't mind me using that term). What are you views of affairs? Would you be against them and if so why?
Does the human need any sort of commitment? I say commitment is good for humans it makes humans feel secure in an uncertain world. I see Marriage as as part of parcel of this ideal.

But if you think marriage is a bad idea, where do you think the line is drawn for commitment and why?

Come on now answer that one...

I don't think marriage is a bad idea at all - I just view it differently to how you do. And you don't need to be married to make a commitment.
Affairs - generally speaking, I'm obviously not a fan of cheating. At the same time though, I'd draw conclusions about affairs on a case-by-case basis.

Tim Robbins

The Corinthian wrote: »

I do and likely older than you. Your rebuttal, rather than dismissal?

Ok a claddagh ring means a lot less than a marriage ring to me. We live in different worlds on that one.

Rubbish. Marriage is temporary. Whether we choose to take the option of ending it is another matter, but the institution may be dissolved. That is not an assertion, but a fact.

No marriage is permanent for the majority of marriages in this state. Unless you believe in an afterlife.

All fall under the heading of nice to have but the risk/price is too high, especially as you don't actually need to leave a marriage - the other party can do so.

No, Sutherland's work is clincally researched.
Also, I asked you to consider these points in a context where you would lose no money and you have ignored that. I think you are obsessed with losing a lot of money if you don't mind me saying so. As you can't seem to thing of marriage outside "the bottom line".

Do you think about most things in terms of finacial cost? Having children a no - no? They'll cost a lot more than a marriage will.

Don't see this - outside of this being a development in the relationship from a purely cultural level.

I don't get you here.

I totally agree. However, it's one thing to ask me to recycle for the betterment of Society, it's another thing to ask me to risk indentured servitude for life for the betterment of Society.

Ok so following your logic, no-one should marry and society will be worse but individuals incur less risk.

Sounds like one step forward, two steps back.

Nope. Happens every day with normal people. Often all it takes is for one of them to stop working and stay at home (with or without children), for example.

In that situation, the couple would be both find it tough finacially if they weren't married. So it's not a good example to support your anti-marriage stance.

Tim Robbins

Dudess wrote: »

That's absolutely fair enough, but it doesn't make the relationship "better", more valuable or more committed than an unmarried one.

Incorrect. For the third time, I refer you to clincal research by Stuart Sutherland.

Why can't married couples have a break for a while and get back together?

I am just after giving you several reasons.

I don't think marriage is a bad idea at all - I just view it differently to how you do. And you don't need to be married to make a commitment.

Of course you don't need to be married to make a commitment. I don't think you have captured where we disagree.

Affairs - generally speaking, I'm obviously not a fan of cheating. At the same time though, I'd draw conclusions about affairs on a case-by-case basis.

Can you answer the question: where do you think the line is drawn for commitment and why?

Tim Robbins

Dudess wrote: »

Tim Robbins, maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying marriage will ensure longevity in a relationship. People fall out of love, married or not. I agree being married would mean more of a likelihood of working on things though.

With respect, I feel you're misunderstanding everything I am saying. I am saying there is a good argument which says a marriage will mean a higher chance you stay together for life which seems to be exactly what you are saying

Tim Robbins

The Corinthian wrote: »

I do and likely older than you. Your rebuttal, rather than dismissal?

Rebuttal is predicated on the marriage ring meaning more than a Claddagh ring - a priori.

You do from what I read.

I don't need to be "defined". If I am at a cross roads, I put my indicator on to politely tell people I intend to turn right.

The indicator doesn't actually define me. Get what I am saying.

Rubbish. Marriage is temporary. Whether we choose to take the option of ending it is another matter, but the institution may be dissolved. That is not an assertion, but a fact.

Well if you want to be that pedantic everything is temporary.
The Sun will run out of Hydrogen in 5 billion years time.

AARRRGH

Wibbs wrote: »

That said I do admire the courage of those who feel deeply enough for each other that they consider this step.

Those people are rare though. From my own observations most people seem to get married because it's what they're "supposed" to do, or because they have a mother/sister putting tons of pressure on them to tie the knot.

bangersandmash

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ok, look when I was single I would never come on to a married lady, are you saying I should haven't given a cr*p and given it a go?

I don't think Dudess is saying anything of the sort. But this argument is based on your own particular sense of morality. I certainly don't disagree with the principle, but it is idealistic to say that everyone would share it.

You don't have to go far to find posts about men saying they receive far more attention when they wear a wedding ring, where the presumption is that they must be a catch or that they present a challenge. Should these men hide their wedding rings to avoid unwanted attention? Or should men (and women) simply dismiss inappropriate attention regardless of what jewellery they choose to wear or the legal status of their relationship? The latter sounds like a more sensible principle to me.

Dudess

I give up!

Although... what's the name of that guy you quoted again?

Tim Robbins

bangersandmash wrote: »

I don't think Dudess is saying anything of the sort. But this argument is based on your own particular sense of morality. I certainly don't disagree with the principle, but it is idealistic to say that everyone would share it.

She said why would I care what other's think?

I turned that on it's head by instead of me thinking about how other's viewed me with my ring, I looked at how I view others with a ring when I was single. Unless Dudess can tell me that when I was single I shouldn't have cared if a lady was wearing a ring - this rebutts it as she is contradicting herself.

You don't have to go far to find posts about men saying they receive far more attention when they wear a wedding ring, where the presumption is that they must be a catch or that they present a challenge. Should these men hide their wedding rings to avoid unwanted attention? Or should men (and women) simply dismiss inappropriate attention regardless of what jewellery they choose to wear or the legal status of their relationship? The latter sounds like a more sensible principle to me.

Well without good scientific data we are relying on our own personal experiences here.

bangersandmash

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I turned that on it's head by instead of me thinking about how other's viewed me with my ring, I looked at how I view others with a ring when I was single. Unless Dudess can tell me that when I was single I shouldn't have cared if a lady was wearing a ring - this rebutts it as she is contradicting herself.

In other words, rather than considering how a diverse group of people might react, you extrapolate purely based on your own personal opinion. I'm not sure how that informs you to make general statements about the comparative validity of relationships.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well without good scientific data we are relying on our own personal experiences here.

Indeed. I'd be reluctant to generalise from mine. Perhaps you could do likewise, rather than assuming that any viewpoint that disagrees with your view of the world must apply only to "a small minority".

metrovelvet

The difference between the two is huge in its trap doors. With co habitating you can just leave. With marriage you cant leave without the help of lawyers.

There is no reason for men to want to get married. They can get everything they want through co habitation without the risk.

Although, when you break up a marriage you are a divorcee. Your status changes from married to divorcee. When you break up from cohabitating, your status changes from single to single, yet again. And your peers and your family will take a dissolution of a marriage far more seriously.

No matter what anyone says, marriage still has huge symbolic value, for better or worse, and that means an awful lot.

And anyone who thinks a claddagh ring does the same trick as a wedding band, and carries the same significance is smoking something a lot stronger than cigarettes.

The Corinthian

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Because I am not a sociopath :-)

There is no reason to be a sycophant either - it's not a black or white choice.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ok a claddagh ring means a lot less than a marriage ring to me. We live in different worlds on that one.

You were discussing the benifits of a wedding ring as something that marks you as 'taken' - a Claddagh ring can do the same thing. Hell, you can wear a wedding ring without being married - some long-term cohabiting couples do this.

No marriage is permanent for the majority of marriages in this state. Unless you believe in an afterlife.

We're not talking about 'till death do us part' so don't dismiss the point so glibly. You accused me of simply asserting that marriage is not temporary and I pointed out that it is, long before we shuffle off our mortal coils. That is not an assertion, it is fact.

Also, I asked you to consider these points in a context where you would lose no money and you have ignored that. I think you are obsessed with losing a lot of money if you don't mind me saying so. As you can't seem to thing of marriage outside "the bottom line".

Obsessed? What is wrong with someone not wanting to put themselves in indentured servitude for the rest of their lives?

Do you think about most things in terms of finacial cost? Having children a no - no? They'll cost a lot more than a marriage will.

I never said having children is a no-no. Don't misrepresent my argument.

Marriage and children are separate issues - you can have one without the other. As such there is no reason to believe that one may find marriage not worthwhile and having children worthwhile. Or both worthwhile. Or both not.

Either way it is not simply a financial equation - however the problem is that marriage frankly does not give sufficient benefit to warrant the risk. The warm fuzzy feeling that you get from your wedding ring may be enough for you, but not for a lot of others.

I don't get you here.

You claim it is a development in the relationship - I rejected that. Moving in together is a development in the relationship. Having children together is a development in the relationship. Planning your future together is a development in the relationship.

Marriage is not - it is a cultural phenomenon, which may have meant security in the relationship once, but no longer does. All it represents in terms of security now is financial - and only for one party.

Ok so following your logic, no-one should marry and society will be worse but individuals incur less risk.

I've never said no one should marry. People can marry if they want to.

Nonetheless, your argument is ridiculous - people should simply act for the good of society? Perhaps we should all become vegetarians as this may save the rain forest? Or give away our worldly goods and live in communes for the good of all?

We all do things that are good and bad for society and the World at large. It al comes down to the price we are willing to pay.

In that situation, the couple would be both find it tough finacially if they weren't married.

Why would it become tough financially? There are plenty of non-married couples where one stays at home and they don't actually differ a Hell of a lot from those who are married - I think you are over estimating the tax credits.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Rebuttal is predicated on the marriage ring meaning more than a Claddagh ring - a priori.

A marriage ring is not worth more that a Claddagh ring - indeed many Claddagh rings are traditionally wedding rings. A token, like a ring, is worth only what you ascribe to it. A plain wedding ring or a Claddagh ring both mean "taken" to those who respect the symbol. They are also both ignored by those who do not.

I don't need to be "defined". If I am at a cross roads, I put my indicator on to politely tell people I intend to turn right.

The indicator doesn't actually define me. Get what I am saying.

If you say so, but to me and others it certainly sounded like it was defining you.

Well if you want to be that pedantic everything is temporary.
The Sun will run out of Hydrogen in 5 billion years time.

It is not pedantry. You don't need death or 5 billion years for marriage to end. Either party can end it with no reason at any stage.

The only reason you're still married is because you have not left your spouse or vice versa, just as with any relationship. How's that for security?

Marriage is a temporary institution pretending to be a permanent one.

CDfm

Corinthian you dont sound very romantic.

I'm divorced and some parts of it are to do with the ring and tradition - its the added commitment that goes with it.

So to my kids - getting married again would be creating a new family unit etc and cementing it in their minds.

Also a public declaration for other people socially - well I do get mushy at times.

Tradition and convention -people treat you differently.

Emotionally its cool too:)

Now I dont know if I would feel differently if we had kids or wanted kids.

eviltwin

I'm married a year now. Hubby and I were together 14 years before that and had already had our family.

It was his choice to get married. He asked me lots of times in the past and I always said no. I didnt see the point. I love him and it meant a lot to him so I eventually said yes.

It doesnt make a difference. Personally I think a lot of people get married so their children will be born in a "legitimate" relationship, they see that as important - why I dont know. Any relationship can end.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

Corinthian you dont sound very romantic.

I know, which is largely because of the side of the argument I am on.

The reality is that I do understand the benefits of marriage. I get where you or Tim Robbins are coming from. I just don't think the benefits outweigh the risks and many of those benefits are really not all that important (at least in my eyes) - which may not be very romantic, but that's life.

As I've said, for me it comes down to the institution becoming a temporary one (due to 'no-fault' divorce, etc) while we still cling to the fantasy that it is "till death do us part". It is also still largely based upon a social model that pre-dates female emancipation, that a woman needed a man to support her - that she cannot do so herself.

Personally I think it is in serious need of reform - marriage needs to decide if it is in the 21st or 19th century - before many people (largely men, but also many women) will consider it seriously again.

Tim Robbins

bangersandmash wrote: »

In other words, rather than considering how a diverse group of people might react, you extrapolate purely based on your own personal opinion. I'm not sure how that informs you to make general statements about the comparative validity of relationships.

No I consider how other react based on the evidence of how and those I know would react. What else should I go on?

Indeed. I'd be reluctant to generalise from mine. Perhaps you could do likewise, rather than assuming that any viewpoint that disagrees with your view of the world must apply only to "a small minority".

I am not generalising otherwise I wouldn't be pointing out we don't have objective scientific data.

Tim Robbins

The Corinthian wrote: »

There is no reason to be a sycophant either - it's not a black or white choice.

You were discussing the benifits of a wedding ring as something that marks you as 'taken' - a Claddagh ring can do the same thing. Hell, you can wear a wedding ring without being married - some long-term cohabiting couples do this.

Let's end this point. You think a claddagh ring and wedding ring can convey the exact same meaning, I think that's off the wall.

You accused me of simply asserting that marriage is not temporary and I pointed out that it is, long before we shuffle off our mortal coils. That is not an assertion, it is fact.

And I said if you are that pedantic everything is temporary, including the Sun.

Obsessed? What is wrong with someone not wanting to put themselves in indentured servitude for the rest of their lives?

Because the probability of it being indentured servitude is actually low.

I never said having children is a no-no. Don't misrepresent my argument.

I am seeing what the logical conclusion of avoid "indentured servitude" is.
Does it mean no kids? They'll cost a lot more. If not why not?

You need to explain why not other wise your logic fails.

Either way it is not simply a financial equation - however the problem is that marriage frankly does not give sufficient benefit to warrant the risk. The warm fuzzy feeling that you get from your wedding ring may be enough for you, but not for a lot of others.

There are other benefits but you either ignore them or just don't see them.

You claim it is a development in the relationship - I rejected that. Moving in together is a development in the relationship. Having children together is a development in the relationship. Planning your future together is a development in the relationship.

Of course, but marriage is further development.

Marriage is not - it is a cultural phenomenon, which may have meant security in the relationship once, but no longer does. All it represents in terms of security now is financial - and only for one party.

Argument by assertion and act of omission.

I've never said no one should marry. People can marry if they want to.

Nonetheless, your argument is ridiculous - people should simply act for the good of society? Perhaps we should all become vegetarians as this may save the rain forest? Or give away our worldly goods and live in communes for the good of all?

Eh it's a variation of Kant's categorical imperative. I think he's smarter than both of us...

Why would it become tough financially? There are plenty of non-married couples where one stays at home and they don't actually differ a Hell of a lot from those who are married - I think you are over estimating the tax credits.

You said: marriage can mean one person incurs huge finacial loss
I said: That happens in the minority of cases when there is:
- big finacial difference between both parties
- the marriage to break down
- someone to take the other to the cleaners
You said: No it can happen quite easily and gave an example of someone with four kids and a wife
I said: Well that person would also face finacial costs if they never got married and still had to support the kids. So I didn't think it was a good example.

A marriage ring is not worth more that a Claddagh ring - indeed many Claddagh rings are traditionally wedding rings. A token, like a ring, is worth only what you ascribe to it. A plain wedding ring or a Claddagh ring both mean "taken" to those who respect the symbol. They are also both ignored by those who do not.

Society ascribes far more value to a wedding ring. That is something we just won't agree on.

Maybe you could get a loan of one of your friend's rings and wear it to a few nightclubs and tell me they mean the same :-)

The only reason you're still married is because you have not left your spouse or vice versa, just as with any relationship. How's that for security?

The only reason why I am still alive is because no-one in my family hasn't killed me.

How's that for security?

Have you ever read any books on probability?

Marriage is a temporary institution pretending to be a permanent one.

Argument by asertion and a false dichotomy. You're not a lawyer by any chance :-)

Let's look at the evidence, in the majority of cases in this state it is permanent. If it breaks down, it's increasingly heart breaking because people had intended and expected it to be permanent.

Note: Permanent meaning the duration of a human llife.

A more accurate way of looking at calling it:

marriage is an institution which has the goal, objective of permanence but it doesn't always end up permanent.

Tim Robbins

The Corinthian wrote: »

As I've said, for me it comes down to the institution becoming a temporary one (due to 'no-fault' divorce, etc) while we still cling to the fantasy that it is "till death do us part".

I think you are deluded here.

It is also still largely based upon a social model that pre-dates female emancipation, that a woman needed a man to support her - that she cannot do so herself.

McCreevy's individualisation scrapped that.

Personally I think it is in serious need of reform - marriage needs to decide if it is in the 21st or 19th century - before many people (largely men, but also many women) will consider it seriously again.

I agree there needs to be legislation to protect marriage. To get rid of the Heather Mills and other money grabbers.

But you don't want risk. Don't drive. In fact don't even get in a car. 500 people die in car accidents every year.

I'm sure you agree death is a much bigger price than finacial cost.

I think this all comes down to the proportionality of the risk. The way you go on, you insinuate there's huge risk of not just the marriage ending but of getting fleeced. There's another point here in that some people really rely on money for their happiness more than others.

If you are fixated on how much money you have the low chance of loosing some of it will obviously trouble you more.

In my own case, losing my books would trouble me more than loosing money. It all depends on how you define quality of life.

davgtrek

in case it hasn't been mentioned before

Married men don't live longer !
It just seems longer......